Posted on 08/22/2014 10:51:36 AM PDT by Red Badger
In 2015, American consumers will finally be able to purchase fuel cell cars from Toyota and other manufacturers. Although touted as zero-emissions vehicles, most of the cars will run on hydrogen made from natural gas, a fossil fuel that contributes to global warming.
Now scientists at Stanford University have developed a low-cost, emissions-free device that uses an ordinary AAA battery to produce hydrogen by water electrolysis. The battery sends an electric current through two electrodes that split liquid water into hydrogen and oxygen gas. Unlike other water splitters that use precious-metal catalysts, the electrodes in the Stanford device are made of inexpensive and abundant nickel and iron.
"Using nickel and iron, which are cheap materials, we were able to make the electrocatalysts active enough to split water at room temperature with a single 1.5-volt battery," said Hongjie Dai, a professor of chemistry at Stanford. "This is the first time anyone has used non-precious metal catalysts to split water at a voltage that low. It's quite remarkable, because normally you need expensive metals, like platinum or iridium, to achieve that voltage."
In addition to producing hydrogen, the novel water splitter could be used to make chlorine gas and sodium hydroxide, another important industrial chemical, according to Dai. He and his colleagues describe the new device in a study published in the Aug. 22 issue of the journal Nature Communications.
The promise of hydrogen
Automakers have long considered the hydrogen fuel cell a promising alternative to the gasoline engine. Fuel cell technology is essentially water splitting in reverse. A fuel cell combines stored hydrogen gas with oxygen from the air to produce electricity, which powers the car. The only byproduct is water – unlike gasoline combustion, which emits carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.
Earlier this year, Hyundai began leasing fuel cell vehicles in Southern California. Toyota and Honda will begin selling fuel cell cars in 2015. Most of these vehicles will run on fuel manufactured at large industrial plants that produce hydrogen by combining very hot steam and natural gas, an energy-intensive process that releases carbon dioxide as a byproduct.
Splitting water to make hydrogen requires no fossil fuels and emits no greenhouse gases. But scientists have yet to develop an affordable, active water splitter with catalysts capable of working at industrial scales.
"It's been a constant pursuit for decades to make low-cost electrocatalysts with high activity and long durability," Dai said. "When we found out that a nickel-based catalyst is as effective as platinum, it came as a complete surprise."
Saving energy and money
The discovery was made by Stanford graduate student Ming Gong, co-lead author of the study. "Ming discovered a nickel-metal/nickel-oxide structure that turns out to be more active than pure nickel metal or pure nickel oxide alone," Dai said. "This novel structure favors hydrogen electrocatalysis, but we still don't fully understand the science behind it."
The nickel/nickel-oxide catalyst significantly lowers the voltage required to split water, which could eventually save hydrogen producers billions of dollars in electricity costs, according to Gong. His next goal is to improve the durability of the device.
"The electrodes are fairly stable, but they do slowly decay over time," he said. "The current device would probably run for days, but weeks or months would be preferable. That goal is achievable based on my most recent results."
The researchers also plan to develop a water splitter than runs on electricity produced by solar energy.
"Hydrogen is an ideal fuel for powering vehicles, buildings and storing renewable energy on the grid," said Dai. "We're very glad that we were able to make a catalyst that's very active and low cost. This shows that through nanoscale engineering of materials we can really make a difference in how we make fuels and consume energy."
It is irrefutable that fossil fuel use produces CO2. It is irrefutable that CO2 contributes to global warming. Therefore, it is irrefutable that fossil fuel use contributes to global warming.
HOWEVER, that contribution is likely minuscule. The statement is factual. It is also meaningless, but journalists, liberals and a huge number of laypersons have no idea how thermodynamics or any other branch of science work.
This is a REALLY misleading article. It makes it sound like you can get all the hydrogen you want out of a AAA battery. WRONG!
The advance here is that they invented an affordable catalyst that makes hydrolysis work at low voltage. But you still have to provide as much energy to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen as you get back when you burn it again. And you always have to provide a bit more because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Therefore, there is no net gain of energy here, or no new energy source, just a slightly better way of converting electrical energy into potential energy in the form of hydrogen gas.
....Therefore, there is no net gain of energy here,.....
Wouldn’t that depend upon how you rated the energy use of the hydrogen + oxygen?
Are we talking about BTU’s ?
Since hydrogen is essentially a type of battery, I wonder how its efficiency compares to other types.
Typical internal combustion vehicle is about 10% efficient and they take very expensive fuel.
Fuel cells are between 40 and 60% efficient and PEM cells take extremely expensive fuel, hydrogen. This is just about changing that from extremely expensive to very expensive.
Down the line, solid oxide fuel cells, the type that can be 60% efficient ,will be shrunk down to fit vehicles. They will require fuel of lower quality and expense than internal combustion engines.
Hydrogen is a passing fad.
“So, it’s Bushes fault?..................”
Isn’t it all ways in every thing? ;)
That's all fine and dandy... but when all the phosphorus runoff from your dishwasher detergent and battery bush fields start forming toxic algae blooms, there will be HELL to pay.
PEM fuel cells, the ones being developed for cars are only about 40% efficient, doesn’t sound all that great until you compare it to the cars we drive now, only about 10% of the energy ends up moving the car.
I came up with the same idea...
In 6th grade.
I guess you don’t need to be smart to get into Stanford.
...and they would be all like "thermodywhat?"
Of course, perpetual motion! Why didn't I think of that?
bump for later thx for the link
There is a dichotomy on the left between the sheeperals and those who consider themselves to be the elite.
Cui bono may be “who benefits”, but that benefit is different for each of these groups.
Sheeperals, as I said, benefit by getting their self-righteousness.
Elites, the truly evil, benefit by eliminating competition for resources.
Wow! I never heard that analysis before. It explains so much about why libs can't see reality. I'm gonna remember that thought. I might change "self-righteousness" to "self-worth", but the thought is very profound.
No, the oxygen atoms bind with the iron on discharge, and move back to the nickel hydroxide on charging. In a nickel iron battery, or nickel cadmium, or a NiMH cell, the oxygen atom moving between electrodes is how the charge is chemically stored and used. That is why all three cell types have the same operating voltage of 1.2 volts. Of course I’m taking this fuzzy info from memory of redox reactions, and from vague recollection of half cell potentials of various elements.
Are you freaking kidding me? I did that in fifth grade... and the setup looked the same. What is this, Amateur hour? Electrolysis is so simple you would be laughed out of a science fair.
Modern diesel engines have about 50% thermal efficiency.
Just sayin'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.