“This technique slashes the energy required to extract hydrogen from water by 600%”
So does that mean it not only extracts hydrogen at no energy cost, but it also GENERATES 5 TIMES as much energy in the other direction (meaning that it provides energy in the process, rather than consumes it), or are we simply dealing with another liberal arts major writing the story?
It uses the same power as a AA battery, according to the article.
The other nice thing is that the carbon slurry that is left over can be used to create graphene.
The energy requirements were low enough that the researchers could power the reaction with one standard silicon solar cell generating roughly 15 milliamps of current at 0.5 volts. That’s less than the amount of power produced by an AA battery.
“It’s very efficient, with almost 35% conversion of the biochar and solar energy into hydrogen,” said Rohit Chauhan, a co-author and postdoctoral scholar in Singh’s lab. “These are world record numbers; it’s the highest anyone has demonstrated.”
The cost of power that is equivalent to a AA battery is about $0.25/year. So, that seems very cost effective.
https://lifehacker.com/are-rechargeable-batteries-really-cost-effective-921090147
It’s not encouraging when a “science” magazine doesn’t understand what a percentage decrease means.
That immediately caught my eye, too. What an innumerate, idiotic writer.
You can “slash” by 100%, but it’s hard to “slash” behind that.
Things like that generally mean “worthless article — stop right there.”
I suppose we need to give the author credit for not writing “600 times less.”
“or are we simply dealing with another liberal arts major writing the story?”
Well, the article, like most technical articles written for the ordinary audience, begins with a jazzy picture.
Math: It’s not just a good idea. It’s the law.