E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Christian D. Damsgaard, Thomas Pedersen and Ole Hansen, Technical University of Denmark
A scanning electron microscope image of tiny silicon pillars, used to absorb light. When dotted with the new catalyst and exposed to sunlight, these pillars efficiently generate hydrogen gas from the hydrogen ions liberated by splitting water. Each pillar is approximately two micrometers in diameter.
Scientists have found and tested an abundant and inexpensive catalyst needed to make hydrogen fuel from sunlight and water, a necessary step on the road to the elusive clean, green hydrogen economy.
The new catalyst — molybdenum sulfide — is an alternative to platinum, an expensive and rare catalyst used to convert single ions of hydrogen split off from water into hydrogen gas.
"That's the very neat thing here, it is quite inexpensive and abundant," Jens Norskov, a chemical engineer with the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory at Stanford University, told me Monday.
The dream of a hydrogen economy stems from the fact that hydrogen is an energy dense and clean fuel — upon combustion, it releases water. The problem is that most hydrogen is produced from natural gas in a process that releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.
Hydrogen producing enzymes
An alternative method is to make hydrogen fuel from sunlight and water. The current process is called photo electrochemical, or PEC, water splitting. When sun hits the PEC cell, the solar energy is absorbed and used for splitting water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, the DOE explains in a press release.
Progress, however, in the technology has been limited in part by the lack of cheap catalysts that can speed up the generation of hydrogen and oxygen. Platinum works, it's just expensive and rare.
"We would like to have something that is cheaper and more abundant," Norskov said.
His team used a theoretical approach to look for hydrogen producing enzymes, which are natural catalysts, from certain organisms. This led to molybdenum sulfide.
"This actually works quite well," he said. The second part of the research was combining the catalyst with a solar absorber — a chemical solar cell — to capture solar energy.
The absorber was designed by Norskov's colleagues the Technical University of Denmark. It consists of silicon arranged in closely packed pillars, each dotted with tiny clusters of molybdenum sulfide.
When the pillars were exposed to light, hydrogen gas bubbled up as quickly as if the team had used platinum, according to the DOE. A paper describing the research was published last week in Nature Materials.
Splitting water
This breakthrough addresses only one half of problem. The other is actually splitting the water, which Norskov says is the more difficult half. His group and others are working on finding the catalysts and sunlight absorbers to do that half as well.
Ultimately, this is the type of research that could lead to a clean, green economy.
"We are not there, let me stress that," Norkov told me. "But we are making progress one step at a time."
Many research teams around the world are working on this.
For example, a team led by Daniel Nocera at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in March on the development of an artificial leaf technology that splits water.
Details on the makeup of the catalysts this team used are being kept a secret until publication in the scientific literature.
Ultimatley, Norskov said, realizing the goal of the clean, green hydrogen will require "the effort of many groups and the ingenuity of many people to take us there because it is a very hard problem."
More stories on the hydrogen economy:
- A dream of the hydrogen economy
- Hope, hype and hydrogen
- Hydrogen tries to catch up in green car race
- Up a tree no more: A real artificial leaf debuts
John Roach is a contributing writer for msnbc.com. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by hitting the "like" button on the Cosmic Log Facebook page or following msnbc.com's science editor, Alan Boyle, on Twitter (@b0yle).
Leave a Comment:
Where's my hydrogen car? I need to fill my tank with water.
However, if we do get these, we will need filtered, purified, distilled water, that will cost $5.00 a gallon.
This technology is going to be put into powering houses before it is every used in cars.
I suspect that the energy needed to convert water into hydrogen for use in powering a car could be used much more efficiently to charge a battery for an electric car. What we really need is a more cost/weight efficient battery.
Roy, did you read the article? They are using light to convert the water. Sunlight, it's usually free.
Shazam, you are probably right, it will be used industrially before autos.
Roy - The Hydrogen could potentially replace Natural Gas and Liquid Propane so this wouldn't be a one dimensional energy fix. I agree completely with you on the light weight battery that's cost effective. Its almost as if 'Buy a battery and get a free car'.
Then all the cars will be driving around with pressurized tanks of hydrogen. Hindenburg anyone? The tanks to hold the hydrogen will have to be huge to give any range (there goes the trunk) and strong enough to withstand a crash (expensive).
I'll take gas or diesel please. Plants will grow stronger and faster, need less fertilizer and be more drought tolerant and more water efficient with higher CO2 levels. Now that's green energy.
Actually, no. This is a device to burn the hydrogen as soon as it is chemically separated from water.
Also, there is a guy that has a substance that stores hydrogen (essentially making it a stable solid) so when you pressurize it into your tank, there is no way for it to expand and explode.
I admit they are not there yet. But it's a step.
economykiller "I'll take gas or diesel please. Plants will grow stronger and faster, need less fertilizer and be more drought tolerant and more water efficient with higher CO2 levels. Now that's green energy."
True, but in the 'religion' of environmentalism, that's considered blasphemy, making you subject to stoning. lol
Actually, we could have the best of both worlds - better growing seasons with increased CO2, along with less global warming - by simply continuing to burn cheap coal for energy and then dispersing Sulfur Dioxide into the stratosphere (cheap & effective) to offset the warming effect. Volcanic eruptions have already proven that Sulfur Dioxide works quite well, and it would also be reversible at any time if we chose.
Not to sound like a green wacko, but I'd prefer hydrogen over other fossil fuels as long as I can keep an internal combustion engine. I however do not agree with spewing out a bunch of CO2 and countering it with some SO2. I find that method about as useful as banging your head into a wall and then stitching up the wound, only to 5 minutes later bang your head into the wall again so you can stitch again. That can only lead to brain damage.
Lets find a way to get the job done so that everybody can be happy. I don't want some ranged electric car that I can't fuel up in under 5 minutes. I suspect most people don't want that. I also want something I can tinker around with to make more power. If a car comes with 300 HP from the factory, I need to find a way to make it 600. Electric cars just won't give me the satisfaction I get from modifying an IC car.
The intensity of the Hindenberg fire was largely due to the aluminized paint "dope" that was used to coat the skin of the zeppelin.
poor Tao-1683684 can't get a word in edgewise...lol
Economy,
Actually, hydrogen is safer than gasoline is. The people that died on the Hindenburg died from either falling or burning. But the burning came from gasoline. I have worked with hydrogen and while it will burn and has the possibility of explosions, precautions must be taken to ensure safety. I think hydrogen is definitely a viable alternative that should be investigated.
"This breakthrough addresses only one half of problem. The other is actually splitting the water, which Norskov says is the more difficult half." Er... what was the first half, then? The previous section was all about PEC water splitting. If "hydrogen gas bubbled up" without splitting water, where did it come from?
Excellent! We're making progress. Give it time and we'll get there, so long as the naysayers don't make us give up. For every person saying, "I can," there are a dozen saying, "No, you can't." Screw them. The world wasn't built on "I can't."
So much would be improved if the "No you can't." crowd held sway. Say every worthless distraction item.
What a ludicrous thing to say. So you're not interested in powered flight, going to the moon, or even living in America? (assuming you're not Native American) Good thing the Wright Bros, Neil Armstrong, and Columbus didn't share your view.
I'm with Joe. There's something confusing in this article. Is it that the breakthrough is a method to combine single hydrogen ions together to produce H2 gas?
"The new catalyst — molybdenum sulfide — is an alternative to platinum, an expensive and rare catalyst used to convert single ions of hydrogen split off from water into hydrogen gas."
And the second (more difficult) part is splitting the water to release the hydrogen (H2?) and oxygen. If the water is split, releasing H2, where's the need to combine hydrogen ions into H2? Too bad it wasn't written more clearly.
As I am a chemist, allow me to educate my fellow posters....Dr. Nocera at MIT, who they referred to briefly, is much farther along in producing an artificial photosynthesis model than the other researcher discussed. Water splitting results in O2 and H2, and H2 is the liquid hydrogen used as our energy source, either burned directly or put in a fuel cell. Nocera already published his results of finding an O2 catalyst that functioned as desired in 2008. Just recently (March 2011) he announced an H2 catalyst, but hasn't revealed the process or molecular structure, as he is busy patenting it first. The initial aim here isn't to power a car, but to provide energy for a house. First in a developing country, and eventually in a developed one as well. The fact that Nocera's model can actually be put to use in the real world in a matter of a few years is an exciting event to look forward to.
hell yes!
Sounds good, until it is proven to work and big oil buys up all the patents on it.
We need something positive, because this Changey thing isn't working...
After two years of Obama... Here's your change:
January 2009
TODAY
% chg
Source
.. Retail price/gallon gas in U.S.
$1.83
$3.804
107.6%
1
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel)
$43.48
$111.02
155.3%
2
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel)
$38.74
$108.38
179.6%
2
Gold: London (per troy oz.)
$853.25
$1,501.50
75.9%
2
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL
$3.56
$6.33
78.1%
2
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL
$9.66
$13.75
42.3%
2
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. Fob
$13.37
$35.39
164.7%
2
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall
7.6%
9.4%
23.7%
3
Unemployment rate, blacks
12.6%
15.8%
25.4%
3
Number of unemployed
11,616,000
14,485,000
24.7%
3
Number of fed. Employees, ex. Military (curr = 12/10 prelim)
2,779,000
2,840,000
2.2%
3
Real median household income (2008 v 2009)
$50,112
$49,777
-0.7%
4
Number of food stamp recipients (curr = 10/10)
31,983,716
43,200,878
35.1%
5
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10)
7,526,598
9,193,838
22.2%
6
Number of long-term unemployed
2,600,000
6,400,000
146.2%
3
Poverty rate, individuals (2008 v 2009)
13.2%
14.3%
8.3%
4
People in poverty in U..S. (2008 v 2009)
39,800,000
43,600,000
9.5%
4
U.S.. Rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings
5
9
N/a
10
Present Situation Index (curr = 12/10)
29.9
23.5
-21.4%
11
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date)
140
164
17.1%
12
U.S.. Dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate
89.76
82.03
-8.6%
2
U.S.. Money supply, M1, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim)
1,575.1
1,865.7
18.4%
13
U.S.. Money supply, M2, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim)
8,310.9
8,852.3
6.5%
13
National debt, in trillions
$10..627
$14..052
32.2%
14
Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history.. Over 27 times as fast. Metaphorically speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane. 27 times faster, it would be doing 7,555 MPH!
Sources:
(1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3) Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. Of Labor; (7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC; (13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury.
Wow guy
you have this blame thing downpat. You really do think Obama is that powerful to control the drivel you posted? You conveniently ignore all precedents.
Jones.. it looks like we're on the same track we were on BEFORE Obama. What I do agree with is Obama found out just how much can't change as money runs the show, and wall street and corporations have it all. Of course the new Republican President will fix that, right? If you don't run on change and leave things as they are, you can't be accused of failure. It's funny, the policies the repulican congress support are the very policies they use against this President. But whats really amazing is people are buying it, as though those policies weren't in place when Obama took office.
Jon Jones - It is amazing that morons like you are allowed to run around still able to reproduce. Why don't you run down and kiss Sarah Palins ass and while you're at it, maybe you can buy a pair of used panties. Calling you stupid would just insult the stupid people. The people you should blame are your parents for dropping you on your head so many times.
borrowing money is always easier than making it ask my kids...
borrowing money is always easier than making it..... ask my kids...
I believe it is more dangerous than gasoline in an accident it would cause a small explosion.
ELLIE..You obviously are not a car person, There are several of these hydrogen test mules on the road. Several for many years. This technology has been thoughly crash tested and upgraded many times. These vehicles have been proven as safe as anything can be. The hydrogen containers are designed not to explode on impact or rupture.
and gasoline or diesel powered vehicles do not sometimes explode?? I recall a notorious problem with the Ford Pinto...
I had a Pinto. It burned in my driveway; what a mess.
Do you actuially think the oil industry will sit idlly by and let their strangle hold on the worlds energy source slip out of their hands. It aint gonna happen. For example, as recent as last year, when big oil suspected the alge biodiesel industry ( which planned the eventual use of large amounts of sea water on the California coast),was getting to close to becoming a real competitor, they lobbyed and bought off California legislators. Californnia inacted new laws outlawing the use of sea water on the coast in order to manufacture alge based biodiesel. Until people wake up and reallize what's best for the country can't compete with real dollars that buy off policy and our politicans, nothing will change.
Been done Allready. Who was Stan Meyers. Water Car, You could Pee in the Tank and get To Town, lol
We have the Technology it just get Squished Bye Greedy Coporate Tycoons.
Economy is the key word here! there must be a real cheap way to make and use hydrogen, as a fuel for cars, just look up, and see how many devices that are in the patent office. page after page of hydrogen carbs to run the automoblie on hydrogen. I found that it can be made with just the dust from a industrial sander. worked at a place that made buss bar, and some were alu. plated with silver, and the others were copper. the sander was to remove the plateing finish that did not take well. a shovel full of this dust would cause the water to bubble! and yes it would burn really well.
hydrogen has extremally low bpu's its way safer than Gasoline. that blimp explosion your talking about was the skin that was on fire the actual gas went up in a split second with little heat and almost no shock wave.
hydrogen fuel cells are about as close to 100% efficiency as you can get with nearly all of the power introduced going to drive the motor.
for those of you who like to tinker you can either get busy seeing how powerful of a electric motor you can build or you can use a internal combustion engine running on hydrogen (increases your options)
In 2008 I built a hydro generator using 4 amps/12 volts that produced 3 liters per minute. This amount is far more than needed to run a hydrogen car 55 mph down the road. Honda however says it can't be done so they are putting in experimental hydrogen stations in California. Same old thing, they give the printers away but charge you $40.00 for the ink. Just another example that it is all about money and not the environment.