phooph
08-04-2008, 10:05 AM
https://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
View Full Version : 'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution
Lenny
08-04-2008, 04:15 PM
Thanks. That's the most exciting thing I've read in this area. From what I understand those fuel cells have not been perfected for long term storage. That and hydrogen gas is spooky. But it seems most promising. Thanks.
Tars
08-05-2008, 09:27 AM
From what I understand those fuel cells have not been perfected for long term storage. That and hydrogen gas is spooky. But it seems most promising. Thanks.
That's what I understand too. It sounds like a promising technology, but maybe with several years to develop cost-effective systems. It appears to use some fairly expensive ingredients.
I'm eager to get going with solar. I have maybe an acre of sunny southern-facing roof here, with about a 20 degree slope. There's the potential here to produce all the energy we'd need to operate, plus be able to provide enough for many of our neighbors.
Right now solar's so expensive, that I can't practically get it going; the startup cost is more than I can produce. It's commonly said that it takes seven years to return the initial investment on currently-available systems. I have to hope that either "the government", or some other deep pockets becomes willing to cover large percentages of the startup costs, or technology becomes available to reduce the startup costs by a few magnitudes.
That's what I understand too. It sounds like a promising technology, but maybe with several years to develop cost-effective systems. It appears to use some fairly expensive ingredients.
I'm eager to get going with solar. I have maybe an acre of sunny southern-facing roof here, with about a 20 degree slope. There's the potential here to produce all the energy we'd need to operate, plus be able to provide enough for many of our neighbors.
Right now solar's so expensive, that I can't practically get it going; the startup cost is more than I can produce. It's commonly said that it takes seven years to return the initial investment on currently-available systems. I have to hope that either "the government", or some other deep pockets becomes willing to cover large percentages of the startup costs, or technology becomes available to reduce the startup costs by a few magnitudes.
Lenny
08-05-2008, 02:25 PM
That's what I understand too. It sounds like a promising technology, but maybe with several years to develop cost-effective systems. It appears to use some fairly expensive ingredients.I'm eager to get going with solar. I have maybe an acre of sunny southern-facing roof here, with about a 20 degree slope. There's the potential here to produce all the energy we'd need to operate, plus be able to provide enough for many of our neighbors. Right now solar's so expensive, that I can't practically get it going; the startup cost is more than I can produce. It's commonly said that it takes seven years to return the initial investment on currently-available systems. I have to hope that either "the government", or some other deep pockets becomes willing to cover large percentages of the startup costs, or technology becomes available to reduce the startup costs by a few magnitudes.
Everyone would love to "go solar" but you point out the limiting factor: $
I really can't see gov't subsidies for solar, but I am sure a reasonable argument could be made. That's been going on for a while but, as one Zeno article put it, "it's an always developing business" or some such disparaging remark.
Every year I go the fair and ask the solar guy the same question, "I want to set up solar just to run a refrigerator. How?" This year it was a salesman! Pooh. Last year there were a couple of different solar guys, one of which was VERY knowledgeable and we talked, I learned and it was all pleasant; the other young man was easily flabbergasted, revealing that he had recently graduated from Sonoma State in Solar Tech, and I couldn't just set up a refer.
I am sure materials tech will get to a point where costs will be reachable to just plain folks. And with this above matter, whoppeee!
Everyone would love to "go solar" but you point out the limiting factor: $
I really can't see gov't subsidies for solar, but I am sure a reasonable argument could be made. That's been going on for a while but, as one Zeno article put it, "it's an always developing business" or some such disparaging remark.
Every year I go the fair and ask the solar guy the same question, "I want to set up solar just to run a refrigerator. How?" This year it was a salesman! Pooh. Last year there were a couple of different solar guys, one of which was VERY knowledgeable and we talked, I learned and it was all pleasant; the other young man was easily flabbergasted, revealing that he had recently graduated from Sonoma State in Solar Tech, and I couldn't just set up a refer.
I am sure materials tech will get to a point where costs will be reachable to just plain folks. And with this above matter, whoppeee!
phooph
08-05-2008, 08:56 PM
So - to throw a bit of a wet blanket on my original post, I got this from a friend who is a regular participant on the dieoff email list:
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
From: Steve Kurtz <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:56:10 -0400
Subject: [the_dieoff_QA] feedback re MIT/Nocera
Charles Hall:
There have been several comments on The Oil Drum contributors e-mail distribution list about this. My impression is that at most the new process will increase the efficiency from 70% to 80%.
This is the most recent comment:
The MIT hype machine at its best. Watch the video (Nate's link):
https://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
The Nocera paper itself doesn't make any great claims other than they've found a new electrocatalysis for electrolysis (say that 3 times fast...). The discussion about solving the world's energy problems isn't too surprising given Nocera having co-authored a "big picture" paper with Nate Lewis of Ca Tech. But Nocera is not an electrochemist, and from what I can tell, neither is his post-doc. They are somewhat new to this whole area of research, and it shows.
From what I can glean, the kinetics (meaning efficiency) of their oxygen-evolving electrode isn't really that good compared to what has been developed over the last 20-30 years of research. An anode with a thin film containing cobalt isn't new either, although the simplicity with which it is made is interesting. So, we have a potentially new area of research which, as Ugo predicts, will probably go nowhere. What is going on here?
Nocera gets blame for feeding the hype and believing it. Several culprits are also at fault; certainly MIT publicists, but also the journal Science -- especially the author of the "report" on the paper -- and the decision to highlight the work. This "report" ends with this paragraph, a masterpiece of bad reporting and self-delusion:
"The catalyst isn't perfect. It still requires excess electricity to start the water-splitting reaction, energy that isn't recovered and stored in the fuel. And for now, the catalyst can accept only low levels of electrical current. Nocera says he's hopeful that both problems can be solved, and because the catalysts are so easy to make, he expects progress will be swift. Further work is also needed to reduce the cost of cathodes and to link the electrodes to solar cells to provide clean electricity. A final big push will be to see if the catalyst or others like it can operate in seawater. If so, future societies could use sunlight to generate hydrogen from seawater and then pipe it to large banks of fuel cells on shore that could convert it into electricity and fresh water, thereby using the sun and oceans to fill two of the world's greatest needs."
Good grief. It's clear that news articles in Science should be peer reviewed as well. And this quote by Nocera is telling:
"The scientific community is really going to run with this."
...or run from it. Except to follow the money. (Charlie adds "like everything else)
Gail Tverberg
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
From: Steve Kurtz <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:56:10 -0400
Subject: [the_dieoff_QA] feedback re MIT/Nocera
Charles Hall:
There have been several comments on The Oil Drum contributors e-mail distribution list about this. My impression is that at most the new process will increase the efficiency from 70% to 80%.
This is the most recent comment:
The MIT hype machine at its best. Watch the video (Nate's link):
https://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
The Nocera paper itself doesn't make any great claims other than they've found a new electrocatalysis for electrolysis (say that 3 times fast...). The discussion about solving the world's energy problems isn't too surprising given Nocera having co-authored a "big picture" paper with Nate Lewis of Ca Tech. But Nocera is not an electrochemist, and from what I can tell, neither is his post-doc. They are somewhat new to this whole area of research, and it shows.
From what I can glean, the kinetics (meaning efficiency) of their oxygen-evolving electrode isn't really that good compared to what has been developed over the last 20-30 years of research. An anode with a thin film containing cobalt isn't new either, although the simplicity with which it is made is interesting. So, we have a potentially new area of research which, as Ugo predicts, will probably go nowhere. What is going on here?
Nocera gets blame for feeding the hype and believing it. Several culprits are also at fault; certainly MIT publicists, but also the journal Science -- especially the author of the "report" on the paper -- and the decision to highlight the work. This "report" ends with this paragraph, a masterpiece of bad reporting and self-delusion:
"The catalyst isn't perfect. It still requires excess electricity to start the water-splitting reaction, energy that isn't recovered and stored in the fuel. And for now, the catalyst can accept only low levels of electrical current. Nocera says he's hopeful that both problems can be solved, and because the catalysts are so easy to make, he expects progress will be swift. Further work is also needed to reduce the cost of cathodes and to link the electrodes to solar cells to provide clean electricity. A final big push will be to see if the catalyst or others like it can operate in seawater. If so, future societies could use sunlight to generate hydrogen from seawater and then pipe it to large banks of fuel cells on shore that could convert it into electricity and fresh water, thereby using the sun and oceans to fill two of the world's greatest needs."
Good grief. It's clear that news articles in Science should be peer reviewed as well. And this quote by Nocera is telling:
"The scientific community is really going to run with this."
...or run from it. Except to follow the money. (Charlie adds "like everything else)
Gail Tverberg
Lenny
08-06-2008, 03:54 PM
>So - to throw a bit of a wet blanket on my original post, I got this from a friend who is a regular participant on the dieoff email list:
Yeah, I hate to watch family fights as well. As an outsider I just hope they can continue to work out their issues, reproduce their findings, engineer ways to cut costs, and have it ready for market in short order. How they squabble, and "who's right" along with the "nu uh"s does not make for good feelings either inside or outside the circle. Get back to work.
Yeah, I hate to watch family fights as well. As an outsider I just hope they can continue to work out their issues, reproduce their findings, engineer ways to cut costs, and have it ready for market in short order. How they squabble, and "who's right" along with the "nu uh"s does not make for good feelings either inside or outside the circle. Get back to work.
shellebelle
08-07-2008, 08:08 AM
It's not as far in the future as you think.
Anyone on Wacco moving this type of projects forward?
I know we have at least one person working on gasification, many have solar on their roofs but what else is out there?
I'd really love to hear how the Wacco world is actually manifesting alternative energy sources and using them!
Anyone on Wacco moving this type of projects forward?
I know we have at least one person working on gasification, many have solar on their roofs but what else is out there?
I'd really love to hear how the Wacco world is actually manifesting alternative energy sources and using them!