Could be another pie in the sky idea, but one could always hope. – Anthony
A new catalyst could help speed development of inexpensive home-brewed solar energy systems for powering homes and plug-in cars during the day (left) and for producing electricity from a fuel cell at night (right). Credit: Patrick Gillooly/MIT
BOSTON — The era of personalized energy systems — in which individual homes and small businesses produce their own energy for heating, cooling and powering cars — took another step toward reality today as scientists reported discovery of a powerful new catalyst that is a key element in such a system. They described the advance, which could help free homes and businesses from dependence on the electric company and the corner gasoline station, at the 240th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, being held here this week.
“Our goal is to make each home its own power station,” said study leader Daniel Nocera, Ph.D. “We’re working toward development of ‘personalized’ energy units that can be manufactured, distributed and installed inexpensively. There certainly are major obstacles to be overcome — existing fuel cells and solar cells must be improved, for instance. Nevertheless, one can envision villages in India and Africa not long from now purchasing an affordable basic system.”
Such a system would consist of rooftop solar energy panels to produce electricity for heating, cooking, lighting, and to charge the batteries on the homeowners’ electric cars. Surplus electricity would go to an “electrolyzer,” a device that breaks down ordinary water into its two components, hydrogen and oxygen. Both would be stored in tanks. In the dark of night, when the solar panels cease production, the system would shift gears, feeding the stored hydrogen and oxygen into a fuel cell that produces electricity (and clean drinking water as a byproduct). Such a system would produce clean electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week — even when the sun isn’t shining.
Nocera’s report focused on the electrolyzer, which needs catalysts — materials that jumpstart chemical reactions like the ones that break water up into hydrogen and oxygen. He is with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass. Good catalysts already are available for the part of the electrolyzer that produces hydrogen. Lacking, however, have been inexpensive, long-lasting catalysts for the production of oxygen. The new catalyst fills that gap and boosts oxygen production by 200-fold. It eliminates the need for expensive platinum catalysts and potentially toxic chemicals used in making them.
The new catalyst has been licensed to Sun Catalytix, which envisions developing safe, super-efficient versions of the electrolyzer, suitable for homes and small businesses, within two years.
The National Science Foundation and the Chesonis Family Foundation provided funding for this study. Nocera did the research with post-doctoral researcher Mircea Dinca and doctoral candidate Yogesh Surendranath. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency has recently awarded the team with a grant, which it plans to use to search for related compounds that can further increase the efficiency of its electrolyzer technology. The team hopes that nickel-borate belongs to a family of compounds that can be optimized for super-efficient, long-term energy storage technologies.
The American Chemical Society is a non-profit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. With more than 161,000 members, ACS is the world’s largest scientific society and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.
This has all the hallmarks of a scam to harvest dollars from the gullible.
Put that wallet back in your pocket.
Either that or the “researchers” are incredibly ignorant. vis:
1. Conservation of energy.
2. Entropy always increases.
3. It’s inappropriate (unsafe) technology to deploy to households.
That’s just from a cursory analysis of the boundary conditions; imposed by the real world.
Unsafe? Thought experiment:
It’s a dead-end technology. Impractical, inefficient, inherently unsafe and very, very expensive.
“If you think that government controlled electricity utilities would allow the general public to generate their own energy, you are barmy. ”
Individuals in the general public have always been allowed to generate their own energy – whether through a spill-pipe system in a creek in the backyard, or a windmill, or solar panels, or whatever. As a matter of fact, the electric utilities are required BY LAW to purchase any excess energy produced by individals. Some lucky individuals power their own homes pretty much completely free-of-charge already using their own systems.
“”” Alvin says:
September 1, 2010 at 7:45 pm
George E. Smith says:
September 1, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Energy in the home is utilised mostly in the form of “heat”. For washing cooking and coffee.
It should be a capital felony offense to consume electricity to create “heat”. “””
Don’t worry Alvin; I’m not about to go postal. Think of exaggeration as a figure of speech; to stress a point.
If people want to do dumb things that’s their problem. If they want me to pay for their doing that; then it becomes my problem; and I take a dim view of paying for stupidity.
Using hydrogen direct is too dangerous. Better way is to use the hydrogen is to react it catalytically with the CO2 recovered from FF power stations to create methane gas. Much easier to handle and converting generators/cars to run on gas is a doddle.
However, better technology to split water into H and O is still needed as PV panels are not efficient enough at the moment.
Andrew S says:
September 1, 2010 at 8:07 pm
“The responsible government agency” – you made me laugh, Phil’s Dad.
Laughter is good Mr S.
Would you be happier with “The government agency responsible”.
That way if it suceeds it’s a sucess for the local community and if it fails it’s the governments fault. Business as usual.
I don’t see a spot on that list for your television. Should households use energy only for food, water, shelter and transportation? Is that an underlying message?
Why not work with a little more familiar chemicals. Use a catalyst to turn our old friend CO2 into Methane.
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=16024.php
Hydrocarbons are the easiest way to carry hydrogen around.
Using solar panels here in Finland would mean freezing your *** of during winter. Luckily, we’ve got trees and for example this more traditional approach. Tried and tested during WW2:
http://www.gasek.fi/epages/PPO.sf/en_GB/?ViewObjectID=299801
I’m a bit amazed no one posted Dr. Nocera’s lecture. I’m a fan of his logic, sense of humor, and noticed in the comments that few understand certain types of fuel cells can in fact store energy (typically for grid load leveling).
The DOE has also recently promoted this start-up company and therefore supported the logical conclusion that the best way to fix the energy issue is to decentralize power generation to the benefit of the consumer.
Note: one thought crossed my mind though, if the medium he’s developed reacts with sunlight, what happens if it leaches into rivers, lakes, and the water table?
Here’s his lecture on personal energy:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTtmU2lD97o&fs=1&hl=en_US]
I’ve done several really off of the grid installations for Defense projects in which money really wasn’t a limitation (in a normal budget sense). Existing, falling water was the only long term source of any reliability for more then the most insignificant power needs. Haven’t had to build it yet, but I think mini-hydro + a fly wheel storage system is the only realistic “off-the-grid” solution, with indirect solar design to help with heating and hot water. Solar panels are years away from the capacity required, too expensive, and a maintenance problem.
Here’s a little test for ‘ya: Go down to your local fire department and housing code office and tell them you want to store large quantities of hydrogen and oxygen in your garage.
See how long it is before they tape your doors shut and show up with EPA guys in spacesuits threatening to take everything you own….
Gerry says:
September 2, 2010 at 12:12 pm
See how long it is before they tape your doors shut and show up with EPA guys in spacesuits threatening to take everything you own….
======
LOL, yep the EPA will kill this one to — let’s face it they can’t tax a zero polluting system and the idea of running your car on pee is likely to either get you a public situation for indecency or an EPA fine for something else. 😉
I really like the Aircar idea as an energy storage solution for the home and systems that have the potential to achieve OverUnity (free energy).
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh_-DUKQ4Uw&fs=1&hl=en_US]
If we can eventually market a really efficient oxygen-from-water generator, then there would be no worries about those pesky 20-foot sea level rise calculations in the IP4 report. We could just convert all that extra water into oxygen. Of course, oxygen toxicity might become an issue for most terrestrial organisms, but that is probably better than drowning.
Where’s the Energy Returned On Energy Invested analyses for these personalized energy systems?
Do the homework. I know it’s more difficult than hearing 10 word sound bites on the evening news. Solar has an EROEI of 0.48. Wind power, by my calculations, is no better than 0.29. http://www.windpowerfraud.com
They’ve been throwing these solar “just around the corner” concepts at us since the 1970s.
This looks as rudimentary as the ones 35 years ago.
I am unimpressed. The limitations are:
1. Incoming energy density
2. Lack of fully developed intermediary steps
3. Lack of adequate storage
4. Too much optimism
5. Too little hard-nosed practicality
If this was doable, we’d have them already.
For decades, we’ve had the Doomsday Clock.
Perhaps we need a Solar Energy Reality Clock like that.
If so, and if midnight meant it was in 100,000 homes – no, let’s make it NOON, HIGH NOON – how close are we? Let’s put dawn – 6:00 am as the starting point.
I’d say we are at 6:45 am.
Anybody else?
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
September 2, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Where’s the Energy Returned On Energy Invested analysis for these personalized energy systems?
______________________________________
Charles can you expand on that a little for us non-engineers?
I am taking it that the Energy Returned On Energy Invested should be greater than one for better than a break even. Also do you have any references on the solar EROEI?
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
September 2, 2010 at 1:09 pm
“Where’s the Energy Returned On Energy Invested analyses for these personalized energy systems?”
====
Very good question Charles and I didn’t realize that “The manufacture, installation and operation of wind power facilities will consume more than 3 times the energy they will ever produce.”
I suppose the EROI for the consumer includes treating the home energy system as a permanent fixture of the property — improves the value of the home depending on how well its built and how long it lasts. It also is only used when its needed and purifies water (probably needs to be cleaned a lot).
There are a number of unanswered questions related to the system like the cost of operation, maintenance, and EPA problems (fuel cells produce CO2 and H2O as well as the possible environmental impact of the process).
But, the overall approach, in my opinion, is on the right track. Decentralizing electric power generation is the best way to address the energy problem without robbing the consumer.
Water Power Car:
<param name="allowscriptaccess"
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImGaraPrEo8&fs=1&hl=en_US]
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
September 2, 2010 at 1:09 pm
“Where’s the Energy Returned On Energy Invested analyses for these personalized energy systems?”
====
IBM develops promising contender for cheaper solar cells
February 11, 2010 by Lin Edwards
http://www.physorg.com/news185093054.html
“IBM’s kesterite cells uses the common elements tin (Sn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), selenium (Se), and sulfur (S).”
“Mitzi said they are planning to increase the efficiency above 11 per cent, which is equal to or better than the traditional solar cells.”
“The new solar cells are also cheaper to manufacture, using a “printing” technique that uses a hydrazine solution containing copper and tin with nanoparticles of zinc dispersed within it. The solution is then spin-coated and heat treated in the presence of selenium or sulfur vapor. This process is much cheaper than the traditional manufacturing process, which uses an expensive vacuum-based technique.”
So that should help improve the EROEI of solar.
Between skimming over the headline and the pictures, I though (like many, probably) that somebody has found a very much cheaper or very much more efficient solar panel technology. (Yes, I didn’t think “catalyst” through all the way.)
But the solar cell in question remains unchanged, and it is usually much more of a bottleneck than storage. Storage by electrolysis, on the other hand, is fairly inefficient and at this point no better than batteries (even when you have to lug them around in a car, apparently).
But what problem have they solved?
“Good catalysts already are available for the part of the electrolyzer that produces hydrogen. Lacking, however, have been inexpensive, long-lasting catalysts for the production of oxygen.”
That’s a problem I want to have: An electrolysis machine that produces plenty of hydrogen but not enough oxygen at the same time. How do you get that?
The last time somebody hyped an electrolysis catalyst, they at least lied in a manner that didn’t violate basic reaction balance math.
PV’s aren’t there yet. 20% efficiency or less, and only if pointed directly at the sun. If your roof is not at the right angle, you have to tilt the panels. Which works at noon, less well before and after. Plus little things like hail, dust, blowing sand and the like. I’ve seen several solar panels in Colorado smashed to bits by our ‘interesting’ weather.
Thermal solar makes quite a bit more sense. Not as sensitive to dirt. Cheaper. You can store heat in Glauber’s salt more efficiently than in rock, and you don’t need a zillion batteries, fuel cells (they are low voltage) or storage of the stuff that powers the Shuttle. Simple hot air can heat your house, make hot water, dry your clothes (most of the energy in a dryer goes to make hot air) and with a bit of thermodynamic magic, even cool your house. Think of a propane powered refrigerator in an RV or remote cabin. Same idea. And you can generate electricity with something similar to a Sterling engine. A good thermal hot air panel can produce 200+ degree(f) air. Without using any of the seriously toxic chemicals needed to make PV’s. Perhaps a buired geothermal loop to get a constant temperature differential. Existing technology.
Hot air. Better than a room full of politicians.
Hot air. Better than a room full of politicians.
I have been using a solar thermal unit since 1984, made by a company long out of business. It could be larger at 3 square meters, but works well in my sunny alpine climate. It is just a well made heat box ‘inflated’ by an 80 W German fan, all heat transported to the cool end of the house. I only switch it on when 10C is reached but outlet temperature is outside temp. plus 15C. It won’t raise a sweat but is another heating source that works quietly in a very cold climate.
I like your idea of geo-thermal storage, this unit could then store heat underground in the summer.
A simple, long lasting, effective technology.
I once had a weird dream in which everyone had nuclear a reactor under their home constructed with a special ‘safe’ radioactive sand that gave off heat much like some known natural radioactive deposits.
That is what stopped my off grid experiment, my solar panel array got turned into a lot of little solar panels when a thunderstorm developed when I was not home.
Larry
Spector said on September 2, 2010 at 9:39 pm:
…
Process uranium or other naturally-decaying materials as near-microscopic bits encased in tiny glass spheres. The material and large decay products (radon etc) wouldn’t be able to escape.
Obtain lead that’s been processed to a consistency like sand. This is already used for ammunition (“dust” as found in many .22 shotshells).
Mix together. It’ll provide heat and be relatively safe to have around and even handle. Because different sizes were used, when it’s time to recharge the system the spheres can be simply sifted out then fresh ones are mixed into the lead. To reclaim the material you can crush the spheres. However, when the material is too weak to work with the lead it may still yield enough heat to use by itself inside a shielded vessel. When it gets too weak for that, well it is already safely encased, just pour the spheres into an old mine somewhere.
How does that match up to your dream?