From Stanford University something familiar to most anyone who has taken science – electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Stanford scientists develop a water splitter that runs on an ordinary AAA battery

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.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Splitting water to make hydrogen requires no fossil fuels and emits no greenhouse gases.” – Soooooo, they get the energy from unicorn farts?
Too good to be true? I hope not but….
Changing the catalysts should not change the energy usage. It still takes energy to produce the hydrogen that you then burn. Not sure how this could then save billions, but I guess it might save billions of dollars of money spent on platinum catalysts when you produce many billions of dollars worth of fuel over a long time???
Huh. One of the first articles in a long time that doesn’t contain the term “model” anywhere.
Wonder what I need to do to run my 383 1969 Camaro on Hydrogen…and will it impact the torque? 🙂
Jim
This sounds believable to me.
And it is useful.
Imagine fitting a water splitter to a wind turbine and then oxidising the O2 when the electricity is required.
This could be very big if it’s as economical as they say.
I’ve long thought it was practical to use a photovoltaic panel as the source of electricity for electrolysis of water. But the problem is the explosive nature of hydrogen. Somehow, the storage of hydrogen at home needs to be dummy proofed to avoid a quintupling of house fires. I’m not sure that’s possible.
Not even a twist on the old school experiment. Just the most inane piece of science publicity ever. And that really is saying something.
So producing hydrogen from methane produces CO2?
Well, what about producing metallic iron, metallic nickel, and that cute little AAA cell? I suppose they just get miracled into existence by good intentions?
Ah, the never-say-die hydrogen proponents. Massive infrastructure required, which in a likelhood would be far from complete by the time a practical battery shows up and makes it all totally and hopelessly obsolete. I note that zero economic analysis has been carried out to estimate costs.
As I recall, hydrogen in your car’s fuel tank must be continuously bled off. How much from a population of 250 million vehicles does that amount to going into the atmosphere and what would be the effect of all that hydrogen?
jimmaine says:
August 22, 2014 at 8:00 am
“Wonder what I need to do to run my 383 1969 Camaro on Hydrogen…”
____________________
MOPAR in a Chevy?
First Law of Thermodynamics.
When I first saw this I thought it was April Fools – Stanford doing experiments that they saw at Science World kid’s zone? But I guess the point is that they only need one battery, rather than two in series. I’m thinking it might be the fuel cell required to efficiently use the H2 that will drive the price, however.
If you want to scale this up I could sell you a couple Kwatt to Mwatt DC drive which we use for converting 3 phase AC to DC. We have been doing this for plating and Al production for over a century.
So is this good, bad, stupid etc ?
Arent they telling us theres not enough water, how does that mesh with using large amounts to make hydrogen? And what about the fact that its rather explosive. Is every wind and solar farm going to house its own Hindenburgian hydrogen generation plant now?
Col Mosby says:
August 22, 2014 at 8:05 am
As I recall, hydrogen in your car’s fuel tank must be continuously bled off. How much from a population of 250 million vehicles does that amount to going into the atmosphere and what would be the effect of all that hydrogen?
___________________________
Probably about the same effect as burning the natural gas/fossil fuel would have. You’d get X molecules of water.
M Courtney says:
” Imagine fitting a water splitter to a wind turbine and then oxidising the O2 when the electricity is required. This could be very big if it’s as economical as they say.”
They didn’t say what the economics were.
A very complicated procedure that if far more efficiently done using batteries.
Regardless of the storage capacities, wind power remains unreliable – no or low wind means
no or insignificant power, which not only can outlast the energy contained in storage but presents the problem of how to restore energy storage levels when the wind reappears and also produce
usable power. Can’t do both, which means the loss of wind power would extend well beyond the loss of wind resources.
Hydrogen is a great fuel for upper stages of launch vehicles, and a synthesized-on-demand reagent used in oil refineries… and for everything else it sucks. Improving the efficiency of electrolysis is nice, but insignificant since almost all hydrogen is generated from natural gas via the water shift reaction.
When I was in high school, I liked doing chemistry experiments in the basement (I later became a chemist). I liked making oxygen because of its reactive chemical properties (I really wanted to become an exothermic chemist, but it wasn’t to be – LOL). I always had problems with the choice of electrodes (platinum was the electrode of choice and I couldn’t afford it). If I used nails, you’d get hydrogen from one and ferric (or ferrous) hydroxide on the other one. Same with copper (copper hydroxide instead of oxygen). So the electrochemical reaction would erode one of the electrodes. My only success was by removing the graphite electrodes from flashlight batteries (D-cells) and heating them on the stove until they were red hot, to remove all the paste and other impurities that I could. These worked reasonably well.
“Hydrogen is an ideal fuel for powering vehicles..”
Yeah, what could go wrong carrying around a lot of hydrogen? http://www.history.com/s3static/video-thumbnails/AETN-History_Prod/73/828/History_Speeches_6000_Eyewitness_Hindenberg_Disaster_still_624x352.jpg
***
atthemurph says:
August 22, 2014 at 8:07 am
First Law of Thermodynamics.
***
Right. You’ll never get as much energy from burning the hydrogen as you used to split the water.
Remember the Hindenburg!
A full Hydrogen tank = charged battery.
the research claims two things
““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.”
1. the use of non-precious metals
2. splitting at a low voltage
Read the comments above. Note the snark. Note the dismissive tone of the commenters.
Note that few address the real science in this piece.
As for the practical applications?
don’t under estimate engineers. many above do.
“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.”
These two paragraphs from the article seem to contradict one another. The hot steam must come from somewhere? When the hydrogen is liberated, is not carbon dioxide a product? Isn’t there energy involved in compressing the hydrogen for transport and handling?
So, on the one hand, the natural gas could be used directly using it’s stored energy in the most efficient way to power a vehicle. Or, the gas could be processed with superheated steam (using a great deal of energy and producing CO2) to produce hydrogen, the hydrogen would then be compressed (using a lot more energy), the hydrogen is then combined with oxygen to produce electricity (another loss in efficiency) to move the vehicle. And, this process is called “zero emission” and, somehow, a step forward?
The natural gas is consumed either way. CO2 is produced either way. More natural gas is needed when electrolysis is in the mix and nothing is gained pollution-wise. Why is this so innovative?
“Remember the Hindenburg!”
And the mechanical energy in the 10,000 PSI storage tanks.