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.
M Simon:
At August 23, 2014 at 7:11 am you say
Yes, as Unmentionable demonstrates at August 23, 2014 at 3:02 am.
Richard
Might not be the right comment section, but seeing this is about NEW technologies, this was brought to my attention: Transparent Solar Panels http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adom.201470040/abstract
For the life of me, I cannot find technical papers about this. Does anybody have any links?
Cheers
Here is an article on nickel for platinum as a catalyst in fuel cells…from a few years ago! These are indeed high school projects. Woe is us if this is the level of what today’s engineers are doing at universities!! A little research on the net and they would see it’s already old news. Let’s keep this a secret from the already disgraced Nobel Committee.
https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/2012/12/18/platinum-vs-nickel-battle-of-the-biomass-catalysts/
And the amount of Pt in Toyota’s $50,000 car is 30g, ~$1400. The cost of the fuel cell itself is $50/kW and you need ~100kW = $5000. So I would say the nickel, were it equal in performance and durability, would allow the car to be sold ~ $49,000. As an engineer, I would go for the platinum!
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/analysis/analyst-views/2013/13-11-06-the-cost-of-platinum-in-fuel-cell-electric-vehicles
Professor Dai is a first class researcher and has a brilliant career ahead of him; however, this just shows us once again why Profs have got to get control of their uni’s PR machines.
When even a smart guy like Dai ends up looking silly because of a press release, what chance do climate scientists have?
From the PR:
“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.”
I suspect there are TWO batteries involved:
1. the 1.5-volt battery outside the cell, and
2. the battery inside the cell they made out of the nickel+nickel-oxide and iron electrodes.
“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.”
What sort of “decay” are these electrodes experiencing? Is it a physical/mechanical degradation? Or is it an electro-chemical consumption that shouldn’t happen to a catalyst?
This comment from phys.org is worth noting:
“The researchers also plan to develop a water splitter than runs on electricity produced by solar energy.”
Everyone knows that solar energy is a completely other kind of electricity, or ???
The electrons might be green of cause.
All it needs is WATER. It produces more H2 than the truck’s V-8 engine burns making more H2 and driving the truck. Just back from a 3000 mile trip on just WATER. Who needs hybrids? Take a look….it works!
@Larry Butler
So, what you’re saying is that it produces more energy than it uses? (It would have to, to do what you’re saying it does).
Someone’s looking at a Nobel Prize, for disproving the laws of thermodynamics.
Wow, this is my lucky day.
First I get a letter in the mail saying I’ve just one 2 free airline tickets (from a “US Airway”) and now I find out my truck can run on water!
It doesn’t get any better than this….
It should, but it just doesn’t.
The comments on this article are pretty disappointing. A few posters got it, but there is a lot of nonsense. That problem was not helped by the poor understanding of the subject shown by the article author. Several points:
a) The electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and oxygen has been known for at least 200 years.
b) All of the usable energy associated with the burning of hydrogen fuel has to be taken from the electrical energy used to create the hydrogen fuel. Some posters seem to believe there is some sort of magical free lunch here. Not so. By the 1st law of thermodynamics you can at best, get out of it what you put into it.
c) By the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the efficiency of conversion of electrical energy into usable hydrogen fuel will ALWAYS be less than 100%. Using the very best electrolytic technology and pumping technology, it may be about 60%. Since the hydrogen is then to be used as fuel in a fuel cell, there will be another inevitable efficiency loss in conversion of the fuel BACK into electrical energy.
d) The Stanford scientists claim a possible improvement in the electrolytic technology. In particular, they claim to be able use cheaper electrodes and still get the conversion efficiency achievable with more expensive electrodes. All that is new here is a possible reduction of electrode costs. Even that is mostly hypothetical. In their tests, their electrodes corrode rapidly. By contrast, metals like platinum are famous for being corrosion resistant. It might very well be that platinum, coated on the electrodes at nanometer thickness as it is in the catalytic converter of your car, would still make a cheaper electrode.
e) Whether the electrodes are an improvement or not, the need for large amounts of electricity will be the same. Transportation costs will be the same. Storage and containment costs will be the same. Embrittlement issues will be the same. Production costs with the possible exception of electrode costs will be the same. Conversion efficiency back into electrical energy will be the same. Safety issues will be the same.
f) Even under the most wild-eyed optimistic assumptions, this is a modest, incremental improvement in a very, very old idea. Not nothing, but hardly earth shattering.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Regarding the fact that the article appears to be announcing a possibility for a cheaper system for extracting hydrogen from water, I agree that is likely to be a good thing if it proves out. Regardless, it won’t help with large scale power. Hydrogen is a complicated system that addresses the need filled by batteries. Batteries are simple. Batteries will win in almost all circumstances. Hydrogen will never be significant in transportation nor in grid-level power systems.
Hydrogen is not a fuel. It is an intermediary like a battery. Hydrogen does not exist. Specifically, the burnable form of H-H doesn’t exist on its own where we can collect it for burning. Petroleum and carbon containing gases do exist where we can get them, and we already know how to cost-effectively refine and use them.
As to the Hindenburg, JJ’s response above is noteworthy (http://www.airships.net/hydrogen-airship-accidents), but sure, it is harder to make hydrogen explode than people tend to think. However, see this: http://www.unmuseum.org/hindenburg.htm. It is far from certain that the fabric doping had anything to do with the tragedy. The fact remains, hydrogen is dangerous and potentially explosive. This link poo-poos the notion the skin had anything to do with the fire. http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/myths It probably was impossible to ignite aluminum powder in the skin. The fire should have never been hot enough, at least not until it was much too late.The organic components would surely have burned, but I suspect all of the aluminum power remained unoxidized. I don’t understand why iron oxide would have been mentioned. (It is already burned,duh.) The assertion seems to be that iron oxide can supply oxygen and act as an oxidizer. Well, under the right conditions, sure, but overall iron likes its oxygen too much to give it up easily. The oxygen in the air provided all the oxygen the fire needed. For me, I’ll stick with uncertain and say it is foolish to assert the skin was the root of the problem. Hydrogen has high energy potential. It can make a very large kaboom, as often demonstrated in lab classes or science shows with a flame touched to a hydrogen filled party balloon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec-8A5k16Ak
I’m not finding a reference, but as I recall success against tethered hydrogen observation balloons was poor until aircraft machine guns were loaded with a special explosive incendiary bullet alternated with a special round that was designed to break apart and make large holes in the balloon. It is hard to get, by accident, a mixture of the hydrogen and air that is within the explosive limits. Further, hydrogen does not spontaneously ignite or explode. Blowing up a party balloon with your breath and with hydrogen will give the exact same result if the balloons are poked with a needle. The results will be dramatically different if a flame is set to each.
So, my point here is that while hydrogen is relatively safe, how many explosions will be tolerated? Does anyone remember the Ford Pinto?
The assertions about making electrical energy cheaply enough to warrant making hydrogen from water are shortsighted in my opinion. Batteries are likely to always provide a better means of storing energy. Hydrogen is simply hard to work with, no matter how cheaply we can make it.
Assertions about using plentiful, cheap electricity for producing liquid fuel from water and air are more pie-in-the-sky. Sure, if the conditions are met, it would make some sense, but there are likely to be better alternatives for most applications. It’s like making electricity from methane.
We collect the methane and pipe it to where we need to use it for direct heat. Very efficient. When I turn on the burner under my tea kettle, 100% of the methane is being used to heat my water. Of course, there are inefficiencies. I cannot hope 100% of the energy from burning will go into my water, but the same applies when I’m using an electric heat source. Approximately the same amount of heat is applied to the bottom of my kettle, and expended from the burner, whether the source is burning methane or applying electrical energy for heat. The difference is in getting the energy to the burner. None of the methane’s energy was lost before it reached the flame under the kettle. Over two-thirds of the methane’s energy is lost before it gets to the electric burner if the methane was used to fire a turbine that generated the electricity for the electric heater, perhaps more loses depending on system inefficiencies at the power generation station and in the electrical distribution grid.
Generating electricity from natural gas is a sad state of affairs when we have such better and more efficient options for its use.
About the non-emission of CO2 : You don’t have to use a fossil fuel to provide the power to split the water. Well, not all the time, just to get started. Then you can use the first bit of Hydrogen to split the next bit of water, which gives you the next bit of Hydrogen, which you use to split the next bit of water, … … ad infinitum. What’s not to like about that?
[do I have to add /sarc]
Col Mosby says:
August 22, 2014 at 8:05 am
…
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?
_________________________________________________
The final proof of the Big Bang.
This technique literally old school has already been done before in 2006 known as the H-racer.
http://www.philipharris.co.uk/product/H-Racer-B8R01198
•The H-Racer is a micro-version of what engineers and scientists have been dreaming about for real cars: combining hydrogen with oxygen to generate a DC current to power an electric motor. Unlike a gas-powered car engine, the only by-products of this electrochemical process are electricity, heat and pure water.
Recently named as one of the Best Inventions of 2006 by Time Magazine, the H-Racer is now the best selling fuel cell product in the world.
The Refueling Station creates hydrogen by electrolysis of water, and once the car’s hydrogen tank is full, the car can run on its own hydrogen fuel-cell system, with the simple flip of a switch.
BMW did an enormous amount of research and practical experimentation with hydrogen driven cars … and they have abandoned the fuel.
Dave August 22, 2014 at 8:00 am
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.
Actually it is, for decades in the UK houses were supplied with gas that was mostly H2 mixed with some CO. Gas explosions were extremely rare because when the gas leaked the H2 rapidly diffused to create a mixture with air outside the ignition limits. The danger of course was the toxic CO. In the 70s after replacing with Natural Gas then gas explosions and fires started being a problem.
richardscourtney August 22, 2014 at 11:51 am
The real problem is the lack of a method for cheap and effective storage of large quantities of hydrogen.
Hydrogen corrodes and embritles metals. It is costly to compress and difficult to contain because it consists of small molecules: air tight is not hydrogen tight. And hydrogen is explosive.
Hydrogen can be stored in large quantities because we did it at the Coal Research Establishment for use in the hydrogenation plant when working to develop the LSE project for producing syncrude (i.e. synthetic crude oil) from coal. But losses are significant and hazards are real. We enclosed the hydrogenation plant in a containment wall so any explosion would blow up and not out, but what goes up comes down and Tewkesbury would have suffered……..
Find a solution to the storage issue and only then consider uses for large quantities of hydrogen.
We could return to the methods used through the 60’s in the UK when hydrogen gas was supplied to just about every home in the country. Towns had their own ‘gasometers’ to store the gas, even Tewkesbury had one, although one of their early ones (1840) did blow up due to workman’s carelessness, the city survived though. I thought that the CRE was located in Stoke Orchard though, so I’m not sure why Tewkesbury would have suffered?
Here’s a picture of a particularly fine looking one in Vienna (capacity 90,000 m^3), lasted for about 70 yrs without blowing up.
http://www.viennadirect.com/sights/gasometer.php
I would appreciate it if one of you could enlighten me to the answer to the following question.
In electrolysis of water, 2 hydrogen atoms are separated from one oxygen atom. Is it not correct to say that one third of the energy used is embedded in the oxygen released and two-thirds in the hydrogen, therefore, assuming that the oxygen is simply vented to the atmosphere, the hydrogen captured from the process can never have more than two-thirds of the energy used to create it?
@Walter:
The hydrogen then burns in oxygen – it doesn’t need to be the SAME oxygen, the energy released by the reaction would be the same, whatever the oxygen source.
It requires 286 kJ/mol to separate Hydrogen from Oxygen. The combination of them produces the same. If there were perfect 100% efficiency in the electrolysis process, AND in the storage process, AND in the combustion, you could conceivably get back the energy you put in. But NO system is 100% efficient so you will never get back all of the energy. There are losses in the electrolysis – resistance from the wires and electrodes, and from the water; there are losses in storage – some H2 will escape; and no combustion process is 100% efficient – so at each stage, there is loss.
Seems to me that it would be better to just use the electricity directly, rather than going through this intermediate stage. But as I noted earlier, I don’t think they teach thermodynamics anymore.
If this can be used to create Hydrogen from water on demand in the vehicle, it may have a viable use. Of course there is an energy deficit, but that could be overcome or minimized with a few tricks like adding some dynamos (alternators) to non-powered wheels to recharge the car battery going downhill, coasting, etc. Also, solar panels on the surface of the car. And, of course, just plugging it in to a wall socket when you aren’t driving it.
If you can get 300 miles on a tank of water/battery charge and the cost of replacement catalyst modules isn’t too high… This could replace gasoline without needing a gigantic infrastructure change.