Re: Whatever happened to MIT ?

Tim Wescott wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar
revolution
Scientists mimic essence of plants' energy storage
system

Anne Trafton, News Office
July 31, 2008

" In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar
power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a
mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have
overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar
power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't
shine."

Apparently by using electricity to convert water to oxygen and hydrogen
!

Yet they seem to claim they can produce either independently !

"The key component in Nocera and Kanan's new process is a new catalyst
that produces oxygen gas from water; another catalyst produces valuable
hydrogen gas. The new catalyst consists of cobalt metal, phosphate and
an electrode, placed in water. When electricity -- whether from a
photovoltaic cell, a wind turbine or any other source -- runs through
the electrode, the cobalt and phosphate form a thin film on the
electrode, and oxygen gas is produced.

Combined with another catalyst, such as platinum, that can produce
hydrogen gas from water, the system can duplicate the water splitting
reaction that occurs during photosynthesis."

Graham

If it's valid at all they've found catalysts that help improve the efficiency of electrolysis.

It would be a *lot* more convincing if they described how much more efficient their "wonder" catalyst is than say a basic carbon rod. Or even better a platinum electrode (which is the gold standard for electrolysis of water). It is bound to be cheaper.

The gasses do bubble off of different electrodes -- oxygen gets oxidized at one (I'd say "at the cathode", but I only have a 50% chance of being right), and hydrogen gets reduced at the other. So I could certainly see coating each electrode with appropriate catalysts, assuming that such exist.

It might indeed, but the best efficiency claimed so far using platinum electrodes is between 50-70% (depending on size and exactly who you believe). There isn't all that much room for improvement - although making it out of cheaper metals and efficient at small scale and STP would be a step forward.

http://www.hyweb.de/Knowledge/w-i-energiew-eng3.html#3.4

It is telling that this MIT press release of a research report contains absolutely *NO* quantitative data.

But I think that what's really going on is that MIT has gotten used to generating headlines, and now they've got some dips--t in the administration who's demanding it.

I am afraid it does look exactly like that.

When I saw the headline and heard the initial blurb about "harnessing photosynthesis" I thought they had actually managed something really impressive like a stablised solid catalyst which when kept wet and illuminated will absorb a suitable combination of photons and split water. That really would revolutionise solar energy capture.

As it is I have to wonder at the scientific illiteracy of journalists that allows them to parrot these claims without asking basic questions like how does this differ from the high school water electrolysis experiment?

DOE describes a nice one for schools. It even suggests how to measure the experimental efficiency which may help them with their research. A vacuous press release award is certainly deserved for this.

http://www.scied.science.doe.gov/nmsb/hydrogen/Electrolysis.pdf

Serious point. This experiment is probably still legal to do in schools as it doesn't involve any dangerous chemicals. It is in the news so it might help get some more kids interested in science and engineering.

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
.

Quantcast