backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by luhar.. on Dec 15 at 1:23 PM


MIT chemistry professor Daniel Nocera has devised a novel way of storing solar power using inexpensive materials. He says its the first step to creating a hydrogen generating synthetic "plant", critics say his claims are overstated.   (Source: Christopher Harting )

Professor Nocera imagines a system where solar panels or articial leaves collect solar energy and turn it tinto electricity. From there his catalyst would use the electricity to split water, forming hydrogen fuel.  (Source: Bryan Christie )

Professor Nocera's novel system for hydrogen generation uses cobalt, an inexpensive catalyst previously dismissed due to its high solubility.  (Source: Bryan Christie )
Is Professor Nocera's solar brew a savior or a wishful thinking?

Solar power's efficiency is advancing at a steady rate, and with improvement such as concentrated cells and novel materials the question is not so much if solar can be cheaper than coal power someday, but rather when.  However, when this scenario does eventually arise, solar faces some remaining challenges, the most significant of which is the intermittent nature of the power source. 

In short, without something to store solar power efficiently, it’s infeasible as a primary electric power source.

Batteries and ultracapacitors are frequently discussed as possible means of solar power storage, but they are very expensive.  Other novel storage methods have also been explored, but they seem uncertain prospects at best.  Some scientists point out that there is already a system that takes solar power and stores it -- photosynthesis in plants.

When it comes to imitating nature's hydrogen producing system (remember, sugar is only the secondary product of photosynthesis, driven by the production of the primary product -- hydrogen ions -- from using sunlight's energy to split water), many scientists have tried.  However, the electrocatalysts needed to split water into hydrogen and oxygen are typically even more pricey than batteries.  However, one MIT professor has discovered a possible alternative using cheap materials that he says may help keep the dream of solar power (and solar storage) alive.

Daniel Nocera PhD, a professor of chemistry at MIT, devised a catalyst system using strips of cobalt, nickel, and phosphate, all relatively inexpensive chemical compounds.  By eschewing expensive catalysts like platinum, the cost of the system is kept low.  So why didn't others think of this efficient system?  Well, he says that it is commonly known that cobalt dissolves relatively easy in water, making it typically a poor electrode material, and typically earning it a quick dismissal.  To remedy this, Professor Nocera chose a somewhat creative approach, instead adding dissolved cobalt directly to the solvent and relying on a thin cobalt film which formed on the electrode.

The success of the result surprised even its creator.  He describes, "Here's the luck.  There was no reason for us to expect that just plain cobalt with phosphate, versus cobalt being tied up in one of our complexes, would work this well. I couldn't have predicted it. The stuff that was falling out of the compounds turned out to be what we needed."

Now he is looking to improve upon his lucky break.  He states, "Now we want to understand it.  I want to know why the hell cobalt in this thin film is so active. I may be able to improve it or use a different metal that's better."

However, he also wants to move towards a production system.  He states, confidently, "We were really interested in the basic science. Can we make a catalyst that works efficiently under the conditions of photosynthesis?  The answer now is yes, we can do that. Now we've really got to get to the technology of designing a cell. "

Some are skeptical about Professor Nocera's big claims.  They say that his system is cheap and promising in some respects, but that he is overstating its potential for commercial scale hydrogen production.  By an important metric, the peak efficiency current density (the higher this number, the faster the rate of hydrolysis), his best reported result of 10 milliamps per square centimeter is only a hundredth of the current commercial electrolyzer rate of 1000 milliamps per square centimeter.

Even one of his teachers is taking issue to Professor Nocera's alleged hyperbole; Thomas Meyer, who has been a mentor to Nocera, states, "The claim that this is the answer for artificial photosynthesis is crazy.  [This] could prove technologically important [as a] research finding, [but]  there's no guarantee that it can be scaled up or even made practical."

John Turner, a research fellow at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO, adds, "At least what he's published so far would never work for a commercial electrolyzer, where the current density is 800 times to 2,000 times greater."

While some say he is wasting his time and should refocus on batteries, Professor Nocera continues his research and his big talk.  He's teaming up with Professor Michael Grätzel of the  École Polytechnique Fédérale in Lausanne, Switzerland to make a full solar cell and catalyst system which produces hydrogen.  Professor Grätzel invented a unique dye that gives off electrons when exposed to sunlight.  Professor Nocera hopes to merge the two inventions to create an artificial, fuel-generating leaf, what he sees as the future of electric power generation.

One thing's for sure -- Professor Nocera's work and rhetoric will likely continue to draw rebukes from colleagues, but it’s hard to argue the temptation of emulating nature's most successful energy fixing design and storing power by a simple equation -- "sun + water = fuel".



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Greatness
By Belegost on 11/25/2008 8:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, what?

As pointed out, MIT is a private school, they are free to charge whatever they would like. That in no way precludes the existence of publicly funded universities - and, in fact, there are many in the US.

I did my undergraduate work in EE at UCSD, a highly regarded school for engineering internationally. Currently I believe in-state undergraduate fees amount to about 7,500/year plus an additional 7k for housing. The fees are also the same for attending UC Berkeley, which is a school generally considered to have the same high reputation as MIT in science and engineering.

"Basically, undergrads are treated like crap, only once you prove your ability and become a grad student are you treated with respect, and the financial onus largely removed."

Yes. Exactly. Part of the point of the undergraduate program is to be a test of the student's will to succeed. This is why large percentages of starting undergrads never finish, they lack the motivation and discipline needed. It only makes sense to reward someone AFTER they have proven worthy of the reward.

"tuition isnt free (it should be, in all countries, for reasons too detailed to get into here)"

Oh boy, I'm giggling like a school girl just thinking about that one. I'm sorry, I've seen way too many students who have free rides to agree to that. When something is given to you, it becomes commonplace, something to be assumed rather than earned. This breeds laziness and apathy.

Going through the undergrad program I saw a lot of my peers, who had parents paying the bills, goof off and waste their time, ultimately failing out of the program, or barely managing to graduate.

Meanwhile the people who paid their own way (like myself) tended to be far more serious about what they were doing. Perhaps it was the reminder that each lecture I skipped was $100 of my money gone, never to return. And had I failed a class, the cost would have been thousands of dollars. That is a definite motivating agent.

"by denying post secondary education, you are creating a society of rich and poor, with no middle class."

<sarcasm> I'm glad my dad is a highly important car painter; I can't imagine being denied my college degree.</sarcasm>

This is where your ignorance of the US university systems leads you to make asinine comments. There is no real barrier to a university degree in the US. There are community college systems in most places that allow students with poor prior academic performance to improve and transfer to a university. There are a variety of financial aid programs funded by the government that pay for many students. Most public universities are rather inexpensive. (My sister attends a Cal State university, her yearly fees are around $3000.)

" And those that do manage to work up to a College degree, spend the rest of their life paying it back"

I have about 25k in student loans to pay back for my undergraduate work. Since I was quite successful as an undergrad, my current graduate work is being entirely funded on fellowship, which further pays me $25k/year stipend. I'm hardly going to spend a lifetime paying back my school costs.

What the US system does do: separate people based on motivation - a separation between "do" and "do nots" so to speak. If you have the will and tenacity to struggle through the hard parts, you will be rewarded, and because of this, those that get through will earn something valuable - when I get that PhD certificate I will have proof of my ability to perform at a level above the wide majority of people. (To be honest, these days a BA/BS degree is so easy to get in the US that it's become about as valuable as a high school diploma - just something you are expected to have.)


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki