MIT researchers develop inexpensive new catalyst for hydrogen production
One of the biggest cost drivers for electrolyzers and fuel cells is the need for precious metals like platinum to act as catalysts. At $1,700-2,000 per ounce, it can rapidly drive the costs of a fuel cell through the roof. As a result one of the main areas of development in fuel cells has been reduced use of catalysts and new catalyst materials. MIT Chemist Daniel Nocera has been working on this problem and discovered that cobalt and phosphate may make an excellent substitute in electrolyzers. At $2.25 an ounce and $.05 an ounce, respectively the new catalysts have a huge cost advantage and reportedly are just as effective. Nocera and his team came to the realization by studying how photosynthesis in plants works to split water into its component elements. On the fuel cell side Chemist Bjorn Winther-Jensen of Monash University in Australia have developed a polymer material that is as effective as platinum in turning hydrogen and oxygen into electricity and water. While it is not as cheap as the cobalt and phosphate, at $57 an ounce it is still a tiny fraction of the cost of the precious metal.[Source: Scientific American]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
TX CHL Instructor 8:20AM (8/06/2008)
If hydrogen was FREE, it would still be a lousy, environmentally dirty, inefficient, and hazardous fuel. About the only thing hydrogen does really well is make ethanol look good by comparison.
And it isn't free. It costs substantially more than the energy equivalent of gasoline.
Hydrogen: The perfect fuel for people who can freely spend other people's money.
Reply
AlexNC 9:42AM (8/06/2008)
This is not about using the hydrogen for fuel, but rather using the process of reverse electrolysis to create electricity for power. Look at his figure, it explains itself pretty well. During the day, you would use solar/wind/et.al for power source. And when these sources create more power than you are using, it will start splitting the hydrogen and oxygen to store for night time use. During the night time, the hydrogen and oxygen will be re-combined to water, creating electricity (in a fuel cell).
EVan 9:13AM (8/06/2008)
Sorry Professor but you're missing the point of this article.
They're making hydrogen cheaper.
If this path continues then we'll have a extremely clean way to convert unpredictable renewable electricity to a fuel that has an energy density no battery will ever be capable of reaching, ever.
It's called the future because it's not here yet, but that doesn't mean it's not worth working towards.
Class dismissed.
AlexNC 9:54AM (8/06/2008)
What's with the snide remark Evan? Just because this is a blog doesn't mean you have to be an asshole. Try discussing ideas without sarcasm ... we are adults here, right?
If you re-read the persons post I replied to, you would see he states that hydrogen is an environmentally dirty and inefficient source of power. All I was stating was that, in this MIT professor's model, the hydrogen was not being used as fuel, but rather a means to create electricity, through reverse electrolysis (a storage medium).
EVan 10:18AM (8/06/2008)
Sorry AlexNC,
That reply wasn't meant for you. It was meant for TX CHL Instructor.
Your post, on the other hand was spot on and exactly what I was getting at. Sorry for the misunderstanding, it wouldn't hurt for me to be less condescending.
CanaDoc 1:02PM (8/13/2008)
Doesn’t matter how cheap you make it – electrolysis is still a net loss energy-wise – it takes more electricity to split it than you get back when you recombine it.
@ AlexNC: The idea of storing excess renewable energy is great, but for the all the losses due to the inefficiency of going from water to electricity and back to water, putting renewable energy into an array of batteries is far more energy efficient.
I’m siding with TX CHL here; everything I read about this ‘fuel of the future’ tells me that:
- Hydrogen’s energy per unit volume ranges from poor (in liquid form) to laughable (in gaseous form).
- Storage is impractical: H2 gas requires tanks capable of hundreds of bar of pressure; liquid H2 requires incredibly low temperatures (~ -400°F).
- Hydrogen has the widest explosive range known, the least spark energy required for ignition, and it’s invisible and odorless.
- Hydrogen burns with a very high flame temperature and while doing so, emits (flame) light which is nearly invisible to the naked eye.
@ EVan: When talking about gaseous H2, energy density by volume (MJ/L or kW/L) is the big factor – every battery tech today has gaseous H2 beat in this area by at least a factor of ten. As for “clean” energy storage, batteries are cleaner than H2, because they waste less energy going from stored energy to useable electricity.
Serge 9:56AM (8/06/2008)
The hydrogen economy will surely need technological advances like these to be commercialized as soon as possible to be competitive with electric economy. The electric economy has at least a 5 year head-start in this race.
Reply
Alex K 11:00AM (8/26/2008)
The electric economy is not plausible for cars. It is simply the hopes and dreams of high-tech liberal environmentalists who do not look further than the next year. How do you suppose that electric cars get recharged quick enough when they run out of electricity or what about a battery to store all this energy? Environmentally, electricity through wind, solar, etc. would be the best, however, we must look at all aspects including re-fueling at stations and infrastructure already in place. You must realize that the public is not going to make a 360 degree transformation to using electric cars, they will accept the idea of putting a different fuel into their car before they decide the put a current into it.
Reply
Serge 11:00AM (8/07/2008)
I think time will tell what is plausible and what is not. As I've written here (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/07/16/elon-musk-on-phevs-battery-technology-and-solar-cells/2#comments), "360 degree transformation" is not necessary and there introduction will be *gradual*. Infrastructure for the first phase already exists: redundant grid capacity + home high amp charging at night. Battery technology already exists (altairnano, a123) for quick-charge capability. Supporting quick-charge infrastructure will grow locally, then regionally as deployment of EVs grows and elements are standardized.
meme 1:01PM (8/06/2008)
Poor summary. The "Nocera Cell" still requires platinum for producing the hydrogen. The phosphate is for the oxygen. And nowhere was mentioned the total capital costs versus the throughput -- the main reason why, today, we don't commercially use the most efficient electrolysers possible much (the extremely high temperature steam systems).
Furthermore, electrolysis is one of the lesser problems of fuel cells. Hydrogen has nasty properties in many regards, and the fuel cells stacks are still incredibly inefficient. And a good chunk of that is their parasitic losses (compressors, pumps, heaters, etc), to boot.
Reply
MattKelly 1:04PM (8/06/2008)
Nocera is a genius--I've had the opportunity to speak with him at length--as the henry Dreyfuss Professor at MIT, he is much deeper in this than most, looking 20,30, 40 years in the future. This is just the first step he's talked about to making hydrogen cheaper. He has a simple solution: sunlight+water=fuel. Listen to his big idea here: http://tinyurl.com/576mr3
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 1:44PM (8/06/2008)
But, I think the poster at the top is trying to point out:
Sunlight = fuel is cheaper.
Charles Russell 10:18PM (8/15/2008)
Matt,
Do you know if Dreyfus supports using algae to manufacture liquid fuels? The process he described in the video sounds very similar to that of creating fuels with algae. With algae the conversion of sunlight and water to energy uses the natural photosynthesis process. What are your thoughts?
meme 1:46PM (8/06/2008)
"sunlight+water=fuel"
And where is sunlight most plentiful? ... *drumroll*.... Deserts!
Reply
JeffH 2:10PM (8/06/2008)
The exciting part of this research is not the production of H but the production of O2.
Nocera has discovered a cheap way to produce O2 that, when recombined with H reverts back to water in a closed loop system. Solar panels can be used to supply energy to split the water - the gases are then stored (much like a battery) and then recombined in a fuel cell at night or whenever needed.
Reply
Serge 2:56PM (8/06/2008)
Ok, so let's look at the efficiencies involved with such a "hydrogen-oxygen battery" (will use optimistic numbers).
"Charging the battery", via electrolyzer - 50%
"Discharging the battery", via fuel cell - 50%
Overall efficiency - 25%.
vs.
90% of efficiency for LiOn, NiMh or Lead-Acid battery
vs.
~100% efficiency of using Grid as battery.
BigRedFed 1:07PM (9/03/2008)
@Serge
Let me pull some numbers out of my ass to make my point.
meme 1:46PM (8/06/2008)
Oh, and while we're on the subject of hydrogen safety: this balloon contains the amount of hydrogen you'd need to power your house for an hour or two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMB2VR0087w
Reply
Bill 8:44AM (8/07/2008)
Even a small 2kW rooftop PV array would charge an EV like the Volt just fine.
Hydrogen is a dead end for vehicle or residential use.
It's not just the poor efficiency of room-temperature electrolysis, compression losses, and low efficiency fuel cells.
Capital costs for fuel cells alone are at least an order of magnitude above those of lithium-based batteries.
Reply
Bala 10:35AM (9/25/2008)
Sir,
If Platinum can be replced by your cheap cobalt/phosphate combination catalyst, in fuelcells you are going to hit the jackpot.
Maybe Noble prize is waiting. The failure of fuelcells are due to prohibitive cost of Pt. Then in many countries, biogas/ fuelcell will be used for small villages and make them self sufficient.. using their organic waste and cattle manure.
Good luck
Pl comment
Reply