Scientists develop a water splitter that runs on an ordinary AAA battery

Aug 22, 2014
Stanford scientists have developed a low-cost device that uses an ordinary AAA battery to split water into oxygen and hydrogen gas. Gas bubbles are produced from electrodes made of inexpensive nickel and iron. Credit: Mark Shwartz/Stanford Precourt Institut for Energy

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 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 a promising alternative to the gasoline engine. Fuel cell technology is essentially water splitting in reverse. A fuel cell combines stored with oxygen from the air to produce electricity, which powers the car. The only byproduct is water – unlike gasoline combustion, which emits , a greenhouse gas.

Stanford graduate student Ming Gong (left) and Professor Hongjie Dai have developed a low-cost electrolytic device that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen at room temperature. The device is powered by an ordinary AAA battery. Credit: Mark Shwartz/Stanford Precourt Institute for Energy

Earlier this year, Hyundai began leasing 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 , 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."

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

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 , 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 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."

Explore further: Chemists develop technology to produce clean-burning hydrogen fuel

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Improving the cost and efficiency of renewable energy storage

Jul 17, 2014

A major challenge in renewable energy is storage. A common approach is a reaction that splits water into oxygen and hydrogen, and uses the hydrogen as a fuel to store energy. The efficiency of 'water splitting' depends heavily ...

Chemists develop novel catalyst with two functions

Jul 09, 2014

Chemists at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum have made a decisive step towards more cost-efficient regenerative fuel cells and rechargeable metal-air batteries. They developed a new type of catalyst on the basis ...

Recommended for you

A renewable bioplastic made from squid proteins

10 hours ago

In the central Northern Pacific is an area that may be the size of Texas called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Made up of tons of floating plastic debris, the patch is killing seabirds and poisoning marine ...

User comments : 119

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

daggaz
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 22, 2014
"Splitting water to make hydrogen requires no fossil fuels and emits no greenhouse gases."

No, but it requires energy, and until a sustainable, renewable energy source is developed which can meet global demand, fossil fuels will continue to be the source of that energy. How do you think they charge the battery in the first place??
Saltpeter
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
No doubting the credentials of the scientists mentioned but the article is rubbish. At the very minimum it should mention the title of the published paper.
TwoReplies
1 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
"This is the first time anyone has used non-precious metal catalysts to split water at a voltage that low."

Um.... Copper is precious?
For my sixth grade accelerated chemistry class year end project I chose electrolysis.
I used cooper cathodes, anodes and a "D" cell battery to split a water solution into twice as much hydrogen as oxygen, IN CLASS.
I then collected, purified and reused the cooper-oxide created by the reaction, (reversing the flow of the electricity) to copper-plate a quarter. while also explaining why the polarity of oxygen and hydrogen made them collect and combine with the metal at the differently charged cathode/anode.
bertibus
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
"....unlike gasoline combustion, which emits carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas."
S/be carbon monoxide
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2014
daggaz
No, but it requires energy, and until a sustainable, renewable energy source is developed which can meet global demand, fossil fuels will continue to be the source of that energy.


The sun is not sustainable enough for you? We already have that energy source - and we are in the process of scaling up. Portugal is already at 70% renewables, and 45 other countries are at 60%. Rome was not built in a day - but the transition is well under way.

http://www.1010gl...ot-alone
domanite
2 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
Isn't this a grade-school project? What's the news here - the voltage they used?
Watebba
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
Scientists develop a water splitter that runs on an ordinary AAA battery
From above picture isn't apparent, if they used the Joule thief or some other trivial voltage multiplier circuit. It just seems, they attached the battery to electrodes and they published it as a water splitter. If true, then the Duh science reporting in physics reached the level of experimental psychology...

For now I'm willing to believe, this article is joke or it's just its editor, who confused the subject.
Watebba
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
BTW If they use the iron anode, this anode dissolves which decreases the voltage required for production of hydrogen. They cannot produce oxygen at the anode, because unprotected iron always reduces it under formation of iron2+ ions. This reaction is strongly exothermic and it decreases the voltage required for electrochemical reaction to nearly zero. Maybe the short circuit would be enough for to produce the hydrogen at cathode, because in acidic solutions the iron spontaneously dissolves under production of hydrogen. The didn't found a miracle material for cathode, they just reinvented the ""sacrificial anode"" principle.

In another words, not only their experiment looks trivial, it's interpretation even looks trollish.
Watebba
not rated yet Aug 22, 2014
"Ming discovered a nickel-metal/nickel-oxide structure that turns out to be more active than pure nickel metal or pure nickel oxide alone... they do slowly decay over time
The deterioration of electrodes in unavoidable in this arrangement, because the iron anode dissolves and the nickel cathode gets reduced into nickel. It's difficult to believe, that under conditions of reaction the nickel-oxide wouldn't be reduced into nickel metal. Such a reaction would proceed more willingly, than the evolution of free hydrogen from water due to hydrogen overvoltage.
betterexists
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
For those that are keen on getting a whiff of H2.....Useful, Yes!
Batteries are made using Energy....They do not give up more energy than they have, probably. Who knows until everything is quantified!
Anyhow a Climb of Step up the Staircase to reach the upper floor!
betterexists
1 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2014
BTW If they use the iron anode, this anode dissolves which decreases the voltage required for production of hydrogen. They cannot produce oxygen at the anode, because unprotected iron always reduces it under formation of iron2+ ions. This reaction is strongly exothermic and it decreases the voltage required for electrochemical reaction to nearly zero. Maybe the short circuit would be enough for to produce the hydrogen at cathode, because in acidic solutions the iron spontaneously dissolves under production of hydrogen. The didn't found a miracle material for cathode, they just reinvented the "http://chemwiki.u...l_Anode" principle.

In another words, not only their experiment looks trivial, it's interpretation even looks trollish.

May be they can use a Very long Anode?
Iron is cheap stuff.
BSD
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
"Splitting water to make hydrogen requires no fossil fuels and emits no greenhouse gases."

No, but it requires energy, and until a sustainable, renewable energy source is developed which can meet global demand, fossil fuels will continue to be the source of that energy. How do you think they charge the battery in the first place??


With a solar panel?
betterexists
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
BTW If they use the iron anode, this anode dissolves which decreases the voltage required for production of hydrogen. They cannot produce oxygen at the anode, because unprotected iron always reduces it under formation of iron2+ ions. This reaction is strongly exothermic and it decreases.
@Watebba

Since Water is also cheap, they can keep draining water & adding fresh water simultaneously.
Only Problem is with Nickel.
Iron anode can keep sliding down as it dissolves at the bottom!
betterexists
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
@Watebba
In these Robotic Automation days, they can always signal the old cathode to snap out of the container & a new one to get into the circuit!
betterexists
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
May be Tiny Wind turbines at the tail pipes of the Autos?
Probably, production of a lot of noise, problem with debri does not allow that.
They still are not that good in capturing heat of the engines, it seems.
betterexists
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
"....unlike gasoline combustion, which emits carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas."
S/be carbon monoxide

Carbon Monoxide is Poisonous; C02 is involved in Global Warming.
betterexists
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
daggaz
No, but it requires energy, and until a sustainable, renewable energy source is developed which can meet global demand, fossil fuels will continue to be the source of that energy.


The sun is not sustainable enough for you? We already have that energy source - and we are in the process of scaling up. Portugal is already at 70% renewables, and 45 other countries are at 60%. Rome was not built in a day - but the transition is well under way.

http://www.1010gl...ot-alone

HOW do you get Sun Into Auto?
It seems they want to use for Bikes, Vacuum Cleaners, Lawn Mowers etc.,
But how much Water is needed, I don't know!
Each Research Field is INDEPENDENT.
Landrew
4 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
I may be missing something, but this "discovery" looks like little more than the standard high-school science lab demonstration that has been conducted for over a hundred years in schools.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
The sun is not sustainable enough for you? We already have that energy source - and we are in the process of scaling up.


And it's going to cost 14 trillion, good luck with that.

Portugal is already at 70% renewables,


This is false...

http://en.wikiped...Portugal

...and even if it wasn't it's comparing apples and oranges.

and 45 other countries are at 60%.


I'd like to see an unbiased governmental source on that.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
So you've got a AAA battery that makes hydrogen.

Where do you get the energy to charge the battery, and how much do you lose in the process?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
Hmmm. More research on nickel and H2 again. The combination could possibly produce its own power for catalysis and thereby, its own fuel.

"Rossi and Focardi said the [ecat] worked by infusing heated hydrogen into nickel powder, transmuting it into copper and producing heat"
Where do you get the energy to charge the battery, and how much do you lose in the process?
Uh most people use a wall outlet you troll.
greenerjohn
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2014
What I find exciting about the idea of an efficient way to use electrolysis to store hydrogen for a complete stand alone system for a household. Imagine enough high efficiency solar cells on the roof that make not only enough electricity to run your house during the day, but also produces hydrogen for two other uses (at least) - fill up your car with hydrogen (if it is a fuel cell car) and use the hydrogen to run a fuel cell for night time electrical use. Complete freedom from the electric & gas company as well as freedom from the oil industries $4 a gallon gasoline. I know the economics are not there yet, but damn we are getting a lot closer! Can you imagine how much our economy could take off if the average household was saving around $500 a month in energy costs? If new home builders incorporated a complete system in the house, then for say an extra $100 a month on the mortgage you are energy independent.....
betterexists
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
"The researchers also plan to develop a water splitter than runs on electricity produced by solar energy"
Yeah. Fish Water tank inside each Window facing the Sun!
Fish would love a little bit of shock along with O2.
BSD
3 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
So you've got a AAA battery that makes hydrogen.

Where do you get the energy to charge the battery, and how much do you lose in the process?


With a solar panel?
summerhike
5 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
Excellent comments, already posted, most notably, what is the return on energy used? Or, how much energy put in, to get x amount of energy out? Efficiency. All these articles leave out critical data, such as, just how long will the battery last and what volume of hydrogen does it produce and at what rate? They hint at how long the leads last, days it seems but hint that they may get them to go months, now? I love the advancement and don't mean to knock this achievement, at all. I just want to know how close or far this breakthrough is until it could provide a cheap large scale way of making us a fuel cell vehicle society. If it can, at all? What are the hurdles, still? etc...
betterexists
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
"The researchers also plan to develop a water splitter than runs on electricity produced by solar energy"
Yeah. Fish Water tank inside each Window facing the Sun!
Fish would love a little bit of shock along with O2.

Fish Tank may be made to go down when you want to look outside the window. Funny!
leega53
not rated yet Aug 22, 2014
me and the neighbor made a hydrogen cell using stainless steel plates. Put together like a lead acid battery. Added a catalysis like baking soda for better conduction through plain water with dc current being applied from a battery charger. It fizzed pretty good , We filled a plastic baggy with some of the gas produced and lit it off. Bang! Just like an M80 . Ran the gas through a separator to separate the gas from the source so as not to blow up the cell with a spark. Very quick explosion even with out compression like in an engine.
jalmy
3 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
All you nay-sayer negative attitude people are stupid. Try actually READING the article. First of all there are two main points and improvements with this catalyst. One is that it can run on lower voltages. Why does this matter? Because then it gets into the realm of smaller solar panels and small solar arrays without needing expensive/lossy hardware to up the voltage. Two, it uses cheap metals. Why does this matter? Because when the anodes wear out you just put a new one in for low cost. Making operating costs cheap. Now if you were able to produce enough hydrogen to run your own vehicle using a couple of off the shelf solar panels on your roof. Would that be valuable? Considering the price of fuel and the cost of burning fossil fuels. The only negative thing that holds true about this article is the fact that there isn't much by way of numbers in it. Like some other posters mentioned conversion inefficiencies and time tables, quantity/volumes would be nice.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
What I find exciting about the idea of an efficient way to use electrolysis to store hydrogen for a complete stand alone system for a household. Imagine enough high efficiency solar cells on the roof that make not only enough electricity to run your house during the day, but also produces hydrogen for two other uses (at least) - fill up your car with hydrogen (if it is a fuel cell car) and use the hydrogen to run a fuel cell for night time electrical use. Complete freedom from the electric & gas company as well as freedom from the oil industries $4 a gallon gasoline. I know the economics are not there yet, but damn we are getting a lot closer! Can you imagine how much our economy could take off if the average household was saving around $500 a month in energy costs? If new home builders incorporated a complete system in the house, then for say an extra $100 a month on the mortgage you are energy independent.....

Unfortunately, capitalism does not allow things to work thataway.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
me and the neighbor made a hydrogen cell using stainless steel plates. Put together like a lead acid battery. Added a catalysis like baking soda for better conduction through plain water with dc current being applied from a battery charger. It fizzed pretty good , We filled a plastic baggy with some of the gas produced and lit it off. Bang! Just like an M80 . Ran the gas through a separator to separate the gas from the source so as not to blow up the cell with a spark. Very quick explosion even with out compression like in an engine.

Jammin at Joe's garage...:-)
Ya gotta love backyard experiments! It may not qualify as real science, but, dammit - it's fun!
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
So you've got a AAA battery that makes hydrogen.

Where do you get the energy to charge the battery, and how much do you lose in the process?


With a solar panel?


Why not just skip the middle man then? The only way this makes economic sense is that it increases energy density and even THEN only if the loss in energy conversion is within feasible limits.
jalmy
1 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2014
Unfortunately, capitalism does not allow things to work that way.


Sorry but capitalism doesn't have a choice in the matter. If the tech. is so easy that the average Joe can buy off-the-shelf components and build a cheap machine capable of electrolysis of water in sufficient volume to sustain his needs.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
Unfortunately, capitalism does not allow things to work that way.


Sorry but capitalism doesn't have a choice in the matter. If the tech. is so easy that the average Joe can buy off-the-shelf components and build a cheap machine capable of electrolysis of water in sufficient volume to sustain his needs.


The problem here is that you first need power for the electrolysis, and unless the first and second laws of thermodynamics have been suspended you end up with less power in the hydrogen than the electricity used to split the water (at least as far as I can see, unless maybe you're using fusion)...

None of that has anything to do with capitalism, and everything to do with common sense, basic economics, and physics...
SoylentGrin
4 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
So you've got a AAA battery that makes hydrogen.

Where do you get the energy to charge the battery, and how much do you lose in the process?


With a solar panel?


Why not just skip the middle man then? The only way this makes economic sense is...


Solar isn't 24/7. It is more efficient in some areas than others. So, you use it to split out hydrogen, storing the solar energy, then ship the hydrogen cells/gas/hydride around the same way fuel is shipped around from where it's refined to where it's burned. Only in this case, burning it results in H2O instead of CO2 and CO.

People tend to forget that fossil fuels are also stored solar energy. Just sunlight from a long time ago.
jalmy
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014

The problem here is that you first need power for the electrolysis, and unless the first and second laws of thermodynamics have been suspended you end up with less power in the hydrogen than the electricity used to split the water (at least as far as I can see, unless maybe you're using fusion)...

None of that has anything to do with capitalism, and everything to do with common sense, basic economics, and physics...


WTF are you talking about. If you are using solar panels to produce your electricity what do you care how much energy it takes? The only thing that matters is. How long it takes to produce what you need. And how expensive it is. The idea is to take energy you can't store or use in your gas tank, like sun light. And turn it into something you can use like a fuel cell. If you can do this for less or even the same cost as gasoline costs and have a clean zero carbon energy cycle it's worth it.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
Solar isn't 24/7. It is more efficient in some areas than others. So, you use it to split out hydrogen, storing the solar energy, then ship the hydrogen cells/gas/hydride around the same way fuel is shipped around from where it's refined to where it's burned. Only in this case, burning it results in H2O instead of CO2 and CO.


Well I'd have to see the numbers but I believe it's simply more economical to store the energy in batteries which are 50-85% efficient and hydrogen is about 20-45% efficient.

http://en.wikiped...Hydrogen

So we're back to the middle man argument again. The only thing that makes sense about hydrogen is energy densities (ie using it for planes etc.) Unless you have numbers to the contrary.

People tend to forget that fossil fuels are also stored solar energy. Just sunlight from a long time ago.


People also tend to forget than when you convert energy for storage you lose some, and sometimes a lot.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
WTF are you talking about.


Take a deep breath...then take another one.

If you are using solar panels to produce your electricity what do you care how much energy it takes?


Because you can only produce a finite amount of energy with them and they are incredibly expensive to install, so anyone is going to be concerned with how much energy they produce vs. how much they're using.

The only thing that matters is. How long it takes to produce what you need.


And that answers your above question for you. You just stated that time is a factor. Well if true then so is capacity because the total energy you produce is a product of time and output (read solar radiance/capacity)....

And how expensive it is.


Which is again a function of how much energy you have, it's the other side of the equation I explained above. There is also intermittency which for solar is about 25% efficiency.

(cont)
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
The idea is to take energy you can't store or use in your gas tank, like sun light. And turn it into something you can use like a fuel cell. If you can do this for less or even the same cost as gasoline costs and have a clean zero carbon energy cycle it's worth it.


IF you can do it absolutely. With electrolysis we aren't even in the same city much less the same ball park. Unless these people have some game changing numbers, which aren't posted here. I'd have a hard time seeing how they'd be THAT game changing though because as much as we'd like to not use gasoline....it has amazing energy density and is easily stored...
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
Unfortunately, capitalism does not allow things to work that way.


Sorry but capitalism doesn't have a choice in the matter. If the tech. is so easy that the average Joe can buy off-the-shelf components and build a cheap machine capable of electrolysis of water in sufficient volume to sustain his needs.

Society and life keep most of us too busy (broke) to take the time to do that. Someone will just build a massive amount of them and massively overcharge for it....
I'm a cynic at heart...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
Take a deep breath...then take another one.
Youve got to understand (but probably wont) that sometimes you say things that are so stupid that people naturally get pissed off. You really should try to be more tolerant. And a lot less stupid. For instance
So you've got a AAA battery that makes hydrogen.

Where do you get the energy to charge the battery, and how much do you lose in the process?
-WTF makes you think that they need a battery to make this process work? They were using the example of a battery to indicate the relative efficiency of the catalyst, not the preferred method of powering it.

My god youre dumb.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
"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."

But what if I only have AA batteries?
Toiea
1 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2014
You should wait and pay for another research - this is the memo of the whole story.
Toiea
1 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2014
BTW If you would use less noble metal at the place of iron anode (for example the zinc), you wouldn't even need any battery at all - the simple shortcut wire would be enough for generation of hydrogen at the counterelectrode. And if you would use for example the magnesium, you could occasionally power LED and/or charge your battery instead of discharge it. The usage of battery therefore says anything about effectiveness of the published process, until no inert anode is used in the same way, like during industrial electrolysis of water.
Nik_2213
1 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2014
D'uh, it's a lonnng time since I did any DIY electrochemistry, but I can see a couple of problems with the 'toy-scale' set-up they've used.

First, they're going to get oxidation of one electrode, because it isn't 'inert'.

Second, pure water is a remarkably good insulator. They must have an electrolyte, or it just won't work.

Third, they're going to get a tank full of yucky water, which will require appropriate clean-up and disposal.

Fourth, how do the cell voltage and current change as the electrodes 'gas' ? Remember, those form both a wet-cell battery and an inefficient fuel-cell generator...

As it stands, this widget seems too simplified to scale well. As usual with such 'break-throughs', the devil is in the engineering detail...
bluehigh
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
My god youre dumb
- Otto

Your God, Otto?

Ok, now I'm really confused.
betterexists
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
@Nik_2213 They can SLOW the drainage of water from the bottom & INCREASE the flow of water into it....OF COURSE, MAKING SURE THAT IT DOES NOT OVERFLOW. That reduces water contamination....Periodically, they can drain almost all water while adding copious amounts of water from the water into the container....so that water level does not go down but will remain almost fresh!
They can automate such a regulatory process after paying attention to opimization.
Toiea
1.5 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2014
This novel structure favors hydrogen electrocatalysis, but we still don't fully understand the science behind it
Many catalytic processes are based on intermediate which reacts smoothly with both reactants. For example, when you're a bashful boy and you still want to communicate with some girl, you can start to interact with a good friend of both of you (or animal pet of her). So it may be possible, that both the nickel, both the nickel oxide evolves the hydrogen with difficulty, but it gets reduced into intermediate compound, which subsequently reacts with water smoothly under formation of hydrogen. The nickel is known by formation of dark suboxide which may be quite reactive in contact with water. As the evidence of this mechanism would serve the narrow interval of pH in which the catalytic effect would manifest - the nickel suboxides are known to be only stable in this interval.
Bob Osaka
not rated yet Aug 23, 2014
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. There can never be a scarcity or a centralized means to control extraction processes. The material is incompatible with an economy which further enriches the wealthy while impoverishing the lower classes. The suppression of the hydrogen economy will continue, as some commenters have previously stated this is not new technology albeit using cheaper oxides.
Gravity fed turbines, hydroelectric power plants are much more efficient than the variations of "fire based" electric generation, coal,oil, natural gas, nuclear fission. The greatest and nearest source of electromagnetic power generation is the outer core of the Earth itself. There is more electromagnetic-electrostatic energy in the Earth's atmosphere than possibly ever can be produced by human built power plants. What is lacking is the understanding, will and imagination to reach up and use it. Or it could be earlier suppressed technology incompatible with the economy.
Toiea
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
the suppression of the hydrogen economy will continue
The hydrogen economy is not suppressed, the problem just is, we are running low energy and the hydrogen production requires lotta energy. It's also nonsensical to research various transportation methods of hydrogen in form of expensive hydrides, when the cheapest hydrides (carbon hydrides aka the gasoline) proved their effectiveness already.
xstos
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
"Splitting water to make hydrogen requires no fossil fuels and emits no greenhouse gases."

No, but it requires energy, and until a sustainable, renewable energy source is developed which can meet global demand, fossil fuels will continue to be the source of that energy. How do you think they charge the battery in the first place??


Nuclear.
artisticmischief
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
I have been working on this problem since the '70s but have not been able to get away from precious metal electrodes. I would like to compare notes and combine with your efforts if our design ideas can be compatible. artisticmischief@yahoo.com E-mail Joe. Hydrogen is the future fuel, but let us not forget the Hindenburg.
grondilu
5 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2014
"Splitting water to make hydrogen requires no fossil fuels and emits no greenhouse gases."

No, but it requires energy, and until a sustainable, renewable energy source is developed which can meet global demand, fossil fuels will continue to be the source of that energy.


It's a bit more complex than that. One problem with renewable energy is that it is intermittent, but if a simple and cheap way of splitting water is found, then energy can be efficiently stored and the time availability of renewable energies can be smoothed out.
Baseline
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
Where is the troll that will come in here and say that all you have to do to make the hydrogen economy a reality is attach a snorkel to your engine intake and it will suck the hydrogen out of the dense aether. Replace the fuel injectors with two ice cubes and BAM! you got cold fusion and can drive for thousands of miles?
SteveGinGTO
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Well, I didn't see anybody address this in earlier comments:

So what that a AA battery can separate hydrogen and oxygen? Of COURSE it can - it's electricity, folks. The question isn't that it CAN, the only real question is HOW MUCH Hydrogen one battery produces.

Those that point out that this is like a junior high science project are correct. This experiment has probably already been done thousands of times in science fairs.

This science journalist should have checked to see how MUCH hydrogen was produced, and should have put that in the article. There are lots of low-energy-density ways of producing various energy-connected phenomena. But if their total energy output isn't squat, it doesn't matter - the thing won't be some salvation of green energy. Low energy density or low output means a FAIL.

And if the whole thing depends on batteries, scratch it, because it's the batteries that are the big problem in electric cars. A non story.
strangedays
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
@Otto - and Modernmystic
Youve got to understand (but probably wont) that sometimes you say things that are so stupid that people naturally get pissed off. You really should try to be more tolerant. And a lot less stupid


Otto was very blunt - but I have to say that I concur. Modernmystic - have you noticed how you get into spats with a lot of people - often ending in you getting self righteous - and picking up your ball and leaving. It seems that you are prone to saying things that are patently false, and then having emotional arguments over the falsehood.

Example - I stated that Portugal got 70% of its power from renewables. You said that was false - and provided yet another wiki reference. If you check your wiki reference - it is based on 2 newspaper articles. The 70% number was based on data from the Portugese grid operator. But really the big question is - why start a spat over that %? You appear to have an agenda - and to want to start fights over your agenda.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
This science journalist should have checked to see how MUCH hydrogen was produced, and should have put that in the article.
These articles are mostly reprints of press releases. You were given links at the bottom of the above article to lead you to sources for more info. Additionally you can drop excerpts into google to read the source.

Or you can sit on your thumbs and whine like a noob and pretend you're being intelligent.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2014
Hydrogen as a gas at atmospheric pressure & room temperature, even if free, would still be too expensive to use. Some of the several problems with this source hydrogen are:

1. It has very low energy density some ~9 WHrs/litre vs petrol of some ~9000WHrs/litre
2. It has a very wide range of ignitable mixture, ie A small leak can result in an explosion.
3. It is expensive to stop it leaking out of containers & fittings as its the smallest
4. It tends to stick to surfaces if released into the air & for long periods, see 2 & 3 above
5. It is absorbed into some metals causing embrittlement, lowering period of utility
6. It is a green house gas

It should be noted there is more hydrogen in a litre of petrol than in a litre of liquid hydrogen !

The world already has a liquid fuel infrastructure, it is therefore sensible to choose a liquid fuel preferably derived from non-fossil fuel sources which does not increase CO2 in the atmosphere, so called carbon neutrality makes a lot of sense.
Straw_Cat
5 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2014
They are getting way more bubbles using a single 1 1/2 V AAA battery than I did using a 9 volt one and copper wires. WAY more. (Try it at home folks. )
The new catalyst looks like the start of a new, winning path.

Hopefully a better nickle oxide-based catalyst will be arrived at using magnetite along with the nickle oxides... I know where to get a big supply of that mineral. :-)
Toiea
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
Replace the fuel injectors with two ice cubes and BAM! you got cold fusion and can drive for thousands of miles?
Many experiments of last time are simply too interesting for not being replicated. For in these Japanese experiments (which were already replicated at Sweden btw) the slightly accelerated deuterons were shotted into molten lithium and it generated a lotta heat & strong stream of alpha particles. Even more interesting is, just the slight increase of temperature inhibited this nuclear reaction by many orders. Why some highly energetic reaction requires the molten lithium and not the solid one? It shouldn't matter at all. And why it does need it at exact temperature? This is what I consider interesting in contemporary physics, not some Higgs boson stuffs. But you can never read about it at PO.
Toiea
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
Of course, the people who never visited the lenr-canr.org archive with its thousands of publications about it are living in alternative reality. They can never imagine, what is lurking behind the corner and every cold fusion experiment looks like the suspicious fringe physics for them. Weren't they already disproved before many years, as the Wikipedia article and mainstream media are claiming? They simply have no background for their intuition. If our ancestors would never hear about electrons and other electricity stuffs, they would also believe firmly, that the things like the personal computers, lasers and televisions aren't even possible. Push a button and BAM!: moving pictures from the other side of planet across thousands of miles will emerge! Isn't it just plain crazy? Their common life experience would tell them, such a thing MUST be a plain BS in the same way, like the opponents of cold fusion argue by now.
AndyITSNL
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
So how many AA cells are needed to produce sufficient fuel for a 300 mile journey in a family sized car with typical load in the car? Compare the carbon footprint to that of a modern fuel efficient car and the outcome will not be significantly different iff all aspects of the production of the energy source and its eventual disposal and neutralization of the waste products (including that carbon footprint) taken into account. I bet that the good old fashioned combustion engine will come out on top. This technology is not new, electrolysis using the same materials has been around for a very long time. This i snot a solution it is a demonstration of a principle that is not the solution.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Aug 25, 2014
So how many AA cells are needed to produce sufficient fuel for a 300 mile journey in a family sized car with typical load in the car?

The point is not the size of the battery. The point are the 1.5 volts.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
AndyITSNL reminded me of the Hydrogen bus trial in Perth, Western Australia some years ago
So how many AA cells are needed to produce sufficient fuel for a 300 mile journey in a family sized car with typical load in the car?
Funny you say :-)

Government commissioned 2 fuel cell buses to run hydrogen. The local BP refinery must have been rubbing their hands with glee as the H2 they used to flair off was collected & sold at a good profit.

The buses (~$3M) ran for 80Kms on one fill, nice to see steam out the exhaust but they operated way below par in comparison with CNG buses now far more common - ie No diesel smells :-)

The thing is, someone worked out it would be cheaper to swap out the hydrogen tanks with an array of only a few thousand alkaline battery cells to run the motors with no need for expensive fuel cells & less CO2 re manufacture of batteries as well.

BP were very sad when the trial stopped :-(

Government missed chance to check first before wasting our tax dollars !
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
Otto was very blunt - but I have to say that I concur. Modernmystic - have you noticed how you get into spats with a lot of people - often ending in you getting self righteous - and picking up your ball and leaving.


If people get emotional and defensive I can't help that. That's about you....isn't it?

Example - I stated that Portugal got 70% of its power from renewables. You said that was false - and provided yet another wiki reference. If you check your wiki reference - it is based on 2 newspaper articles.


According to the IEA Portugal produced 24.218 billion kWh from renewables in 2011

http://www.eia.go...nit=BKWH

out of a total 48.584 Billion kWh consumed.

http://www.eia.go...nit=BKWH

Which is about 50% if you have newer numbers from a government source post them :)

(cont)
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
I think it's you who get emotional, and you who have an agenda. I didn't get in a spat, you did. If Portugal, and its relatively extremely small grid are able to produce 70% of their power from renewables then more power to them. I don't appreciate false information being spread though, that's all. 70% sounded false, I checked it, and it is. It's just that simple.

All the rest of this is you and Otto having axes to grind. Grind away if it makes you happy, honestly and no sarcasm intended.
strangedays
5 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
If people get emotional and defensive I can't help that. That's about you....isn't it?


Sure - and if you get emotional - then that is about you - correct? So - I think Otto and I are suggesting that you look at your part in pushing up the emotional level. Maybe not being so willing to say wrong things - would lower the tension.

So - on to the Portugal issue.

I already posted a link - that was based on data from the Portugal grid operator. That information is all over the internet - just google 'Portugal gets 70% of its energy from renewables' Here is the first hit

http://thinkprogr...-months/
strangedays
5 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
I think it's you who get emotional, and you who have an agenda.


Absolutely correct - I do get emotional, and I do have an agenda. My agenda is the progress of the human race - through science and technology. I get upset when I see false information - that is impeding our progress. Sometimes I get it wrong - and have to apologize - my passion gets ahead of me.

On the Portugal issue - I think my information was sound - and supported by the data. You jumped in - and in line with what I see as an anti renewable bent - presented out of date information - and you continue to dig in.

Am I right in assessing that you also get emotional?
strangedays
5 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
I don't appreciate false information being spread though, that's all. 70% sounded false, I checked it, and it is. It's just that simple.


But it is you who was posting false information. Think about that in the light of your first sentence above. Wiki is often out of date - and in my experience it is important to look at the source of the data being presented on Wiki.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
WTF makes you think that they need a battery to make this process work? They were using the example of a battery to indicate the relative efficiency of the catalyst, not the preferred method of powering it.


And what is that efficiency? Did you see it listed. THAT was my whole point Otto. It's never made economical sense to electrolyze hydrogen from water. That's the problem with not actually understanding the subject matter and just taking what the authorities tell you at face value. This is probably a worthless process even with the increased efficiencies otherwise it would be all over the major networks right now. I OTOH questioned the the fact that the ONLY crucial piece of information from the article was missing...and I wasn't the only one. You completely missed it because you don't discuss, you accept.

My god youre dumb.


And you're very immature and insecure, thanks for your opinion of me Otto :)
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014


Am I right in assessing that you also get emotional?


Generally not about this stuff....family stuff sure....

Please post your numbers, from a credible source. I'd be very happy to see them. That's the only thing I really have to say on the matter at this point. If you have newer numbers from a government source then post them. You don't need to convince me, but if you want to that's all it will take.
strangedays
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
Please post your numbers, from a credible source.


Do you see that you play games? - and that can be very frustrating for someone trying to participate in the online comments. I posted information that supported my assertion - with a link. The article specified where the information was from (Portugal's grid operator REN). It was very simple for me to find the REN website - and search for their press release. Here is the link - http://www.ren.pt...imestre/

You challenged my information - and supplied a wiki link - that was based on out of date - news articles - not government data.

My problem is with people throwing around false information (which I do sometimes - the internet can be tricky) - and then doing things like demand that I produce government data - when that is not a standard that you were willing to meet.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
Do you see that you play games? - and that can be very frustrating for someone trying to participate in the online comments.


I can see how being forced to back up your claims can be frustrating. I don't call my providing government numbers from the EIA playing games. I call you're failure to provide any credible source either being, naive, ignorant, or intentionally dishonest.

You should probably diversify your sources a bit from renewables biased websites....

Wiki is a widely accepted source. You didn't like it, so I provided the latest government figures I could find. They don't bear out your claim.

Again, post credible numbers that show 70% and you've won me over. It shouldn't be difficult if true.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
This is from a brochure from your posted source translated into English via Google...

http://www.ren.pt...s_acoes/

That page, 2013 brochure

58.3% is what I think the wiki originally said...which is pretty close to your own sources numbers.

"In 2013 there have been particularly favorable conditions for
renewable generation, with producibility index of 1.17 (17% above
average) in hydroelectric and 1.18 (18% above average) in
windfarms. In the case of wind power, with 11 months above the average,
treated even the most favorable regime always checked in
national system. Under these conditions, the production of renewable origin
reached 57% of consumption, compared to 37% a year earlier, values
registered in very unfavorable hydrological conditions.
The hydro plants fueled 27% of consumption while the wind
fueled 24%, the 5% biomass plants and photovoltaic 1%."
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
@ModernMystic
Your link translates to:-
https://translate...;act=url

Which doesnt say much either way :-(

However, I am curious what is so objectionable to you about this link ?
http://thinkprogr...-months/

Is it the fact its a claim that it was the network operator, since you are interested obviously pursuing provenance what does the network operator indicate on their admin reports ?

What are you so keen to point out prove, minor difference re numbers that are obviously a dynamic or something deeper & far more important ?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
You have to click on the brochure Mike, at the bottom of the page (a link to a pdf. file with 2013 numbers). Like I said....

And what I find objectionable about think progress is probably what you'd find objectionable about the CEI or the Rand corp...

My guess is neither of us finds anything objectionable about the numbers in the link strange himself provided or from the US government. That's the sole reason I use those.

What are you so keen to point out prove, minor difference re numbers that are obviously a dynamic or something deeper & far more important ?


Nothing other than accuracy, I could ask you two the same question. You're right here beside me in this ;)
strangedays
5 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
That page, 2013 brochure


So modern - you are willing to accept the information from that organisaton REN (that is Portugal's grid operator). The first link that I posted - told you where the data was from - and you could have looked it up. Certainly no requirement on you to do that - but IF you are going to challenge the data - then it does become your responsibility to dig deeper. Now - that same organization - on the same web site - there is a press release that I linked to - stating that in the 1st quarer 2014 - 70% of Portugal's power was from renewables.

Yes - you have dug yourself in a hole - and are now going to do anything you can to prove your point - even though you are wrong. Understand that this is frustrating - in an environment in which there is a great deal of trolling - and deliberate misinformation - designed to denigrate renewables.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
Modernmystic claimed
And what I find objectionable about think progress is probably what you'd find objectionable about the CEI or the Rand corp.
Which is the sort of pinged irrelevancy that so many trolls attempt to diverge, I can therefore see strangedays frustration, you have irked me before occasionally with such modus operandi...

Are you not aware that strangedays posted the link to the 70% earlier on & you ignored it, surely it was 'on topic' re your claim of accuracy, yet you didn't address it.

To claim wiki is accepted when its out of date is a bit trite...

Sure accuracy is important but, we should all be aware of means people use to obfuscate if at least because they are defensive and don't want to appear that they have feet of clay, we all do, just get on with it - the more important issue is clearly centered around the article.

I makes absolute sense to shift to renewables but, hydrogen as a storage/transport medium is highly problematic, liquid fuels much easier.
Toiea
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
You can utilize the hydrogen in form of liquid hydrides with ease: just buy the gasoline.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
I think a point missed here is that at these voltages, The hydrogen fuel cell can be used to recharge your batteries AND operate the splitter - in your car. Charge 'em up once at a solar array and -
quit taking it all apart - put it all together...
sheesh...

it's usually the case that, the sum is greater than the constituent parts...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
And what is that efficiency? Did you see it listed. THAT was my whole point Otto
Ahaahaaaa no you liar your whole point was
So you've got a AAA battery that makes hydrogen.

Where do you get the energy to charge the battery, and how much do you lose in the process?
-thinking that you needed a fucking BATTERY to make the process work. How do you think you can lie about what you post IN THE SAME THREAD and get away with it? You think that people here are as dumb as you?
I can see how being forced to back up your claims can be frustrating. I don't call my providing government numbers from the EIA playing games
No according to you its 'appeal to authority'. And I suppose you find all the references at the end of each wiki article as 'appeal to authority' dont you?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2014
So modern - you are willing to accept the information from that organisaton REN (that is Portugal's grid operator). The first link that I posted - told you where the data was from - and you could have looked it up.


I did,, the numbers say 57%.

stating that in the 1st quarer 2014 - 70% of Portugal's power was from renewables.


Do you suppose there's a reason they figure those numbers yearly instead of quarterly? Their capacity hasn't gone up 13% the first quarter of this year...the wind probably blew more. Does that mean they're actually going to be able to realistically produce at 70%? Why not just forget the rest of this year and post their 2014 numbers now? Would there be a reason for not doing that? If so then what EXACTLY is your point?

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2014
Which is the sort of pinged irrelevancy that so many trolls attempt to diverge, I can therefore see strangedays frustration, you have irked me before occasionally with such modus operandi...


So when you call someone out for quoting information from a global warming skeptic site you're being "irrelevant", and attempting to diverge? Be clear I'll be pointing that out to you from here on out. Try not to be "irked" when I do.

Are you not aware that strangedays posted the link to the 70% earlier on & you ignored it, surely it was 'on topic' re your claim of accuracy, yet you didn't address it.


I was aware they were talking about the first quarter of the year. I'd say that the 2013 numbers are the most recent, accurate, and relevant...unless they have a crystal ball.

To claim wiki is accepted when its out of date is a bit trite...


But claiming to know the future isn't...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2014
Sure accuracy is important but, we should all be aware of means people use to obfuscate if at least because they are defensive and don't want to appear that they have feet of clay, we all do, just get on with it - the more important issue is clearly centered around the article.


I didn't bring that up here. Strange did. Please direct those comments to him. And if accuracy is important then I think any site that claims an entire country has improved it's renewable output by 15 odd percent because it had a "good first quarter" should be off the list...neh?

I makes absolute sense to shift to renewables but, hydrogen as a storage/transport medium is highly problematic, liquid fuels much easier.


I think if you can make it work like Portugal does a shift to wind makes sense too as long as you can figure out the intermittency and storage problems and I also agree hydrogen isn't the answer.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2014
So you've got a AAA battery that makes hydrogen.


No, but you have to have electricity. If the point is to do it efficiently then it makes no sense to do it from a battery, or a nuclear reactor, or anything in between because electrolysis isn't efficient.

-thinking that you needed a fucking BATTERY to make the process work.


I never said that Otto, that's you putting words in my mouth again.

How do you think you can lie about what you post IN THE SAME THREAD and get away with it?


How do you think you can lie about what I said in the same thread? Show me where I said "you need a battery to make this work".

No according to you its 'appeal to authority'. And I suppose you find all the references at the end of each wiki article as 'appeal to authority' dont you?


No it isn't. The fact that you'd use an example like that proves you don't understand the fallacy.
jalmy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2014
Come on girls your both ugly. You can stop now. Having said that Modernmystic you do miss the point a lot. Don't focus so much on the minutia, try to use your brain for more than looking up facts. Try to actually understand what people are saying, and then......think about it. And then, only then. When you come up with a well thought out argument and opinion. You can keep your stupid opinion to yourself.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2014
Come on girls your both ugly. You can stop now. Having said that Modernmystic you do miss the point a lot. Don't focus so much on the minutia, try to use your brain for more than looking up facts. Try to actually understand what people are saying, and then......think about it. And then, only then. When you come up with a well thought out argument and opinion. You can keep your stupid opinion to yourself


Thanks for your opinion on the matter. Since I don't know you at all it's difficult to evaluate how much weight should be lent to it. However judging by the quality of your last statement I'm quite secure in dismissing it and anything further from you entirely. I'd guess you don't agree with me often, therefore it must be that I "miss the point" and have "stupid opinions".

You can buy a mirror and talk to it alternatively. You won't be challenged in the least. You'll get to feel self righteous and superior all the time and you can save money on your Internet bill to boot
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2014
How do you think you can lie about what I said in the same thread? Show me where I said "you need a battery to make this work"
mm plays his little games again. You said:

So you've got a AAA battery that makes hydrogen.

Where do you get the energy to charge the battery, and how much do you lose in the process?
-Correct?
No it isn't. The fact that you'd use an example like that proves you don't understand the fallacy.
?? You appeal to the authority of the US govt and imply that their figures must be correct because of who they are. But when others use similar such authorities with similar such data you whine 'appeal to authority'.
strangedays
5 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2014
@Modernmystic
Do you suppose there's a reason they figure those numbers yearly instead of quarterly?


Now you move the goal post. First my source is not good enough - even though it references information from the grid operator in Portugal. Then you post your own reference - which is a Wiki reference - based on 2 news articles. Now my information is not good enough - because it is only 3 months of data.

But let's cut to the quick. My original reference was solid - it was based on information from the grid operator in Portugal - and stipulated accurately - that Portugal supplied 70% of it's grid power from renewables.

But really cut to the quick. Why is it a big deal to you to go after this data? Are you pushing an agenda? So what if you want to look at the last 3 months (70%), or 2013 (58%). Either one is a very impressive number. Portugal is expanding it's renewable energy portfolio - so it is a very good assumption that the percentages will continue to go up.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2014
So you've got a AAA battery that makes hydrogen.

Where do you get the energy to charge the battery, and how much do you lose in the process?
-Correct?


Correct, and nowhere did I say you HAD to have one to make hydrogen. I said you've got an AAA battery that makes hydrogen, and then in the VERY next sentence pointed out it makes no sense to use batteries because the electricity has to come from somewhere. Your inability to understand and/or your propensity to purposefully misunderstand just so you can yell at someone doesn't change what I said Otto :)

You appeal to the authority of the US govt .... But when others use similar such authorities with similar such data you whine 'appeal to authority'.


Were that the simple case we'd both be appealing to authority. The point here isn't interpretation of the data but the veracity of the data, a subtle point you'll never grasp because you worship authority.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2014
Now you move the goal post. First my source is not good enough - even though it references information from the grid operator in Portugal.


No you're moving the goal post, your source gives 57% as the latest data.

because it is only 3 months of data.


Why do we dismiss global warming deniers based on three months of temperature data Strange? Is that concept lost on you?

But let's cut to the quick.


By all means, because everything you said was an attempt to obfuscate that your own source reports the latest data where I said it was. So by all means let's...

My original reference was solid - it was based on information from the grid operator in Portugal - and stipulated accurately - that Portugal supplied 70% of it's grid power from renewables.


Nope, it said in 2013, their latest published data it was 57%. That's your own solid source.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2014
But really cut to the quick. Why is it a big deal to you to go after this data? Are you pushing an agenda?


Are you? Of course you are, you said as much earlier in the thread. I'm pushing for accuracy.

So what if you want to look at the last 3 months (70%), or 2013 (58%). Either one is a very impressive number.


I agree, one is just misleading at best, and patently false when taken in context. That's what you usually get when you read blatantly slanted websites. You should already know this....

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2014
Correct, and nowhere did I say you HAD to have one to make hydrogen. I said you've got an AAA battery that makes hydrogen, and then in the VERY next sentence pointed out it makes no sense to use batteries because the electricity has to come from somewhere
EXACTLY. You assumed that the researchers were saying that batteries were an essential part of their apparatus. And apparently you still believe this. I assume you think the baby food jar and the loose wires are also essential components.

Keep playing your games mm it just makes you look dumber and dumber.
Were that the simple case we'd both be appealing to authority. The point here isn't interpretation of the data but the veracity of the data
-And you like to use this 'appeal to authority' to dismiss data that you don't like.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2014
EXACTLY. You assumed that the researchers were saying that batteries were an essential part of their apparatus.


No I didn't. Quite the opposite in fact. I never said that batteries were required, but instead inquired as to why you would even use them, because the electricity ultimately has to be generated. Moreover it makes no sense because the electricity needed could be acquired from anywhere. I was trying to give the researchers the benefit of the doubt by supposing there was some reason relating to efficiency or energy density as to why you'd even bother with a battery in the first place....I was being too generous. YOU assumed I meant you needed a battery simply because you wanted to fight. Well Otto, I'm not going to fight with you over something I didn't say :)

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2014
-And you like to use this 'appeal to authority' to dismiss data that you don't like.


I don't use "appeal to authority" any more than one "uses" carbon dating to point out the age of the Earth to a creationist. I point out the fallacy to someone who USES authority in substitute of an argument (which happens frequently with you) when I can see a problem with their reasoning, or merely HAVE A QUESTION about it. You know when grown ups talk about things and discuss them without stomping feet, using the f bomb every other word and resorting to the 40 year old equivalent of "yes it does....INFINITY" (again like you do). This is how people who don't blindly accept what's spoon fed to them LEARN Otto.

It has nothing to do with raw data.
strangedays
not rated yet Aug 27, 2014
Modernmystic
Are you? Of course you are, you said as much earlier in the thread. I'm pushing for accuracy.


If you were pushing for accuracy - you would agree that it is perfectly accurate to quote an article - that states that Portugal got 70% of it's power from renewables. That article explained where the number 70% came from - and it is a solid source (the grid operator of Portugal).

You referenced a wiki article - that was based on two newspaper reports. How is it OK for you to use non governmental data - but then you take others to task - despite the fact that their data is from a solid source - and available for you to research if you want? The data is neither misleading or false - it is accurate.
strangedays
not rated yet Aug 27, 2014
Modernmystic
That's what you usually get when you read blatantly slanted websites.


I make no apology for being interested in technology - with a specific interest in renewable energy. If I was interested in cars - I would read Autoblogg.com. The fact that they are reporting on the subject they are interested in - does not necessarily invalidate their reporting.

On the issue of official government data - it seems that government entities often get it wrong when analyzing energy information. Here is a quick look at the poor record of the iea. http://oilprice.c...hem.html

In light of your recent statement that 'renewable energy is obscenely expensive' - you may want to relax a little in terms of claiming how important 'accuracy' is to you. Official government figures show new contracts at 2.5 cents per Kwh. http://energy.gov...d-report
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2014
If you were pushing for accuracy - you would agree that it is perfectly accurate to quote an article - that states that Portugal got 70% of it's power from renewables. That article explained where the number 70% came from - and it is a solid source (the grid operator of Portugal).


No I wouldn't, just like you wouldn't claim that an AGW denier is accurate in claiming 3 months of weather makes the climate....and for the same reasons. The 70% is honestly VERY dishonest in the context it was used.

You referenced a wiki article - that was based on two newspaper reports. How is it OK for you to use non governmental data - but then you take others to task - despite the fact that their data is from a solid source - and available for you to research if you want? The data is neither misleading or false - it is accurate.


Because wiki data is widely accepted and vetted. Moreover those numbers were accurate where yours weren't. So that's the quick answer.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2014
I make no apology for being interested in technology - with a specific interest in renewable energy. If I was interested in cars - I would read Autoblogg.com. The fact that they are reporting on the subject they are interested in - does not necessarily invalidate their reporting.


If I'm interested in climate science should I read realclimatescience, or go to NOAA or NASA? Do you see any distinction between the two? Read what you want, but you're going to be called on the dishonesty you pass along via those kinds of sites.

On the issue of official government data - it seems that government entities often get it wrong when analyzing energy information.


We were never talking about analysis. We were talking about raw data...

If at the end of 2014 Portugal maintains a 70% average generation from renewables then I'd agree it's accurate. I'd disagree there's any way on Earth to know that TODAY. To make that claim now IS inaccurate AND dishonest.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2014
Now, if you REEEEALY just wanted to get a higher percentage out there, the HONEST way to do so would have been to say....

"In the first quarter of 2014 Portugal managed to get 70% of it's energy from renewables with a strong reliance on the grid from Spain to help counter intermittancy problems with those technologies. However, this is encouraging and it's probable they will continue to increase this over 2013's published figure of approx. 57%"

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2014
Another link of interest I'm a bit loath to post here, because it's really continues to be irrelevant to the topic, but it's well to note the high feed in tariffs in Portugal...since cost was referenced in an earlier post.

http://www.iea.or...L2Rpdj4,
strangedays
not rated yet Aug 27, 2014
To make that claim now IS inaccurate AND dishonest.


No it is not - it is perfectly accurate - and was stated by the grid operator of Portugal in a communication - that is on their web site. It is not inaccurate or dishonest. Please show me where there is a rule that says monthly, or quarterly, or semi annual information is not valid. I agree with your qualifier - but that expounds on the data - and does not make the original statement - as made by Portugal's grid operator false. You are just wrong.

If you were loathe to post something that was in your own words 'irrelevant to the topic' - why did you?

On the issue of pushing an agenda. I have been very transparent about my agenda - to promote the progress of the human species - through science and technology. If you have no agenda - why do you bother to take extensive time - to post comments on Physorg? Surely that suggests a contradiction.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2014
No it is not - it is perfectly accurate - and was stated by the grid operator of Portugal in a communication - that is on their web site.


So the next time we get data saying the Earth has cooled 15 degrees in a week that's perfectly accurate too...it's just misleading as hell...

:)

Re: Agendas. My main one here is to learn, and to promote truth with respect to energy policy most especially.

If you were loathe to post something that was in your own words 'irrelevant to the topic' - why did you?


This is why...

In light of your recent statement that 'renewable energy is obscenely expensive' - you may want to relax a little in terms of claiming how important 'accuracy' is to you.
strangedays
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2014
So the next time we get data saying the Earth has cooled 15 degrees in a week that's perfectly accurate too...it's just misleading as hell...


Well - if you put that data out there - and gave a source (as I did) - others would be completely free to research the source - and to get a more full understanding of said data. As long as a source is given - others can dig deeper - and contest if they have contradictory data. The source I supplied - linked to the originator of the information - and once again I stipulate that the originator of the information was a solid source - and the quote was accurate. You are wrong - but will not let go. Strikes me as an agenda.

My main one here is to learn, and to promote truth with respect to energy policy most especially.


Seems now that you are saying that you do have an agenda - and it is in fact very similar to mine. Putting out false information - such as claiming that renewable energy is 'obscenely expensive' - cont.
strangedays
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2014
cont. does not seem to me to line up to well with your agenda.

Oddly - based on our stated agendas - we seem to actually be on the same side of the issue in terms of wanting to promote science and technology. There is no point in a protractted - did/didn't exchange. I would point out that 4 commenters on this thread alone have questioned your tactics in terms of posting. Otto, Mike, jalmy, and me. Maybe that would trigger a quick bit of introspection. In a communications class - we discussed how communication is 90% perception. In other words - sometimes what I think I said - is not what you heard.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2014
No I didn't. Quite the opposite in fact. I never said that batteries were required, but instead inquired as to why you would even use them etcetc bullshit
NONE of this tripe is in your original comment:
So you've got a AAA battery that makes hydrogen.

Where do you get the energy to charge the battery, and how much do you lose in the process?
-is what you said. It was an EXPERIMENT you retard. Its obvious you didnt UNDERSTAND that.

My god youre stupid.
I point out the fallacy to someone who USES authority in substitute of an argument
No you use it against others who use refs in exactly the same way as you did the US govt.

SD - interacting with this bullshitter is like arguing with the tv.
tyy
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2014
What is the purpose of this nonsencical article? Phys.org should check their editorial standards.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2014
TheGhostofOtto1923 & Modernmystic really do seem to deserve each other with their off-beat argumentative styles...

At least Modernmystic, unlike TheGhostofOtto1923, tries to get to some definitive data.

Eg. TheGhostofOtto1923 on other threads claims:-

1.To know whats in my mind
- ie Obtuse dialectic methods
2.A video presentation is of more importance than a signed off validation report
- Where obviously its not, all said videos hand-wave & don't get to details
3.To have pointed to answers he found in response to my questions Eg Blacklight (BLP)
- He supplied no direct links, claims its there, when I have checked it is not !
4.Others considered asking BLP the same questions so they must have been answered
- Another hand-wave, nothing definitive

I wonder how TheGhostofOtto1923 & Modernmystic might well resolve issues, to some degree they might learn from each other however, I think TheGhostofOtto1923, if he opened up a bit to Science's discipline, might learn from Modernmystic ;-)
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2014
NONE of this tripe is in your original comment:


It doesn't have to be Otto, it's inferred, or if you'd have cared to clarify what I meant before bursting into a tantrum it would have made up for your lack of insight.
-is what you said. It was an EXPERIMENT you retard. Its obvious you didnt UNDERSTAND that.


I understood that perfectly. It's the reason for the experiment I didn't understand since they didn't include efficiency I assumed the battery was of import. Otherwise the whole thing is meaningless....like this conversation.

No you use it against others who use refs in exactly the same way as you did the US govt.


No I didn't :)

SD - interacting with this bullshitter is like arguing with the tv.


Which is something I'm SURE you have a ton of experience with.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2014
Well - if you put that data out there - and gave a source (as I did) - others would be completely free to research the source - and to get a more full understanding of said data.


Or you could just post the published data in an intellectually honest manner....

Anyone who denies global warming can be excused in that case...

You are wrong - but will not let go. Strikes me as an agenda.


No, you are wrong. Portugal has NOT demonstrated it can consistently produce 70% of its electricity from renewables. The fact that you won't let that go doesn't so much "strike me" as an agenda of deliberate misinformation and obfuscation, but confirms it.

Unless you think the weather can be relied upon to produce that for them consistently. Is that what you're saying? If so let's see your reasoning and data on that.

(cont)

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2014
I would point out that 4 commenters on this thread alone have questioned your tactics in terms of posting....Maybe that would trigger a quick bit of introspection.


It would have if it wasn't obvious your worldviews align and it's more about that than it is my "posting tactics"...

Seems now that you are saying that you do have an agenda - and it is in fact very similar to mine. Putting out false information - such as claiming that renewable energy is 'obscenely expensive'


It is....

http://institutef...eriment/

http://institutef...d-power/

http://en.wikiped...stimates

strangedays
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2014
Come on Modernmystic - we have just had a whole thread about how you are so superior - because you only rely on unbiased - government information - and you will not accept any bias web sites from my biased process.

Now your first link is from the Institute for Energy Research - that is "Praised by Rush Limbaugh as the "energy equivalent" of the Heritage Foundation"

http://en.wikiped...Research

Come on Modernmystic - look at your own contradictions. I showed a very solid - government data site that shows factually - that the latest wind contracts are going for $25 per Mwh.

I wish you could see how discouraging it can be to have to realize that there is no point.
strangedays
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2014
No, you are wrong. Portugal has NOT demonstrated it can consistently produce 70% of its electricity from renewables.


And if you look carefully - you will see that I never stated that Portugal can 'consistently' produce 70%. I simply linked to a communication from the Portugal grid operator - that stated that Portugal has produced 70% from renewables. To say that linking to an official communication is 'intellectually dishonest' is just bullshit. Go away.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2014
Now your first link is from the Institute for Energy Research - that is "Praised by Rush Limbaugh as the "energy equivalent" of the Heritage Foundation"


Now you know how I feel when I have to spend half a thread dealing with some fool claiming information from cleantechnia, thinkprogress, or similar ilk are legitimate. It's ridiculous isn't it? This is why I usually DON'T do that and I DO try to keep it to governmental sites. Now is that "posting tactics", or is it just common sense? I should hope you won't use information from agenda laden websites any more than I will in the future.

Note, I'm not disputing that IER is biased, and illegitimate. I hope I've proved a point. Anyone can dredge up any kind of BS from anywhere on the internet. People who actually believe their own BS are hard to deal with though (like people who think MSNBC or Fox News are unbiased), and I'm including both you and Mike in that category....

(cont)
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2014
And if you look carefully - you will see that I never stated that Portugal can 'consistently' produce 70%.


Actually here is what you said....

The sun is not sustainable enough for you? We already have that energy source - and we are in the process of scaling up. Portugal is already at 70% renewables, and 45 other countries are at 60%.


So where can we POSSIBLY infer from that statement that 70% isn't a consistent number? You compared them to other countries which are at 60%. You said "Portugal is already at 70% renewables", but they ARE NOT. They are at 57%, with spikes as high as 84%...not AT 70%. That's blatantly misleading, just like the BLATANTLY biased site you linked it from.

Now if you want to read those sites for entertainment or to feel good, bully for you. Every time you post some misleading BS from them trying to pass it off as the truth though expect to be called on it....period.
strangedays
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2014
I hope I've proved a point.


For me - the very discouraging point - is that I am trying to have an honest conversation - with someone who is not interested in reciprocating in terms of honesty. To take up so much bandwidth with a debate about the requirement for only using official government sites - and then to blatantly contradict all of that wasted time and energy - and then to basically say 'I was just trying to make a point'. No - you were wasting my time.

I will probably continue my advocacy for progress through science and technology - but from this point on - that will not be with any interaction with you. Go away.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2014
that will not be with any interaction with you. Go away.


It's still a free country. I'll be right here, and I will continue to point out falsehoods as they come up. Please feel free to NOT respond when I do so we don't have to do this again. I'm trying to have an honest conversation too. It's too bad you can't see that.
strangedays
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2014
It's still a free country. I'll be right here,


I meant go away more in the sense of 'leave me alone'. To suggest after the blatant contradiction that is so totally evident on this thread - that you are trying to have an honest conversation - is really bizarre. Perhaps you and I have very different definitions of the term honest. Either way - yes you are correct - we should not interact - and that is what I meant by 'go away'.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2014
It's still a free country. I'll be right here,


I meant go away more in the sense of 'leave me alone'. To suggest after the blatant contradiction that is so totally evident on this thread - that you are trying to have an honest conversation - is really bizarre. Perhaps you and I have very different definitions of the term honest. Either way - yes you are correct - we should not interact - and that is what I meant by 'go away'.


For not wanting to interact you seem to continue to do so.

As for having an honest conversation it's bizarre to me that someone who is capable of recognizing bias, and then uses biased information from biased sources is "really just wanting to have an honest conversation" (after trying to pass off a spike in renewables as a reliable number)...very bizarre.
Mike_Massen
not rated yet Aug 29, 2014
Modernmystic's semantics/linguistics appears erroneous with
... I'll be right here, and I will continue to point out falsehoods as they come up.
What in the heck was wrong with posting a link to Portugal's achievement of 70% and how it arose ?

It does appear Modernmystic you are grasping at straws, the article is factual, it was posted to illustrate the achievement - it can be done

Surely we want tom hope it will be repeated, can you imagine how much cleaner the air in the region is likely to be with less reliance on coal fired power stations ?

ie. Less particulates, less comparative radiation etc

Your approach is fickle & abrasive, just get on with the good stuff, your posts on this are a total waste of time for you, me and others. Get onto the physics, the maths etc ie. The solid areas to review, ie Those that are primarily centered upon OBJECTIVE data & unemotional maths OK ?
..trying to pass off a spike in renewables as a reliable number..
R u claiming they lied ?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.