Hydrogen production breakthrough could herald cheap green energy

September 12, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientists have taken a major step forward in the production of hydrogen from water which could lead to a new era of cheap, clean and renewable energy.

Chemists from the University of Glasgow report in a new paper in Science today on a new form of hydrogen production which is 30 times faster than the current state-of-the-art method. The process also solves common problems associated with generating electricity from renewable sources such as solar, wind or wave energy.

Hydrogen is easily produced from water by electrolysis, a process which uses electricity to break the bonds between water's constituent elements, hydrogen and oxygen, and releases them as gas. Hydrogen gas can be burned to produce power with no negative impact on the environment, unlike power produced by burning fossil fuels.

One of the problems of generating electricity via is that the output either needs to be used immediately or stored. Using renewable power to produce hydrogen allows the capture of electricity in an environmentally-friendly state which is easily stored and distributed.

Currently, industrial production of hydrogen relies overwhelmingly on fossil fuels to power the electrolysis process. The most advanced method of generating hydrogen using renewable power uses a method known as proton exchange membrane electrolysers (PEMEs). To reach optimum efficiency, PEMEs require precious metal catalysts to be held in high-pressure containers and subjected to high densities of electric current, which can be difficult to reliably achieve from fluctuating renewable sources.

The new method allows larger-than-ever quantities of hydrogen to be produced at atmospheric pressure using lower power loads, typical of those generated by renewable power sources. It also solves intrinsic safety issues which have so far limited the use of intermittent renewable energy for hydrogen production.

The research team was led by Professor Lee Cronin of the University of Glasgow's School of Chemistry. Professor Cronin said: "The process uses a liquid that allows the hydrogen to be locked up in a liquid-based inorganic fuel. By using a liquid sponge known as a redox mediator that can soak up electrons and acid we've been able to create a system where hydrogen can be produced in a separate chamber without any additional energy input after the electrolysis of water takes place.

"The link between the rate of water oxidation and hydrogen production has been overcome, allowing hydrogen to be released from the water 30 times faster than the leading PEME process on a per-milligram-of-catalyst basis."

The research was produced as part of the University of Glasgow Solar Fuels Group, which is working to create artificial photosynthetic systems which produce significant amounts of fuel from solar power.

Professor Cronin added: "Around 95% of the world's hydrogen supply is currently obtained from fossil fuels, a finite resource which we know harms the environment and speeds climate change. Some of this hydrogen is used to make ammonia fertilizer and as such, fossil hydrogen helps feed more than half of the world's population."

"The potential for reliable from is huge. The sun, for example, provides more energy in a single hour of sunlight than the entire world's population uses in a year. If we can tap and store even a fraction of that in the coming years and decrease our reliance on it will be a tremendously important step to slowing climate change."

The University of Glasgow's Dr Greig Chisholm, Dr Mark Symes and Benjamin Rausch also contributed to the paper, 'Decoupled catalytic evolution from a molecular metal oxide redox mediator in water splitting', which is published in Science.

Explore further: Water splitting: Plants provide blueprint for cheap hydrogen production

More information: "Decoupled catalytic hydrogen evolution from a molecular metal oxide redox mediator in water splitting." Benjamin Rausch, Mark D. Symes, Greig Chisholm, Leroy Cronin. Science 12 September 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6202 pp. 1326-1330. DOI: 10.1126/science.1257443

Related Stories

Increasing efficiency of hydrogen production from green algae

April 15, 2013

New research results from Uppsala University, Sweden, instill hope of efficient hydrogen production with green algae being possible in the future, despite the prevailing scepticism based on previous research. The study, which ...

A tree may have the answers to renewable energy

July 23, 2014

Through an energy conversion process that mimics that of a tree, a University of Wisconsin-Madison materials scientist is making strides in renewable energy technologies for producing hydrogen.

Recommended for you

Tough new hydrogel hybrid doesn't dry out

June 27, 2016

If you leave a cube of Jell-O on the kitchen counter, eventually its water will evaporate, leaving behind a shrunken, hardened mass—hardly an appetizing confection. The same is true for hydrogels. Made mostly of water, ...

89 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
4 / 5 (30) Sep 12, 2014
The round-trip efficiency of making, storing, and generating electricity again out of hydrogen is barely 25% which means quadrupling the effective price of any energy you try to store by virtue of needing four times as much at the source. Without counting the cost of the technology itself.

Making methane, you can atleast use it directly for heat and industrial processes without the hazards of pumping raw hydrogen under the streets into peoples' homes.
al_hopfer
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 12, 2014
Notice how the promotion of any new idea hypes "reducing effects of global warming". Crazy ideas that have been known for decades or more are now "new". Always a money grab.
al_hopfer
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2014
What needs to be understood is, what is really meant by "storage".

The concept that producing electricity from wind or solar can only work if a storage system is developed. But there is a catch.

If you charge a storage unit (example battery) using 1 amp of current and you charge for 3-hours you will get out something like 1 amps output from that battery for about 3-hours (well almost, depends on the storage (battery) chemistry.

Now to store energy to use, say at night (solar is off) the storage system (to run a city like Chicago or Munich, would be the size of a mountain. A large mountain.

This needs to be demonstrated. Example, Munich Germany, just off the North Sea, where Germany's largest wind farm exists. Build a storage system to store (during daytime solar and wind energy, and some nighttime wind energy) and with no fossil plant to assist... try to power the city for about 8 hours of darkness (with some help from the wind farm).

The hopelessness will be seen.
al_hopfer
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2014
For a (electricity) storage system to work with only renewables, the renewable system would have to power a load (City) for about 8-12 hours (wind and solar or even bio-mass) while also at the same time charge up a storage system.

If the nighttime load is say 1/4th the daytime load (much manufacturing is done during nighttime hours)... if the City requires 100 units of energy during the day then 125 or 150 units will need to be generated for both at the same time, charging and powering the City.

But, what if, the daytime is overcast and/low wind for a few days? That is a problem. Stormy weather (wind machines must be off-line) clouds low solar... what to do, what to do?
condolf52
1.5 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2014
I have been hearing about breakthroughs for decades. If they were real, wouldn't those technologies make it into the marketplace?
al_hopfer
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2014
Hamburg, not Munich. (previous post)
Aligo
Sep 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
al_hopfer
1 / 5 (20) Sep 12, 2014
Once one burns the hydrogen for energy to generate electricity at the volumes that fossil fuels are used to create the same (plus growth)... how long will water exist as hydrogen is constantly removed from our water supply?

Is water, H2O renewable, if you destroy the H in H2O?

Could a byproduct be over Oxidation? For every 2 Hydrogens destroyed we would have an additional Oxygen floating around.
chas_burr
5 / 5 (16) Sep 12, 2014
@al hopter...burning is a rapid form of oxidation so burning hydrogen means re attaching the oxygen molecule previously stripped off and the exhaust from burning hydrogen is water vapor. There is no loss of H2O.
Aligo
Sep 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (24) Sep 12, 2014
Is water, H2O renewable, if you destroy the H in H2O?


It is, because it's returned to water when burned.

The real problem is the peak-to-average power of renewable energy. Wind is about 5:1, solar is about 10:1. If we assume 7:1 ratio, the maximum output has to outstrip demand 7 times to produce the average needed.

And that excess 6 parts out of 7 need to be stored to provide for the average, except the 6 parts is really worth about 1.5 parts when put through the hydrogen storage cycle, so to make ends meet you need almost four times the original capacity of renewable production (solar and wind) to make the required amout of output.

Which is exactly why solar and wind power are nominally cheap, but in reality extremely expensive and not helping anything. As it stands, instead of batteries, that 6 out of 7 parts is coming from fossil fuels, and the only reason some countries can utilize them to a nominally high degree is because they outsource the slack to neighbors.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (15) Sep 12, 2014
Once one burns the hydrogen for energy to generate electricity at the volumes that fossil fuels are used to create the same (plus growth)... how long will water exist as hydrogen is constantly removed from our water supply?

Is water, H2O renewable, if you destroy the H in H2O?

Could a byproduct be over Oxidation? For every 2 Hydrogens destroyed we would have an additional Oxygen floating around.


@al_hopfer

If you need to ask this question

"Is water, H2O renewable, if you destroy the H in H2O?"


I doubt you're in a position to critique this article.

In general, people learn more with their eyes and ears than with their mouth.

How you came to the conclusion you were qualified to add your 2 cents not knowing anything about hydrogen burning (oxidization) is one of the great mysteries of the universe. No atoms are destroyed during normal burning (oxidization).

Burning is a chemical reaction, not a nuclear reaction.
alchemist from bristol
3 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2014
"America has the natural resources to meet its energy demand with clean, renewable energy. It's time to harness that full potential." http://clmtr.lt/c/L8a0fz0cMJ
NeilBlanchard
1.6 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2014
"Using renewable power to produce hydrogen allows the capture of electricity in an environmentally-friendly state which is easily stored and distributed."

Easy hydrogen storage is an oxymoron.

Easy hydrogen distribution is an oxymoron.
Lex Talonis
1.4 / 5 (8) Sep 13, 2014
Something in this equation is vastly WRONG.

"The potential for reliable hydrogen production from renewable sources is huge. The sun, for example, provides more energy in a single hour of sunlight than the entire world's population uses in a year. If we can tap and store even a fraction of that in the coming years and decrease our reliance on fossil fuels it will be a tremendously important step to slowing climate change."
Lex Talonis
Sep 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
weathervane
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 13, 2014
Does the "burning of hydrogen" just involve the simple oxidation process or does it involve a whole chain of huge industrial scale extraction, reformatting, storage and gas distribution on a continental scale.

Hydrogen is difficult to store,/transport. When it escapes, as a lot of it does, it tends to make its way into the far reaches of the upper atmosphere where it may indeed be lost due to solar stripping.

So the answer is; Of course you lose hydrogen but the amounts would probably not be significant, enough to make it unsustainable for human use in the near term.

But then the caveat to that is that this is Phys.org, so we are allowed to extrapolated to end member scenarios to define bounds. So our outer end member is that future mega corp discovers a cheap way to make hydrogen and decides to convert most of the worlds oceans to hydrogen to make rocket fuel... I think you can see where this is going and its clearly unsustainable.
OZGuy
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2014
@ Lex
"Something in this equation is vastly WRONG."

I find it it almost incredulous that I agree with one of your posts, I assumed you just post on irregular drunken experiences to see who reacts.. Shit that's called Friday night in areas with Internet, alcohol and zero women..

Then you post
"When Jesus was alive, there was none of this hydrogen economy bullshit going on"

Guess your Friday/.Saturday nights are sad no matter where you live
holoman
1 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2014
Here's a cheaper cleaner approach

http://thomasinst...bly.com/

Thomas Institute for Technology Research

will make hydrogen future of energy good for the planet. Present hydrogen technology requires trained specialist, catalyst, hydrocarbon feedstock, permanent production location, production of waste materials, and does very little to benefit the environment.

A new hydrogen gas technology invented by Scientist Michael Thomas who has filed the first patent teaching the art will be available to the world free of cost. When CO2
is pumped into seawater feed stock acidification of seawater begins under the reaction,
mvogell
1 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2014
I read somewhere once that burning hydrogen produced nitrogen oxides for some reason, so not all that clean for the environment.
For most of the world I think pumped hydro storage would be more cost effective (if not done on a household scale). Even running a power line from Nebraska to Utah, pumping some water up to a holding pond then back down and back to Nebraska when power is needed would be more efficient. The same should be done with excess power produced at night now by coal burning plants.
Fuel cells sounds better than burning.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2014
I go even further than Axel Kleidon. There is no such thing as a renewable energy source. Least of all wind or wave power which are significantly non-renewable. Solar power less so perhaps but still non-renewable.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (31) Sep 13, 2014
mvogell, pumped water projects use twice the energy they create. They are only used in areas with no margin in peak periods.

Eikka does not understand how it all works.

In the late 1970's we had no way in California to produce power for an expanding economy. The air quality laws essentially prohibited us from siting any more polluting powerplants. The most pressing need was in the afternoons, when air conditioning loads came on to be added to the commercial and industrial loads still running.

So we arranged the construction of the wind turbine generators at Altamont. When we heat up, the San Joaquin Valley ventilates, pulling air through the pass, and generating the power exactly when we need it.

No fuel. No pollution. No water waste. No transmission losses. No sweat.

Folk have to understand that every kWh produced by alternative energy is one not producing fossil fuel waste.
mvogell
1 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2014
gkam- pumped water projects may use twice the energy they create. But splitting water into hydrogen then burning it uses at a minimum 4 times the energy it creates.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (26) Sep 13, 2014
Who would burn it? It would be combined in an efficient fuel cell for re-conversion into water. BTW Nitrogen Oxides are produced only under high temperature and pressure.

We already have had facilities using PV power to electrolyze water for Hydrogen, then using that H2 in fuel cells at night to provide power to the facility. In many cases this is the most optimum solution for a problem. It is all case-specific.
0rison
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 13, 2014
NeilBlanchard, you assert that, "Easy hydrogen storage is an oxymoron."

It's a challenge these researchers have undertaken. The article says: "The process uses a liquid that allows the hydrogen to be locked up in a liquid-based inorganic fuel."

They're not talking about storing or distributing hydrogen gas.
Sasoon
1 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2014
So all of this does not make sense.
Process is 63% efficient so you lose 37% to begin with, you lose another 10% on compressing, and than you lose another 40% making electricity from hydrogen.

In the end you lose 76% of energy you started with. So for example you create 4 MWh of renewable energy and store it in hydrogen, and you get back 1 MWh.

Article from the same site phys.org "Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense": http://phys.org/n...285.html
gkam
1.8 / 5 (24) Sep 13, 2014
Sasoon, we use three-million-degree Neutrons to boil water.

Ask why they do that.
Cave_Man
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2014
@al hopter...burning is a rapid form of oxidation so burning hydrogen means re attaching the oxygen molecule previously stripped off and the exhaust from burning hydrogen is water vapor. There is no loss of H2O.


This is the problem, everyone is so far behind that they don't understand the very basic process..

Use lithium as a storage matrix for hydrogen, called a hydride, extremely space efficient, reusable, easy to retrieve the stored hydrogen, not combustible.

Why would we need massive amounts of energy at night? Because the current paradigm uses the off peak fossil fuel electricity to run factories at night? CHANGE THE PARADIGM RUN DURING THE DAY. Also turn off the fucking shop lights at night, nobody is there why the hell are the lights on? Advertising? go screw yourself....

All it takes it biting the bullet, we will overcome the problems! Why are people so resilient in the face some adversity like war but such pussies about renewable energy?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 13, 2014
Many metal hydrides can store Hydrogen in the interstitial spaces between atoms in the matrix.

The energy density can exceed that of liquifaction.
Eikka
4.1 / 5 (23) Sep 13, 2014
Eikka does not understand how it all works.


I know pretty well how it all works. I've run the statistical calculations on wind turbines and wind farms based on publicly available data to arrive at my opinion.

And all the data points to the fact that in general wind and solar energy availability to use is inversely related to system price to a degree that puts the price of energy at least 4-5 times higher than the nominal costs of production if one were to somehow power an entire country using mainly them. It's simply due to the fact that they make very large amounts of energy in short bursts and lay mostly idle the vast majority of time, which is costly to deal with.

The fact that one city or region is lucky enough to have wind blow regularily just as it is needed does not change the general picture. Meanwhile in Texas for example, the wind tends to pick up at nights when power consumption goes down.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (25) Sep 13, 2014
The improvement in battery technology and other energy storage makes the transition to Hydrogen more difficult.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (28) Sep 13, 2014

The fact that one city or region is lucky enough to have wind blow regularily just as it is needed does not change the general picture. Meanwhile in Texas for example, the wind tends to pick up at nights when power consumption goes down.

That is what grids are for. Ours spans eight Western States parts of Canada and Mexico, and is linked so regional differences mean we can assist each other.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (14) Sep 13, 2014
Now to store energy to use, say at night (solar is off) the storage system (to run a city like Chicago or Munich, would be the size of a mountain. A large mountain.

I think you are a bit off in your calcs. Germany has the reserves to power itself through the winter (3-4 months) if Russia cuts all its gas deliveries. That's 3-4 months for ALL cities (and everything else). And those reserves are nowhere near "the size of a mountain". That's just hyperbole.

The places to store large amounts of hydrogen are available. Use those reserve tanks and/or old mines - or just sink containers close to where it's mostly produced: at off shore windparks.
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (24) Sep 13, 2014
Why would we need massive amounts of energy at night?


We don't. Peak energy usage invariably happens around noon due to the standard 8 hour working day, but people also need light and heat during the other 16 hours of the day.

It's not about factories using cheap night electricity, but the fact that after about 3 pm, solar panels start to become useless and the wind is there only if it happens to be there, so the people would be regularily left with none - or - having to restort to expensive and wasteful batteries.

How for example would you charge an electric car over the night for the next day? You see the obvious problem because when you come home at 5 your batteries are empty and the sun is going down, and if it's calm... well, no electricity.

Eikka
4.1 / 5 (23) Sep 13, 2014
That is what grids are for. Ours spans eight Western States parts of Canada and Mexico, and is linked so regional differences mean we can assist each other.


Most electric power in the grid is produced within 200 miles of demand. The grid works like dominoes, where large distances are covered by multiple generating stations pushing power to the next area, to push power to the next area. Any gaps in the chain would prevent transfer.

That is why there is talk of the supergrid using superconducting or HVDC lines to make longer point-to-point hops. Otherwise the grid simply can't handle the renewable energy, because it's not dispatchable. If someone in the middle of the chain is not making their quota, the whole thing doesn't work.

And as for solar power, the grid doesn't help because all the solar panels act in unison. For wind power, takes about 600 miles before you lose correlation between turbines; that doesn't mean they won't produce or not simultaneously.
Eikka
4 / 5 (24) Sep 13, 2014
Of course, you could deliberately point all solar panels in random directions so they wouldn't all produce peak power at the same time, but that has the effect of reducing their efficiency, which means higher cost per kWh produced, and it still would only be a half-solution to the fundamental issue because a large number of randomly pointed solar panels would still together produce a sinusoidal output as the sun travels across the sky.

Likewise, you could limit the maximum output of a wind turbine to decrease its peak-to-average ratio to a more manageable figure, but it would waste a whole lot of the available energy, again increasing the cost of energy, and not really dealing with the problem of having windless days or even weeks.

Or what about overcast days and winter?
CarolynKay
3.5 / 5 (2) Sep 14, 2014
What if there were one plant that used solar power to separate hydrogen from sea water and also desalinate sea water during the day, and that at night burned hydrogen to continue the desalination?
Newbeak
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2014
I think New Scientist does a better job of explaining this: http://www.newsci...XcxY2Ure
The only fly in the ointment is that a platinum catalyst is needed to extract the stored H2.
Sasoon
not rated yet Sep 14, 2014
What if there were one plant that used solar power to separate hydrogen from sea water and also desalinate sea water during the day, and that at night burned hydrogen to continue the desalination?


It makes more sense to use all the energy during the day to desalinate water than to make hydrogen, because you lose 75% of the energy for process electricity->hydrogen->electricity
Aligo
Sep 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
xstos
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2014
Nuclear reactors have a very low carbon footprint and can be renewable if we research and perfect breeders as well as burning our vast amounts of thorium. Just because the Japanese decided to build a 2m tsunami wall and put their backup generators on the ground where they can be flooded and cause a meltdown doesn't mean we should forget about nuclear. This should be the bridge between fossil to renewables. Use the nukes to produce hydrogen for transpo.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 14, 2014
"Most electric power in the grid is produced within 200 miles of demand. The grid works like dominoes, where large distances are covered by multiple generating stations pushing power to the next area, to push power to the next area. Any gaps in the chain would prevent transfer.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"

Uh, .. . no.
Zera
1 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2014
I think we should be looking at creating household generators, each house has individual water/energy requirements. Create a decentralised network of household generators, bolster that with regional plants (potentially nuclear or just larger scale hydrogen).

Have redundant loops, all houses on one block or street are connected, so that in the event one generator goes down, others step in to take the load.

Use solar,wind to generate initial current required to convert water to hydrogen. You could even have a redundant loop for manual winding. Set all this up in a box/shed type location, at the back of the yard/top of the roof.

If possible you want to see cars switch over to same system of generation and a way to utilise home generator to fill car with hydrogen.

Or if battery tech outpaces, within the same shed set up a bank of batteries. With the car only requiring to be plugged in.

Once science has proved the concept, Engineers need to design and implement, take 10 years tops.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Sep 14, 2014
Each powerplant used to power its local area. Then they connected into small grids, which could cover for each other for supply. Then large grids, that allowed large-scale power transmission over our HVDC or the 500kV Intertie. Back when I was with the utility, our grid was the WSCC, the Western States Coordinating Council. It has changed somewhat in name but is essentially the same.

Back in the old days, big utilities saw the state as a whole, meaning they could put the generation areas miles away, use high-voltage transmission to reach the customers. This resulted in areas which were resource-poor themselves, and in the dark if transmission went down. But the rise in PV, smaller-scale generation, wind, and other alternative means, gives us a chance to support the grid from within it.

Everybody will win.

Write for details.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Sep 14, 2014
Zera, decades ago a friend of mine at LLL developed an engine, an "expander" designed to run on neighborhood waste and biomass, which could power the neighborhood. It can still be done, with wind and PV and other technologies providing sufficient input to enable a cost-effective and efficacious system, assisted by storage. In the mid-1970's.
PPihkala
not rated yet Sep 14, 2014
All of this is becoming obsolete tech. When Solar Hydrogen Trends get their generators out, nobody wants to have anything else. Http://www.solarh...ends.com
johngo
5 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2014
It is as if the coal industry bombarded this article to keep people dumb. I'm reading comments that suggest we will use up too much water. ? If anyone has followed MIT's artificial leaf project and the developments at Suncatlyst or read anything about the new Navy warships being run entirely on Sea-water you'd think that a hydrogen catalyst is the way to go.

Storage is an issue? Really? The sun catalyst system uses ¼ of a ranch style house's roof of solar panels and 3 gallons of water per day which can be dirty water. The hydrogen produced can met your heating, electrical, and car needs. Excess H hmm... may use it to purify water or sell the power direct to the grid.

Mass storage of electricity during non-peak hours has also advanced in the commercial sector.

The only hurdle which I do not understand as a blockage is fuel cells. If they are produced at larger level the cost will be considerably cheaper. Multiple breakthroughs in this field are accelerating as well.
It is
bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2014
German Physicist Axel Kleidon says that there is a limit to the amount of energy humans can extract from wind and wave power, and that in using these sources we could affect our environment in ways as serious as the greenhouse effect.

- Using these misnamed power sources to extract Hydrogen is a recipe for environmental disaster beyond AGW.

http://www.newsci...PxssaySM

gkam
1 / 5 (20) Sep 14, 2014
bluehigh, that is true for every source.
Aligo
Sep 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (23) Sep 14, 2014
Are you unaware of the energy entrained in making a combustion turbine?
gkam
1.5 / 5 (23) Sep 15, 2014
Do you understand the limits of boiler technology?

Have ANY idea the energy needed to make just the materials for a nuclear powerplant, to calcine the concrete, to produce the steel? To bring it to the site?

Have any idea how many Watts of heat goes into the environment for each Watt of electricity sent out out by a nuclear powerplant?

Got a place to store nuclear waste? I have places to store the slight stillness and the shadow, the left-overs from wind and PV generation.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 15, 2014
Do you see the small amounts of catalyst in low-temperature fuel cells versus the large amounts of copper and steel in rotating generators?
Zera
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2014
Centralised resource provision, i.e. power generated at a central location is an obsolete concept, useful only for those conversion processes that require such specialised environments as nuclear fission, coal burning, etc.

Solar panels are good indicators of the potential to distribute power generation to reverse the power scale pyramid from a top down approach to a bottom up one.

As far as I am concerned Bluehigh is misinformed, solar is renewable in that it will continue to bath our planet in energy long after our species has either died or moved on to other planets.

The need to decentralise if huge, and 1st world nations have a responsibility to design and implement sustainable solutions for 3rd world nations to copy.

If this be hydrogen, biofuels (if all that is required is a tank, water and sunlight to grow), solar panels (we have to stop using solinium first), or some other basic principle of science that exploits our ever more modern understanding of energy.
Zera
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2014
Zera, decades ago a friend of mine at LLL developed an engine, an "expander" designed to run on neighborhood waste and biomass, which could power the neighborhood. It can still be done, with wind and PV and other technologies providing sufficient input to enable a cost-effective and efficacious system, assisted by storage. In the mid-1970's.


Well I am ever sceptical of statements that begin with words to the effect of "A friend once told me".

While I am aware of Swedens power arrangements re: running on garbage, i am not aware of the particulars. I also don't know what LLL stands for. However, i am ever open minded and would be interested in any documentation or even just thoughts/explanations of what you mean.

However, I have very little faith in human beings in general, not when it comes down to breaking apart entrenched power(sociological) structures.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (18) Sep 15, 2014
Uh, .. . no.


Uh... yes.

Each powerplant used to power its local area. Then they connected into small grids, which could cover for each other for supply. Then large grids, that allowed large-scale power transmission over our HVDC or the 500kV Intertie.


This is exactly the domino structure I was talking about. The powerplant covers its local area and helps its neighbor, which helps its neighbor with the power it now has to spare, and so-on along the chain. That keeps the transfer distance from individual powerplant to individual customer short by having powerplants all along the chain, which keeps the transmission and transforming losses low

The long interties exist as a parallel supplement system to that, and they don't have sufficient capacity for full renewable (solar & wind) operation, and using them for much of the power leads to increased transmission losses anyways.

That is why the plans for the "supergrid" exist. The existing grid simpy won't cope.
Eikka
5 / 5 (18) Sep 15, 2014
A 'grid' does not actually enable power to flow with no loss from one end to the other - it may be hundreds of miles long, but the power flows inside the grid are typically much shorter than that, and it would be very inefficient to treat the 'grid' as a long-distance transmission carrier.

The problem with renewable energy becomes that local variations become more global than local as far as the grid is concerned. For example, peak solar power production in the entire West Coast US happens pretty much on the same hour, and three hours earlier on the east coast, which means you need to get the power 3000 miles across the country to balance the situation. Wind power too correlates with itself within an area 600 miles across, so it too requires you to shuffle power about a thousand miles to balance the situation out.

Otherwise you need the fossil fuels - or expensive batteries, or inefficient hydrogen - to buffer the output.

Virex
not rated yet Sep 15, 2014
Ok we get it, there are limitations to using renewable energy sources and those would make power more expensive. But what alternatives are there? We can't keep burning fossil fuels, no one knows what to do with the waste from uranium reactors and thorium and it'll take at least 30 years for the first prototype fusion and thorium reactors to be completed and then it would take a decade more to get the ball rolling (nuclear plants aren't exactly easy to build).
Jixo
Sep 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2014
Cold fusion and negentropic motors, for example. They're fairly easy to build.

Going without power (i.e. trying to run the world on fairy dust) is not an alternative.
Jixo
Sep 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2014
bluehigh, that is true for every source.

- and that's a verifiably referenced fact or just your opinion?

AA,

The reason 'fairy dust' alternatives are not accepted - is political.

Just imagine for a moment that Dr Mills is correct and huge amounts of power become available from small amounts of water. Start thinking global economic catastrophe. We need to build and understand the economics of devolved high energy sources of power before *they* can allow implementation.

Until fairly recently, in many countries, it was unlawful to generate your own electricity and be 'off the grid'.

Hydrogen production to meet our energy requirements is a dead end and like petrol-chemicals an addictive and profitable economic mechanism to enrich investors.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2014
Just imagine for a moment that Dr Mills is correct and huge amounts of power become available from small amounts of water.

Wouldn't you think that any number of countries (from tiny african dictatorships to communist countries) would not care one whit whether this cuts into profits? Wouldn't you think that they'd LOVE nothing better than to be the sole purveyor of such 'disruptive technology' and leave everyone else in the dust? Heck - there's islamic fanatics who'd just do it out of spite.

Now ask yourself: why aren't they doing so? The reach of the US doesn't extend all around the globe. How come they can't find one single altruist on the planet that will build this stuff?

Obvious answer: It's not a conspiracy - it just doesn't work.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2014
Jixo shows he is so easily influenced
But what alternatives are there?
http://lenr-canr.org/index/Download/Download.php, for example. They're fairly easy to build. Show one in ANY commercial environment that actually WORKS - Puh-Lease ???????????????????????

Jixo added
It's not a fairy dust. It's just ignored with physicists in exactly the way, you're demonstrating here.
Then why the f..k has NO commercial entrepreneur (who is not blinded by 'physics') made ONE to actually supply power either into the grid OR to an industrial estate or even to a SINGLE business at say 1/10th the price of grid power ?

Where Jixo ?

Many claim this, maybe you are just about to realise that, like religion, many unintelligent people whom are also scam artists, rely on claims & NOT reality ?

I have been in the business of report on & testing so called free energy sources for around 20 years through my lab of 30 years - not ONE person who approached me knew how to even measure power eg RMS !
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2014
antialias_physorg made a damn good point with
Obvious answer: It's not a conspiracy - it just doesn't work
For everyone's information, especially those fairy flights who don't know physics or basic inorganic chemistry.

"Why does blacklight rely on an indication of so called 'hydrino energy' within a high output thermite type reaction ?"

In blacklight's own report then put reactants in an aluminium cup - those reactants are known sources of a thermite reaction WITH the cup (doh).

Another example of hiding the truth/scam in plain site/sight...!

This is why education is so very important, without it you will have your pockets emptied and be so easily led by videos and badly constructed so called validation reports which are very often 'designed' in terms of scope, by the company seeking them...

Mills seems to appear as a task master of 'trying it on' by obfuscating output/tests/displays to maintain his lifestyle - how many $millions - from throwing arbitrary maths into reports !
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2014
Obvious answer: It's not a conspiracy - it just doesn't work

So far.

Then what?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2014
"I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible"

- Lord Kelvin
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2014
"Radio has no future."

- same highly respected bloke got it wrong.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2014
So you both should consider yourselves potentially in illustrious company.

*Hydrogen production to meet our energy requirements is a dead end and like petrol-chemicals an addictive and profitable economic mechanism to enrich investors.*

There are or will be alternatives, just not politically or economically acceptable. Therein they will be 'fairy dust'.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 15, 2014
Alternative energy deniers are like those who believe in "free energy": They speak from ignorance and "faith".

None of our technologies will ever we used alone. We will always source our energy from available sources, no magic box cheating physics. The difference in sources gives us flexibility for efficacy and efficiency.

And transmission lines are not dominoes.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2014
Gravity is a renewable source of energy. No matter (!) how much you use it is never depleted. Okay, that's a wild statement. Prove me wrong by experiment. (Falsify that!). Goodnight.

gkam
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 15, 2014
"For example, peak solar power production in the entire West Coast US happens pretty much on the same hour, and three hours earlier on the east coast, which means you need to get the power 3000 miles across the country to balance the situation."

-------No. There is no grid which reaches across America.

And why do you folk assume we will use only one source of generation? I do not get it. Those of you not in the business think everyone else is stupid?

Every kWh of power generated by alternative energy is one not creating pollution, one not using vast amounts of water, one not requiring the purchase of foreign fuel. Please wake up.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2014
bluehigh with great & immense ignorance claimed
Gravity is a renewable source of energy.
NO.
It is NOT a Source of energy - its a source of 'potential' of 'subsequent' energy differential !

In effect Gravity is so much like Magnetism - it is a mere SPRING !

U have to put/have it there First before U get it back & of course when u do u lose a bit !

bluehigh muttered with even more ignorance of physics
No matter (!) how much you use it is never depleted. Okay, that's a wild statement.
Example Puh-Lease ????????????? (doh)

bluehigh's ego got in the way with
Prove me wrong by experiment. (Falsify that!). Goodnight.
Suggest ONE example of a possible billions where it IS a source of energy & how it is EVER regenerated without 'putting it back' - d..k ?

Springs are not (by themselves) ANY 'Source' of any energy !
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (15) Sep 15, 2014
I think it's funny, the reaction of commenters to this article.

The article reports basic research.

Instantly, the commenters appear to explain why it's not helpful, won't work, is a waste of time and money.

Basic research is *always* helpful. Knowing how things work lets us engineer better solutions downstream. Even a crummy result is knowledge that helps us navigate design decisions later on.

So now we have this awkward liquid storage method for hydrogen. Guess what? We have *no* idea how that idea might fit into solutions twenty years from now. Perhaps it will not. But it expands our knowledge base. The larger our knowledge base, the more options we'll have when it comes to engineering solutions.

We know we can generate electricity without fossil fuels. We don't yet know how to do it in a way which seamlessly and cheaply replaces fossil fuels entirely. But basic research like this moves us a little closer. Stay tuned, and don't jump to conclusions.
gkam
2 / 5 (27) Sep 15, 2014
The use of tiny needles of Lithium instead of plates or other surfaces now give three times the storage capability. This means more electric cars and utility storage for PV and wind power.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2014
"I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible"

- Lord Kelvin

What is your point? That because statement X is untrue therefore unrelated statement Y must also be untrue? If that is the type of 'logic' you're impressed by then no wonder you believe in fairy dust.

So far.

Then what?

If you feel that it works: work on it. Show a demonstrator. Start a company. No one is stopping you. If you're not hip to math and physics and still think it's right then you should probably invest all your money into it. Why don't you?

For the rest of us the reason why we don't think these things work is: because physics.

Now, physicists aren't always right - but they are right more often than not. So these statements by Lord Kelvin et al. are the exception...not the rule to bank your money on.
Zera
1.7 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2014
For me it's all a question of efficiency. As a civilisation we have a power demand (that is increasing).

We have infrastructure that in many cases was not designed with the kind of demand we are utilising in mind (both distance, capacity and quality of material).

These issues can be resolved by making at least major power centres (start industrial) with sustainable generators.

We can generate power from our current tech: solar (current efficiency would need to be much higher, materials more sustainable - re: carbon or bio), hydrogen, biofuel, wind turbines, fission (or essentially any one of the tangible projects in later stages of research).

Or we can wait (i think we have 50 odd years of fossil fuel power up our sleeves), and implement one of our species more tricky ideas: Fusion, Overunity, anti-matter, etc.

But I for one want to roll up the sleeves and start designing home that are fully energy nuetral. Start with a base model, i know it's boring, but a pre-fab. Work it out.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (25) Sep 15, 2014

"Well I am ever sceptical of statements that begin with words to the effect of "A friend once told me"."
---------
I guess I should have told you I was with him as he did it, and understood the many factors involved.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2014
As a civilisation we have a power demand (that is increasing).

For the some industrialized nations it has already plateaud (and in some cases is even decreasing). Efficiency takes over. You can use power for only one thing (at most a limited number of things) at a time (heating, TV, phone, whatever). If all of these things get more efficient power demand drops. Same for the industry: The number of product X being produced doesn't incresaed once market saturation is reached - which it is in most markets. Producers try to produce more cheaply and increasing energy efficiency is one way to do it.

We have infrastructure that in many cases was not designed with the kind of demand we are utilising in mind

The infrasturucture is adequate in size. It just isn't designed for the kind of regional variations and decentralized production of power we will see in the future.
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2014
Zera had me reflect on an issue in Australia with
For me it's all a question of efficiency. As a civilisation we have a power demand (that is increasing).
In Australia contrary is the case, we had a 'Carbon Tax' that provoked many to review power consumption habits, shift to efficient devices Eg from CRT's to LCD's etc and especially to invest in home solar power infrastructure which, in early cases gained a substantial return of approx twice power cost & in later years offsets higher power costs.

A power station closed, 1 or more other shut down a turbine.

It seems to be the case many are looking to shift their power consumption habits, offset power generation & at the least a growing trend to overall reduce power consumption per household.

Lets consider if homes can reduce power consumption, from fridges to washers & especially large format OLED displays, our domestic power consumption is decreasing.

Industry follows:- Eg. Burder factory in Victoria, 335KW :-)
bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2014
Look at the frenzy these two nutters get themselves into when unsettled by the thought of any dissent. So funny.

AA, you're bright enough to know that my point was, you could be wrong. It is possible you know. Then if and when you are wrong and these alternative energy sources become available then my point is that they will not be generally released for use until economic systems are in place to protect 'investors'. Then of course all those crazy freedom fighters are investing heavily in higher education and research facilities; a new fear, look out!

Some other weirdo is bleating in the background about people buying flat screen LCD displays because of the now defunct aussie carbon tax. Talk about twisted beliefs. Thats almost as foolish as me suggesting that Gravity is an energy source. Huh?

Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 16, 2014
bluehigh muttered
..when unsettled by the thought of any dissent. So funny
It's tragic as dissent appears often as easy means for uneducated to argue as if a panacea for missing out on university :-(

An old cliche may well provoke but it is not a substitute for knowledge.

bluehigh didnt read re Australia with
..will not be generally released for use until economic systems are in place to protect 'investors'..
These refute your claim:-

http://www.yingli...studies/

Especially scroll down to Burder re my earlier post.

bluehigh lumbered with
..buying flat screen LCD displays because of the now defunct aussie carbon tax. Talk about twisted beliefs.
Its not a belief its a fact, there was an upturn in LCD sales correlated with onset of Carbon Tax, this doesn't mean people wouldn't otherwise switch to LCD but it was a factor accelerating buying decisions, contact Australian Bureau of Statistics, they also don't deal in beliefs only facts...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2014
you could be wrong. It is possible you know.

Sure. But I'll give it credence when I see the physics behind it (or a demonstrator). Until then these technologies are as irrelevant as any other perpetuum mobile. Currently I see a lot of handwaving, grand promises, and dubious claims

And remember: I've been following the news on cold fusion and the likes for a quarter of a century - since the first days of the Pons/Fleischmann paper...and the tone hasn't changed in all that time.
It's not that I don't look when something seemingly implausible is proclaimed. It's just that after a while you get good a weeding out scam from real physics, fast. The better you get a physics and the scientific method in general, the more obvious the differences become.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2014
AA, fair comment. Politely, I hope you are wrong. I hope I am mistaken too, and that if viable a new source is found, it's not suppressed. Goodnight.
betterexists
1 / 5 (1) Sep 16, 2014
Well, KoreaBusinessNews today has 74X H2 production from H2O.
The Trick is to use the Entire Sunlight instead of using only UV Rays of Sun only as was done before.
Also, Gold Nanoparticles I think get 2 more Nanostuff added to make it work far more efficiently!
I am surprised there are no other news reports of it YET!
betterexists
2.5 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2014
you could be wrong. It is possible you know.
Sure. But I'll give it credence when I see the physics behind it (or a demonstrator). Until then these technologies aus the differences become.

I THINK THE KEY TO IT ALL....Either Biology, Engineering....ALL KINDS OF TECHNOLOGY AREAS is the BIRTH OF REAL QUANTUM COMPUTER! More Money should be doled out in that quest rather than for DUBIOUS WARS! JUST Don't GO There & GET BEHEADED!
betterexists
1 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2014
Well, KoreaBusinessNews today has 74X H2 production from H2O.
The Trick is to use the Entire Sunlight instead of using only UV Rays of Sun only as was done before. Also, Gold Nanoparticles I think get 2 more Nanostuff added to make it work far more efficiently! I am surprised there are no other news reports of it YET!
The News Report says When this technology is commercialized and the energy storing technology is more advanced together afterwards, home appliances and even automobiles can be operated with only water, without any infusion of electricity or fuel from outside. businesskorea.co.kr
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2014

I THINK THE KEY TO IT ALL....Either Biology, Engineering....ALL KINDS OF TECHNOLOGY AREAS is the BIRTH OF REAL QUANTUM COMPUTER!

Beware of people saying "X is the solution to everything" - they are always oversimplifying (i.e.: wrong)
The universe tends to be a place with rather delicious complexity.
wifiwaves
5 / 5 (1) Sep 17, 2014
Lightning bolts...

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.