Inexpensive, efficient bi-metallic electrocatalysts may open floodgates for hydrogen fuel

March 17, 2015
Feng Jiao and researchers at UD and Columbia University have discovered a cheap and efficient catalyst for converting water to hydrogen fuel. Credit: Evan Krape

University of Delaware researchers have discovered a cheap and efficient catalyst for converting water to hydrogen fuel (known as hydrogen evolution), a vital step in making hydrogen a viable and sustainable energy source.

"The rising concerns about have led to a growing realization that it is not possible to sustain the world's current development without a substitution of clean and renewable energy," writes Feng Jiao, assistant professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering and a co-author on the paper published in the current issue of Nature Communications. "Hydrogen is a potential clean fuel for our society." 

Hydrogen has many industrial uses, and is being investigated as an alternative fuel for motor vehicles. 

Unlike carbon-based fuels, which emit CO2 on burning, the waste product of running a fuel cell or engine on hydrogen is water. But its use for has been hampered by the methods used to create the in the first place. 

Industries normally use the steam methane reforming process, which requires natural gas and a lot of energy and produces as a byproduct. This makes hydrogen fuel costly to produce, both economically and environmentally. 

Obtaining hydrogen from water instead of methane, via electrolysis (in which a low-level electric current separates the from the oxygen atoms), needs less energy, produces oxygen as a byproduct, and could make much more sustainable. 

This requires metal catalysts, which assist with electron transfer and thereby reduce the energy needed to drive the reaction. But the best catalyst for hydrogen evolution has been platinum, which is too expensive to use on a large scale. 

As part of a collaboration between UD and Columbia University, Jiao and his colleagues at both institutions discovered a potentially groundbreaking alternative—combining copper and titanium in a way that imitates the structure of a platinum catalyst. 

"The catalyst is made of two cheap and abundant elements, [but] its activity is comparable to the state-of-art platinum catalyst," notes Jiao. The new catalyst is not only more cost-effective but makes the reaction go even faster.

By themselves, copper and titanium are not good catalysts for evolution, but combined, they form a unique structure at the atomic scale, similar to that of the . Moreover, a nanoporosity was created to expose the maximum number of active sites, spots where the reaction can take place. 

Certain arrangements of copper and titanium atoms form nonreactive sites, reducing the efficiency, so the ratios and placement of the atoms are tightly controlled. 

The bi-metal (copper-titanium) catalyst supports itself structurally, so it doesn't need to be built each time it's used, or attached to a conductive surface like carbon. This further reduces the energy penalty for the reaction. 

The inexpensiveness and efficiency provide exciting possibilities, says Jiao. "It opens new opportunities to replace expensive precious with cheap ones without compromising the performance."

Explore further: New nanomaterials will boost renewable energy

More information: "Highly porous non-precious bimetallic electrocatalysts for efficient hydrogen evolution" Nature Communications 6, Article number: 6567 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms7567

Related Stories

New nanomaterials will boost renewable energy

March 9, 2015

Global energy consumption is accelerating at an alarming rate. There are three main causes: rapid economic expansion, population growth, and increased reliance on energy-based appliances across the world.

New step towards future production of solar fuels

January 26, 2015

One way of storing solar energy is to transform the energy directly into a fuel. Researchers at Uppsala University have shown a reaction which makes the process of creating fuel from solar energy more efficient and less energy ...

Recommended for you

Hydrogen from sunlight—but as a dark reaction

December 9, 2016

The storage of photogenerated electric energy and its release on demand are still among the main obstacles in artificial photosynthesis. One of the most promising, recently identified photocatalytic new materials is inexpensive ...

Cloud formation—how feldspar acts as ice nucleus

December 9, 2016

In the atmosphere, feldspar particles act as ice nuclei that make ice crystals grow in clouds and enable precipitation. The discovery was made by researchers of Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) and University College ...

97 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

karl26
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2015
Any progress is welcome, but hydrogen is difficult to transport and store, and you still need an energy source. Hydrogen is just a way of storing energy, not a source. Coupled with nuclear power and a really good compressed gas tank, maybe. Maybe at best.
Tektrix
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2015
"Hydrogen is just a way of storing energy, not a source."

Any material can be said to be storing energy. What makes something a useful source of energy depends on many factors- energy density and ease of extracting the energy being two important ones.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2015
Hydrogen is just a way of storing energy, not a source.

So are fossil fuels.

They are using 'source' in the sense of something you can use to run an engine.
Coupled with nuclear power and a really good compressed gas tank, maybe. Maybe at best.

Coupling it with nuclear makes no sense. Coupling it with renewables - which sometimes produce too much energy - is a match made in heaven.
harley david
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2015
What will really make hydrogen competitive is if this process can be produced on site. This will of course eliminate the need to transport the fuel to the site, which is dangerous and uses a lot of fuel too transport. If the power to produce the hydrogen can be produced by wind and or solar so much the better. It seems like every day a new improvement is being made to solar and hydrogen efficiency. The day when we can finally eliminate fossil fuels is fast approaching.
alcore
1 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2015
Hydrogen is not fuel. It is an energy storage device like a battery.

"Fuels" are chemical substances derived from a naturally occurring source of stored energy. Hydrogen "fuel" is not naturally occurring in any form. It must be created artificially by using energy from some other source to produce it, in the process, "storing" that energy.

No Free Energy!

Hydrogen gas is, itself, quite difficult to handle and store safely, and there is no large scale commercial mechanism that could be used for distribution. Gasoline (or simple electricity) by comparison, already has a mass distribution mechanism that's reasonably safe and inexpensive. (Ethanol, can "borrow" from the gasoline distribution system.)

Hydrogen has all the same risks as Propane, costs vastly more to produce (since propane is an actual natural fuel, and hydrogen is not), and has lower overall energy storage density.

Note that Propane has not displaced Gasoline, despite being cheaper.
l_nino
5 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2015
Even with very efficient electrolysis, it is still wasteful to convert electricity to hydrogen to electricity again in the fuel cell to drive a car. Just charging the the battery from the electricity and using that to drive the car will always be more efficient.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2015
alcore
"Fuels" are chemical substances derived from a naturally occurring source of stored energy.


So if we derive hydrogen by reforming methane - it is a fuel, but if we derive it from splitting water, it is not?

PPihkala
1 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2015
This is good news. Where can I buy these TitaniumCopper-plates for my car's HHO-generator, while we wait for the ultimate hydrogen generator made by Solar Hydrogen Trends? http://www.solarh...nds.com/
Kilogram of water gives almost kilogram of hydrogen, so apparently they fission oxygen to produce hydrogen. And the energy input is small, having a COP > 100.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2015
Even with very efficient electrolysis, it is still wasteful to convert electricity to hydrogen to electricity again

Compared to the 0% efficiency of having to dump the excess energy it is very efficient. This is energy you get for free. Even if it were just 1% efficient it would be well worth it.
Just charging the the battery from the electricity and using that to drive the car will always be more efficient.

The reason why EVs aren't being sold in numbers is because of the combination of low range and recharge times. This puts a hrad upper limit on the distance you can cover per day. For many businesses (and some private uses) that is not acceptable.
Hydrogen has the advantage that you can fill it up similar to a gas station. So even if it had low range you'd be on the road again in minutes - effectively giving you an unlimited range. And that is exactly what is needed.
normy
4.8 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2015
Article is useless because they give no numbers for the efficiency of these new cells compared to existing catalysts. And we need to know the overall efficiency of producing hydrogen to power a fuel cell auto, and compare that to a hybrid car or eco-diesel.
Sonhouse
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2015
It is clear H2 will be stored in a solid of some kind, not as a compressed gas which would not give a car enough range and would be dangerous if punctured. As some kind of hydride, it would be less dangerous than gasoline or diesel fuel and still only emit water at the exhaust. You still need an H2 infrastructure, because at some point you have to deal with H2 as a gas so you will have to be able to transport that gas in spite of the fact we will be using some kind of solid H2 storage system.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2015
You still need an H2 infrastructure, because at some point you have to deal with H2 as a gas so you will have to be able to transport that gas in spite of the fact we will be using some kind of solid H2 storage system.

Storage of gas: yes. Transport: why?
H2 gas can be created in situ at gas stations. All you need is water and a power line. So we would actually eliminate (the dangers and emissions of) all the tanker trucks currently on the streets.

The only situation where we would have to deal with H2 transport is if we choose to have largish (way) off shore solar/wind farms with no connection to the mainland. The we could have these create H2 and transport this via ship to mainland power stations when needed.
(Which would also be a good idea to counter any arghuments that stiring H2 is dangerous. We'd store it out at sea where the damage potential is minimal.)
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2015
Sonhouse
It is clear H2 will be stored in a solid of some kind, not as a compressed gas which would not give a car enough range and would be dangerous if punctured.


I thought the current generation fuel cell cars will be using compressed hydrogen tanks. The Toyota Mirai, and Hyundai Tucson will. http://www.geekwi...perfect/
https://www.hyund...uelcell/
gculpex
not rated yet Mar 19, 2015
Side question: Does any one know how much energy it takes to produce one gallon of gasoline(87 octane)? I heard up to 4 gallons of oil but that might also include transportation and gaining accessto the oil.
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2015
gculpex - that number varies greatly - depending on many factors. You can look up the EROI (energy return on Investment) for different energy sources. To produce x units of energy's worth of fuel - we use y units of energy. Here is a really interesting chart - http://8020vision...very.png Which will give you a good overview. Basically in the U.S. - we are at about 10:1 - meaning that for every unit of energy used - we develop 10 units of energy of oil. I think that tar sands is around 5:1.
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2015
Sonhouse is correct about having to store the hydrogen in a hydride. The energy losses compressing and storing compressed H2 are huge.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2015
Also storing H2 in the form of ammonia is a good solution. An IC engine can burn ammonia directly as a fuel until the price of fuel cells comes down.
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2015
MR166
Sonhouse is correct about having to store the hydrogen in a hydride.


Well - a nice definitive statement there - but no response to the reality that I presented to you - which is that all the current gen fuel cell cars will be using compressed gas. Do you refute what I asserted? Great - give us some support. Or is it that you know better than teams of probably thousands of working engineers like the folks at Mercedes - who are using compressed hydrogen http://www.mbusa....tric_car
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2015
Onions compressing H2 to 700 bar uses 10+% of the available energy right there. If this is done locally in a small gas station type plant the losses are even greater. Also, who really wants to have a 10,000 psi tank sitting in their trunk. This tank will be under sever cycling stress since it will emptied and refilled many times during it's useful life. I imagine that it would have to be re-certified many times during it's lifetime at high cost.

Sorry, hydrides or a liquid fuel storage looks to be a lot more feasible for a real production vehicle.
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2015
I wish Mercedes luck with that tank otherwise H2 will stand for Hindenburg II!
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2015
Sorry, hydrides or a liquid fuel storage looks to be a lot more feasible for a real production vehicle.


You may be right - and that may be what the engineers eventually settle on. What you are not right about - is that currently the engineers are going with compressed gas. Toyota - the largest car company in the world - is going to use compressed gas. Can you give me one example of a major car company that is developing hydrides, or liquid hydrogen storage? Why don't you answer the question - what gives you the authority to know better than all the engineers out there that are actually building these things. Stop with the back of a napkin - know it all calculations - and answer the question.
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2015
Onions there is a huge difference between an actual mass market production vehicle and an extended prototype made available to the public on a very limited basis. For these cars to accomplish any environmental goals they have to be convenient and affordable. Selling a few thousand cars a year to rich people solves nothing.
greenonions
3.5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2015
there is a huge difference between an actual mass market production vehicle and an extended prototype made available to the public on a very limited basis.


So what? Nothing you have said answers the questions I keep asking you. You make these grand assertions - and provide no support for them. Can you name one major car company that is currently pursuing hydrides or liquid hydrogen? What gives you the right to know better than all of those engineers?

Selling a few thousand cars a year to rich people solves nothing.


That is what the luddites said about the first gasoline cars. You have to start somewhere. Why are you so negative about emerging technologies?
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2015
I know and applaud the goal here. We want to turn peak renewable energy into stored energy that can displace fossil fuels. I contend that you are better off using any H2 produced in a stationary plant since the storage containers will be a lot cheaper to produce. The electricity that these plants produce can then be used to power electric cars. As an added benefit we do not need to reinvent the wheel to do this.

Now if you can prove that using the H2 in millions of vehicles is cheaper and more energy efficient than a few stationary plants I am willing to listen.
greenonions
3.5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2015
You never answer the freakin question.

I never said that H2 in cars is cheaper than stationery vehicles. The point I am currently making - is that you always inject yourself into these issues - and never provide any support for your assertions. You always know better than thousands of highly trained scientists, and engineers - who are actually building this stuff. Why do you not hear the point being made? Perhaps fuel cells will be the transportation system of the future. Perhaps batteries. Perhaps nuclear generators like in Back to the Future. You just always have to be negative - instead of enjoying watching the future unfold. You don't know better than the engineers out there building this shit.
MR166
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2015
If this stupidity just cost the car companies 100s of millions of dollars I would not even bother commenting. But this will cost the taxpayers money too. Governments will not be able to resist the temptation to install H2 stations. There will be subsidies to purchase the vehicles.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2015
Still wont answer the questions will you?

You have now morphed the discussion - from your unsupported assertion that hydrides and liquid fuel is better than compressed gas (which may actually prove to be correct) - to now starting a totally separate thread about subsidies. Fossil fuels get subsidies too. BEV's are getting huge levels of subsidy. So now we are back to the other argument that you and Eikka refuse to address. Why was it fine for fossil fuels to get subsidies, but all of a sudden when renewables appear - you are totally against subsidies?
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2015
Well here is the question as I see it. What gives me the qualifications to question the engineers? They are designing a vehicle for a fuel that is not economically viable and one that will create more CO2 emissions than it saves when used as an automotive fuel. They might as well design a car to run on Dilithium crystals since both are a figment of someones imagination.
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2015
and one that will create more CO2 emissions than it saves when used as an automotive fuel.


Wow - so splitting water using wind/nuclear/hydro/geothermal/wave/tidal/otec - and running a fuel cell with the hydrogen - will create more C02 that it saves. And you are qualified to question the engineers. FFS
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2015
Yes! Until we can generate enough CO2 free electricity to fill all of our needs on a 24/7 basis, any electric power used to create automotive H2 fuel will increase CO2 emmisions more than using the electricity for other needed purposes. That is not really a hard concept to grasp.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2015
That is not really a hard concept to grasp.


Except that if you run a car on a fuel cell - then you are displacing the fuel used in an internal combustion engine. So that whole formula depends on what part of the world you live in - and if you are in a part that has a high penetration of low carbon fuels - such a Canada, or the NW U.S. etc. - then you are totally wrong aren't you. FFS
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2015
Also, do you have even the slightest idea of the carbon footprint involved in creating an entirely new fuel delivery infrastructure.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2015
The best you can expect is 50% efficiency converting electricity to H2 at the pump. Then the fuel cell has about 80% efficiency for a total power efficiency of 40%. That is pretty dismal.

You are much better off using battery powered cars.
johngo
5 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2015
I think what certain comments geared to hydrogen storage are missing or not following is the solar catalyst movement as it emerged from MIT. Dr. Nocera who was given a grant and lectured the issue in detail all over the U.S. Has a solar powered example in his lectures for storing or going direct to the grid. Selling to the grid is beneficial seeing semi size liquid organic batteries can store off peak energy. His demo illustrates solar panels on 1/4 of a ranch style home can, power your car, heat your home, provide electricity. Only takes 3 gallons of water a day and that water can be dirty. Where is the lack of efficiency?
MR166
2 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2015
So far I know of no commercial deployment of this system and it looks to be 5 or so years old.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2015
You are much better off using battery powered cars.


I agree with that - but so what? - my opinion and 50 p. will buy you a cup of coffee. It does nothing to change the reality that you made some incorrect assertions - and have never provided any support for you positions. These technologies are emerging - so just like oil and gas was emerging once - and needed time to develop - so do these new technologies.
johngo
5 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2015
The prototype for the suncatalyst and we aren't even addressing this article can be built for under $100. Yes. five years old, but does it do what it says it does? No Commercial market for hydrogen? No one is using hydrogen efficiently? um....Stealth fighter? Can't be done or too lazy to change? The benefit to a hydrogen power car like what toyota is doing is it is the beginning of a catalyst revolution. The car is the fuel cell and power plant for the home and grid and maybe driver-less. Even if hydrogen cars are hybrid a fuel cell as part of the car/home equation can have more than one application. It is a win-win situation in my mind albeit hopeful.

johngo
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2015
If we jump forward 5 years in time we have had F1 hydrogen cars racing, Toyota, Honda, Hydunai, BMW, and Nissan no longer talking about EV and the majority of the hype is on FCEV.

Remember part of the selling point of the hydrogen cars are that they act as generators for the home. This will power a rethinking. HHO modified semi trucks are on our highways. So, Hydrogen is here to stay and will be a much bigger player in more than just the car market. BBC aired a news article a day ago about this. BMW hydrogen 7 series albeit rare luxury cars and limos admit the development is already finished and has been for some time. Fuel cells are getting cheaper and now catalyst are even more so. The EU is investing 250 million Euro for hydrogen fuel stations. And recently the American car manufacturers have abandoned the EV model MR166 is suggesting for FCEV. Remember the switch from gas to hydrogen on the BMW is unnoticeable. Hydrids like the BMW H7 and modern variants will emerge.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2015
To Onions and the other progressives on the board here, I am sure that you hate GW Bush, consider him to be stupid and balme him for all of today's ills.

How ironic that you have taken one of his most stupid and most unrealistic ideas, "The Hydrogen Economy", and made it your mantra for world ecological salvation.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2015
More typical stupid headlines.

When you see such headlines, keep your wallet close.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2015
"The EU is investing 250 million Euro for hydrogen fuel stations."

That is exactly what I do not want to see here. If someone can show me just one economic or CO2 emission analysis proving that this is a viable solution to a problem I will eat my words. Most H2 is produced by removing the H2 from natural gas. This process emits a huge amount of CO2. A lot more than if you just used the natural gas as a fuel directly. Splitting water is very inefficient and most likely not any better.
johngo
2 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2015
The political thing isnt on my radar. I'm not focused on it not does it have any relevance to me. By the way, One hurricane releases the same amount of CO2 as all the cars expel in one year. Should we stop hurricanes because were really worried about the greenhouse effect?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2015
The political thing isnt on my radar.


You will.

"First they came for the ...., but I wasn't ....."
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2015
Maybe ryggy forgot it was our Libertarian side of the Body Politik which got us into those Bush Wars, then the Conservative Police State, in which we are all suspects now in our own country.

Did you vote for Bush? Get Fooled?
gkam
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2015
"One hurricane releases the same amount of CO2 as all the cars expel in one year."
---------------------------------

Really? Are they diesel-powered?
johngo
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2015
This conversation is waffling. Sure science has political implication but... who voted for whom and finding fault is irrelevant to the catalyst achievement illustrated in this article. The discussion should be about Feng Jiao and his fellow researchers. Creating a abundant efficient catalyst breaks political barriers and should not be setting boundaries but instead opening up opportunity in addition to solving problems. Albeit not a complete instant change it is significant and should be applauded. I think its great. anyhoo.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2015
MR166
To Onions and the other progressives on the board here, I am sure that you hate GW Bush, consider him to be stupid and balme him for all of today's ills


Well - you are correct that I despise President Bush - and also believe that he is not very smart. He lied us into a war - and I think he has a lot of blood on his head - all in the name of Jesus. I don't blame him for all of our ills - I am much to savy for that.
How ironic that you have taken one of his most stupid and most unrealistic ideas, "The Hydrogen Economy", and made it your mantra for world ecological salvation.


How ironic that you can't read. Nothing I have ever said indicates that I advocate the hydrogen economy. I do advocate renewable energy. I think that the great benefits of renewable energy are increased competition - lower prices - less pollution - less C02 - and increase choices for consumers. What do you stand for?
johngo
5 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2015
My goal for renewable are sustainable abundance via a demurrage tax. A socially conscious energy plan that uses commodities not as a source for affluence but has ethical checks and balances. Currently, the american monetary system is outdated as well as the tax system. Ambiguity, from competitive "earned" income will more than likely lead to protectionism. Simplification is in order as far as choices. This is why in America we have 1,000 different varieties of toothpaste. Goes against good ol' common sense. Stephen Chu has examined the issue of which power to go with in the near future and it is not hydrogen. doesnt have to be. Small scale nuclear appears the safest believe it or not. My personal choice is hydrogen. I enjoy the idea of clean burning fuel and getting all my energy needs from 3 gallons of water a day as well as purification of drinking water. I think it is a practical goal. And the University of Delaware is a part of that process.
johngo
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2015
"One hurricane releases the same amount of CO2 as all the cars expel in one year."
---------------------------------

Really? Are they diesel-powered?

No. Research it. I'd be surprised if u find I'm completely full of it.
Feldagast
5 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2015
I would like to see a link to where the studies are that show hurricanes produce co2 a simple Google search produces nothing about that.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2015
"I do advocate renewable energy. I think that the great benefits of renewable energy are increased competition - lower prices - less pollution - less C02 - and increase choices for consumers. What do you stand for?"

The discussion was about the feasibility of using H2 powered vehicles to lower carbon emissions. Please show me with some real numbers how this is superior to using the same H2 made from excess peak renewable power in a stationary plant. You say I am being negative. Sorry but I am just being realistic. Now if we can reach say 85% water to H2 conversion efficiency then perhaps building the huge infrastructure required can be justified on a CO2 basis.
zz5555
5 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2015
By the way, One hurricane releases the same amount of CO2 as all the cars expel in one year.

This seems counterintuitive. Hurricanes churn up the ocean, bringing up colder water to the surface. Colder water can hold more CO2, so it makes more sense that CO2 levels would drop due to a hurricane. Do you have any evidence of this? Here's an article that appears to refute your claim: http://www.telegr...els.html .
Should we stop hurricanes because were really worried about the greenhouse effect?

Why would we want/need to stop hurricanes? The natural carbon cycle isn't what's causing global warming/climate change - it's humans putting more CO2 into the atmosphere and interrupting the natural carbon cycle. Leave the natural cycle alone, it works fine. Work on lessening/stopping humans from creating more CO2.
bearly
not rated yet Mar 22, 2015
How many miles to a gallon of water?
johngo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2015
Too lazy to make an effort to find the article on the findings. It may have been published on Phys.org or can be found on google news searches. I'll read the refuting article and search for the other a bit later in the day.

I'm glad your not wanting to mess with the natural cycle. Warming the atmosphere as well as the oceans is interconnected. We can all agree human impact on the environment is cause global ecological disaster and that putting financial affluence as well as competitiveness before a balanced natural cycle is short sighted.

If the findings for CO2 emissions from hurricanes are accurate, the more unstable the weather patterns emerging in the near future the larger the adaption spectrum for living things. Predictions in the next 10 years from Quantum computers will give us better prediction models. If we are partially on the same page, we can certainly agree to a shift in the way we live in order to co-exist in a mindful manner.
johngo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2015
found some information. It is not the initial study.
Citation: (18) Knutson T.R., and R.E. Tuleya. 2004. Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization. Journal of Climate 17: 3477-3495.
Quote: "Researchers have also examined the potential future storm trends. Model simulations show that a one percent annual increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the next 80 years would produce more intense storms, and rainfall would increase an average of 18 percent compared with present-day conditions."
johngo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2015
Here's an article that appears to refute your claim: http://www.telegr...els.html .

The article that refutes is 4 years after the citation I included above. We do know that CO2 is trapped in oceans and hurricanes release massive amounts of CO2, the field is still in disagreement. My skepticism toward the article is A. Its the Telegraph (The equivalent of Weekly World News). B. No citations only name dropping. C. If the article is accurate, my question would be, what is the critical limit for the amount of CO2 the the ocean can store? Also, does it warm the oceans leading to increased intense weather? Does CO2 in the oceans have an impact on land locked humans. hmm...perhaps.
zz5555
5 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2015
Quote: "Researchers have also examined the potential future storm trends. Model simulations show that a one percent annual increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the next 80 years would produce more intense storms, and rainfall would increase an average of 18 percent compared with present-day conditions."

You should read your citation. And the quote you provided. It talks about how increasing levels of CO2 lead to stronger hurricanes (something seen in the record) not how hurricanes cause increases in CO2. But thanks for the cite. I have a couple other papers by Knutson, but not that one.

I agree, though, that the Telegraph stinks, but it's the only reference I (or you) could find on this. I'll try to look for the original paper that the Telegraph discusses.
zz5555
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2015
Here's the link to the original paper: http://www1.mest....o333.pdf (someone went through and highlighted parts of this). Here's a quote that is relevant:
Increasing sea surface temperatures may increase the intensity of cyclones and therefore enhance the transfer and storage of terrestrial biogenic POC in ocean sediments.

POC = particulate organic carbon
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2015
Increasing sea surface temperatures may increase the intensity of cyclones and therefore enhance the transfer and storage of terrestrial biogenic POC in ocean sediments.

It is just amazing how these "Predictions" morph to fit yesterday's news. Just a few short years back warming was supposed to produce more hurricanes and tornadoes. Well that did not happen so now it is supposed to increase the intensity. I know it's peer reviewed so it has to be true. The papers might as well be pier reviewed by the seagulls sitting on them for all the validity that the process adds.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2015
Yuuup, that big lump of guano on the front of the paper is living proof of the pier review.
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2015
166, you can always find a prediction by somebody which is wrong. I suggest instead, you ask the 90% of climate scientists their professional opinions.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2015
Gcam they are trying to set economic policy and government subsidies biased on these faulty predictions. 99% of the people will be even more impoverished and the puppeteers will be that much wealthier if this remains unchecked.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2015
Not to mention the fact that these predictions were all based on the climate models that you so fervently support.
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2015
Stop it. First, I doubt you have read any models yourself, so let's put that away.

Second, I have always maintained models only lead to the ignorati seeking some "proof" they are not perfect. The best ways to check it out is to look at the record: Tell me the ten hottest years in history.
johngo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2015
As far as the article, I cited. It is not the stat article or finding that more CO2 is released into the atmosphere in 1 hurricane than all the cars can emit in one year. I read the article either on Google news or Phys.org, quite a while back.

Those that took me seriously about stopping hurricanes, I wrote because it is absurd to stop hurricanes and it is also absurd to not use a cheap efficient catalyst for producing hydrogen fuels. Doesn't have to become the number 1 is everyone's lives. Never said or implied that.

Now, I'll go back to lying in other scientific forums for my own twisted political agenda that I've been keeping secret. (sarcasm)
johngo
2 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2015
Here is a public radio article about burping estuaries and CO2 emissions. (still not the article I was looking for but evidence of the relatively recent finding)

"What the paper basically has concluded is that one major storm, in this case Hurricane Irene which came along at the end of August 2011, can cause a system to give up as much carbon dioxide as it actually accumulates over several years."

http://publicradi...burp-co2
The 2014 CO2 satellite from NASA may have more accurate data.
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2015
MR166
Please show me with some real numbers how this is superior to using the same H2 made from excess peak renewable power in a stationary plant.


I have never asserted that it is superior. This all came about because Sonhouse claimed that hydrogen will be stored using hydrates - and I simply pointed out that the current generation of fuel cell vehicles use high pressure tanks (which is factually correct). Now you go accusing me of supporting the hydrogen economy, and suggesting that fuel cell vehicles are more efficient than stationary systems. I have never made this assertion. It makes it a total waste of time to exchange ideas on a comment section - when people like you cannot even read - and just make shit up as you go along.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2015


The discussion was about the feasibility of using H2 powered vehicles to lower carbon emissions. Please show me with some real numbers how this is superior to using the same H2 made from excess peak renewable power in a stationary plant. You say I am being negative. Sorry but I am just being realistic. Now if we can reach say 85% water to H2 conversion efficiency then perhaps building the huge infrastructure required can be justified on a CO2 basis.


From the goddam article ITSELF:

"...Obtaining hydrogen from water instead of methane, via electrolysis (in which a low-level electric current separates the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atoms), needs less energy, produces oxygen as a byproduct, and could make hydrogen production much more sustainable...."

H2 produced via catalyzing electrolysis of H2O.

Where is your excess CO2?

Do yourself --and all of us-- a favor by reading an article before making any comment.

There's a good lad.

MR166
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2015
Caliban it is simple. You are just looking at the production itself, not how it is distributed and the CO2 released in creating the power needed for the process. That is why the efficiency of the process is so critical to the viability of H2 as a fuel.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2015
Creating a abundant efficient catalyst breaks political barriers and should not be setting boundaries but instead opening up opportunity in addition to solving problems.


The state does not want to break political barriers and the state controls the economy.
TogetherinParis
not rated yet Mar 23, 2015
Thanks to rainfall, water is almost everywhere. Thanks to the grid, electricity is almost everywhere, too.
Thus, H2 could be made by onboard electrolysis. The race is now on to build an onboard electrolyser system. With a bypass nozzle/filler for getting H2 from storage tanks, we can have speed and near ubiquity.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2015
It is hard to guess which group is less in touch with reality, the cold fusion crowd or the water out of your tail pipe H2 crowd.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2015
We already have fuel cell vehicles. We do not have cold fusion.

And what did YOU give us?
ryggesogn2
not rated yet Mar 23, 2015
H2 is not a fuel.
It's no different than a battery.
Energy is required to create the H2.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2015
No, Rygg, it is a fuel. It is different than a battery.

Hydrogen is an element, and can be oxidized, then separated from the oxidizer again with electrolysis. In that case, water is just a working fluid for the oxidation and reduction of hydrogen. Energy is harvested and/or put into the process electrically.
petepal55
not rated yet Mar 23, 2015
The comment section on this site shows why peer review exists. Only peers will have the background to have an intelligent discussion on a given subject. The amount of bs, political pandering and just plain nonsensica one finds in these comments is staggering. The Kardashians could take lessons from some of the commenters on how to burn oxygen by respiration and then use the expelled CO2 to achieve no work or any other useful result. Just think how much CO2 would not be produced if only a small proportion of these people just shut their mouths more often.
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2015
Ryggy
H2 is not a fuel.


Please differentiate a fuel from a non fuel. It is my view that hydrogen is a fuel. It is of course accurate to say that it takes energy to produce hydrogen - just as it does all other fuels - such as gasoline - that requires energy to extract, transport, refine, transport etc. The EROI may be better on gasoline - but that does not disqualify hydrogen from being a fuel.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2015
Onions, I am proud of you! "EROI"! You have just put your finger on the reason that H2 will never be an automotive fuel unless some MAJOR breakthrough is made in it's production. There will always be a more logical solution until then.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2015
Face it guys, H2 may be the ideal fuel when you are trying to send crap to the moon but it is ludicrous to use it go to 7-11.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2015
BTW-----Did anyone care to notice that this new catalyst is just cheaper than platinum not more efficient. Even when using platinum, hydrolysis of water is not cost effective. So don't go investing all of your 401-K monies in the next H2 powered car company.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2015
Please differentiate a fuel from a non fuel.


It's like a battery.

It's a way to convert energy from one source to another. At every conversion there are losses that must be paid for.

greenonions
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2015
Ryggy -
It's like a battery.


Wow - very precise technical definition there Ryggy - In other words you don't have a clue what you are talking about - hydrogen is a fuel.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2015
I think what Rygg is trying to say is that, excluding the sun, there are no natural sources of H2 that can be tapped to produce energy.
ryggesogn2
not rated yet Mar 23, 2015
fuel: "material such as coal, gas, or oil that is burned to produce heat or power.
synonyms: gas · gasoline · diesel · petroleum · propane · power source · petrol · firewood · wood · kindling · logs · coal · coke · anthracite · oil · kerosene · propane · lighter fluid · heat source"

Battery: A device containing an electric cell or a series of electric cells storing chemical energy that can be converted into electrical energy, usually in the form of direct current.

H2: material resulting from applying fuel to water breaking the H2O bond and may be stored to be re-oxidized converting heat to mechanical energy.
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2015
So you can cut and paste Ryggy. You still have not given a technical definition of 'fuel' that rules out hydrogen. Fuel cells can be run on propane. Is propane a 'fuel' when it runs a gas turbine, but not when it runs a fuel cell. If I use propane in a turbine - and then run a generator off the turbine - I effectively do exacltly the same thing as pushing propane into a fuel cell. You don't know what you are talking about.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2015
Propane fuel cells need reformers unless they are high-temperature fuel cells, which use their heat for reformation, but all fuel cells run on Hydrogen as a fuel.
ryggesogn2
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2015
Propane is a fuel as it has essentially be created by nature and requires less energy expense to make that fuel ready to use.
H2 requires more energy to produce than it provides. It's a method to transfer energy.
johngo
not rated yet Mar 23, 2015
"My cat's breath smells like cat food" - Ralph Wiggam.
greenonions
not rated yet Mar 23, 2015
Ryggy - I yield to you on this one and apologize. Despite being able find articles like this - http://www.fuelec...en.shtml That say things like this "It is an environmentally friendly fuel that has the potential to dramatically reduce our dependence on imported oil" There were other similar sites that referred to hydrogen as a fuel. However - clearly the majority opinion sides with you - in declaring that hydrogen is not a fuel - just an energy carrier - due to eroi being below 1. I eat crow....
ryggesogn2
not rated yet Mar 24, 2015
Fuel is relative term.

If you have a hydrogen powered car, H2 is fuel.

From a systems perspective, H2 is means of transferring energy from electricity to the mechanical energy of the car, like a battery.
The question from the systems POV is cost.
If free markets can prevail, what is the real cost of H2 compared to gasoline or diesel?
In the end, market forces will prevail regardless of what the govts do. The only question will be what will be the collateral damage caused by opposing physics?
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2015
"The only question will be what will be the collateral damage caused by opposing physics?"

Rygg there is no opposing physics that is real since overall efficiency numbers don't lie. Also there are alternate lines of research which is a vital part of progress.

The problem is that physics is becoming a propaganda tool and scientists are paid distort or hide the real numbers so that the chosen path looks to be real progress and our salvation.

All of these H2 automobiles being produced are just very expensive PR stunts to make the car companies look "Green".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2015
there is no opposing physics


I know, but the socialists keep trying and we all suffer for it.
johngo
not rated yet Mar 24, 2015
Quesions: does anyone know if the catalysts can be up-scaled for use with water purification?

How does the cheaper catalyst apply to systems already in place by hotel chains with Hydrogen systems?

What applications would a proton flow battery have using hydrogen from water splitting?
( http://phys.org/n...wer.html )

MR166
not rated yet Mar 24, 2015
From your link ""As only an inflow of water is needed in charge mode - and air in discharge mode - we have called our new system the 'proton flow battery'," Associate Professor Andrews said."

"Professors" like this used to sell snake oil elixirs at every carnival until the local sheriff ran them out of town.
johngo
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2015
Perhaps. PEM are used in vehicles like the Honda FCX clarity. A production model hydrogen / Electric vehicle that is being taken off the market in 2015. Honda is going for a concept vehicle with higher volume.

What I got from the Phys.org article was :
"Hydrogen has great potential as a clean power source and this research advances the possibilities for its widespread use in a range of applications - from consumer electronic devices to large electricity grid storage and electric vehicles."

And also that with flow battery I am of the understanding that potentially the process can be reversed?

The diesel electric VW XL-1 is 200+ miles per gallon. Wonderful car. Low sales as well. It is a matter of experimentation. Sure many will look like snake oil sales men but what did Edison look like?
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2015
Caliban it is simple. You are just looking at the production itself, not how it is distributed and the CO2 released in creating the power needed for the process. That is why the efficiency of the process is so critical to the viability of H2 as a fuel.


Yes, sticks, it is simple, and this is probably why it evades your undersanding.

This capability could REPLACE the necessity for fossil fuel generation capacity and distribution. Solar, wind, geothermal, wave generation -or any other alternative energy source can supply the current needed for electrolysis, and the H2 and O2 can then be recombined to produce energy to be transmtted via the grid. Or, the same could be accomplished by rooftop capacity.

IOW, this could, conceivably, entirely replace fossil fuel for all power production, at every level, and could put paid to all the carping by FF apologists regarding the intermittency problems of (principally) solar generation diurnal excess/deficit.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2015


On the other hand --and likelier still-- is that you pretend to not understand, sticks, so that you can continue on with remarks such as this:

The problem is that physics is becoming a propaganda tool and scientists are paid distort or hide the real numbers so that the chosen path looks to be real progress and our salvation.

All of these H2 automobiles being produced are just very expensive PR stunts to make the car companies look "Green".


As a prelude to your complaint that this is all just a huge smoke'n'mirrors disinformation campaign to pave the way for the vast liberal conspiracy to create a single socialist world gubmint to forcibly take away all yer munny.

The reality is that the time of BigCarbon is coming to an end.

I suggest that you divest your fossil interests and get on the beam, before BigCarbon goes down and takes all your munny along for a fast drive down a deadend street.

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.