Danial Nocera of MIT submitted a paper to Science online on electrolysis and a catalyst that lowers the threshold on H2 production from water. His energy source is solar cells and then he uses a fuel cell to recover energy later but with the appropriate loses. Even without his catalyst this is a good idea. I sent an e-mail off to Bob Park. Park's reply was less than favorable because of an earlier incident by a con man. Park's 8 Aug. offering discusses Nocera's effort in a more favorable light. What I haven't seen yet are Nocera's numbers, just the popular notes in Science AAA. (that's not a good sign)
C a r b o n footprint is zero. Nuclear waste is zero. Support from the energy industry is zero.
In this reaction the aluminum would be used up.
Something tells me the aluminum is more than a catalyst.
I see. Then the only gas is H2.
Norcea's method provides H2 and O2 that are used in a fuel cell. Hopefully, the storage of O2 and H2 is better than it was on Apollo 13.
someone like GM
I think you are all missing the point. I am not advocating a fuel for cutting fuel costs. I am pointing to a technology for alternative energy that doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. I am simply relating a method to do the following: solar -> solar cell -> electric current -> electrolysis -> H2, O2 -> fuel cell -> usable energy 24/7. To heck with GM. To heck with Black Light Power. To heck with over unity. To heck with little pills that turn water into wine or gasoline. To heck with the oil industry; I'd rather wear the oil in my polyesters than burn it.
You were talking about storage of the H2 and stuff and implied NASA was not so good at that.
I was talking about producing power from H2 and O2 employing a fuel cell. I'm not pointing out the use of H2 as a fuel for automobiles; far from that desperate option. In particular, I'm pointing to a recent MIT experiment that uses solar power to generate H2 and O2 then uses that output to generate electricity in a fuel cell. They don't get more out than they put in; it's not that zero point energy crap. What they are doing is using a catalyst to prevent the anode from reacting with O2 to maintain an optimum gas ratio over a long period of time.
The NASA reference was to Challenger and Apollo 13. Both of these events were caused by carelessness with highly volatile gases. Also pointing to the fact that the 'hydrogen economy' is dangerous. Any commercialization of the MIT process would still require a considerable distance of the average person from the gases used. Commercialization will also require large areas of solar receiver and generator space to provide the energy needed to compete with hydro-electric oil, coal, and gas generation.
is actually less explosive since it must be combined with O2 and a spark as opposed to gasoline which is volatile by itself.
In the presence of O2, hydrogen really doesn't need a spark of any energy. A static discharge of more than sufficient. A rapid compression of the gas mixture could do the trick just fine thank you. H2 is a very very light gas and has a tendency to leak through nearly any porosity with ease. It is odorless and tasteless so you don't known about the leak until its too late. At standard temperature and pressure (STP) it burns very hot and most of the light is in the far blue. During the daylight hours people have simply walked right into a raging H2 inferno. As for gasoline being more volatile; it is but you should remember that H2 is already a gas. Liquid H2 at STP it evaporates at an extreme rate freezing anything that comes in contact with it instantly; human flesh comes to mind. And, as for being less explosive, the Murrah Federal Building and Beirut Marine Barracks bombs were indeed Ammonium Nitrate and Kerosene but the kicker was the hydrogen tanks cemented around the nitrate and kerosene containers.
can approach 50,000 volts
That, for static charges, can be generated by sliding across a car seat.
the gas is held in another stable form then released on demand.
It must be released into a fuel cell to regenerate some of the power. If the H2 is converted into something more safe for storage then converted back for use in a fuel cell then there are two additional steps that reduce the amount of energy that can be recovered.
What I am saying is that the Norcea technique, while this may be a way to store solar energy, with reasonable loses, it is not an option for each and every house on the block. I, for one, do not want to pay the kind of attention to switching on a light that may set my hydrogen storage off and perhaps all the storage systems in the neighborhood. It's much better to generate this kind of power at a remote cite where it is the singular activity and can be controlled effectively. This technology should not be reduced to the casual because there is nothing causal about H2 generation or H2 power generation.
I, for one, do not want to pay the kind of attention to switching on a light that may set my hydrogen storage off and perhaps all the storage systems in the neighborhood.***************************************************************************************************I see your point but I don't think it is as much of a problem as that. I ,myself, wouldn't worry about it but then I am an engineer so I could handle the system. I think for individuals solar power is better on the small scale. Everyone thinks that you have to generate 120 volts AC to run you house but really you don't. AC became the standard because it was the easiest way to transmit power over long distances. But there isn't any reason to use AC if you are generating power for your self. All of the lights and motors in the home can work on DC if wired for it. Now there will be a cost to convert from AC motors to DC motors but after that DC works just as well. Large scale hydrogen production is probably better suited to eventually replace natural gas since the infrastructure is already in existence.