Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Duplicating MIT's artificial photosynthesis breakthrough

F

Flark

Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
 
J

Jon Slaughter

Flark said:
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Get some salt water and put an electrical current generated by your solar
cells. Capture the O2 and H then use at night by burning the hydrogen in
oxygen to run your steam engine.
 
S

Sevenhundred Elves

M

Martin Brown

Flark said:
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

Not only that but it could be "duplicated" by the original discoverers
of electrolysis of water over 250 years ago - shortly after the first
primitive batteries were invented by Volta.

Reported to the UK Royal Society around 1800 by William Nicholson and
Anthony Carlisle. Humphrey Davy went on to isolate all sorts of metals
from molten salts by electrolysis in later experiments.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2003/August/electrolysis.asp

Electrolysis of water (with a condutive salt added - usually sodium
sulphate) to make hydrogen and oxygen is a classical high school
experiment.

The MIT hyped up press release and subsequent reporting of it in the
media is pathetic. They should report what they have done and how much
of an improvement it is over state of the art (if any).

A true stable man made photosynthetic catalyst would be *very*
impressive (Nobel Prize winning) but this is just an improvement in
electrolytic cell efficiency.

A couple of carbon rods, some wire and a battery is all you need.
From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

There may be a breakthrough here in that one electrode can now be made
much cheaper and with higher efficiency. But it is impossible from the
press release to be anything other than totally underwhelmed.

Regards,
Martin Brown

PS Apologies if this appears twice - news servers playing up
 
J

J.A. Legris

Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Possibly, but it's not as simple as the article makes it appear.
Here's an article with some background info:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.full.pdf+html
 
T

The Trucker

It's an electrolysis technology - modelled after photosynthesis. *Lousy*
article.

Looks like a better hydrolysis by changing the metal electrodes to me.
But it really doesn't give enough info to see how it is supposed to work,
and platinum is very expensive stuff. A hydrogen boost rig for my car
would be very expensive indeed.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
 
Z

z

Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

these articles all seem to focus on generating hydrogen separately
from water, and generating oxygen separately; rather than generating
them simultaneously. if that's what he's doing, it really is
earthshaking....
 
R

Rod Speed

Fair enough - good correction.
I don't know enough p-chem* to say why platinum is always the preferred catalyst

It isnt.
- but there have to be about a hundred million catalytic converters rotting in landfills somewhere.... platinum,
palladium, that series of metals...

Bugger all of those in those tho.
*I think it's just got a *whole* lot of electrons available,
Nope.

but I forget...

Thats the altzhiemers.
But who knows? Maybe it's a first step in a chain. Seems like we
get very little but abstreuse scienc eporjects from MIT these days...

Or complete wanks like this one.
 
P

Paul E. Schoen

Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Possibly, but it's not as simple as the article makes it appear.
Here's an article with some background info:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.full.pdf+html

==========================================================================

And here's a research article about hydrogen generation by means of
genetically engineered cyanobacteria (and green algae), photosynthetic
bacteria, and and anaerobic bacteria:

http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/2003/linking/asada.pdf

Sounds promising. Only about 6% efficient, but bacteria and algae are
probably very inexpensive to produce, and maybe you only need to make large
shallow lakes with plastic covers to capture the hydrogen? It has to be
better than generating electricity from photocells and then doing
hydrolysis on water. Once you have electricity, storage is easy.

Paul
 
B

Bob Eld

Flark said:
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

When I first heard about this, I thought they had come up with a cheap
method to directly split water with sun light. Unfortunately that is NOT the
case. This thing is nothing but another electrolyzer using some EXPENSIVE
cobalt based catalyst. No mention was made of what it brings to the table
not found in traditional electrolyzers. Presumably the efficiency is higher?
But who knows? The electricity still has to come from something like silicon
cells which, in effect, makes it a non starter.

It's the cells that have to get cheaper and more readily available. What's
the deal
with the electrolyzer? Is that a problem area needing a "break through?"

Yet again an energy announcement hyped in the press turns out to be
virtually nothing to write home about. I guess we can go back to sleep for
awhile longer!

BTW cobalt is one of those strategic materials that comes from an unstable
part of the world, Africa. We need it like a hole in the head as an
important substance required for our energy independence. Furthermore,
apparently the hydrogen electrode needs to involve platinum. That's another
detriment to successful implementation. I say, back to the lab!

It sounds like MIT has reinvented electrolysis. Good for them.
 
B

Bob Eld

Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Possibly, but it's not as simple as the article makes it appear.
Here's an article with some background info:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.full.pdf+html

--
Joe

I read this article and now am totally confused. Does the Nocera invention
allow sunlight to work directly on water, a reverse solar fuel cell if you
will, or does it require external electric current? The PDF above implies
the former but is not clear. All other articles talk of solar cells or other
electricity sources. I never saw such a pile of poorly written articles
obfuscating an invention.

It's not clear to me what we have, how it proposed to be implemented or what
additional devices or equipment will be required for operation.
 
J

James Arthur

Bob said:
Possibly, but it's not as simple as the article makes it appear.
Here's an article with some background info:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.full.pdf+html

--
Joe

I read this article and now am totally confused. Does the Nocera invention
allow sunlight to work directly on water, a reverse solar fuel cell if you
will, or does it require external electric current? The PDF above implies
the former but is not clear. All other articles talk of solar cells or other
electricity sources. I never saw such a pile of poorly written articles
obfuscating an invention.

It's not clear to me what we have, how it proposed to be implemented or what
additional devices or equipment will be required for operation.

The article is in today's issue of Science, available only
for a fee.

The transcript here's the best description I've found...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5889/710b/DC1

....but still no mention of efficiency or other performance
data. Which reeks. If it ain't efficient, it ain't a
breakthrough. If it is, that's what they should be touting.

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
T

The Trucker

This seems a lot simpler, ( I wonder what they aren't telling the
investors)
http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/algae-based-biofuels-in-plain--003362.php

"Algae, even in a regular, horizontal, open pond system, can produce up
to 20,000 gallons of oil per year"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that the this would make you think that there is 20,000
gallons of diesel fuel equivalent. There isn't. I am a strong proponent
of algae biofuels, but I wish these people would stop all the hype and
tell it like it is, From a pond system you can get 1500 gallons and from
a bag system you can probably get 3000 gallons of real diesel. At this
point everyone runs away screaming it will take too much land. But it
won't. The land and the water are free and plastic bags just don't cost a
lot of dough. So how much for the solar collectors and the pumps and
tanks? Algae farming is much more cost effective than any standard
agricultural fuel production and that is what we should be looking at. We
should be asking how much can we afford to pay the people that run the
farm while amortizing the cost of the pumps and the bags and the hangers
and solar collectors and motors. And you can only do a 3 year
amortization on the bags and a ten year amortization on the rest.

There will be no greenhouse because that costs too much. The farms should
be located surrounding the Sea of Cortes for the amount of sunlight, the
saltwater, and the free land, no freezes, and no bad storms. AT last,
NAFTA may pay off.

I am not Mr. Business. I have no idea whether 3000 gallons per year of
real stuff is profitable of not. But if what I have specified doesn't
work then it is not workable. And BTW -- Corn and all the rest of the ag
stuff sucks. IT seems to me that 10 years is the life of this deal
because in 10 years we will have better options. Those cement ponds cost
to much for a 10 year life. Bag it.


--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
 
R

Rod Speed

The Trucker said:
"Algae, even in a regular, horizontal, open pond system, can produce
up to 20,000 gallons of oil per year"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that the this would make you think that there is
20,000 gallons of diesel fuel equivalent. There isn't. I am a strong
proponent of algae biofuels, but I wish these people would stop all
the hype and tell it like it is, From a pond system you can get 1500
gallons and from a bag system you can probably get 3000 gallons of
real diesel. At this point everyone runs away screaming it will take
too much land. But it won't. The land and the water are free

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
and plastic bags just don't cost a lot of dough.

Pity about the land and the water.
So how much for the solar collectors and the pumps and tanks?

More than the 3000 gallons is worth, stupid.
Algae farming is much more cost effective than any standard agricultural fuel production

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.
and that is what we should be looking at.

Anyone with a clue doesnt bother.
We should be asking how much can we afford to pay the people
that run the farm while amortizing the cost of the pumps and the
bags and the hangers and solar collectors and motors.

Pity about the land and the water.
And you can only do a 3 year amortization on the bags

You wont get that out of them.
and a ten year amortization on the rest.
There will be no greenhouse because that costs too much.

Pity about the land and the water.
The farms should be located surrounding the Sea of Cortes
for the amount of sunlight, the saltwater, and the free land,

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
no freezes, and no bad storms. AT last, NAFTA may pay off.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
I am not Mr. Business.

Thats obvious.
I have no idea whether 3000 gallons per year of real stuff is profitable of not.

Fraid not.
But if what I have specified doesn't work then it is not workable.
And BTW -- Corn and all the rest of the ag stuff sucks.

Is that right ?
IT seems to me that 10 years is the life of this deal
because in 10 years we will have better options.

We already do. Its called biodiesel, stupid.
Those cement ponds cost to much for a 10 year life. Bag it.

Pity about how long the 'bags' last, stupid.
 
B

Bob Eld

James Arthur said:
The article is in today's issue of Science, available only
for a fee.

The transcript here's the best description I've found...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5889/710b/DC1

...but still no mention of efficiency or other performance
data. Which reeks. If it ain't efficient, it ain't a
breakthrough. If it is, that's what they should be touting.

Cheers,
James Arthur

OK on page two or three we find this:
"So is the idea then to couple this to a photovoltaic and also couple it to
a hydrogenproducing catalyst?

Interviewee - Daniel Nocera

Right. So here's how you would think about it. You take water plus these
catalysts and

light from the photovoltaic and you make hydrogen and oxygen."

Is this gibberish clear to your? Now I ask , since when does a photovoltaic
produce light? And that light goes to their catalysts? What? Did he say
that?

I'm sorry but this makes zero sense.

I think they mean that it takes electricity from the photovoltaic, to
produce the oxygen with their catalysts. Hydrogen is produced elsewhere,
which I also don't understand.

In any case why is this not electrolysis? and their device an electrolyser?

It seems that even the so called science guys don't know what to ask or how
to make it clear.
 
E

Eeyore

Martin said:
Not only that but it could be "duplicated" by the original discoverers
of electrolysis of water over 250 years ago - shortly after the first
primitive batteries were invented by Volta.

Reported to the UK Royal Society around 1800 by William Nicholson and
Anthony Carlisle. Humphrey Davy went on to isolate all sorts of metals
from molten salts by electrolysis in later experiments.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2003/August/electrolysis.asp

Electrolysis of water (with a condutive salt added - usually sodium
sulphate) to make hydrogen and oxygen is a classical high school
experiment.

The MIT hyped up press release and subsequent reporting of it in the
media is pathetic. They should report what they have done and how much
of an improvement it is over state of the art (if any).

A true stable man made photosynthetic catalyst would be *very*
impressive (Nobel Prize winning) but this is just an improvement in
electrolytic cell efficiency.

A couple of carbon rods, some wire and a battery is all you need.

There may be a breakthrough here in that one electrode can now be made
much cheaper and with higher efficiency. But it is impossible from the
press release to be anything other than totally underwhelmed.

Not to mention all the usual problems associated with the storage of
hydrogen (and if you don't klnow what they are you shouldn't be posting
about it).

And from MIT of all places ! Science is going down the drain.

Graham
 
T

The Trucker

OK on page two or three we find this:
"So is the idea then to couple this to a photovoltaic and also couple it to
a hydrogenproducing catalyst?

Interviewee - Daniel Nocera

Right. So here's how you would think about it. You take water plus these
catalysts and

light from the photovoltaic and you make hydrogen and oxygen."

Is this gibberish clear to your? Now I ask , since when does a photovoltaic
produce light? And that light goes to their catalysts? What? Did he say
that?

I'm sorry but this makes zero sense.

I think they mean that it takes electricity from the photovoltaic, to
produce the oxygen with their catalysts. Hydrogen is produced elsewhere,
which I also don't understand.

In any case why is this not electrolysis? and their device an electrolyser?

It seems that even the so called science guys don't know what to ask or how
to make it clear.

Isn't it incredible what the news people and science people will buy as
"scientific breakthrough"

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
 
J

James Arthur

Bob said:
OK on page two or three we find this:
"So is the idea then to couple this to a photovoltaic and also couple it to
a hydrogenproducing catalyst?

Interviewee - Daniel Nocera

Right. So here's how you would think about it. You take water plus these
catalysts and

light from the photovoltaic and you make hydrogen and oxygen."

Is this gibberish clear to your?


Sure. He misspoke. Or was misquoted. He meant apply PV output
to his electrolysis cell, and make gasses.

IOW, take an already inefficient source, toss away perhaps
2/3rds of that output to make something that you'll later
burn, tossing away yet another 50-60%.

12% x .5 x .5 = 3%. I'd be pleasantly surprised if the
thing's overall efficiency exceeded 2%.

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
Top