Thanks Jones, You are indeed correct they meant it only produces the hydrogen 30x faster, not using less energy.
But after some further research, I have come to believe this breakthrough does have implications which will change the world eventually. 1. The increased yield is nice but it isn't the real breakthrough, the fact that it can now be done with low loads of electricity is the game changer. Normally high yield hydrogen production takes higher loads than wind/solar can provide. This changes that. The added benefit of using low temperature, no pressure is also a huge benefit, although not crucial. 2. The "liquid sponge" is Silicotungstic acid, not very exotic, and only is only needed as a "storage container". Completely recyclable. 3. The platinum catalyst you mentioned is NOT used at all in electrolysis AT ALL, as is the case with current state of the art facilities. Huge production plants could run with not a shred of platinum in them. The paper in Science makes it clear that platinum is only needed as a catalyst when you want to remove the hydrogen from the silicotungstic acid. And the platinum releases the hydrogen 30x faster than the platinum used in state of the art electrolysis. Because it removes the hydrogen at such a fast rate, very little platinum is needed, and only needed where end use is intended. Current fuel cells need platinum anyway, it seems rather intuitive that a fuel cell could be devised that used the silicotungstic acid, and maybe less platinum could be used in the fuel cell than current hydrogen fuel cells. Even if not, only small amounts of platinum will be needed in spots where energy is needed on the fly. Like in each car. Combining that with a fuel storage medium (the liquid) that can be stored and transported at normal atmospheric pressure and temperatures, and suddenly a hydrogen economy which is powered by solar/wind is actually feasible. On Sep 12, 2014 5:28 PM, "Jones Beene" <[email protected]> wrote: > It’s actually not that surprising, and not really a breakthrough - since it > is platinum catalyzed. Which is the same as saying “dead in the water.” > Since only the production rate increases and not the electrical efficiency > - > the cost of electrical input per unit of H2 is the same. The overhead is > lowered, but that cost component is relatively insignificant compared to > electricity. > > As long as natural gas remains cheap, electrolysis of water makes little > sense if it requires platinum or any rare element. The water-gas shift > reaction, which is over 200 years old but could have been done in the > bronze > age, is almost an order of magnitude cheaper than any kind of electrolysis > for producing hydrogen (with NG at the present rate). > > OTOH – natural gas will run out sometime in the future. > > From: Lane Davis > Sounds crazy. But published in Science today. That lends > credence. > > > http://m.phys.org/news/2014-09-hydrogen-production-breakthrough-herald-cheap > .html > http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_358595_en.html > You guys know anything about this? > Thanks. >
