|
August 01, 2008
A New Kind Of Solar Cell
The boffins are at it again They have just invented a new kind of solar cell that produces hydrogen from salt water. In Situ Formation of an Oxygen-Evolving Catalyst in Neutral Water Containing Phosphate and Co2+There are two possible flies in this ointment. Indium is not abundant. Efficiency. It will be interesting to see if this can be manufactured at a reasonable cost. The New York Times has more. H/T Just One Minute Cross Posted at Power and Control Update 02 Aug 008 1415z Commenter Bill Woods tells me that this is not a solar cell but a more efficient way to separate hydrogen from oxygen. He is right. posted by Simon on 08.01.08 at 01:10 PM
Comments
No, it's not a new kind of solar cell. It's a new kind of electrolysis, which might make it cost-effective to store electricity — if it pans out. Take electricity generated any old how, break water (H2O) into H2 and O, then later run the gases (H2 and O2) through a fuel cell to get back X% of your electricity. This is being billed as a way to exploit solar power, but it seems to me that solar power matches peak demand tolerably well anyway. If you can make it, just sell it or use it. Wind power would benefit at least as much, since this would provide a way to turn an intermittent power supply into something more reliable. And nuclear (and coal) plants could run full blast during the night, storing up power for the next day's peak demand. Bill Woods · August 2, 2008 02:51 AM Unless there are MAJOR reductions in fuel cell costs, then the reconversion of the hydrogen to electricity needs to be done in some other way. Maybe a small turbine for residential installations, or a combined gas/steam cycle for larger facilies. Yes, it's less efficient than a fuel cell, but I bet on a cost basis, it still comes out ahead. david foster · August 2, 2008 11:36 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2008
July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Winning Hearts and Minds
Not Playing With A Full Deck Unforced Errors House Republicans In Revolt Over Energy Bill The One A New Kind Of Solar Cell Battling Against Wealth Increases A Song For Obama Obama Is An Airhead China - The Most Racist Country In The World
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I'm still a fan of the idea (I'm happy this has been talked about a bit). I was talking it up a few years ago when I realized that chemical storage is probably the way to go do to higher energy densities. The solar part makes it renewable as one's gonna get.
As to the idium part, to be fair, it's a catalyst. It doesn;t get used up. As to the efficiency.. well.. there's very little outside energy input once the system's up. This is a long term solution (although I think nuclear is the midterm one) as the hydrogen gets recycled back into water during the combustion. In an odd way, it's like a steam cycle.