New Catalyst for Electrolysis Reduces Costs by 97% and Increases Hydrogen Production 400%

Hydrogen, the cleanest energy storage in the Universe, is most of the time associated with high costs, although it is extracted from water, which is the cheapest yet the most precious element to life. Extracting hydrogen from water is done through a method called electrolysis, but doing electrolysis efficiently requires the usage of catalysts such as platinum, which is very expensive.

GA-based GridShift Inc., funded by Khosla Ventures announced the discovery of a new water electrolysis technology that uses no expensive metals such as platinum. GridShift brags their technology reduces the costs with the catalysts by 97 percent, with an ounce costing just $58, as opposed to $1700 an ounce for platinum.

“Hydrogen is a critical piece of America’s future renewable energy policy,” said Robert Dopp, CEO of GridShift, Inc. “Our new water electrolysis process generates carbon neutral hydrogen that is cheaper than gasoline at a fraction of the cost and size of currently available water electrolysis hydrogen generators. We are now on the path to a truly viable hydrogen fueled future.”

www.greenoptimistic.com...

So I think the significance of this pretty much speaks for itself.

We now have all the technology we need to get energy from water efficiently and cost-effectively.

I think this is awesome. It's just too bad it won't be utilized anytime soon for the benefit of mankind.

If you read the link it says "The result is an electrolyzer running as a full cell at 1000 milliamp per cm2 at 80% energy efficiency."

What this means is that the inventor claims an improved process by losing less energy than conventional processes of electrolysis. All of these processes require more energy input than hydrogen output. If you burned the hydrogen produced by 100kWHours input power, you would get the heat from 80kWhours out. You would lose 20kWh in the conversion process.
It woin't be used for the benefit of mankind because it doesn't really benefit mankind.

reply to post by pteridine


Anything that makes things better, cheaper, smaller, faster, more efficient, more cost-effective etc benefits mankind.

reply to post by cupocoffee


This is a losing proposition no matter how you look at it. Electricity is used to make hydrogen and 20% of the energy is lost. What will you do with the hydrogen? It would be better to use the electricity directly and not convert it into an energy carrier that is difficult to store and only provides 80% of the input energy.

reply to post by pteridine


Hydrogen actually contains a tremendous amount of energy so in theory water could become a viable source of fuel if an efficient enough means of extracting the hydrogen could be found.

Stan Meyer and others are rumored to have already achieved it.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by cupocoffee

 

This is a losing proposition no matter how you look at it. Electricity is used to make hydrogen and 20% of the energy is lost. What will you do with the hydrogen? It would be better to use the electricity directly and not convert it into an energy carrier that is difficult to store and only provides 80% of the input energy.

Maybe... depends on the mode of "transportation". Example, say we have a bunch of windmills in a remote area. Instead of stringing power lines (which loose power over distance) we convert to hydrogen as an easier form of transportation via gas pipeline or as you said before "storage". With electricity it is use it or loose it. Better to store something than nothing.

I would love to have a windmill and solar power fill my propane tank or equivalent.... if you know what I mean. Also, if we can convert hydrogen to liquid fuel, it would make easy storage.





[edit on 23-5-2010 by infolurker]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by infolurker]

It would be great to have cheap, pollution free power.

But what happens in 100/1000 years when we have converted all our water into hydrogen and oxegen?

Currently water continually recycles for our good.

To me water is the most precious thing on earth, we have X amount and when thats gone we die.

reply to post by infolurker


I believe the idea is to create a fuel cell that extracts hydrogen from water and then burns the hydrogen as fuel right at point of use, like in a car. Having a car that runs on water instead of gasoline.

GridShift Incorporated, a Khosla Ventures “Green Portfolio” company, today announced that it has developed a groundbreaking new water electrolysis technique that can produce hydrogen at a cost of $2.51 per kilogram. This breakthrough technology is half the cost of current hydrogen production and effectively makes hydrogen a more affordable alternative than gasoline at an equivalent cost of $2.70 per gallon of gasoline.

www.physorg.com...

The key is that they are not using electric current to do the electrolysis, they are using a special nano-material

GridShift’s uses a new catalyst comprised of readily available nano-particles, reducing catalyst costs by up to 97 percent. Platinum is the most often used catalyst for electrolysis based hydrogen generation, but at a cost of over $1700 an ounce, it becomes prohibitive at scale. This newly developed catalyst costs just $58 an ounce.

Overall, GridShift’s new method for hydrogen generation produces four times more hydrogen per electrode surface area than what is currently reported for commercial units today. This means that an electrolysis unit using the GridShift method would produce at least four times more fuel in the same sized machine, or require a unit four times smaller than normal to make the same amount of hydrogen. GridShift’s new electrolysis method finally breaks down the barriers that have kept a truly green hydrogen highway from extending across the country.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by cupocoffee

 

This is a losing proposition no matter how you look at it. Electricity is used to make hydrogen and 20% of the energy is lost. What will you do with the hydrogen? It would be better to use the electricity directly and not convert it into an energy carrier that is difficult to store and only provides 80% of the input energy.

Because you can't have a car with an extra-extra-extra-long extension cord and batteries are veary heavy and also:

A lead-acid battery has an efficiency of only 75-85%. The energy lost appears as heat and warms the battery.

So hydrogen used in a fuel cell would be more efficient than other techs even with the 20% loss in the production of hydrogen.

Originally posted by infolurker

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by cupocoffee

 

This is a losing proposition no matter how you look at it. Electricity is used to make hydrogen and 20% of the energy is lost. What will you do with the hydrogen? It would be better to use the electricity directly and not convert it into an energy carrier that is difficult to store and only provides 80% of the input energy.

Maybe... depends on the mode of "transportation". Example, say we have a bunch of windmills in a remote area. Instead of stringing power lines (which loose power over distance) we convert to hydrogen as an easier form of transportation via gas pipeline or as you said before "storage". With electricity it is use it or loose it. Better to store something than nothing.

I would love to have a windmill and solar power fill my propane tank or equivalent.... if you know what I mean. Also, if we can convert hydrogen to liquid fuel, it would make easy storage.





[edit on 23-5-2010 by infolurker]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by infolurker]

Sorry but the idea of transporting hydrogen for fuel is utterly derisible - it can never, ever happen. It amazes me that people even consider it.

There are many reasons why - for example - hydrogen is VASTLY less store of energy than oil - hydrogen has an ERoEI (Energy return on Energy Investment) of 1:4 - so you get about one unit of hydrogen for every four you put in - where as oil has about 20:1 - thats right 20 units are returned for every one put in - that is why the world has advanced so much - so quickly - cheap transportable fuel.

Hydrogen on the other hand is also incredibly dangerous - to transport it at equivalent rations to petrol in needs to be compressed to 10,000 pounds per square inch - incredible pressure - and for such an explosive mixture (20 times more volatile than petrol and can explode merely through rapid expansion) - but to pressurize this fuel would require vastly more fuel than it releases.

To be able to deliver the fuel to petrol stations would require 30-40 tankers a day to meet the same tanker load of petrol - the station would have to be shut for a mile around while it is unloaded (volatile).

To transport it in pipes can not work either - it is incredibly light (see above) and contains tiny atomic structures - in other words it leaks through pretty much anything which is not solid - (valves, seals, threads, etc) so the entire system of transportation would need to be adopted.

The only hope for hydrogen is in a mixed supply economy of de-centralized delivery and local production. Even then - incredibly dangerous.


Remember - if were to rebuild all the cars on the road today using conventional techniques - we would need to use oil / coal - and that alone will kill us through run away global warming - we are completely stuffed.

Any solution to the global warming energy issue which requires major infrastructure is a NON STARTER - sad.

We need - literally a miracle.

reply to post by cupocoffee


A fuel cell running backwards to produce hydrogen is electrolysis. Then running it forwards to power the car is losing on both ends. Electrolysis is about 75% efficient at best and a PEM fuel cell is about 60% efficient, making the overall cycle about 45% efficient.
Of course, one can convert hydrogen to a hydrocarbon liquid using a carbon source such as CO2. The best way to make gasoline is to first make methanol and then use ZSM-5 in the MTG process. ExxonMobil will gladly license it to you.
To use the methanol in a PEM fuel cell powered vehicle one would first reform it to hydrogen and CO2. The downside here is that if onboard reforming is used rather than hydrogen stored onboard, the efficiency drops to about 40%; less than that of a turbo diesel.
Fuel cell powered vehicles for the masses are a long way off and many manufacturing, cost, and infrastructure problems must be solved, first. Infrastructure changes for hydrogen fueling alone are estimated to be on the order of $2-3 trillion.

reply to post by virgom129


If you use the hydrogen in a fuel cell or burn it, water is formed. Don't worry about running out of water.

If you use the hydrogen to make butanol a liquid fuel then run a fuel cell with it you eliminate the dangers of hydrogen gas.
peswiki.com...:Butanol

Butanol can be used in internal combustion engines, fuel cells, mixed with bio diesel to increase range an for a cleaner burn of bio diesels.

All these are cleaner then gasoline and carbon neutral..plus they do not affect the food supply like ethanol.

Why do people insist on using a technology of hydrogen that is dangerous when we can get the same results without directly using hydrogen.

reply to post by pteridine


How is water formed? You are seperating the H2O so how does it reform.

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by pteridine

 

How is water formed? You are seperating the H2O so how does it reform.

When hydrogen is burned or used in a fuel cell it combines with oxygen which gives you a water molecule. So the water molecule that you started with is seperated by the electolysis and recreated giving back the energy used to seperate it in the first place.

Originally posted by audas
Sorry but the idea of transporting hydrogen for fuel is utterly derisible - it can never, ever happen. It amazes me that people even consider it.

We have water everywhere, and hydrogen is part of water, so it is transportable in other forms than pure hydrogen gas.

Hydrogen on the other hand is also incredibly dangerous - to transport it at equivalent rations to petrol in needs to be compressed to 10,000 pounds per square inch

Hydrogen compression techniques are usually touted by Big Oil companies that want to continue the traditional gas tank consumer market.

The only hope for hydrogen is in a mixed supply economy of de-centralized delivery and local production. Even then - incredibly dangerous.

This decentralization has already started. It's why we have hybrids on the road now.

reply to post by pteridine


Ok..water is available virtually everywhere...oil and fossil fuels are not. That's one very obvious plus over petroleum is it not?

Water doesn't need to be prospected, mined, drilled for, and refined...fossil fuels do...another barrel load of plus points over petroleum..

When collecting water, if your pump explodes..no pollution occurs to the surrounding environment, whereas oil and other fossil fuels cause absolutely catastrophic pollution WHEN we have an explosion of a spill, or a tanker crash, or a ship hijacked and scuttled...need i say Gulf? Exxon? Numerous other examples?

Hijacking a tanker of water isn't going to raise much cash for pirates either!

Burning Hydrogen is clean...I'll say that again..BURNING HYDROGEN IS CLEAN! Another plus over petroleum, i think you'll agree.

Hydrogen has a greater energy density than petroleum, in it's HHO (or Hydroxy, or Browns gas) form, it is estimated to have 300% as much energy than petroleum..another plus.

Did i mention, that water is everywhere, is non polluting, and is abundant in massive quantities?

It is also free! It pours out of the sky you know! Coupled with a solar cell, or wind turbine arrangement, the cheap, very efficient production of HHO, to drive combustion engines, or to feed into fuel cells, or to use for heating, or welding, or cutting or myriad uses, is going to virtually free for all to use..

The only negative i can see with this technology, is to shareholders and directors in fossil fuel companies...what a shame.

If i were in their shoes, i'd be removing my money from their companies, just as fast as humanly possible.

Also, contrary to popular belief, (due to propaganda mostly), Hydrogen is both safe AND easy to store.

Ever heard of Hydride? Google it, and you will see that a tank full of hydrides will very safely and efficiently store hydrogen, and deliver it when needed. When H is stored this way, it is non explosive and will only smolder like a lit cigarette.

In complete contrast to petroleum, and other fossil fuels, which are highly explosive, highly flammable, and obviously dangerous to store and transport.

Oh, i think this will be of benefit to mankind matey...if you put your thinking cap on, i think you would agree..unless you have all your money tied up in fossil fuels of course.

Originally posted by spikey
Ok..water is available virtually everywhere...oil and fossil fuels are not. That's one very obvious plus over petroleum is it not?

Water doesn't need to be prospected, mined, drilled for, and refined...fossil fuels do...another barrel load of plus points over petroleum..

etc

Water is not a fuel. It is the waste product you get from burning hydrogen.