http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080731143345.htm
"The key component in Nocera and Kanan's new process is a new catalyst that produces oxygen gas from water; another catalyst produces valuable hydrogen gas. The new catalyst consists of cobalt metal, phosphate and an electrode, placed in water. When electricity ? whether from a photovoltaic cell, a wind turbine or any other source ? runs through the electrode, the cobalt and phosphate form a thin film on the electrode, and oxygen gas is produced.
Combined with another catalyst, such as platinum, that can produce hydrogen gas from water, the system can duplicate the water splitting reaction that occurs during photosynthesis."
Quoted from the article: "This project was funded by the National Science Foundation and by the Chesonis Family Foundation, which gave MIT $10 million this spring to launch the Solar Revolution Project, with a goal to make the large scale deployment of solar energy within 10 years."
Arrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!...................... Another TEN years to wait.
This was posted few days ago. Different article on same thing.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,5272.0/topicseen.html
I can't find anything concrete how good their revolutionary system is. Just "efficient" is a bit arbitrary.
There needs to be more organisations to work on this because we don't need this technology within 10 years, we need it now.
My personal opinion is that out of current methods, flow batteries (e.g. vanadium redox) are the best option for average home power station. They don't have the inneficiencies that electrolyzers/fuel cells have and they are safe to store, and don't degrade like conventional batteries. To my knowledge their capacity is well comparable to hydrogen tanks as well. All the technology is there, but there's lack of manufacturers.
Quote from: retroworm on August 06, 2008, 02:25:50 PM
My personal opinion is that out of current methods, flow batteries (e.g. vanadium redox) are the best option for average home power station. They don't have the inneficiencies that electrolyzers/fuel cells have and they are safe to store, and don't degrade like conventional batteries. To my knowledge their capacity is well comparable to hydrogen tanks as well. All the technology is there, but there's lack of manufacturers.
correct me if i'm wrong...batteries are just getting smaller...(i)/we are concerned with energy sources moreso than ways to store it
This thread is about storing energy. If we can't find workin OU device over here, sun is the next best thing we have. But sun doesn't always shine so you'll have to buffer some energy to keep going. Even at their finest, conventional batteries cannot compete with chemical fuels in energy density or cost. They are expensive, and degrade over time. I may seem negative here, but my gripe is that MIT is quick to make bold claims without showing anything concrete, and even if they reach that magic 100% input efficiency they still lose to flow batteries in safety, energy density per volume, output efficiency and probably initial cost.