Monash team learns from nature to split water

w1z4rd

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
52,146
Reaction score
8,340
Location
127.0.0.1
An international team of researchers led by Monash University has used chemicals found in plants to replicate a key process in photosynthesis paving the way to a new approach that uses sunlight to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

The breakthrough could revolutionise the renewable energy industry by making hydrogen – touted as the clean, green fuel of the future – cheaper and easier to produce on a commercial scale.
Click to expand...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/mu-mtl081408.php
 
Im not sure if this kinda tech is ganna solve the energy problem, cause hydrogen is not ideal. Sure, there are still all these 'ideas' kicking around on the fringes - but the heart has gone out of it. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it's just a storage medium - and it's also a an energy sink, a negative energy producer.

Nuclear energy is the way to go.
 
w1z4rd said:
Im not sure if this kinda tech is ganna solve the energy problem, cause hydrogen is not ideal. Sure, there are still all these 'ideas' kicking around on the fringes - but the heart has gone out of it. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it's just a storage medium - and it's also a an energy sink, a negative energy producer.

Nuclear energy is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Hydrogen is a bit safer than nuclear energy and if storage problems can be addressed, it can replace fossil fuels for the combustion engine. But more good competing ideas are good for competition, which in the end can only be good for the consumer and the planet. Maybe bacteria can be used to make renewable hydrogen.
Hydrogen-Producing Bacteria Provide Clean Energy
 
How is it 'safer' than nuclear energy?

I mean other than Chernobyl (where 50 people died, and it was a classic example of what happens when you run a nuke station as badly as you can)... how has it being unsafe?

I know there was also Maine Island.. but no one died there. Hydrogen is _not_ a good source of energy. If anything it has a negative impact on energy and is used for energy storage.

The world needs to roll out thousands of nuke station pronto, and bring back cars like the EV1. Its our cleanest, safest, smartest form of mass produced energy RIGHT NOW.
 
w1z4rd said:
How is it 'safer' than nuclear energy?

I mean other than Chernobyl (where 50 people died, and it was a classic example of what happens when you run a nuke station as badly as you can)... how has it being unsafe?

I know there was also Maine Island.. but no one died there. Hydrogen is _not_ a good source of energy. If anything it has a negative impact on energy and is used for energy storage.

The world needs to roll out thousands of nuke station pronto, and bring back cars like the EV1. Its our cleanest, safest, smartest form of mass produced energy RIGHT NOW.
Click to expand...

I am also all for Nuclear energy, but it really is not safer or cleaner than hydrogen. Both require huge safety precautions, but human error in either process can be lethal. Hydrogen as energy source is an infinitely cleaner source though, since nuclear leaves waste for thousands of years after operation has seized.

Your statement that Hydrogen is not a good source of energy puzzles me as well.... Are you perhaps confusing water with hydrogen as energy? I.e. the process to produce hydrogen from water to then use the hydrogen to create water again? If that is your train of thought, yes hydrogen is a bad source of energy and can be seen as a negative/ Zero energy gain or energy storage mechanism.
The article in discussion though gives us a method to cheaply produce hydrogen, thus reducing the costs involved with hydrogen energy. The costs being eliminated/ reduced thus can be seen as a potential gain.

Hydrogen in itself (taking away the producing of it) is in fact an incredibly good source of energy, we just need to find hydrogen gas pockets on earth to make use of this energy source. Or alternatively mine it from gas planets or the sun ;)
 
So... If we use water as the so called fuel of the future, then i wonder how long it will take before earth has no more water...
 
LabAnimal said:
So... If we use water as the so called fuel of the future, then i wonder how long it will take before earth has no more water...
Click to expand...

Well, it does not exactly work like that ;) As discribed above, water is used to produce hydrogen, then the hydrogen is used to react with air to produce water. Water/ hydrogen in this case is thus a energy storage technology and not used up to produce energy.

1. water + energy => Hydrogen + Oxygen
2. Oxygen + Hydrogen => water + energy

If the energy required in reaction 1 can be obtained cheap (like the sun) lots of energy can be stored this way and then be used again when needed.
 
werries2 said:
I am also all for Nuclear energy, but it really is not safer or cleaner than hydrogen. Both require huge safety precautions, but human error in either process can be lethal. Hydrogen as energy source is an infinitely cleaner source though, since nuclear leaves waste for thousands of years after operation has seized.
Click to expand...

Throw it at the sun? Find alternative uses for it. Optimise current effciency.

Your statement that Hydrogen is not a good source of energy puzzles me as well.... Are you perhaps confusing water with hydrogen as energy?
Click to expand...


Try Google. Lots of info out there about the failed "hydrogen ecomony" and how hydrogen is both nothing more than a storage medium and an energy sink (meaning it takes more energy to produce than it returns when used).
 
Last edited:
w1z4rd said:
Throw it at the sun? Find alternative uses for it. Optimise current effciency.




Try Google. Lots of info out there about the failed "hydrogen ecomony" and how hydrogen is both nothing more than a storage medium and an energy sink (meaning it takes more energy to produce than it returns when used).
Click to expand...


Firstly throwing necluear waste at the sun is a option but it is not available now or anytime soon. While we are producing tons of necluear waste per day. What would the cost be involved to get it up in space? How many countries have been stable for over 10 000 years? Can we really trust that nuclear waste facilities will be maintained well into the future by goverments? Alternative uses, yes for the spend fuel (nuclear material) but what about all the nuclear contaminated waste. Spend rods only account for a small percentage of nuclear waste.

Failed hydrogen economy is an ongoing debate, and if you googled it you would know this as well. Hydrogen from water as I said is a waste of energy, but water aint the only source of hydrogen. In fact most hydrogen is produced from natural gass 48% while hydrogen from water only accounts for 4% of world production. Hence my question are you refering to hydrogen as in hydrogen from water or are you refering to hydrogen itself?
 
BTW I like debating science "facts" but using google as a reference aint exactly gona inforce your statment without providing some scientific basis for your conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X