Energy from water
Thursday, 27. March 2008, 18:09:09
Conspiracy theories about the petroleum companies are abundant. I can believe some of them, but not all of them. Just the same, if oil were an unlimited resource, it makes more sense to phase it out than to keep using it. Current alternatives either are too inefficient or too problematic. That begs the question of what to do.
Three research groups, two at Caltech and one at MIT, have just made some big strides towards answering that. They found a way to split water molecules using sunlight and not much else.
The full explanation is a little bit involved. In sum the system traps water molecules, then it absorbs light to split them. It expels oxygen gas and hydrogen gas separately. These two materials can then be used as fuel to release energy and (abracadabra!) water as exhaust.
They're still a long ways from producing a working model for consumers, but they've made it work. And that's the hardest part of all.
Pretty cool, huh?
Three research groups, two at Caltech and one at MIT, have just made some big strides towards answering that. They found a way to split water molecules using sunlight and not much else.
The full explanation is a little bit involved. In sum the system traps water molecules, then it absorbs light to split them. It expels oxygen gas and hydrogen gas separately. These two materials can then be used as fuel to release energy and (abracadabra!) water as exhaust.
They're still a long ways from producing a working model for consumers, but they've made it work. And that's the hardest part of all.
Pretty cool, huh?
WIDGETIZE
Peter James Batty # 27. March 2008, 19:18
I honestly think the only way to solve the world's energy problems is by reducing the demand, either through massive efficiency gains, population control or pressure from environmental causes. Essentially, once oil runs out, which will happen sooner rather than later since demand is increasing, we will be forced into alternatives.
James # 27. March 2008, 19:36
We just have too many people in the world. From what I can tell, though, even Third World countries are pursuing family planning and conservation. Now if the First World countries could just ease up on their, er, OUR consumption...
hungryghost # 29. March 2008, 20:23
James # 29. March 2008, 21:39
The molecule's geometry acts as a cleft for electron donors/receivers. By balancing acid base activities in the substituent groups, a redox reaction can be highly localized. In this way, the device breaks water into its atomic substituents via catalyzed photolysis.
The resultant molecualar gases, H2 and O2, are combusted to release chemical energy and water vapor ("vapoUr" outside the US) as exhaust. This open-circuit style of reconsumption in situ can waylay the proliferation of the gases, thereby increasing system safety.
hungryghost # 30. March 2008, 00:47
James # 30. March 2008, 06:51
Now, if you were a mass-spec guy... well, I could accept that.
Maybe.
hungryghost # 30. March 2008, 16:57
I was a synthetic chemist - NMR, MS, X-Ray Crystallography - but these days, I'm a tumour biologist
so what do you do? You're in the sciences too I believe..
James # 31. March 2008, 04:29
So now I'm writing my thesis (sporadically) in evaluation and optimization of electro-optic devices. Meanwhile, I'm working (steadily) as a dbase analyst.
I'd never have planned on doing, but it's a lot more enjoyable than any other job I've had.
hungryghost # 31. March 2008, 04:40
Gibb's Law. Entropy. Yah. That's all I remember now.
Peter James Batty # 2. April 2008, 20:12
I always thought Chemistry more complex than Physics. It always seemed to me to be Physics + an extra few layers of complexity with extra long terminology to remember. Having said that, particle physics goes out of its way to confuse...
hungryghost # 2. April 2008, 21:14
But it's all good stuff. I have no regrets being a chemistry geek
James # 2. April 2008, 21:20
Q: What does a physicist call a diatomic molecule?
A: One atom too many!
----------------
Yes, I think that physics is easier than chemistry in some ways because it (usually) operates at the fundamental level. Getting too basic, though, causes problems. That's why statistical mechanics is limited to producing exact answers for more than a handful of problems.
The terminology is a bit intimidating at first. Then you speak it all time, and it's easy.
I hear you, Peter, on the particle physics front. I used to be a nuclear chemist and went with physical chemistry because it's easier.
Peter James Batty # 3. April 2008, 16:13
James # 3. April 2008, 17:11