Cheap New Metal Catalyst Can Split Hydrogen Gas From Water at a Fraction of the Cost

Since when is the term 'cheap' interchangeable with 'inexpensive'?

Cheap by definition denotes poor quality, not low cost.

If PopSci is going to let anyone write articles for the web, at least hire someone with a grasp of our language. To be fair to the author; it is the jackass editor who is to blame here.

No one will learn anything if they are consistently fed poorly written information.

--GTO--

Why do we have to wait till they find a better catalyst before this becomes commercialized. You already said its 70% cheaper so why dont they commercialize it while continuing to research and when something better comes along then just replace it.

I mean if its already that much of a improvement, commercializing it could fund even more research into the field.

I always read about all these great improvements but they dont get commercialized until decades later because researching is a never ending process.

Things can forever be improved, so if you find even a small improvement you should implement it into society otherwise your just holding back progress.

Actually, cheap means inexpensive. Coming from the Oxford English Dictionary, cheap means "That may be bought at small cost; bearing a relatively low price; inexpensive." This is opposed to the slang "cheap-and-nasty" which means of poor quality or undesirable.

Granted, definition 4b mentions that it might be "worthless; paltry," but, I think that the author is correct in using cheap and inexpensive synonymously.

cheap [ cheep ]

1. costing little: low in price or cost, or lower in price than might reasonably be expected
2. charging little: charging low prices but offering good value
3. poor quality: inexpensive and of poor quality

Otherwise an interesting article

The word cheap was never intended to denote cost. It was only added to the definition and thus became the main definition after it became fashionable to use it incorrectly in street vernacular.

I guess my gripe is somewhat unfounded as languages change daily; English included. Can not hold onto the past with everything I suppose.

My apologies Clay. Editors of PopSci should still be expunged from the staff though.

--GTO--

I second some of the comments here. Is it ready or not?

A 70 percent cheaper catalyst should hit the market immediately.

H2 from water cheaply?

Let's go!

buckrodgers
Glad this works in dirty water. A few more of these catastrophic oil spills and that's all we may have left to use.
How scalable is the process to make this catalyst or does it need more reasearch to make production profitable? How efficient is it? Will we need production plants so big that construction costs will be prohibitive?
How much energy will it take to produce this material?
We CAN treat it like we did corn and subsidize it till it is so cheap (no matter the real cost) that no one would even think of drilling another oil well.

According to the article, it's 70 TIMES cheaper, ie, about $29/ounce. In any case, what matters is by how much does it decrease the needed energy to split H2O. Without that figure, which I didn't see in the article, it's rather vaporware.

Okay guys chill out. Does it really matter if they say cheap or inexpensive. Come on, that's semantics. look at the point here. We could sure use all that water.

And 70 times cheaper than platinum at $2000.00 an ounce is still expensive. And how much of the mteal does it consume to create how much hydrogen? This article is not very detailed.

We still need to find an even cheaper method.

I wonder how fast we will consume the oceans when we start burning the water for fuel.

How much will it reduce the rains as we start to consume the oceans.

We still need a better power source.

This seems like it could be a potentially very lucrative discovery in the debate for renewable energy. I feel like $29/ounce is pretty reasonable and obviously this is a very safe way to store hydrogen energy. I just recently saw a video that explains in detail the process of how military scientists are doing the exact same thing only with aluminum nano-particles which I think may be even cheaper. I'll post a link if you would like to see more about the process. It's pretty rad stuff!

www.ndep.us/Just-Add-Water

Get over it GTO

@GTO - From Princeton.edu

(adj) cheap, inexpensive (relatively low in price or charging low prices)

mclean
Hydrogen production has always been cheap compaired to any oil product. What we have been seeing is that the money of oil is keeping hydrogen at bay. Once people realize what these following words mean, and please use your dictionaries, we will switch over to hydrogen and never look back:
IT CAN BE PRODUCED ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME DAY OR NIGHT ANY TIME OF THE YEAR AND YOU CAN NEVER USE IT UP. THE CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS IS 100% COMPATABLE WITH ELECTRICTY. WIND AND WATER IS ALL YOU NEED. A WATERFALL WOULD DUE. ALL OF THE TEC IS ALREADY OUT THERE. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE OIL COMPANIES ALREADY HAVE HUGH INVESTMENTS IN EXPENSIVE OIL RETRIVAL SYSTEMS AND THEY KNOW ALL OF THOSE RETURNS ON THOSE INVESTMENTS WILL BE STRETCHED ACROSS LARGE INTERVALS OF TIME IF WE FIND OUT THAT HYDROGEN IS EASY. YOU CAN EXTRACT HYDROGEN AT HOME TODAY GET A BATTERY AND WATER AND THE INTERNET AND GO FOR IT. OIL IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF ALL OF OUR MEDICINES AND SHOULD BE SAVED FOR THAT USE AND NOT BE USED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND HEATING.
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION HAS LACKED LEADERSHIP DUE TO PRESSURES FROM BIG MONEY BACKING THE STATUS QUO - DON'T ROCK THE BOAT. THINK OF THIS - NO POWERLINES, NO UTILITY BILLS. YES ANOTHER POWERFUL ENEMY OF HYDROGEN. WHO WOULD WANT A FUEL SAFER THAN OIL PRODUCTS AND THAT CAN NEVER BECOME SCARCE - MUST BE CRAZY PEOPLE, AFTERALL, WHAT WOULD WE DO WITH OUR MARKETS BUILT ON THE POLITICS OF SCARITY.

@voices1776 I think that as a catalyst it means that it is not consumed in the reaction. a catalyst is something that makes a reaction much more efficient through some sort of mechanism and is not part of the reaction if I remember right from my organic chemistry class. though there could be more than one definition, kind of like the word "cheap".

also if pockets of oil around the world can supply us with enough energy for 100 years so far just imagine the scale of energy we would have to use to actually have an impact on the oceans. also hydrogen is much more energy dense than oil so we would need even less hydrogen by volume(liquid hydrogen) than oil anyways.

but that is not even a problem, when you split water and store the hydrogen you take away from the oceans and the rains but as soon as you burn hydrogen it turns back into pure H20 and thus enters back into our environment. so as long as we can create it on demand (with a renewable source of power) it will have no impact on the amount of water on earth or the environment.

like we could ever store enough in tanks to have an effect on the oceans anyways

@ ocmclean I know the idea that you can split water into hydrogen and oxygen with simply a car battery makes it seem as though someone is suppressing the technology because it is so simple and you can see it working when you stick some electrodes in the water but if you really do the calculations and test it you will find out that the cost of splitting it with electricity is way too expensive to ever be used instead of oil. it is also very inefficient and slow. there is no way that you could split water fast enough to run a car on. I fell into the trap of internet conspirators once too. I even bought a $15 instruction manuel on how to build a device to do it and I realized that its just not that simple. dont you think the people at berkly would have atleast tryed that first before spending tens of thousands on expensive catalysts to test.

P.S. I dont work for an Oil company either

Thanks Greg, I guess you did not bother with the follow up comment.

Another scholar from NJ...

--GTO--

The cost of the catalyst seems like a secondary concern as a catalyst by nature isn't used up in any way during the process. The amortized cost is negligible over the long term if the catalyst isn't destroyed.

The question I have about this article would be does this new metal simply perform the same task as the platinum at the same efficiency level, or is it more efficient? eg: Is this discovery simply a cost reducer for the existing process, or an improvement to the overall efficiency of the process as we knew it?

GTO - Even your second comment blames society and Popsci for your lack of knowledge of the English language.

I suppose reading comprehension is not your thing either. If you counted the glaring editorial mistakes in articles on PopSci over the years you would feel the same way.

Poor editing is a pet peeve of mine. Sorry if I offended you, your highness.

--GTO--

I'm more interested in the actual content of the article. I don't need to bash the writer over one word - a perfectly acceptable word, by the way. It's fine if you disagree with the story, but you sound like a lunatic when you call for the editor to be expunged and call him/her a jackass over the use of the word "cheap".

Nice. This is just like our government. A scientist comes up with the ultimate answer to all our energy needs and... the politicians argue about the meaning of 'cheap'.

that is cool, that means that one once of that catalyst would be like 28 dollars!

and also, i belive the dictionary definition is cheap=inexpenisive

BUT the conotation of the word cheap is low quality

wow Greg, your high horse is calling. I agree I am in these current times, wrong about the use of the word cheap, but that does not absolve the editors from doing their jobs.

you sound like you work for PopSci and/or their parent company. give it a rest. I like PopSci and I receive the magazine so I can criticize all I want.

Wow, are you uptight GTO!

A few other things to consider;

No matter how efficient the electrolysis process is there is still no net increase in potential energy. The energy to drive the process still needs to come from somewhere and wind and solar power is still more expensive then coal and oil.

A Hydrogen economy will require billions of dollars worth of new infrastructure to store and transport the Hydrogen.

Only about 40% of a barrel of oil is used for energy. The rest is used to make plastics, rubbers, waxes, tar, asphalt, lubricants, drugs, makeup, and a million other things.

Better electrolysis is only one part of the solution.

I was under the impression that "our" goal as a society is to use sunlight directly on the catalyst and water to drive the electrolysis.

There have been a large number of articles on synthetic photosynthesis and electrolysis. Why don't we put 2 and 2 together? This process is only truly worthy if no fuel (renewable or not) is required, only sunlight.

It is an elegant solution. We split water to release O2 and capture H2. We later burn H2 in the presence of O2 and release H2O. The net balance of water remains essentially the same.

In case you want to bring up the fact that H2 will be stored at various places, in car fuel tanks, etc... and this could permanently remove a certain percentage of water from the environment, think of all the fossil fuels and oxides we have been taking out of the earth for the past 100 years. Between them, we have been adding far more water into our ecosystem. Remember, fossil fuels consist of Carbon and Hydrogen, and burning then produces CO2 and H2O. We get Aluminum and many other similar metals from oxide ores. We remove the Oxygen (releasing a large amount) and retrieve the metal. That Oxygen in our atmosphere provides some of the source for burning the fossil fuels that create water as a byproduct...

Secondary to that, we might get an offset from melting glaciers if we were to remove some water from circulation.

This is an idea who's time is close. We don't want to adopt the wrong technology early. It will mean that an industry will build up around it and make it more difficult to change. Someone else brought up the issue of industrial inertia. Remember the HD/BluRay battle? BetaMax/VHS? 8-Track/Cassette? LP/CD? LD/DVD? 2-D/3-D TV? Analog/Digital?

Development, AR² CalSki ©®™ is an O₂ Generator utilizing boosted frequencies to raise the Hartman current in diesel and gasoline that makes the molcular structure smaller that contains more oxygen which in return burns with less CO,CO2, HC, with high oxygen content in exhaust that forms water in diesel or gasoline exhaust. I am the designer, an operating marine chief engineer that has experience with this system and diesel since 1975, with petrol, gasoline, benzine and varoius gases from 1988, all with same problems, carbon. The system creates higher power and higher range or mileage, on land, at sea or in the air. This is suitable for todays fuels. Most people think higher temparatures, more btu is the thing, while we work on longer time pressure with less temperatures in the powerstroke. Remember a short stroke engine do not work within this fuel you use today, with a 12% effiency we have a lot to learn and a long way to go. So you have been mislead for generations. Since engines have piston rings I developed a PPB system that reduces the 20% mechanical losses, throw in naval metallubrication below and you have a better fuel, reduced frictions and frequencies in engine top and bottom, zero CO, 85% less CO2, 92% less HC, water in the exhaust, more power, more useable oxygen and some cars have high mileage, lower engine sound, mileages from 10% to 240% with no pollution with more power. regards, Widar Rom

I'm afraid we may have to go searching for water in near future with new energy source from water,.

Wow, now we can have our fuel and drink it too.
What ' COOLAID '!!!!
I want some!!!!!!!!!!!!

Probably worth noting that dictionaries don't define words, they define the usage of words.

All language is, is a way to convey information. If someone uses a word in such a way that everyone gets the point, then that word was then in fact used properly. Only elitist, politicians and lawyers should worry about the ultimate "proper" use, and its really a mute argument.

In short language is constantly evolving and as long as the proper information was conveyed who cares. :)

I am not uptight Greg, just really sick haha

--GTO--

"A 70 percent cheaper catalyst should hit the market immediately.

H2 from water cheaply?"

This is a non-sequitur. The catalyst might be cheap, but that still doesn't make hydrogen cheap or a clever way to store electricity.

The cheapest way to make hydrogen, by far, is to gasify fossil fuels and use the water-gas shift reaction. If you convert fossil fuels to electricity and then use the electricity to make hydrogen you will necessarily only be ~1/3 as efficient as gasification.

Betting on hydrogen is to entrench fossil fuels.

@ GTO:

"Can not hold onto the past with everything I suppose."

"Can not" should be "Cannot."

"Cheap" shot, greengeek. ;)

The original word "cheap" in old English meant something that could be bought, as in "that's good cheap" which would mean a good deal. The meaning has changed over time to other meanings that are completely different. So you're both wrong, ha! No really, in today's world both meanings are acceptable...

Clean fuel generation AND desalination! What more could the developing world ask for?

"Clean fuel generation AND desalination! What more could the developing world ask for?"

Clean generation and desalination for starters, hydrogen is neither.

@Michael Taylor: Exactly. What’s also worth noting here is that English, more so than any other language, has evolved almost exclusively to accommodate mental ease. In fact, the confluence of various Germanic dialects, French, and other Latin roots resulted in three distinct periods of English evolution: Old English, Middle English, and Modern English. In an effort to further facilitate ease of communication between competing dialects, we’ve even managed to drop inflectional endings. You won’t find this in many other languages. So I think it’s quite odd that GTO has such a hang-up about something as miniscule as colloquial usage of the term “cheap.” English is still evolving (or devolving recently as some might argue) and it will remain in a perpetual state of flux. Unless you fancy yourself a language maven intent on marginalizing valid forms of expression, you should enjoy the ride. Myself, I rather enjoy documenting the changes.

Perhaps the article writer meant cheap in BOTH definition's? could it be possible that the reason that such a product hasn't made it past preliminary testing is because while its is cheap in cost, it is (at this time) also cheap in quality (not being durable enough for consumer uses?) Thus the writer was not wrong with his word usage.

Perhaps the article writer meant cheap in BOTH definition's? could it be possible that the reason that such a product hasn't made it past preliminary testing is because while its is cheap in cost, it is (at this time) also cheap in quality (not being durable enough for consumer uses?) Thus the writer was not wrong with his word usage.

This is some great news. It's really important for people to realize that platinum is not viable for use in electrolysis. At over $1,600 USD an ounce, and the price variable upon demand, we need an alternative. Nano particles are a great route to explore.
A company in Georgia called Gridshift just released a white paper on a novel nano-catalyst which is extremely high rate and high efficiency. The catalyst itself is made from cheap and abundant componants. The paper is available at:

grid-shift.com/white_papers

The electrolysis unit is already up and running. It could be an important piece to help move us towards a hydrogen economy.

PopSci: you are so misinformed, I have no idea how you get away publishing such rubbish.

Platinum is NOT *required* for electrolysis. Carbon works great! Even your own contributor Theodore Gray has shown this in one of his entries.

Next - creating hydrogen is not the"key" to a hydrogen economy. The real key is an efficient way to make the energy density enough to make its use practical.

There are many more "keys" as well that I won't get into.

Is it just me or have most people that are replying here missed to fact that platinum is $1680/ounce USD (as of 6May10), so where did the $29/ounce figure come from??? I figure this technology would reduce the cost of the catalyst to roughly $500/ounce USD. Still not cheap, but much better than the alternatives. I find this an interesting and highly volatile subject for many people. I plan to read up on some of the alternatives that were mentioned above. Good article, but like most of the PopSci web articles, not very detailed. I, like many of you, seem to want more details and a better explanation than what was offered in the article. PopSci you need to geek up your articles more!!!

If we are taking directly out of the ocean, that means salt, lots of it, we will release the oxygen and hydrogen, and be left with tons and tons of salt. This will not bode well for salt mining opperations around the world.
Also, there are is an inexplicible amount of waste and toxins in our water supplies, what do we do with those once we extract the hydrogen? after all, our nuclear waste has been collecting in Yucca moutnain for decades and we still have no way to dispose of it, waste is a huge problem for this process.
Next, imagine of the 7 billion people on this planet average two litres of water a day in their hydrogen consumption; that is 14 billion litres or 6,363,636,363 gallons of water that would be drained out of the oceans every day. If the hydrogen recombines with oxyden in the atmosphere, then that means a ton of rain that is falling out of the sky that was created by man, what kind of effect would 6 billion gallons of water that was created by man have on the planet, that is a lot of rain for 1 day.

blacklungace, nothing you've written here makes any sense. You mention we'll have a salt problem. Do you mean we'll have too much salt, like in piles on the ground? What a benign infection. Then you mention the salt miners we already have. Do you mean they will go out of business? If somone is an expert at managing salt, they should just move to the location where they will have a new job managing salt. Anyway, making ancient professions like "salt miner" or "newspaper boy" obsolete is a positive thing. We have nuch better ways to use our time.

Yucca Mountain stores exactly no nuclear power byproducts. The facility isn't even finished. I'm here in Henderson, NV. Trust me, Harry Reid is fighting the importation of spend uranium tooth and claw... and winning, much to my dismay.

You refer to "inexplicable" amounts of toxins in our water supply. Do you know anything about biochemistry? If there are more than a few parts per million (or billion) of most toxins in our water supply you die from drinking it, sometimes even from breathing the fumes. I do not deny that some leftovers may have to be captured, but the amounts will be far, far less than those of other industrial processes such as smelting.

You also freak out about "a ton of rain that is falling out of the sky that was created by man." The chemical reaction that turns hydrogen into water happens inside the engine; the exhaust is water vapor. Water vapour is already released by other engines in proportion to their respective power outputs. A Hydrogen engine would only release about as much water vapour as the engines we already use but without the nasty byproducts like formaldehyde from ethanol or CO from petrol.

GTO: You're completely wrong anyway. The original meaning of "cheap" (1500 years ago) was "the deal you made in exchanging things for barter, even before money was involved." It later meant "excellent bargain" or "inexpensive." The "shoddy" definition is much later than that. Google for podictionary 446 for more information.

That is 70 times cheaper or $27 an once of which we have no idea how much the process uses and what amount of hydrogen can be generated by it. However Hydrogen is by far the best alternitive fuel as it can be made by ANY electrical power sorce which is what we need. It also can store excess power which is lost every night 11 to 7am from the big coal and nuclear power statins as they can't shut them down. and best of all we can store power from wind and solar power excess or just plane produce hydrogen.

All the basics to begin a hydrogen economy are available now. Hydrogen is a 4 letter word to big oil and gas and they will do anything to stop it.

GTO:
dontbother is correct. Cheap is actually derived from the Middle English "chep" as in a low price, or "good" price.

You are bassackwards in thinking this is referencing a recent usage of the term cheap. This is actually it's original, and still primary, usage. You owe the editors of PopSci an apology.

Back to Reality, who cares what the word cheap means.
Hydrogen makes metal brittle, so this is only half of the equation. Materials need to be researched for Engines,Pumps,storage ect...ect.....

The retooling and infrastructure with todays materials, namely platinum would cost 120 trillion dollars.

"finding less expensive ways to generate hydrogen gas is integral to kicking off that sea change."

False and foolish. How much energy must be run thru the catalyst chamber to split the water? Hydrogen is a storage medium, not an energy source. And it's devilishly hard to store and transport. Sneaks through most materials.

Cheap energy generation here: focusfusion.org . 1/20 of current best costs. Hydrogen is irrelevant, a distraction.

I hate to be the chemistry nerd here(well not really) but if the formulas is PY5Me2, where is the Molybdenum? I don't believe there is an element with the symbol Me. Maybe all these comments about bad editors have some factual data behind them?

"Reaction of [(PY5Me2)MoI]2+ with water to form [(PY5Me2)MoO]2+ and release H2 and half an equivalent of I2. The release of hydrogen was confirmed by mass spectrometry."
www.physorg.com/news191745752.html
Mystery solved for anyone who cared

Cheap comes from the old english ceap meaning bargain or trade. Sorry, GTO, but you're completely wrong; the next time you call someone a jackass, I suggest you make sure you know what you're talking about.

chem lesson H2 + heat (fire) + O2 = H2O , No fear of using up the oceans. Maybe the only clean water around. Gives (go suck on your tail pipe) a new meaning.

so if everyone in arizona switches to hydrogen power, and we grab all the water from the ocean to create the hydrogen rather than any nearby water sources, will it rain more in arizona after all the hydrogen burns off and turns back to water?

30bcf4e2

Progression - the act of progressing; forward or onward movement.

Conjecture - the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

When the Greed of man can seemingly be satisfied by the production of Hydrogen then and only then will Hydrogen fuel become a reality. Follow the money.

Jackass – a person who would condemn another man for doing the best he can.

Cheap – the sound a baby chicken makes.

The comments are funny and I had not even noticed the subtle issue of "cheap", but do not find that particularly distasteful.

What bugs me is the common use of denoting something as several times cheaper, like "70 times cheaper". I think they mean 1/70th the cost. It seems to me that if something is 2 times cheaper, it would be negative. How can something be made cheaper by more than 100%? If it costs $2,000 per ounce and I give it to you 100% cheaper, would that not be free? I know it is more eye catching to say "70 times cheaper" than 1.4% the cost or 98.6% cheaper. I see this kind of quote everywhere these days, but it seems incorrect to my way of thinking about math.

@Voices1776 The thing you need to realize about using hydrogen as a fuel is that when burned, it reacts with oxygen to create water. A perfect cycle. All of the water taken from the ocean will eventually flow back into it.

This seems like a excellent idea in theory, but how truly feasible is it?

BTW, Cheap can be used in a positive OR negative context, so please chill out those of you who are persnickety. What a way to sidetrack a discussion, Sheesh!

Nothing will slow the consumption of oil until the last drop is gone. Oil corps will make sure of this. All this talk of alternative energy is exactly that. Talk. Like any other addiction you have to hit rock bottom before you really do anything about the problem.

When the oil runs out and we rocket back to the dark ages and almost wipe each other out over it maybe then we'll find another way.

Electrolysis can be done without a catalyst, though more energy is required. A salt is helpful, to make the water conductive. However, the problem is that you have to put more energy in than you get out.

A catalyst can reduce the amount of energy required, but you still get less energy than you put in. Solar power could supply the electricity, and H2 could be used to store the energy for later use, or to make it portable.

The catalyst could also make use of waste energy in a car, namely, manifold and radiator heat. A thermocouple could produce electricity that would electrolize some water, and H2 could be fed into the air intake.

Too bad we can't make direct use of heat energy, rather than converting it to electricity first. There is a lot of waste heat around, if we could only harness it.

While everyone is flaming gto over stupid gramer you and popsci fail to realise this is very old news. This technology has been invented and damn near perfected by a company in the US named Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc.
They are curently working with Ford and the U.S. Army.

"The Model 1500 Aquygen® Gas Generator runs on water and electricity only! It produces a stable hybrid hydrogen-oxygen gas, with many unique properties. The generator provides a superior gas for most conventional brazing, soldering and metal cutting operations."

The inventer adapted this tech into his car and is a hybrid test vehicle garnering over 100 miles on 8oz of water.

morals of the story is stop flaming over nonsense and pay attention to what the world has to offer

There is a lot of practical experience. U.S. Navy submarines throw away hydrogen when they split oxygen out of seawater for the crew to breathe. However, I take issue with the readers who figure it should be commercialized now. If you want me to buy a hydrogen car,

1. it has to pay for itself by being cheaper to run.
2. there need to be convenient refilling spots on highways.
(I'm not running back and forth to the rest rooms with
a cup at a wayside.)
3. the car has to be proven for several years
4. the car has to be used so I can afford it.

You see, it's not the oil and utility money that creates the problem, it's me - the consumer.