3 ms·

Yeah, I think photosynthesis doesn't come into play anywhere in the process. They're probably misusing the word to describe the generation of oxygen from water

Yeah, I think photosynthesis doesn't come into play anywhere in the process. They're probably misusing the word to describe the generation of oxygen from water using the sunlight. I think this article gives a better summary: http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209900956 http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?article...

ars 18y ago
No it doesn't, sunlight has nothing to do with it (using light to lyse (photolyse?) water would be cool, but they aren't). But thank you for the link, it makes more sense then the other one. In short: as far as I can tell this invention is a new catalyst for increasing the efficiency of electrolysis. But the catalyst is not better than current ones, it's just less toxic (and therefor cheaper). Which, while helpful, is far from groundbreaking. The electricity can come from anywhere. Saying solar is just a buzzword to get people to click.
- hugh 18y ago
  Correct. Furthermore, they don't even necessarily claim it's more efficient -- or at least, they don't give any numbers. It may be more efficient than electrolysis of water (that's not saying much) but is it more efficient than charging and decharging a battery? If not more efficient, is it at least a cheaper form of energy storage? (Platinum in the catalyst suggests no, although a very thin layer might be good enough.)
  - ayin 18y ago
    In http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209900956 http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?article..., the economics and the efficiency of this process are described: "In fact, with our catalyst almost 100 percent of the current used for electrolysis goes into making oxygen and hydrogen." This is definitely more efficient than the existing electrolysis, as the theoretical maximum efficiency of current electrolysis process is about 80%-94% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis). I'm not sure what you mean by whether it's more efficient than charging and discharging a battery. But the lifespan of a fuel cell is potentially indefinite and it does not require recharge(add in Oxygen and H+ any time and electricity starts to flow). Further, with each battery cycle, the efficiency of a dry cell decreases. I think this electrolysis process can definitely make a cheaper form of energy storage than, say, batteries. Even though each anode requires small amount of Platinum, but considering the long lifespan of fuel cell storage, this form of energy storage costs much less than traditional batteries in the long run (all the toxic disposal!) And even for the purposes of propulsion, fuel cell discharge is much more efficient than internal combustion engines.

ars 18y ago

No it doesn't, sunlight has nothing to do with it (using light to lyse (photolyse?) water would be cool, but they aren't). But thank you for the link, it makes more sense then the other one. In short: as far as I can tell this invention is a new catalyst for increasing the efficiency of electrolysis. But the catalyst is not better than current ones, it's just less toxic (and therefor cheaper). Which, while helpful, is far from groundbreaking. The electricity can come from anywhere. Saying solar is just a buzzword to get people to click.

hugh 18y ago
Correct. Furthermore, they don't even necessarily claim it's more efficient -- or at least, they don't give any numbers. It may be more efficient than electrolysis of water (that's not saying much) but is it more efficient than charging and decharging a battery? If not more efficient, is it at least a cheaper form of energy storage? (Platinum in the catalyst suggests no, although a very thin layer might be good enough.)
- ayin 18y ago
  In http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209900956 http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?article..., the economics and the efficiency of this process are described: "In fact, with our catalyst almost 100 percent of the current used for electrolysis goes into making oxygen and hydrogen." This is definitely more efficient than the existing electrolysis, as the theoretical maximum efficiency of current electrolysis process is about 80%-94% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis). I'm not sure what you mean by whether it's more efficient than charging and discharging a battery. But the lifespan of a fuel cell is potentially indefinite and it does not require recharge(add in Oxygen and H+ any time and electricity starts to flow). Further, with each battery cycle, the efficiency of a dry cell decreases. I think this electrolysis process can definitely make a cheaper form of energy storage than, say, batteries. Even though each anode requires small amount of Platinum, but considering the long lifespan of fuel cell storage, this form of energy storage costs much less than traditional batteries in the long run (all the toxic disposal!) And even for the purposes of propulsion, fuel cell discharge is much more efficient than internal combustion engines.