Submitted by BernieEcclestoned t3_10fhdg3 in Futurology
Comments
BernieEcclestoned OP t1_j4x2pj4 wrote
Probably more feasible to use ammonia as the fuel though as it's easier to transport than H?
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j4xfpwo wrote
Agreed. Also, ammonia has a lower boiling point so good for using spent fuel rods to produce nuclear energy.
Not that we couldn’t be harnessing zero point energy or fusion power if we did it at the nano scale. But, my first billion in seed money will be the hardest.
Tree-farmer2 t1_j4yld50 wrote
That's not very efficient either is it?
[deleted] t1_j4zamr6 wrote
[removed]
BernieEcclestoned OP t1_j4wr50b wrote
>University of Michigan scientists developed a new kind of solar panel achieving 9% efficiency in converting water into hydrogen and oxygen – mimicking a crucial step in natural photosynthesis. Outdoors, it represents a major leap in the technology, nearly 10 times more efficient than solar water-splitting experiments of its kind.
>But the biggest benefit is driving down the cost of sustainable hydrogen. This is enabled by shrinking the semiconductor, typically the most expensive part of the device. The team’s self-healing semiconductor withstands concentrated light equivalent to 160 suns
FuturologyBot t1_j4wwht5 wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/BernieEcclestoned:
>University of Michigan scientists developed a new kind of solar panel achieving 9% efficiency in converting water into hydrogen and oxygen – mimicking a crucial step in natural photosynthesis. Outdoors, it represents a major leap in the technology, nearly 10 times more efficient than solar water-splitting experiments of its kind.
>But the biggest benefit is driving down the cost of sustainable hydrogen. This is enabled by shrinking the semiconductor, typically the most expensive part of the device. The team’s self-healing semiconductor withstands concentrated light equivalent to 160 suns
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10fhdg3/scientists_make_major_breakthrough_in_sustainable/j4wr50b/
SyntheticSlime t1_j4yohfa wrote
9% doesn’t sound like much (and in outdoor conditions it was only 6.1%), but keep in mind that this is turning sunlight into fuel. Your input is free, do the real questions are about cost and logistics. 6.1% is plenty good if the price per panel is low enough, and it sounds like they made strides in reducing that as well.
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j4wxkv3 wrote
Well, it sounds like that’s far less efficient than storing in an iron oxide battery or lithium. But I suppose if you want fuel, that’s better than nothing. It has to be stored though.
This still doesn’t mean a hydrogen economy is yet viable. It’s just a tiny piece of a larger puzzle. Mass transit and battery cars are still better.
It’s a shame because hydrogen is fairly dense as an energy source after you freeze it — which would take a lot more energy at the moment — and that also is a shame.