Nominate Your Favorite Renewable Energy Project for The 2009 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards
click here for more information
Close
 
Photo Credit: Pete Beverly
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (37) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
August 4, 2008

MIT Researchers Discover New Energy Storage Solution

Researchers believe this discovery could unleash a solar revolution.
Massachussets, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

In April of this year, RenewableEnergyWorld.com reported that the Chesonis Family Foundation gave the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) a grant of US $10 million to launch the Solar Revolution project. Now, MIT researchers believe they have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.

"The importance of their discovery cannot be overstated since it opens up the door for developing new technologies for energy production thus reducing our dependence for fossil fuels and addressing the global climate change problem."

-- James Barber, Ernst Chain Professor of Biochemistry, Imperial College London

Solar power is currently a daytime-only energy source because storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive and grossly inefficient. With this announcement, MIT researchers say they have discovered a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy.

Requiring non-toxic natural materials, this discovery could unlock the most potent, carbon-free energy source of all: the sun. "This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," said MIT's Daniel Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT. "Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon."

Inspired by the photosynthesis performed by plants, Nocera and Matthew Kanan, a postdoctoral fellow in Nocera's lab, have developed a process that will allow the sun's energy to be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. Later, the oxygen and hydrogen may be recombined inside a fuel cell, creating carbon-free electricity to power a house or electric car, day or night.

The key component in Nocera and Kanan's process is a new catalyst that produces oxygen gas from water; another catalyst produces valuable hydrogen gas. The new catalyst consists of cobalt metal, phosphate and an electrode, placed in water. When electricity — whether from a photovoltaic cell, a wind turbine or any other source — runs through the electrode, the cobalt and phosphate form a thin film on the electrode, and oxygen gas is produced.

Combined with another catalyst, such as platinum, that can produce hydrogen gas from water, the system can duplicate the water splitting reaction that occurs during photosynthesis.

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

Sunlight has the greatest potential of any power source to solve the world's energy problems, said Nocera. In one hour, enough sunlight strikes the Earth to provide the entire planet's energy needs for one year.

James Barber, a leader in the study of photosynthesis who was not involved in this research, called the discovery by Nocera and Kanan a "giant leap" toward generating clean, carbon-free energy on a massive scale.

"This is a major discovery with enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind," said Barber, the Ernst Chain Professor of Biochemistry at Imperial College London. "The importance of their discovery cannot be overstated since it opens up the door for developing new technologies for energy production thus reducing our dependence for fossil fuels and addressing the global climate change problem."

Currently available electrolyzers, which split water with electricity and are often used industrially, are not suited for artificial photosynthesis because they are very expensive and require a highly basic (non-benign) environment that has little to do with the conditions under which photosynthesis operates.

More engineering work needs to be done to integrate the new scientific discovery into existing photovoltaic systems, but Nocera said he is confident that such systems will become a reality.

"This is just the beginning," said Nocera, principal investigator for the Solar Revolution project and co-Director of the Eni-MIT Solar Frontiers Center. "The scientific community is really going to run with this."

Nocera hopes that within 10 years, homeowners will be able to power their homes in daylight through photovoltaic cells, while using excess solar energy to produce hydrogen and oxygen to power their own household fuel cell. Electricity-by-wire from a central source could be a thing of the past.

The project is part of the MIT Energy Initiative, a program designed to help transform the global energy system to meet the needs of the future and to help build a bridge to that future by improving today's energy systems. MITEI Director Ernest Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, noted that "this discovery in the Nocera lab demonstrates that moving up the transformation of our energy supply system to one based on renewables will depend heavily on frontier basic science."

This project was funded by the National Science Foundation and by the Chesonis Family Foundation, which gave MIT a large grant this spring to launch the Solar Revolution project, with a goal to make the large scale deployment of solar energy within 10 years.

The funding is clearly helping MIT make strides into solar research.  Just two weeks ago REW.com reported that MIT researchers had discovered a "solar concentrator," which the researchers said increases the power generated by a solar cell by a factor of forty. 

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (37)
 
August 4, 2008
Hi CL: I was referring to the high efficiency that leaves can capture sunlight at, not the classical definition which comapres the energy captured to the energy of the created organic and inorganic compounds, etc..
I should have been clearer... my fault....
Comment 1 of 37
No image available
August 4, 2008
Too bad mother nature's photosynthesis actually has a maximum efficiency that's much less than PV.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119991081/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
" the theoretical maximum efficiency of conversion of light to stored chemical energy in green-plant type (oxygen-evolving) photosynthesis in bright sunlight is calculated to be 13.0%. ...The practical maximum efficiency of photosynthesis under optimum conditions is estimated to be 8-9%."

I'd rather take 20% efficient PV.

But MIT's not going for mother nature's photosynthesis. MIT wants to skip the green plants, so maybe they can eventually get higher than 13% efficiency.

I do wish they'd mentioned what kind of efficiency they're getting on their electrolyser, since there appears to be no photosynthesis involved in this discovery.
Comment 2 of 37
No image available
August 4, 2008
For those claiming 'this is just another electrolyzer', how do you respond to this statement in the article?

>>Currently available electrolyzers, which split water with electricity and are often used industrially, are not suited for artificial photosynthesis because they are very expensive and require a highly basic (non-benign) environment that has little to do with the conditions under which photosynthesis operates.
Comment 3 of 37
No image available
August 4, 2008
I agree with the above comments.

I have read this same article with different twists on 3 other sites and have come to the same conclusion on each.....this, at best, is a better electrolyzer and has nothing to do with solar. This would be a great breakthough article on a PEM fuel cell website or even the article focusing on that in a general science site. They had to use their imagination to incorperate this into the sponsered "Solar Revolution project, with a goal to make the large scale deployment of solar energy within 10 years."

What ever spin they have to do to get funded, I guess.

As Jonathan Cole said, deep cell lead acid batteries are 95% eff charging and 95% eff discharging (combined 90.3% eff). That is much more effecient than the process of electrolysis, the process of hydrogen storage and the process of the fuel cell individually and much, much better than the combined effeciency of the 3.

Also agree with platinum being the most expensive metal on earth.

One thing I don't get, is how they can say cobalt is a non-toxic material.

All in all, this is a great "small" step for anyone who thinks we have a hydrogen economy (which I don't) and just ill-concieved hype for anything solar.
Comment 4 of 37
No image available
August 4, 2008
The description of this technology as a major breakthrough appears to be fundamentally flawed. Fuel cells as far as I understand it are limited to about 60% efficiency at best. I have been storing solar electricity in flooded lead acid batteries at 90% efficiency for a quarter of a century. These batteries, properly used can last 15 years or more. Solid-state lithium-titanate batteries with better than 90% throughput efficiency
and that can last 20+ years are now in production.

This is the kind of information you get from "experts" who have no hands on experience. Hype is not helpful at this time. It diverts attention from the actual technologies that can get the job done. We need the limited investment capital that is available to be funding the innovations that have a realistic chance of yielding meaningful results. Storing energy as hydrogen may be a useful modality for electric vehicles or hybrids, but its limited efficiency makes it a poor choice for stationary applications.

http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/
Comment 5 of 37
No image available
August 4, 2008
Yes what was the efficiency here?

I find it hard to believe it is a breakthrough if all we have done is invent another electrolyser.
Comment 6 of 37
August 4, 2008
Hi: Wow, again this sounds great... but I think their emotions are allowing them, to get ahead of themselves.... New discoveries along with Science Fiction writing seem to always set the time frame too short into the future.... Cobalt and Platinum, are not exactly available at Wal-Mart, the later being one of the most expensive metals on earth, not to mention fuel cells and the still low efficiency of PV. Mother Nature's photosynthesis process is in the 80%'s efficiency wise, PV low the 20%'s, not to mention the not given efficiency of the "electrolysis" type reaction itself. I think a more realistic time frame is 50 years or more for the type of massive change to take place that the inventors hope for, baring any world wide catastrophes..... but it is one more little piece in the right direction……
Comment 7 of 37
No image available
August 4, 2008
In response to Bill who wrote:
>>For those claiming 'this is just another electrolyzer', how do you respond to this statement in the article?

>>Currently available electrolyzers, which split water with electricity and are often used industrially, are not suited for artificial photosynthesis because they are very expensive and require a highly basic (non-benign) environment that has little to do with the conditions under which photosynthesis operates.<<

This statement means that many standard electrolyser technologies use an alkaloid electrolyte such as sodium hydroxide, which is a very caustic substance. However, the conclusion is false. I have personally experimented with a pure water fuel cell that uses a platinum catalyst and can be reversed to act as an electrolyser or more accurately a hydrolyser that dis-associates the hydrogen and oxygen molecules in water. This of course is not very efficient. It may in fact be an advance that they have increased the efficiency of a pure water electrolysis unit, but this still is not particularly useful as a way to store solar energy, since hydrogen itself is difficult to store and, used as the fuel in a fuel cell, it is limited by a low conversion efficiency back into electric power.

I am in favor of advances in technology but not in favor of hyping them up beyond reason, perhaps to entice the interest of investors. MIT should not be lending its name and reputation to this sort of thing.

I am hoping that the destiny of Renewable Energy World is to become a focal point for expertise and knowledgeable exchange of information for the world. Hopefully it can avoid becoming a source of misinformation and manipulation by less than scrupulous entities.
Comment 8 of 37
No image available
August 5, 2008
I agree with the general sense that this is way overhyped. To compare this to photosynthesis just seems way over the top. Not only does photosynthesis manage this trick without platinum (!!), but it simultaneously "sequesters" carbon along with the hydrogen into a high energy-density liquid that (unlike hydrogen gas) is easy to store and transport (the much maligned hydrocarbon).

I suggest a mental exercise -- list all of the properties of algae with regards to its ability to convert sunlight and CO2 into hydrocarbons, and then imagine that list as presented by an MIT marketing person or venture capitalist. I think their heads would explode.
Comment 9 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
These developments are good news but we need to remember that, with concentrating solar thermal power (CSTP), it is possible to store solar energy very cheaply for hours or days in the form of heat. Further information may be found here: http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp/no_sun.htm .
Comment 10 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
There certainly isn't enough information in this article for any of you to form a valuable or share-able opinion about it. There are many faulty statements above, I don't even know where to begin or end, I'll just say comercially available lead acid batteries are not 95% efficient at doing anything but acting as a door stop, (real world temperatures and aging reduce capacity and efficiency rapidly) and maybe someone should wikipedia Cobalt to see various states of the element, including non-toxic, but while youre at it, look up LEAD ACID batteries.

Most of all though, many of you decided to prove your ignorance by blindly discussing efficiency. In my limited experience of 7 years in PV system design and integration, discussing efficiency is often useless information, particularly without knowing the cost of the device, fuel and/or end product (kWhrs in our case).

What's better, a 12% eff 100W poly PV module that costs $4.00/Watt or a 6% eff 100W thin film module that costs $1.99/Watt?

Even children can understand that small amounts of platinum costs less than large amounts of lead. I've sold $15,000-$20,000 battery banks for residential off-grid PV systems, for example, say we got the same energy yield from $500 worth of platinum, $100 worth of Cobalt and $5000 worth of other stuff to make it work... we would be doing phenominally.

No quantities of materials, nor costs were provided in the article above, so I'll pass no judgement on the feasability of the technology, your opinions however....
Comment 11 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Powering houses and cars with stored hydrogen is a great solution IF you can produce and store enough hydrogen. Therein lies the problems: production would not be at high enough levels and viable solutions for storing large amounts of hydrogen domestically is a long way off.
Comment 12 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Some might believe that what you are about to read is "off topic." Some might believe that it is "spot on." What we should all believe is, what is at the heart of the matter, is Earth.

Sounds good. When can I go down to my local Home Depot and get one? Will that Home Depot also have Hydrogen fired aplliances as well? Ranges, refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, furnaces, clothes dryers, adsorption chillers for airconditioning, security lighting? When are we going to see these things availible, at an affordable price? When I say an affordable price, I mean one that doesnt necessitate government assistance in both the private and public sectors, as photovoltaics modules do.
Is this all going to happen before the final tribulation, when mankind will no longer have rule over itself?
Comment 13 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Armegedon, it will manifest itself in many ways. One, will be a weakeing of the Earths magnetosphere, "unleashing" a greater amount of radition from our Sun onto the face of the Earth, causing destruction in ways we can barely imagine. Think about the wild fires we are witness to, this day, in the Western regions of America, now imagine the entire U.S. of A. on fire. Where there is not fire, there will be flooding as snow and ice in the Northern regions start to melt in vast amounts. Famine and disease will follow, billions of humans will die. These things will happen just prior to a "flip, flop" of the North and South magnetic poles. These things will settle down after a great period of time. What then? What do you believe?

What does mankind really know about the planet Earth? We have only been here for, what, a little more than 10,000 years? Our complacency here deludes us into believing we know almost everything there is to know about natural disasters of the past. But how do we know, that, what we know is all there is to know? That plain truth is, we do not know. Something caused a great flood, something caused an ice age, but we cannot all agree at what exactly. We speculate, we form conclusions, all so that we can "close the door" on the subject and move on. After all, we must make production. How else are we to pay our bills?
Pity about Earth.
Comment 14 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Each one of us is alive here on Earth for what, an average of 75 years, and then we die? Then someone else is born. This has been going on for 10,000 years? Only in the past 7,000 or less, has there been a written history of the events of this Earth? Each of our lives are as a vapor, when compared to life of this planet we call Earth. We seem to know that there were other creatures alive here before us and that they, for the most part, were"wiped out" of existance. Is it that irrational to contemplate, that the human race will be "wiped out?" There is a reason why, automobile manufactures do not put luggage racks on hearse's.
Comment 15 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Granted, OverUnity is where it's at, and that higher efficiency is always welcomein my world, but definitely not the point of what we are all waiting for. We just need the cost of a solar generated kWhr to be one cent cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel generated kWhr and let the market do it's thing or let the people decide, whichever is less corrupt depending upon your political position, but either way...

Just know that centralized coal fired power plants are tremendously inefficient in the creation and transmission of electricity, there are efficiency losses every step of the way, friction, thermal, mechanical, voltage drop, transformers, etc, etc, but the fuel is cheap to harvest, they just dig it up, mark it up($) and burn it.

Regardless, I would certainly rather read about MIT getting a drop-in-the-bucket 10Mil for R&D on an electrolyzer, than see another record breaking profit year for Oil.

Since the majority of you seem to be skeptical of the motivation of this article, indicating that it's investment hype, I'll question your motivations for being here sharing your useless, factless opinions. Perhaps those of you naysaying a tiny article on a tiny website are paid by big oil to cruise this site and spread said sentiment in an attempt to reduce it's percieved validity as part of a plan to buy fossil fuel even more time for insane profiting. I wonder... I mean if you're going to conspiracy theorize, I will too.

Didn't your mother ever tell you not to look a gift-horse in the mouth?

Questions or Comments welcomed: wingd-at-hotmail-dot-com
Comment 16 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
John you're wrong, it's not that hard or that far off.

Thomas you're crazy....and wrong, Yes PV is subsidized, not significantly in comparison, but it is and it helps the economics of PV tremendously in todays market, but subsidies for farmers NOT to farm land, and subsidies and corruption for the production OIL, COAL, NUCLEAR, etc. also exist or did you not know this?
Comment 17 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
What bugs me about these "press releases" is that they never specifically tell you in a scientfic manner what exactly the new
inventions are; just "it's Cobalt and Phosphate". That would be like describing a PV Cell as Silicon, Boron, Phosphorus and a Silver electrode.
I'd much rather know the configuration, dimensions of materials, wiring, etc for this new discovery. Plus it would give an opportunity for us garage
tinkerers to find a practical configuration perhaps...
Comment 18 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Having looked at the backgrounders on the MIT site , it is clear that the research group is actually looking at the underlying processes in photosynthetic type reactions..basically the neat way that it ships naked electrons and protons around the structures.

I cant see how they got from there to a more efficient electrode for producing oxygen which is the actual advance but perhaps the actual paper in Science will reveal this as will the inevitable papers by other researchers in the field.

If they can also apply their approach to generating hydrogen, chlorine etc it will be very interesting and this certainly justifies basic research money

However the journalistic claims seem to be way over the top. Its a small contribution to an overall process folks. Celebrate it but don't go mad!
Comment 19 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Without wading into the discussion of the new electrolyzer, I am once again struck by the comments decrying PV technology as "not efficient enough." I have never understood such comments. Conversion efficiency is crucial when you are paying for the fuel. Sunlight is free, so how much of it you need to use to produce electricity is, to first order, irrelevant. All efficiency determines is how much area you need to cover with PV to get the energy you need. What matters, of course, is how much money the solar cells will cost you in the first place. If you can't afford to buy them, that's a problem. One can argue sensibly about this topic if you'd like, but dismissing PV by saying it is inefficient is pretty silly.
Comment 20 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Intersting but not really anything new. But here is a new idea....

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/solar-hot-air-balloons-and-solar-kites-news-opinion#comment-148729
Comment 21 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Whatever happened to cold fusion?
Comment 22 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Well this isn't news at all, I personally have created Hydrogen using a homemade device. (Google Hydrogen Generator)But guess what??? Platinum is going a little too far, all you need is simple SS( Stainless Steel) plates and some battery cables. I have yet to create Oxygen but I'm sure MIT is spending all that money on the most expensive materials and not acting Economical at all. What they need to do is simply get a home system put together that works and implement it. Actually I could do it myself, so I wouldn't wait for MIT "Researchers" to save us when time is short, the economy drained, and energies expensive. If you want to start saving yourselves, put the pieces together, and you'll find that it isn't a puzzle at all.
Comment 23 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
As a researcher myself I can say that in the modern funding climate you have to sell yourself to get the funds to do any useful research. Its not surprising that researchers get exited about their discoveries, if they didn't they would not be interested in doing the hard work to get there. The MIT researchers are not claiming to have a device that will deliver our energy needs now, they are just saying they have made advances that could lead to fundamental change if we give them the money they want to continue developing their ideas.

Don't knock the small steps, its what research is all about and they have a habit of growing. e.g there was nothing particularly revolutionary about the technological development of mobile phones but a series of 'small developments' have transfored the way we communicate in a very short period.

And yes efficiency is relative. All we need to know is how many PV units we will need to put on our roofs to heat our homes, fuel our vehicles with hydrogen etc and what they will cost. Of course the more efficient the system the less space we need but space and cost are the only limiting factors. A couple of people have mentioned the cost/availability of platinum and cobalt, but you don't need very much of these in a catalyst and we seem to have been able to find plenty of sources of rare earth elements for our vehicle catalysts since their introduction. In Europe since 1992 all new cars have one and we have not run out of platinum have we?
Comment 24 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
hmmm have we forgotten that platinum is extremely expensive and hydrogen/oxygen are very explosive??? how is hooking a photo cell up to a fuel cell a huge breakthrough? am i missing something here?
Comment 25 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
This process has been known for years, and the gas produced by this process is well known as Brown Gas. A homeowner in New Jersey is running his entire home on solar energy and storing this energy not needed during the daytime in the form of Hydrogen and Oxygen to be used at times when the Suns energy is not present. He is even using the process you mention to power is motor vehicle. How is it the MIT isn't aware of these past processes and now want to claim credit for a break through that's not really a break through at all. I think we are all a little smarter today and will not be fooled by these claims. Sure the process could and should be used, but don't claim discovery for an age old process.

During a Simulcast Internet live broadcast by Renewable Energy, Ausra Inc, Abengoa Solar Inc, and SkyFuel Inc. gave their presentation and at that time I asked the question as to why weren't they storing this solar energy in the form of Hydrogen and Oxygen for later use, and not one of those companies had an answer to the question.

This just goes to show that the average person with an idea should not think that because big business claims to have the smartest professors, or scientists, they do not necessarily have all the answers, to solutions, and the average Joe may just have a breakthrough. Maybe some of this grant money should be made available to the everyday guy working in his garage or basement, and just maybe we would be far ahead of where we are now with this energy crisis.
.
Comment 26 of 37
August 6, 2008
How much "alternate technology" could be produced by "heat, beat, and treat" methods before men realize that nature has evolved the world farther and longer than he has. If we, as a species, do not use methods that leave the world better off, in any outcome, for succeeding generations, industrialists/ techies/warriors/scientists will become extinct. It would be better to learn from nature than to be learning about it for ever so brief gain for the illusory self..
Comment 27 of 37
August 6, 2008
Organisms that don't leave the world better off for their offspring aren't around to tell about it!!!!!! Thank you, Jenine Benyus!
Comment 28 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Although this may be an improvement to existing catalyzers, you do not address the energy storage issue which is the primary problem. Storing oxygen and hydrogen are more difficult and dangerous than electrical storage. Therefore, I fail to see any advantage.
Comment 29 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Does anyone know how much water is expected to be needed to create 1 watt of electricity using this method?
The places where solar photovoltaic could be most useful (the West) are not exactly rainy. And with global warming, water scarcity is expected to be a huge issue out there.
Comment 30 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Water is the bi-product of hydrogen fuel cell operation.

Reverse osmosis of waste/grey/salt water is a decent starting point.
Comment 31 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Giant Solar Stills.
Comment 32 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Has anyone commenting here actually read the full paper in the August 1st issue of Science (it's not the July 31st issue as stated in the MIT press release)? Before criticizing a development announced in a press release for not providing enough detail (after all, it is a press release), it seems like you'd want to actually read the full scientific paper, which has been published in one of the world's leading journals before jumping all over the announcement. You can find this journal in most local libraries. Unless you've done this before launching your salvos, your critiques (as opposed to raising reasonable questions) lack a certain credibility in my opnion.
Comment 33 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
I don't get it. Creating Oxygen and Hydrogen from water involves electrolysis with a couple of inert electrodes (platinum, carbon) in water with a little electrolyte (acid, base or salt) dissolved in it. I don't remember the exact voltage needed but it is modest (in the range of 10 volts). How is this an improvement over what high school students have been doing in the lab since electricity was invented.
The problem as I see it is the storage of the hydrogen and oxygen. Compression or liquification makes the system uneconomic. A possibility is an upside down tank floated in a slightly larger tank as they used to do with producer gas. This system is workable at any scale from home to business to city wide.
Could someone please explain how this new system is an improvement on simple electrolysis which has been done for yonks.
Comment 34 of 37
No image available
August 6, 2008
Outstanding science! But lets not let euphoria sweep away our concerns, or contrasts.
1) CSP gened electricity is inefficient particularly at low temperatures. Higher temperatures add complexity. PV is still diminutive.
2) What matters is a renewable energy system's NET efficiency and costs. Adding a hydrogen/ oxygen store would necessitate the compression / storage / recovery and energy conversion costs, plus license fees.
3) Geothermal does not require any storage, as it is a 24 x 7 energy source,
4)Oxygen and hydrogen have to be carefully handled, particularly if used residentially and/or industrially. A loose oxygen bottle brought down a Jet Airliner
5) CSP Combined Heat and Power uses solar heat directly and thus at high efficiency to the application. You do not need to convert Heat to electricity back to hot water/ space heat.
.
My company is developing a critical component, a high efficiency Turbine (RET) to improve NET efficiency. RET increases energy extraction efficiency from any heat based Power Block. RET is more efficient and less costly than competitors and can be adapted to store energy or compressed oxygen/ hydrogen efficiently. A RET vehicular engine has a multiple the efficiency of traditional engines and if hydrogen powered would reduce the complex on-vehicle or mass distribution logistics; Or save billions of barrels of oil, if vehicles still ran on fossil fuels.

Solar Thermal or PV, is not the "greatest potential" renewable energy source, at present. Its future ranking is debatable, with its massive footprint a drawback. Many CSP systems are already legacy. Renewables should have 1 criteria: are its costs less than fossil? With current technology / industrial base we can produce 100% of US ENERGY from Renewable within 7 years. (Electricity is only 10% of US Energy, thus, not a 10% solution in 10 years, per well intentioned Mr. Gore). Sannerwind@gmail.com
Comment 35 of 37
No image available
August 8, 2008
Mike Barre and William Hughes have spotlighted the crux: storage

Last I checked about 3 years ago, storing hydrogen was approximately 10 times more expensive than natural gas delivered. This article is titled "storage" solution. Solar to hydrogen is energy "conversion" as our bright young lads at MIT are well aware.

My island utility in coastal alaska loses enough run of river hydro excess each summer to power our community through the winter. The rivers freeze in winter and we lose almost all production. We are using $5+ a gallon diesel to generate electricity instead becuase we can't STORE that excess hydro. As ground zero for the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and in the wake of the recent supreme court decision, we're not too happy about dependence on that diesel fuel, believe you me. 135,000 BTUs in a gallon of diesel is still our only viable energy storage option until we can build a DAM and STORE enough energy to meet our needs.

CK
Comment 36 of 37
No image available
December 31, 2008
My place has too many trees. It would be best to ramp up the green grid and put solar power where it really belongs: in the desert by use of billions of mirrors, thousands of heat resevoirs and steam generators. This must be the best eco and economical (for jobs creation) solution.

And anyone who is worried about the "footprints" , well read this:

20,000 years from now, the Earth won't give a dam, whether it has a fowled methane rich atmosphere unsuitable for (human) life caused by global warming, or a perfect air with only excess sand caused from the deteriation of millions of concentrated solar thermal plants.
Comment 37 of 37
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Apricus Solar Co., Ltd Michigan Economic Development Corporation Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition Conergy Inc. EFD Teledyne RD Instruments
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo