Planet Rugby Forum

Listened to an interview on this yesterday on Radio NZ.

Really interested that it will be more efficient than solar in places with less sun.

Making hydrogen is one thing, but efficiently capturing it and using it to create energy will be hard especially if you're talking about trying to capture it from a massive surface area .
You'd need some kind of in-situ fuel cell I'd imagine, in which case you have to wonder if it will be any better than solar panels.

Also pressurizing the hydrogen also energy intensive.

Dudes. Buzz harshers.

Possible fire risk with all that hydrogen.

But generally, go for it.

The renewables revolution marches on.

rabble wrote:Also pressurizing the hydrogen also energy intensive.

You don't necessarily need to pressurise it if you're using it in real time

That's a neat idea, but a long way from being a practical technology.
Researchers have been investigating MoS2 as a cheap alternative to Pt as a catalyst for hydrogen evolution for a while now (I even have a paper on the topic /globus). MoS2 performs fairly poorly compared to Pt, but it's cheap as chips, so it's trade-off. Using TiO2 provides a photocatalyst which provides the electrons needed to drive the reaction (usually an external voltage does this). That's a nice way of making it a standalone system without being powered.

How you collect the hydrogen is a problem then too. It's going to cost energy to collect and pressurise enough to be of use in a fuel cell.


Nice idea, not really usable. Also, it's not free energy, it's an inefficient conversion process which counters the inefficiency by working all the time. Also, the monolayer MoS2 flakes and TiO2 nanoparticles in the paint aren't exactly cheap.

deadduck wrote:

rabble wrote:Also pressurizing the hydrogen also energy intensive.

You don't necessarily need to pressurise it if you're using it in real time

You wouldn't be using it in real time. The whole point of water splitting to produce hydrogen is that it's a means to store solar energy for use elsewhere or later. Harvest the sunlight and use that to produce H2, then use that in a fuel cell at a later stage to produce electricity. If you want to use solar energy in real time, then you'd just use a photovoltaic or dye-sensitised solar cell. The greater the number of processes between photons hitting your solar cell and you using the resulting power, the worse the efficiency. Each step costs energy. Generating H2 from photocatalysts and then immediately using it makes no sense at all.

Nolanator wrote:That's a neat idea, but a long way from being a practical technology.
Researchers have been investigating MoS2 as a cheap alternative to Pt as a catalyst for hydrogen evolution for a while now (I even have a paper on the topic /globus). MoS2 performs fairly poorly compared to Pt, but it's cheap as chips, so it's trade-off. Using TiO2 provides a photocatalyst which provides the electrons needed to drive the reaction (usually an external voltage does this). That's a nice way of making it a standalone system without being powered.

How you collect the hydrogen is a problem then too. It's going to cost energy to collect and pressurise enough to be of use in a fuel cell.


Nice idea, not really usable. Also, it's not free energy, it's an inefficient conversion process which counters the inefficiency by working all the time. Also, the monolayer MoS2 flakes and TiO2 nanoparticles in the paint aren't exactly cheap.

deadduck wrote:

rabble wrote:Also pressurizing the hydrogen also energy intensive.

You don't necessarily need to pressurise it if you're using it in real time

You wouldn't be using it in real time. The whole point of water splitting to produce hydrogen is that it's a means to store solar energy for use elsewhere or later. Harvest the sunlight and use that to produce H2, then use that in a fuel cell at a later stage to produce electricity. If you want to use solar energy in real time, then you'd just use a photovoltaic or dye-sensitised solar cell. The greater the number of processes between photons hitting your solar cell and you using the resulting power, the worse the efficiency. Each step costs energy. Generating H2 from photocatalysts and then immediately using it makes no sense at all.

There you go with your f*cking facts, and knowledge and stuff ...

I've been posting on PR for nearly a decade, I just knew that someday the topic of conversation would turn to novel hydrogen evolution photocatalysts. PhD has finally come in useful.

I reserve the right to shit on other people's ideas.

Nolanator wrote:I reserve the right to shit on other people's ideas.

Pretty sure that'd fudge this new paint stuff though...

If they make it in NZ using black paint it will be successful. The only problem will be the Haka each time you turn it on.

Nolanator wrote:I've been posting on PR for nearly a decade, I just knew that someday the topic of conversation would turn to novel hydrogen evolution photocatalysts. PhD has finally come in useful.

If you had posted a copy of your degree that would that would have been useful (maybe not for you)but what good is having a degree in a subject discussed on PR. That is just bollocks

Nols, you're not involved in a hydrogen project that recently got EU funding that involves NI companies by any chance, are you?

Nah, working on different stuff these days. Biomaterials. Still nanoscience, generally, but quite a different field.

What funding project was that?

Just tell guy where and he will be there 24 hours to shit on your doorstep.

Anywhere in the world, he doesn't give a fudge. He's got people who owe him favours.

And airline receipts!!!

Nolanator wrote:That's a neat idea, but a long way from being a practical technology.
Researchers have been investigating MoS2 as a cheap alternative to Pt as a catalyst for hydrogen evolution for a while now (I even have a paper on the topic /globus). MoS2 performs fairly poorly compared to Pt, but it's cheap as chips, so it's trade-off. Using TiO2 provides a photocatalyst which provides the electrons needed to drive the reaction (usually an external voltage does this). That's a nice way of making it a standalone system without being powered.

How you collect the hydrogen is a problem then too. It's going to cost energy to collect and pressurise enough to be of use in a fuel cell.


Nice idea, not really usable. Also, it's not free energy, it's an inefficient conversion process which counters the inefficiency by working all the time. Also, the monolayer MoS2 flakes and TiO2 nanoparticles in the paint aren't exactly cheap.

deadduck wrote:

rabble wrote:Also pressurizing the hydrogen also energy intensive.

You don't necessarily need to pressurise it if you're using it in real time

You wouldn't be using it in real time. The whole point of water splitting to produce hydrogen is that it's a means to store solar energy for use elsewhere or later. Harvest the sunlight and use that to produce H2, then use that in a fuel cell at a later stage to produce electricity. If you want to use solar energy in real time, then you'd just use a photovoltaic or dye-sensitised solar cell. The greater the number of processes between photons hitting your solar cell and you using the resulting power, the worse the efficiency. Each step costs energy. Generating H2 from photocatalysts and then immediately using it makes no sense at all.

Fat from slime.

https://www.wired.com/story/synthetic-g ... the-future

Can I get it in Magnolia? If not, it'll be a disaster.

Nolanator wrote:

deadduck wrote:

rabble wrote:Also pressurizing the hydrogen also energy intensive.

You don't necessarily need to pressurise it if you're using it in real time

You wouldn't be using it in real time. The whole point of water splitting to produce hydrogen is that it's a means to store solar energy for use elsewhere or later. Harvest the sunlight and use that to produce H2, then use that in a fuel cell at a later stage to produce electricity. If you want to use solar energy in real time, then you'd just use a photovoltaic or dye-sensitised solar cell. The greater the number of processes between photons hitting your solar cell and you using the resulting power, the worse the efficiency. Each step costs energy. Generating H2 from photocatalysts and then immediately using it makes no sense at all.

Whilst I don't take issue with anything you've said I think you're overlooking the engineering challenges you're facing with the system you've suggested.
How do you collect the hydrogen off the roof (or somesuch)?
How do you transport the hydrogen to the central fuel cell?
Not storing the hydrogen also eliminates any safety risk as there is no large amount of H2 being stored at any given time
Electricity on the other hand is relatively easy to store

There are tradeoffs to be made, and when the cost of the resource is essentially free, efficiency can be one of them. It seems more likely to me that if, or when, these systems come to market for installing on buildings that they'll be smaller self contained units wired together rather than one massive system integrated into the building. I still don't think they will replace traditional solar panels though.