Page 1 of 1

Cheaper hydrogen?

Posted: June 6th, 2017, 3:17 pm
by Infrasonic
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-ultrathin ... eaper.html

UNSW Sydney chemists have invented a new, cheap catalyst for splitting water with an electrical current to efficiently produce clean hydrogen fuel.
The technology is based on the creation of ultrathin slices of porous metal-organic complex materials coated onto a foam electrode, which the researchers have unexpectedly shown is highly conductive of electricity and active for splitting water.
"Splitting water usually requires two different catalysts, but our catalyst can drive both of the reactions required to separate water into its two constituents, oxygen and hydrogen," says study leader Associate Professor Chuan Zhao.
"Our fabrication method is simple and universal, so we can adapt it to produce ultrathin nanosheet arrays of a variety of these materials, called metal-organic frameworks.
"Compared to other water-splitting electro-catalysts reported to date, our catalyst is also among the most efficient," he says.

Cont.

Re: Cheaper hydrogen?

Posted: June 6th, 2017, 11:11 pm
by tjh290633
I wasn't aware that electrolysis of water required a catalyst.

Is he in fact referring to the electrode materials?

TJH

Re: Cheaper hydrogen?

Posted: June 26th, 2017, 1:05 pm
by XFool
tjh290633 wrote:I wasn't aware that electrolysis of water required a catalyst.

It doesn't "require" it. But it very much helps!

Re: Cheaper hydrogen?

Posted: June 26th, 2017, 5:00 pm
by tjh290633
XFool wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:I wasn't aware that electrolysis of water required a catalyst.

It doesn't "require" it. But it very much helps!

Sounds to me that the porous electrode has much more surface area, so can release more gas. I still don't think that you can get more gas than the electrical current can release.

Some thermodynamic calculations might convince me.

TJH

Re: Cheaper hydrogen?

Posted: June 26th, 2017, 6:07 pm
by XFool
tjh290633 wrote:
XFool wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:I wasn't aware that electrolysis of water required a catalyst.

It doesn't "require" it. But it very much helps!

Sounds to me that the porous electrode has much more surface area, so can release more gas. I still don't think that you can get more gas than the electrical current can release.

Like most things catalytic, I expect it is more a matter of rate of reaction than getting "more gas than the electrical current can release".

For instance, if you put a little H2SO4 into distilled water it will electrolyse MUCH faster than pure water ever would. But you still get just Hydrogen and Oxygen at the electrodes, AFAIK.

Re: Cheaper hydrogen?

Posted: June 26th, 2017, 7:30 pm
by johnhemming
There might be a question as to how much heat is generated as well as free hydrogen (and oxygen).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
Reported working efficiencies were for alkaline in 1996 lying in the 50–60% range for the smaller electrolysers and around 65–70% for the larger plants.[22] Theorical efficiency for PEM electrolysers are predicted up to 94%.[23] Ranges in 2014 were 43–67% for the alkaline and 40–67% for the PEM, they should progress in 2030 to 53–70% for the alkaline and 62–74% for the PEM.[20]

Re: Cheaper hydrogen?

Posted: June 27th, 2017, 6:29 pm
by tjh290633
XFool wrote:Like most things catalytic, I expect it is more a matter of rate of reaction than getting "more gas than the electrical current can release".

For instance, if you put a little H2SO4 into distilled water it will electrolyse MUCH faster than pure water ever would. But you still get just Hydrogen and Oxygen at the electrodes, AFAIK.


That, I think, is down to mobility of charged species and the conductivity of a solution, compared with pure water. Somewhere I have a large book called "Physical Chemistry", which might have the answer, which I doubt has changed over the intervening 60 years.

TJH