July 29, 2013 — Using a simple solar cell and a photo anode made of a metal oxide, HZB and TU Delft scientists have successfully stored nearly five percent of solar energy chemically in the form of hydrogen. This is a major feat as the design of the solar cell is much simpler than that of the high-efficiency triple-junction cells based on amorphous silicon or expensive III-V semiconductors that are traditionally used for this purpose. The photo anode, which is made from the metal oxide bismuth vanadate (BiVO4) to which a small amount of tungsten atoms was added, was sprayed onto a piece of conducting glass and coated with an inexpensive cobalt phosphate catalyst.

“Basically, we combined the best of both worlds,” explains Prof. Dr. Roel van de Krol, head of the HZB Institute for Solar Fuels: “We start with a chemically stable, low cost metal oxide, add a really good but simple silicon-based thin film solar cell, and — voilà — we’ve just created a cost-effective, highly stable, and highly efficient solar fuel device.”

Thus the experts were able to develop a rather elegant and simple system for using sunlight to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This process, called artificial photosynthesis, allows solar energy to be stored in the form of hydrogen. The hydrogen can then be used as a fuel either directly or in the form of methane, or it can generate electricity in a fuel cell. One rough estimate shows the potential inherent in this technology: At a solar performance in Germany of roughly 600 Watts per square meter, 100 square meters of this type of system is theoretically capable of storing 3 kilowatt hours of energy in the form of hydrogen in just one single hour of sunshine. This energy could then be available at night or on cloudy days.

More – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729111927.htm

Spiny Norman said:

July 29, 2013 — Using a simple solar cell and a photo anode made of a metal oxide, HZB and TU Delft scientists have successfully stored nearly five percent of solar energy chemically in the form of hydrogen. This is a major feat as the design of the solar cell is much simpler than that of the high-efficiency triple-junction cells based on amorphous silicon or expensive III-V semiconductors that are traditionally used for this purpose. The photo anode, which is made from the metal oxide bismuth vanadate (BiVO4) to which a small amount of tungsten atoms was added, was sprayed onto a piece of conducting glass and coated with an inexpensive cobalt phosphate catalyst.

“Basically, we combined the best of both worlds,” explains Prof. Dr. Roel van de Krol, head of the HZB Institute for Solar Fuels: “We start with a chemically stable, low cost metal oxide, add a really good but simple silicon-based thin film solar cell, and — voilà — we’ve just created a cost-effective, highly stable, and highly efficient solar fuel device.”

Thus the experts were able to develop a rather elegant and simple system for using sunlight to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This process, called artificial photosynthesis, allows solar energy to be stored in the form of hydrogen. The hydrogen can then be used as a fuel either directly or in the form of methane, or it can generate electricity in a fuel cell. One rough estimate shows the potential inherent in this technology: At a solar performance in Germany of roughly 600 Watts per square meter, 100 square meters of this type of system is theoretically capable of storing 3 kilowatt hours of energy in the form of hydrogen in just one single hour of sunshine. This energy could then be available at night or on cloudy days.

More – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729111927.htm

Assuming that 600 W/m2 is an average day time number, I get about 70 km2 for a 1GW average output power station. That sounds a lot, but it’s not that much more than a coal fired power station plus associated open-cut mine, and also:
- presumably there is potential for improved efficiency
- ideal locations for solar stations (at least in Australia) are land that has no agricultural value
- having hydrogen as the primary output avoids the remote location problem with solar-electric power

so I think it sounds very promising.

…ideal locations for solar stations (at least in Australia) are land that has no agricultural value…
———
Almost all land has some agricultural value. Some land may have low agricultural value, but rarely does it have none at all.

Compare the whole economic picture over time for each possible land use and make a value judgement on the results.

just imagine if they decided to stop the NBN and spend on renewable energy

electricity in this country would be as cheap as water

who knows – we might even EXPORT this electricity for MONEY

wookiemeister said:

just imagine if they decided to stop the NBN and spend on renewable energy

electricity in this country would be as cheap as water

who knows – we might even EXPORT this electricity for MONEY

.
That’s an interesting thought. Now we need the the thought to be converted to a convincing argument, by introducing real facts and figures and developing a viable economic model.

Outside my expertise, sorry.

wookiemeister said:

just imagine if they decided to stop the NBN and spend on renewable energy

electricity in this country would be as cheap as water

who knows – we might even EXPORT this electricity for MONEY

Really settling into your new job as economic adviser to the Gubmint, wookie.

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

just imagine if they decided to stop the NBN and spend on renewable energy

electricity in this country would be as cheap as water

who knows – we might even EXPORT this electricity for MONEY

.
That’s an interesting thought. Now we need the the thought to be converted to a convincing argument, by introducing real facts and figures and developing a viable economic model.

Outside my expertise, sorry.

having cheap electricity drives an economy forward not faster and faster internet access. building an NBN is costly because you need to enter almost every premise, then you’ve got questionable work practice and asbestos issues.

renewable energy can be fed into the powergrid and when being built requires no one to enter the customers premise, data can be fed down powerlines or 3G or some dedicated local wireless network – its a last century approach to comms when you need to enter everyones house to allow data to flow.

considering that rising carbon dioxide levels is a major problem only renewable energy will stop it – not faster you tube access

wookiemeister said:

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

just imagine if they decided to stop the NBN and spend on renewable energy

electricity in this country would be as cheap as water

who knows – we might even EXPORT this electricity for MONEY

.
That’s an interesting thought. Now we need the the thought to be converted to a convincing argument, by introducing real facts and figures and developing a viable economic model.

Outside my expertise, sorry.

having cheap electricity drives an economy forward not faster and faster internet access. building an NBN is costly because you need to enter almost every premise, then you’ve got questionable work practice and asbestos issues.

renewable energy can be fed into the powergrid and when being built requires no one to enter the customers premise, data can be fed down powerlines or 3G or some dedicated local wireless network – its a last century approach to comms when you need to enter everyones house to allow data to flow.

considering that rising carbon dioxide levels is a major problem only renewable energy will stop it – not faster you tube access

.

Words are all well and good, but we need fact and figures developed into a viable economic model. Without that, words are as nothing.

How much are the chemicals used to make it?

Nearly five percent. OoooOOOOOOOooo.

Five percent of free is still cheap

I’m assuming the gear is not free.

dv said:

I’m assuming the gear is not free.

Quite. Hence my question one or two posts back.

Why can’t these things be made from sand and the tears of greenies.

I shouldn’t poo poo straight off like that. I mean there are already ways to make hydrogen using solar power and the key point will be what the whole-cycle cost per kg of hydrogen will be compared to current methods.

Michael V said:

…ideal locations for solar stations (at least in Australia) are land that has no agricultural value…
———
Almost all land has some agricultural value. Some land may have low agricultural value, but rarely does it have none at all.

Compare the whole economic picture over time for each possible land use and make a value judgement on the results.

Michael V said:

…ideal locations for solar stations (at least in Australia) are land that has no agricultural value…
———
Almost all land has some agricultural value. Some land may have low agricultural value, but rarely does it have none at all.

Compare the whole economic picture over time for each possible land use and make a value judgement on the results.

If almost all land has some agricultural value, how come there is so much land with no form of agriculture on it (excluding cities, towns, national parks and other areas where agriculture is excluded because other uses are of higher value)?

“almost all land has some agricultural value”

I would not have said that.

Particularly not in Australia.

dv said:

I shouldn’t poo poo straight off like that. I mean there are already ways to make hydrogen using solar power and the key point will be what the whole-cycle cost per kg of hydrogen will be compared to current methods.

What is the efficiency of hydrogen production from electricity?

Better than 90%.

Of course you also need to allow for the efficiencies of converting solar energy to electricity.

Still, it’s all going to work out better than 5%…

It will really come down to the price of this gear versus the price of solar power plants and electrolysis equipment.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I shouldn’t poo poo straight off like that. I mean there are already ways to make hydrogen using solar power and the key point will be what the whole-cycle cost per kg of hydrogen will be compared to current methods.

What is the efficiency of hydrogen production from electricity?

The internet seems reluctant to give a firm figure, but if we guess at say 50%, then this process at 5% efficiency would be not too bad compared with solar electric at say 15% x 50%, and if it is much cheaper as claimed it might well be an economic way of producing base load power.

dv said:

Better than 90%.

Got a ref. for that?

with solar electric at say 15
—-

PV isn’t very efficient, but the solar-thermal turbines in California are supposed to be >40% efficient. You can’t put one on your roof, though … serious heavy plant.

dv said:

with solar electric at say 15
—-

PV isn’t very efficient, but the solar-thermal turbines in California are supposed to be >40% efficient. You can’t put one on your roof, though … serious heavy plant.

Could well be that solar-thermal in the right location would still be cheaper.

I was thinking that this set-up would be directly comparable with PV, but I suppose the fact that you have to capture and store the hydrogen means it wouldn’t be. Something between solar PV and solar-thermal in terms of minimum economic scale, I suppose.

I was thinking that this set-up would be directly comparable with PV,
—

I don’t have any opinion on it because I really have no idea what this stuff will cost when in mass-production. If it is really cheap then this really is a breakthrough.

Looking for that ref on electrolysis efficiency >90%, found this one for a small unit with 87% efficiency.
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review12/pd030_hamdan_2012_o.pdf

And I agree with the idea that in a country like Australia, energy efficiency isn’t really the key metric. Australia has incident solar energy up the wazoo. Plant costs are what matters.

When the sun goes super our childrens childrens children will have all the fucking energy they need, and then some.
.

dv said:

Looking for that ref on electrolysis efficiency >90%, found this one for a small unit with 87% efficiency.
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review12/pd030_hamdan_2012_o.pdf

Thanks

dv said:

You can’t put one on your roof, though … serious heavy plant.

Quitter talk!

dv said:

Better than 90%.

Of course you also need to allow for the efficiencies of converting solar energy to electricity.

Still, it’s all going to work out better than 5%…

It will really come down to the price of this gear versus the price of solar power plants and electrolysis equipment.

It isn’t better than 90%. In fact it is surprisingly low. Thats why I made the post with a complete rundown of the costs of an actual system in Australia. But those were actual costs, not hand waving hyperbole, so I suppose that doesn’t count.

“Thats why I made the post with a complete rundown of the costs of an actual system in Australia”

1/ I see no such post.

2/ Rev’s question was specifically about the efficiency of producing hydrogen from electricity: not about production from solar power etc, just the electrolysis. There are plenty of small electrolysis systems with efficiencies around the 90% mark.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

…ideal locations for solar stations (at least in Australia) are land that has no agricultural value…
———
Almost all land has some agricultural value. Some land may have low agricultural value, but rarely does it have none at all.

Compare the whole economic picture over time for each possible land use and make a value judgement on the results.

Michael V said:

…ideal locations for solar stations (at least in Australia) are land that has no agricultural value…
———
Almost all land has some agricultural value. Some land may have low agricultural value, but rarely does it have none at all.

Compare the whole economic picture over time for each possible land use and make a value judgement on the results.

If almost all land has some agricultural value, how come there is so much land with no form of agriculture on it (excluding cities, towns, national parks and other areas where agriculture is excluded because other uses are of higher value)?

.

Where is this land? (There’s some in the Tanami Desert, but not much else that I know of.)

Michael V said:

Where is this land? (There’s some in the Tanami Desert, but not much else that I know of.)

The white areas on this map at least, as a guess:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

Where is this land? (There’s some in the Tanami Desert, but not much else that I know of.)

The white areas on this map at least, as a guess:

http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/1982/reviews/p-3.gif

.

Most of that area is privately owned or leasehold pastoral land. Cattle country in many instances. People can and do make a living of that land. Often a good enough living to own aeroplanes, helicopters bulldozers, graders and the like. You might want to quibble about how pastoral land is not exactly equal to agricultural land, but I reckon anywhere where people make a living off the land (whether or not the rainfall is low), the land has some agricultural value.

Rev, this is the highest I’ve located:

Performance of a PEM water electrolysis unit using IrxRuyTazO2 electrocatalysts for the oxygen evolution electrode.

http://h2.base33.net/bibliografia/03_Eletrolise/03_SOEC/2007%20-%20Marshall%20-%20PEM-Electrolysis-O2Eletrocatalysis.pdf

“Overall best cell voltage was achieved at 1.567 V at 1 A cm^-2 and 80 C, equating to an energy consumption of 3.75 kWhNm^-3 H2 and an efficiency of 94%.”

Michael V said:

Most of that area is privately owned or leasehold pastoral land. Cattle country in many instances. People can and do make a living of that land. Often a good enough living to own aeroplanes, helicopters bulldozers, graders and the like. You might want to quibble about how pastoral land is not exactly equal to agricultural land, but I reckon anywhere where people make a living off the land (whether or not the rainfall is low), the land has some agricultural value.

OK, I didn’t know it was even used for pastoral land. I guess I took the word “desert” too literally.

So substitute the word “low” wherever I said “no”.

substitute the word “low” wherever I said “no”.
—-
OK, done. :)

I wonder if covering vast tracts of land with solar plant for the rest of time would be less of an environmental issue than digging little bits of it up for minerals.

morrie said:

I wonder if covering vast tracts of land with solar plant for the rest of time would be less of an environmental issue than digging little bits of it up for minerals.

.
The two would not necessarily be mutually incompatible. There’s some very large coal mine overburden dumps around. Converting these to high-value land use might be smart.

morrie said:

I wonder if covering vast tracts of land with solar plant for the rest of time would be less of an environmental issue than digging little bits of it up for minerals.

I suspect that:

(Vast tracts / little bits) >> (Area required for solar power / (area required for mines + associated works))

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

I wonder if covering vast tracts of land with solar plant for the rest of time would be less of an environmental issue than digging little bits of it up for minerals.

I suspect that:

(Vast tracts / little bits) >> (Area required for solar power / (area required for mines + associated works))

You can’t see my arms waving about though. ;)

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

I wonder if covering vast tracts of land with solar plant for the rest of time would be less of an environmental issue than digging little bits of it up for minerals.

I suspect that:

(Vast tracts / little bits) >> (Area required for solar power / (area required for mines + associated works))

You can’t see my arms waving about though. ;)

Now if someone came up with an efficient means of extracting useful energy from arm waving, we might be getting somewhere.

I still have high hopes for algae farming. We have vast tracts of relatively flat, low value land that might be just about ideal for digging lots of huge ponds.

i wait until neo sees this for her take on “low value” land.

;-)

ChrispenEvan said:

i wait until neo sees this for her take on “low value” land.

;-)

None of my posts ever get past Neo’s scrutiny. Just take the infraction notice for granted.

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

Michael V said:

.
That’s an interesting thought. Now we need the the thought to be converted to a convincing argument, by introducing real facts and figures and developing a viable economic model.

Outside my expertise, sorry.

having cheap electricity drives an economy forward not faster and faster internet access. building an NBN is costly because you need to enter almost every premise, then you’ve got questionable work practice and asbestos issues.

renewable energy can be fed into the powergrid and when being built requires no one to enter the customers premise, data can be fed down powerlines or 3G or some dedicated local wireless network – its a last century approach to comms when you need to enter everyones house to allow data to flow.

considering that rising carbon dioxide levels is a major problem only renewable energy will stop it – not faster you tube access

.

Words are all well and good, but we need fact and figures developed into a viable economic model. Without that, words are as nothing.

have a look at your power bill and all your other bills – electricity is a key driver in the cost of things

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

Michael V said:

.
That’s an interesting thought. Now we need the the thought to be converted to a convincing argument, by introducing real facts and figures and developing a viable economic model.

Outside my expertise, sorry.

having cheap electricity drives an economy forward not faster and faster internet access. building an NBN is costly because you need to enter almost every premise, then you’ve got questionable work practice and asbestos issues.

renewable energy can be fed into the powergrid and when being built requires no one to enter the customers premise, data can be fed down powerlines or 3G or some dedicated local wireless network – its a last century approach to comms when you need to enter everyones house to allow data to flow.

considering that rising carbon dioxide levels is a major problem only renewable energy will stop it – not faster you tube access

.

Words are all well and good, but we need fact and figures developed into a viable economic model. Without that, words are as nothing.

figures

eg

http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=26536

$450 million = 155MW installed

$43 billion = X MW installed

43 billion/ 450 million * 155MW = 14811MW renewable energy system or a 14.8 GW solar system

the 43 billion comes from not building an NBN system but reducing carbon dioxide output

we export electricity to neighbouring countries to make money if need be

or we charge lots of electric cars for free during the day – no more petrol or diesel used for cars in the city – the air becomes sweet

no more solar panels are installed on roofs

this is a very inefficient way of installing solar power

large arrays require little to no maintenance crews

electricity becomes virtually free, power bills are limited to maintaining and building transmission systems

no loans are used to pay for this system everyone pays 1000 for the luxury of cheap power including the unemployed (who will now be used to build the solar system, anyone refusing to work is struck from them the benefit system and if caught stealing / breaking in/ attacking the public will be thrown into gaol – everyone works)

ideally large roof areas in the cities could be used to mount these systems, this way power is used where its being generated

another way to pay for stuff is to stop the subsidies to the middle class and the elite

instead of the subsidies the tax law becomes that nothing is tax deductible anymore, you want a thirsty “company” vehicle for your wife – fine you pay for it. the car industry over here is boned anyway, a few thousand people out of work won’t be a problem when they will now be employed installing the solar system.

with nothing tax deductible accountants are no longer needed in tax returns, with everyone now paying their way in society the GST could be lowered

NO “trusts”. NO subsidies for people to buy shares.

everyone on benefits gets a card to buy stuff alcohol and cigarettes no longer able to be bought. they will all be working so they won’t need them anyway. most disabled people currently out of work will be harnessed to help build the solar system, unless you are in bed and mentally unable to work you’ll be set to work.

You’re an ideas man Wookie..

They’re all bad, but still, an ideas man.

Dropbear said:

You’re an ideas man Wookie..

They’re all bad, but still, an ideas man.

the federal gov has a 33 billion blackhole

at least people would have the cheapest history with my ideas

the other benefit of cheap power is that industry would flock to Australia regardless of the labour costs

wookiemeister said:

Dropbear said:

You’re an ideas man Wookie..

They’re all bad, but still, an ideas man.

the federal gov has a 33 billion blackhole

at least people would have the cheapest POWER in history with my ideas

the other benefit of cheap power is that industry would flock to Australia regardless of the labour costs

Certainly some sites in South-West Qld that no self respecting cow would go for a feed…

Thanks for those examples, morrie. Very useful and interesting.

It is a feature of solar power that it precludes agriculture in a way that wind power does not. A farmer or grazier can dot his property with an array of 3MW wind turbines basically without significant loss of ag output whereas if you put up a comparable array of any kind of solar power installation, you can’t then use that area for growing. To put it into some perspective though…

Australia’s total energy consumption was 5945 PJ in the 2010-11 year (from BREE report “Energy In Australia 2012”).
(BTW, interesting that only 14% of Australia’s energy consumption is in the form of electricity: that stat has decreased over the last decade.)

Even in the rural areas of NSW or Vic, insolation is > 8GJ/sqm/annum. If we were to allow only 10% efficiency in the whole system including transmission and storage losses, you would need about 7400 sq km to cover Australia’s energy needs. We can argue about the boundary between low- and no-value land but I don’t think it should be in dispute that in this continent you can find 7400 sq km of land that is worth less in terms of economic output than the entire energy budget of Australia.

Energy needs or electricity needs?

To put it another way, even if the price you got from your power retailer was 10 c/kWh, and your total efficiency was 10%, with an ordinary NSW/Vic rural insolation of 8GJ/m^2/annum, you would get 220000 dollars per hectare per year for your solar power. I don’t need to tell you that there are areas in NSW/Vic that would be very happy to swap their current income for 220000 dollars per hectare…

Point I am making is that the cost of the plant is always going to be a much bigger consideration than the cost of the land or the loss of ag output when we are talking about solar power in rural Aust. That would apply even more strongly for solar hydrogen production at the current hydrogen prices.

Energy needs or electricity needs?
—-

Like I said, that’s total energy needs (which are about 7 times higher than electricity needs)