Weekend Science and Tech
In our continuing effort to find a way to take a break from public affairs and politics at least one day near or on the weekend, it’s time for Weekend Science and Tech. Hold the applause, please. Our feature this Friday is from the Brookhaven Lab. You know, one of those labs run by that government we sometimes complain about. It is only fair to give them a break on the weekend too and offer a story which is not the source of a complaint. Besides, as we mentioned in the last edition, a little science now and then is a good thing, even for the most skeptical or cynical.
So ‘they’ claim, hydrogen is as safe a fuel to use in operating an automobile or other vehicle as is gasoline or natural gas. While we’re not completely convinced, the real purpose of this research is to find alternative fuels to provide more options for the future. You know, those alternative fuels we did not take seriously enough 30 years ago. Necessity is the mother of invention. So, enough from us, here’s some research and development from BNL.
Gold, Copper Nanoparticles Take Center Stage in the Search for Hydrogen Production Catalysts
March 28, 2007
Written by Kendra Snyder
CHICAGO, IL – X-ray studies at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory are pointing the way to less costly and more efficient catalysts for improving the performance of fuel cells. The studies, which will be presented by Brookhaven chemist Jose Rodriguez at the 233rd National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, show that copper can be substituted for gold in reactions that keep fuel cells functioning longer while eliminating unwanted byproducts.
With the goal of efficient fuel cell operation in mind, researchers first need to turn their attention to hydrogen, which is one of the leading energy sources being investigated by scientists sponsored by the DOE as part of its mission to ensure the nation’s future energy needs. A major problem facing today’s most promising fuel-cell technologies is that the same hydrogen-rich materials feeding the reaction often contain high levels of carbon monoxide (CO), which is formed during hydrogen production. Within a fuel cell, CO “poisons” the expensive platinum catalysts that convert hydrogen into electricity, deteriorating their efficiency over time and requiring their replacement.
Rodriguez will discuss how the use of gold and copper nanoparticles might provide a solution to this problem at 8:30 a.m. Central Time (9:30 a.m. Eastern Time) on Wednesday, March 28, 2007, in room S404D, Level 4, at McCormick Place South, Chicago, Illinois. “We’re trying to find a catalyst that achieves two things: produces hydrogen while removing a large amount of CO,” Rodriguez said.
One way to eliminate the CO byproduct is to combine it with water to produce hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide in a process known as the “water-gas shift” reaction. With the assistance of proper catalysts, the water-shift reaction can convert nearly 100 percent of the CO into carbon dioxide. Using catalyst characterization techniques at Brookhaven’s National Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS), Rodriguez and coworkers Jonathan Hanson and Jan Hrbek found that nanoparticles of either gold or copper, supported on a metal, can perform this catalytic role. In particular, they found that the greatest catalytic activity is achieved with extremely small nanoparticles – less than 4 nanometers (4 billionths of a meter) – supported on the metal cerium oxide, or ceria.
“Metal nanoparticles alone are not able to do the catalysis,” Rodriguez said. “But when you put them on the ceria, you see tremendous catalytic activity.”
At the nanoscale, gold has long been known to exhibit chemical reactivity that makes it a potent catalyst. The problem, however, comes with its hefty price tag. “We wanted a material that was less expensive,” Rodriguez said. “We wanted to see if we could replace the gold with copper.” Using x-ray diffraction, absorption, and spectroscopy studies at the NSLS, Rodriguez’s group showed that the substitution is indeed possible. Although gold nanoparticles continue to show the greatest catalytic activity, copper is almost as reactive and its cost is much lower.
This research was funded by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences within the DOE’s Office of Science.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:27 am
Interesting. Of course, no matter what catalyst they use, folks who produce hydrogen will still need some sort of power in the process. TANSTAFL. Hydrogen as a fuel is essentially just energy transfer. There are (and won’t be, unless we can harvest the stuff from space–lots of it there, just WIDELY dispersed) no hydrogen wells.
Which brings me back to… nuclear power. A great, environmentally-friendly, safe and efficient way to produce electricity (what?!? the eco-freaks have obscured the safety, efficiency and essential “greenness” of nuclear power too effectively with their lies? It figures… ). Heck, with the eco-freaks bottled up, it’d even be extremely inexpensive. MIT already has plans (in the public domain, I think–could be wrong about that) for modular–suitable for near assembly line production–pebble bed reactors–super safe, fairly efficient, LOW tech, etc.
And talk about fuel! What the HECK ought we to do with all the decomissioined nuclear bombs/missles?
Oh, nuclear waste? It’s a SOLVED “problem” (and well-known to be solved).. 1.) re-refine and reuse. 2.) When no longer re-refineable and reusable, encase in glass and drop into a subduction zone (to be naturally recycled in the nuclear-rich interior of the earth).
With abundant electrical power, alternative fuels for transportation (including but not limited to many different forms of electrical power) are relatively simple engineering problems.
oil? Far too valuable to burn. Dependence on foreign oil? That’s another issue, largely ameliorated with abundant electricity–which is NOT an engineering problem but a political one. Shut the Luddites out of the process (heck, build them a rock garden on the moon and give them all one-way tickets), build nuclear power plants out the wazoo, problem solved. We can MAKE our own oil (a plant 45 miles from where I type these words has been doing it for several years), cheaper than we can import it. And even cheaper with abundant electricity.
BTW, I’ve been fiddling with diagrams and drawings, thinking about slapping a hybrid electric together–typical battery power for around town and a trailer/generator for on the road (or for power outages here at the house, like our ice storm this year). If I can ever get my other projects off my plate… *heh*
March 31st, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Are you suggesting nuclear power for ‘hybrid’ vehicles? Just kidding. Interesting segue but the article is merely about fuel cells for hybrid vehicles and simlar apps. I’m abivalent on nuclear fission but probably won’t live long enough to observe commercially viable nuclear fusion. And this is an inadequate reply to your comment only because I do not have the time to devote to this today and always feel obligated to reply quickly to comments.
I did a quick search on pebble reactors to play devil’s advocate and found a report I cannot confirm indicating a pebble reactor accident in Germany shortly after Chernobyl that dispersed radiation up to two kilometers from the reactor. Even if true, that was over 20 years ago and it is likely the technology has improved since.
Oil is too valuable to burn? Use it only for non-fuel applications?
Gotta go.