'Major Discovery' Primed To Unleash Solar Revolution

'Major Discovery' Primed To Unleash Solar Revolution: Scientists Mimic Essence Of Plants' Energy Storage System


ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2008) — In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.

Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive and grossly inefficient. With today's announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy.

Requiring nothing but abundant, 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 and senior author of a paper describing the work in the July 31 issue of Science. "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 an unprecedented 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 your house or your electric car, day or night...cont'd

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080731143345.htm#

Like they are gobbling up the hilltops for the wind generators here.

I read a story like this every other year or so where they have come up with an economical method for creating hydrogen from water. Nothing has ever come from it though. It would be great if this did take off as it would probably be one of the stronger weapons to break us of the Carbon-energy cycle which is killing us today.

L-

They can't do this on enough of a scale to be meaningful. To answer someone's question below about why not batteries, Hydrogen scales better than batteries. Batteries have lifetimes and have to be manufactured and recycled, hydrogen doesn't have this problem and can be used to generate power farther away.

L-

This isn't what I thought it was.

:thumbsup:

is, instead of using a battery to store the output of solar panels, is to use a hydrogen cracker instead.

That's OK, as far as it goes, but doesn't it add complexity to the system far beyond what a battery-based system provides?

If you use batteries, you can seamlessly switch from using the solar-panel energy input to that stored in the batteries. With this system, you need to add a layer of technology to turn that hydrogen back into electricity, yes?

Redstone

This isn't what I thought it was

...and if the solar installation is grid-connected, then what does anyone need any kind of storage system for in the first place?

Around these parts folks .... snear.... when anyone mentions Massachusetts. I always reply.... Yes, the Massachusetts that has Harvard and MIT as opposed to The South Carolina that has .... Clemson and U. of South Carolina.

like Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling (gravity).

... and the press release from MIT really got things off to a confusing start.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=165192&mesg_id=165192

Large scale solar deployment has not been hindered appreciably by lack of a decent energy storage system.

With grid-connected solar, you can get 100% utilization of the installation's output.

Storage is only an issue in off-grid systems, but it turns out that by and large most consumers of electricity are already connected to the grid.

As a storage system, yes, hydrolysis is one way to do that, but that has nothing to do with solar. The reportage here is just awful.

You are thinking in terms of augmenting the current system rather than totally replacing coal (and eventually natural gas) with renewables. Having each home store most of it's nighttime energy load reduces the demand on a renewable grid.

There hasn't been a detailed presentation of the amount this process adds to the system efficiency of storage by H, but I doubt if it brings it anywhere near the realm of battery storage. However, it could still have a great deal of relevance in developing countries.

If you want to have a renewable grid, then I don't see where you are going to be storing much of anything during peak hours in order to meet off-peak demand. What makes deployment of grid-connected solar desirable is the fact that it matches peak load - i.e. when the air conditioners are running. But if you are talking about a large system where everyone's roof and yard are large enough to generate significantly above peak load with solar, then IMHO you'd be better off with a grid connected storage system along the lines of pumping water uphill to a big honking reservoir, and running that backwards for hydro at night, than manufacturing and installing whatever high-tech limited-mineral-intensive storage system in a gajillion homes.

But the main point is that lack of storage technology is not preventing large scale solar deployment right now, and hasn't been what's been holding it back. Right now, would you rather spend $10,000 to drop on a grid-connected PV system that would satisfy 1/3 of your consumption, versus going off-grid for $75,000, which would you rather do as a first step?

As one example, this installation started running two weeks ago, less than a mile from my house:



Now, this is a church - a building which spends most of its time unoccupied. There are some community group meetings in the evenings, and choir practice on Tuesday nights. That system supplies 2/3 of the electrical power used by the church. Figuring out what to do with "excess" power, has never been a problem for mainstream non-remote PV installations.

First, pumped hydro is seldom the preferred solution for any given area. Better alternatives are CAES and battery storage, and that isn't my opinion, it a statement based on the findings of a number of researchers. You say you don't see storing energy for use during the night, but I think you are still operating on a concept too closely tied to central generation.

Just keep your eyes on what is happening in the battery sector with electric "V2G" equipped vehicles. The price of 50kWh of electric storage is going to become very affordable as will the price of solar panels. Where they can be placed on individual homes, they will be. Large scale solar plants (both PV and thermal) are part of the picture as is wind, tidal/wave/current and geothermal.

CAES is set to be the second most affordable storage alternative. As I said, I don't think this H innovation changes the basic picture, but we'll have to wait for more information to know for sure.

For a run-of-the-mill residence in the United States, grid-connected solar is cheaper than also buying a storage system, which also introduces a higher "fuckwith factor" into the system.

The premise of the article is that deployment of solar on a large scale has been hampered by storage issues.

The premise is incorrect.

Whether I am "still operating on a concept too closely tied to central generation" is irrelevant to this notion that, with any proposed storage system you want, there would be some overnight shift to off-grid residential solar.

You are absolutely right that PV will be placed on residential homes. The notion that even a substantial proportion of residential homes would have excess peak generating capacity to even want bother with storage is incorrect. Nobody, unless they are not near any juice in the first place, is going to buy a storage system that increases the payback time of the PV installation by another decade, when they can simply sell any excess and buy it back.

Your first sentence is in the "Duh" category; it is self evident. However, I disagree that the deployment of solar hasn't been held back by lack of affordable storage; so do you since in your last sentence you wrote, "Nobody,... is going to buy a storage system that increases the payback time of the PV installation by another decade".

That is the point of the story. EXPENSIVE storage versus INEXPENSIVE storage. It makes all the difference in the world.

I would also challenge your assumption about what people might want to "bother" with. I believe that a large number of people (probably a very large majority), if given the choice by economics, will choose to be less rather than more dependent on centralized power generation.

I think the point you are trying to make is that even with the current grid structure solar is a good source of power that more often than not justifies its purchase. I agree. However, most purchasing decisions are made in a manner that isn't exactly based on solid benefit/cost analysis. Inertia (the current system) and up front costs are given substantial support by a public that has little more than a vague general knowledge of either the actual long term financial or environmental benefits of making such a purchase.

Inexpensive storage introduces a new element into the mix - individual energy self sufficiency - that I see as being an indispensable element to bring about a change in the inertia of the present system. I don't think this (H) technology is the one that will prevail in the marketplace, however. Considering the investment that is now flowing into batteries for EVs, I'd expect the price of batteries to drop substantially. I believe the goal at DOE is to have an effective EV battery pack for a price of about $500 dollars.

If we are going to go carbon free, I don't see any way that it can be done without substantial storage; and the best way to pay for that storage (IMO) is for individuals to purchase it for the immediate benefit of meeting their individual energy needs. If they can produce most or all of the electricity from their own solar panels that's great, but even if they are charging from a grid powered by renewables, I think storage (along with a "Smart Grid") is the key element to making the renewables work.

You don't have to agree.

to the electric utilities if it were allowed. The battery array is quite large but can fit into a relatively small utility area and has a long life span. These systems have been in operation for ten or 15 years and still function well with little maintenance.

It's great that these scientists are working on ways to improve solar storage capabilities. Maybe one day we'll get some methods that are cheap and don't require scarce mineral resources and toxic industrial processes for manufacture. But until that day comes we should be moving toward solar-powered (and water-heated) homes wherever the climate allows--which is certainly most, or all, of the U.S. The technology is there but the cost is prohibitive for most folks. So, why not subsidize solar technology for homes and businesses that are suited for it?

I suspect it's because electric utilities make money by generating power. The more they generate, the more plants they need, the more customers they have, etc. It's a vicious cycle because it means that the people who could be helping us learn to use alternative energy would be cutting their own financial throats. So, their very rich and powerful lobbies are killing anything that threatens their cash cow--at least until they figure out how to own all of the alternative energy sources themselves, at which time they will start the propaganda machine to get what they want.

Large-scale production and transmission of electricity is a dinosaur that needs to become extinct. By large-scale I am referring to regional production. We lose a huge amount of electrical energy just through transmission lines. Certainly we can't stop all regional power production in the short term, but we can certainly encourage widespread use of solar electricity on a local level so we can use what is produced more efficiently.

Not all homes or businesses are well-suited for solar due to improper roof orientation or the location of trees on the property, or no place for a remote array. (And we definitely do not need to be cutting down trees to provide more solar gain.) But we could upfit millions of homes in the U.S. in a few short years if we had the national will to invest in that as part of an energy solution. I've been hoping to hear some type of "national energy mobilization plan" from the Obama campaign but haven't yet heard about anything that specific.

This is already happening with many of the "green" homes that are being built now but it needs to become a mandated program. Lots of job opportunities in that field.

Just some random thoughts.