Leaderboard

https://phys.org/news/2021-09-game-changer-hydrogen-production.html Graphical abstract. Credit: DOI: 10.1016/j.nanoen.2021.106463: Curtin University research has identified a new, cheaper and more efficient electrocatalyst to make green hydrogen from water that could one day open new avenues for large-scale clean energy production. Typically, scientists have been using precious metal catalysts, such as platinum, to accelerate the reaction to break water into hydrogen and oxygen. Now Curtin research has found that adding nickel and cobalt to cheaper, previously ineffective catalysts enhances their performance, which lowers the energy required to split the water and increases the yield of hydrogen. Lead researcher Dr. Guohua Jia, from Curtin's School of Molecular and Life Sciences, said this discovery could have far-reaching implications for sustainable green fuel generation in the future. "Our research essentially saw us take two-dimensional iron-sulfur nanocrystals, which don't usually work as catalysts for the electricity-driven reaction that gets hydrogen from water, and add small amounts of nickel and cobalt ions. When we did this it completely transformed the poor-performing iron-sulfur into a viable and efficient catalyst," Dr. Jia said. more at link................................... the paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211285521007187?via%3Dihub Ni2+/Co2+ doped Au-Fe7S8 nanoplatelets with exceptionally high oxygen evolution reaction activity: Abstract: To overcome the limited potency of energy devices such as alkaline water electrolyzers, the construction of active materials with dramatically enhanced oxygen evolution reaction (OER) performance is of great importance. Herein we developed an ion diffusion-induced doping strategy that is capable of producing Ni2+/Co2+ doped two-dimensional (2D) Au-Fe7S8 nanoplatelets (NPLs) with exceptionally high OER activity outperforming the benchmark RuO2 catalyst. The co-existence of Co and Ni in Au-Fe7S8 NPLs led to the lowest OER overpotential of 243 mV at 10 mA cm-2 and fast kinetics with a Tafel slope of 43 mV dec-1. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations demonstrated that Ni2+/Co2+ doping improves the binding of OOH species on the {001} surfaces of Au-Fe7S8 NPLs and lowers the Gibbs free energy of the OER process, which are beneficial to outstanding OER activity of the nanoplatelets.

This is for you @Peterkin...

Just asking. Isn't Au (gold) a precious metal? It is good to see progress on better electrolyzers and I hope it flows through to renewable Hydrogen production. It won't become widely used without better electrolyzers. I see iron smelting and chemical feedstocks as the uses of most significance. I am less optimistic for H2 as transport fuel and as transportable fuel; iron production and chemical feedstocks can operate with on-site production and storage at low(er) pressure and therefore cheaper than bringing it from somewhere else. Battery electric looks better for vehicles - overall much higher energy efficiencies and piggy backs onto existing energy distribution networks. Hydrogen as transport fuel needs economy wide infrastructure built from zero. One more halving of battery costs will make existing type EV's unstoppable. One more doubling of energy density will make EV's unstoppable - and open up aviation to battery electric. Achieve both and it is game over for fossil fuels. Hydrogen won't be in that game. I'm cynical and think that, important as clean iron smelting and fertiliser production is too much is being made of Hydrogen - and the reason it has such widespread political support is that it can't do much any time soon. Those looking for empty gestures to follow up their empty gestures on zero emission targets like renewable Hydrogen sometime in the future, but so does the fossil fuel industry, that currently make most Hydrogen like it; it uses empty gestures on Carbon Capture and Storage to justify competing (with aid of subsidies from sympathetic politicians) against emerging clean Hydrogen and other clean energy.

The other side of this coin is that people are telling them not to trust, and to not get the vaccine…but the people at the top of the pyramid are vaccinated. It’s interesting seeing the shock of the drones at finding out e.g. FOX news has a vaccine mandate. It’s related to having authoritarians and grifters in power, and the way to show loyalty is to believe what they tell you rather than what you see with your lying eyes. It’s the price of belonging to the tribe.

Only in a rough sense; fission and particle ejection are classified as different reactions. Particle ejection can be endothermic, so you need an energetic particle to cause the proton to be removed. Almost certainly required if you eject more than one. Fissionable materials are typically very heavy nuclei, and fissile materials are a small subset. Particle ejection candidates are found over almost the whole range of the periodic table.

Well, I wonder then how reliable remote systems are. After all, presumably airplanes can also be controlled remotely and much of the flight is automated, anyway. In either case we presumably do not have real safety data to actually figure out whether having a manual backup (and hence a need for a pilot) would improve safety. As the flights are presumably very short and few in numbers it might not make much of a difference, but I think at this point one can only rely on massive extrapolation to form an opinion.

Look it up on the internet. There is no point in anyone here paraphrasing widely available basic science. If you have a more specific issue, by all means come back here and ask about it. If you are not a bot, that is.

What money does When one uses money to do something, the usage of money reduces the time and effort one has to spend to do this something, because if you REALLY think otherwise… When one uses money to do something, the usage of money doesn’t reduce the time and effort one has to spend to do this something, but if you think this is REALLY ok for you… If in the end, when one uses money to do something, the usage of money doesn’t reduce the time and effort one has to spend to do something, it doesn’t seem to me one knows how to use money…does it seem to you…idiot? Who is good at making money When one is good at making money, one is good at making money again and again, because if you REALLY think otherwise… When one is good at making money, one is not good at making money again and again, but if you think this is REALLY ok for you… If in the end, when one is good at making money, one is not good at making money again and again, it doesn’t seem to me that the rest around one think one is good at making money…does it seem to you…idiot? Who is an economist When one is an economist, one knows what money does, and who is good at making it, because if you REALLY think otherwise… When one is an economist, one doesn’t know what money does, or doesn’t know who is good at making it, but if you think this is REALLY ok for you… If in the end, when one is an economist, one doesn’t know what money does, or doesn’t know who is good at making it, it doesn’t seem to me that when the economy isn’t working we all don’t know why that is…does it seem to you…idiot?

Hi all, Why say that the following phrase is nonsense? “The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.” Because: A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself. If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but… if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself. The way humans make sense of the world around them, is either one that is funny for them, or it is one that is not funny for them. If the way humans make sense of the world around them is not funny for them…for a long time, those people don’t have a good time…for a long time, and they may forget that… The way one makes sense of the world around one, is funny for one, or it wouldn’t be funny for one... Link to YouTube channel removed by moderator, per Rule 2.7 check comments, you will find there, how this relates to you,just follow the money...