The discovery was published in the scientific journal Nature Materials
The Technion researchers discovered that trapping light in thin layers of iron oxide ("rust") can lead to the decomposition of water and the creation of solar fuels. Their discovery was published in the prestigious scientific journal .Nature Materials
"The implementation of energy technologies from renewable and sustainable sources ("green energy") as a significant component of the energy economy requires finding cheap and efficient ways to store energy and supply it at the time and place needed" explains Professor Avner Rothschild from the Faculty of Materials Science and Engineering. "One of the ways to store solar energy is to break down water , through photo-electrolysis, and the creation of hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen created in this process can be used as a fuel that can be converted into electricity using fuel cells in a clean and "environmentally friendly" process.
Alternatively, it can be used as a raw material to create liquid fuels by combining it with carbon dioxide or plant residues (biomass). The fuels produced by this method are called solar fuels and they may be a substitute for oil and other fuels extracted from the earth (fossil fuels). Unlike fossil fuels, solar fuels are produced from renewable sources and they do not cause an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The great challenge facing the necessary transition from fossil fuels that are depleting and have a negative impact on the environment to clean and sustainable solar fuels involves the development of new technologies for their cheap and efficient production."
Technion researchers have developed an innovative way to perform photoelectrolysis of water using thin layers, about 20 to 30 nanometers thick (nanometer: one billionth of a meter), of iron oxide (Fe2O3). Iron oxide is a semi-conducting material that is a major component of rust. Common iron ores can be produced simply and cheaply. Unlike the vast majority of the semi-conducting materials from which solar cells are made, iron oxide is stable in water and is even capable of breaking down the water into oxygen and hydrogen without changing its composition and properties. Therefore, it is the main candidate for the development of photo-electrochemical cells for breaking down water using solar energy. However, due to the large gap between the large absorption distance of the light in iron oxide and the small movement distance of the charge carriers created due to the absorption of light in the material, it is difficult to develop iron oxide photoelectrodes with high energy efficiency.
Chen Dotan, earning his doctorate under the guidance of Professor Rothschild, found that this problem can be overcome by trapping light in thin layers of iron oxide in a way that significantly increases the absorption efficiency. The increase in absorption is possible due to the constructive interference of the light waves that hit the layer and move forward through it and the light waves that are reflected back upon reaching the opposite (rear) end of the layer where they meet a mirror that reflects the light back, back to the layer. With the help of Ofer Kafir, a doctoral student in the research group of Professor Oren Cohen from the Technion's Physics Faculty, and other students in the research group of Professor Rothschild, Chen developed and perfected the method and created photo-electrodes from thin layers of iron oxide on a glass substrate coated with a reflective material made of silver alloy -gold. This alloy, which was developed by the eminent Elad Charlin and Ushery Blank from Professor Rothschild's research group, is unique in that it combines almost complete reflection of light (in wavelengths in the visible range) and maintaining stability over time. These electrodes achieved a high efficiency which is expressed in the rate of water decomposition and the formation of oxygen and hydrogen higher than all previous reports on iron oxide electrodes.
The research opens up new horizons for the design and production of photoelectrochemical cells with a simple and smart structure, through which it is possible to overcome the limitations of the material and achieve high absorption efficiency at the same time as high quantum efficiency that enables the achievement of high powers. Confining the light in such thin layers, with a thickness of several tens of nanometers, is an important breakthrough that may enable the development of highly efficient solar cells from cheap and common semiconductor materials, such as iron oxide. The photo-electrochemical cells developed and manufactured at the Technion can be combined with photovoltaic cells, such as silicon cells that are installed in ever-increasing volumes in Israel and around the world, in order to produce electricity and hydrogen during the hours when the sun shines. The hydrogen can be stored for use during the hours of darkness or, alternatively, converted into synthetic fuels. In addition, trapping light in such thin layers allows for a significant reduction in the amount of material needed to produce second-generation photovoltaic cells. These cells are built from semiconductor compounds containing rare elements such as tellurium (in CdTe) or indium (in CuIn1-xGaxSe2 or CIGS for short), which limits their application in large volumes. The method developed at the Technion makes it possible to reduce the thickness of the layer, and the amount of material needed to build it, by dozens of percent (up to 95%, according to the researchers' estimation) without effectively reducing the absorption of light in the layer. In this way, the production costs of these cells can be reduced, without losing their efficiency, and make them more competitive.
The research is carried out entirely at the Technion, in the Laboratory for Electroceramic Materials and Devices at the Faculty of Materials Science and Engineering in collaboration with the Laboratory for the Production and Characterization of Solar Cells at the Zisapel Center for Micro- and Nanoelectronics. These laboratories were established with the help of the Russell Berry Nanotechnology Institute (RBNI) and the Technion's Grand Energy Program (GTEP). The research was previously financed by the research program of the European Union (FP7) and is currently financed by the Centers of Excellence program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and the National Science Foundation, and the Kamin program to promote selected applied research on behalf of the Ministry of Science and Technology.
28 תגובות
Hydrogen produced from water and sunlight is a clean fuel without any additional PAD:
2H2O –> 2H2 + O2 –> 2H2O
The hydrogen can be reacted with hydrogen to create solar fuel such as methanol, for example:
CO2 + 3H2 –> CH3OH + H2O
Additional reactions come into consideration, including from a plant source (please remember that the plant sets PDH in photosynthesis).
When the fuel is burned, PAD is emitted, but it originates from PAD that determines the need to create the fuel, so it is a closed cycle without adding PAD to the atmosphere.
Capish?
A question for the advanced: why not be satisfied with photosynthesis?
Gentlemen of the debaters,
First of all, you should be precise in Hebrew, fuel is fuel even in the plural,
There is no bias to the plural for complexes:
Information, weapons, fuel and the like are not biased towards the many
Fuels... yuk.
At the heart of the debate, there is no doubt that the use of mineral fuel increases the level of pollution in the atmosphere, while vegetable fuel creates a permanent balance:
The plants absorb the hydrogen and the burning of the "biodiesel" releases the same amount,
But as stated in several comments and written in many articles in the field
The problem is the use of agricultural areas where food can be grown...
to grow fuel, that is, instead of food, fuel is grown,
The feasibility of the increase stems from the increase in mineral fuel prices,
It is possible that there will be greens who will support this, but it is worth considering that
As a result, there is a shortage and food prices are rising.
And again, as written on the website several times,
The correct activity is to use the by-products of food production
And not in the food itself, such as: prunings, pullets, animal manure, etc.
Or alternately growing non-food plant sources for fuel production and that too
Only to the extent that the growth does not consume resources in which food can be grown,
For example: growing jatropha or castor bean
In areas and conditions where food cannot be grown.
Such a (blessed) activity exists in Israel as well, for example in Yotbata collecting
the emissions from cow dung that are used for energy,
Or they crush cuttings to make "bricks" in a fire.
After all, if I understood correctly the method proposed in the article
After all, when the sun shines, solar collectors will produce electricity for direct use
And in addition to that, there is the possibility of producing fuel that will burn when there is no sun,
That is, a saving of about 50% in burning fuel and in the emission of deadlift,
Definitely positive.
Miracles, I spoke to a skeptic - he talked about the account and I wanted to see it myself.
Father, what will be difficult for me?
According to the following link it will be very difficult for him
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15718-6/the-inquisition-of-climate-science
another one
If you are looking for research that justifies your views then you really have a problem…..
The problem with fuel plants is when politicians who want to appear green force the use of vegetable fuel or subsidize it with tax money - this is something that large agricultural companies like very much, so there is also a lot of government capital here - and all of this ends up raising the price of fuel, also raising the price The food also saves a little if at all in GHG emissions (and in some cases even produces more GHG than fossil fuel)
The problem is that even if serious scientists in the green movement itself have already noticed that some of these fuels do not bring any benefit and even harm - still the laws and subsidies will continue because of the political and economic considerations of ruling capital.
Do you have a link to a place with information that really shows the inefficiency of the vegetable fuel?
another one
As I told you at least once: growing plants for fuel purposes does not in the least improve the balance sheet of the Fed (compared to growing plants for food and consumer products such as cotton). All of this when it comes to alternative cultivation on the same land (ie using the land to produce vegetable fuel or using the same land for growing food and consumer products).
The accounting for the last paragraph is not complicated, but not completely simple either.
I do not detail the accounting of the FADH in connection with growing fuel plants (as an alternative to growing other plants on the same land). Mainly because the squeamish miracles are around. His swagger will only result in debates degenerating to the level of water grinding in the best case (I prevent myself from responding directly to his words because I can't stand a discussion with swagger). If you studied physics at university you can figure out this accounting yourself, it's not that hard (at least for approximate calculations).
Regarding the reasons for growing fuel plants. I assume that the reason is indeed as you say, financial benefit only. Because of the increase in the price of fossil fuel - the financial viability of growing fuel instead of growing food or consumer goods (such as cotton) has increased. Relying on the ecological advantage of vegetable fuel as a justification for growing fuel plants is just a smoke screen to hide the financial consideration that drives growing fuel plants.
On the other hand, as I said elsewhere, there is no great chance that fuel plants will grow in large quantities. Harming the population by creating a lack of food (due to growing fuel plants), will overthrow governments or provoke wars and other riots. Anyone who underestimates the crowd's reaction to an increase in the price of food does not understand his life.
Miracles - if something is economic - you don't need to do anything - the market will do it by itself - and there are indeed initiatives that try to create fuel from surplus or garbage and the like - they don't think about the environment - they think about the money -
The problem is that politicians use subsidies or even coercion to increase the use of ethanol and even lead to the use of corn-based ethanol and the like, which in many cases does not even save the Fed and only raises the prices of fuel and corn (even the majority of the greens say this is unreasonable) and the politicians continue - because There are business entities that profit from this foolishness and you have to be careful about that.
The funniest thing to me is that the SAFKAN does not understand what is meant by the term "skeptic"…….
Miracles,
In my opinion, a reader tried to criticize the words of the SAFKAN, who speaks as if he knows 100% what should be done and what should not be done and never done like him...
In my opinion the reader should have chosen a less stinging approach to say this!
Reader - what were you trying to say? that it is forbidden to express an opinion? Or you don't like the article itself?
It annoys me that all the geniuses of the generation gather on this site. Just think where humanity would be if your knowledge had been utilized.
SAFKAN - The problem is that you have a (wrong) agenda and your words have nothing to do with the article.
Your lies are really annoying.
The article talks about a possible way to produce hydrogen. It says that you can use hydrogen as it is as a fuel or build compounds from hydrogen or other organic matter.
Another said that if you separate the adsorption of PADH and the burning of solar versus fossil fuel then there is in principle no difference. If the burning of fossil fuel is more efficient, then it should actually be used. but!!!
But - the industry will invest money in the absorption of PADF only if it is economic. And it will be very economical if what they get is a substitute for oil!!!
Father, the advantage of renewable fuel is that it is renewable, not that it is environmental-
It doesn't interest you where or when the FDF came from - but how much we release from its use.
As long as we have access to fossil fuel for renewable fuel there aren't too many benefits.
Second thing
You don't need to bury carbon dioxide forever for it to have an effect - but just keep burying a large amount - even if it eventually gets released, you can keep burying more and you'll still get an effect.
Spring.
It upsets me that they are trying to starve humanity by turning agricultural areas from "food growing" areas to "fuel growing" areas.
On the other hand, I get less angry because I know that such a proposal will never come to fruition. Historical experience proves that mass starvation is an action that is followed by the overthrow of the regime (even in dictatorial regimes such as the Soviet Union).
Another mathematician may be right, although all attempts to date to bury the carbon dioxide in a place where it will not escape back into the atmosphere have failed, so his request is currently impractical. However, I am irritated by this obsession to prove at any cost that fossil fuel is better than renewable fuel and that stems from the fact that using renewable fuel is almost a criminal offense. It upsets.
another one
Now I completely agree with you.
Fuel from agriculture only makes sense if
The fuel-to-energy ratio of this fuel is better than that of fossil fuels.
Otherwise it's better to just bury the product (or eat it or make something from it that doesn't escape from it)
and use a fuel that releases the same amount of PAD - that way we earn more energy for the same amount of pollution or alternatively less pollution for the same amount of energy.
My point is simple - if you "capture" PDH from the atmosphere - it doesn't really matter if you release the same PDH later or release an equal amount of PDH by burning fossil fuel.
From the point of view of the planet it is the same - the question is what is more efficient if fossil fuel is more efficient - then it is better to use it - more energy for the same as for pollution.
another one
The difference is simple, you just have to think a little. The idea is that the very growth of a plant absorbs PAD from the atmosphere - and this happens at the moment of growth. If we now grow huge amounts of corn and bury all the parts of the plant - we will reduce the amount of PAD in the atmosphere. If we burn the material - in total, we return the same PADH that we annexed.
It is equal to the use of solar energy, wind, waves, etc.
It is better than burning fossil fuel.
And this is less good than programs for absorbing the PADH (like growing plants without burning them).
And of course - as Benjamin beautifully said - there are recent innovations in agriculture, such as fertilizers of various kinds and the use of agricultural tools that burn fossil fuel.
I mean, I agree if the second part of your response - but there is still a point in fuel from agriculture.
Miracles:
What is the difference between taking PAD from the atmosphere into plants and then releasing it again by burning some biodiesel and taking the PAD from the atmosphere and releasing an equal amount from burning fossil fuel?
The question is, yes, is FDA for energy - considering the fact that producing ethanol itself requires energy and releases FDA - which can actually lead to the fact that plant-based fuel is bad from FDA considerations because it gives less energy to the amount of FDA released.
Isn't it better to grow the plants - bury them with the PAD they absorbed and then burn fossil fuel that releases the amount of carbon that was absorbed? - that way we don't have to invest energy in producing the fuel, and in terms of the planet we did the same.
The question in the production of fuels from agricultural crops, regarding the FADH, is,
Is the fuel a by-product from an existing crop for other purposes,
So the ecological profit is clear, or is it a breeding for purpose
fuel. I am afraid that the entire process of growing corn or sugar cane
For fuel purposes, (production and distribution of fertilizers, irrigation, spraying and others
agricultural operations - and the allocation of energy to all of these) pollutant
the air (and the land and the water..) no less than the fossil fuels.
On the other hand, the fear of dependence on fossil fuels can be
Not a bad reason in itself for fostering investment in fuels
farmers.
SAFKAN and one other
no and no!!!
Burning agricultural crops is not equivalent to burning fossil fuel!!!
The carbon in agricultural growth is taken from the atmosphere today and is returned today, therefore it does not change the concentration of the PADH.
Fossil fuel contains stored carbon - and burning it increases the concentration of PAD in the atmosphere.
Therefore - burning fuel from agricultural crops is better (from the point of view of the concentration of PADH) than burning fossil fuel.
And I think that your statement (SAFKAN) that Professor Rothschild is "vague" and that he presents "obscure claims" is a poor and insulting response. All in all, here is an interesting article that presents an innovation in the scientific field. This is not an article in a scientific journal and does not pretend to, nor can it, explain everything.
I expect someone like you to research the scientific publication itself before you speak.
another one
You are right in claiming that normal agricultural growth is burned, that is (in terms of the Fed's balance sheet) like burning fossil fuel.
But Professor Rothschild is very vague about how hydrogen fuses with plant matter (so it's hard to argue with his obscure claims).
The question is then what is more effective in terms of FDF (I mention here that I am not really sure of the extent of the damage that FDF allegedly does, but for the sake of the debate I will accept it this time as a working assumption)
To take all the vegetation that absorbed PAD and bury it and burn fossil fuel instead - or to process the vegetation into fuel and burn it - considering the fact that the processing itself may also produce PAD or at least require more energy - this is not necessarily better, at least not from PAD's considerations. H. Energy - if you want to annex the FDF then you have to look for an energy source that is efficient in terms of the FDF, and ignore the fact that it allegedly annexed the FDF before. Those agricultural areas were there first and were annexed by the FAD first - you do not gain anything from burning them. That's still carbon that wasn't supposed to be released.
You don't really understand the word "better".
Not to increase the concentration of PAD in the atmosphere, therefore it is better to increase the concentration.
And what's more - the recycling of the PADH as you find in the article is equivalent to the non-creation of PADH.
It is clear that it is even better to annex the existing FADH. No one said no!
Yes - I know this logic since ethanol - but I just don't understand why it is considered better -
Isn't it better - if you want to prevent FAD - to imprison as much as possible and not release him back?
Oil and coal are also resources from pre-historic times.
What difference does it make if you are now imprisoned in vegetation or in a bush and the like - and release it by burning fossil fuel - rather than releasing it directly?
another one:
The fuel is certainly from Shahar PDH, but it is produced from PDH, so the net effect is that there is no change in the amount of PDH.
How does solar fuel that is composed of a combination of carbon materials not release PAD when burned?