Scientists unlock nature's hydrogen secrets

Scientists unlock nature's hydrogen secrets

www.abc.net.au

Two Canberra scientists believe they have made a major breakthrough in how to best create clean and renewable energy from hydrogen.

Professor Stranger says "If we can steal nature's secrets and understand how the OEC performs its chemistry, then we can learn to make hydrogen much more efficiently, and hydrogen is the fuel for a totally renewable fuel future."

"Our work confirms the OEC structure and means researchers can progress new fuel developments based on photosynthesis," he said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is my first post on ATS, so i guess I'm a 'long time listener, first time caller'.

So these two Aussie boffins, professor Rob Stranger and Ron Pace, have discovered a way to harness renewable energy from nature itself, and it could be possible within the next five years.

This could be big. Even though the results are only preliminary, a discovery like this could eventually dissolve our reliance on fossil fuels (to the Rockerfellers dismay.)

This story only broke on the ABC website three hours ago, I've searched for other sources but couldn't find any. If anyone could find any alternative sources it would be appreciated.

www.abc.net.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

There was a science firm from Oxford in the UK that claimed to have already cracked it and were busy researching a way to deliver Hydrogen on a comercial basis.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Sadly, if this is genuinely "big", then it's probably the last we've heard from Prof Stranger.

A lot of these professors should make a 'bucket list' when they accept a tenure somewhere. "I'm about to solve the oil crisis, but I've never been to Paris, jumped out of a plane, snorkled or had anal sex..."

This is all very well and a shoot in the right direction but where are the nuclear fusion reactors and zero point energy devices. They are the only tangible hope for our species IMHO of course!

reply to post by Merriman Weir


harharhar, time to get back on the meds pal.

Tis true though that scientists, when they make a breakthrough that benefits mankind as a whole and has the potential to free us en masse from the crushing yoke of governmental ensured fuel slavery and the poverty it ensures, they do have nasty accidents or become uncharacteristically involved in pursuits that borderline psychopathic disdain for their own life, or, become a life insurance loss adjustors nightmare when crossing a road.

So, someone will buy the patent on this technology and start producing a product none of us can afford. I see big business starting to get their checkbooks out.....Eco friendly fuel...people will pay lots for this.

Although I know that we need to get a cleaner burning fuel, I also know greed will capitalize on this. If the Oil companies don't buy this they will have one of their affiliate companies buy it and bury it till the oil is gone. If these scientists don't agree to sell their patent, they will be discredited. We are far from getting advanced technology, we rely on what we are allowed to know to much.

You lot are so paranoid - the guy isn't going to be whacked

If you did a little leg work, you'd see there are already a wide variety of renewable power sources already on the market and plenty you can get for your home, ranging from simple windmills to bacteria laden generators that use waste water from breweries to produce electricity.

In fact, using High School science, it is perfectly achievable to generate your own hydrogen from renewable energy (say during the day), store it, then use it when you require the power.

The only thing really stopping us is largely down to our own ignorance and laziness, myself included. I don't have even a single solar panel, much less anything else, despite being technical capable to generate a large chunk of my own energy.......

Originally posted by rickymouse
So, someone will buy the patent on this technology and start producing a product none of us can afford. I see big business starting to get their checkbooks out.....Eco friendly fuel...people will pay lots for this.

Although I know that we need to get a cleaner burning fuel, I also know greed will capitalize on this. If the Oil companies don't buy this they will have one of their affiliate companies buy it and bury it till the oil is gone. If these scientists don't agree to sell their patent, they will be discredited. We are far from getting advanced technology, we rely on what we are allowed to know to much.

We already have a cleaner fuel, natural gas.

And we have over 100 years worth already drilled and capped, just in North America.


The new Ford super duty pickups have optional comprressed natural gas tanks that allow the driver to either run entirely on natural gas or just use it as a backup tank.

This is where Obama should be focusing his attention, not on failed renewable energy companies.

Most cars on the road right now could be converted to natural gas for under $3,000, but there are currently no mass marketed conversion kits available.

My guess would be that Detroit is doing the blocking on this one, along with big oil of course, much higher profit margins on oil based fuels.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


Historically, especially in the UK after the war, hydrogen as a fuel for cars and buses was commonplace. Only with the arrival of massive amounts of cheap petrol and the cost of electricity going up did it fall out of favour, added to that the problem of a suitable fuel tank.

It is quite easy to get a normal car converted to run on hydrogen today, but the same fuel storage problems raise their heads...

You all know that H2O is the result of "burning" Hydrogen, right ? You also know that these verry same water vapors will act as a barrier in our atmosphere and create another layer of greenhouse, right?

The plpus side though...no more drought, rain will be plenty and the O2 will clean the cabon monoxide from the air....so.....Not a bad trade off....lol

This is very funny. We're screwing up faster than a cheetah on steroids and meth.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


They are fracturing the crust of the earth to get that natural gas. Is there any evidence to substantiate that it won't hurt the future of the area? No, they have not done much research that will show long term impact of their actions and present law does not hold someone liable for what unknown events may happen in the future from their business ventures. Only something that is known to be a problem is a liability. Don't test, no liability.

reply to post by Thecakeisalie


let's add this eternal research project to the list that includes a cancer cure for the last 100 years of inumberable medical researchers...
Jerry's kids also comes to mind...forever soliciting donations for a ever growing need of funds


face it folks, its just another scam that is based on the good intentions....
but the next 5 generations of new doctorates in research will keep saying '''we are soooooo close to the answer...


and dofuses like Øbama and foolish bleeding hearts in the public will keep funding the cushy jobs/projects and conferences in Tahiti or Las Vegas....


pie-in-the-sky Trap !

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

They are fracturing the crust of the earth to get that natural gas. Is there any evidence to substantiate that it won't hurt the future of the area? No, they have not done much research that will show long term impact of their actions and present law does not hold someone liable for what unknown events may happen in the future from their business ventures. Only something that is known to be a problem is a liability. Don't test, no liability.

That's whole different arguement.

I personally don't like frakking, I think it's dangerous and irresponsible.

But what I said was, we have 100 years worth of natural gas currently drilled and capped.

If we didn't drill at all for 20 years we'd still have an 80 year cushion.


I own a mechanical contracting company and deal with heating and cooling everyday. I have 8 trucks going out daily and currently spend over 4k a month just on fuel.

I would convert my fleet to natural gas in a heartbeat. I have a gas line feeding my building, so I could just throw a tee on it and fill my trucks from the meter behind my shop.

Which I suspect is why the feds don't want natural gas conversions taking place.

Taking water and separating hydrogen from oxygen is easy but it takes electricity which makes is non practical. So they say in the article they found a more efficient way of doing it. It's wont be much use to us now and we'll have to wait to see if it comes to fruition.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
I would convert my fleet to natural gas in a heartbeat. I have a gas line feeding my building, so I could just throw a tee on it and fill my trucks from the meter behind my shop.
Which I suspect is why the feds don't want natural gas conversions taking place.

Why do you think the feds don't want natural gas conversions taking place? If your point was supposed to be obvious, it's not. Why would the feds care if you did that, other than emissions standards?

By the way here's a website on conversions:

www.cngnow.com...

There are emissions standards of course, such as EPA, but plenty of conversions are done that meet those standards so just the existence of the standards doesn't mean they don't want conversions.

Regarding the OP, I'll wait to get excited until I see this idea coming closer to feasibility, since it still sounds pretty far off now.

"We can see now that you don't need to use as much electric charge as was previously thought, which is very important."

Wow, it only took them how many years to figure that out? Why is science so slow? I know of men who have figured this out decades ago.

Well, it's sort of like the hydrogen pee threads. This doesn't magically make hydrogen. It might, however, cut out some of the middle bits and allow you to split water with sunlight directly with substantially improved efficiency, and skip out on the generator plant you'd normally need.

Although you'll still need to gather more sunlight energy than you'll get out of burning the hydrogen. Just not as much more as the way we're doing it now.

How would this compare to Brillouin's reactor?? According to their tech overview, the hydrogen in a single glass of water holds the energy equivalent of around 182,000 gallons of gasoline.

Brillouin Energy

Their CECR/LENR boiler

converts the hydrogen in ordinary water to helium gas, a process that releases large amounts of useful heat. Only a very small amount of hydrogen is needed for this process to generate large amounts of heat. The amount of hydrogen in a 8-oz (237 ml) glass of water holds the energy equivalent of the gasoline needed fill up 7903 Ford Explorers or to power 3279 average homes for 1 month. The nickel or other metal element acts only as a host and catalyst, and is not consumed. '