Page added on November 11, 2012
Two Canberra scientists believe they have made a major breakthrough in how to best produce hydrogen which can be used as a clean and renewable energy source.
Professors Rob Stranger and Ron Pace from the Research School of Chemistry at the Australian National University (ANU) have used computer modelling to reveal the molecular structure of the photosynthesis reaction site in plants.
Professor Pace says the discovery takes a leaf out of nature’s handbook, for the first time identifying the specific water molecules in a plant’s photosystem that are converted into oxygen.
“Nature very early on in the evolutionary process on Earth figured out how to do this particular piece of chemistry with close to 100 per cent efficiency,” he said.
Professor Stranger says the work offers clues as to how scientists can create alternative fuel.
“The part of the plant’s photosystem that is important to this process is called the oxygen-evolving-complex (OEC),” he said.
“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.”
Professor Pace says that while scientists know the OEC contains four manganese atoms and a calcium atom, they have been trying for decades to determine the exact structure of the system and how it works.
“Our work confirms the OEC structure and means researchers can progress new fuel developments based on photosynthesis,” he said.
Scientists have been splitting water molecules to create hydrogen gas for decades, but the process requires electricity.
Professor Stranger says the current system of using electricity from other sources to create hydrogen is wasteful and not ideal.
“This has been a very big challenge for chemists and scientists,” he said.
“We did computer modelling to try and rationalise [how photosynthesis does it] and try and make sense of it.
“So did a lot of other people worldwide, but they didn’t get anywhere with it, but we were able to.”
Professor Pace says other scientists had less luck because they underestimated nature’s creativity.
“It turns out that nature very cleverly doesn’t charge the process up more than is absolutely necessary,” he said.
“That’s what’s confused our colleagues because they believed that the chemistry wasn’t quite that clever.
“We can see now that you don’t need to use as much electric charge as was previously thought, which is very important.
“The more you do that, the more dangerous you make this reaction, which is already the most dangerous reaction in nature.”
The next step for the two scientists is to publish their findings before handing it over to a laboratory to try and mimic the process of photosynthesis, something they believe will be a reality within five years.
But Professor Pace is quick to ease thoughts the future will involve leaving a car in the sun and fuelling it up with a garden hose.
“If I was a shonk I’d tell you yes,” he said.
“But in fact that’s not the way I see it sensibly happening.”
6 Comments on "Scientists unlock nature’s hydrogen secrets"
BillT on Sun, 11th Nov 2012 3:10 am
EROEI is still the determinant of use and this article has nothing new to add. The process will prove to not be scalable to any useful levels. Dream on deniers and techies.
DC on Sun, 11th Nov 2012 3:27 am
The energy required to break a hydrogen\oxygen bond will always be greater than the energy gain burning the H2. This is not a matter of technology, but of physics. H2 will always be a net energy loser, no matter what.
SilentRunning on Sun, 11th Nov 2012 4:29 am
I grow tired of announcements like this that take some aspect of a technical problem and then make the leap to thinking that the problem is solved.
Until findings like this one make the critical step to delivering actual useable energy in the real world, you have nothing. Don’t tease us with claims that you can make endless free hydrogen from sunlight – when in fact you have produced only an idea of how it MIGHT be made. The operative word in the previous sentence is MIGHT.
The world is littered with great ideas of how we MIGHT be able to get cheap energy that have in fact delivered NO energy.
Joe on Sun, 11th Nov 2012 10:34 am
RIDICULOUS!
Newfie on Sun, 11th Nov 2012 12:15 pm
Hydrogen, no matter how it is produced, is just a storage medium for energy that comes from somewhere else. Where ?
Arthur on Sun, 11th Nov 2012 1:38 pm
DC, that’s true. But the idea behind the hydrogen economy was that H2 could function as a battery pack, not an energy source, leveling out intermittent supply of wind and solar. The best way so far to realize that is pumping up water into mountain basins and let it descend again when needed. Efficiency of that process: 80%. In European super grid designs Norway and the Alpine regions are to become Europe’s battery pack. Several subsea cables between Norway and Holland/Britain/Germany already exist for that purpose. Alpine hydroplants are already fully integrated into this pan-European network: if some European power station fails, Switserland can almost immediately backup.
But if some techie is able to generate H2 with even better efficiency than 80%, all the better.
If we would want to replace our current carbon energy base with renewables in a plug-and-play manner, we would be required to dump an area like Spain full with PV. That would require decades, not going to happen. We are simply too late for that. Here I agree with the ‘doomers’. And the result could be pretty gruesome.
So we are going to crash anyway. Technology is not going to save us from that crash. But that is not an argument against technology. The reasoning must be: what can we save from our current society into the future? So please let these Aussies carry on with their research.