No doubt, many of you have heard of the recent “MIT Breakthrough”
TM which provides a dramatic new way to store solar energy. Using a simple catalyst consisting of cobalt and phosphate, Daniel Nocera has supposedly removed the biggest road block holding back mass utilization of solar power. This story has been making its way through the web and the blogosphere for several days now and since I’m not an electrochemist, I’m not sure how much more I could add. However, my first reaction after reading the
article was a sense of annoyance, and I found myself becoming more irked every time I read another article on the “breakthrough.” Part of my irkness
TM was due to the authors themselves. I’m not sure how much information MIT released to the press, but several of the writers really had no clue about what the invention really was or why it was novel. Perhaps I'm a poor reader, but it required reading several articles before I was even sure exactly what Nocera had and had not done.
Irksome point #1. The constant references to solar energy, despite the fact that this catalyst has nothing to do with solar energy per se. The invention makes the electrolysis of water more efficient, nothing more. Nocera hopes that one day his invention may work in conjunction with solar power, using electrolytically generated hydrogen as an energy storage material, but right now, it doesn’t really have that much to do with solar energy, despite MIT's press release.
Irksome point #2. Many of the article writers appeared to be unfamiliar with the process of electrolysis, marveling at the novelty of being able to electrolyze water at room temperature. Hmmmm, I vaguely seem to recall hooking up a battery to salt water back in high school. Why wasn’t I referenced in these articles? The problem is that the efficiency of electrolysis is poor under these conditions, which I believe is due to the overpotential required when generating gases. (Please let me know if I am mistaken here.) Commercial electrolysis devices have been around for awhile, although to keep the efficiencies high, they are often run at high temperatures and pressures, using expensive electrodes and basic solutions. The novelty of Nocera’s breakthrough is that the cobalt-phosphate material allows for higher efficiencies at room temperature using cheaper materials.
Irksome point #3. The Scientific American writer who
referred to both cobalt and phosphate as metals needs a refresher course in chemistry.
Irksome point #4. The MIT press machine set off the BS (Blatant Statement) meter way too often for my taste. Nocera didn’t do himself any favors either, with quotes like:
“This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years"
“
I've gotten rid of all the goddamn [power] grids." Probably not during your lifetime, Daniel.
"Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon."Sorry, but as I understand it, one of the big problems with solar power is the low conversion efficiency of sunlight into electricity. This invention does nothing to solve that problem.
Irksome point #5. I don’t really have one, but I really wanted to use “irk” as many times as possible. I’ll probably never use the word again.
Snarkier blog posts on this subject can be found
here and
here.