Green Car Congress: Researchers Achieve Unprecedented Efficiency in Photoelectrochemical Production of Hydrogen from Water: 42%

« Orange County Transportation Authority Purchases 531 Cummins Westport Natural Gas Engines | Main | Tokyo Joins Large Cities Climate Leadership Group »

Researchers Achieve Unprecedented Efficiency in Photoelectrochemical Production of Hydrogen from Water: 42%

4 December 2006

HR-SEM images of Fe₂O₃ films on SnO₂:F-coated conducting glass. (A) Cross-section of 500 nm thick mesoporous Si-doped Fe₂O₃ on 400 nm thick compact SnO₂:F. (B) Top view (45° tilted) of the Si-doped Fe₂O₃ film. (C) Top view (45° tilted) of an undoped Fe₂O₃ film. Click to enlarge.

Michael Grätzel and his colleagues have developed a device that sets a new benchmark for efficiency in splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using ordinary sunlight. The research will be published in the 13 December issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

Previously, the best water photooxidation technology had an external quantum efficiency of about 37%. The new technology’s efficiency is 42%, which the researchers term “unprecedented.” The efficiency is due to an improved positive electrode and other innovations in the water-splitting device.

Grätzel and collaborators developed the Grätzel Cell, a dye-sensitized photoelectrochemical cell that uses photo-sensitization of wide-band-gap mesoporous oxide semiconductors. The work originally appeared in a paper in Nature in 1991.

As reported in the Nature article, the original overall light-to-electric energy conversion yield of a Grätzel cell was 7.1–7.9% in simulated solar light and 12% in diffuse daylight.

Iron oxide (-Fe₂O₃, or hematite) is an especially attractive photoanode due to its abundance, stability, and environmental compatibility, as well as suitable band gap and valence band edge position. Unfortunately, the reported efficiencies of water oxidation at illuminated hematite electrodes are notoriously low.

Grätzel and his team tackled that in this most recent work by producing Fe₂O₃ photoanodes via deposition of silicon-doped nanocrystalline hematite films by APCVD (atmospheric pressure chemical vapor deposition).

The result was a highly developed dendritic nanostructure of 500 nm thickness having a feature size of only 10-20 nm at the surface. The dendritic nanostructure minimizes the distance photogenerated holes have to diffuse to the Fe₂O₃/electrolyte interface in a film that is thick enough for strong light absorption.

The efficiency is further enhanced by deposition of a thin insulating SiO₂ layer below and a cobalt monolayer on top of the Fe₂O₃ film.

Under illumination in 1 M NaOH, water is oxidized at the Fe₂O₃ electrode with higher efficiency (IPCE [incident photon to current efficiencies] = 42% at 370 nm and 2.2 mA/cm² in AM 1.5 G sunlight of 1000 W/m² at 1.23 V_RHE) than at the best reported single crystalline Fe₂O₃ electrodes.

Resources:

“New Benchmark for Water Photooxidation by Nanostructured -Fe₂O₃ Films”; Andreas Kay, Ilkay Cesar, and Michael Grätzel; J. Am. Chem. Soc., ASAP Article 10.1021/ja064380l S0002-7863(06)04380-0

December 4, 2006 in Hydrogen, Solar | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/7033279

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Researchers Achieve Unprecedented Efficiency in Photoelectrochemical Production of Hydrogen from Water: 42%:

Comments

Can someone here translate this into something a garden variety energy geek can understand? For example, is this breakthrough more or less efficient than using a 15% efficient solar cell to electrolyze water?

(I did some research online about quantum efficiency, but that didn't lead me to anything that would help me answer the above question on my own.)

Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Dec 4, 2006 12:57:46 PM

Quantum efficiency is not the same as energy efficiency. Quantum efficiency refers to the fraction of photons that lead to the desired reaction, rather than the fraction of the photons' energy that is used rather than dissipated as heat.

Posted by: Paul Dietz | Dec 4, 2006 1:02:07 PM

I went through the Resources: link, and this seems to be more efficient at the blue-UV part of the spectrum. 370nm, which is already long wave UVA, might prove to be useful if combined with a photovoltaic/concentrator system that efficiently use longer wavelengths(500-700nm).

Posted by: allen_Z | Dec 4, 2006 2:06:32 PM

I'm a little confused about the term "photooxidation". Normally, taking oxygen out of a compound is considered a chemical reduction. How is splitting H20 to yield H2 and O2 an oxidation process?

Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Dec 4, 2006 2:57:33 PM

In simple terms it means its using 13 or so % more phtons. That is fairlybig.

Posted by: wintermane | Dec 4, 2006 2:57:47 PM

I'm a little confused about the term "photooxidation".

Oxidation in general means 'removing electrons from'. Here, the photogenerated holes remove electrons from water. I guess the reaction is something like:

H2O --> 1/2 O2 + 2 H* + 2e-

2 OH- --> 1/2 O2 + H2O + 2e-

Posted by: Paul Dietz | Dec 4, 2006 7:41:22 PM

Well, 2.2mA/cm^2 @1.23V (for a kW/m^2 of "AM 1.5G" (??) sunlight) is 27 Watts for a 1 square meter cell. A 15% conventional solar cell would give you 150 W in that situation, or 5.6 times as much power. I'm guessing that it would be more efficient to use the solar cells and run an electrolyzer, unless I'm misinterpretting the meaning of the specs they gave.

Posted by: George | Dec 4, 2006 9:16:41 PM

i can't help but agree that the given spec does appear to mean 27 W/m^2.

of course, that is from an early experimental setup so may not represent the technologies real efficiency.

most importantly, though, is the expected system cost, which could be significantly lower than Si-based tech, since the most expensive material listed is iron.

Posted by: shaun mann | Dec 4, 2006 11:34:46 PM

Could the oxydation be: (using energy against the gradient)

H2O + O -> H2 + O2

effectively being: 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2

Posted by: Neil | Dec 5, 2006 12:18:11 AM

Energy geek observations:

"Deposition of silicon-doped nanocrystalline hematite films by APCVD produces Fe2O3 photoanodes that oxidize water under visible light with unprecedented efficiency. The dendritic nanostructure minimizes the distance photogenerated holes have to diffuse to the Fe2O3/electrolyte interface in a film that is thick enough for strong light absorption."

Most interesting is the process' dendritic nanostructure mimicking more commonly recognized neurological biology. And the layered process allowing wide spectrum absorption.

Assuming the cost of sunlight at near zero - a hematite semiconductor producing H2 @ +20% efficiency might be a business - if scaled manufacture costs are reasonable and H2 capture and storage have no significant problems.

Posted by: gr | Dec 5, 2006 7:11:05 AM

Using anything to make hydrogen as a way of storing energy is daft due to the problems of storing energy as hydrogen. Posts like this show that.

The sooner money is stoped being wasted on hydrogen the sooner the world can focus at solving its energy problems in a sensible way.

Posted by: John Baldwin | Dec 5, 2006 7:49:36 AM

To clarify the "oxidation" discussion, Paul Dietz is correct that the use of the term is in reference to the loss of electrons by the oxygen atoms, and everyone is correct to point out that it's not the most accurate description.
In terms of formal oxidation states, the oxygen in water is at oxidation state -2, while the hydrogen atoms are at +1. After the reaction, which is balanced as:

2 H2O --> 2 H2 + 1 O2

the hydrogen atoms in H2 and the oxygen atoms in O2 are all at oxidation state 0, so the oxygen atoms have been oxidized (from -2 to 0), and the hydrogen atoms have been reduced (from +1 to 0).

This reaction is more accurately called a disproportionation since the electron donor and acceptor are within the same molecule, but "oxidation of water" seems to have caught on as a general term for this reaction.

Posted by: Andrew | Dec 5, 2006 8:08:54 AM

Water splitting by (photo)electrolysis requires two electrodes. In alkaline solution (NaOH --> Na+ + OH-) the reactions are:

1. oxidation at the anode (positive electrode):
2 OH- --> 1/2 O2 + H2O + 2 e-

2. reduction at the cathode (negative electrode):
2 (H2O + e- --> 1/2 H2 + OH-)

which combined gives :

H2O --> H2 + 1/ O2

At room temperature this reaction requires theoretically a voltage of 1.23 Volt as driving force. However, due to an overvoltage of several 100 mV, especially at the anode, a voltage of more than 1.6 V is needed in practice. In photoelectrolysis part of the driving force is delivered by the energy of the light.

Posted by: Emosson | Dec 5, 2006 9:07:42 AM

In response to Baldwin, who called this project daft - I must disagree.

For one, the research into this sort of cell has much scientific overlap with the design of solar -> electron conversion cells -- as it does electron -> light (LED) circuits. Gratzel is known for the Gratzel cell - a solar -> electron device. Photon -> hydrogen are his new hobby.

Secondly... hydrogen might very well come in handy to power long distance big rig trucks, long distance cargo ships, and possibly jets. Basically, anything that would be impractical to power via batteries. It may not be hydrogen that powers these -- it may be methanol. You can make methanol by reacting with ambient CO2 (read about the methanol economy)

Lastly.. This man is a genius -- I think we can trust he'll choose what is best to work on.

Take care --
Matt

Posted by: Matt | Dec 5, 2006 9:38:23 AM

Here is interview of Michael Grätzel from September 2006
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=17490

Posted by: argod | Dec 5, 2006 11:17:05 AM

John,

Roger made a good suggestion in another post re: H2 fired power plants, derived from on site bioreactor farms. Such a scheme would surely require buffering if not outright storage of H2 prior to combustion. Granted it's not an immediate broad-based energy solution for transportation - but there will be vertical applications for H2 in the energy future.

www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/arizona_public_.html

Posted by: gr | Dec 5, 2006 12:42:25 PM

Isn't there enough pressure on the world's (fresh) water? To suggest breaking it down to it's molecular components as fuel is crazy. Even if we use sea water it's needs more processing therefore requires more energy so what's the point. I think pursuing Hydrogen is a waste of time since is doesn't exist on this planet in a usable state. We should be directing our resources elsewhere.

Posted by: Mark | Dec 5, 2006 2:58:01 PM

Now how about working on the plutonium to store it?
Then there is the problem that you can't park it anywhere just like Natural Gas cars are prohibited.
Would you want to keep a hydrogen bomb in your air-tight garage? Only 1/10th of the energy required for gas to explode will ignite hydrogen. No more cellphones in cars - too dangerous. Static from rubbing your hands on your car seat when there is a microscopic leak in the hydrogen tank - explosion. Focus on non-flammable batteries like Saphion or nanosafe. Or improve biodiesel , svo , wvo engines. Moms want safety not just innovation.

Posted by: Ron D | Dec 5, 2006 2:59:30 PM

Isn't there enough pressure on the world's (fresh) water? To suggest breaking it down to it's molecular components as fuel is crazy.

Not if you actually compute how much water this would use.

Even if used on a large scale, it would be a tiny fraction of the volume of water already used for things like irrigation or evaporative cooling.

Posted by: Paul Dietz | Dec 6, 2006 8:52:19 AM

Garden variety means convert it to something normal people understand, like Dollars, or production.

Does this finding revolutionize the production of Hydrogen or just get closer to being marginally sub-standard to gasoline.

Will the people that sell Hydrogn switch from conversion of natural gas as feed stock to water because of this?

Posted by: Greg Woulf | Dec 6, 2006 10:11:09 AM

Secondly... hydrogen might very well come in handy to power long distance big rig trucks, long distance cargo ships, and possibly jets.

Hydrogen is already very useful. Something like 9 million tons of the stuff is made every year in the US, mostly for industrial purposes.

If (and that's a very big if) this process eventually leads to something that is economically competitive with conventional sources of hydrogen, there is a ready-made market waiting for it.

Posted by: Paul Dietz | Dec 6, 2006 11:47:08 AM

"We" aren't wasting our time. At the very worst, Gratzel and his associates are wasting their time; which is entirely their right. (Although I doubt that this example is a waste of time, this is useful basic science.)

The more important thing is that Gratzel et al. created a production process for making materials that can be used for other photoelectrochemical processes. This will turn out to be a very useful engineered material.

Also, H2 is needed in a lot of chemical processes where this technology can be fully controlled. I can think of two derivative uses for the technology in the making of methane with CO2 (instead of using natural gas or petroleum oils) which can then be used for monomers and plastic production; and in the use of H2 in fuel cells for residences (again, instead of natural gas).

Both examples of industry and residences are huge producers of GHGs. I think it is silly to require broad-spectrum GHG reductions across the board right out of the gate. Maybe a first good step is offsetting GHG production in chemical production and home use while engineers work on the personal vehicle sources of GHGs.

True, H2 use in vehicles is a tricky engineering problem (as compared to a basic research problem), but I have faith that smart, well-motivated people will prevail over the minor engineering issues that remain to make the technology economic in a "user with an 80 IQ" world.

Posted by: km519 | Dec 7, 2006 3:05:40 AM

Isn't there enough pressure on the world's (fresh) water? To suggest breaking it down to it's molecular components as fuel is crazy.

(Paul Dietz replies:)
Not if you actually compute how much water this would use.

Even if used on a large scale, it would be a tiny fraction of the volume of water already used for things like irrigation or evaporative cooling.

Not only that, but guess what you get when you burn the hydrogen to produce energy?

Posted by: George | Dec 7, 2006 8:48:39 PM

Sigh. The error density of this post is really impressive. Hydrogen's lower explosive limit is 4.0%. Gasoline is 1.2%. Hydrogen is light, so it disperses upward in air. Hydrocarbons creep along the ground untile they find an ignition source. Plutonium to store it? Huh? Hydrogen is stupid, but it isn't particularly dangerous. On the other hand, maybe we could exploit fear and ignorance to get the public to put a stop to the hydrogen nonsense. Sort of like the Bush administration, only for good instead of evil.

Posted by: George | Dec 7, 2006 9:03:48 PM

How much water does it take to make a pound of Hydrogen? When it burns the 'waste' byproduct is mostly water vapour, assuming it's pure. Is there a net water loss? How much energy does it take?

In laymans terms please.

Posted by: Mark | Dec 8, 2006 12:02:25 PM

Mark asks: How much water does it take to make a pound of Hydrogen? When it burns the 'waste' byproduct is mostly water vapour, assuming it's pure. Is there a net water loss? How much energy does it take?

In laymans terms please.

To create one pound (454 g) of Hydrogen gas you would need about 4 litres of water. You would also create about 9 pounds of oxygen gas in a typical electrolysis scheme. Aside from hydrogen leaks which should be minimal in a well designed system, you should get essentially all of the water back when the hydrogen is oxidized.

Electrolysis of water requires a significant energy input- more than you get back out when you burn it. The resulting hydrogen costs 7-9 dollars per kilogram. (1kg = 2.2 lb) A kilogram of hydrogen has the energy content of about 1 gallon of gasoline. The high energy cost of creating hydrogen is one of the reasons that some people consider the "Hydrogen Economy" to be a fraud. Gratzel's system, if it is cheap and robust enough (big if), might change that part of the equation.

Posted by: George | Dec 8, 2006 8:41:04 PM

"Grätzel and collaborators developed the Grätzel Cell" -
I would say these guys know what they are doing. Consider a PV panel with 15% efficiency used to turn water to hydrogen at maybe 50% efficiency. Abundant solar energy to hydrogen could even be stored and used in a PEM fuel cell at night..

Posted by: SJC | Dec 10, 2006 4:05:52 PM

Has anyone thought of using the earth to compress hydrogen? More precisely, what stops a company from running two cables down into the ocean 10,000 feet and supplying the cable with wind powered electricity, thereby producing hydrogen from the ocean at a pressure of 4454 psi. The hydrogen would be collected at depth and piped, at a collection pressure of 4454 psi, up to a surface collection station and further into existing high pressure gas distribution infrastructures.

Posted by: JB | Mar 14, 2007 12:49:46 PM

Since DME has an advantage of decomposition at lower temperature than methane and LPG, R&D for hydrogen source for fuel cell has been carried out. DME has a potential of feedstock for chemicals. DME to olefins is under development in Japan.

If you would like to know more on the latest DME developments, join us at upcoming North Asia DME / Methanol conference in Beijing, 27-28 June 2007, St Regis Hotel. The conference covers key areas which include:

DME productivity can be much higher especially if
country energy policies makes an effort comparable to
that invested in increasing supply.
By:
National Development Reform Commission NDRC
Ministry of Energy for Mongolia

Production of DME/ Methanol through biomass
gasification could potentially be commercialized
By:
Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and
will be sharing their experience.

Advances in conversion technologies are readily
available and offer exciting potential of DME as a
chemical feedstock
By: Kogas, Lurgi and Haldor Topsoe

Available project finance supports the investments
that DME/ Methanol can play a large energy supply role
By: International Finance Corporation

For more information: www.iceorganiser.com

Posted by: Cheryl Ho | May 23, 2007 10:14:17 PM