Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DooDooSlinger t1_jctnuym wrote

I'm having trouble believing the power density of anything using atmospheric hydrogen would be cost competitive with any kind of other power production. And using synthetic hydrogen would necessarily be less efficient than through straight combustion. Still an interesting discovery but the application suggestions are clearly sensationalised

79

Kradget t1_jctyw54 wrote

This seems like the most obvious use would be things like paint-on electrical generation for things that only require small amounts of power. So maybe just where you need a glow, or to run a very small sensor?

It's definitely interesting, but still in early/pure science days.

33

MINIMAN10001 t1_jcv19nr wrote

Small industrial sensors are what come to mind when I hear about small amounts of power.

Vibration to energy

Residual heat to energy

Diamond battery

Air hydrogen to energy

12

GhostBurger12 t1_jcvqo9x wrote

So like, underglow accent strips on your house?

3

Kradget t1_jcvr79x wrote

Hell yeah, I'm gonna Tokyo Drift it! This is a great idea!

3

_Weyland_ t1_jcu0xr4 wrote

It's probably an efficiency vs effectiveness question. Yes, this thing probably won't give us much, just like those radiation batteries we hear about from time to time. But the output it does provide will probably be very efficient on consumption of resources and also independent of external factors (light, wind, temperature, location, etc.).

If we create and expand this "bottom line" of free or almost free power, it will create incentives to improve power efficiency of electronic devices. A device you don't have to charge at all will look very attractive in the eyes of customers. Especially if electricity prices go up or grid becomes more reliant on external conditions.

5

DooDooSlinger t1_jcu6r7f wrote

How do you define effectiveness? All that matters is power density (which includes efficiency ) + cost. If an energy production method provides 0.1% of the power density of solar for instance, why would you waste land to build it, or even use it in stead of other types of land use with higher economic output ? Land use is a major ecological issue and low power density energy generation (like biofuel) has massive negative externalities

6

Ok_Star_4136 t1_jcxkv78 wrote

Such discoveries often are sensationalised. I hope it leads to being not only efficient but also easily manufactured, but it seems that it would involve being able to grow the enzyme in mass and I don't think we have that kind of technology yet.

It's like any "new tech" article ever written. They show that jetpacks work with a tech demo, and then suggest it might be used everywhere in the future, despite the fact that they neglect to say you can fly only for 30 second intervals before having to refuel. Or perhaps they talk about a new atom-sized transistor that would make microchips incredibly small, but neglect to mention that it must be cooled to temperatures of -100°C and cost three times the cost of producing 50 traditional transistors. I appreciate the optimism, but it should be counterbalanced with a bit of realism as well.

That said, I hope something comes out of this, it should be explored more. I just wouldn't be expecting buildings to be covered with HUC paint that allows them to be entirely energy sufficient just yet. That day may one day come, but we're no closer to installing transparent solar panel glass in buildings than we are using HUC paint.

3

kelvin_bot t1_jcxkvt0 wrote

-100°C is equivalent to -148°F, which is 173K.

^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)

1