Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin: Less is more: Why an economical Iridium catalyst works so well (at producing hydrogen)

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://www.helmholtz-berlin.de/pubbin/news_seite?nid=28726&sprache=en&seitenid=1

05.12.2024
Less is more: Why an economical Iridium catalyst works so well
Iridium-based catalysts are needed to produce hydrogen using water electrolysis. Now, a team at HZB has shown that the newly developed P2X catalyst, which requires only a quarter of the Iridium, is as efficient and stable over time as the best commercial catalyst. Measurements at BESSY II have now revealed how the special chemical environment in the P2X catalyst during electrolysis promotes the oxygen evolution reaction during water splitting.

Two different Iridium-based nanocatalysts for water electrolysis were examined by a HZB-led team: A commercial benchmark catalyst (left) and the newly developed P2X catalyst (right), which is more amorphous and needs four times less Iridium. The spectroelectrochemical data show how the specific chemical environments differ in both materials and how these influence the oxygen evolution reaction. © M. van der Merwe / HZB

In the future, hydrogen will be needed in a climate-neutral energy system to store energy, as a fuel, and a raw material for the chemical industry. Ideally, it should be produced in a climate-neutral way, using electricity generated from harnessing the sun’s or wind energy, via the electrolysis of water. In that respect, Proton Exchange Membrane Water Electrolysis (PEM-WE) is currently considered a key technology. Both electrodes are coated with special electrocatalysts to accelerate the desired reaction. Iridium-based catalysts are best suited for the anode, where the sluggish oxygen evolution reaction occurs. However, iridium is one of the rarest elements on earth, and one of the major challenges is to significantly reduce the demand for this precious metal. A rough analysis (see https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201900101) showed that to meet the world’s hydrogen demand for transport using PEM-WE technology, iridium-based anode materials should contain no more than 0.05 mgIr/cm2. The current, best commercially available catalyst made from iridium oxide contains about 40 times as much as this target value.

P2X-catalyst needs less Iridium
But new options are already in the pipeline: Within the Kopernikus P2X project, a new efficient iridium-based nanocatalyst was developed by the Heraeus Group, consisting of a thin layer of iridium oxide deposited on a nanostructured titanium dioxide support. The so-called 'P2X catalyst' requires only an extremely small amount of iridium, reducing precious metal loading substantially (four times lower than in the current best commercial material).

A team at HZB led by Dr. Raul Garcia-Diez and Prof. Dr.-Ing. Marcus Bär, together with colleagues from the ALBA synchrotron in Barcelona, have studied the P2X catalyst, which shows remarkable stability even in long-term operation, and compared its catalytic and spectroscopic signature with the benchmark commercial crystalline catalyst.

…

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.4c03562

[NNadir]

1. Where is the Iridium for stupid adventure supposed to come?

Iridium is one of the rarest and most expensive elements in the world. Today's price is $161/gram, if one can get it.

The concentration in the Earth's crust is 0.001 ppm.

I would hope that in high school chemistry, although it's been a very long time since I was in one, one is at least exposed to the idea that a catalyst has no effect on thermodynamics. Therefore, as always, making hydrogen wastes energy, and making it, as a consumer item, given its horrible physical properties is a fucking dumb idea.

There are zillions of ways to make hydrogen; electrochemistry is the most destructive of exergy, since electricity, by its very nature is thermodynamically degraded energy. Of course, it's very popular for people trying to rebrand fossil fuels as "hydrogen" to claim that all of the hydrogen on Earth comes from vast stretches of wilderness industrialized for the useless solar and wind industry as a paean to advertising and ignorance. Almost none of it is so manufactured; almost all of it is made from the reformation of fossil fuels, with the waste dumped directly into the planetary atmosphere.



The caption:

Figure 1. Global current sources of H2 production (a), and H2 consumption sectors (b).

Progress on Catalyst Development for the Steam Reforming of Biomass and Waste Plastics Pyrolysis Volatiles: A Review Laura Santamaria, Gartzen Lopez, Enara Fernandez, Maria Cortazar, Aitor Arregi, Martin Olazar, and Javier Bilbao, Energy & Fuels 2021 35 (21), 17051-17084]

I referred to this graphic, and reproduced it, discussing a paper in the journal I discussed above here: The current sources and uses of hydrogen.

None of this reality stops people from advertising the fucking lie that hydrogen is "green."

The more we hype stupid ideas about hydrogen, the worse things get, and let's be clear, they are getting worse faster.

The Disastrous 2024 CO2 Data Recorded at Mauna Loa: Yet Another Update 12/03/2024

There's nothing quite as disturbing at this point as clueless reading of press releases by universities designed to get grants and taking them as being even remotely serious on an industrial scale.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. "Iridium is one of the rarest and most expensive elements in the world."

Although I could be wrong, I believe that is why they are trying to use less of it.

[NNadir]

3. Oh, using it for a stupid purpose makes using "less of it" OK? Wait, wait, I'm sorry, a "hydrogen economy" has been...

...discussed in the primary scientific literature, so it must be OK.

Here is a paper about the "transition" to a hydrogen economy:

E.M. Dickson, J.W. Ryan, M.H. Smulyan, Systems considerations and transition scenarios for the hydrogen economy, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,

The article includes this text in the summary:

...it can be argued convincingly that a combination electric/hydrogen economy is ultimately inevitable...

There's a nice chart in the full paper telling us when we can see 100% penetration for various technologies.

For private autos, we could see 100% penetration "by 2000" according to the chart. Could, could, could, could...".

Oh, I have to apologize again, I seem not to included relevant information about the publication, the issue, volume and year of the publication: E.M. Dickson, J.W. Ryan, M.H. Smulyan, Systems considerations and transition scenarios for the hydrogen economy, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 1, Issue 1, 1976, Pages 11-21,

I wonder if, when this paper was published in 1976, any of the people musing about the argument that "convincingly that a combination electric/hydrogen economy is ultimately inevitable..." bothered to muse that "by December of 2024, the concentration of carbon dioxide could be reported thus:

Week beginning on December 01, 2024: 424.82 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 420.74 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 398.77 ppm
Last updated: December 07, 2024

Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa Accessed 12/07/2024.

In the week beginning December 5, 1976, the concentration of CO₂ in the planetary atmosphere as measured as the soon to be silenced Mauna Loa observatory was 331.19 ppm.

What's 93.65 ppm between friends when we've just spent close to half a century talking about "green" hydrogen?

I am at a total loss to discover why anyone who gives a shit about environmental issues, or at least pretends to do so, is still fucking talking about hydrogen at all. Of course, there are a lot of people who think they're giving a shit, because they lack enough education and knowledge to understand they are doing the exact opposite. It's not really an excuse, but it is a reality.

A "hydrogen economy" is a marketing scam designed totally and completely to greenwash fossil fuels.

A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Really!? You're citing a paper from 1976!?

Last edited Sat Dec 7, 2024, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0360319976900057?via%3Dihub

Give me a break! Can’t you at least cite one from this century⁉️