Hydrogen Catalyst Breakthrough Reduces Reliance On Expensive Platinum

4/26/22, 3:13 PM Hydrogen catalyst breakthrough reduces reliance on expensive platinum : science
≡ POPULAR - ALL - RANDOM - USERS | ASKREDDIT - WORLDNEWS - TIFU - NEWS - FUNNY
. . . -MORE »Want
GAMING - to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.
the NEW REDDIT JOURNAL of SCIENCE

comments other discussions filter
(3) by field 27,390,685 subscribers join
search
Submitted on 26 Apr 2022
Environment
Environment 6,559
(96% upvoted)
Hydrogen catalyst breakthrough https://redd.it/uc9dp8

reduces reliance on expensive
6559 platinum express.co.uk
11 hours ago by extendoseato 2
username
348 comments share save hide report
password
Top 200 Comments show all 348 remember me reset password login
sorted by: best (suggested)

Submit a new link
[–] AutoModerator [M] [score hidden] 11 hours ago - stickied
comment
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated Welcome to r/science

subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science.
However, we recognize that many people want to discuss
Submission Rules
how they feel the research relates to their own personal 1. Directly link to published peer-
reviewed research or media summary
lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal 2. No summaries of summaries, re-hosted
anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this press releases, reviews, or reposts
comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the 3. No editorialized, sensationalized, or
biased titles
discussion will continue to be removed and our normal 4. Research must be less than 6 months
comment rules still apply to other comments. old
5. No blogspam, images, videos, or
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. infographics
Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you 6. All submissions must have flair
have any questions or concerns. assigned
permalink embed save report reply Comment Rules

1. No off-topic comments, memes, low-
[–] Wanker-of-Harganeth 380 points 7 hours ago
effort comments or jokes
Iron? That’s a very significant decrease in cost… 2. No abusive or offensive comments
3. Non-professional personal anecdotes
permalink embed save report reply
will be removed
4. Criticism of published work should
[–] RutzPacific 150 points 7 hours ago assume basic competence of the
Iron helps us play! researchers and reviewers
5. Comments dismissing established
permalink embed save parent report reply findings and fields of science must
provide evidence
[–] MercuryChild 56 points 5 hours ago 6. No medical advice
https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/uc9dp8/hydrogen_catalyst_breakthrough_reduces_reliance/ 1/27
Dental plan… oh wait, wrong one. 7. Repeat or flagrant offenders will be

banned
permalink embed save parent report reply
[–] PageOfLite 37 points 5 hours ago

§
Lisa needs braces! New to reddit? Click here!
[–] RutzPacific 18 points 5 hours ago

Get flair in /r/science
Dental plan..
Previous Science AMA's
continue this thread
§
load more comments (3 replies)
a community for 15 years
[–] Wanker-of-Harganeth 17 points 7 hours ago MODERATORS
Iron Age is back MESSAGE THE MODS

Moderator list hidden. Learn More
[–] IvoryAS 5 points 6 hours ago
I... am an Iron Stan. < > discussions in r/science X

5391 · 1279 comments
41 percent increase in rates of handgun
[–] teslasagna 2 points 3 hours ago carriage among youth overall, with White and
higher income youth. Firearm injuries are the
Grunkle Stan! Where'd you get that
metal flying suit?
load more comments (1 reply)
[–] indrada90 -1 points 3 hours ago
Uh, no. This is one niche use of iron, and requires a relatively small amount
of it. The iron age came after the bronze age, but before the steel/industrial
age. We've since moved on to the composite age, where most serious
application make use of some mix of materials, like metal alloys (e.g.
stainless steel), various synthetic polymer composites, organic materials like
wood, rubber, cardboard, paper or fabric, ceramics, semiconductors,
concrete, and of course, different types of rock like limestone, marble, or
granite. Take a look around you. How many of the things you see are made
out of one or more of these materials? They're all composites, mixtures. The
iron age is over. Even your cast iron pan is made out of a mix of iron and
carbon.
[–] hruebsj3i6nunwp29 1 point 3 hours ago

The return of the Iron Lords.
[–] mdonaberger 8 points 5 hours ago

I said I don't want any damn hydrolysis.
[–] ebow77 5 points 3 hours ago
That's it young man, no science journals for you tonight.

[–] ExParrot1337 0 points 3 hours ago

I dunno man the word cheaper is in quotes
[–] morf11r 0 points 1 hour ago
because it's ironic

[–] PolyNeoYeo 1 point 3 hours ago

So would throwing them in normal ICEs
[–] Vipu2 187 points 8 hours ago

Can someone eli5 this in simple english
[–] StarksTwins 489 points 7 hours ago*
Catalysts are things that make chemical reactions occur easier. Platinum is one of these
catalysts, but it’s expensive. Scientists have made a new catalyst made of cheap iron that
can replace these expensive platinum catalyst but still do the same job. So, we can now
make these hydrogen-based vehicles using this new catalyst.
[–] olderaccount 91 points 6 hours ago
So, we can now make these hydrogen-based vehicles using this new catalyst.
But the cost of the catalyst is not the main barrier to widespread fuel cell adoption.
AFAIK, nobody has solved the problem of fouling of the proton exchange membrane.
[–] ianhiggs 75 points 4 hours ago
Now here me out: what if we release tiny, proton-consuming cats into the
fuel cell membrane?
[–] -wellplayed- 28 points 4 hours ago

But what if the tiny, proton-consuming cats get stuck?
Interesting idea. It might work. But you will need a different kind of
cat because it is not the protons that foul the membrane. We need the
protons. We don't want them consumed. We need them cycling
through the fuel cell.
[–] hallese 2 points 3 hours ago
We should develop some sort of protomolecule that can take care of

those buildups for us.
[–] GhoulboyScoob 12 points 4 hours ago
Minor, routine maintenance.

They just need to be made easily replaceable.
SCIENCE BREAKTHROUGH!!!
/u/GhoulboyScoob just solved the decades old problem of PEM
membrane fouling. Scientists the world over are scratching their
heads saying "Why didn't I think of that!".
[–] Solon256 1 point 4 hours ago
Isn't the main barrier that it requires fossil fuel consumption to create the
hydrogen for fuel cells?
[–] Wonderful_Mud_420 115 points 7 hours ago

They just stole my catalyst converter too. I hope they do drop in value. It’s a real
hassle.
[–] DaPickle3 -1 points 7 hours ago
Different type of catalyst

[–] theksepyro 71 points 7 hours ago
I don't think they're that different right? I might be mistaken but it's
my understanding that traditional hydrogen fuel cells are using
platinum and palladium just like in catalytic converters. The reactions
that they're catalyzing are different, but the material is the same
[–] TikkiTakiTomtom 8 points 6 hours ago
Same catalyst. Different application you mean.

[–] BeaconSlash 15 points 7 hours ago

What is "requiring easier" ?
[–] StrangeCharmVote 27 points 7 hours ago
I believe they mean it make the reaction occur easier.

I.e just because you put two chemicals in the samecontainer doesn't mean
they will always react efficiently. They sometimes need added conditions to
speed things up.
[–] Dionysusigma 2 points 6 hours ago
I believe they mean it make the reaction occur easier.

I.e just because you put two chemicals in the samecontainer
doesn't mean they will always react efficiently. They sometimes
need added conditions to speed things up.
Would a good analogy be if you were making lemonade and after

putting lemon juice, water, and sugar in the pitcher, the catalyst would
be the mixing spoon?
[–] DJKokaKola 12 points 7 hours ago
Typo on their end, but basically some reactions are spontaneous, like cesium
and water, and others are spontaneous IFF they're above a certain energy
level, like combustion. Catalysts lower the high point required for a reaction
to occur, so in a hypothetical if you required 10 energy units to burn
hydrogen, you may only need like 3 or 5 with a catalyst.
[–] axonxorz 14 points 7 hours ago

To add to your answer: Catalysts are not reagents, they participate in
the reaction in some way, but are not consumed by it once it
completes, you don't need to "refill" a catalyst
[–] omgtater 7 points 7 hours ago
Seems like a translation error. Catalysts reduce activation energy

requirements for a reaction, which means more molecules have the required
number of collisions to form the end product, so it goes "faster".
[–] gelinrefira 1 5 points 6 hours ago
Lots of answer here but this is how I explain catalyst, activation energy and
the concept of reactions.
Reaction in chemistry occurs only when a few conditions are met. The
particles must collide in a certain way, and they must have enough energy to
break bonds and form new bonds.
This means within a reaction vessel, only a certain number of particles have
enough energy at a certain time to react. This of course also depends on the
inherent amount of energy the system has. Typically, a higher temperature
means there are more energy for the particles to react.
So in a reaction vessel, there might be 50 As and 50 Bs and they can only
form C when A and B collide and they both have enough energy. But at that
temperature and pressure for example, only 5 As and 3 Bs at any point of
time have the energy to react. Given that there are only so few As and Bs
that can react, and they have to collide at just the right way, you can imagine
that chances are, the reactions do not happen very often. Hence, the reaction
is very slow from a macroscopic POV. That energy barrier is known as
activation energy - you know the minimum energy to activate a reaction.
But here is where catalyst comes in. A catalyst is a substance that typically
can allow A and B react at a lower energy by somehow interacting with them.
Typically, they do this job by bonding with A and B together, bringing them
closer together, as though it has a right hand taking A, and a left hand taking
B and pushing them together. Some catalyst do this by able to adsorb
molecules on its surface, which causes them to come very close to each
other, so they don't need a lot of energy to overcome their inherent

electrostatic repulsion. Platinum is famous for being able to adsorb oxygen
and carbon monoxide on its surface, bringing them close together and
allowing the reaction to occur to form CO2. Hence catalytic convertor. In this
way, the catalyst is a kinda facilitator and therefore, should not be used up in
the reaction.
Catalyst are typically some sort of transition metals or at least they form the
core of that catalyst molecules. They can do that because they have empty
D-orbitals that can form temporary bonds with all kinds of molecules.
Another class of catalyst is enzymes which are organic compounds, typically
protein size. They work on the same principle (overcoming high energy
barrier by bringing molecules together) but just done in a different way.
Proteins are basically huge molecular machines and enzymes are proteins
that have a certain shape and size. They can absorb certain molecules, like
an A and B, bring them close together within its protein structure and force
them to react.
That's basically the gist of catalyst chemistry.
Why catalyst chemistry is important is that many important reactions we
used to make stuff are actually notoriously difficult to react. They typically
have very very low reaction speed (high energy barrier to overcome) and to
make any meaningful amount in a reasonable amount of time, you need
ridiculous amount of heat and pressure- assuming the molecules did not
break down itself. So the invention of a catalyst that can target an important
reaction and make it go faster, also increases it yield, allowing production to
go faster and produces more. Some very crucial reactions like water
electrolysis and O2 and H2 reaction back to water, is all part of the hydrogen
cycle and form the bedrock of the hydrogen energy carrier economy. Without
a catalyst, water electrolysis reactions are notoriously slow and difficult and
consumed too much energy just to overcome its barrier. This is why catalyst
such as this can be game changer.
[–] DJKokaKola 2 points 7 hours ago
To add to this, imagine you're rolling a snowball down a hill. If you don't have
enough snowball, it won't actually roll, it'll just die out. If it's big enough, it'll
roll without an issue and get bigger as it picks up snow.
A catalyst lets you roll the snowball at a smaller size and still function. Lots of
chemistry reasons why, which I won't bother explaining unless you're really
interested!
[–] StarksTwins 1 point 5 hours ago
Sorry. I wanted to say “requiring less energy” at first, but then changed it to
“easier”.
[–] Chic0late 1 point 4 hours ago
Lowers the Ea required to start the reaction

[–] debacol 23 points 7 hours ago
Hydrogen at best has a future for grid level storage, a retrofit for gas-fired electricity
plants and some industrial procesesses that cannot go from molecules to electrons.
Possibly a solid option for maritime freight.
Its not the future for cars because each unit of electricity you use to make hydrogen
only gives you half that power back as hydrogen.
[–] Archmagnance1 19 points 6 hours ago
And you get 0 back with oil based fuels.

It doesn't have to be self sustaining. The biggest concern the public at large
would have is sitting 5 feet from a tank filled with hydrogen. If it does make
it into cars there's going to have to be a lot of safety precautions for when
people get into accidents.
[–] dayz_bron 11 points 6 hours ago
Which is crazy because most people seem to accept sitting 5 feet

away from a tank full of highly combustible gasoline.
[–] Alternative-Tell-355 2 points 5 hours ago
There are plenty of hydrogen powered vehicles already on the road ,

for a long time now. Companies have entire hydrogen powered fleets.
[–] Moridin_Naeblis 4 points 6 hours ago
While there certainly are issues with hydrogen vehicles the energy efficiency
of hydrogen production doesn’t necessarily need to be one of them. If we
make a transition to fully renewable power that becomes much less
important, and the environmental cost of batteries is likely to stay high for
longer unless some really revolutionary material science comes along
There are companies that are right now able to recycle over 90% of
materials and create new batteries completely from spent batteries. A
former lead engineer from Tesla runs a company that is doing exactly
this.
Nissan is building a battery factory in collaboration with NASA that will
be solid state, half the weight per power output and uses no rare
earth metals. Will be completed in 4 years and will be used for cars.
Obviously it will need to scale significantly further, but the tech is out
of the lab.
[–] Reniconix 8 points 7 hours ago
The car doesn't need to do everything by itself. You can fill up at a station
with hydrogen just like gasoline. Then you get the benefits of bulk production
and on-site production, and cars can be lighter and more efficient.
[–] spectrumero 13 points 6 hours ago
The problem with hydrogen for vehicles is:

it's monumentally difficult to store - the H2 molecule is very
small and tends to leak through pretty much any container you
put it in, so storing it in millions of fuel tanks will be very lossy
in the process of leaking out, it embrittles the container
the containers have to be kept at absurdly high pressures, much
greater pressures than something like compressed natural gas
(so tanks will require frequent replacement and safety
inspections, which liquid fuel tanks don't require)
even at absurdly high pressures, the volumetric energy density
of hydrogen is awful
Grid-level storage makes these things a bit less of an issue, as a tank
that's not moved around and is physically very large won't leak as
much and will have a lower risk of being crashed into and exploding.
[+] kayodee 8 points 6 hours ago (5 children)
[–] norcal4130 2 points 6 hours ago

They are planning on running hydrogen powered electric cars at the 24 hours
of Lemans in a couple of years.
The fuel cell stacks use hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity, most
of which is directly fed into the motor.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/09/how-the-le-mans-hydrogen-racer-is-
shaping-up/

Has nothing to do with whether it is possible, and everything to do
with is it practical compared to alternatives.
[–] DrSmirnoffe 0 points 6 hours ago
Speaking of gas, IIRC people have been looking into including hydrogen in
natural gas mixes.
Yes, but its not a long term solution. Its like a hybrid vehicle. Useful in
reducing SOME GHG if its actually Green Hydrogen instead of Blue
(super questionable depending on how the hydrogen was made).
We cant do 100% hydrogen to our homes because the existing
infrastructure cannot support hydrogen but can support a 20% mix.
The key is where is the hydrogen coming from, and if its green, is that
the best use of that overall energy cost?
[–] thisnameismeta 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that just due to efficiency losses? Theoretically the two reactions are the
same - split hydrogen from water, convert hydrogen back to water.
[–] DukeDijkstra 1 point 4 hours ago
Are enzymes a type of catalyst then?

[–] StarksTwins 2 points 4 hours ago
Yup! Enzymes are biological catalysts that lower the energy requirements for
chemical reactions to happen in our cells.
[–] Morangatang 1 point 3 hours ago
Would this affect traditional catalytic converters too?

[–] Nervous-Violinist-32 [score hidden] 43 minutes ago
Wait you're missing a major use though. Platinum is also used widespread in
EXTREMELY expensive catalytic converters, many of which drivers cannot generally
AFFORD to replace when they have issues and continue to drive them, or even cut
them off.
This would be a game changer in making far cheaper catalytic converters, and
maybe even make it an adoptable add on to small engines and motorcycles as well.
Aye? Aye?
[–] throwawayLouisa 52 points 7 hours ago
Catalysts are train tunnels though hills - but for chemical reactions.
Sure, you could heat that locomotive's boiler and drag that train up and over the hill. But
that takes a lot of energy, and it's a long, slow, journey.
Having that tunnel there makes getting from A to B a damned sight less energetic, and
quicker.
A tunnel doesn't get "used up" by a train passing though it - it's still there ready for the next
train. Same with catalysts.
Chemical engineers used to need to build their tunnels with stunningly-expensive platinum
linings. Someone has just worked out how to line tunnels with much cheaper iron.
[–] fjhvalent 6 points 4 hours ago
Great, if simplified, explanation that gets the main point across beautifully.
[–] MrchntMariner86 4 points 4 hours ago
That's really ELI5. Nice one!

[–] Jade_Wind 3 points 3 hours ago

Now this is content
[–] acatnamedrupert 21 points 7 hours ago
We didnt have hydrogen fuel cell electric cars en masse because the fuel cell to make
electricity from Hydrogen needed platinum. So much platinum it cost more than the rest of
the car.
Lithium battery cars took over once the tech was cheaper by paying only 10-15 K$ for a
battery pack.
A hydrogen fuel cell car can fill up as fast as any natural gas car with similar ranges.
Though. Internal combustion engines on Hydrogen are also being developed. [hydrogen
burns so fast that the combustion is very hard to model and control compared to gas,
diesel, or petrol] Internal combustion engines have the + of being both very light and very
cheap compared to the full alternative systems. And with hydrogen burning not producing
CO2 or any other by-product most of the - of jnternal combustion go away.
We will see what happens. But fingers crossed we get away from the fossil fuels and the
lithium battery packs we use now.
[–] claythearc 20 points 7 hours ago
The problem is hydrogen is super inefficient both in terms of creation ->

compression -> transmission and the actual engines. It’s unlikely we go away from
battery EVs and into fuel cells because of how efficient EVs are in comparison.
[–] acatnamedrupert 1 point 5 hours ago
Eeeh so so. Considering some good green energy prodiction places would
cost more to comnect to the grid than make a localised hydrogen creation
and comoression station even accounting for losses.
And that EU and US have commited to CO2 free steel prodiction using the
hydrogen reduction process. H2 production will go up regardless of cars using
it or not.
[–] claythearc 3 points 5 hours ago
Here’s a link comparing the two

https://www.volkswagenag.com/content/dam/online-
kommunikation/brands/corporate/world/presence/stories/2019/08/wa
sserstoff-oder-
batterie/Website_Wasserstoff_vs_Batterie_Vergleich_EN_1163.png -
there’s some major differences.
[–] Visinvictus 4 points 4 hours ago
This comment is so hilariously wrong.

Platinum is used as a catalyst during the process to split water into Hydrogen
and Oxygen using electricity
Hydrogen fuel cells contain hydrogen that has already been split, and do not
contain platinum at all. The cost of the fuel cell was never a consideration.
Hydrogen fuel cells do not generate electricity, they consume/waste electricity.
The best round trip efficiency we have today (using a platinum catalyst) to
create hydrogen from water and electricity and turn it back into electricity is
around 34%. Compare this to lithium ion batteries which are close to 100%.
This means you need to generate 3x more electricity to supply hydrogen fuel
celled vehicles compared to lithium, and as you might expect the operating
"fuel" costs should be at least 3x higher as well.
The reason that Lithium batteries took over is because hydrogen is a bad technology.
Who knows what the efficiency of generating hydrogen using an iron catalyst is, but
I'm guessing that since it wasn't mentioned in the article it is less than a platinum
catalyst.
[–] akaWhitey2 [score hidden] 32 minutes ago

Thank you. I remember writing a paper in high school pointing out how
inefficient the electricity => hydrogen => electricity => power conversion
was. Hydrogen cells have interesting capabilities but I would never buy a
vehicle.
[–] tcolberg -1 points 6 hours ago
Does anyone have an explanation for why a hydrogen fuel system is better than a
methane fuel system?
Reasons I can think of in favor: I know we already have cars and other vehicles that
run on CNG. We have a lot of experience running CNG safely to homes. It doesn't
cause metal embrittlement, afaik. And it can be carbon neutral if we use the Sabatier
process plus renewable energy (or we could pump the methane into the Earth to sink
carbon).
I do know that the Sabatier process needs a nickel catalyst, but we already need
nickel for batteries and it's a lot cheaper than platinum.
[–] altCognito 10 points 8 hours ago
These are fuel cells, so just look up how fuel cells work, and anywhere they talk about using
platinum or some other expensive rare metal, just insert iron.
[–] zebediah49 2 points 7 hours ago
Chemical reactions have the obvious number of "how much energy comes out", but they
also have a "how much energy do you need to get started" number.
It's entirely possible to have a reaction that 'wants' to happen, but doesn't have the kick to
get started. This is often a useful thing: it's how gunpowder or explosives work, for
example.
Sometimes it's not useful though. And in these cases, you can sometimes find a third
chemical that causes the first two to react with each other more easily. Platinum does this
for hydrogen fuel cells, but is quite expensive -- the research here is finding something else
that still works, but is cheaper.
§
Mechanically, you usually go from A + B -> AB (without the catalyst) to A+C -> AC; AC + B
-> AB + C (with the catalyst). It participates in the reaction, but isn't used up. And each of
the two smaller reactions happen more easily than the big one.
[–] daikatana 2 points 6 hours ago
Hydrogen fuel cells turn hydrogen into electricity. A catalyst is a thing that starts a reaction,
hydrogen fuel cells use a platinum catalyst. Platinum is very expensive, so hydrogen fuel
cells are very expensive. They discovered a way to create a hydrogen fuel cell without a
platinum catalyst, which will make them much cheaper.
[–] Kalkaline 1 point 6 hours ago
BLDP and PLUG are going to pop for like 3 days and then the speculators will realize there is
still the problem of storing hydrogen that's keeping us from a future in hydrogen fuel cells.
[–] Late2TheThread 192 points 10 hours ago
I just scanned the abstract, but looks like it's about ORR and not HER (i.e., not about hydrogen
production).
[–] Sufficient_Art_1499 167 points 7 hours ago
The oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) is the major roadblock to cheap efficient fuel cells. The
discovery of an abundant, robust and efficient ORR catalysts is potentially worth trillions of
dollars.
[–] TaviRider 52 points 7 hours ago
That’s not my understanding. The major roadblock to hydrogen fuel cells is efficient,
safe, reliable storage of hydrogen. It may have high energy by mass, but it has very
poor energy by volume. See this chart.
[–] The_Astronautt 95 points 6 hours ago
They said the major roadblock to efficient fuel cells, not the major roadblock
to making a hydrogen based economy. ORR is indeed the problematic side of
the fuel cell.
[+] TaviRider comment score below threshold * (8 children)
[–] Sufficient_Art_1499 52 points 5 hours ago
In short range transport like consumer cars Fuel Cells have drawbacks. For
storing the hundreds of terawatt hours of excess energy that will be
generated from wind and solar it is the optimal solution.
The storage of hydrogen is basically a solved problem at this point. As a
materials chemist I can say that the whole "hydrogen embrittlement"
problem is easily dealt with.
The advent of composite overwrapped pressure vessels makes hydrogen

storage pretty safe at the small scale. At large scale, like a salt cavern
currently used for natural gas storage, there is no problem with storage at all.
The major use of fuel cells and green hydrogen in the future will be in grid
scale storage. The planned deployment of these technologies is in the 100GW
range and growing. Unlike batteries, there is no limit to the amount of energy
you can store with a GW scale electrolyzer and the efficiency hit you take is
mitigated by the fact that when the sun is out solar farms will be massively
overproducing excess power as we switch to renewables.
Efficient, robust, earth abundant, ORR catalysts are one of the most sought
after breakthroughs in all of chemistry.
[–] Greenunderthere 4 points 4 hours ago
Salt caverns are already in use for H2 storage in Texas/ gulf area!!
[–] light24bulbs 3 points 4 hours ago

Absolutely fantastic summary, thank you for it.
Taking a look at the paper, does anything stand out to you in terms of
long term viability? Not sure if this is your exact field.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/CY/D2CY00356B
[–] reddit_user13 18 points 7 hours ago
Also generation of Hydrogen.

[–] jrhoffa [ ] 2 points 5 hours ago
What about the Bussard collectors?

[–] Maroonedito 6 points 5 hours ago
The storage albeit complicated is not a roadblock. Unless governments decide

is unsafe for cars. So far it hasn’t happened. The fuel cell catalyst is a
massive roadblock.
[–] BeingRightAmbassador 3 points 6 hours ago
It's only bad compared to gasoline/diesel. As far as H2 is compared to

batteries, it's already pretty good in terms of storage mediums.
[–] TBSchemer 2 points 6 hours ago
Yup. Ammonia is a safer, more energy-dense fuel than hydrogen.

[–] mrgedman 2 points 5 hours ago
Ya but let’s face it, it smells like piss

[–] PolyNeoYeo 0 points 3 hours ago
There is safe, reliable storage of hydrogen.

But people want more than 150 mile range
[–] 2Big_Patriot [score hidden] 4 minutes ago
Solid oxide fuel cells are ramping up fast. Ceres / Bosch are ramping up quite
quickly with a major division focused on commercializing them in the next
years. They use natural gas as a readily-available fuel. Output will be in the
10s or 100s of KWs, good enough for many commercial applications for
backup power or primarily power if grid electricity is expensive. Quite a huge
global market.
[+] its_wausau comment score below threshold (9 children)
[–] sl600rt 1 point 4 hours ago
Except all the other major drawbacks of hydrogen.

[–] The_Astronautt 2 points 5 hours ago
ORR is the other half of the fuel cell.

[–] TheChugnut 56 points 6 hours ago
Why tf are we using The Express as a source in /r/science ?!

[–] killtr0city MS | Chemistry 19 points 6 hours ago
This site gave my phone cancer

[–] NohPhD 7 points 5 hours ago
The scientific literature and patent databases are full of iron-based catalysts such as this one.
It’s not it can’t be done (replace Pt with Fe), but that any replacement catalyst can be durable and
economical, even being made of iron rather than platinum.
The short answer has almost always been no. I’m not updating my investment portfolio based on
this announcement…
[–] Thebitterestballen 42 points 11 hours ago

Link to actual paper;
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/ee/d0ee01013h
[–] shiruken PhD | Biomedical Engineering | Optics 123 points 9 hours ago
That's the wrong article. Here's the correct one: A. Mehmood, et al., High loading of single
atomic iron sites in Fe–NC oxygen reduction catalysts for proton exchange membrane fuel
cells, Nature Catalysis, 5, 311–323 (2022)
[–] Thebitterestballen 32 points 8 hours ago
Ah thanks. I searched for the author named in the article and Fe-NC catalyst. So this
is the follow up to the earlier paper, with how they increased the iron density in the
catalyst to make it more efficient.
[–] shiruken PhD | Biomedical Engineering | Optics 29 points 8 hours ago
No worries. It was shockingly buried at the very end of that ad-riddled

website.
[–] NeverEnufWTF 8 points 8 hours ago
Excellent adverb usage, thank you.

[–] trwawy05312015 7 points 9 hours ago
Thank god, that site was giving me a headache.

[–] NotLukeL 11 points 7 hours ago
ELI5:
Platinum is a catalyst. A catalyst lowers the “activation energy” of a reaction, making it more likely
to happen. Platinum is mainly a catalyst used to add hydrogen atoms onto molecules. It does this
by providing a physical structure for the reaction to happen on.
I’m also only an undergrad so don’t listen to anything I say. I’m probably wrong even though this is
basic college chem.
[–] dpasdeoz 0 points 6 hours ago
You aren't wrong in providing a definition of a catalyst ... ... ... But this comment doesn't
really contribute to the discussion: there is no real link to the specific topic of the article /
community discussion (hydrogen generation and storage, hydrogen as an alternative fuel
source, earth-abundant elements as replacements for noble metal catalysts, transmetalation
reactions, single-atom ("single-site") catalysis, etc). There's a wealth of chemistry buried in
this article and the discussions here - I hope you take a moment to loop back and engage
more deeply :)
[–] NotLukeL 1 point 5 hours ago
Ah, I saw a lot of comments talking about catalysts in a way a lot of people may not
understand. I’ll go back around and check out the article more!
[–] Agent4898 -1 points 6 hours ago
You’re right, this ain’t even high school, let alone college chem.
[–] Unicycldev 6 points 5 hours ago
This is a classical non-article. It repeats a common technological news trope which is decades old.
Incremental technological improvement is important but is informational noise without context.
[–] n3m37h 4 points 6 hours ago
That still doesn't help with the manufacturing of hydrogen... infrastructure setup, ya know the truly
non green part of green fuel
[–] The_Astronautt -1 points 5 hours ago
You can just get hydrogen from electrolyzing water. You can do that from renewable energy
sources. The issue is the sun isn't always shining and batteries still aren't scalable. So you
use some of the energy to make hydrogen and store that instead. Then you use a fuel cell
to get the energy back efficiently. That helps you smooth out the supply with the demand.
[–] ChaoticLlama 2 points 5 hours ago
Fun research, information free article so can't comment more. Aside from the obvious: what's
wrong with hydrogen for transport, can't be fixed by making fuelcells either cheaper OR more
efficient. It's fundamentally a square wheel.
[–] cocaine-cupcakes 2 points 3 hours ago
I have some relevant experience here. About 12 years ago I worked fuel-cell lab investigating non-
noble metal catalyst for fuel cells to replace platinum. We also experimented with iron based
catalyst, mostly Iron (2) phthalocyanine.
It’s definitely true that you can achieve catalyst activity similar to platinum, however the durability
drops off quite severely after about 100 cycles. The article doesn’t really discuss this except for one
small mention at the end. For reference, a useful target is about 10,000 cycles.
[–] Tcanada 3 points 7 hours ago
This doesn't really solve any problems. Hydrogen fuel cells are just never going to be viable for
most applications. It is energy intensive to produce, difficult to transport and store, and has a very
low energy density. The low energy density is the biggest problem and it is a fundamental property
of hydrogen that cannot be changed anymore than we can change the laws of physics
[–] 9BitLemming 17 points 7 hours ago
A low energy density in comparison to what though? It's less than gasoline, absolutely, but
orders of magnitude more energy dense than batteries, and we're hoping for batteries to
solve the world's problems already.
[–] Napsack_ 1 point 6 hours ago
Yeah but you don't have to replenish batteries with fresh hydrogen; you can just
recharge them.
So unless there's an application of single-use batteries that could be replaced by
hydrogen, I don't see the advantage.
I did a chem Eng project in undergrad on hydrogen fuel cells. I'm very far from an
expert. That said, I can remember how tough it was to try and design a system (for
a car) that can hold enough hydrogen to give comparable performance to a gas
engine. Not the same thing we are talking about, but hydrogen is not super energy-
rich.
[–] ProjectSnowman 0 points 5 hours ago
I can’t see fuel cells having enough electrical output to run a car, let alone
planes and trains. We’d probably be better off burning the hydrogen in an
ICE.
The energy density is never going to be enough for planes, trucks, or ships which are
the biggest users of fuel. As for small vehicles the infrastructure of a large hydrogen
fueling network is infeasible without even considering that you really can't trust the
average person to handle hydrogen.
[–] dpasdeoz 9 points 6 hours ago
Can you really "trust the average person" to handle gasoline/petrol? There
are many engineered safety/control systems between the user and the fuel
today... The same would hold true for any future infrastructure based on
alternative fuels (e.g. hydrogen)
[–] TipsAtWork 2 points 6 hours ago
Wait. I thought hydrogen has a higher energy density at around 120MJ/kg,

whereas diesel/gasoline is like 45 or so.
Or are you talking about volumetric density?
ETA: I'm also apprehensive about letting an average car driver handle
hydrogen. That sounds like a huge hazard. I think I'd much prefer to see
hydrogen used in shipping and industrial energy usage by people who are
trained in safely handling it.
You have to look at volumetric energy density because the density of

hydrogen is so low you would need massive storage tanks.
Shipping is actually the least viable. The volume of hydrogen needed
for a plane, truck, or ship would be insane
[–] TBSchemer 1 point 6 hours ago

Ammonia has a much higher energy density, and is easier to store than hydrogen.
Ammonia fuel cells are a better solution.
[–] spectrumero 1 point 5 hours ago
To get the volumetric energy density of a battery, you have to compress hydrogen to
immense pressures, which adds difficulty in handling. As the H2 molecule is too
small, it leaks through any container you care to use, and embrittles it in the process
so the losses will be high (especially if you have hundreds of millions of tiny car fuel
tanks of the stuff).
Liquid hydrogen only has an energy density of 8MJ/L and that's about as dense as
you can make it (it's not like propane which you can compress until it goes liquid).
It's entirely impractical to use liquid hydrogen except in huge government projects
like Saturn rockets due to its cryogenic nature.
You're going to have to compress hydrogen to around 3000psi to be useful in a
vehicle (10 to 20 times the pressure of a typical propane tank). I'm not sure I would
trust the average driver in a vehicle with a 3000psi tank in it, which needs to be
regularly inspected and replaced to stay safe!
[–] stevp19 3 points 5 hours ago
I don't think this technology is limited to hydrogen fuel cells. It might be useful in other
organic fuel cells, such as ethanol and methanol cells.
You make a good point. The problem is that the link was incredibly sensationalistic
and pushed this as a major hydrogen breakthrough paving the way for clean energy.
It's designed to hype the uninformed public and ignores that there are still a huge
number of problems holding back this technology. There were real achievements
here that could have meaningful impacts outside of fuel cells. The linked article just
ignored these in favor of telling the story about hydrogen they wanted to tell.
[–] stevp19 3 points 4 hours ago
Are you telling me that the Daily Express, the pinnacle of modern journalism,
is putting out pop-sci clickbait? Say it isn't so!
Again, you make a good point.

[–] Archmagnance1 1 point 6 hours ago
It has low energy density at higher temperatures.

Liquid hydrogen used in for rocket engines has very high energy density and is used in
hydrozene (N2H4) rocket fuel as well.
The main issue is safe storage of dense hydrogen, for very obvious reasons.
[–] Tcanada -1 points 6 hours ago
So let me make sure I have your point straight. Hydrogen has low energy density
unless you have cryogenic liquid hydrogen, which you can't do because its infeasible
on large scales. So what you're saying is that hydrogen has low energy density?
[–] gtjack9 1 point 6 hours ago
No, it depends how you word your statement which is why you were
corrected.
Hydrogen has a very high energy density by mass, but by volume at

atmospheric conditions, it is very low.
Infrastructure, transport and storage are the problem not hydrogen.

[–] Tcanada -1 points 6 hours ago
energy intensive to produce, difficult to transport and store,

and has a very low energy density
Huh if only someone had pointed that out earlier....

[–] Tower21 -2 points 6 hours ago
Never understood the need for the storage, get me a tank of water, an aluminum
and gallium mix and I can produce hydrogen on demand.
[–] TBSchemer 2 points 6 hours ago
You'd still have to store a tank full of hydrogen in your car. It's not practical to
have a gallium/water tank in your car, that you recharge by dumping in more
aluminum and taking out the aluminum oxide.
[–] TBSchemer 1 point 6 hours ago

Definitely. This is why ammonia fuel cells are the future.
[–] ChaseballBat 1 point 5 hours ago
Hydrogen fuel doesn't need to move far if you are using it for grid scale batteries.
[–] CodeyFox 1 point 7 hours ago
Does this make hydrogen fuel cells cost effective in theory at scale? Was platinum one of the bigger
costs involved in a fuel cell?
[–] Spiffydude98 11 points 7 hours ago
It helps push the cost threshold so it brings the Hydrogen fuel cells closer to cost
effectiveness. Platinum is one of the main costs yes.
People who poo-poo hydrogen don't see the potential of it for storage and grid
management, airplane flight with zero emissions and a general replacement for commercial
vehicles that require almost constant use.
For example, we have times where there is a surplus of wind energy because it's windy
during low-demand. So right now we turn off the windmills. We could be using that surplus
wind at no cost really to isolate hydrogen (this is where the catalysts come in) and store it,
and then run it through the fuel cells when there is demand for the electricity.
It's just that the effiiency of the cycle (basically - it costs too much right now) is not quite
there. It's improving on a measurable S curve however and is really coming along.
... Also, aside from Iceland, we're very very far from having vaguely green hydrogen
production.
The vast majority of hydrogen is produced from steam-methane reforming, so you're
just burning natural gas with extra steps and about 30% lower efficiency.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see the tech getting development, so that once we
actually hit excess renewables, we can meaningfully sink them into something. Given
current H2 sources though, deployment at scale is generally a dubious plan.
[–] FwibbFwibb 7 points 7 hours ago
People who poo-poo hydrogen don't see the potential of it for storage and grid
management
Have you ever worked with hydrogen gas? Ever? "Storage" is the hard part. The
hardest part. The most dangerous part.
You don't get time to turn off a hydrogen leak when it catches fire like you would in a
gas station. The whole thing just explodes.
Hydrogen leaks like crazy. It even permeates through materials.
Yes-but-also-no.
While I won't dispute that storing it is a monumental headache, hydrogen
does have the one major benefit over conventional liquid fuels -- it doesn't
like to stick around. You have a leaking gasoline truck or tank, and you have
a big pool of flammable liquid that's going to be an enormous pain to clean
up safely. Same thing happens with hydrogen and it'll be heading straight up.
The explosive minimum concentration for hydrogen in air is ~18% -- which
means that explosion-compatible air is going to be ~17% lighter than normal
air, and causing some pretty serious buoyancy effects.
[–] gtjack9 2 points 6 hours ago
Yup, it’s more than possible, the technology to support hydrogen just
hasn’t been developed yet.
[–] Spiffydude98 2 points 6 hours ago*
I understand your point - I'm not saying it's easy - it's all part of the
technology advancing for these areas to improve.
However we can store hydrogen. We know how to do it as a gas and liquid.

But most fascinating to me on the storage point there are technologies that
are around which essentially bond the hydrogen so it's inert until needed.
One of the stranger ones but also one that's more interesting is the ability to
store hydrogen on what looks like an old movie reel. Unwind the reel, feed it
through the system and the hydrogen leaves the 'solid' bonded material
easily and is easily used. (Goes digging for an article on the tech. there was a
recent article about the tech being finally opened up it was locked down by I
think the US military? Here we go - this is the tech in an article I read
yesterday but can't find anymore the article yesterday was about a supercar
that will use this tech in their racecar. https://plasmakinetics.com/ ) . There
is also a company in Australia with a similar technology but using metal-
organic mesh materials - they're selling tanks for homes if not already on the
market then very soon.
Hydrogen isn't as explosive as people think. It's very hard to blow up. We
have vehicle fleets that use Nat gas and propane and those are many times
more volatile. The issue with the storage of the compressed gas for Hydrogen
seems to be more related to the pressures needed vs the leakage.
Edit: Here's the article from yesterday - fascinating and McLaren doens't
mess around.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/kincsem-hyper-gt-hypercar-
use-radical-hydrogen-technology
[–] KarbonKopied 2 points 7 hours ago
Once there is cheap ammonia production, I will be more excited. Ammonia

helps with the storage and transportation aspect of hydrogen, but on its own
is a major precursor to fertilizers essential to modern agriculture.
Currently fossil fuels are used in fertilizer production. It will be a big win If we
can switch in green hydrogen for fossil fuels in fertilizer production.
[–] DrEnter 1 point 6 hours ago
It isn't like storage is a new thing. We've done it before.

[–] dpasdeoz 1 point 6 hours ago
Could you provide more detail on your comment please? Perhaps with some
numbers to define how explosive everything is in relative and absolute terms?
[–] ViliVexx -1 points 7 hours ago
Did it actually reduce our reliance, or does it look like it might?

[–] SooooooMeta 3 points 5 hours ago
Better to browse news rather than science if you aren’t interested in the pipeline of things
that are coming but only want the things that are here
[–] onephatkatt -3 points 7 hours ago
Man that linked article was just too long to read

[+] Fragmented79 comment score below threshold (11 children)
[+] bewarethetreebadger comment score below threshold (0 children)
[–] dis23 1 point 7 hours ago

This seems like a pretty big deal. It seems there are a lot of technologies emerging over the past
decade that eliminate the need for conflicts over the scarcity of certain resources. This could have
dramatic economic and sociological ramifications, making what was expensive unnecessary and
what is abundant essential. It seems like the kind of flip that causes an industrial revolution.
[–] totallynotalp 1 point 6 hours ago
Ok. Someone explain why this won’t work large scale. Or is this truly revolutionary.
[–] Kyocus 1 point 4 hours ago
It's a great breakthrough on the short term, and possibly long term for larger plants, but we should
be phasing out gas and oil for renewables in the next couple decades.
[–] Safe_Summer_4390 1 point 4 hours ago
The UK has recently had breakthroughs in Nuclear Fusion, Robots, Graphene, Hypersonic Engines
and now Hydrogen.
How is such a small country developing so much advanced tech.
[–] Mr_Abberation 1 point 4 hours ago
Costs won’t drop for consumers. Profits will rise.

[–] crimeo PhD | Psychology | Computational Brain Modeling 1 point 4 hours ago
Why is iron written as "cheaper" in quotes as if the journalist doesn't believe iron costs less?
[–] copypaper2 1 point 3 hours ago
This is great news! Hydrogen was always the answer. Electric batteries is just a side quest.
[–] JTibbs 1 point 2 hours ago
Hydrogen is definitely NOT the answer. I dont think you realize the sheer difficulty that
exists in creating a distribution network for hydrogen, let alone consumer tanks.
Hydrogen was a knee jerk reaction from automobile Manufacturers who didnt want to
redesign their current Internal combustion engines and still pretend to be green.
Hydrogen is grossly inefficient as a fuel source, let alone the terrible handling requirements
making it wildly impractical.
Where does hydrogen come from? Natural gas and splitting water. Both actions are wildly
wasteful in terms of energy thanks to losing energy from the easier to store natural gas,
and from wastes from splitting the water molecule.
Fuel cell or alternative fuel vehicles will always be a niche industry for those that require
near instant refueling.
Battery tech is way better for 95% of consumers
[–] krom0025 PhD|Chemical Engineering 1 point 1 hour ago
You still have to make the hydrogen in the first place and that is the part that is more challenging
to do in a green way cheaply. Steam methane reforming is still by far the most efficient and cost
effective way to produce hydrogen, but it's not green. Without subsidies or carbon taxes, using
electrolysis or carbon capture does not make sense for businesses to invest in for large scale
applications.
[–] BigSmackisBack 1 point 1 hour ago
is it that surprising? Hydrogen is the most reactive element in existence.

[–] mcon96 [score hidden] 34 minutes ago
In lab tests, the team were able to demonstrate that their single-atom iron catalyst has a
performance that nearly matches that of platinum-based catalysts when used in a real fuel cell
system.
I’m curious how far off “nearly” is. And whether they normalized it per mass/volume of catalyst or
just overloaded their lab experiment with catalyst.
Specifically, we used a unique synthetic method, called transmetallation, to avoid forming iron
clusters during synthesis.
The real question is if this is a catalyst synthesis method that can easily be scaled up or not. If they
can only make these in lab-scale batches, it doesn’t sound feasible. If it can be scaled up well, this
could be promising.
about help apps & tools <3

blog site rules Reddit for iPhone reddit premium
about Reddit help center Reddit for Android reddit coins
advertising reddiquette mobile website
careers mod guidelines
contact us
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2022 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
Advertise - lifestyles
css by /u/qtx π

Hydrogen Catalyst Breakthrough Reduces Reliance On Expensive Platinum

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrogen Catalyst Breakthrough Reduces Reliance On Expensive Platinum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/26/22, 3:13 PM Hydrogen catalyst breakthrough reduces reliance on expensive platinum : science

the NEW REDDIT JOURNAL of SCIENCE

Submitted on 26 Apr 2022

Hydrogen catalyst breakthrough https://redd.it/uc9dp8

sorted by: best (suggested)

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated Welcome to r/science

permalink embed save report reply Comment Rules

Dental plan… oh wait, wrong one. 7. Repeat or flagrant offenders will be

[–] PageOfLite 37 points 5 hours ago

[–] RutzPacific 18 points 5 hours ago

[–] Wanker-of-Harganeth 17 points 7 hours ago MODERATORS

Iron Age is back MESSAGE THE MODS

I... am an Iron Stan. < > discussions in r/science X

permalink embed save parent report reply

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] indrada90 -1 points 3 hours ago

[–] hruebsj3i6nunwp29 1 point 3 hours ago

[–] mdonaberger 8 points 5 hours ago

[–] ebow77 5 points 3 hours ago

That's it young man, no science journals for you tonight.

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] ExParrot1337 0 points 3 hours ago

[–] morf11r 0 points 1 hour ago

because it's ironic

[–] PolyNeoYeo 1 point 3 hours ago

[–] Vipu2 187 points 8 hours ago

[–] StarksTwins 489 points 7 hours ago*

[–] olderaccount 91 points 6 hours ago

[–] ianhiggs 75 points 4 hours ago

[–] -wellplayed- 28 points 4 hours ago

continue this thread

[–] olderaccount 2 points 4 hours ago

continue this thread

[–] hallese 2 points 3 hours ago

We should develop some sort of protomolecule that can take care of

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] GhoulboyScoob 12 points 4 hours ago

Minor, routine maintenance.

[–] olderaccount 11 points 4 hours ago

continue this thread

[–] Solon256 1 point 4 hours ago

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Wonderful_Mud_420 115 points 7 hours ago

[–] DaPickle3 -1 points 7 hours ago

Different type of catalyst

[–] theksepyro 71 points 7 hours ago

continue this thread

[–] TikkiTakiTomtom 8 points 6 hours ago

Same catalyst. Different application you mean.

continue this thread

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] BeaconSlash 15 points 7 hours ago

[–] StrangeCharmVote 27 points 7 hours ago

I believe they mean it make the reaction occur easier.

[–] Dionysusigma 2 points 6 hours ago

I believe they mean it make the reaction occur easier.

Would a good analogy be if you were making lemonade and after

continue this thread

[–] axonxorz 14 points 7 hours ago

continue this thread

[–] omgtater 7 points 7 hours ago

Seems like a translation error. Catalysts reduce activation energy