For reasons explained before, we'll likely all be driving electric cars long before we ever see mass-market vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells, which was once the great clean-car hope. Still, the fuel-cell approach is obviously worth researching, and now researchers have lit upon a particularly promising fuel source. Oh yes, urine:
Using hydrogen to power cars has become an increasingly attractive transportation fuel, as the only emission produced is water - but a major stumbling block is the lack of a cheap, renewable source of the fuel. Gerardine Botte of Ohio University may now have found the answer, using an electrolytic approach to produce hydrogen from urine—the most abundant waste on Earth—at a fraction of the cost of producing hydrogen from water.
Urine's major constituent is urea, which incorporates four hydrogen atoms per molecule—importantly, less tightly bonded than the hydrogen atoms in water molecules. Botte used electrolysis to break the molecule apart, developing an inexpensive new nickel-based electrode to selectively and efficiently oxidise the urea. To break the molecule down, a voltage of 0.37V needs to be applied across the cell—much less than the 1.23V needed to split water.
Good to know! Meanwhile, there's an opposing school of thought that, while piss-powered cars are awfully promising, we should really be conserving our urine for other, more important ecological purposes:
However, Logan does feel that it would be a good idea to start saving up our urine—although not for the hydrogen. 'You have to remember about the P [phosphorus] in pee—globally we need to start thinking about conserving phosphorus for fertiliser, because, just like oil, one day the deposits are all going to run out and we need to start building phosphorus recycling into our infrastructure,' he says.
More on peak phosphorous here.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (3)
But oxydising urea does not reduce the P out of the pee, only takes the H out of it (and a good thing too - would YOU want loose Hydrogen in your pee?). So I am not sure why the two are incompatible.
Collecting P, or rather pee, has the advantage that it would reduce, presumably, the amount of water needed to flush it into our lakes and rivers. And it could lead to a whole new line of environmentally conscious pubs for beer-drinking louts. In fact, I can see BPee subsidizing beer consumption in the North of England just to collect the pee as a new North Sea oil. There will be pee collection sites in all the backalleys of Rome - "Protect the environment, pee in the street" being the next m ... view full comment
But oxydising urea does not reduce the P out of the pee, only takes the H out of it (and a good thing too - would YOU want loose Hydrogen in your pee?). So I am not sure why the two are incompatible.
Collecting P, or rather pee, has the advantage that it would reduce, presumably, the amount of water needed to flush it into our lakes and rivers. And it could lead to a whole new line of environmentally conscious pubs for beer-drinking louts. In fact, I can see BPee subsidizing beer consumption in the North of England just to collect the pee as a new North Sea oil. There will be pee collection sites in all the backalleys of Rome - "Protect the environment, pee in the street" being the next major slogan. Ah the possibilities are endless ...
Brad: you made my day - a wonderful end to a dreary week ...
That last point is intriguing. Are there any estimates on when we will reach Peak Fertilizer? Because while I'm just old enough to remember the false population-bomb scare of the 1970s -- sorry, Mr. Malthus! -- this phosphorus thing is serious. I mean, sure, we talk about living in an oil economy, but you could take away the oil tomorrow and we'd find other things to burn to make electricity, and as long as we have electricity, we'll have civilization. But take away the advanced phosphorous-based commercial fertilizers, and the carrying capacity of human agricultural output drops from something like 9 billion to something like 3 billion. There being 7 billion of us now, that's not good math ... view full comment
That last point is intriguing. Are there any estimates on when we will reach Peak Fertilizer? Because while I'm just old enough to remember the false population-bomb scare of the 1970s -- sorry, Mr. Malthus! -- this phosphorus thing is serious. I mean, sure, we talk about living in an oil economy, but you could take away the oil tomorrow and we'd find other things to burn to make electricity, and as long as we have electricity, we'll have civilization. But take away the advanced phosphorous-based commercial fertilizers, and the carrying capacity of human agricultural output drops from something like 9 billion to something like 3 billion. There being 7 billion of us now, that's not good math to be on the wrong side of. So when is Peak Fertilizer coming?
Smart citizens will get out ahead of this thing. Anyone know a good source for a whole lot of mason jars and electrolysis equipment? Also, we need a plan for unloading our soon-to-be-useless toilets before the save-your-urine thing hits the masses and porcelain values plummet. We can't all just sign our old toilets, put them on a pedestal in our libraries, and call them art, at least not after we've converted our libraries to pee-collecting phosphorous labs.
My son is a tank commander in the IDF. Inasmuch as tanks lack bathrooms (at least the Israeli Merkava (chariot) tank lacks a potty stall; Israel's new Nahmer (tiger) APC apparently does have a bathroom) the tank crew brings in soda bottles (preferably 1.5 L volume) into which to dispense their urine. According to my son, the wide-mouth Nestea bottles are the preferred choice for the tanked-up tankers. Less of a mess.
So instead of collecting used beverage bottles merely for recycling, maybe we should all take a tip from IDF tankers and pee into bottles before we bring them back to collect the deposit? Indeed a premium could be added to the cash deposit, as a function of the urea content of ... view full comment
My son is a tank commander in the IDF. Inasmuch as tanks lack bathrooms (at least the Israeli Merkava (chariot) tank lacks a potty stall; Israel's new Nahmer (tiger) APC apparently does have a bathroom) the tank crew brings in soda bottles (preferably 1.5 L volume) into which to dispense their urine. According to my son, the wide-mouth Nestea bottles are the preferred choice for the tanked-up tankers. Less of a mess.
So instead of collecting used beverage bottles merely for recycling, maybe we should all take a tip from IDF tankers and pee into bottles before we bring them back to collect the deposit? Indeed a premium could be added to the cash deposit, as a function of the urea content of pee deposit. Maybe we could even design cars & better yet busses with "direct deposit" devices to collect "unprocessed fuel" while people are driving or riding.
BTW, what happens to the rest of the urea molecule during electrolysis, specifically the carbon, oxygen, and 2 nitrogen atoms? Will this just create new pollutants that will have to be dealt with?
Hershel Ginsburg
Jerusalem / Efrata