Slashdot Mirror
Mimicking Photosynthesis To Split Water
plantsdoitsocanwe writes "An international team of researchers led by Monash University has used chemicals found in plants to replicate a key process in photosynthesis, paving the way to a new approach that uses sunlight to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The breakthrough could revolutionize the renewable energy industry by making hydrogen — touted as the clean, green fuel of the future — cheaper and easier to produce on a commercial scale." This was a laboratory demonstration only and the researchers say they need to bring up the efficiency.
This was a laboratory demonstration only and the researchers say they need to bring up the efficiency.
Shame on you, submitter. This is Slashdot, you're supposed to write a sensational story and let the comments tell us why it actually won't work. If you're going to write things that make sense and treat us like adults, you're missing the entire point.
We are in a phase similar to the Cambrian Explosion, when all sorts of lifeforms with weird body plans gave it a shot . . . but which were winnowed down to a few by the time things started to crawl on land. Chances are just a few of the many alternative energy techniques being fooled about with will pan out commercially . . . but this is a necessary process.
Now, cue the cranky "Gee, Slashdot posts stories about dramatic advances in solar energy all the time; why doesn't my car run on solar cells yet?" posts.
This was a laboratory demonstration only and the researchers say they need to bring up the efficiency.
There have been numerous such laboratory demonstrations on different ways to produce hydrogen easily. But the attempts to bring up efficiency are just what failed.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
Let's give them some credit at least. They've managed a break through in science and just because it's not perfected yet, you feel the need to disregard it completely? They obviously know it needs more work, they admitted so in TFA.
Give 'em a break man.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett
Papers always suggest more work. I've not once in my life seen a paper that said "Nope, that's it, we're done here" :)
It is easy to get a breakthrough in one criteria if you shaft the other ones.
As an example, you could very well produce hydrogen very efficiently from sunlight without any fancy tech by simply focusing enough sunlight to raise the temperature to 2500 C, at which point water spontaneously separates into hydrogen and oxygen through thermolysis. This would be possible completely without moving parts, no toxic materials, and no new technology.
Problem? It would be much more expensive than making hydrogen from natural gas.
This is why these vapourware stories are so useless. There will be a vast number of ways to convert solar energy into hydrogen or electricity, I could start listing various ways to do it in all kinds of elabourate manners, but it does not mean any of them are good, nor does it mean any one of them is likely to be more efficient than simply using a conventional steam turbine and solar concentrators.
Seriously, what you are attempting to beat is something which, depending on temperature achieved, can have up to 40% conversion efficiency, economies of scale, and uses well tested technology. When you can beat solar thermal then you can start trying to have a go at nuclear or coal, which have a number of other advantages. Simply finding yet another way to convert solar energy into useful work is quite a different thing from solving our energy problems.
Actually, your answer to why your car doesn't run on solar yet is rather simple. Because we haven't needed solar power to win a war yet. Nuclear got everything it needed to get off the ground, working, demonstrated, and dropped. It was needed to fight a war. Radio, space ships, etc? Same things. The US Military is just starting to come to the conclusion that half their vehicles exist solely to deliver fuel and supplies to the other half(the fighting half) and that there is a huge risk in running tankers full of Diesel and gas to forward areas, as they become very easy targets. Destroy the supply lines, and those 70Ton M1A tanks become very large, immobile targets. Add to that, the skyrocketing cost of fuel the military has to buy. (not to mention, the huge costs of keeping 50% of your peopled tied up in support roles).
THat is why the military is starting to look at things like solar, small nuclear plants, etc. They are looking at hybrid vehicles that work like a train, the whole powertrain is electric, powered by a generator. Some of these vehicles are pretty cool, they could sit there and idle at the forward CP, and you just plug all your radios and equipment into the truck. No need to lug a generator with you.
I have a feeling things are going to improve quite quickly over the next few years. Nothing improves technology like fat government contracts!
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
When a scientist tells you he has all the answers in his field, he's a liar.
This sounds like a bit of a red herring to me.
Are you saying that we should abandon any new idea or technology if, in its infancy, it isn't better than what we already have? I think that would put an end to a great deal of innovation that we could benefit from in the future.
they must be working up to the atom. this means war! bomb the crap out of those planty bastards.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v46/i17/p1153_1
The
Gas as in gasoline is rarer the hen's teeth in the US Army, the only place I remember it being used is in the mess for running stoves, ovens, and water heaters; and I retired back in 1985. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't new stoves that ran on JP4, military jet fuel and or water-clear kerosene by now. Gasoline is just nasty dangerously flamable stuff especially around bombs and bullets.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
either that or they are trying to sell you something ~
I think this is awesome news personally.
Next stop: Cold fusion! :)
This doesn't deserve to be in the same basket as cold fusion. 250 000 species of plants can't be wrong!
I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
You don't win friends with salad.
How about we let them work out the bugs before posting to slashdot?
Two reasons:
1) The possibility is interesting even if the probability is currently uncertain. ("Of what use is a baby?")
2) Even if it was obvious that the process couldn't be scaled up in any economically feasible manner, it's still interesting to some people on a basic science level.
No, I'm merely saying that the fact that you can invent many different ways of doing soemthing is in no way an indication that fundamental problems with it will suddenly vanish. It is not rational to expect solar to suddenly become a silver bullet merely because there is a lot of proposed ways to make solar cells.
Perhaps an analogy is in order. There are LOADS of ways to convert nuclear energy into electricity. There's turbines, direct electrostatic conversion, magnetohydrodynamics, thermoelectric solid state devices, sterling engines, brayton cycles, thermochemical hydrogen production, high temperature electrolysis, etc etc...
Now despite of this you don't see people randomly assuming the price of nuclear is going to drop by a factor of ten within "a few years", because people know that with nuclear, as with solar, and as with coal, the most efficient ( in watts/dollar terms ) generation scheme is to heat one side of a turbine and cool the other one. The other techniques, while interesting from a scientific perspective, are simply inferior in one way or another. They may be inefficient, fragile, may not scale, may involve expensive materials / maintainence etc...
What gets on my nerves with the way these solar technologies are described as major breakthroughs is that they ALWAYS, without exception, are described as something which will revolutionise the energy situation, without as much as a shed of proof that they will even be economical, durable, efficient... They are always along the lines of "Here is yet another way to use solar energy, IF it turns out to be cheap ( which we have no evidence suggesting it will be ) THEN it will change the world.".
That's not a breakthrough, it's speculation of greener grass with no evidence to back it up.
You know what a joke during the early times of the Newcomen steam engine was? You need three mines to run a steam engine. One mine where you apply it, one coal mine to fire it and one silver mine to pay for it.
Know what? It changed.
If people would've taken the position you have now and ignore Newcomen's development, the industrial revolution would not have happened, at least not in the way we know it. Yes, the steam engine was horribly inefficient and in most cases uneconomical until Watt made his improvements. After that, though... well, you know history I'm sure.
What we have here is not even yet the equivalent of a Newcomen machine. This has a long, long way to go, give it a decade and good funding and this can go a long way.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In the late 1980s a mountaineering stove came out that could run on those fuels - the whisperlight international. Admittedly one of the first of them was hurled into a crevasse on Mt Erebus in Antarctica by a critic. However the later ones were better and there have been lot of other multi-fuel stoves since then.
How many plants move around? How many animals use photosynthesis to get the energy to move around? What is the ratio of plannts / animals in the world?
If evolution is a teacher it is telling us that sunlight is so diffuse that you need vast areas of collectors to power even a small number of things that move about. Unfortunately, we want to move a lot of stuff using minimal impact on our surroundings, so we want something less diffuse in nature.
Photosynthesis has a maximum theoretical efficiency of about 11% from sunlight into energy stored in biomass (eg. the plant). But in the wild, it's only 3-6% efficient.
Familiar PV cells already get 15-25% efficiency; experimental concentration cells get over 45%. And the PV outputs electric current, not just biomass to burn inefficiently.
Those cells cost a lot more energy to make than plants do, but they last over 30 years, while most plants don't.
I'm not so sure that mimicking photosynthesis is such a great way to go.
--
make install -not war
That clearly depends on its tensile strength.
Nah, after GUT there's still TOE to shoot for. And after TOE we can really start developing theories about parallel universes with twisted GUTs and ticklish TOEs. There's always more work.
And if all else fails, there's always the "soft" humanist sciences. There's as much work there as you can make up.
porn.
everything's been done in porn...
They are not claiming a breakthrough in energy production, they claim to have made a breakthrough in artificial photosynthisis, no small feat IMHO. Also the CSIRO are not in the habit of making unsubstantiated claims and their evidence has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
It's pretty obvious you are looking for a different breakthrough and it's a certainty you won't find it if you are unwilling to entertain NEW knowledge that MAY be relevant.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This wasn't an engineering design, it was pure research. "Can we do this?"
The answer is yes. Now the engineers can try to find a way to do it within constraints, whether environmental, economical or both.
TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!
How many animals use photosynthesis to get the energy to move around?
Ultimately, all of them.
What is the ratio of plants / animals in the world?
It is extremely high, necessarily.
Compact energy sources are finite and have quite significant impact on our surroundings. In order to move the most amount of stuff possible, humans must learn to disintermediate plants.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Cows move about. They get their energy to do so by eating grass.
So indirectly, cows are solar-powered, aren't they ?
The Bigger The Headache The Bigger the Pill
No, they're starting with the exact same (expensive) membrane used in fuel cells -- nafion. They've just taken this membrane and added a manganese-based catalyst to it.
I'm amazed that most people never point out the huge, glaring flaw in this notion of setting up big solar electrolysis plants in the sunny desert southwest. Let's ignore the problems of how corrosive the released hydrogen is to your system, which usually makes solar electrolysis have short lifespans. Let's do the same with the free oxygen. And the water. And let's ignore algae growth, which is a problem in most systems that mess with water. And let's ignore hydrogen embrittlement when it comes to raising storage and transportation costs. And let's ignore how huge hydrogen storage tanks have to be due to its very low density, a fact that makes the prior issue even worse. And let's ignore that it has a ridiculously low ignition energy, burns in almost any fuel-air mix, readily evolves deflagrations to detonations, pools under overhangs, enters pipes and follows them to their destinations, burns clear and vigorously, and so on. And let's ignore that leaked hydrogen destroys ozone. And let's ignore that fuel cell stacks are quite inefficient, and that a fuel cell stack strong enough to power a car will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars. We're talking about *consuming lots of water in a desert* -- enough to power vehicles around the world. What the heck kind of plan is that?
Electricity is our common energy storage and usage medium. Why are we talking about "very low" efficiency, in-the-lab, probably horrible lifespan and very costly hydrogen-solar cells when we could put photovoltaic cells or solar thermal on the same land, get much better effiency from a much cheaper system, transmit the electricity efficiently (92.8% average in the US), rectify it efficiently (~93% charger efficiency), charge/discharge it efficiencly (96%-99.9% in li-ion), and convert that to kinetic energy efficiently (85-90% typical electric motor efficiency in a normal drivecycle), in a vehicle that uses batteries that cost *literally* an order of magnitude less than said fuel cells, can level-3 charge in as little as 5-15 minutes (depending on the type), and have longer lifespans to boot?
The "hydrogen economy" is just a silly concept; nothing about it makes sense in comparison to an EV economy with modern automotive li-ion batteries.
I once listened to a Philip Glass record for an hour and a half before I realized it was skipping.