Slashdot Mirror


Solar Cells Made From Bioluminescent Jellyfish

An anonymous reader writes "Swedish researchers have devised a way to turn bioluminescent jellyfish into solar cells. It works like this: the green fluorescent protein (GFP) that makes the Aequorea victoria glow is simply dripped onto a silicon dioxide substrate between two electrodes. The protein works itself into strands between the electrodes. When ultraviolet light is shined on the circuit, voila, the GFP absorbs photons and emits electrons, generating a current. The GFP-powered cells work like dye-sensitized solar cells, but don't require expensive materials such as titanium dioxide."

82 comments

  1. Could be worse by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

    Jellyfish could be using Human Beings to generate power.

    1. Re:Could be worse by xenapan · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I for one welcome our Jelly filled overlords!

      --
      insert funny sig here
    2. Re:Could be worse by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our Jelly filled overlords!

      Insert funny Homer Simpson quote here. MMMMMM..jelly filled donuts. Homer they're not jelly filled donuts, they're jellyfish overlords/Marge

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    3. Re:Could be worse by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      "Solars cells are made from jellyfish! They're jellyfish!" - Ty Thorn

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod -1 for improper form of "In Soviet Russia" joke.

    5. Re:Could be worse by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Jellyfish could be using Human Beings to generate power.

      Its the next Stimulus.

    6. Re:Could be worse by ian_from_brisbane · · Score: 0

      Mod -3 for never having seen The Matrix.

    7. Re:Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Stop harvesting everything from the ocean for exploitation by humans. In fact, harvesting humans from undesirable countries much be a better use of resources since their reproduction can be efficiently controlled and regulated within the corporate captives easily constructed near the place of work.

    8. Re:Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get back to me when humans start generating electron emitting proteins, or better yet have an organ that makes fossil fuels.

    9. Re:Could be worse by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 0

      I have one that produces GAS does that help

    10. Re:Could be worse by M8e · · Score: 1

      Yes, If you eat fossil foods you produce fossil methane.

    11. Re:Could be worse by somersault · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but did you just not even use capitals or punctuation in a post that's complaining about grammar? Not to mention using an unnecessary capital in the parenthesis.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    12. Re:Could be worse by daniorerio · · Score: 1

      You realize no jellyfish is going to be harmed for this right? This protein will just be made synthetically in the lab in bulk, which is way more efficient than isolating it from actual jellyfish.

      Yeah TFS is misleading, what else is new?

    13. Re:Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still waiting for the funny Homer Simpson quote.

  2. Spongebob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like that Spongebob eposide (Jellyfish Jelly on Krabby Paddies) was a PETA pre-emptive strick against this research.

    1. Re:Spongebob by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Gotta watch out for those pre-emptive stricks from PETA. :p

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:Spongebob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For God's sake, won't someone think of the jellyfish?!?

    3. Re:Spongebob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all, PETA wants us to save Sea Kittens.
      http://features.peta.org/PETASeaKittens/index.asp

      "Nobody would hurt a Sea Kitten!"

    4. Re:Spongebob by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      How they waste their money is between them and their donors.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  3. The Fools! by CompSci101 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Haven't they played any of the Metroid games? We're all doomed!

    C

    --
    The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
  4. So how many jellyfish would it to power a Tesla? by harrytuttle777 · · Score: 1

    np

  5. it's jellylicious by jewishbaconzombies · · Score: 1

    They also make a great fruit smoothy! Animals in a blender - for SCIENCE!

    Now where's my science blender - I feel another Daiquiri discovery coming on.

  6. This is not as much of a hardhack by Xiph · · Score: 1

    as it is a wethack.

    Being made from jellyfish just makes for even more bad jokes about wethacks.

    --
    Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
  7. output? by Taibhsear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's the output on these new cells? The article mentioned the efficiency of algae cells but not these bioluminescent cells.

    1. Re:output? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, how long do they last?

      Typical solar cells degrade significantly over time and pretty quickly. I'm thinking these would degrade even faster considering the biological nature of them.

    2. Re:output? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Commercial crystalline solar cells are typically rated to last 20-25 years and are often manufacturer-warrantied as such. Is that what you consider "pretty quickly"?

    3. Re:output? by StevenMaurer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you'd RTFA, you would have seen this snippet:

      The team has so far used a proof-of-concept device to power a clock. The sunlight-to-electricity efficiency of the device is only 0.1 per cent at present, compared with between 10 and 15 per cent for existing dye-sensitised solar cells, however. Screening different algae species to find the most productive electron donor might be one way to produce more juice.

      Eventually, algal cells could float out at sea, generating electricity from sunlight and seawater. "We might end up with less efficiency than [conventional] photovoltaics, but we think we can win on cost, and we don't require space where people want to live," says Bombelli.

      Of course, making electricity at sea isn't so nearly hard to do as it is to get the electricity to a place where it can be used.

    4. Re:output? by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      Algaelectricity

      Jellyfish are not the only sea creatures that can be exploited to generate energy: algae could power floating devices on the ocean wave. Adrian Fisher and Paolo Bombelli at the University of Cambridge and colleagues are developing biophotovoltaic devices based on algae and photosynthetic bacteria.

      The team deposit a film of photosynthetic cells on top of a transparent conductive electrode, which faces a carbon cathode seeded with platinum nanoparticles.

      When exposed to sunlight the algal cells begin splitting water and producing oxygen, electrons and protons. These would usually be used by the algae to convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds, but instead the device siphons them off to generate electricity, says Fisher. "The algal cells produce electrons very generously," he says.

      The team has so far used a proof-of-concept device to power a clock. The sunlight-to-electricity efficiency of the device is only 0.1 per cent at present, compared with between 10 and 15 per cent for existing dye-sensitised solar cells, however. Screening different algae species to find the most productive electron donor might be one way to produce more juice.

      Eventually, algal cells could float out at sea, generating electricity from sunlight and seawater. "We might end up with less efficiency than [conventional] photovoltaics, but we think we can win on cost, and we don't require space where people want to live," says Bombelli.

      I RTFA. That's what I meant. They only list the algal cells, not the jellyfish protein ones. The jellyfish are only referred to in order to link these two concepts together. The 0.1 percent efficiency is for the algal cells, not the jellyfish protein ones.

    5. Re:output? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical organic solar cells degrade quickly. Some of them have operate for just minutes, as exposure to light breaks them down.

      And I didn't bother reading the article, organic solar cells will only be used when the headline says anything about lifetime.

    6. Re:output? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the output on these new cells? The article mentioned the efficiency of algae cells but not these bioluminescent cells.

      How about some wicked optical or wireless transistors?

    7. Re:output? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that is in fact what I consider pretty quickly. You have to remember that they are degrading over that entire period. In 5 to 10 years you will be wanting for new cells because they will be outputting 25 to 50 percent of their original power. They "last" 20 years but you won't be getting much power if any by that point. This is written into the warranties as an expectation of power output over time.

      In general the cost of the cells is barely a break-even proposition compared to the power you get back. It's that simple.

      This changes as we get better technology but it ain't that great at the moment. (and no, subsidies don't count because we're still paying for it)

  8. Superfast Jellyfish by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

    The sea is radioactive

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  9. Re:So how many jellyfish would it to power a Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    7 pounds worth. But the owner would have to prove he's worth the sacrifice.

  10. I'll wait for the vegan alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds like a sustainable energy source but it's not vegan at all!
    Maybe in the future they'll grow giant blobs of it from genetically engineered jellyfish stem cells so you'll have the choice between bio, free range, or GMO solar panels.

  11. What time is it? by PsyciatricHelp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's Peanutbutter Jellyfish time, peanut butter jellyfish time.

  12. Expensive materials, whaa? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Titanium dioxide is dirt cheap, like $2 USD/kilogram cheap. Now, this might use some higher-purity version, but if they're using a "silicon dioxide substrate" they're already spending as much on reasonable SiO2 and its processing than the TiO2 is going to cost.

    I think it's cool research -- self-assembling stuff rocks -- but I'm dubious about their claim of the effectiveness of that particular cost reduction.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    1. Re:Expensive materials, whaa? by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they put this in toothpaste. That's probably why it costs upwards of $1.99 per frickin tube.

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    2. Re:Expensive materials, whaa? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I noticed that too... "titanium" is still sort of exotic, but titanium dioxide is the ingredient that makes today's paint cover so well, and is used in lots of other stuff too.

    3. Re:Expensive materials, whaa? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Titanium's only exotic because it's so hard to get from the oxide to the elemental form. But it's the ninth most common element on the planet: you can hardly move without tripping over the stuff. Yeah, they use it in paint, toothpaste, all sorts of things. Miserable to machine, though, and a little tricky to weld. It's also interesting because as far as I know it's the only element that'll burn in pure nitrogen, as well as oxygen/atmospheric.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    4. Re:Expensive materials, whaa? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      If memory serves me correctly, there was an article where a organic dye solar cell was Mac Gyvered from toothpaste and some berry juice a while ago.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:Expensive materials, whaa? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      TiO2 is a common pigment, I know it for dying plastic resin mainly. It's very cheap, common, very white, and UV resistant. The ideal pigment. So tfs must be wrong in this aspect indeed.

    6. Re:Expensive materials, whaa? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      as far as I know it's the only element that'll burn in pure nitrogen, as well as oxygen/atmospheric.

      Not magnesium?

      Magnesium, as in pure magnesium, is highly flammable and easily ignited when it is in powdered form, and less when in shavings. It corresponds to how much surface area of the metal is exposed to an oxider which is generally the oxygen in air. Magnesium will also burn without oxygen, it can burn in pure nitrogen gas or in carbon dioxide.

    7. Re:Expensive materials, whaa? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I did not know that! Ya learn something new every day. Especially interesting insofar as I've been trying to weld magnesium of late, and there are shielding gas mixes that contain 25% carbon dioxide. I think I'll stick with straight argon.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    8. Re:Expensive materials, whaa? by Xantheon · · Score: 1

      On:
      http://www.icis.com/v2/chemicals/9076545/titanium-dioxide/pricing.html ...
      Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) Prices and Pricing Information ...
      Updated to mid-August 2010 ...
      Asian titanium dioxide (TiO2) prices increased by 1-4% from $2,535-2,600/tonne CFR (cost and freight) Asia in mid-May to $2,550-2,700/tonne CFR Asia in end-July on the back of tightening supplies in the region. ...

  13. "don't require expensive materials.." by grumpyman · · Score: 1

    "such as titanium dioxide" but requires exotic Chinese cuisine ingredients????

  14. clearly this is the future of energy by curtix7 · · Score: 1

    Such a fuel cell could be used to power nano-devices embedded in living organisms, says Chiragwandi, for example to diagnose disease.

    is it just me or is this quote ridiculously buzzword-esque?

    or do they really think they have unlocked the key to nanotechnology and cured cancer?

  15. titanium dioxide, really? by Goldsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why would you say this? Maybe you meant indium tin oxide, which is expensive... but no, you use that one, but don't mention that in the press release.

    It's not likely that someone working with this protein, who has to purchase or make it for several thousand dollars per milligram makes this claim innocently (titanium dioxide is a few cents per gram, and GFP is already one of the most mass produced purified proteins out there, it's not going to get much cheaper anytime soon). Misleading blurbs like this are terrible for science; they propagate falsehoods and direct research funding away from promising sources.

    1. Re:titanium dioxide, really? by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Informative

      They are referring to expensive nanostructured titanium dioxide used in some solar cell technologies. The reporter, of course, is oblivious to the difference between that and the pigment in white housepaint.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:titanium dioxide, really? by BobisOnlyBob · · Score: 1

      Outta mod points - this should be marked Informative, I was also unaware of the difference between the two, and hence confused by why it would be considered expensive in solar cells.

    3. Re:titanium dioxide, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Titania is not expensive, "nanostructured" or not. http://www.advancedmaterials.us/22N-0801A.htm. A typical Dye-Sensitized Solar Cell used a film 12 um thick, so a kilo goes a long way.

    4. Re:titanium dioxide, really? by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      "Nanostructured?"

      Sorry, that's also BS. Spinning on a sol-gel solution is neither expensive nor "nanostructuring," and that can get you an excellent coating. You can also paint on an effective coating. If you've ever seen a self-cleaning window, and you have if you've used a car, you've seen a very cheap and effective photoactive TiO2 layer in action.

      The TiO2 in photochemical cells is never the expensive part. Platinum, ITO and the dye are all more expensive. These photoactive coatings are so cheap to produce they coat entire buildings with it in japan. It's a "pre-nanostructured" material. I realize there's a lot of research on nano-TiO2, but that's because people are still trying to figure out how it works, not because you need to use nano-scale material.

  16. Please advise by Itninja · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have not yet received my opinion assignment document from those we don't speak of, so I am not really sure what I am supposed to think about this. On one tentacle, anything helping to make photovoltaic material affordable is very good. But the other tentacle, harvesting (and likely destroying) scores of jellyfish to do so seems, well, creepy. I think I will need to wait until cable news tells me what to think.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:Please advise by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I have not yet received my opinion assignment document from those we don't speak of,

      Oh, we can speak of them, just not by name.

      On one tentacle, anything helping to make photovoltaic material affordable is very good.

      He-who-lies-dead-but-dreaming cares little for the affordability of non-fossil-fuel energy sources.

      But the other tentacle, harvesting (and likely destroying) scores of jellyfish to do so seems, well, creepy.

      Au contraire, mon frere. Jellyfish are but poor representations of Old Ones, and should be scoured from the seas lest we offend those who control the Cosmos.

      I think I will need to wait until cable news tells me what to think.

      Well that's just circular reasoning. We know that tentacled ones such as yourself control the cable news outlets, why would you need to watch them?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Please advise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now that is a great question. don't you have a "nurtural" center of advice? i don't mean your mother (;-)), i mean a form of discourse/a body of people/an organization.

  17. Oh silly slashdotters, when will you learn? by hellop2 · · Score: 1

    There is no such thing as new solar cell technology!!!!

    Please feel free to refute this fact with an example product.

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    1. Re:Oh silly slashdotters, when will you learn? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's all new kid! Now get off my lawn and stop your "I don't want to hear about it until I can buy it at Walmart" whining.
      It can take years before some really interesting discovery is incorporated into something you can buy at Walmart, or it may not end up there at all but instead have a specialised use.

  18. So... by Eggbloke · · Score: 1

    Does this mean cheap solar cells for the whole world? I'm guessing not.
    Anyone know why not?

    --
    I care not for your karma and your mod points.
    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because only the selected few are patient enough to wait until it is ready for market.

  19. What about photobleaching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fluorescent proteins denature over time as they are exposed to light (photobleaching). What will the lifetime of these cells be?

    1. Re:What about photobleaching? by Majkow · · Score: 1

      about 5 days after warranty expires typically.

  20. Wrong Section! by Acetylane_Rain · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, editor! This is in the wrong section.

    Jellyfish, strictly speaking, are software. (Unless you reinforce them with an exoskeleton.)

  21. To Paraphrase Kermit the Frog... by florescent_beige · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's not easy being bioluminescent.

    Like it wasn't bad enough these poor creatures spend their entire existence as lowly bags of goo. Now they have to spend half their time fleeing from horrific vertebrates that want to squeeze the life-goo right out of them for no discernible reason. Well, not actually fleeing. Trying to flee. Have you ever seen a jellyfish flee? It's sad. Pathetic really. Very slow. You can't even call it fleeing. It's more like moseying. "The jellyfish are moseying for their lives!" See what I mean? Poor things.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
  22. Now, how do you make an aquarium in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the back seat of a DeLorean?

  23. God I hate Amerikanisms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "When ultraviolet light is shined on the circuit"

    Is there such a word as "shined"?

    The post tense of shine is shone.

    Wasting my breath, I know

    1. Re:God I hate Amerikanisms by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Is there such a word as "shined"?

      Yes.

      Wasting my breath, I know.

      Use fingers.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:God I hate Amerikanisms by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Still sounds bad to me although technically correct, I'd go with
      "When the circiut is illuminated with ultraviolet light, ... " instead.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  24. Expensive? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    > expensive materials such as titanium dioxide

    Ummm, you mean common white paint?

    Maury

  25. Meh... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    Jellyfish would be spineless overlords. Attack them, and they'll just quiver in fear like, um, jelly.

    On the other hand, they'd be a much softer set of leaders than we have today, and they'd provide a more transparent leadership.

    1. Re:Meh... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Funny, but if you ever tangle with a jelly fish I promise you won't want to do it again. If we are going to start harvesting them, maybe a non-lethal weapon can be made from the venom...
      HALT or be really painfully stung!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  26. TiO2 is not expensive by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

    Somewhere around half a percent of the Earth itself and 1 percent of soil is titanium, so it isn't exactly rare. There's a large market for titanium dioxide in industrial quantities and it currently costs about $1.50 per pound.

    I couldn't find any sources of GFP in industrial quantities (or any industrial uses of it), but looking at the production costs of other recombinant proteins is telling. In 1997, heparinase I production was estimated to cost around $250,000 per pound with capital costs in the tens of millions of dollars for an annual production of only 3 kg. On the other hand, bovine somatotropin is currently produced, and costs about $6.60 per 500 mg dose, which works out to about $6000 per pound.

    I'm no expert, but the idea that GFP (a recombinant protein) is cheap and TiO2 (processed dirt) is expensive seems a bit strange to me. Can someone explain?

    --
    Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
  27. But are they any good at all by fnj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is the efficiency of these particular organic solar cells under ordinary solar radiation? What is their lifetime before the organic matter decays?

  28. bioluminescent jelly fish are going to be cheaper? by Uzik2 · · Score: 1

    Man, I gotta get into the titanium dioxide production business if bioluminescent jelly fish are going to be cheaper.
    There's gotta be a heck of a profit in there.

    --
    -- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
  29. Bioluminescent Mushrooms by jlencion · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this could also be done with bioluminescent mushrooms such as the Panellus stipticus.

    --
    Joe Lencioni | Shifting Pixel
  30. Sweet! by CeruleanDragon · · Score: 1

    Yet another species to exploit to extinction! Yay!

    --
    ad astra per alia porci
  31. Extinction unlikely by eyenot · · Score: 1

    You can just cultivate batches of jellyfish cells, you don't need whole, live jellyfish.

    In Florida, somebody on a lifeguard staff reached into a cooler and pulled out a coke bottle that looked like it was full of water but was full of water containing a batch of invisible jellyfish stinger cells. He drank it and survived with discomfort.

    Anyways you can just grow the shit, you don't need to kill more than probably one jellyfish to get it started, boo hoo if they all die, though. What are you using them for? Biodegradable mosquito nets?

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  32. Not the good way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Commercial products should not use kill other species to get materials.

  33. I saw on the Discovery Channel that Jelly Fish by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    Are actually thriving, to the detriment of other species.

    They reproduce so fast, and easily, as well as survive a ton of different conditions.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  34. TiO2? Expensive? by sugarmatic · · Score: 1

    At $2000 a ton, I'm left wondering how this incredibly ubiquitous material is considered expensive...perhaps someone can describe this to me. From my understanding, the TiO2 is applied using a caustic wash process, again very straightforward. I'm interested in knowing how this is difficult or expensive.