Slashdot Mirror
New Solar Cells Can Convert CO2 Into Hydrocarbon Fuel (nextbigfuture.com)
"Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago have engineered a potentially game-changing solar cell that cheaply and efficiently converts atmospheric carbon dioxide directly into usable hydrocarbon fuel, using only sunlight for energy," reports Next Big Future. Slashdot reader William Robinson writes:
This artificial leaf delivers syngas, or synthesis gas, a mixture of hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide. Syngas can be burned directly, or converted into diesel or other hydrocarbon fuels. The discovery opens up possibilities of clean reusable energy.
"A solar farm of such 'artificial leaves' could remove significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and produce energy-dense fuel efficiently..." according to the article, which adds that the process could prove useful in the high-carbon atmosphere of Mars. "Unlike conventional solar cells, which convert sunlight into electricity that must be stored in heavy batteries, the new device essentially does the work of plants, converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into fuel, solving two crucial problems at once."
"A solar farm of such 'artificial leaves' could remove significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and produce energy-dense fuel efficiently..." according to the article, which adds that the process could prove useful in the high-carbon atmosphere of Mars. "Unlike conventional solar cells, which convert sunlight into electricity that must be stored in heavy batteries, the new device essentially does the work of plants, converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into fuel, solving two crucial problems at once."
I don't find this potential product interesting. I don't think that's the point. The 30,000ft view here is an argument over whether we should rely on technological advancement and wealth creation to solve environmental concerns or rely on conservation and lower economic output. People like to say "do both", but there is some component of each that retards the other, so doing both is probably worse than doing one or the other, at least on a slightly over simplistic macro scale.
The chief reason that this will likely get borked is that control of the energy will shift away from the state and back to the individual like it is now. Powering transportation solely on electricity gives the state the ability to decide when, where, and how much you can use because it's a public utility but under the legal control of the state. The state can choose to legally ban your use of a public utility. That doesn't happen too often but it can. When energy is distributed by private enterprise with multiple distributors competing the marketplace, you get to choose where, when, and how much. Furthermore, with a public utility, you have no say in how much it costs. With multiple, competing distributors, you can decide not to buy your energy from the stupid expensive place around the corner and instead go over to Costco and buy it for 5-10% less.
You convert CO2 in CO. Then you oxidize it to get CO2 back. No CO2 sequestration at all! So, how would this be better than photovoltaic cells?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.