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."
Then in ten years we will wonder what the fuck happened.
I don't care what researchers think they discovered, unless you can sell a working model it's all bullshit.
No word on what they plan to do with the massive amounts of carbon monoxide this will create as a byproduct?
Whether or not this is interesting really depends on the expected power / area and cost (production and operating) of an engineering version. It is better than bio-fuels by those measures?
Because so far most of these carbon removing technologies fall way short of just planting a grove of trees. This seems like one of those problems where maybe nature is handing us a simpler solution. But for the sake of science (and keeping that funding flowing) we go out of our way to make a less efficient, more expensive machine to do the job that a tree will do for free.
And how much energy does it take to extract CO2 from the atmosphere regardless of the conversion process? Are both processes efficient enough to warrant not simply using all the work for ... well work?
We are such in a deep shit, that for a such technology to become a game changer, you must not patent it to be used in such a tremendous scale like Salk did to provide a vaccine that help eradicate the polio virus...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Otherwise, it will be business as usual....
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.
So these leaves also need water (or other hydrogen compounds) from either the air or supply!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
How long before a big oil company buys this up and hides it forever. I don't know if this forum remembers back in the early 90's, Popular Mechanics magazine had an article about a newly patented bacteria that when spread over household garbage and landfill materials it would eat the garbage and produce methanol as its waste. Where is that now?
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.
Will still get warm, perhaps not as fast, but it will. Talk to evolution about that.
And nobody will still do nothing about it, oh, that's in the future, I'm worried about NOW!
OK, suppose you can make syngas etc. this way. Then, when the fuel is burnt, the pollution is right back in the atmosphere again. No progress has been made, eh?
I have a nice way to transform Hydrocarbon fuels into CO2
aaaaaaa
Because if not, I fail to see any significant advantage.
I'm not saying this to be just contradictory to any new development in the energy industry... this is a serious question. If the amount usable energy that can be obtained by the fuel it produces in terms of energy per dollar of investment spent on the technology is not any better than what you can get from modern efficient solar cells then it makes much more sense to use solar power and electricity instead.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
On mars? Yes much better than a tree.
Yes!
Where you can grow plants and get bio-diesel, plants are in competition with this device.
Where you can't grow plants efficiently or at all - like Mars or my apartment balcony (they keep dying because I keep forgetting to water them), this may be interesting if it's better than other sunlight-to-energy systems.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I smell Unicorn farts.
It does solve the storage problem though. Unlike plain solar, you don't need to buy a huge bank of batteries if you want to use it later. Much of the efficiency of solar comes from the fact that you get electricity directly, and electricity is what you use. As soon as you want the energy in a lightweight and portable form, solar loses its efficiency.
So the main competition for this technology is not regular solar, but plants and algae, which are much cheaper to grow.
THERE IS NO OXYGEN ON MARS!
Sometimes the efficiency is not per dollar, but energy per kg of weight. Or the efficiency is in terms of availability irrespective of time, place or weather. Liquid fuels sometimes have advantages. A carbon neutral process would be incredible.
It sounds a lot like a ... tree!
an ill wind that blows no good
Then in ten years we will wonder what the fuck happened.
The main reason most of these things don't come to market is that inventions are coming so rapidly that something BETTER comes along and obsoletes them before they reach manufacturing and deployment.
Nevertheless, enough make it that things are improving substantially. For instance: Photovoltaic prices recently "crossed-over" grid power costs for much of the temperate-zone sunny sites - even without further government subsidies on manufacture and installation. That's a BIG change from a decade ago.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
CO2 + photon --> C + O2
We already have a working prototype cell that turns sunlight and CO2 into a burnable fuel.
You might already be familiar with them. They call them "trees."
Energy density (I assume you mean energy produced in a given amount of time with a given surface area, e.g. watts/square centimeter) isn't the only factor that counts.
How you intend to use or store the energy is also a factor.
Pure solar typically produces either heat (sterling engine) or DC power (typical solar cell) as its direct output. Some solar devices include add-ons to convert that energy into battery storage, mechanical energy, AC power, fuel, or some other form of energy.
This device appears to produce useful chemicals (hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide gas) as its direct output.
The decision of which is "better FOR YOU" needs to include the question "what form do you want the energy to be in, and what's the best way to get from sunlight to that form?"
Unless you want one of the "direct outputs" listed above, you are probably looking at using a multi-step process and the "energy density" of the first step is no longer the only factor.
If you do want one of the "direct outputs" listed above (DC power, heat, or CO+H2) , you probably will go with the technology that gives it to you directly unless there's a cheaper, but possibly more-complicated, process to get what you want (maybe you want CO+H2 but your investor or the agency that funds your grants will give you money for "proven technologies" but not for "novel or unproven ones" making the cost of traditional solar much cheaper FOR YOU).
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
That train left a long while ago. It's the economy, stupid. And the stupid economy needs to grow. GROW! GROW! More! Exponential functions are grand!
If you'd thrown in
"We need to make the economy HUGE, I tell you HUGE, and trust me folks, it's gonna be HUGE under my plan. I understand the economy, and only my exponential functions can grow it. It's gonna be HUGE I tell you. Trust me."
I would've given you an A.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Converts carbon dioxide into fuel? Take your pick of the problem you want to solve.
a) Reduce Carbon dioxide content in atmosphere -> pump the resulting fuel into underground reservoirs, basically restocking mineral oil.
b) produce fuel
Once you consume the fuel, you don't have a net reduction in carbon dioxide. Choose the problem you want to solve but you don't get both.
James May showcased a a solar furnace on one of his documentaries that did this nearly a decade ago but I've still not seen anything happen beyond that.
It was exciting as it had almost no running costs; Just needed the initial money to build the thing and a lot of sunlight, but I haven't heard a peep since
So does this mean solar energy will be used to convert one greenhouse gas (CO2) to a more potent greenhouse gas (CH4)? Now that's progress!
you will NEVER be able to walk into a local Home Depot and buy one. Not tomorrow, not 5 years from now.
I hear about solar panels as clear as glass a few years ago, that you could put on all the windows in your house to generate cheap electricity.. Still don't see them on the market, don't expect I ever will.
For whatever reason, maybe its oil company conspiracy, maybe the ideas were fake to begin with, who knows, we see news about all kinds of new technology concepts, that NEVER COME TO FRUITION.
They claim to have a process to convert sunlight "directly" into synthesized fuel but in the photos and the description we see a common off the shelf photovoltaic cell in the process. Therefore this process is tied to the efficiencies of photovoltaics, and that the process can be driven by other electricity sources, such as wind, hydro, or nuclear.
I've seen something very similar being investigated by the US Navy, the difference is that the Navy powers the process from nuclear power. They might have some new materials, techniques, etc. where they take the electricity to make the synthetic gas but the solar powered half of the process can be trivially replaced with a different electricity source.
IMHO, they used the solar power aspect of this to "greenwash" it so that they can more easily get federal funding. Had they used a more practical and reliable electricity source, like hydro, coal, or nuclear, or had they left the electricity source unmentioned, then they'd not get the publicity they have. Don't get me wrong, I'm hating the game, not the players. They played the game admirably. Now they just need to get the attention of the US Navy and then they can get some real funding.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Perfect is the enemy of good
Here is the basic construction of the device from TFA:
"The UIC artificial leaf consists of two silicon triple-junction photovoltaic cells of 18 square centimeters to harvest light; the tungsten diselenide and ionic liquid co-catalyst system on the cathode side; and cobalt oxide in potassium phosphate electrolyte on the anode side."
So, the cathode is immersed in a combination of water and ethyl-methyl-imidazolium tetrafluoroborate (from TFA).
The anode is immersed also in an electrolyte.
The result is that "hydrogen and carbon monoxide gas bubble up from the cathode, while free oxygen and hydrogen ions are produced at the anode." (From TFA)
There's a big piece missing here: how does the CO2 from the atmosphere get to the cathode to be catalyzed, as it is immersed in this ionic fluid? Where does the Hydrogen come from - the electrolyte? It must, because there is no other place for it to come from. This means that the electrolyte is consumed unless it reclaims the Hydrogen, which we've been told is not the point.
So, the questions I have are:
1) How does CO2 get from the atmosphere to the cathode?
2) If the electrolyte is consumed in the process, does the H come from the water in the mix or from the ethyl-methyl-imidazolium tetrafluoroborate? (Slightly less bad if all we have to do is add water, but the fact they don't answer this question leads me to believe the H comes from the ethyl-methyl-imidazolium tetrafluoroborate)
3) Since we're releasing H and CO from the electrolyte in which the cathode is immersed, then we must also necessarily release Oxygen, both from the CO2, and from the electrolyte if it is the water being electrolyzed. Why do they not mention Oxygen bubbling up from the cathode, as it must?
For the laymen people (like me) this article looks like a few that were published years ago. Can someone tell us the difference between this discovery and the ones that were previously published like: http://m.phys.org/news/2012-06-weizmann-solar-technology-greenhouse-gas.html
Thanks!
I can't even plant enough switchgrass, harvest it, and make enough ethanol. Even if I could strip mine my backyard for coal, it would have to be half a mile thick to handle my transportation needs for the rest of my life, and coal just doesn't come that way.
Neither fossil fuels nor biofuels can fuel my transportation needs. Either I'm not allowed to utilize them (and wouldn't want to, because of the stench), or they literally aren't energy-dense enough, respectively.
Growing enough biofuel may be possible with a decently sized swimming pool and suitable algae species, some of which contain 43% of their mass in lipids. Biomass yield in open ponds can reach 5-10 g per m and day or more, bioreactors can increase this even further.
Reading TFA, I noticed an interesting point:
The process doesn't require light. It uses silicon photovoltaics providing power to a "reverse fuel cell" which coverts CO2 and H2O to H2 and CO (which the Fischer-Tropsch process can turn into diesel fuel, light crude, etc.)
This means the process doesn't have to be deployed as solar panels. It could also be run in an enclosed reactor, driven by electricity. This could be used to turn power from fusion, fission, wind, space-collected-and-downlinked solar, or what have you into oil fuels and chemical feedstocks. (Of course if your prime-mover is solar panels, deploying this combined device might be the easiest/cheapest way to extract the CO2 from the atmosphere.)
Even if the electricity-to-syngas is 100%, using it to make liquid fuel means you're burning post-carnot-cycle energy into liquid fuel. If you then burn it in a heat engine you get to pay the carnot cycle tax again. So from an efficiency standpoint, if you use it to drive vehicles with heat-engines (rather than, say, fuel cells) you won't beat battry-electrics. But without deployment of better batteries the total system price and/or efficiency may be better. Or it may be worth the penalty for the extended range, faster refueling, or ability to use electrical energy from any source to fuel liquid-fuel vehicles or produce chemical feedstocks.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The installed cost may have 'crossed over' - but as the increasing problems being revealed over maintaining base load when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing indicates that this is because the real costs aren't being accounted for.
There would need to be thousands of square miles of these devices to be able to replace the current fuel usage.
Think about the energy used by vehicles vs the amount of energy from the sun per square metre.
Not viable.
Can you smartass moderator see any flaming in these replies?
If anything that contradicts (or questions) the main topic is flamebait or troll, then you are done with free speach.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Did anyone else read the name as Robin Williams? =(
Because "sell a working model" equals "making up stuff". You stupid troll.
Wind PPAs in central US were even cheaper, some 2-2.5 cnt/kWh last year (although it may go up few years later when 2.3 cnt/kWh subsidy will expire).
PV is still useless for grid above certain share point. The best it can do is displace fuel certain natural gas electric plants but at 20% capacity factor it is not much. Hydro capacity is way too small to help significantly. Fossil fuel electric plants are still needed to be ready to provide peak power at the same level as without PV. Not to mention thermal energy needs that are higher than electricity needs. Energy that can be stored at large scale (hydrocarbons or hydrogen) over winter are much more useful than netmetered PV sandbox game.
"converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into fuel, solving two crucial problems at once"
Solving a problem, assuming this means removing CO2 from atmosphere. This sounds like a zero sum game, remove but burning the fuel places back into the atmosphere. Unless the process can create other hydrocarbon based products like plastics.
On a positive side, if this means burning less fossil fuels then hopefully slow additional CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere.
The main reason most of these things don't come to market is that inventions are coming so rapidly that something BETTER comes along and obsoletes them before they reach manufacturing and deployment.
Ok... so when will I have a flying saucer?
Just kidding. Someone has to get behind it and sell it. There are lots of pitfalls here, mostly due to people that hate companies. They put up all kinds of regulations. If the gasoline car were introduced today, they'd squash it. Oh it's terrible, the fuel can explode and kill millions! Think of the children. We'd probably never be able to park a car in a garage.
I say that because I've seen some of the BS with hydrogen.
Here's hoping! Maybe we can get something sustainable in my lifetime.
Plants and algae have nowhere near the efficiency of solar sells at converting light into usable power. Even very cheap solar cells are more than ten times more efficient than plants.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Here's hoping! Maybe we can get something sustainable in my lifetime.
The sooner the better! I have some more bad news on our bet. Last month was the hottest July on record. In fact, every month this year has set a record. Take a look at the current peak compared to the previous one in 2010. We've had about 0.25C warming just over the last 6 years!
You were quite confident that 2016 would be cooler than 2015. Any thoughts on why things are turning out so much different than you had anticipated?