Posted on 05/10/2012 9:02:02 AM PDT by LibWhacker
ScienceDaily (May 9, 2012) — A detailed description of development of the first practical artificial leaf -- a milestone in the drive for sustainable energy that mimics the process, photosynthesis, that green plants use to convert water and sunlight into energy -- appears in the ACS journal Accounts of Chemical Research. The article notes that unlike earlier devices, which used costly ingredients, the new device is made from inexpensive materials and employs low-cost engineering and manufacturing processes.
Daniel G. Nocera points out that the artificial leaf responds to the vision of a famous Italian chemist who, in 1912, predicted that scientists one day would uncover the "guarded secret of plants." The most important of those, Nocera says, is the process that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. The artificial leaf has a sunlight collector sandwiched between two films that generate oxygen and hydrogen gas. When dropped into a jar of water in the sunlight, it bubbles away, releasing hydrogen that can be used in fuel cells to make electricity. These self-contained units are attractive for making fuel for electricity in remote places and the developing world, but designs demonstrated thus far rely on metals like platinum and manufacturing processes that make them cost-prohibitive.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
bookmark
Do these make more of themselves?
Bear fruit?
What's the point?....
...and how much did this cost?
Not a leaf at all, but an electrolysis device. It doesn’t make glucose. Phooey.
Do you know of any plants that produce free hydrogen as a result of photosynthesis?
That’s the magic of these leaves. If this stuff is really cheap to make, in terms of materials, it would be a great way for 24/7 power, as you could generate a surplus during the day of hydrogen, and run the same fuel cells during the night hours.
Until storage batteries advance far enough, we are basically stuck storing electricity in a different form than electrochemical potential.
Very cool, one to definitely keep an eye on. We’ll get there, it is just a matter of time.
All energy comes from the sun, it’s just a matter of how efficient we become at harvesting it. Waiting millions of years for the products of photosynthesis to decay into oil is the most inefficient, but convenient. This is the future.
Getting rid of platinum is a huge plus.
I don’t care how cheap you make a solar power generator you can still only expect the Sun to give you 120 watts per square meter per day. That is not a lot of power.
You also must factor in the opportunity cost. If you are using those square meters for the production of power or fuel you are not using them to produce food. If you use those dollars to buy solar cells you do not have those dollars to buy another means of power (mining or drilling).
Solar power is a last ditch method of power production that you turn too when nothing else is available. Wind also falls in to this area of power production. They produce expensive and unreliable power.
Yeah, they didn’t talk about that. Not sure how much the research cost. I’m guessing plants aren’t such a good solution because plants are basically selfish, doing photosynthesis for themselves, not us. So we end up scrounging byproducts, while the plant gets the lion’s share? But again, I’m definitely not a biologist, so what do I know? Secondly, seasonality must be a problem if you want to produce energy on a massive scale in temperate climates.
Damn! I just went “all-in” on algae!
/s, of course
The title is misleading.
Now, as someone who has worked with hydrogen under pressure, using this technology in the third world will be interesting, to say the least (chase down a MSDS on Hydrogen). Fuel cells might be a different matter.
Yeah. Like firewood.
too cheap to meter?
That’s nothing. I just nailed my radio to my tree and it doesn’t work.
I doubt it. The labor alone involved in producing it almost guarantees it won’t be free (unless we’re talking about the far future when robots do all the work).
[ The myth of cheap solar power continues to delude millions.
I don’t care how cheap you make a solar power generator you can still only expect the Sun to give you 120 watts per square meter per day. That is not a lot of power.
You also must factor in the opportunity cost. If you are using those square meters for the production of power or fuel you are not using them to produce food. If you use those dollars to buy solar cells you do not have those dollars to buy another means of power (mining or drilling).
Solar power is a last ditch method of power production that you turn too when nothing else is available. Wind also falls in to this area of power production. They produce expensive and unreliable power. ]
To heck with Solar, oil, nuclear fission, or even nuclear fusion....
Zero Point Energy is the only way to power humanity forever, even past the “heat death of the universe” No one ever thinks ahead as far as they should be....
[ That’s the magic of these leaves. If this stuff is really cheap to make, in terms of materials, it would be a great way for 24/7 power, as you could generate a surplus during the day of hydrogen, and run the same fuel cells during the night hours.
Until storage batteries advance far enough, we are basically stuck storing electricity in a different form than electrochemical potential. ]
Hopefully it is cheaper than bio-algae... wouldn’t that make the greenies angry if we replace their precious plants with artificial ones.
Plants produce Carbon dioxide, not hydrogen gas !
Plants use carbon dioxide and emit oxygen.
If it weren't for the panic the bogus AGW scare has created, we wouldn't be in a such a rush to shovel money at self-proclaimed green energy. Giant wind farms, solar farms, and farms for fuel (e.g. ethanol from corn) will continue to go bust, the moment the government money tap is turned off.
Getting things right in the lab first; followed by demonstration-scale projects is the tried and proven way to develop new technologies. IMHO, unless, and until massive subsidies are provided to install forests and fields of these artificial leaves, there is no reason for conservatives to oppose the research.
Not quite. Nuclear energy isn't directly related to input from the sun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.