dagblog - Comments for "Stealing Fire Redux"

Sorry. My last paragraph is

acanuck — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:20:08 +0000

Sorry. My last paragraph is the whole point I was making. This is interesting, perhaps very promising research. But it's still basic research, not a working energy-producing system. Nocera's no quack, and MIT has a decent reputation too, but the article grossly overhypes where this project stands. The research hasn't even been published yet.

Buzzkill. I'm not saying

Verified Atheist — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:38:42 +0000

In reply to The information on thorium is

Buzzkill. I'm not saying you're wrong, but sheesh. Next thing you know, you're going to tell me that there won't be a manned mission to Mars by the mid-2030s.*

*Don't. You. Dare.

The information on thorium is

acanuck — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 07:59:46 +0000

In reply to On a related note (cheap

The information on thorium is fascinating; I hadn't heard about it as a potentially safer nuclear fuel.

The "artificial leaf" story raises a lot more questions. First, it doesn't really "mimic" photosynthesis, just a very small part of that process. So it bugs me that that's how it's being pitched.

Supposedly, the leaf is 10 times more efficient than natural leaves, presumably at capturing the energy of sunlight. I believe a good solar cell can match that, and do so for decades on end. The artificial leaf hasn't run beyond 45 hours. The problems it runs into at that point aren't explained.

Solar cells produce electricity that can be used immediately, fed into a power grid, and/or stored in something as simple as a battery; the leaf simply generates hydrogen and oxygen, which then have to be captured and processed (run through a fuel cell) to produce usable power. Every step decreases efficiency and increases hardware costs.

The vague reference to the relative cheapness of the raw materials, chemicals and electronics to manufacture the leaves is also unimpressive. Just as with solar panels, the current monetary cost should be of less concern than the total energy costs. If a complete system produces (captures) less energy than it takes to make, transport and install it, it's not part of the solution. Since the leaf is just another way to capture solar power, it has to compete against increasingly simple, cheap and efficient solar panels. It has a long way to catch up.

I don't mean to totally dismiss research on "artificial leaf" technology. The Indian pilot project sounds fine as an experiment. But it's miles away from the "commercialization" that the article foresees occurring "soon." The image of a single leaf in a gallon of water powering each Third World home, for example, is palpable nonsense.

AIUI, CO2 is very stable, so

Donal — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:55:39 +0000

In reply to Carbs no but some other way

AIUI, CO2 is very stable, so breaking it down to component atoms isn't all that simple.

Carbs no but some other way

EmmaZahn — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:32:00 +0000

In reply to Natural leaves separate the

Carbs no but some other way of sequestering the carbon might be useful, say charcoal or graphite.

Natural leaves separate the

Donal — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:10:43 +0000

In reply to This is so cool....hope it is

Natural leaves separate the carbon dioxide into carbohydrates and oxygen, and I doubt that these artificial leaves grow carbs.

Reading between the lines

Verified Atheist — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:58:18 +0000

In reply to This is so cool....hope it is

Reading between the lines (i.e., purely guessing), I think it does not effect carbon dioxide levels, but is merely separating H20 into two parts H2 to one part O2.

This is so cool....hope it is

EmmaZahn — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:46:21 +0000

In reply to On a related note (cheap

This is so cool....hope it is more fact than fantasy.

Of course, real leaves break down carbon dioxide as part of its photosynthesis. Do you know if the artificial leaf can do that as well? The article did not say.

On a related note (cheap

Verified Atheist — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:28:16 +0000

In reply to Stealing Fire Redux

On a related note (cheap energy):

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-03/28/artificial-leaf

You are correct about the

cmaukonen — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:01:06 +0000

In reply to Just to be clear: I'm not

You are correct about the Government Regulations part.

Hearing Aids. A subject with which I am intimately familiar with - are outrageously expensive. Even though the technology is now dirt cheap. The same DSP technology that is used in your iPods and cell phones. Why ? Because the industry in collusion with the FDA conspires to keep it expensive, that's why.