Comments on: Scientists Create World’s 1st Practical Artificial Leaf, 10X as Efficient as the Real Thing

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:27:49 +0000

Pretty cool… All this hate on the oil companies… All this hate on oil companies. Believe it or not many of the oil companies are leaders in renewable energy research, simply because they have the funds to invest in. And FYI…. NREL is in Golden,CO not Boulder.

By: Uncle B

Uncle B — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:41:30 +0000

Off-Grid folks rejoice! one more tool from technology to make survival better!

By: Bending PVC

Bending PVC — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 21:40:31 +0000

This is great news. Top story of 2011 – we’re exiting the fossil fuel age.

By: Aletostado

Aletostado — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:16:49 +0000

Another great project to be ruined by oil companies.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:31:55 +0000

Does that mean soon we will be able to harvest solar energy more efficiently, and eventually lead to everything powered by sunlight? It would be a viable option for now, what if million years later, Sun dies out, we loss sunlight? Am I being paranoid?

By: Mark H

Mark H — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:18:49 +0000

Yes, but how much energy does it cost to MAKE this thing? That’s where nature still wins I bet.

By: Geno

Geno — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:43:52 +0000

It’s not an artificial leaf. It doesn’t produce O2 from CO2!

By: Geoffrey

Geoffrey — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 05:02:49 +0000

I disagree. The artificial leaf’s very limited lifetime makes it incredibly inefficient. The article is only taking the statistics it needs to make the product sound great. I would like to see how much energy it requires to develop a leaf before we can decide that this is any more efficient than standard electrolysis.

By: SuperZombie

SuperZombie — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 04:28:04 +0000

Thats incredible!

Please check out my videos. youtube.com/watch?v=sOhvrk3IOYg

By: Amy

Amy — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:57:24 +0000

Actually, peanut #54, that’s a very important point, and this device will be able to pull clean water out of dirty muddy toxic water! It can pull the hydrogen and oxygen, and then combine them to make clean water. (There is no device yet, but the prototype can do this.)

By: peanut

peanut — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 03:05:59 +0000

Maybe I’m ignorant to these things…but most of the problems faced in 3rd world countries are from lack of clean drinking water. Why are we now going to separate water into constituent gases and burn them?

Amazing technology…but there must be a better way.

By: clare elliott

clare elliott — Thu, 19 May 2011 20:33:54 +0000

@herpderp-you really need to see the dvd/movie-”who killed the electric car”-it totally speaks to this problem….we could have had electric technology for cars decades ago.

By: Travis

Travis — Thu, 05 May 2011 07:59:36 +0000

50. Knight

It’s more ‘energy’ efficient not ‘economically’ efficient. (power out/power in)*100

By: Rafaiel Ovanesyan

Rafaiel Ovanesyan — Mon, 02 May 2011 17:12:55 +0000

NREL is in Golden, not Boulder.

By: Knight

Knight — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:40:36 +0000

This author subscribes to a theory of technological advancement that results from bad economics. To say that an artificial leaf is 10X as efficient as the real thing is to ignore the fact that the artificial leaf requires thousands of dollars of expensive equipment, and rare elements that were mined across the globe. You simply CANNOT be more efficient than the natural process of planting seed, watching growth.

DISCOVER MAGAZINE IS PROPAGANDA

By: ogee

ogee — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:35:41 +0000

It’s amusing to see the number of people here looking for that techno savior. What we have is a social problem, and those cannot be solved with technology. We are gobbling up the world’s resources to supply our unsustainable lifestyle. More members of our global civilization are joining us everyday. While the earth could support a tribe of people living the way we do, it cannot support this as the dominant way of life.

And for everyone saying capitalism rules and regulations suck, consider CAFE standards and The Garden. Think about it. Capitalist pigs block moves toward sustainability at every opportunity, and they are reliant on (NEED) government subsidies. Any increase in self-sufficiency for individuals is a corresponding decrease in corporate profit margins. Corporations rule simply because they have convinced us to trade personal responsibility for convenience.

By: bloomtom

bloomtom — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:17:18 +0000

The amount of energy that hits the planet from the sun is approx. 1300W/m^2. That’s to say that in one square meter (nine sq ft) of land you can only ever collect a maximum of 1300 Watts even at 100% efficiency.

This device is roughly the size of a playing card, which is 0.00564515 square meters.
This device can only harness 7 Watts, even if it were 100% efficient (not going to happen, ever).
A conservative American home consumes an average of 1000 Watts.
A small personal LED lamp is 1-2W, a radio is 2-5W.

Considering this will probably be a very expensive device I don’t think it would be very useful for third world countries, they really need a sustainable water and food supply before they get electricity anyway.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:48:18 +0000

I’m not terribly impressed by this. It used silicon photovoltaic cells, and combines them with surfaces that can perform electrolysis.

Well, we already have PV cells, and we already have electrolyzers, and when you build a system with both they are a heck of a lot more than 5% efficient. And even so, they are almost completely impractical, since the hydrogen you get is many times more expensive than the hydrogen that can be produced by reforming fossil fuels, particularly natural gas.

By: jim sadler

jim sadler — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:18:39 +0000

Until these things are readily available I live in doubt. Take a look at all the innovations in Popular Science magazine over the last 50 years. Maybe 1% of the announced products actually come to market.
Worse yet with an energy product you can expect big oil, coal and the nuclear industry to push back like crazy. I am not convinced that a man stepping forward with a new and superior energy device would not be found dead of violent causes.

By: lvbags

lvbags — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:04:21 +0000

sugars through the Calvin cycle, a biochemical process that is distinct from photosynthesis. Instead, photosynthesizing

By: calvinguy

calvinguy — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 01:45:20 +0000

Werdsauce, photosynthesis in leaves is not actually required to use CO2; CO2 is not split to carbon and oxygen but incorporated into sugars through the Calvin cycle, a biochemical process that is distinct from photosynthesis. Instead, photosynthesizing organisms (almost) always use either H2O or a similar molecule such as H2S which they then split into O2, H+, and electrons.

By: michaelangelica

michaelangelica — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:40:58 +0000

A great breakthrough!
When they/we can also produce the thousands of chemicals also produced by plants then we really will be gods

By: Werdsauce

Werdsauce — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 07:53:24 +0000

Well it’s not really a “leaf” per-say. It is a photo synthetic device that uses the sun to create energy, but a leaf splits Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into Carbon and Oxygen. This “leaf” splits Dihydroxen Oxide (H2O) into Hydrogen and Oxygen… So it’s not exactly the same thing other than its artificial photosynthetic properties, just sayin.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 04:35:59 +0000

Yeah, it’s kind of like PV, except even the best PV is only 18% efficient, whereas this is roughly 30-60% efficient (10x the efficiency of photosynthesis).

By: Templar 7

Templar 7 — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 07:26:03 +0000

Enter Pseudophotosynthesis.

By: Vince

Vince — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 05:24:11 +0000

Can it make hydrogen on an industrial scale at prices lower than a 4th generation nuclear reactor running on spent fuel? Of course we’ll allow a few years to perfect the tech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur-iodine_cycle

By: argentwolfwing

argentwolfwing — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 20:21:42 +0000

Okay, this is a step in the right direction (assuming there is a “right”). This is exciting to me (and I know this won’t get everyone) because of the implications for developing nations and such. If this technology could be brought to Africa, to the thousands of people without electricity in their everyday lives, that would be amazing. But one thing jumped out at me: “If the device is placed in a one-gallon bucket of water.” For it to be a feasible option for (let’s face it, most of the world) it needs to be more water-economical. The people I’m talking about don’t have access to water/clean water/sanitation for water. They have to walk hours every day to bring home a gallon of water from the nearest water source, and they’re going to use it for the artificial leaf?

I’m not saying progress has not been made, but I want to point out an area of development that needs to be addressed.

By: Randomfactor

Randomfactor — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 20:00:21 +0000

I imagine the power output is just enough to run an LED lighting device and a radio. But it IS a big deal to be able to produce H2 almost anywhere there’s sun.

By: Cal

Cal — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 11:32:49 +0000

This is a trade off. Its actually kinda silly. They are just trading off the electron output of a solar panel for the production of hydrogen and oxygen. Its completely relative to a solar panel, save the method in which the catalysts produce the output and the end energy bundle. Furthermore, they have not included in this article the fact that this is not finished, they still have to capture and facilitate the hydrogen for energy. Hey a third world shack can be powered with a small solar panel and some basic wiring too, probably about the same net weight as this rig.

By: Tintin

Tintin — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 23:59:53 +0000

Wouldn’t one call this “photohydrolysis” instead of “photosynthesis?”

By: Derek

Derek — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 07:43:08 +0000

Good point with putting quotations on “free” market. If Emmett believes capitalism and the free market is a problem, he might do good to understand the market is already not free. If it were, you would see industrial slavery come to America, kind of like China.

By: Derek

Derek — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 07:40:46 +0000

Emmett says don’t let the capitalists subvert this technology. Capitalism is the only place a new technology like this will thrive. Regulating this will place boundaries upon its growth and hinder any real progress. It’s history.

By: Shane Nolan

Shane Nolan — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:04:53 +0000

My main concern is that we might get cocky and continue to cut down forests and believe this might replace them.Sure its good for renewable energies and such Im just worried that we might think:”Gee this does the job better than normal tress so why bother saving our rainforests and woodlands” oh and guys moron is right there are so many technologies availible that can make people and communities self sufficient for example algea oil that can replace all vegetable oils(especially the environmentally destructive palm oil)as well as flour,cotton for clothing and pulps for building materials,provide a cheap animal feed and fertiliser(and even feed for humans)as well as an alternative to traditional fossil fuels for energy and plastics etc(as well as being carbon neutral).Not to mention there is recirculating aquaculture systems that have the ability to rear any species of fish indoors in landlocked areas.Geez havent you guys ever heard of Planned opolis and the other propaganda videos from Forum for the Future?

By: FUBAR

FUBAR — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:00:44 +0000

“29. north Says:
March 30th, 2011 at 4:26 am

I’ll bite. Did it NEED socialist help, or did it merely HAVE socialist help? This one example proves the free market is broken? Why has one of the free-est markets in the world produced more invention, more innovation, than all the socialist utopias in history? Or did I miss the fact that Cuba is a scientific powerhouse? Oh, and who decides what “reasonable social goals” are, and is that the most important criteria for funding scientific research?

Silliness.

By: north

north — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:26:27 +0000

I offer any dismisive defenders of the “free” market the challenge to think through some facts which seem to be outside of your assumptions.
Please notice that this research needed to have some “Socialist intervention and subsidization to work”.
From the reserch paper itself:
“Nocera acknowledges funding from The National Science Foundation and Chesonis Family Foundation.”

The actual parties seem to lay out a strong case that the free market is broken. At least if measured by its ability to contribute to realizing reasonable social goals.
Quoting from the executive’s letter accompanying The Chesonis Family Foundation, “SOLAR REVOLUTION PROJECT, 2008-2009 YEAR IN REVIEW”

“Without a massive increase in funding from governmental agencies, industry sponsors, and philanthropists at the outset of innovation, it was apparent we would be leaving venture capitalists competing for a limited supply of viable business plans, large companies without new licensing opportunities, and the whole world desperately waiting for renewable energy solutions that can compete on price with coal, oil, and natural gas.
Novel ideas among highly skilled researchers were not the limiting reagent. Usable, unconstrained dollars to support those ideas in their earliest stages were. “

By: SamIam

SamIam — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:44:15 +0000

Screw the “developing nations”. I want it, now, and so will everybody else. It will have to be mass produced to meet demand and that will lower the price and then it can go to the 3rd world as aid rather than dollars stolen by their leaders.

By: FUBAR

FUBAR — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 01:06:52 +0000

“22. moron Says:
March 29th, 2011 at 6:20 pm

i don’t know whether or not you’ve heard of a technique called heat mining. it’s a geothermal energy harnessing technique that could probably power the entire earth indefinitely with little to no waste. it would completely eliminate the world energy market, and every oil baron would go bankrupt. And so, because of money, the world is denied free power to everyone.”

Dude, the Illuminati called. They want their deep, dark secrets back.

By: Hydrophilia

Hydrophilia — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:56:44 +0000

Sorry:
1) 8 tons per acre PER YEAR.
2) duckweed is prolific enough that in research it can reach a yearly average of as much as 4watts per m^2….but that is probably not the leaf they are talking about.

By: Hydrophilia

Hydrophilia — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:31:09 +0000

Interesting, but how does it compare to PV?

Well, biomass production can be as high as 8tons per acre. Let’s say that this has an energy content of about 4 watt.hr/gram (starch). Then we are getting an average power collection rate of a bit under 1 watt per square meter. Multiply that by ten (per the article) and you get about 10 watts. A 15% PV panel in a similar situation (say 6kw.hr/day.m^2) will average 150watt/4 or about 40 watts.

So, the efficiency is much lower than PV, but it produces hydrogen suitable for storage and fuel cells. And we may see improvements in the future.

Definitely interesting. Now the big questions are cost, lifespan, and pollution….

By: Rule303

Rule303 — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:16:23 +0000

This may sound cool and all, but a 45 hour lifespan hardly seems “practical”.
Now, when it gets into the range of years we may have something.