Photosynthesis is the process plants use to convert sunlight into energy. Oxygen is produced as by-product of photosynthesis when the water absorbed by plants is 'split'. It is one of the most important reactions on the planet because it is the source of nearly all of the world's oxygen. Hydrogen which is produced when the water is split could potentially be a green and unlimited source of renewable energy.
A new study, led by academics at St John's College, University of Cambridge, used semi-artificial photosynthesis to explore new ways to produce and store solar energy. They used natural sunlight to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen using a mixture of biological components and humanmade technologies.
The research could now be used to revolutionise the systems used for renewable energy production. A new paper, published in Nature Energy, outlines how academics at the Reisner Laboratory in Cambridge developed their platform to achieve unassisted solar-driven water-splitting.
Their method also managed to absorb more solar light than natural photosynthesis.
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday September 05 2018, @12:54PM (1 child)
Do not harm the lettuces, they also have feelings! Eat sun and be proud of it!
Also I vape.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 05 2018, @01:01PM
Vape the devil's lettuce, bro. VΛ
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 05 2018, @01:02PM (11 children)
Does this even beat photovoltaic-powered electrolysis?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday September 05 2018, @01:25PM (7 children)
Just to bracket it:
Natty photosynthesis is lucky to break 5%, under realistic non-lab non-aggressive industrial ag conditions maybe 3%.
Big news in solar cells was when commodity COTS panel modules complete as installed including glass and temp losses started beating 20%. And water electrolysis is pretty known industrial task around 75%, so 15%
I found this journal article dated three weeks ago with her listed as an author; the article seems to be a little more optimistic than the paper, and by a little I mean on the level of "Hillary 99% guaranteed to win". Really the article is much more about "cute girl does chemistry" than about her research.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6100105/ [nih.gov]
WRT relative efficiency, I remember running the numbers with my wife, if you live on a 40 acre wooded lot you can heat your house by having a hobby of chopping down trees and putting out chimney fires, but it turns out a surprisingly small area of solar panel connected to space heater with decent thermal mass and wall insulation does take about 10x less land surface area. I've been toying with the idea of putting a panel in my backyard hooked up to a space heater in my house; its not that expensive and its an interesting way to drop my gas bill permanently. The economics aren't quite there but they're REALLY close.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05 2018, @05:45PM
Ugh, i was almost impressed you had an informative post with no vitriol, then i got halfway and reality sunk back in.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 05 2018, @08:01PM
Or... about 4 acres of photovoltaics (plus storage) to power a home's HVAC.
The cool thing about the photosynthesis route would be carbon re-sequestration.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 05 2018, @08:03PM (4 children)
One quip I forgot to throw in about 4 acres of PV panels: keeping them clean. That's actually quite an endeavor onto itself - not too bad for a little 100W setup on a liveaboard boat or somesuch, but if you're trying to push 20A @ 110VAC, that's a lot of bird poo to wash off.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday September 06 2018, @11:57AM (3 children)
Fair enough although thats a classic "east of mississippi" "west of mississippi" issue, in the sense that there are people living in literal deserts whereas where I live there's about three feet of rain per year.
Semi-serious question, do people in desert / west areas have to wash the bird poop off their roofs? Certainly no one in my state has ever had to do such a thing.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 06 2018, @12:32PM (2 children)
no birds, no poop, I imagine.
Most of the US is far enough north that the panels are set up at a pretty good angle (30-45 degrees) so a lot just slides off, but... in Florida and Texas we get a pervasive black mold on just about everything that isn't chemically treated, and the chemical treatment only lasts a few years before it loses effectiveness.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday September 07 2018, @11:30AM (1 child)
Yuck like a microscopic Kudzu plant
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 07 2018, @12:38PM
It's pretty demoralizing - pressure wash it away, see it completely regrown within a year. It gets slippery on sidewalks, turns buildings and all sorts of other vertical surfaces a streaky black, and occasionally it releases spores.
In Houston they blamed the mold spores for the crap in the air, but my ionic filter didn't collect mold spores so much, it did collect tar-dust, which turns sticky again when concentrated on a collector.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday September 05 2018, @01:28PM (2 children)
You can store tons of LH2 and LO2, something you cannot do as easily with batteries.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday September 05 2018, @04:23PM (1 child)
I doubt takyon can. 23K is not cheap to maintain over long times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 05 2018, @05:30PM
So I guess storing it as solids is out then? :-)
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dwilson on Wednesday September 05 2018, @04:09PM (9 children)
This sure sounds like a great idea, but consider the possible downsides once it's adopted globally.
The carbon dioxide emitted by a few campfires is irrelevant, an addition to the atmosphere that is lost in the statistical noise. Scale CO2 production up to current industrial levels, and the entire planet's climate starts to shift. We're seeing that now, today.
Emitting oxygen (and possibly consuming that excess CO2 in the process, if it's really photosynthesis) instead sounds like a marvellous plan. Everyone knows CO2 is bad and O2 is good.
...except it isn't that simple on a global scale. The last time the atmosphere's oxygen content shifted on a huge scale, they called it the Oxygen Catastrophe [wikipedia.org], and it killed off most of the life on earth, leading to the evolution of new lifeforms that could take advantage of the increased energy available. It lead directly to us, helped by some other extinction events along the way.
What do you suppose might happen if we start pumping up the O2 level in the air, by an amount comparable to what we've done with CO2? Something Bad, I'd imagine.
I doubt it will come to that. After all, if the goal of this process is to make hydrogen, it will likely be used as a fuel, burned with oxygen to make water and the process will be balanced far better than any current CO2-based process is. But every time I see a new technology proposed with 'clean' emissions, I see no mention of the what-if's when it gets scaled up. That lack of foresight bothers me a bit.
- D
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Wednesday September 05 2018, @04:30PM (1 child)
"Scientists Pioneer a New Way to Turn Sunlight Into Fuel"
As in, "after storing it for a while, you will burn that fuel at your convenience."
Since the fuel is hydrogen, the result is the poisonous di-hydrogen monoxide. But that's beside the point.
'Cause the point is: "that oxygen? not gonna star free for long enough".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by dwilson on Wednesday September 05 2018, @04:51PM
Yeah. I uh, mentioned that.
- D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05 2018, @04:55PM
Denies humans are causing climate change, cautions against humans removing too much CO2 for fear of making the atmosphere toxic to microorganisms.
Make up your mind dude.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Wednesday September 05 2018, @05:15PM
At a guess, cars would start running more efficiently, but also rust quicker, and things would probably catch fire a lot more easily and burn more energetically.
High levels of oxygen can be toxic. Hyperoxia can cause eye damage, lung inflammation and seizures.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 05 2018, @05:37PM (2 children)
I suppose, at first, corporations would start charging for breathing. Maybe tied to body weight or metabolism.
Then they would start raising the prices of air.
The poorest wouldn't be allowed to breathe. But corporate profits are at stake. We can't have
anyno freeloaders.When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by arulatas on Thursday September 06 2018, @01:44PM (1 child)
Turn on the Mega Maid
----- 10 turns around
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @07:51AM
the code is 1 2 3 4 5
(Score: 2) by slap on Wednesday September 05 2018, @05:44PM (1 child)
CO2 is around 0.04% of the atmosphere, compared to 21% for oxygen. If we get a similar increase in oxygen as we have CO2 over the last few hundred years, we would increase the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere by around 1%.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 05 2018, @08:08PM
O2 is already increased by measurable amounts in regions like the taiga where there are mostly trees and few animals.
🌻🌻 [google.com]