Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power Earth Science

Mimicking Photosynthesis To Split Water 257

plantsdoitsocanwe writes "An international team of researchers led by Monash University has used chemicals found in plants to replicate a key process in photosynthesis, paving the way to a new approach that uses sunlight to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The breakthrough could revolutionize the renewable energy industry by making hydrogen — touted as the clean, green fuel of the future — cheaper and easier to produce on a commercial scale." This was a laboratory demonstration only and the researchers say they need to bring up the efficiency.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mimicking Photosynthesis To Split Water

Comments Filter:
  • Not new (Score:5, Informative)

    by BhaKi ( 1316335 ) on Sunday August 17, 2008 @09:34PM (#24640081)

    This was a laboratory demonstration only and the researchers say they need to bring up the efficiency.

    There have been numerous such laboratory demonstrations on different ways to produce hydrogen easily. But the attempts to bring up efficiency are just what failed.

  • Re:Not new (Score:3, Informative)

    by wrp103 ( 583277 ) <Bill@BillPringle.com> on Sunday August 17, 2008 @09:43PM (#24640133) Homepage
    Is this a dup of this story [slashdot.org] from July 31?
  • BATTERIES (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17, 2008 @09:47PM (#24640161)

    I want better batteries, none of this hydrogen crap.

    Just make better batteries and a good number of our energy problems go away!! Chemists, why aren't you losing sleep over this!!!

    BATTERY!!!

    Just like listen to Master of Puppets every morning to remind yourself of what we need.

  • by sokoban ( 142301 ) on Sunday August 17, 2008 @09:50PM (#24640193) Homepage

    Because normal electrolysis of water isn't very efficient at producing hydrogen.

    This is a system for generating Hydrogen which can then be stored and used as a fuel either in an internal combustion way or with a fuel cell.

    Solar panels are a way to generate electricity which then must be stored and used. Storage of electricity is generally a pretty big inefficiency, and solar panels only really work when the sun is out, so they necessitate storage or supplemental energy generation systems.

  • by the_povinator ( 936048 ) on Sunday August 17, 2008 @10:17PM (#24640387) Homepage
    TFA says that a voltage of 1.2V is required, along with sunlight. The theoretical voltage required to split water is 1.23V. The energy supplied by the electrodes at 1.2V is obviously way more than you could practically retrieve from the H2 (which maxes out at 1.23V but you have to factor in efficiency). So this device is of no practical value even if scaled up. Online I see that as far back as 1981 (ahref=http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v46/i17/p1153_1rel=url2html-26843 [slashdot.org]http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v46/i17/p1153_1>) a method was published that used sunlight and an electrode potential of 0.65V to split water. So I don't understand the fuss about the current paper.
  • Re:Not new (Score:5, Informative)

    by quantumred ( 1311571 ) on Sunday August 17, 2008 @10:23PM (#24640431)

    I don't think so, although I initially thought the same thing.

    The MIT process (from July 31 /.):
    "..catalyst is made from cobalt, phosphate and an electrode that produces oxygen from water by using 90 percent less electricity than current methods, which use the costly metal platinum."

    The Monash team (todays /.):
    "..using just sunlight, an electrical potential of 1.2 volts and the very chemical that nature has selected for this purpose". The chemical seems to be "a form of manganese".

  • by budgenator ( 254554 ) on Sunday August 17, 2008 @10:23PM (#24640433) Journal

    Gas as in gasoline is rarer the hen's teeth in the US Army, the only place I remember it being used is in the mess for running stoves, ovens, and water heaters; and I retired back in 1985. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't new stoves that ran on JP4, military jet fuel and or water-clear kerosene by now. Gasoline is just nasty dangerously flamable stuff especially around bombs and bullets.

  • by TheSambassador ( 1134253 ) on Sunday August 17, 2008 @11:31PM (#24640839)
    Science can't get public support if the public doesn't know about it. Even in intimate stages like this it's better for us to know that something is being worked on, and something like this certainly has the potential to be "groundbreaking."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 18, 2008 @12:26AM (#24641161)

    There are three crucially important characteristics here:

    (1) stored energy,
    (2) direct from sunlight, and
    (3) zero carbon footprint.

    (1) Is important because:
    (a) stored energy can be used as a fuel (in this case, it IS a fuel), and
    (b) stored energy can be used at times when the primary source is not available (an energy buffer).

    (2) is important because:
    (a) only one process is involved. There is no "convert to electricity, then electrolyse water" type of two-step process. Improve one efficiency, and the whole process is improved.

    (3) is important because:
    (a) there is no release of carbon compounds into the environment.
    (b) In fact, one could release oxygen and hence replace the role of lost forestation. A double bonus.
    (c) unlike producing hydrogen from natural gas, there is no carbon compound as a first source ... only water. That water is replaced back into the environment when the fuel is eventually burned in a fuel cell. No greenhouse gasses, only gasses which occur naturally anyway.

    All three are important because ... it makes for a closed cycle. Energy from the sun (which was going into the planet as heat anyway) is temporarily stored and then ultimately re-released, with people benefitting along the way.

    All in all, this is a first but crucially important step on the way to a hydrogen economy, and replacing the oil industry.

    Because it is "replacing the oil industry" ... expect to hear a tremendous amount of artificially-generated corporate-origin naysaying over this topic.

  • by n3tcat ( 664243 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:22AM (#24641467)

    We still use JP for our mil vehicles, but we use a lot of NTVs (non tactical vehicles) now which are from I have seen over the last few years a fairly even mixture of gas and diesel.

    The stoves, heaters, and yes, we have a/c now in even the training tents, all run off electricity which comes from generators that are fueled by something brought in by contracted companies. Diesel? Gas? I don't know because I haven't seen the paperwork for the contracts. It all depends on who we contract out for the generators and what kind of generators they bring in for us.

    I think that was the biggest change in Army ideology over the last 20 years or so... they've shifted a huge portion of the green suiters' work onto civvie companies and contractors.

  • by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) * on Monday August 18, 2008 @01:50AM (#24641639) Journal
    "How about we let them work out the bugs before posting to slashdot?"

    What bugs? Did they NOT mimic photosynthisis? - Did you find a methodology error in their paper? Do you know of published contra-evidence?

    "Seems a lot of the stories get posted to get into "the media" without having the required science/adverse analysis/hostile counterpoint process done."

    The science has been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal and comes from two leading scientific institutions down here in Oz. Did you have some other 'process' in mind?
  • by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) * on Monday August 18, 2008 @02:47AM (#24641889) Journal
    They are not claiming a breakthrough in energy production, they claim to have made a breakthrough in artificial photosynthisis, no small feat IMHO. Also the CSIRO are not in the habit of making unsubstantiated claims and their evidence has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

    It's pretty obvious you are looking for a different breakthrough and it's a certainty you won't find it if you are unwilling to entertain NEW knowledge that MAY be relevant.
  • by Ihlosi ( 895663 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @03:58AM (#24642207)

    Another use for this technology would be a sort of energy pack that goes on the roof. A water line goes in, hydrogen comes out and is stored in a fuel cell which powers the house.

    Fuel cells don't store hydrogen - they use it as fuel. Hydrogen storage is a can of worms entirely separate from the fuel cell that has its own challenges.

    Problem is what to do with all the waste oxygen.

    Um, what problem ? You either store it, too, and use it when your fuel cell generates electricity, or you just release it into the atmosphere.

  • Re:Great (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sj0 ( 472011 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @10:08AM (#24644475) Journal

    Making Ethanol only destroys food if you're ignorant of the process.

    The waste product from the creation of ethanol is a protein-rich mush that is sold to farmers as -- get this -- food for livestock.

    Most people need to actually learn about processes before they start attacking them.

    Oh yeah, and water turned to hydrogen and burned would turn into water vapour or condensate, which would re-enter the water table as fresh water. This would, unsurprisingly, have 0 net effect on the amount of water available.

  • by rcw-home ( 122017 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @10:46AM (#24645095)

    Even with solar-driven steam turbines, you can't generate any power at night and afaik, there's no effective way of storing energy.

    Yes [sandia.gov], there [treehugger.com] is [pesn.com].

    Not saying this discovery wouldn't be useful, though.

  • by lgw ( 121541 ) on Monday August 18, 2008 @06:44PM (#24651691) Journal

    You can't really run a car with solar panels on the car, for a thousand obvious reasons. You can, however, run a car with solar panels covering the parking space you have at home and at work (at most lattitudes, anyway) if you can store that power densly and safely, and transfer it quickly. Plus you'd get covered parking.

    The total area of parking spaces in America, if covered with the best existing technology solar cells, would on average cover all of our elecitrical needs, or the needs of the daily commute. It's making the *average* power useful that's the biggest hurdle.

    In more realistic terms, we'd be much better off trying to convert our transport infrastructure away from deisel than cars from gas, but you'd need an alternative that was actually practical, not just fashionable.

To do nothing is to be nothing.

Working...