Researchers Use Supercomputer to Design New Molecule That Captures Solar Energy (liu.se) 36
A reader shares some news from Sweden's Linköping University:
The Earth receives many times more energy from the sun than we humans can use. This energy is absorbed by solar energy facilities, but one of the challenges of solar energy is to store it efficiently, such that the energy is available when the sun is not shining. This led scientists at Linköping University to investigate the possibility of capturing and storing solar energy in a new molecule.
"Our molecule can take on two different forms: a parent form that can absorb energy from sunlight, and an alternative form in which the structure of the parent form has been changed and become much more energy-rich, while remaining stable. This makes it possible to store the energy in sunlight in the molecule efficiently", says Bo Durbeej, professor of computational physics in the Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology at LinkÃping University, and leader of the study...
It's common in research that experiments are done first and theoretical work subsequently confirms the experimental results, but in this case the procedure was reversed. Bo Durbeej and his group work in theoretical chemistry, and conduct calculations and simulations of chemical reactions. This involves advanced computer simulations, which are performed on supercomputers at the National Supercomputer Centre, NSC, in Linköping. The calculations showed that the molecule the researchers had developed would undergo the chemical reaction they required, and that it would take place extremely fast, within 200 femtoseconds. Their colleagues at the Research Centre for Natural Sciences in Hungary were then able to build the molecule, and perform experiments that confirmed the theoretical prediction...
"Most chemical reactions start in a condition where a molecule has high energy and subsequently passes to one with a low energy. Here, we do the opposite — a molecule that has low energy becomes one with high energy. We would expect this to be difficult, but we have shown that it is possible for such a reaction to take place both rapidly and efficiently", says Bo Durbeej.
The researchers will now examine how the stored energy can be released from the energy-rich form of the molecule in the best way...
"Our molecule can take on two different forms: a parent form that can absorb energy from sunlight, and an alternative form in which the structure of the parent form has been changed and become much more energy-rich, while remaining stable. This makes it possible to store the energy in sunlight in the molecule efficiently", says Bo Durbeej, professor of computational physics in the Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology at LinkÃping University, and leader of the study...
It's common in research that experiments are done first and theoretical work subsequently confirms the experimental results, but in this case the procedure was reversed. Bo Durbeej and his group work in theoretical chemistry, and conduct calculations and simulations of chemical reactions. This involves advanced computer simulations, which are performed on supercomputers at the National Supercomputer Centre, NSC, in Linköping. The calculations showed that the molecule the researchers had developed would undergo the chemical reaction they required, and that it would take place extremely fast, within 200 femtoseconds. Their colleagues at the Research Centre for Natural Sciences in Hungary were then able to build the molecule, and perform experiments that confirmed the theoretical prediction...
"Most chemical reactions start in a condition where a molecule has high energy and subsequently passes to one with a low energy. Here, we do the opposite — a molecule that has low energy becomes one with high energy. We would expect this to be difficult, but we have shown that it is possible for such a reaction to take place both rapidly and efficiently", says Bo Durbeej.
The researchers will now examine how the stored energy can be released from the energy-rich form of the molecule in the best way...
In future related news ... (Score:2)
Researchers ... Design New Molecule That Captures Solar Energy
The Empire begins construction on Starkiller Base [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Researchers ... Design New Molecule That Captures Solar Energy
The Empire begins construction on Starkiller Base [wikipedia.org].
I for one welcome our new swedish overlords.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Researchers ... Design New Molecule That Captures Solar Energy
The Empire begins construction on Starkiller Base [wikipedia.org].
I for one welcome our new swedish overlords.
I tried building the Starkiller Base from IKEA, but had trouble reading the instructions and couldn't finish it because there was one bolts missing -- even though there were 5 extra nuts for a different bolt. That said, some of the sub-assemblies are very comfortable.
Re: (Score:1)
Researchers ... Design New Molecule That Captures Solar Energy
The Empire begins construction on Starkiller Base [wikipedia.org].
I for one welcome our new swedish overlords.
I tried building the Starkiller Base from IKEA, but had trouble reading the instructions and couldn't finish it because there was one bolts missing -- even though there were 5 extra nuts for a different bolt. That said, some of the sub-assemblies are very comfortable.
Contact the ombudsman, only the scaled down prototype seem to be listed as available https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/i... [ikea.com] I can't help atm as I'm eating smorgasbord.
why not calvin cycle? (Score:1)
Can't they just figure out a way to extract atp from photosynthetic bacteria--or replicate the calvin cycle directly?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Plants are less than 7% efficient at capturing solar energy. Our existing photovoltaic solar panels are already way better than that.
Re: why not calvin cycle? (Score:4, Insightful)
However if we had to use the energy from those solar cells to produce sugars from co2 and water the yield would be miniscule compared to what a plant could create using the same amount.
Re: (Score:3)
If your goal is to create sugars from sunlight then this is relevant.
If your goal is to create electrical energy so that it's immediately useful then it isn't.
Since we don't have a fuel cell for sugar, it's not really that useful as an energy storage medium in this context.
Extremely common (Score:2)
It's common in research that experiments are done first and theoretical work subsequently confirms the experimental results
When doing research I also run random experiments with no theoretical basis and hope that something interesting happens. I believe scientists also took that approach with the multi-billion dollar large hadron collider as well as with the multi-million dollar gravity wave interferometers they've built.
Re: Extremely common (Score:2)
Do science like nobodyâ(TM)s watching, and hope the cats stay alive. Thatâ(TM)s how they move forward along a surface by revolving on an axis!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
When? How long until it works for us? (Score:1, Interesting)
How long until this is a useful technology for storing solar energy? We have energy problems now, we can't wait long for some computer modeled molecule to be mass produced in some unpredictable future date.
Here's an idea. Let's list all the energy sources we have today and rank them on things like CO2 emissions, raw material use, land use, human deaths, and any other costs or benefits we can come up with be they monetary, quality of life, or whatever. Then based on how these rank we put our time, money,
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The big problem with solar is that it's sometimes winter; that's a very-very long term storage, and an incredibly hard problem. We don't even have good idea how to deal with storing power for 6 months.
Re:When? How long until it works for us? (Score:5, Insightful)
In most of the world, solar panels still produce useful levels of electricity in winter.
In the rest of the world, there are fairly predictable winds.
If we had to generate all of our electricity with solar, its flaws would be fatal. But as we do not, they are not.
Re: (Score:1)
"Solar power does indeed offer something like 1000 watts per square meter of the Earth's surface. That's a lot of energy. That is until we see how much of that we can actually use compared to other energy sources. In real terms we can get something like 5 to 20 watts per square meter. Our understanding of physics tells us that even under the most ideal conditions that's still less than 100 watts per square meter. This is land that could not be used for cropland, parks, wildlife reserves, or other uses that
Re: (Score:2)
Average that power over a day, or a year. How much power will your solar panel produce then?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So far, more than enough to meet all of my energy needs on a daily basis. Two hours of direct sunlight provides all the power I need, including running AC units and cooking food. I've never put my battery bank below 85%.
Protip: I used to design and manufacture solar panels. What's your expertise with them, hrm?
Re:When? How long until it works for us? (Score:4, Interesting)
I noticed you didn't answer the question. What's the average power one can expect from solar PV over a square meter of land?
I got my numbers from Dr. David MacKay's paper "Sustainable Energy - Without Hot Air". He computed that solar PV would give somewhere between 5 and 20 watts per square meter. This paper is about 10 years old so I'll give some latitude on advancement in technology since. Maybe we can expect 25 watts per square meter average power today. There will be a point at which we hit physical limits, and maybe we hit them already in 2010.
Also from this paper I got the other numbers I gave in my previous post. With advancements in other areas over the last 10 years we can expect some small improvements there as well.
If we are going to power a nation with something as dilute as solar power then issues like watts per square meter will need to be considered. With 50 year old nuclear power plants we get 1000 watts per square meter. In the near future we can expect them to be built underground, underwater, or just more compact, and take up what is effectively zero land area. That computes to an infinite power for the area of land used. Of course it can't use no land but it can mean that the land is still useful for crops, parks, or something else lit by the sun. Keeping the air clean and land open for plants and animals was what I thought the goal was for "green energy", something that solar power seems to be quite poor at doing.
Now, try again to answer the question with your expertise on the subject. It should not be that difficult for you. What is the average power per square meter of land can we expect to get from solar PV?
Re: (Score:2)
No chance of cut-pasting the context/constraints/limits of how that was computed (save the rest of us having to go to the paper directly) ?
Re: (Score:2)
No chance of cut-pasting the context/constraints/limits of how that was computed (save the rest of us having to go to the paper directly) ?
No, I can't really cut and paste how this was computed with any ease. There's simply too much to paste. I can provide a link to the website.
https://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
The point of his paper was to give a general idea on the practicality of different energy sources, and other measures like conservation, to meet our energy needs and desire for a cleaner environment. Much of the calculations were to give order of magnitude accuracy, and he gave a large number and variety of sources to prove the numbers w
Re: (Score:2)
Panels are about 20% effecient, and a flat panel can get 6 hours of full light equivalent. Insolation is 1000W/m*m give or take 15% . To 1200/24, a little more than 50 watts per square meter of land. if you just tile it with panels. Practical consideration means you spread thing out more using angled arrays and tracking systems so you don't capture 100% of the incoming light. with the agvantage of needing fewer panels.
And at those figures for asquare kilometer is 5-20 MegaWatts average, with peak power bei
Re: (Score:2)
And at those figures for asquare kilometer is 5-20 MegaWatts average, with peak power being 4x that.
Which is the same as the 5 to 20 watts per square meter that Dr. MacKay calculated.
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just scaling up his figures as they seemed within reason, and the exact value would end up as an economic considerations. However it scales quickly and theres a lot of land out there not being used for much than low-capacity grazing, or floodplains near towns and cities that can't be built on, and are difficult to farm due to concerns of agricultural chemical runoff/drift.
Avoiding saying the interesting bit (Score:5, Insightful)
In what form do you get the energy out?
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
In the form of interpretive dance.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Modern or classical?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In what form do you get the energy out?
Quite likely a rapid decomposition of the constituent materials into simpler lower energy state gases.
That means it likely just blows up in their faces.
Yep, it probably just blows up.
I know a better molecule! (Score:1, Insightful)
It's called hydrocarbon! Like sugar [youtu.be]. Designed amd optimized by billions of years of evolution.
All you gotta do, is oxidate it in a fuel cell, and properly recycle the waste back into hydrocarbons, instead of shitting into the air we breathe. Then it's perfect.
Molecule that captures solar energy (Score:3)
You mean, like chlorophyll? Been there, done that!
Yours sincerely,
Plants
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, but now we search to do it a second time. Imagine a wallaby roaming Mars that does not have to eat --- for adequate definitions of roam.
Betting on what application they find first (Score:2)
The researchers will now examine how the stored energy can be released from the energy-rich form of the molecule in the best way...
My money is on the first way they discover being 'catastrophic discharge', allowing the researchers to create the first solar-powered bomb. Destructive applications always seem to be the first to be discovered.