Twitter headlines« Renault to Produce EV Based on Twizy ZE Concept in Spain | Main | Ocean Power Technologies Wins A$66.5M Award from Australian Government for 19MW Wave Power Project »
Report from CS3 Symposium Highlights Work Toward Artificial Photosynthesis For Direct Solar Production of Liquid Transportation Fuels
6 November 2009
Scientists are making progress toward development of an “artificial leaf” that mimics photosynthesis, but that converts sunlight and water into a liquid fuel such as methanol for cars and trucks, according to a new report summarizing the discussions from the 1st Annual Chemical Sciences and Society Symposium (CS3). However, much work remains to be done in all the component areas, as well as in the integration of the components to a viable artificial leaf.
The three-day symposium, which took place in Germany this past summer, included 30 chemists from China, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. It was organized through a joint effort of the science and technology funding agencies and chemical societies of each country, including the US National Science Foundation and the American Chemical Society (ACS).
The symposium series was initiated though the ACS Committee on International Activities in order to offer a unique forum whereby global challenges could be tackled in an open, discussion-based setting, fostering innovative solutions to some of the world's most daunting challenges.
The symposium focused on four main topics:
- Mimicking photosynthesis using synthetic materials such as the “artificial leaf”
- Production and use of biofuels as a form of stored solar energy
- Developing innovative, more efficient solar cells
- Storage and distribution of solar energy
Photosynthesis is the conversion of water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbohydrates (CH2O) and oxygen (O2) through a combination of several separate reactions, the two main ones being the splitting of water into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen and the reduction of CO2 using electrons released during the water splitting.
Chemists have in fact mimicked most of what is required to make these separate reactions proceed. In essence, they have replicated photosynthesis. But it hasn’t been easy, and chemists have yet to replicate the separate reactions in an integrated fashion and in a way that can be commercially applied on a wide scale. ...scientists have only recently developed an experimental O2 production reaction that is potentially affordable enough for widespread use; most current commercial O2 production methods rely on the use of expensive platinum catalysts.
Most of the CS3 discussion on direct solar fuels focused on current research efforts to develop affordable catalysts for driving reactions, particularly in the areas of hydrogen production, oxygen production, and CO2 reduction.
Dr. Kazuhito Hashimoto of the University of Tokyo commented during this session that two desirable aspects of any next-generation PV technology, indeed any type of solar energy technology are: (1) the ability to self-assemble or self-organize and (2) the ability to self-heal.
Noting that natural photosynthesis is typically only 4½-5% efficient at best, Hashimoto argued that most artificial systems are already “better” than natural photosynthesis with respect to solar energy conversion efficiency. Clearly, however, artificial systems are lacking something that nature has—specifically, the ability to self-assemble and the ability to self-heal.
The participants at the CS3 meeting suggested that before artificial photosynthesis can become an affordable, sustainable solution for widespread use, chemists must:
Develop chemical catalysts for the two major processes of artificial photosynthesis—water splitting and CO2 reduction—that can be applied commercially and are made of affordable, earth-abundant materials; and
Create an “artificial leaf” by coupling water splitting and CO2 reduction in a way that eliminates the need for an external, sacrificial electron donor. (A reduction reaction requires an electron donor. In natural photosynthesis, water serves as the electron donor.)
Among the key overarching messages of the report:
There’s no single best solution to the energy problem. Scientists must seek more affordable, sustainable solutions to the global energy challenge by considering all the options.
Investing in chemistry is investing in the future. Strong basic research is fundamental to realizing the potential of solar energy and making it affordable for large-scale use.
Society needs a new generation of energy scientists to explore new ways to capture, convert, and store solar energy.
Resources
November 6, 2009 in Catalysts, Fuels, Methanol, Solar | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: a.b | November 06, 2009 at 08:52 AM
It may all come down to various forms of direct or indirect nuclear energy.
We could produce all the energy we require from Earth based nuclear plants and let the Sun (a fair size nuclear furnace) and the Earth's natural or improved vegetation feed us.
Meanwhile, diversified sustainable energy sources such as Wind, direct solar energy convertors, Waves, Hydro, Biomass (wastes) etc could complement the main Nuclear energy source. The use of accumulated Fossil fuels should be avoided until we find ways to use them without creating pollution.
Posted by: HarveyD | November 06, 2009 at 09:14 AM
I said to not use nuclear at any means, it's inneficient, dangeurous and permannantly polluting and deadly and it cost a lot.
Posted by: a.b | November 06, 2009 at 01:01 PM
If there were a carbon tax, and there are many hidden carbon taxes, nuclear reactor energy would be far cheaper than any other to use for homes and industry.
Nuclear fission reactors actually take long lived radio-active materials and convert some of them, and could convert all of them to short and shorter lived radio-active materials so they actually eliminate tons of radio-active materials. Ever acre of ground in the world has long lived nuclear materials, including uranium, naturally present which is one truth that the anti nuclear power people forget to mention, but they mostly forget to mention that all plants and animals have always had radioactive potasium in their bodies with atoms exploding thousands of time a second. See wikipedia Potassium.
There are many hidden FEAR taxes imposed on nuclear power by people who do not know that humans have always been and will alway be radioactive. For instance, many people have been killed today by automobiles, but none have ever been killed in the US by nuclear waste storage anywhere, but Yucca mountain is opposed because it might in a few million years kill someone. There are tons of natural uranium in almost every square mile that water is always seeping through for almost every well in the US; why should people be more woried about Yucca mountain. Spend the money to prevent malaria cases in africa; we are more closely related to those people than to anyone a million years from now.
Automobiles would never be allowed to be built with such high requirements for safety and cigarettes would never be sold anywhere in the world and the US would not allow commercial growing. Nicotine addicts could get cigarettes only at high prices at the post offices.
The energy from the sun may come forever and is free but so is oil, coal, gas and uranium and thorium. This last two can last for millions of years. Why worry, you do not have any money in the bank in trust for your great great grandchildren.
The cost of building collectors for solar energy is very high. Just the price of land is high. How much land do you own to produce bio-fuels or solar energy.
The energy in uranium is concentrated, ten million kilowatt-hours of heat per pound. And the Uranium sold to the US from dismantled russian bombs have actually produced half that much with the US wastefull processes instituted by President Carter. This isotope concentrated bought uranium could have produced fifty times as much energy in breeder reactors.
The space required for changing uranium into energy can obviously be fit into a nuclear submarine. There is no talk in congress about biofuels for submarines or solar powered submarines. There are no active fuel powered submarines. They are a foolish waste of men and man power. What about wave powered submarines?? or wind powered ones??
Just try to use parabolic mirrors to get very hot temperatures to produce hydrogen with the iodine sulphur process, and you will collect less than one kilowatt per square meter but for only eight hours a day maximum.
Use all our land to grow trees where there is enough rainfall. That will be a more efficient way of reducing the US CO2 release than any biofuel or solar collectors.
Yes solar energy is worth it in many disconnected parts of the world, and they are using it by cutting wood. They also could use cheap mass produced parabolic collectors for heat and electricity. Mass poduction may even make solar hot water heating profitable in parts of the US. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | November 06, 2009 at 05:01 PM
"There are many hidden FEAR taxes imposed on nuclear power..."
Ah, but nuclear power also enjoys some pretty incredible subsidies. Notable here in the United States is the Price-Anderson Act, which says that the liability of the nuclear power industry for an accident is capped at $50 million. Anything bigger than that, and the government steps in.
Repeal Price-Anderson. See if any private insurer wants to underwrite nukes. Then let's talk.
Posted by: John L. | November 07, 2009 at 06:47 PM
nuclear is a no go. Let's move toward self feeded algae electric power plants with no pollution and no fuel cost. Algae just serve to recycled the fuel mass over and over again.
Posted by: a.b | November 08, 2009 at 09:49 AM
May be solar synthetic fuel will be never game changer due to EV development. Garbege recycling and ethanol production may become reality. After next 10 years such articles will make no sense.
Posted by: Darius | November 08, 2009 at 01:30 PM
Let's get real...We still have waste biomass laying rot in the field yet to be gasified into fuels like H2, methanol or biomethane...We have Miscanthus, or switch grass which grows very fast and requires no irrigation...We have not taken full advantage of what nature has provided us yet!
Artificial photosynthesis requires far more land area than solar PV, and is far more maintenance-intensive than agriculture or solar PV panels...
Posted by: Roger Pham | November 12, 2009 at 10:52 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef0120a65c62dd970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Report from CS3 Symposium Highlights Work Toward Artificial Photosynthesis For Direct Solar Production of Liquid Transportation Fuels:
I read the same thing 4 years ago. Put that on the market now. IT cost almost nothing to produce as the feedstock are free, water + sunlight + co2 available at any chimneys.
It's not the science that is lacking. It's the free market that is lacking. If gasoline cost too much and is polluting, then just sell cheap non-polluting methanol.