3 ms·

It's an interesting diversion, and useful beyond just carbon sequestration - I love how this is a combination of machine/organic lifeforms: "nanowires harvest s

It's an interesting diversion, and useful beyond just carbon sequestration - I love how this is a combination of machine/organic lifeforms: "nanowires harvest solar energy and deliver electrons to bacteria, where carbon dioxide is reduced and combined with water for the synthesis of a variety of targeted, value-added chemical products.”" - (Bacterial Cyborgs?) - but the sooner we transition to a solar based energy economy, the sooner we can stop doing inane things like burning coal for energy. Note also, they have a long, long way to go before this becomes even remotely commercially viable. "With this approach, the Berkeley team achieved a solar energy conversion efficiency of up to 0.38-percent for about 200 hours under simulated sunlight, which is about the same as that of a leaf." So, they are about 40 years behind where Solar energy is today. Still cool though.

graphene 12y ago
Keep in mind that converting solar energy to chemical energy (what plants do, and what these researchers have done) is a much harder problem than converting solar energy to electrical energy directly. Also, the main result of this work seems to be not energetic efficiency, but the production of flexible precursor chemicals.
- jp555 12y ago
  Love the idea of orchards of trees producing precursors. Makes me think of the maple syrup producers we visit every spring, forests with a huge web of surgical rubber tubing linking the trees to a central boiling cabin. But instead of sweet sweet maple syrup these make pharmaceuticals. :D
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  But plants already convert solar energy to chemical storage at efficiencies of 1-3%. Up to 10% for algae (higher per-hectare yields are based on added energy). It turns out that existing artificial proceses might already get close to this via electrolysis, carbon separation from seawater,and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. But for raw efficiency, it's really hard to beat plants. The other problem is that humans are already appropriating 20-40% of all primary production. So while plants are good at what they do, we're already leaning on them really hard. Unless humans can come up with methods which are 1) complimentary to existing plant activity (e.g., they don't compete for the same space, water, and/or minerals), and that's 2) roughly as efficient or better, we look kind of stuck.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
the8472 12y ago
You have to keep in mind that they have a) positive (if small) efficiency b) capture CO2 c) produce chemicals instead of electricity If you don't compare this to photovoltaics and look at carbon capture instead (which consumes energy, thus reducing efficiency of the power plant) then this already is a win. Not to mention that the CO2 captured isn't just in liquid form - which is not trivial to store permanently - but in a useful, easy-to-handle form.

graphene 12y ago

Keep in mind that converting solar energy to chemical energy (what plants do, and what these researchers have done) is a much harder problem than converting solar energy to electrical energy directly. Also, the main result of this work seems to be not energetic efficiency, but the production of flexible precursor chemicals.

jp555 12y ago
Love the idea of orchards of trees producing precursors. Makes me think of the maple syrup producers we visit every spring, forests with a huge web of surgical rubber tubing linking the trees to a central boiling cabin. But instead of sweet sweet maple syrup these make pharmaceuticals. :D
dredmorbius 12y ago
But plants already convert solar energy to chemical storage at efficiencies of 1-3%. Up to 10% for algae (higher per-hectare yields are based on added energy). It turns out that existing artificial proceses might already get close to this via electrolysis, carbon separation from seawater,and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. But for raw efficiency, it's really hard to beat plants. The other problem is that humans are already appropriating 20-40% of all primary production. So while plants are good at what they do, we're already leaning on them really hard. Unless humans can come up with methods which are 1) complimentary to existing plant activity (e.g., they don't compete for the same space, water, and/or minerals), and that's 2) roughly as efficient or better, we look kind of stuck.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

the8472 12y ago

You have to keep in mind that they have a) positive (if small) efficiency b) capture CO2 c) produce chemicals instead of electricity If you don't compare this to photovoltaics and look at carbon capture instead (which consumes energy, thus reducing efficiency of the power plant) then this already is a win. Not to mention that the CO2 captured isn't just in liquid form - which is not trivial to store permanently - but in a useful, easy-to-handle form.