With Artificial Photosynthesis, A Bottle of Water Could Produce Enough Energy To Power A House

Artificial Photosynthesis

This seems like a very cool technology if it pans out to be the "real deal"

One of the interesting side effects of last year's stimulus bill was $400 million in funding for ARPA-E, the civilian, energy-focused cousin of DARPA. And in this week's first ever ARPA-E conference, MIT chemist Dan Nocera showed how well he put that stimulus money to use by highlighting his new photosynthetic process. Using a special catalyst, the process splits water into oxygen and hydrogen fuel efficiently enough to power a home using only sunlight and a bottle of water.

Like organic photosynthesis, Nocera's reaction uses sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and energy. However, whereas plants create energy in the form of sugars, this process creates energy in the form of free hydrogen. That hydrogen can either be recombined with the oxygen in a fuel cell to generate electricity, or converted into a liquid fuel.

In about four hours, water treated with Nocera's catalyst can produce 30 kilowatt-hours of energy. Moreover, the process is cheap. So cheap, in fact, that Nocera has no problem envisioning a day when each house generates its own fuel and electricity from photosynthesis.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 5-3-2010 by grey580]

Will file this with the bloom box, affordable solar panels, and a host of other energy devices never to see the light of day.

expect oil company buyout in record time.

Oh yes and not to mention gvmt coverups due to missing taxes.
The things that do humanity good but somehow allways is negative
to gvmts or corporations never see the light of day..

Oh forgot:
Why is it that everytime something like this comes up they sell out?
Or maybe, just maybe, they have no choice??

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Miccey]

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Miccey]

Originally posted by Miccey
Oh forgot:
Why is it that everytime something like this comes up they sell out?
Or maybe, just maybe, they have no choice??

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Miccey]

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Miccey]

Well, some things simply dont work...beautifully articulated, but flops anyhow...
You have to consider also that alot of these places are trying to get grant money, so will talk alot about the potential without publishing any results, letting anyone see the math, etc...hopeing to fool the moneyholders into giving them some sweet grant money...

But ya, ultimately alot of stuff does get supressed. I think the idea of harnassing photosynthesis is a neat idea.

I wonder how much water it takes for the 30kw power...it doesnt say...is it a bottle of water...or a ocean...

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Will file this with the bloom box, affordable solar panels, and a host of other energy devices never to see the light of day.

expect oil company buyout in record time.

I agree with you fully on the last statement. It seams pretty amazing to me how little attention discoveries such as this get and by the time we hear about it they are already bought up and covered with dust.

I just don't understand how, if we are in such a time of monetary need, is this type of thought/invention being that underestimated and overlooked?

I mean it did cost us $400 million dollars?

Just a thought here..
What if there was a "law" that states that ANY company that is
in some line of operation, say electricity, is not allowed to buy,
own or otherwise do buisiness in some other field.

Lets say we have company A they produce electricity by water.
They would not be allowed to produce, buy or own anything that
is opposite of water. IE they would not be allowed to own a nuclear
plant or solarplant or "photosyntesis"(spell?)plant.

I know there are rules of competition, but that wouldnt be an issue.
Since anyone else could buy, own, produce such a plant.

Ok, just some thoughts..

Oh btw. I challange all scientists to "GIVE" away a system to
the society without any strings attached. A system that IS all
that. Maybe a new kind of drug that cures ebola or a new car
that cant crash or a lightbulb that dont need electricity.........

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Miccey]

This sounds really, really promising. I allways wonder when reading about technolgies like this why there aren´t any consumer products allready available.

Lets hope this one finally makes it. It seems that more and more of these "free energy" devices are appearing. And not only the somewhat strange Orbo types, but real working prototypes like the one presented in this thread.

It seems that this new energy revolution cannot be stopped. Sometie, somewhere will not be bought or silenced and release something.

reply to post by Nightaudit


Hmmmm ... lots of positive and up-beat talk from the guy in the Youtube clip but no sign of even a prototype in action.

And powering your house with a bottle of water and sunlight ... talk about misleading !
Just how big would the bottle have to be to generate the required amount of power ? I'm willing to bet that that "bottle" is not going to be the size of a 2 liter coke bottle ... more likely will have to hold the equivalent of a back yard swimming pool amount of water and not to mention the associated hardware to make it all work. Before you know it you've got something the size of a small power station in your back yard

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by Nightaudit

 

Hmmmm ... lots of positive and up-beat talk from the guy in the Youtube clip but no sign of even a prototype in action.

And powering your house with a bottle of water and sunlight ... talk about misleading !
Just how big would the bottle have to be to generate the required amount of power ? I'm willing to bet that that "bottle" is not going to be the size of a 2 liter coke bottle ... more likely will have to hold the equivalent of a back yard swimming pool amount of water and not to mention the associated hardware to make it all work. Before you know it you've got something the size of a small power station in your back yard

Care to elaborate on these thoughts...Im not even near scientific
studies so im asking polite if you could explain to why it would
need a "backyard swimingpool". Is it maybe that 1 2L bottle
cant hold the amount of hydogen needed or something else.
What i understand is that 1L would power a house. But i havent
seen how long. 30KW it says, maybe for an hour you need 1L.

Converting water to energy in century that will be known for drinkable water wars is bad idea. There are lots of countries converting energy into drinkable water.

reply to post by tauristercus


Rather than speculate, let's figure it out. The theoretical yield of hydrogen from water is roughly 0.84lbs of H2 per gallon of water.

That equates to roughly 168cuft of H2 per gallon of water.

Your typical PEM (proton exchange membrane) type fuel cell will require between 25 and 27cuft of H2 to produce 1kw of electricity for one hour. (Other fuel cell architectures, possibly the BloomBox, may require less but you can buy PEM cells today that meet these criteria :: see my earlier post with link)

That means that theoretically, in rough numbers, one gallon of water could produce enough hydrogen to generate 1kW of electricity for 6.5 hrs. Your average American home, therefore, would use about 4gal of water per day --- or about two toilet flushes.

Yea, yea I know... we're working from a maximum H2 yield from water and CONVENTIONAL electrolysis is expensive. But other approaches to electrolysis (possibly this one) are far more efficient (microbial catalytic electrolysis for example). Also, the 25-27scf per kW H2 requirement is for first generation fuel cells.

And as far as the concern about using up water goes, please keep in mind that the fuel cells recombine hydrogen and oxygen (in the air) to produce water.

This technology and the BloomBox may not be the answer but it is clearly heading in the right direction. These are not flash-in-the-pan ideas but rather the fruits of well over 25yrs of R&D.

Hi Zero,

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Converting water to energy in century that will be known for drinkable water wars is bad idea. There are lots of countries converting energy into drinkable water.

Not all water is drinkable and there is no mention of this system requiring potable water which as you know is certainly the rarest form. I also suffer from the urge to post more often than i know i should but in this case i feel compelled to point out that you could have spent a little more time thinking before pressing the button.

With respect to the topic here are a few numbers that i find to be quite interesting and revealing as to the possibilities of renewable energy as yet unexplored.

As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the ultimate source of the energy in their food[2] (the exceptions are chemoautotrophs that live in rocks or around deep sea hydrothermal vents). The amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis is immense, approximately 100 terawatts:[3] which is about six times larger than the power consumption of human civilization.[4] As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the source of the carbon in all the organic compounds within organisms' bodies. In all, photosynthetic organisms convert around 100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon into biomass per year.[5]

Plants usually convert light into chemical energy with a photosynthetic efficiency of 3-6%.[21] Actual plants' photosynthetic efficiency varies with the frequency of the light being converted, light intensity, temperature and proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and can vary from 0.1% to 8%.[22] By comparison, solar panels convert light into electric energy at a photosynthetic efficiency of approximately 6-20% for mass-produced panels, and up to 41% in a research laboratory.[23]

en.wikipedia.org...

Regards,

Stellar



[edit on 6-3-2010 by StellarX]

reply to post by StellarX


I will not think even further, and simply assume that sea water is not used in this type of energy production. All other water - drinkable or used for irrigation - is not as abundant to be used for powering up houses. Water that cannot be used for drinking/agriculture/livestock/nature needs is a) anyway contaminated with things that probably will influence chemical reactions involved in artificial photosynthesis ,b) not that abundant too. c) Messing with hydrologic cycle on massive scale can cause bigger problems then current one. Oh, forgot about d) - more hydrogen gas in the atmosphere - more rapid loss of it to space.
Person can live differently to modern energy-hungry life style. Less comfortable and healthy,maybe. But without water it will be a little more problematic.

So, roughly 4gallons a day. In our house we use aprox 3-4Kw/h,
sometimes even up to 10-12Kw.

Electrical Stove
Washer
Dryer
Dishwasher
3 Computers
Heating from electrical radiators
Television set
All lights

If we have a heavy day 10-12 KW/h is not unusual. But yes. Not 24/7.
The max output on any machine in a standard HOUSE (not apartment)
should be like 15-20Kw/h.....

Hi Zeroknowledge,

I wanted to make a joke about your chosen name earlier but i guess i can wait a few more replies worth of 'objections'.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
I will not think even further, and simply assume that sea water is not used in this type of energy production.

Because no one lives close to the sea or because there is good reason to suspect that it will not work in this device?

All other water - drinkable or used for irrigation - is not as abundant to be used for powering up houses.

With energy generation along the lines roughly suggested here i suspect that with a little investment sufficient 'waste water' from houses could be 'cleaned' so that the system could be semi closed and much less water eventually going into sewers. Compared to the comparatively massive water usage in the average western house today a few liter's simply does not feature.

Water that cannot be used for drinking/agriculture/livestock/nature needs is a) anyway contaminated with things that probably will influence chemical reactions involved in artificial photosynthesis ,b)

We do not know that and all you seem to be displaying is disinterest in this possibility.

not that abundant too.

Fresh water is very abundant but has so far been treated is a renewable resource that isn't worth of great conservation efforts. We can do much better on a global scale and we can most certainly do much better on a individual scale if it wasn't currently cheaper to pipe in fresh water than to deploy individual 'scrubber' units at homes. Fact is fresh water is abundant in the sense that we can still afford to waste it in such prodigious quantities.

c) Messing with hydrologic cycle on massive scale can cause bigger problems then current one.

Yes, and the sky can fall on us tomorrow. If you do no have actual arguments against the investigation of these technologies why take part in this discussion? Do you know what we are currently doing to the hydrologic cycle?

Oh, forgot about d) - more hydrogen gas in the atmosphere - more rapid loss of it to space.

Do you have a estimate as to what we would have to do to affect a loss of atmosphere that would lead to a net loss of earth biomass? I didn't think so.

Person can live differently to modern energy-hungry life style.

Yes we can and we don't have to make any sacrifices in comfort or energy usage along the way. Anyone who argues differently can in my mind make the supreme sacrifice, for the species, and entirely stop participating in our apparently 'evil' consumptive habits.

Less comfortable and healthy,maybe. But without water it will be a little more problematic.

How are we supposed to run out of water? Could you please explain how you have come up with these fantastic notions of what's required to rectify our currently wasteful system?

In conclusion i am but should stop being surprised that there are individuals who can see such a bleak future even when scientist deliver new ideas that might help to actually make the future brighter than it already seems!

Sad really.

Regards,

Stellar

reply to post by Miccey


I based my calculations on published figures for average electrical consumption in the US. Depending upon where you look it is usually reported as between 24-31kWh, Naturally it fluctuates during the day. Any practical system would store hydrogen to meet those peak demand. But you get my point.

They are already sitting on a biological method of energy production. Remember we are in the age of greed and corruption. They love their wealth so much they don't care who they hurt. Right now they have the ability to produce enough energy for your home with a biological process they discovered while studying the electric eel. The eel can not only produce energy through biological means it can also store it like a capacitor. The electric eel is the holy grail of biological energy generation. They already know how the world can go green. The real question is why are they sitting on such technology. The answer is simple. Greed, control, and power. They use their intelligence to f**k the human species.

reply to post by grey580


That chemist can split water but can he do the splits?