Converting Sunlight Into Liquid Fuel With a Bionic Leaf 68
hypnosec writes: Artificial leaf techology made waves the moment it was announced by Daniel Nocera back in 2011. His latest research, published in PNAS, involves gathering hydrogen from this artificial leaf, carbon dioxide from another source, and feeding it to Ralstonia eutropha bacteria to create liquid fuel. Once the materials are fed to the bacteria, "An enzyme takes the hydrogen back to protons and electrons, then combines them with carbon dioxide to replicate—making more cells. Next, ... new pathways in the bacterium are metabolically engineered to make isopropanol." Researchers say the same process could be used to make vitamins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For that, we'd need a fan...
Re: (Score:2)
And it dries faster when you spread it out everywhere.
Re: (Score:1)
When the shit dries, it can be used as fuel.
It can also be thrown all over the porch and doorstep of that asshole neighbor whose dog keeps crapping in your yard. In an area with leash laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Be happy it is only that much. When I was in Denver they outlawed them entirely and sent animal control around to snatch any they find in a yard and put it down.
Curiosity question - (Score:1)
Honestly, how many stoners saw the phrase "Bionic leaf" and went "WOOHOO!" at the title before being very disappointment at the summary/article?
Re: (Score:1)
Got clicks
Animal, not plant (Score:5, Informative)
The headline implies that we have a machine replicating the process of a plant. The summary indicates that what they have is a vat of bacteria that are making alcohol. Not nearly as attention grabbing, considering mankind has been using yeast & bacteria to make alcohols of various forms since the dawn of time.
If they have a more efficient process with simpler (cheaper) inputs, kudos to them. But this ain't no artificial leaf.
Re: (Score:3)
mankind has been using yeast & bacteria to make alcohols of various forms since the dawn of time
Not from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, though.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, I like to include Nitrogen and Phosphorus and Uranium in my beer. None of this wussy carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. You know you've been drinking when you drink molten thorium fluoride salts.
Oh, you mean from hydrogen and carbon dioxide only...
Never mind.
Re:Animal, not plant (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmmm ... are you sure?
So, they're clearly doing more than just making alcohol with yeast.
In fact, I'd say it sounds quite different.
Re:Animal, not plant (Score:4, Insightful)
If it is so good, why not just store the hydrogen for fuel? Wouldn't it be cheaper/easier to skip the last steps?
Hydrogen is difficult to store [wikipedia.org] in a lightweight, compact system. One good way to store hydrogen is to chemically combine it with carbon and oxygen and put the resulting liquid in tanks at ordinary temperatures and pressures.
Re: (Score:2)
For actual artificial photosynthesis, check out Nate Lewis's work at Cal-Tech. [solarfuelshub.org] In a nutshell: They note that natural photosynthesis is only about 2% efficient, so they are looking to improve on nature in this process, using off-the-shelf semiconductor printing processes. IIRC, they build a "forest" of upright conductive columns a few nano-meters apart, in order to mimic the band-gap of visible photons. He describes it in some detail in this lecture [youtube.com] from a couple of years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
If they have a more efficient process with simpler (cheaper) inputs, kudos to them. But this ain't no artificial leaf.
It's a two-step process.The artificial leaf step uses sunlight to split water. The second step has bacteria combine the resulting hydrogen with carbon dioxide to produce isopropanol. Rather different from the time-tested use of yeast to convert sugars into ethanol.
Re: (Score:2)
H2 - > 2H+ (2e)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that nuclear fission? That must be one hell of an enzyme. I hope the terrorists don't get their hands on it!
The idea that there were electrons in the nucleus of an atom went out of fashion when the neutron was discovered.
No, it's chemistry. (Score:3)
An enzyme takes the hydrogen back to protons and electrons...
Isn't that nuclear fission?
No, it's chemistry. Specificially, ionization.
Monatomic hydrogen has a single proton (and very occasionally one or two neutrons) for its nucleus, "orbited" by a single electron. Molecular hydrogen has two atoms of hydrogen - two protons bound together into a molecule by sharing their associated electrons in a chemical bond.
Separating the individual nuclei from their chemical bonds (typically dragging along all but one
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's chemistry. Specificially, ionization.
No it is not.
An enzyme takes the hydrogen back to protons and electrons...
This is utter nonsense. An attempt to try 1337 speak perhaps? But cool that you defend its usage and think everyone in the thread who stumbled over that dumb wording is an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be more impressed if they could change cucumbers into sunlight.
I've been working on it at the Academy for years. I'm close to a break trough, but I need more funding and a bit more time.
Some people have the sun shine out of their arses. You should co-op them and feed them only cucumbers.
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy - dehydrate it, then burn it.
energy balance doesn't work out (Score:4, Interesting)
The energy balance doesn't work out here. Max solar intensity is 1 kw / m^2, or 1 kj per square meter every second, or 3.6 MJ per square meter per hour. A gallon of gasoline is 120 MJ. So assuming 100% efficiency and 100% peak sunlight, it would take 30 hours to make a gallon of gas from one square meter of artificial leaf. Considering the average solar intensity is about 10% the max, and any process involving the sun is max 20% efficient, it starts to take a very long time to make one gallon of gas. Not even including the energy requirements of the leaf / enzyme process.
Re: (Score:2)
And what happens if you use 100 square kilometer instead of a square meter ?
Re:energy balance doesn't work out (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmmm .... 100 square kms ... producing flammable alcohol.
Have you seriously thought about this?
The first guy to realize he can light a match and have hilarity ensue will probably create something visible from orbit, and get himself a Darwin award.
Actually, scratch that ... bring it on! That would be funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seriously thought about this?
Yeah, I figured that somebody could be clever enough to not leave the alcohol out in the open where it can evaporate away.
Re: (Score:2)
What, and spoil all the fun?
Sorry, but if you have 100 square kms of alcohol producing farm ... someone is going to be looking at that.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be just another facility that could go boom that we'd have to secure
All you need to do is pipe the alcohol to a central storage facility, and then secure that. People routinely secure storage facilities containing in excess of 100.000 cubic meter of crude oil and derivatives, so this would be fairly easy.
Re: (Score:3)
134 billion gallons. based on your math, it's 140,000 km^2 of bionic leaf to make the gasoline for USA.
134 billion gallons / (266,666 gallons per day per 100 square km (calculated above) * 365)
What else is 140,000 square km? new York state. so is north Carolina. so is iowa. it's a lot of room.
another perspective: it took millions of years of sunshine to grow plants to feed dinosaurs to be melted into oil and used today. it's really hard to replace that with a solution that runs in steady state, as in we pro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
it's just an order of magnitude thing. Fermi approximation. converting the energy in from sunline to energy out in terms of a unit we use each day.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not at all clear what you're trying to prove or argue....
The process produces isopropyl alcohol, not gasoline.
The published article abstract clearly states that the overall efficiency for the process is "up to" 3.2% efficient.
No claim was made as to the rate of production.
Basically, while your math is correct it's completely irrelevant and inapplicable here. Thanks for sharing, I guess?
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why isopropyl alcohol is used. If I had the choice of alcohols, I'd go with ethanol, just because it is the safest in the bunch, and a lot of vehicles can use some alcohol mix (E85) without damage.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had the choice of alcohols
They probably didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's just a quick Fermi approximation. it's a useful way to get a quick estimate of something within an OM or so.
Re: (Score:2)
But the approximation makes no sense since it has zero applicability to the topic at hand. It's like estimating the number of piano tuners in Chicago by starting with the number of cab drivers in New York and concluding that light rail public transit isn't viable in rural Iowa.
Just because the math works doesn't mean it's apropos of anything.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
It's like estimating the number of piano tuners in Chicago by starting with the number of cab drivers in New York and concluding that light rail public transit isn't viable in rural Iowa.
so you're saying that even though the methods are roundabout, the conclusion is sound. I agree!
Re: (Score:2)
so you're saying that even though the methods are roundabout, the conclusion is sound. I agree!
No, I'm saying your conclusion has nothing to do with your opening premise.
I already said there's nothing wrong with your math.... it's simply irrelevant to your opening premise and unrelated to the topic at hand.
You start by stating that the energy balance doesn't work. Nothing you said demonstrates that it doesn't work, and the assumptions you make (e.g. gasoline, efficiency) have nothing to do with the main article.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, the article says that this bionic leave can be used to create fuel. What I'm arguing is that fuel requires so much energy that there's no way the bionic leaf capturing energy from the sun could produce enough fuel to meet our needs, using practical assumptions.
The honest truth is there is a ridiculous amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline. It's like gods energy source. it's extraordinarily energy dense. it's a liquid at room temperatures. it's relatively non-toxic in that it won't kill you
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, the article says that this bionic leave can be used to create fuel.
And that's exactly what it does.
What I'm arguing is that fuel requires so much energy that there's no way the bionic leaf capturing energy from the sun could produce enough fuel to meet our needs, using practical assumptions.
But at no point did you include how much energy we'd actually need, nor did you account for how much space in total we'd need to dedicate to harvesting in order to meet that demand. Only after including those factors could you argue that the bionic leaf could not meet our needs...
The honest truth is there is a ridiculous amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline.
About 36 KWHr. That's pretty tame; a gallon of diesel has about four times as much... Maybe you have a strange concept of "ridiculous" amounts of energy, though.
And while liquid hydrocarbons are fair
Re: (Score:2)
first, diesel is maybe 10-15% more energy rich than gasoline.
But at no point did you include how much energy we'd actually need, nor did you account for how much space in total we'd need to dedicate to harvesting in order to meet that demand. Only after including those factors could you argue that the bionic leaf could not meet our needs...
what are you smoking? that's exactly what I said. The actual amount of energy was however many billion gallons per year, the space requried was however many square kilometers. isn't that exactly was I said?
While liquid hydrocarbons are fairly good in terms of specific energy, they are horribly inefficient compared to alternatives. I suppose it's good that you can easily carry that much energy around with you when you will inevitably piss 80% of it away as waste.
this is a good point.
And I'm pretty sure "god's fuel" would be hydrogen, used in the form of nuclear fusion. That literally powers the universe and is the source of all complex matter that we know of.
this is also a good point.
Re: (Score:2)
first, diesel is maybe 10-15% more energy rich than gasoline.
Mea culpa - I got KWH confused with BTUs since I'm more used to using BTUs for diesel equivalents. Yes, it's about 15% more.
The actual amount of energy was however many billion gallons per year, the space requried was however many square kilometers. isn't that exactly was I said?
The closest you come is stating insolation as joules per square meter but at no point did you bring total energy required or total area required in your original post. It took you several hours before someone prompted you to actually go back and do that.
Basically you only managed to be relevant in hindsight after you got dogpiled.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
What dog piled? We had an interesting conversation. In my initial post I estimated the time it would take to make a gallon of gas (a unit of energy) from a square meter of bionic leaf, starting with an estimate of solar insolation (a unit of power density). Looks like an energy equation to me.
Frankenfuels (Score:2)
Anti-GMO villagers with pitchforks will kill the project.