Crystalline Nets Harvest Water From Desert Air, Turn CO2 Into Liquid Fuel (sciencemag.org) 151
Omar Yaghi, a chemist at the University of California, Berkeley, reported that he and his colleagues have created a solar-powered device that uses porous crystalline material, known as a metal-organic framework (MOF), to suck water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the air and then release it as liquid water. Science Magazine reports: One recent market report predicted that sales of MOFs for applications including storing and detecting gases will balloon to $410 million annually over the next 5 years, up from $70 million this year. "Ten years ago, MOFs showed promise for a lot of applications," says Omar Farha, a MOF chemist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. "Now, that promise has become a reality." One application is Yaghi's, which he hopes will help provide drinking water for the estimated one-third of the world's population living in water-stressed regions. Yaghi and his colleagues first developed a zirconium-based MOF in 2014 that could harvest and release water. But at $160 per kilogram, zirconium is too expensive for bulk use. So, last year, his team came up with an alternative called MOF-303, based on aluminum, which costs just $3 per kilogram. In the desert of Arizona, Yaghi and his team placed their MOF in a small, clear plastic container. They kept it open to the air at night, allowing the MOF to absorb water vapor. They then closed the container and exposed the MOF to sunlight, which drove liquid water from it -- but the harvest was only about 0.2 liters per kilogram of MOF per day.
At last week's meeting of the American Chemical Society and in the 27 August issue of ACS Central Science, Yaghi reported that his team has devised a new and far more productive water harvester. By exploiting MOF-303's ability to fill and empty its pores in just minutes, the team can make the new device complete dozens of cycles daily. Supported by a solar panel to power a fan and heater, which speed the cycles, the device produces up to 1.3 liters of water per kilogram of MOF per day from desert air. Yaghi expects further improvements to boost that number to 8 to 10 liters per day. Last year, he formed a company called Water Harvesting that this fall plans to release a microwave-size device able to provide up to 8 liters per day. The company promises a scaled-up version next year that will produce 22,500 liters per day, enough to supply a small village. "We're making water mobile," Yaghi says. "It's like taking a wired phone and making a wireless phone."
At last week's meeting of the American Chemical Society and in the 27 August issue of ACS Central Science, Yaghi reported that his team has devised a new and far more productive water harvester. By exploiting MOF-303's ability to fill and empty its pores in just minutes, the team can make the new device complete dozens of cycles daily. Supported by a solar panel to power a fan and heater, which speed the cycles, the device produces up to 1.3 liters of water per kilogram of MOF per day from desert air. Yaghi expects further improvements to boost that number to 8 to 10 liters per day. Last year, he formed a company called Water Harvesting that this fall plans to release a microwave-size device able to provide up to 8 liters per day. The company promises a scaled-up version next year that will produce 22,500 liters per day, enough to supply a small village. "We're making water mobile," Yaghi says. "It's like taking a wired phone and making a wireless phone."
And I shit diamonds (Score:2)
You can't fool thermodynamics. Where's the energy inputs?
Re:And I shit diamonds (Score:5, Informative)
You can't fool thermodynamics. Where's the energy inputs?
Applying heat or pump-driven air pressure changes to drive the captured and concentrated water out of the MOF that grabbed and is holding on to it.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't fool thermodynamics. Where's the energy inputs?
Have you tried reading the article? Here's a key sentence for you: "Supported by a solar panel to power a fan and heater [...]"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And I shit diamonds (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a molecular trap.
Basically a solar panel for condensation. Instead of producing electricity it sucks up water from air when exposed to sunlight.
It works even without an active energy source, only not as efficiently as when it gets drained of captured water.
Energy needed is provided by the Sun.
That's why the same technology can be adapted to any gas.
So it can be made to capture water vapor with an "aluminum-based metal-organic framework" - or with a "lanthanum-based framework" it can break down mustard
Re: (Score:2)
trap or no trap you still have to pay the free energy cost. either at the time of manufacture or during operation. While it's possible to use more energy that required, the lower bound is the same for all methods. it makes no difference if it's a trap or a chiller.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the MOF is more or less like that ...
If you want to get water out of air then you need to somehow absorb the energy equal to the latent heat of evaporation of the condensed water.
While that is correct, it has nothing to do with thermodynamics. It is the first law of physics: conservation of energy. (However I'm still of the opinion that the first law should be 'conservation of momentum').
Thermodynamics does not really work in an "open system" like earth atmosphere ... but well, you can try to fool aroun
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And I shit diamonds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, ... and how do you actually cool something in a desert below dew point ... sounds pretty hard. /. dismiss solution A which was crafted because solution B is so expensive as: well, B is cheaper than A ... why would anyone make an article/research project/product when your solution in the end is easier/cheaper? Does that make sense to you?
it is about XXX times more expensive. E.g. you need electricity for it
No idea why people on
Re: (Score:2)
and how do you actually cool something in a desert below dew point ... sounds pretty hard.
A regular air conditioner can do this just fine. And you're missing the point, this crystalline thingie will require even _more_ energy than a freezer. The laws or thermodynamics are cruel.
No idea why people on /. dismiss solution A which was crafted because solution B is so expensive as: well, B is cheaper than A ... why would anyone make an article/research project/product when your solution in the end is easier/cheaper?
For grant money, PR reasons, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, it's going to be energetically cheaper to run a simple air conditioner with evaporator below the dew point and then gather the condensation.
Economic viability makes or breaks most inventions. Reading the wikipedia article on MOF, [wikipedia.org] they basically act as catalysts. If that's the mechanism here, it should be more economical than a current condensing technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can't fool thermodynamics. Where's the energy inputs?
The big yellow thing in the sky that emits 385 yottawatts.
Re: (Score:2)
The original one captures water at night, releasing heat. Then the energy of the sun is used in the day to drive the water out of the MOF and into the container. That wasn't very efficient, so now they're making one that uses heating and fans (solar powered) to cycle between the energy states faster.
You didn't even have to RTFA, you could just RTFS to get that information.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps next time I have to hire one,
I just ask him: explain me the terms RTFM, RTFA, and RTFS.
Should I take him if he gets 2 of it right? Or should RTFM be a minimum requirement?
Another dehumdifier (Score:2, Funny)
Another magical dehumidifier. How many times do these things have to be debunked?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, but if the ability to do it at a cheaper cost, then it's a cheap dehumidifier.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, you're not supposed to be drinking the water from a dehumidifier.
It's full of all sorts of particulates from the air and is generally not safe to drink.
Also, hasn't it already been proven that you can't harvest humidity if there IS NO HUMIDITY?
Re:Another dehumdifier (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, you're not supposed to be drinking the water from a dehumidifier. It's full of all sorts of particulates from the air and is generally not safe to drink.
Which is why you use a filter that only lets the water through. (Or in this case, a molecular-scale "filter" that has holes that a water molecule will find cuddly and a particle won't even fit.)
Also, hasn't it already been proven that you can't harvest humidity if there IS NO HUMIDITY?
Ain't no such thing, at least in the wild troposphere. There's low humidity, and lower humidity, and seriously parched. But there's still some water molecules banging around to be grabbed (making the exhaust air still MORE parched, but so what?)
Air circulates all around the planet. It gets wet when it passes over water. Oversimplified: It gets dry when it goes over cold mountains or up in high clouds, cooling and thinning out until it can't hold as much water. But that stops when it still has as much left as the thin cold air will hold. So it's at 100% relative humidity - not zero - when it quits drying. Then it comes down, compresses, and heats up. So it could hold a lot more water. But the water in it didn't go away. The relative humidity may be down in single-digit percentages, but again there's still water to be grabbed by a fancy MOF.
(Correcting the oversimplification: If there are ice crystals, some of the water may prefer to hang out on them - just like it does on MOFs. So the cold thin air actually gets a bit drier than 100% relative humidity for that particular temperature and pressure. But still it's far from totally dried out.)
(T
Re: (Score:2)
Ain't no such thing, at least in the wild troposphere.
Also, umm... Desalination.
And a very passive and automated kind to boot.
It's basically a combination of two kinds of solar cells, a ventilator and a water tank for capturing water.
Just put the whole thing on a tower near the seashore.
Re: (Score:2)
At which point it's, more energy efficient, and cheaper to just treat the water normally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It might be cheaper than drilling a well, and wells get expensive!
Might. So, in lack of certain knowledge, let's rely on pie in the sky!
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the cost of the MOF.
Treating water has running costs as in energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the cost of the MOF.
Treating water has running costs as in energy.
As I said earlier, in lack of actual knowledge, we substitute pie in the sky.
Also, this technology has an energy cost as well.
Re: (Score:2)
"Which is why you use a filter that only lets the water through."
You misunderstand. The entire apparatus itself IS NOT AIRTIGHT. Hence, you're going to have particulate matter on pretty much every surface, inside and out.
"Ain't no such thing in the wild troposphere."
Should have been more accurate.
No appreciable humidity.
Watch and learn.
https://youtu.be/LVsqIjAeeXw?t... [youtu.be]
"Oversimplified: It gets dry when it goes over cold mountains or up in high clouds, cooling and thinning out until it can't hold as much wa
Re: (Score:2)
And they're talking about putting this stuff up IN A DESERT. One of the most arid regions on the planet.
Even a desert has humidity. Which parent actually tried to explain to you quite well.
I really wonder where this "nerdy" attitude (oops, not so nerdy) comes from that when "geeks" announce a new scientific gadget and newspaper predict a multi billion dollar annual market, that those "nerds" think: they know better. Sorry, first assumption should be: oops, what did I miss in school, what did I know wrong, o
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, watch the video that I linked about the energy costs of pulling water out of low humidity air.
This "attitude" comes from being able to do the math.
And Frank Herbert's Dune series was SCIENCE FICTION.
You had an entire civilization basically pulping it's dead for the bodily water and relying on PLANETARY SCALE windtrap networks.
No specifics on ACTUAL humidity on a planet that happened to actually have a polar ice cap.
Nor any sci-fi-tech used to implement and assist.
Re: Another dehumdifier (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Laws of Thermodynamics are what one might call Settled Science. Using solar energy to pull water out of the air in the desert is neither economical nor efficient. That part has been proven over and over every time one of these schemes goes on Kickstarter. It's cheaper (and greener) to drive an 18-wheeler across the globe to deliver bottled water to those people than to try pulling it out of the air with a solar dehumidifier.
Re: (Score:2)
The Second "Law" is more of an observation, there is no mechanism driving it other than probabilities if phase spaces.
Re: Another dehumdifier (Score:5, Insightful)
That may or may not be the case (I haven't done the math), but it is much more logistically feasible to give people one object that can produce water locally than it is to set up a regular delivery of water shipments.
I don't think anyone is arguing that this is is absolutely the best source of water ever. Just that it is more dependable and reliable way to provide water in remote arid regions where access to water or dependable transportation networks is poor or non-existent.
If people have to pick up water shipments on a regular basis, it ends up being fairly disruptive to the local society, with the risk that if any particular shipment doesn't make it, they face death by dehydration. If every house has enough of these to provide 3L per resident, then water issues suddenly stop being a major factor in day-to-day activities and they can spend their time on other things.
From a logistics point of view, if we assume that the average microwave is about 30L in volume, and it would take two of these per person to provide a permanent source of water, that's 60L of volume. Which is roughly 20 days of water worth of volume. Which means that it is more effective to ship these devices to a drought area whenever the length of the water shortage is likely to exceed 20 days. Because at that point, one is spending more time and energy on water shipments than one would on the initial equipment delivery.
Admittedly, that doesn't take the equipment manufacture into account, but given the number of NGOs that will pay for water delivery, I'm sure there'll be sufficient interest in paying for these instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the slashdot story about the same guy doing the same thing two years ago, before it failed to do the wonderful things he claimed it would: https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
In a couple years there will be another explaining that of course he was wrong this time too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the actual article you'll see he was also off on how much water that more expensive material would produce - by more than a factor of 10.
The guy is making $508k/year off the taxpayer at UC. Just add a tweak every couple years and say "this time it'll work!"
Re: (Score:2)
... and ...
Re: (Score:2)
Are you an idiot or what?
a) what have the fucking laws of theromdynamics to do with that?
b) what has efficiency to do with that?
You have a device that costs nothing to operate, you either buy it or not, your financial decisssion, it pulls water "out of thin air" ... go and hand your physicist card back, moron.
It's cheaper (and greener) how can it be greener? The MOF needs no fuel, moron. How can it be cheaper, when you have to transport less water?
I'm really getting sick about idiots like you.
E.g. on my bo
Re: (Score:2)
a) what have the fucking laws of theromdynamics to do with that?
If you don't really know the answer to this, you probably shouldn't be calling anyone an idiot. You should probably have a look at classical thermodynamic systems such as Carnot engine and the Peltier effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_heat_engine ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) and tone down your atitude.
b) what has efficiency to do with that?
After you are familiarized with the basic concepts of eg. Peltier devices, you'll notice there is the need to have an electric current. The current is usually non-trivial compared to the wa
how this can help a lot. (Score:2)
Finding area's that have higher than normal concentrations of CO2
convert as much as possible into water.
use the water to plant tree's
now you have 2 forms of carbon locking
given this is a drop in the big bucket, but over a large
area, this might put a dent in CO2 pollution on a very localised
level.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! Explain to us how you convert CO2 into water!
Re: (Score:2)
You were right, the article mentions another MOF, not this one.
so at least you get water
mistakes happen.
Re: (Score:2)
If the technology existed to easily convert CO2 into water nobody would be complaining about excess CO2.
Re: how this can help a lot. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the technology existed to easily convert CO2 into water nobody would be complaining about excess CO2.
We'd be in trouble as well. A certain amount of CO2 is critical to life on earth.
So whatever businesses were profiting off the extraction would claim that there is no such thing as global cooling while we drifted into an ice age.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-I... [quora.com]
We can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does the hydrogen come from?
Just that it's quite common in water and mostly absent in CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Read TFA. It doesn't convert CO2 to H2O. (Score:2)
One kind captures H2O from air.
Another kind, with a different enzyme in it, converts CO2 and water vapor to CH2O2 (formic acid).
A third kind, with yet another catalyst, converts CO2 and H2O from air to CH3OH (methanol).
Re: (Score:2)
How do you come to the silly idea that CO2 can be converted, or is converted, into water aka H2O?
Re: (Score:2)
if you follow the rest of the replies, you will see that I admitted a mistake ( shocking on slashdot )
But would you care to add how the products can or can't help to improve quality of life,
and where it would be most helpful?
I used to have an uncle (Score:2)
Windtrap of Dune? (Score:2)
It sounds like science fiction here.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 version makes methanol (CH3OH) from air.
Now... should someone find a catalyst that makes C2H5OH (ethanol)...
That'd be a very different kind of a stillsuit.
Calling Thunderfoot! (Score:2)
I just love hearing him say "Bullshit!"
So we can be moisture farmers now? (Score:2)
We'll need a droid that understands the binary language of moisture vaporators.
"But I was going into Tosche Station to pick up some power converters!”
Weather changer (Score:2)
Yaghi doesn't need to crowdfund this scheme... (Score:2)
Yaghi's salary at the Univ of Cal in 2018 was $508,629. He just needs to keep up the tweaks every couple years to explain why the last version didn't work. No Kickstarter necessary!
Dune, Dessert Planet (Score:2)
"Show me the waters of your homeworld, Usul."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How about you just cut the shit out and stop acting like people against illegal immigration are somehow against legal immigration as well.
Or are people not allowed to dislike illegal immigration but like legal immigration? Or, is your mind so small that you cannot comprehend this?
Way to go for Omar BTW!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It might be possible, but the basic fact is that the current administration and its supporters have spent a tremendous amount of effort directed at legal immigrants of a variety of different types. For example, look at their policy regarding asylum seekers https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-28/trump-administration-pushes-thousands-to-mexico-to-await-asylum-cases [latimes.com], or look at how they've taken an extremebly broad and strict interpretation of public charge laws to limit legal immigrants https://ww [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is, these are people at the border doing the work, interpreting what the policy makers are pushing. Im pretty sure the white house staff are not at the border telling them what to do. And even then the news papers that seem to be anti trump will blame his "administration" for everything they can, the pro "administration" folks seem to be blaming the dems for everything.
Personally I just sit here and watch them tear apart an already fractured country. I have a tendency to believe that all il
Re: (Score:2)
How about you just cut the shit out and stop acting like people against illegal immigration are somehow against legal immigration as well.
Well, the people against "illegal immigration" are attacking both, and cutting legal immigration quotas, and violating federal law about refugees in order to cut legal immigration by refugees.
Why should we ignore their actions?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When your own president tells congresswomen to go back to their countries
Did he do that? He told them to go back to where they came from, but that could mean returning home rather than remaining in Government.
Given the media misreporting of the US President's statements I feel the need for clarity when people make claims regarding his words.
it is clear some people are against not only legal immigration
There are indeed such people. They are a tiny minority. Far more people are against illegal immigration but supportive of controlled legal immigration.
people who just are a tad less orange
Oh. Here you are ranting about people being against illegal immigration and yet you're the
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> Did he do that? He told them to go back to where they came from, but that could mean returning home rather than remaining in Government.
FYI, Trump clarified what he meant on twitter.
Or I guess by using the present tense for those countries governments, he could be acknowledging the complete and total catastrophe the current US government has became under
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, that was helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for fuck's sake, read the other replies you idiotic fuckwit.
Also stop calling me a MAGA person. I'm not even fucking American, fortunately.
Re:He never told anyone to go back to their "count (Score:4, Informative)
The full quote from the @realDonaldTrump: ....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how.... ....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
+++++
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......
+++++
You know what actually isn't in that quote? "districts". He is clearly talking about countries... in all the comparisons. The subjects of this are clearly people, countries, and governments.
What you personally have is a very severe case of selection biases. I mean you literrally zoned out all the parts of the quote that disagreed with your mindset, researched and selected supportive facts for your preset thought patterns, and made up an entire story & scenario that you liked & defends your position.
Bravo. The first step is admitting that you have a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet you are largely ignoring the part where he said, "fix those problems", come back and tell us how.
That is in no way the same as saying, "just go back where you came from".
Obviously, in regards to their nation of birth, he was wrong about 3 of the 4, only Ilhan was born in a different country, Somalia; yet the others nonetheless proudly laud their lands of heritage while decrying the US's state of affairs, which comes across as hypocritical. Trump never referred to districts, but he also never refer
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you serious?!? The 3 are US born citizens!! They are AMERICANS. Why would they go to ANOTHER COUNTRY to "fix those problems"? Their constituents elected them to FIX THEIR PROBLEMS, not someone elses!! But even if they weren't born here, WHY THE F should they go fix those countries first? They clearly got properly elected by their constituents, represent their constituent's interests, and are here to fix their constituent's problems!
Imagine if some members of Fox News, the Republican party, or Trum
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And stop pretending that there is ANY issue regarding immigration at all - other than RACISM?
I'm not in the US but here in the UK legal migration comes predominantly from British Commonwealth countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the West Indies.
All of them populated primarily by people with a diverse range of skin colours and cultures.
Fighting illegal immigration has fuck all to do with race. I suspect there's a similar situation in the US.
Even birds know by know that "illegal" is a dog whistle for "brown people" and Muslims
Only dogs hear dog whistles, so you need to do some self reflection. The rest of us read 'illegal' and think 'someone that has not gone t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Over simplying the topic as its "illegal" vs "lega" is a disservice to the topic. BUT IF we really discussed it in that context, our FOCUS would be on completely different things than border crossings or walls or detention camps or deterrence. Today, the US has an extremely shitty immigration system.
Do you know it takes 12-16 months for a US Citizen to bring their legally married spouse to the US? The paper work isn't too difficult. Its the review process and the folks behind it. Most have about the sa
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Fighting illegal immigration has fuck all to do with race. I suspect there's a similar situation in the US.
You'd be wrong. In the US it's all about race. That's why the people "against illegal immigration" in the US are only talking about Central and South American immigrants.
Re: (Score:2)
The people publicly complaining and campaigning on illegal immigration don't agree with you, because they're not talking about illegal immigrants from Europe or Asia.
Just Central and South America, and the Middle East.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not in the US but here in the UK legal migration comes predominantly from British Commonwealth countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the West Indies. All of them populated primarily by people with a diverse range of skin colours and cultures. Fighting illegal immigration has fuck all to do with race. I suspect there's a similar situation in the US.
It's not a similar situation in the US. There is no legal way for dark-skinned people to immigrate here. We have avenues of legal immigration but they are reserved for light-skinned people. The racist history of our immigration system is well documented and understood.
There are per-country quotas which really amount to per-race quotas. Wealthy dark-skinned people "sponsor" their family members. This uses up the whole per-country quota. There are no spots left for anybody who doesn't have a wealthy
Re: (Score:2)
There is no legal way for dark-skinned people to immigrate here. We have avenues of legal immigration but they are reserved for light-skinned people.
What utter fucking nonsense. I know that's a lie and I'm on another continent.
Stop trying to be divisive and incite racial tensions. It makes you a lying cunt.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you, and anyone with that mindset is such for of shit.
My wife just became a citizen of America, and during that process we meet and saw a lot of people who've migrated here legally for one reason or another. And while seeing people and talking with them throughout the process is one thing, but when the final day came that citizenship is granted, they have everyone in the same room, introducing them and where they came from.
Nearly 2/3rds are not white, and this is in Utah, a pretty white state.
And almos
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes... Pathetic snowflakes once again try to win with downmods what they've already lost at birth. Sad...
As I was saying...
How about YOU cut the dog whistling...
And stop pretending that there is ANY issue regarding immigration at all - other than RACISM?
Even birds know by know that "illegal" is a dog whistle for "brown people" and Muslims - with legal being reserved for tall blonds from Normay.
Cause those "people" strawmen you're putting up there don't exist.
Scratch your "I'm only against illegal immigra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'll raise you a pair of Omars (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So, they take water and produce water? Where's the CO2 come into play, there's not much atmospheric hydrogen for that to contribute significantly to water production (and where does the carbon go?).
Not that producing liquid water inexpensively from water vapor isn't useful, but the chemistry seems to show there's a lot of spin here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Harvest and release water? (Score:5, Informative)
The fuel part is missing from TFS. From TFA: "Farha and others have also encapsulated enzymes inside MOFs, protecting the fragile molecules from harsh environments and enabling them to carry out industrial reactions outside cells. In one example, Farha’s team reported in the 26 March issue of Angewandte Chemie that a MOF-caged enzyme called formate dehydrogenase can convert CO2 to formic acid, a common industrial chemical, at more than three times the rate of the uncaged enzyme, and under greener conditions than formic acid is normally made. At the meeting, Thomas Rayder, a graduate student at Boston College, reported building on the idea. He encapsulated a pair of enzymelike catalysts in a zirconium-based MOF to drive a series of reactions that convert gaseous CO2 to methanol, a liquid fuel."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Harvest and release water? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That worked in that location because there were daily mists/fog that could be captured - water already condensed out of the air because of naturally fluctuating local humidity. This new substance is able to absorb water that is still vapor out of low-humidity air in the desert, then later deliver it as liquid. It's more like the moisture farmers of Tatooine.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the desert mentioned in the headline perhaps...
And displace more desert tortoise? Like at Ivanpah?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Solar power is not good for the environment. It kills any plants beneath the panels. This leaves nothing for the wildlife in the area to eat, and makes it worthless for crops, parks, or other green space us humans might want. The panels also disturb the birds with the light reflecting from them, as well as any flights overhead.
For this to be worth paving over land that land must be truly worthless. That means no wildlif
Re: (Score:2)
Like the desert mentioned in the headline perhaps...
And displace more desert tortoise? Like at Ivanpah? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Solar power is not good for the environment. It kills any plants beneath the panels. This leaves nothing for the wildlife in the area to eat, and makes it worthless for crops, parks, or other green space us humans might want.
Odd, there is a solar panel installation of several acres about 3 miles away from my place, and plants grow under it just fine. It's not like light just disappears, sucked into the panels. I'll wager that there are birds nesting in places as well. Birds that can nest under cover have a much higher chick survival rate.
Cool story though.
Re: (Score:2)
It kills any plants beneath the panels.
Yes, like any tree kills all plants below their leaves.
I can show you many many solar plastered fields close to german rail tracks their sheep grass below the panels ...
Sorry, but your degree in electro engineering must have cost you many many brain cells, I know at least from my university (The KiT) that electro engineering is the most hardest topic, or the second hardestone. Probably you are not aware that you gave half your brain for a degree, no idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. It's like a second language to it.