http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/ Engadget Comments for Artificial photosynthesis could power your house, even if it's not green (video) http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 8:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 8:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/That is what needs to happen, get rid of the power company all together. and yea warranty services for this type of tech, you could pay next to nothing for home power insurance protection. i hope that we can make this possible in the near future. lets unplug from the control of the grid!!! hope it happens in my lifetime!!! :) ]]>Mar 5th 2010 8:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 8:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 8:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/then we the PEOPLE should come together again and again and protest them into a freaking corner, what will they do if 4-5 million started protesting about big oil trying to stop any new green energy from emerging??they would have to support it or else it could hurt them if everyone would cometogether, but i just dont see americans doing that anytime soon. To many limp d***s]]>Mar 5th 2010 8:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 8:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/
If you have a grid over a wide area then you still get electricity when it's overcast (solar) and calm (wind) where you are, because it's sunny or windy (or in the right point of the tide cycle or whatever) somewhere else. This significantly reduces the need for backup power (coal/gas) or storage (batteries, pumping ginormous lakes uphill), both of which are undesirable.

Of course there are many cases where off-grid living is desirable due to infrastructure costs, but in general it's preferable to be connected to the grid wherever feasible. Take this technology, for instance; supposedly it might generate 30 kWh/day. That's a lot! What about when you're away from the house, or on holiday? Well, thanks to the grid, you can get paid for that extra electricity you're not using. And thanks to the grid you don't need to pay for 30 kWh (or whatever) worth of batteries the rest of the time.]]>Mar 5th 2010 8:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n//s]]>Mar 5th 2010 8:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/
Just as soon as the big oil multinationals and the governments that they prop up, figure out a way to adopt this tech and tax us all to death in order to maintain the power status quo.

I'm no cynic.]]>Mar 5th 2010 8:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 8:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/BUT
this is not photosynthesis or anything close to it
photosynthesis is carbon fixation]]>Mar 5th 2010 8:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 9:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/well it could be photolysis too (so the light directly splits the water without electricity) but the fact remains that in order to have photosynthesis you need to *synthesize* something.
In the case of plants these are carbohydrates out of CO2. O2 is just a waste product.
Or in other terms, if this would turn CO2 into gasoline or natural gas it would be photosynthesis.]]>Mar 5th 2010 9:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/
As I get older I get more and more jaded, how many times have we been led down the path of "you just wait"? They need to stop pimpin the future, she's gonna get pissed.]]>Mar 5th 2010 9:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://xkcd.com/678/]]>Mar 5th 2010 11:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Flying cars? People driving flying cars? You trust an eighth of the people with flying cars?

Text Messaging\Talking on the Phone + Flying Car + Building\House = No Flying Cars unless automated or heavily restricted. ]]>Mar 5th 2010 11:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 9:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/
What may potentially be interesting is the implied "catalyst" used to make this happen. Even at high voltages, pure water is very difficult to split into O_2 and H_2, making it an net energy negative reaction. Most H_2O reactions require expensive metal electrodes such as platinum to conduct these currents, and even these highly stable electrodes eventually decay. To make this an efficient reaction, you either need a catalyst that splits water without decaying or a whole heck of a lot of electricity.

So, instead of using solar cells to store energy in battery packs, these guys are using solar cells to store energy in hydrogen molecules. I don't know the thermodynamics by rote, but my guess is that this is no more efficient. He's basically betting on hydrogen as the energy fuel of the future ... an opinion with which I disagree, but that doesn't mean he might have more insight into it than I do. I, however, am still left with the notion that he has not invented anything, just combined two century old technologies that have no become mainstream. That he did not mention a revolutionary new catalyst leaves me lacking. That he did not mention the storage of the hydrogen he produces leaves me vexed. That there are no products available that actually burn hydrogen makes me absolutely certain that this guy is trying to produce hype in his newly minted "company".

I know of people that hook up water electrolysis devices in their automobiles to feed the H_2 into their engines because it burns more quickly than O_2, supposedly making their cars more efficient, but the efficiency of the electrolysis reaction is the critical element here: are you using more gasoline to drive the electrolysis reaction than you're getting from burning the hydrogen?

Hydrogen, in order to compete with the energy density of batteries, needs to be compressed into a liquid ... this compression also requires energy, and results in a highly volatile, combustible solution (far more explosive than propane or petroleum). Propane and petrol have their place not least of all because they burn very slowly and are relatively extremely safe, dense, and portable.

Sure he made hydrogen ... so can I if I stick two wires into a glass of water. Where's the infrastructure? ]]>Mar 5th 2010 9:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/
These guys are from MIT. They aren't hackjobs ignoring conservation of energy laws.

Photosynthesis is conceptually a more efficient use of solar energy than photovoltaics because plants convert fuel waste (CO2 and water) into storable fuel (carbohydrates/oxygen) using a photosynthetic chemical reaction directly. It's a cocktail of organic catalysts that make it all possible. Compared to this, photovoltaic power is terribly messy. Generating a small stream of current is much less useful than creating storable fuel by direct action of sunlight.

By analogy, it's the difference between filling a beaker out of a bucket using a siphon hose, and trying to splash the water out of the bucket and into the beaker by dropping in large rocks. On a quantum level, that's basically what's happening.

These guys aren't simply hooking a photovoltaic cell up to electrolysis; I can do that in five minutes in my lab. Heck, I can do that in ten minutes in my kitchen with a soldering iron, 6" of wire, and a calculator solar cell. Instead, these scientists are mimicking the natural process of photosynthesis by developing (i.e. research; that's where the $4M went) the complex blend of catalysts and compounds that can use sunlight to turn water (inert waste) into storable fuel (H2 and O2). Using really intense chemistry to combine the photovoltaic process and electrolysis into a single step....thus eliminating the inefficiency of conventional photovoltaics.

It won't be 200% efficient or some nonsense like that. But 25% efficiency would be....nice. Especially when you get fuel directly, instead of having to add (even more inefficient) electrolysis onto the end of the process.

Average insolation at the earth's surface during the daytime is 500 watts/square meter. The average roof is about 200 square meters, so in 12 hours the sun pumps out 1200 kW-hours of energy onto your roof. If just 10% of your roof is covered in these cells, that's 120 kW-hours of energy. At 25% efficiency, these cells will produce 30 kW-hours worth of fuel. Sounds like the math checks out.

Compare that to Mitsubishi's 18% efficient photovoltaic cells and the 30-40% efficiency of conventional electrolysis. Combining the best conventional technology we have, with the same situation, would produce (at best) 8.7 kW-hours worth of fuel. No contest.

Verdict: it's legit. It will cost a lot more money to develop and bring to the market, but that's what investors and patents and government subsidies are for.]]>Mar 5th 2010 4:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 4:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 10:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 10:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/You clearly don't understand what the Bloom Box does, this just makes the fuel. The Bloom Box would then turn that fuel into electricity.
You need both for the system to work.]]>Mar 5th 2010 3:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 3:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/ Well, not so sure about that, photosynthesis ain't so efficient, wikipedia dixit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PVeff%28rev110707%29d.png]]>Mar 5th 2010 10:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/"Using the electricity generated by a photovoltaic array five meters by six meters, Nocera claims he can split enough water in less than four hours "to store enough energy for the average American home" for a day, a little more than 30 kilowatt-hours."

A couple comments:

0) The article makes no mention of the quality of panels in the solar array. For the following examples, I'm going to assume decent panels are used.

1) A 5m x 6m solar array isn't going to be cheap. Assuming you're using decent panels (Sharp 216W modules, for example), a 5x6 meter array would require 18 panels at a cost of around $27k.

2) A 5m x 6m array of 216W Sharp panels is going to have a rated output of around 4KW. So 4 hours of optimal sunlight generates around 16 KW-h.

3) Using this new method of electrolysis, you can supposedly convert that 16KW-h of solar energy into 30KW-h of hydrogen energy.

See the problem? The conversion efficiency is greater than 100%! And if the researcher's claims were based on lesser-quality solar panels, the efficiency is even higher. This guy just solved the world's energy dilemma.

So if these claims are true, you shouldn't need to bother with a big solar array. Just use a solar cell from a solar calculator to kickstart the process. Then feed the energy back into the electrolysis process again and again until you're generating a few megawatts' worth of power in your backyard...

]]>Mar 5th 2010 10:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/
Thank you for pointing this out. I don't know why everyone is buying into this story as some kind of revolutionary breakthrough. His numbers are wrong to say the least. And he is apparently using solar cells to generate the electricity anyway.

This is a farce]]>Mar 5th 2010 1:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/
Say it takes 1 gallon of crude oil to run a pump that will extract 100 gallons of crude oil out of the ground. The claim isn't that "1 gallon is being magically turned into 100 gallons." The energy already exists -- it's just not where we can get at it. :-) The 1 gallon of crude oil just makes it available for use.

Apparently, the 30 kWh of hydrogen is already in the bottle of water. It already exists -- it's just not where we can get at it, because it's bound to oxygen. :-) The 16 kWh of electricity just makes the hydrogen available for use.

The inventor, Daniel Nocera, is a professor at MIT and is the recipient of many scientific awards and honors. So while it's possible this invention won't pan out, or won't be economically feasible, I seriously doubt that he has made a mistake on the level of "this is clearly impossible." :-)]]>Mar 5th 2010 2:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 11:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/the_new_power_p_1.php

THAT is photosynthesis energy. If we wanted to be really clever, I bet bioengineers could alter plant DNA to emphasize these electrical generating characteristics - and make nature herself the grid. Green energy what what? It seems silly to use photovoltaics to split water unless you need the H2 for running fuel cells or something.

You could tell a gamer's residence from a mile away: it would be an overgrown mess of juice-generating flora. ]]>Mar 5th 2010 11:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/
]]>Mar 5th 2010 12:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 1:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/
This is not using sunlight to directly make hydrogen from water. It's using electricity much like other kinds of electrolysis. The link with 'sunlight' or 'photosynthesis' is tenuous at best and really just seems to be a conceptual and marketing angle. The reality is that sunlight can only be used if you have a photovoltaic array converting sunlight into electricity. But for that matter, you could use electricity from the grid or from any other process.

Next, once you have the hydrogen, one, you have to store it, and two, you have to have some kind of equipment to use that fuel. So, a fuel cell, or natural gas-style combustion such as cookers and furnaces for heat. If you want electricity, you're gonna need a fuel cell.

So add it up: for a complete system you need THREE completely separate and quite high tech and expensive technologies: a solar electric PV array, this electrolysis hydrogen splitter with water supply and hydrogen compression and storage system, and a hydrogen fuel cell. And if you want to use this in your car, you'll need a fuel cell car.

If Sun Catalyx has invented a much more efficient way to extract hydrogen from water, that's great. But it's just a better form of electrolysis. And that's just a part of one of the middle steps of this Sunlight/Electricity/Hydrogen/Fuel Cell system.

And that is one COMPLICATED and EXPENSIVE way to get off the grid, man. I'm wondering why not just hook up a PV array to some lithium ion batteries. Simpler, easier, cheaper.]]>Mar 5th 2010 2:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13325]]>Mar 5th 2010 2:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 3:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/

no wind

no solar


Bloom box
this tech
Fusion(not cold fuision but the kind you get in the Sun)

Nuke power plants...don't..... worry nations around the world are creating a space elevator, so we can soon use it for launching nuke waste,in space cheaply!)

(hell Id give up most of my nuke arsenal (im from US and im pro nuke weapon type guy) so we could have an atomic nation that powers 70 percent of my nation by atomic power!)

]]>Mar 5th 2010 3:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 5:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 5th 2010 9:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 6th 2010 9:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-your-house-even-if-its-n/Mar 6th 2010 7:10PM