Artificial leaves transform sunlight into clean fuel !

(image from http://www.agaetech.com)

This could very possibly be the technology missing for photovoltaic to finally challenge on equal footing any type of fossil energy !

Indeed, one of the major if not the biggest challenge with PV panels, are their inability to produce energy at night and therefore not to provide electricity 24/7.

The only solution thought so far was to store the un-used amount of produced electricity, a process that is both costly and difficult to manage. Not to mention the loss of energy in the storing process.

A recent breakthrough that is the graphene/silicium battery could be an answer since it increases considerably batteries abilities, charging and life time. Yet the costs and malleability remain quite consequent with a battery-form storage.

Step in Dr Dan Nocera, a Harvard professor and American chemist who developed an ARTIFICIAL LEAF !

Great ! Awesome ! Neat ! WTF ?! What has this to do with anything ??!! You may ask.

Well first of all watch your tongue people ! You wouldn't kiss your mother with that mouth. And second, don't be so eager to take the royal pajamas might I answer !

It has to do with everything because the artificial leaf mimics the photosynthesis process that green plants use to convert water and sunlight into energy !

Still not following ?! The artificial leaf transforms water into hydrogen and oxygen which are both usable fuels !

Which means that the artificial leaf is the perfect interface that would transform sunlight into clean fuels that are hydrogen and oxygen ! And because it's a fuel, it can be used anytime, anywhere, however and is also way easier in terms of transportation.

Hence, the photovoltaic/artificial leaf could be the PERFECT combination for producing clean energy regardless of day time, in a fuel form that is both way easier to store and multi-usage (hydrogen powered cars) and STILL COMPLETELY CLEAN from production to usage stage !!

Very pragmatically: If your house is hydrogen powered, it is now a 24/7 self-sustaining entity (energy-wise) relying only on the sun !

In lemons terms: the artificial leaf is the answer to the energy storing issue of photovoltaic panels !





But producing hydrogen by electrolysis is an "old" and well known process, so why is the artificial leaf any "breakthrough ?!

Great question ! Even if the concept is rather ancient, the tremendous added values of the articial leaf are that:
- it's wireless
- uses a CHEAP nickel-molybdenum-zinc compound catalyst and a cobalt film instead of a cost-prohibitive platinum catalyst
- on top of being cheap the materials used are earth abundant
- this technology is already operational and therefore can be used/implemented right away

=> artificial leaf systems can be implemented in remote places and developing countries as well !

One issue I might see would be that fresh clean water is more and more scarce of a resource... Ergo what's the ratio water converted/fuel created ?

According to Dr Nocera, it only takes 1.5 bottles of drinking water to power a house for 2 days.
So the ratio seems rather "good enough" given the rising scarcity of water not to be to big of an issue.

Fuel for thoughts though: does it work with salt water ? with "dirty"/unfiltered water ?

The remaining obstacle standing in the way of artificial leaf's great success seems "just" to be high engineering costs.
But with the commercial development and use of that new technology, the break even point shouldn't be far away. And that's all we wish for !

Make it profitable, make it sustainable !

 

To go further:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120509123900.htm
http://theenergycollective.com/tinacasey/225966/new-artificial-leaf-concept-could-blow-fuel-cell-market 

99.9 Percent Renewables is Feasible and Cost-Effective

 Credits to Dirk Ingo Franke

In order to defuse counter argumentation and because I try to be as objective as humanly possible (not much then ;) ) I would like to state before anything else that YES a study will remain "just" a study. It can be partial, its methods can be inaccurate and therefore its conclusions and findings can be disputed.

And I would say "good on you" + "get amongst it" since I do believe critical thinking is the corner stone of real freedom and "progress" in the most positive way, and since that would be a good and objective use of it. Although, like most things, it would be biased by our "humanity" that makes us so wonderfully imperfect.

That bias being of course that we mainly seek studies and materials that comfort and support our pre-formed opinions; and disregard/discredit studies and materials that contradict them. Being no exception since that blog is mainly about positive technological breakthroughs and overall supportive news and analysis of renewables and sustainability as a whole; I however am aware of such a bias just like I hope/expect it’d be the same for my readers (what do you mean there are none?!).

But Greg, then how can we trust this study? (or any studies at all for that matter?!) Good question reader, good question indeed… Well the key criteria to recognize the seriousness, application and overall quality of a study so it cannot be totally rejected at once are commonly: reference (towards recognized academic materials) and credits (who wrote it/in what context) plus explanation of the methods used and why.

Such criteria are commonly accepted among rational people in order to reach consensus and generate constructive criticism so we can move on, improve and get things done and also escape the really annoying BS statement “everything’s a matter of opinion/belief”.
And since we’ve all acknowledge that fact in joy and felicity and did put our objective caps on, we can now move from these boring (yet incredibly clever and thoughtful ;) ) considerations to the interesting findings of that study.

Although at this point I’m not even sure what I’m writing about in this post anymore! « I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying » Oscar Wilde => BOOM ! Self high-five ! ;)

Back to the point: You can find all these elements (reference, credits, method dispute) in this thorough and at times technical study that you CANNOT now just disregard given that I bamboozled you with 350 words of wisdom in the previous paragraphs:
 "Cost-minimizedcombinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, poweringthe grid up to 99.9% of the time"

It's been carried out by several authors from several study departments of the Delaware University in Newark USA, and its conclusion are (drum roll, I know you’ve suffered to get to this point):

" At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we find that the electric system can be powered 90%–99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs comparable to today's—but only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies."

SOURCE: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759?np=y

What I get from that:

1/ It’s feasible and renewables are sufficient in themselves (no need to complement with fossil energy)

2/ It’s cost effective (costs comparable to todays in a 15 year projection)

3/ We need a multi sector approach and to improve/optimize energy storage technology

That third point is exactly what I’ve been preaching:

“ … in my point of view it is absolutely vital NOT to rely too much/be dependent on just one source of energy, “clean” or not. History as taught us through the oil crisis, the danger of being too dependent of just one source of energy which is why we need to apprehend the energy stakes and challenges with a multi-sector approach in order to reach a clever and complementary combination of energy industries: solar, hydro, wind turbine, biomass…”
Airborne Wind Turbine article

Just like I’ve been overly enthusiast about recent breakthroughs in energy storage technology: "Batterie Graphene" (few seconds of recharge for weeks of use with more than doubled battery life expectancy)

On top of that, I also maintain the need we have for decentralized energy:

“Additionally, it seems self-evident that energy production must be as decentralized as possible! Instead of huge power plants powering entire cities by themselves, each construction, house or building should be thought as an autarkic entity, a mini power plant in itself self-sufficient energy wise. That’s that much issues less in terms of power shortage and so on !”
Airborne Wind Turbine article

In conclusion, my dear friends, all of this post to repeat yet again but one thing: renewable energies, OH YEAH ! It makes sense economically, it makes sense environmentally, it makes sense energetically, strategically…

It makes sense! Period!

Make it profitable, make it sustainable