Thanks to Sakis Koukouvis, I’ve just learned about a breakthrough in artificial photosynthesis achieved by researchers headed by Professor Sun at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, Sweden.
The researchers have designed a molecular catalyst able to convert water into oxygen and protons at speeds similar to natural photosynthesis.
“This speed increase opens the possibility of building large hydrogen production facilities, for example in the Sahara where sunshine is plentiful. Or we may be able to achieve far more efficient conversion of solar energy into electricity,” Sun says.
“I’m convinced that, within ten years, this type of research will lead to technology that’s inexpensive enough to compete with coal,” he continues. “It’s no surprise that [U.S. President] Barack Obama is investing billions of dollars in this area.”
This all sounds truly wonderful, from one perspective.
From another, it’s not going to be that great if we switch from burning up all the fossoil on our planet to converting its water into hydrogen — and burning all of that instead. In that event, the global warming brakes could be permanently set to ‘off’.
Other research suggests that while excessive worrying may have co-evolved with intelligence, humans are too optimistic for our own good.
I think we’d be wise to get to grips with our insatiable energy appetite before unleashing another potential frankenstein’s monster.
As I suspected, Colin, your ‘humans are too optimistic for our own good’ links to the work of Tali Sharot, which was featured on the BBC’s Horizon programme last month, about which Paul Handover blogged at the time. However, the new research you report on here does sound interesting. Although, as you say, it will have to be used wisely – everything in moderation…
LikeLike
It seems to me that it would be a closed circuit: bring water, use sun, make H2, burn that, make water. No carbon, no CO2, no greenhouse… Did I miss something? Anyway, very interesting, thanks!
PA
LikeLike
I don’t know, maybe you’re right. The problem we’ve got is an energy imbalance on a planetary scale. Isn’t liberating hydrogen from water and burning it going to add to that imbalance? We’d be trapping energy from the sun that wouldn’t otherwise be trapped. I think? I’m confused, now…
LikeLike
PA has brought up an interesting question… The science teacher in me is intrigued : )
Technically, you are absorbing solar energy (that would other wise warm the Earth) to break appart the water molecule. The energy produced from that combustion would be converted into mechanical energy to power the generator… so as long as we aren’t release more GHGs, I figure we’re ok.
My bigger concern would be the water consumption. But, then again, it is can be done in a “closed loop”…
LikeLike
The planet is a closed loop, the water can’t go anywhere. Some of the energy from the sun that would have turned directly into heat, is held for a while in the hydrogen, and then comes back as heat again when the hydrogen fuel is used. No change to the earth as a whole. In the far future we might cover so much land with solar panels that it locally effects the climate, (not to mention the local wildlife), but we do that now with pavement and cities. So keep the population in check and run on solar, like all animals before us.
LikeLike
Awesome. I’m glad my fears are shown to be wrong! Thanks for your input, David (got any more gems?) — and all :)
LikeLike
Um. So they propose that we break down water into hydrogen…. in the Sahara. Where there is no water. Sigh. And hauling water into the Sahara will ruin the EROEI, no? What am I missing?
LikeLike
Well, although I hesitate to advocate the deliberate destruction of any ecosystem, there’s always the idea of flooding the Qattara Depression…
LikeLike