| ▲ | Scientists Develop Artificial Leaf, Uses Sunlight to Produce Valuable Chemicals(newscenter.lbl.gov) |
| 157 points by gnabgib 12 hours ago | 59 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | ErigmolCt 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Mimicking photosynthesis at this level, using durable inorganic materials like copper and perovskite, feels like one of those "quiet breakthroughs" that could end up being a game-changer if scaled up |
| |
| ▲ | lukan 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | In what way? Energy production? I believe there are quite some breakthrougs required for this to compete with cheap solar panels. | | |
| ▲ | ozim 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | From the article: Researchers built a perovskite and copper-based device that converts carbon dioxide into C2 products – precursory chemicals of innumerable products in our everyday lives, from plastic polymers to jet fuel. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | changoplatanero 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Something I'm curious to know: How does the efficiency of this new process compare to using regular solar panels to generate electricity and then using that electrical energy to synthesize the same chemicals? |
| |
| ▲ | ErigmolCt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Direct solar-to-chemical systems like this can be more efficient in theory because they cut out the middleman (electricity storage and conversion), but in practice, they're often less mature and have lower overall efficiency right now compared to established solar-electric-chemical setups | |
| ▲ | trollbridge 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm also wondering how it compares to the efficiency of things like "grass" and "trees", which also convert sunlight into very useful things. | | |
| ▲ | robbiep an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Photosynthesis in nature is 1% efficient so it doesn’t need to be greatly better to beat it | |
| ▲ | joak 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Imagine you have 100 acres growing corn for biofuels, would it be nice to replace these by 99 acres of wilderness and 1 acre of photovoltaics producing the same amount of biofuels? If your photovoltaics are 100x more efficient to produce your chemicals, agriculture is the dirty way of doing it. | | |
| ▲ | rcxdude 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | We could more or less do that now. In fact we should probably just stop growing corn for biofuel, it's not obvious that it's even energy-positive, let alone a good use of farmland. | |
| ▲ | saretup 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Does it mention it’s 100x more efficient anywhere? Or is it just an example you’re providing, in which case, why not 1000x? | | |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They might be remembering the stat that: > Looking at land-use efficiency, corn-derived ethanol used to power internal combustion engines requires about 85x (range: 63-197x) as much land to power the same number of transportation miles as solar PV powering electric vehicles. | |
| ▲ | spauldo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Corn isn't particularly great for producing ethanol. I'm guessing that a synthetic process won't be able to get close to 100x less land usage, but any improvement would be welcome. The problem I see is that there's not enough money in in to develop a new process. Cellulosic ethanol outperforms corn on nearly every measure, but there's not enough money in it to pay for the development needed to scale it up to industrial levels. | |
| ▲ | joshuaturner 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > why not 1000x? now we're talking - can I invest in your company? |
|
| |
| ▲ | chongli 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm just picturing whole new swathes of rainforest being clearcut and bulldozed to make way for "artificial leaf farms." | |
| ▲ | dwattttt 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Make sure to include the time and inputs to make the grass, and especially trees; those don't just appear out of nothing. And we already know how it works, it's called logging. | | |
| ▲ | lithocarpus 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | None of the inputs required for plants to grow require toxic pollution or destructive extraction. Of course humans can bring in toxic or destructive inputs to try to favor certain plants over others, or humans can do other non destructive things to favor certain plants over others. Or humans can step aside and let the plants do their thing which will create abundance too. (I like the middle of these three.) Also, trees provide far more value than timber alone. | | |
| ▲ | ashoeafoot 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Would you give up fertilizer and pest control and stop feeding the 8 billion ? Please dont be a holdomorehippy.. Those back-to-nature loving massmurderers without a cause creep me out beyond repair.. those that openly hate some humans at least give the monstrous game away. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Ygg2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Grass and trees are pretty bad at converting sun into glucose. Main enzyme in photosynthesis Rubisco is both slow (few molecules per min vs several hundred per second) and lowly selective (confusing O2 for CO2 regularly). Which makes sense, for most of Earth's geological history CO2 was more abudant. So chance of mistaking O2 and CO2 was nil. https://youtu.be/vYVSH2RpHcQ?feature=shared |
| |
| ▲ | japanuspus 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Agreed: this is the key question. One effort I follow in this direction is Terraform Industries[0] who are building exactly this type of system. Their approach is PV + DCC (Direct Carbon Capture) and then simple carbohydrate synthesis, with the goal of establishing standalone autonomous systems that can generate valuable resources on their own in remote areas with ample sunlight. They have a great blog where they go through their motivation for the approach from first principles [1]. [0]: https://terraformindustries.com/
[1]: https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/home/ | |
| ▲ | photochemsyn 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | After following the literature down several different rabbit holes, I found this argument in some of the supplementary figures on that tree that seems to address your question: > "Supplementary Note 1 | Advantages of PEC hydrocarbon synthesis. "In general, PEC systems have the potential to combine the performance of wired PV-electrolysis (PV-E) systems with the simplicity of photocatalytic (PC) systems. PV-E is an established technology, which can take advantage of commercial solar cell modules with light harvesting efficiencies above 20% 24 and state-of-the-art gas diffusion electrolysers operating at high current densities above 1 A cm-2.25 However, PV-E assemblies require additional components including reactors, membranes, pumps, corrosive electrolytes, external cables and control electronics, increasing the overall system complexity and associated cost.26,27" "On the other hand, PC powders provide an inexpensive alternative to PV-E, since light absorber particles and any necessary catalysts are dispersed in solution, which greatly minimises the overall system complexity. However, wide band gaps and charge recombination often limits solar-to-hydrogen conversion efficiencies to below 1%.28 While a homogeneous dispersion of the light absorber and catalyst can increase reactivity, this also poses challenges for the subsequent separation of all components and products from the reaction mixture." "Accordingly, PEC artificial leaves provide a balance between PV-E and PC approaches in terms of complexity, cost and performance, by integrating state-of-the-art semiconductors and catalysts into a single compact panel. These PEC devices can perform reactions beyond water splitting (e.g., CO2 reduction to C1 products, or the light-driven C2 hydrocarbon and organic synthesis introduced here), while allowing product separation between the anodic and cathodic sides. This intrinsic design advantage is demonstrated by lightweight PEC systems using 15-fold less material than conventional solar panels, which combine the high performance of wired systems with the high activity per gram of photocatalyst nanoparticles.29 This applicability and potential of PEC-based fuel production also translates to hydrocarbon synthesis. In addition, direct light-driven hydrocarbon synthesis is carbon neutral, avoiding the energy-intensive Fischer-Tropsch process for indirect hydrocarbon synthesis from syngas (H2 + CO)." Practically speaking the catalysts in these processes have relatively short lifetimes, so you'd want to incorporate an efficient catalyst regeneration process into the production pipeline, i.e. you might only get 16-128 hours of efficient production before catalyst regeneration is required so that needs to be built into any commercial process. So if you can design a catalyst that's easy to regenerate, that's very important. Source material with nice pictures of the copper nanoflowers: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs419... | |
| ▲ | bognition 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Efficiency is likely much lower than solar panels, however, solar panels are expensive and complicated (chemically) to manufacture. Teaching plans to make stuff for us is a better long term solution as we can just grow the plants. | | |
| ▲ | turtlebits 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | What? Solar panels are cheap and little to no maintenance. Even though wildly inefficient, I opted to heat water using PV instead of a solar hot water because of how low complexity it is. Also, nowhere in the article does it mention growing these artificial leaves, they probably need to be manufactured. | | |
| ▲ | pfdietz 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I roll my eyes at these "artificial leaf" claims for just the reason you've identified. | |
| ▲ | trollbridge 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Solar panels have a limited lifespan, decrease in efficiency over time, and also get ruined when things like hail happens. This doesn't mean PVs are a bad idea, but it's not accurate to say they have little to no maintenance. | | |
| ▲ | xbmcuser 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 20 year solar panels just loose 5-10% capacity and degradation slows over time the reason most people replace them today is 20 year old panels were 200w where as today panels are 5-600w. | | |
| ▲ | Ygg2 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sadly our solar panels don't self heal or come with 100(0) years warranty. |
| |
| ▲ | msy 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 'Replace every 15-20 years' is not maintenance. Neither is replacement in the case of catastrophic weather events that'll have you replacing all your windows as well. The only 'maintenance' solar panels benefit from (which is still entirely optional) is occasional cleaning. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | To be fair your windows are less likely to take the full brunt of an extra large hailstone since they're usually mounted vertically. |
| |
| ▲ | dwattttt 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Aside from the hail, none of those are maintenance requirements. I've done 0 maintenance on my panels over their lifespan. | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure but how do these artificial leaves fare when analyzed with the same criteria? Presumably worse, given that solar panels are (roughly speaking) nothing more than a few sheets of material laminated between glass panels. Artificial leaf is an alternative term for extra complicated solar panel. | | |
| ▲ | gus_massa 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you ignore the nice "Artistic depiction of an artificial tree" it looks like this will also be "few sheets of material laminated between glass panels", but I'm worry it will also need plumbing for the water and output gas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | krunck 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Stuff like this(and fusion) is where we should be putting our research energies. |
| |
| ▲ | aeonik 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | You don't want another new JavaScript framework instead? Speaking of which, it feels like we are overdue for the next big one. Is it actually slowing down? Everybody just went head first into AI? | | |
| ▲ | cookiengineer 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe we should make a javascript UI framework generator. Let an LLM build your next hype UI framework in a matter of seconds. Could be fun with a highscore that is measured by most amount of dependencies and lines of code, the more the better. The prompt is limited in length. Task for the user is to generate the most amount of code with a single prompt. | |
| ▲ | xmprt 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Clearly that's what they meant when they said fusion: https://fusionjs.com/ | |
| ▲ | VladVladikoff 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Is it actually slowing down? All I want for Christmas… | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | noisebuffer 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So can I make a realistic plant mech mobile suit now? |
|
| ▲ | tcdent 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In the next couple years we'll be modifying and creating biological structures that perform these functions. Building it by mechanically manipulating inert materials feels so 1950s. |
| |
| ▲ | jfengel 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Biology is stunningly efficient, but it's hard to optimize further. To get really high yields you usually need industrial processes. | | |
| ▲ | wffurr 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Solar panels are ten times more efficient than photosynthesis. | | |
| ▲ | joak 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Today it's 10x more efficient, but it could theoretical get 100x more efficient, worth working on it. | | |
| ▲ | tbrownaw 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can it? I thought panels were well over 10% efficiency these days. Plus I'm pretty sure there's a hard limit somewhere below 100%. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Layvier 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | isn't the self replicating property of life a huge benefit though? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rsoto2 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm in my early thirties and I feel like i've heard about an "artificial leaf" every five years for the last fifteen. We have leaves. Can scientists invent something to help us convince politicians to actually give a shit about saving the planet we depend on. |
| |
| ▲ | dennis_jeeves2 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >I'm in my early thirties and I feel like i've heard about an "artificial leaf" every five years for the last fifteen. You have a good memory. Most people don't, so the ruse of living in a world with amazing breakthroughs works really well with most people. | |
| ▲ | incompatible 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Many politicians are more interested in protecting the coal, oil, and gas industries. Renewable energy and methods of extracting carbon from the atmosphere are the last things they want. | |
| ▲ | cyjackx 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The pragmatic answer is that it is probably a better spend of time to innovate tech that circumvents politics than to spend time winning politics. | | |
| ▲ | usrnm an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, because it worked flawlessly the last time we tried (crypto) | |
| ▲ | lukas099 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | A lot of the tech research and investment is done by governments, though. |
| |
| ▲ | Arkhadia 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the reality is there is no saving anything. Only surviving as long as we can. Why dump billions into an impossible goal of saving when we could invest in survival? I hope I’m wrong but anyone that knows anything about investments knows that there’s a point where you need to cut your losses | | |
| ▲ | doctorwho42 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | The system of economics that we use is quite new on the historical scale, using it in your argument to say that saving earth based life (which we are apart of) is not financially viable is the most absurd thing in modern society. Without the ecosphere, the economic system ceases to exist... So by the very definition, it is the utmost important and therefore not only viable but absolutely necessary. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It isn't clear what criteria is being used here for "saving" something. People often use "save the planet" to mean stopping most or all ecological changes. That very well might not be viable in which case survival ie adaptation is the other option. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | yesbut 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How many natural habitats will need to be destroyed in order to make artificial leaves useful in any meaningful way? |
| |
| ▲ | joak 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Natural habitats has been destroyed by agriculture. In the US 10-20% of agricultural land is used to produce chemicals like starch, sugar or biofuels, if we could use less land to produce these it would be great. Photovoltaics could be up 100x more efficient in producing these chemicals. This technology could free agricultural land back to natural habitats. | |
| ▲ | gaiagraphia 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm pretty glad that when we've chopped down all our forests, we'll have mechanical leaves as a backup plan. Having the means to generate enough electricity to take oxygen out of the atmosphere could be useful. |
|
|
| ▲ | npodbielski 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What is wrong with normal leafs? |
|
| ▲ | mrbluecoat 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > a perovskite and copper-based device that converts carbon dioxide into C2 products – precursory chemicals of innumerable products in our everyday lives, from plastic polymers to jet fuel Star Trek Replicator? |
| |
| ▲ | gus_massa 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The device makes ethane and ethylene, oversimplify it's just natural gas. You must put it inside a huge petrochemical refinery to join some of them to make plastic or fuel. |
|