Photosynthetic Solar Cells
July 31, 2016 1:16 PM Subscribe
Breakthrough solar cell captures CO2 and sunlight, produces burnable fuel “The new solar cell is not photovoltaic — it’s photosynthetic”
By producing burnable fuel, doesn't this just contribute further to the problem it purports to solve?
As long as you capture the CO2 from the atmosphere before burning the fuel (and releasing the same amount of CO2), the result is carbon-neutral. It's only fossil fuels (where the CO2 was captured over millions of years, and is being released now, all at once) that cause problems.
posted by pipeski at 1:28 PM on July 31, 2016 [24 favorites]
As long as you capture the CO2 from the atmosphere before burning the fuel (and releasing the same amount of CO2), the result is carbon-neutral. It's only fossil fuels (where the CO2 was captured over millions of years, and is being released now, all at once) that cause problems.
posted by pipeski at 1:28 PM on July 31, 2016 [24 favorites]
And, like, you'd still have to build these things, right? Out of, you know, stuff, which needs to be extracted and processed and shipped and all that? Wouldn't that use a bunch of energy? How is this any more efficient than just growing a tree, cutting it down, and burning it?
Building things does indeed require energy. But whether than energy is produced by sustainable means is a completely separate issue.
posted by pipeski at 1:30 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
Building things does indeed require energy. But whether than energy is produced by sustainable means is a completely separate issue.
posted by pipeski at 1:30 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
How is this any more efficient than just growing a tree, cutting it down, and burning it?
Generally speaking, the simpler the chemical you burn, the less pollution you produce. Burning wood produces a lot of particulates, which is why we don't tend to advocate for wood as a fuel source, and why it's banned in many built-up areas.
posted by pipeski at 1:34 PM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
Generally speaking, the simpler the chemical you burn, the less pollution you produce. Burning wood produces a lot of particulates, which is why we don't tend to advocate for wood as a fuel source, and why it's banned in many built-up areas.
posted by pipeski at 1:34 PM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
linking to a press release from the discovering institution is like linking to a page from microsoft about the benefits of mandatory windows 10 upgrades or the RNC about the problems of immigration.
please don't do this - or at least without context.
posted by lalochezia at 1:45 PM on July 31, 2016 [17 favorites]
please don't do this - or at least without context.
posted by lalochezia at 1:45 PM on July 31, 2016 [17 favorites]
we don't tend to advocate for wood as a fuel source
tell it to the UK and Germany, who want to burn the plantations of the US South
posted by eustatic at 1:46 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
tell it to the UK and Germany, who want to burn the plantations of the US South
posted by eustatic at 1:46 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Before clicking the link, I thought this was going to be a satirical article about trees.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:49 PM on July 31, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:49 PM on July 31, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'm pretty weary of reading about "breakthrough" in solar technology that end up not panning out on a useful scale. At one point it was using solar power to split water into hydrogen to use for fuel cells. Turns out, we can't capture enough energy from sunlight to make this viable. (It was going to revolutionize Africa with individual power units for all individual buildings!!!)
Then it was paint-on photovoltaic coatings. The technology was proven. Turns out, it's hella expensive and doesn't generate that much electricity.
I'll wait five years to see if this new technology actually yields anything that can be scaled to any level that is useful for our energy needs. It seems you can create a lot of things in the lab, but making them become something that the average homeowner or even industrial plant could use effectively to combat climate change (or even just to hold the CO2 levels to the current over-400-ppm level) is something that thus far has escaped science.
posted by hippybear at 2:04 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
Then it was paint-on photovoltaic coatings. The technology was proven. Turns out, it's hella expensive and doesn't generate that much electricity.
I'll wait five years to see if this new technology actually yields anything that can be scaled to any level that is useful for our energy needs. It seems you can create a lot of things in the lab, but making them become something that the average homeowner or even industrial plant could use effectively to combat climate change (or even just to hold the CO2 levels to the current over-400-ppm level) is something that thus far has escaped science.
posted by hippybear at 2:04 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
“The new solar cell is not photovoltaic — it’s photosynthetic”
vs.
"The UIC artificial leaf consists of two silicon triple-junction photovoltaic cells of 18 square centimeters to harvest light"
So as much as they're billing it as "turns sunlight into fuel" it sounds more "turns electricity into fuel" and sunlight can be the source of that electricity. And they specify 2x18 cm2 cells, but unless I missed something, they don't really specify how much fuel that can produce per hour, minute, day, or whatever. Other than it's "1,000 times faster than noble-metal catalysts" but I don't know how fast noble-metal catalysts are off the top of my head, so I don't know what that means in practical terms.
posted by RobotHero at 2:11 PM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
vs.
"The UIC artificial leaf consists of two silicon triple-junction photovoltaic cells of 18 square centimeters to harvest light"
So as much as they're billing it as "turns sunlight into fuel" it sounds more "turns electricity into fuel" and sunlight can be the source of that electricity. And they specify 2x18 cm2 cells, but unless I missed something, they don't really specify how much fuel that can produce per hour, minute, day, or whatever. Other than it's "1,000 times faster than noble-metal catalysts" but I don't know how fast noble-metal catalysts are off the top of my head, so I don't know what that means in practical terms.
posted by RobotHero at 2:11 PM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
As long as you capture the CO2 from the atmosphere before burning the fuel (and releasing the same amount of CO2), the result is carbon-neutral. It's only fossil fuels (where the CO2 was captured over millions of years, and is being released now, all at once) that cause problems.
Generally speaking, the simpler the chemical you burn, the less pollution you produce. Burning wood produces a lot of particulates, which is why we don't tend to advocate for wood as a fuel source, and why it's banned in many built-up areas.
Right, but ethyl-methyl-imidazolium tetrafluoroborate, tungsten diselenide, cobalt(II,III) oxide, and potassium phosphate don't just fall out of the sky as ready-to-use cathodes and anodes. You have to mine for them, process them, ship them, form them, etc. To say nothing of merely heating or cooling the places where people do those things. That's not remotely carbon-neutral, and on top of that, it causes environmental damage beyond just its carbon footprint.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:14 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
Generally speaking, the simpler the chemical you burn, the less pollution you produce. Burning wood produces a lot of particulates, which is why we don't tend to advocate for wood as a fuel source, and why it's banned in many built-up areas.
Right, but ethyl-methyl-imidazolium tetrafluoroborate, tungsten diselenide, cobalt(II,III) oxide, and potassium phosphate don't just fall out of the sky as ready-to-use cathodes and anodes. You have to mine for them, process them, ship them, form them, etc. To say nothing of merely heating or cooling the places where people do those things. That's not remotely carbon-neutral, and on top of that, it causes environmental damage beyond just its carbon footprint.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:14 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why is there so much more skepticism for solar technologies than other potential energy sources? FFS, almost all the energy we even could use ultimately originated in sunlight. One way or another, every other energy tech that exists other than nuclear is just a much less efficient way of harvesting energy from the sun.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:18 PM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 2:18 PM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]
Why is there so much more skepticism for solar technologies than other potential energy sources?
A history of early reporting hype followed by zero ability to apply the New Wonder Tech in any meaningful way has led me to feel like the Solar Energy Wolf has been sighted too often.
I'd be thrilled if a new solar technology were developed that worked in a way which would supplant carbon fuels. We're already WAY too far along with the global warming issue for today's elementary school children to have a world worth living in (thanks to our commitment to warming). But over the past decade, there's been way too much ballyhoo over new technologies that have turned out not to be at all useful.
every other energy tech that exists other than nuclear
Well, there's geothermal... but that isn't something that can be tapped world-wide.
posted by hippybear at 2:25 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
A history of early reporting hype followed by zero ability to apply the New Wonder Tech in any meaningful way has led me to feel like the Solar Energy Wolf has been sighted too often.
I'd be thrilled if a new solar technology were developed that worked in a way which would supplant carbon fuels. We're already WAY too far along with the global warming issue for today's elementary school children to have a world worth living in (thanks to our commitment to warming). But over the past decade, there's been way too much ballyhoo over new technologies that have turned out not to be at all useful.
every other energy tech that exists other than nuclear
Well, there's geothermal... but that isn't something that can be tapped world-wide.
posted by hippybear at 2:25 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, there are a lot of unanswered questions here, but "don't you have to mine ore and refine it and build stuff in factories etc. to make these?" isn't really a deal-killing gotcha that nobody has ever thought of before. Every energy source that we employ requires industrial infrastructure for us to exploit it. Nobody is claiming that this is a miracle technology that will somehow make our post-industrial society of seven billion humans into some kind of leave-no-trace ecological utopia. The idea is just that it might, if it proves feasible to develop it on a grand scale, provide a carbon-neutral (or even carbon negative!) energy capture and storage medium that solves some of the problems with using batteries to store energy from photovoltaic panels. That would be huge, though it wouldn't solve every single problem with the way our society operates. Good thing nobody is saying that it would, eh?
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:33 PM on July 31, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:33 PM on July 31, 2016 [23 favorites]
Neither tungsten nor selenium are super rare so count me in as 'hopeful'
posted by sexyrobot at 2:35 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sexyrobot at 2:35 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
And anyway, I think it's pretty cool to know that some progress is being made in this direction even if it's still confined to the lab so far. Carbon capture and solar energy storage are both major challenges in terms of energy sustainability, and if we could solve one or both of them it would make a big, big difference. This is obviously just a university press release about some work that one of their labs has been doing, but it's still cool stuff to hear about. I don't see where anybody made the claim that this is The Perfect Solution to all our world's energy problems, but I like hearing about what people are up to anyway. These folks are clearly working hard at coming up with solutions to some of the grand problems of our age, and even if they're not singlehandedly slaying every dragon that's definitely a lot better than sitting around on the internet complaining about how they're not doing enough.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:40 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:40 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
I hope it's not made with graphene. Then it'll only be ready five years from now. Forever.
posted by stavrogin at 2:45 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stavrogin at 2:45 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
At least based upon the abstract, it looks like it produces carbon monoxide, not some sort of burnable hydrocarbon. While CO can be converted into fuel (via the Fischer-Tropsch process), and while CO is definitely burnable and has been used for household purposes,(*) that's a far cry from producing a fuel source we'd consider acceptable today.
It's a breakthrough, definitely, but this isn't a solution.
(*) Sadly, the Wiki on this is less complete than I'd like, but gas stoves and lights originally used not natural gas but syngas (a mixture of CO and H2). This explains stories about death by extinguishing the pilot light.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 2:52 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's a breakthrough, definitely, but this isn't a solution.
(*) Sadly, the Wiki on this is less complete than I'd like, but gas stoves and lights originally used not natural gas but syngas (a mixture of CO and H2). This explains stories about death by extinguishing the pilot light.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 2:52 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago have engineered a potentially game-changing solar cell that cheaply and efficiently converts atmospheric carbon dioxide directly into usable hydrocarbon fuel, using only sunlight for energy.
...
While plants produce fuel in the form of sugar, the artificial leaf delivers syngas, or synthesis gas, a mixture of hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide. Syngas can be burned directly, or converted into diesel or other hydrocarbon fuels.
I hope this is just yet another example of terrible science writing. Because if "syngas" is just a mixture of CO and H2, that is not a hydrocarbon because, well, the carbon is not hydrogenated.
I would love love love for somebody to create a solar cell that actually converts atmospheric carbon into a burnable hydrocarbon. But this does not seem to be it.
posted by hydropsyche at 2:54 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
...
While plants produce fuel in the form of sugar, the artificial leaf delivers syngas, or synthesis gas, a mixture of hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide. Syngas can be burned directly, or converted into diesel or other hydrocarbon fuels.
I hope this is just yet another example of terrible science writing. Because if "syngas" is just a mixture of CO and H2, that is not a hydrocarbon because, well, the carbon is not hydrogenated.
I would love love love for somebody to create a solar cell that actually converts atmospheric carbon into a burnable hydrocarbon. But this does not seem to be it.
posted by hydropsyche at 2:54 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or you know what steady-state strawberry said.
posted by hydropsyche at 2:56 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by hydropsyche at 2:56 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
When light of 100 watts per square meter – about the average intensity reaching the Earth’s surface – energizes the cell, hydrogen and carbon monoxide gas bubble up from the cathode, while free oxygen and hydrogen ions are produced at the anode.
This isn't photosynthesis...it's modified electrolysis, with solar providing the electricity...presumably, you could get power from some other source, to "energize the cell"...
Furthermore, the amount of light that reaches the earth's surface is more like 1000 watts/square meter...do they mean to say that it works on only 10% of that?
posted by littlejohnnyjewel at 4:20 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
This isn't photosynthesis...it's modified electrolysis, with solar providing the electricity...presumably, you could get power from some other source, to "energize the cell"...
Furthermore, the amount of light that reaches the earth's surface is more like 1000 watts/square meter...do they mean to say that it works on only 10% of that?
posted by littlejohnnyjewel at 4:20 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
Some context courtesy of Google News:
2015: A potentially game-changing breakthrough
2014: Artificial photosynthesis could replace fossil fuels
2013: Could an 'artificial leaf' fuel your car?
2012: Panasonic Touts Artificial Photosynthesis Technology
2011: Green Machine: Artificial leaf mimics photosynthesis
2010: Engineers Develop Carbon-Capturing Photosynthetic Frog Foam
2009: Nanocapsules for artificial photosynthesis
2008: Japanese Researchers Pave Way for Artificial Photosynthesis
2007: Device Uses Solar Energy To Convert Carbon Dioxide Into Fuel
2006: Global warming just may have met its match.
posted by sfenders at 5:52 PM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]
2015: A potentially game-changing breakthrough
2014: Artificial photosynthesis could replace fossil fuels
2013: Could an 'artificial leaf' fuel your car?
2012: Panasonic Touts Artificial Photosynthesis Technology
2011: Green Machine: Artificial leaf mimics photosynthesis
2010: Engineers Develop Carbon-Capturing Photosynthetic Frog Foam
2009: Nanocapsules for artificial photosynthesis
2008: Japanese Researchers Pave Way for Artificial Photosynthesis
2007: Device Uses Solar Energy To Convert Carbon Dioxide Into Fuel
2006: Global warming just may have met its match.
posted by sfenders at 5:52 PM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]
As I've said in another thread, we already have the "disruptive break through technology" we need to go carbon neutral: Existing PVs and existing wind turbines. They work. In fact, they work so well they are starting to disrupt energy markets because the cost of electricity goes to less than zero at times. It's about the political will to continue, and speed up the transition that needs pushing, as much, if not more than, new tech.
posted by gwint at 7:43 PM on July 31, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by gwint at 7:43 PM on July 31, 2016 [13 favorites]
I hope this is just yet another example of terrible science writing. Because if "syngas" is just a mixture of CO and H2, that is not a hydrocarbon because, well, the carbon is not hydrogenated.
My understanding is that the reaction produces carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas (syngas) and splits water. The hydrogen from the split water can then be reacted with carbon dioxide to make methane, so you get two types of gaseous fuels. What you don't get is a liquid fuel, though compressed natural gas is, of course, a possibility. We use a huge amount of natural gas though, so this would still be great. You also need a way to concentrate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is doable, but certainly not simple.
Of course, this is obviously a long way from practical applications and may not be practical at all.
posted by ssg at 7:48 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
My understanding is that the reaction produces carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas (syngas) and splits water. The hydrogen from the split water can then be reacted with carbon dioxide to make methane, so you get two types of gaseous fuels. What you don't get is a liquid fuel, though compressed natural gas is, of course, a possibility. We use a huge amount of natural gas though, so this would still be great. You also need a way to concentrate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is doable, but certainly not simple.
Of course, this is obviously a long way from practical applications and may not be practical at all.
posted by ssg at 7:48 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
I want to live in The Land of University Press Releases, where cancer has been cured by a yeast genetics breakthrough, fusion reactors powered by lasers generate power, stem cells and CRISPR cure every malady, and global warming has been fixed by carbon capture, cellulosic ethanol, and photosynthetic circuits. I guess I need a subscription to WIRED.
posted by benzenedream at 8:25 PM on July 31, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 8:25 PM on July 31, 2016 [19 favorites]
Syngas is indeed just an h2 and co mixture. It is a common byproduct of the petroleum industry, and is itself directly combustible.
There's a whole academic industry around using solar power to create fossil fuel analogs, (often Syngas) and I'm highly skeptical of it. It usually involves electricity as an intermediary, so the renewable aspect is moot, or it's using hightemperature-solar energy from heliostats and a concentrating solar-tower, which can only ever have limited applications. It's often funded by petroleum industry giants, surprise surprise. I'm also highly skeptical of science reporting of "breakthroughs" and (cringe) "game-changers".
Solar panels and wind turbines work great. No breakthrough needed. Interesting advances are those that (a) reduce material throughput, (b) reduce price, (c) increase efficiency, and (d) make installation and maintenance easier.
Same goes for batteries. We don't need some amazing new technology. We need to keep reducing the unit cost of the existing technologies, and improve the ease and cost of finished, working systems.
posted by molecicco at 10:46 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
There's a whole academic industry around using solar power to create fossil fuel analogs, (often Syngas) and I'm highly skeptical of it. It usually involves electricity as an intermediary, so the renewable aspect is moot, or it's using hightemperature-solar energy from heliostats and a concentrating solar-tower, which can only ever have limited applications. It's often funded by petroleum industry giants, surprise surprise. I'm also highly skeptical of science reporting of "breakthroughs" and (cringe) "game-changers".
Solar panels and wind turbines work great. No breakthrough needed. Interesting advances are those that (a) reduce material throughput, (b) reduce price, (c) increase efficiency, and (d) make installation and maintenance easier.
Same goes for batteries. We don't need some amazing new technology. We need to keep reducing the unit cost of the existing technologies, and improve the ease and cost of finished, working systems.
posted by molecicco at 10:46 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
> Same goes for batteries. We don't need some amazing new technology. We need to keep reducing the unit cost of the existing technologies, and improve the ease and cost of finished, working systems.
So we need some sort of really really big factory for existing-tech of lithium-ion batteries to get some mass-manufacturing efficiency. Like 1 billion times as big as existing factories. Maybe even some sort of... gigafactory? (It's not actually a billion times bigger.)
posted by fragmede at 12:02 AM on August 1, 2016
So we need some sort of really really big factory for existing-tech of lithium-ion batteries to get some mass-manufacturing efficiency. Like 1 billion times as big as existing factories. Maybe even some sort of... gigafactory? (It's not actually a billion times bigger.)
posted by fragmede at 12:02 AM on August 1, 2016
Not to derail too much into batteries, but it's a good question whether one single mega factory is going to pan out for Tesla, or whether multiple large, distributed factories would have been smarter.
But in general yeah, simply increasing volume of production is one of the necessary steps, be it battery, solar panel, wind turbine, or power converters.
posted by molecicco at 1:04 AM on August 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
But in general yeah, simply increasing volume of production is one of the necessary steps, be it battery, solar panel, wind turbine, or power converters.
posted by molecicco at 1:04 AM on August 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
When you burn the syngas, do you get rid of the carbon monoxide? Because that's a deadly gas.
posted by musofire at 7:11 AM on August 1, 2016
posted by musofire at 7:11 AM on August 1, 2016
From gwint's link:
posted by Western Infidels at 7:29 AM on August 1, 2016
The reason for negative energy prices is partly down to inflexibility in the system. With renewable sources producing so much energy, some conventional power plants were taken offline temporarily. However, nuclear and coal plants can't shut down quickly, and it's often cheaper for them to put out electricity at a loss than go through the process of stopping and restarting a few hours later.I have often wondered why more renewable-energy research has not focused on making old-school powerplants more flexible for solving exactly this problem. Storing renewable energy is capital - intensive, wasteful, and likely many years away at the scale it's ultimately needed. To an outsider and an amateur like me, retrofitting coal plants to produce some kind of range of output instead seems like an attractive stepping stone.
posted by Western Infidels at 7:29 AM on August 1, 2016
The US has been building a lot of natural gas power plants recently. They're much more dispatchable than coal or nuclear, so fit better on a grid with lots of renewables.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 8:14 AM on August 1, 2016
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 8:14 AM on August 1, 2016
If this technology needs moving parts or process water to work, it's at a huge disadvantage to traditional PV. The lack of moving parts in PV is huge; the reduction in O&M costs alone makes even installing single-axis trackers quite risky. O&M employment (or lack of it) is one of the bigger social barriers to solar; many countries have structured their power industry as a big employer, and PV disrupts this.
→ I have often wondered why more renewable-energy research has not focused on making old-school powerplants more flexible for solving exactly this problem.
There has been some work on this (people have proposed natural gas plants that can switch to fertilizer production as a sort of energy/value store when electricity prices are low) but there are many barriers. First off, your typical large thermal plant packs a load of thermal inertia in its steam system. For it to dispatch quickly, you need to vent that heat somewhere, and waste it (either by heating up the air or nearby waterbody, all of which need permits). So the value of the dispatch has to be more than the value of the wasted steam.
Secondly, thermal systems don't respond well to sudden heat/cooling cycles. Boiler pipes develop cracks, steam turbines develop pitted blades from wet steam droplet impact. Most nuclear technologies don't respond well to thermal or load cycling; my local nukes take a few days to complete a manoeuvre, and they'll happily pay to deliver negative-cost power to avoid a shutdown.
The last kind of system inertia comes from the oldest plants: they're fully depreciated, and often running on legacy permits. Do anything to improve their efficiency or operation, and the regulators and pesky treehuggers (amongst which I count myself, btw) will come sniffing around to see if those old permits still apply. It can be too much of a business risk to even try an upgrade.
There are gas thermal power plants that can spool up quickly: single-cycle aeroderivative gas turbines. They're basically a jet engine in a box, and can go from zero to full power in a few minutes. Unfortunately, they do this by having no thermal inertia whatsoever, and dump all their process heat to the atmosphere. This (along with their short MTBR) makes them suitable only for short-term peaking cover. Adding a steam system makes them more efficient, but makes them less responsive.
If you want to get really depressed about thermal system inefficiencies, Dukes' paper Burning Buried Sunshine (PDF) is laugh-a-minute. I guess even nuclear is just really old solar: the tail ends of stars that had gone nova longe before Earth was formed. I don't really want to think about the efficiency of that …
posted by scruss at 8:49 AM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
→ I have often wondered why more renewable-energy research has not focused on making old-school powerplants more flexible for solving exactly this problem.
There has been some work on this (people have proposed natural gas plants that can switch to fertilizer production as a sort of energy/value store when electricity prices are low) but there are many barriers. First off, your typical large thermal plant packs a load of thermal inertia in its steam system. For it to dispatch quickly, you need to vent that heat somewhere, and waste it (either by heating up the air or nearby waterbody, all of which need permits). So the value of the dispatch has to be more than the value of the wasted steam.
Secondly, thermal systems don't respond well to sudden heat/cooling cycles. Boiler pipes develop cracks, steam turbines develop pitted blades from wet steam droplet impact. Most nuclear technologies don't respond well to thermal or load cycling; my local nukes take a few days to complete a manoeuvre, and they'll happily pay to deliver negative-cost power to avoid a shutdown.
The last kind of system inertia comes from the oldest plants: they're fully depreciated, and often running on legacy permits. Do anything to improve their efficiency or operation, and the regulators and pesky treehuggers (amongst which I count myself, btw) will come sniffing around to see if those old permits still apply. It can be too much of a business risk to even try an upgrade.
There are gas thermal power plants that can spool up quickly: single-cycle aeroderivative gas turbines. They're basically a jet engine in a box, and can go from zero to full power in a few minutes. Unfortunately, they do this by having no thermal inertia whatsoever, and dump all their process heat to the atmosphere. This (along with their short MTBR) makes them suitable only for short-term peaking cover. Adding a steam system makes them more efficient, but makes them less responsive.
If you want to get really depressed about thermal system inefficiencies, Dukes' paper Burning Buried Sunshine (PDF) is laugh-a-minute. I guess even nuclear is just really old solar: the tail ends of stars that had gone nova longe before Earth was formed. I don't really want to think about the efficiency of that …
posted by scruss at 8:49 AM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I want to live in The Land of University Press Releases, where cancer has been cured by a yeast genetics breakthrough, fusion reactors powered by lasers generate power, stem cells and CRISPR cure every malady, and global warming has been fixed by carbon capture, cellulosic ethanol, and photosynthetic circuits
I work in this field, so take this with a grain of salt, but -- we write press releases like this because it's become so tough to get funding for basic research. Many of the big deal breakthroughs we're seeing now, the advances that are actually changing people's lives for the better TODAY, grew out of fundamental research that took place twenty or thirty or forty years ago, when scientists were much more able to investigate questions without knowing exactly where the answers would lead. Now, no one wants to pay scientists to do that.
And since no one wants to pay scientists to sit in their labs and play with yeast, I write stuff like "This yeast genetic breakthrough could point the way to new therapies for cancer" because explicitly drawing that connection is the only way to get state legislatures and big donors to care enough to keep the dollars flowing. And in twenty or thirty years, these promised therapies will save lives.
Sometimes cause and effect take a while, but the people who make decisions about university funding often have very short attention spans.
posted by the turtle's teeth at 9:02 AM on August 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
I work in this field, so take this with a grain of salt, but -- we write press releases like this because it's become so tough to get funding for basic research. Many of the big deal breakthroughs we're seeing now, the advances that are actually changing people's lives for the better TODAY, grew out of fundamental research that took place twenty or thirty or forty years ago, when scientists were much more able to investigate questions without knowing exactly where the answers would lead. Now, no one wants to pay scientists to do that.
And since no one wants to pay scientists to sit in their labs and play with yeast, I write stuff like "This yeast genetic breakthrough could point the way to new therapies for cancer" because explicitly drawing that connection is the only way to get state legislatures and big donors to care enough to keep the dollars flowing. And in twenty or thirty years, these promised therapies will save lives.
Sometimes cause and effect take a while, but the people who make decisions about university funding often have very short attention spans.
posted by the turtle's teeth at 9:02 AM on August 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Thank you sfenders.
In addition to what the turtle's teeth said, I will add what I have said repeatedly over the years: When Iraq lit oil wells on fire as they left Kuwait, it was predicted they would burn for years and have global impact on the environment. When crack teams converged on Kuwait and put them out in six months, it was not heralded in the news. When Y2K was predicted to be the coming global breakdown of our banking system, it was quietly solved. People who had prepared for the apocalypse looked foolish after the fact. We do not get up every single day and thank God that we are not living in the Y2K post apocalypse. Instead, we focus on all the things going wrong.
Humans are living longer. We daily have insanely advanced medical techniques being pioneered, like our first ever face transplant. Yet, people mostly bellyache about all the things that scare them and 7 billion humans is not celebrated as incredible success of the species. Instead, it is decried as evidence of how we are destroying the planet.
In addition to wind and solar, millennials are creating demand for walkable communities and better public transit, plus passive solar has the capacity to keep homes comfy on a fraction of the electricity used for conventional American homes. Perhaps as we see more summers with 110° temps killing people, more people will decide it is worth the hassle to get off their duff and alter their lifestyle a hair instead of just ranting that it is inevitable because no one wants to actually change.
posted by Michele in California at 10:36 AM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
In addition to what the turtle's teeth said, I will add what I have said repeatedly over the years: When Iraq lit oil wells on fire as they left Kuwait, it was predicted they would burn for years and have global impact on the environment. When crack teams converged on Kuwait and put them out in six months, it was not heralded in the news. When Y2K was predicted to be the coming global breakdown of our banking system, it was quietly solved. People who had prepared for the apocalypse looked foolish after the fact. We do not get up every single day and thank God that we are not living in the Y2K post apocalypse. Instead, we focus on all the things going wrong.
Humans are living longer. We daily have insanely advanced medical techniques being pioneered, like our first ever face transplant. Yet, people mostly bellyache about all the things that scare them and 7 billion humans is not celebrated as incredible success of the species. Instead, it is decried as evidence of how we are destroying the planet.
In addition to wind and solar, millennials are creating demand for walkable communities and better public transit, plus passive solar has the capacity to keep homes comfy on a fraction of the electricity used for conventional American homes. Perhaps as we see more summers with 110° temps killing people, more people will decide it is worth the hassle to get off their duff and alter their lifestyle a hair instead of just ranting that it is inevitable because no one wants to actually change.
posted by Michele in California at 10:36 AM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
You also need a way to concentrate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is doable, but certainly not simple.
There is existing, millennia - old technology for concentrating atmospheric CO2 that is employed on an industrial scale in many parts of the world.
It's called brewing.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 8:24 PM on August 1, 2016
There is existing, millennia - old technology for concentrating atmospheric CO2 that is employed on an industrial scale in many parts of the world.
It's called brewing.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 8:24 PM on August 1, 2016
"I want to live in The Land of University Press Releases, where cancer has been cured by a yeast genetics breakthrough, fusion reactors powered by lasers generate power, stem cells and CRISPR cure every malady, and global warming has been fixed by carbon capture, cellulosic ethanol, and photosynthetic circuits. "
"Good news, everybody."
posted by klangklangston at 10:12 PM on August 1, 2016
"Good news, everybody."
posted by klangklangston at 10:12 PM on August 1, 2016
we write press releases like this because it's become so tough to get funding for basic research.
I hear you and understand why these overblown press releases get written -- everyone is trying to portray their work in a way that even a congressperson might understand is relevant to their life. I just wish we could step off the relevancy treadmill as a society and fund interesting basic research instead of derivative oncology trials.
posted by benzenedream at 8:26 AM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I hear you and understand why these overblown press releases get written -- everyone is trying to portray their work in a way that even a congressperson might understand is relevant to their life. I just wish we could step off the relevancy treadmill as a society and fund interesting basic research instead of derivative oncology trials.
posted by benzenedream at 8:26 AM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
"And since no one wants to pay scientists to sit in their labs and play with yeast, I write stuff like "This yeast genetic breakthrough could point the way to new therapies for cancer" because explicitly drawing that connection is the only way to get state legislatures and big donors to care enough to keep the dollars flowing. And in twenty or thirty years, these promised therapies will save lives. "
The only way my sister-in-law can get paid to sit in her lab and play with yeast is by teaching undergrads how to teach other students how to sit in a lab and play with yeast.
posted by klangklangston at 11:41 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
The only way my sister-in-law can get paid to sit in her lab and play with yeast is by teaching undergrads how to teach other students how to sit in a lab and play with yeast.
posted by klangklangston at 11:41 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's called brewing.
Sure, if you consider the whole process of growing grain and brewing then you definitely go from atmospheric carbon dioxide to carbon dioxide produced by yeast, but I bet there is a lot more carbon dioxide produced along the way in all the agricultural inputs, transportation, malting, and brewing itself. You'd need a much more efficient process for this to make sense, which is very much something that people are working on. We also have plenty of smokestacks, of course.
posted by ssg at 4:21 PM on August 2, 2016
Sure, if you consider the whole process of growing grain and brewing then you definitely go from atmospheric carbon dioxide to carbon dioxide produced by yeast, but I bet there is a lot more carbon dioxide produced along the way in all the agricultural inputs, transportation, malting, and brewing itself. You'd need a much more efficient process for this to make sense, which is very much something that people are working on. We also have plenty of smokestacks, of course.
posted by ssg at 4:21 PM on August 2, 2016
Would it help if I called it 'fermentation'? - it's much more than beer.
And yes, you could look at all the inputs and argue how carbon-neutral they are, but my point is, that these CO2 concentrating facilities are already deployed on an industrial scale, and the CO2 is just vented to the atmosphere.
So, should we capture that and use it as the basis for fuel, or would you prefer to invent and deploy your own CO2 concentration technology?
posted by HiroProtagonist at 7:15 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
And yes, you could look at all the inputs and argue how carbon-neutral they are, but my point is, that these CO2 concentrating facilities are already deployed on an industrial scale, and the CO2 is just vented to the atmosphere.
So, should we capture that and use it as the basis for fuel, or would you prefer to invent and deploy your own CO2 concentration technology?
posted by HiroProtagonist at 7:15 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fermentation creates new carbon dioxide. It does not suck it out of the air. What are you even talking about.
posted by Sys Rq at 7:49 PM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Sys Rq at 7:49 PM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Fermentation creates new carbon dioxide. It does not suck it out of the air.
Your second sentence is correct, fermentation does not suck CO2 out of the air.
Your first sentence is false, as long as we're talking about fermentation of organic matter.
The carbon that is being fermented from sugars into alcohol + CO2 was extracted from atmospheric CO2 by photosynthesis. Hence growing grapes et al, and fermenting the juice is effectively concentrating atmospheric CO2.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 7:43 PM on August 3, 2016
Your second sentence is correct, fermentation does not suck CO2 out of the air.
Your first sentence is false, as long as we're talking about fermentation of organic matter.
The carbon that is being fermented from sugars into alcohol + CO2 was extracted from atmospheric CO2 by photosynthesis. Hence growing grapes et al, and fermenting the juice is effectively concentrating atmospheric CO2.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 7:43 PM on August 3, 2016
Yeah. Driving a dumptruck does the same thing. It's not saving the world.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:44 AM on August 4, 2016
posted by Sys Rq at 9:44 AM on August 4, 2016
To maybe help clarify this a bit, fermentation converts plant sugars containing carbon extracted from the atmosphere (by the plant) into alcohol and CO2. BUT the alcohol contains some of the carbon atoms (2 for every atom in the released CO2, assuming sucrose -> ethanol). So fermentation does result in a net trapping of CO2 if you store it. And because the percentage of carbon taking part in fermentation relative to the amount in the whole plant is not going to be anywhere near 100%, additional carbon can be captured in soil by composting the waste.
If you burn the alcohol, you release some of that carbon back into the atmosphere, but not all of it. If for some reason you burn the plant waste, you still don't release 100% of the carbon back into the atmosphere, and that's about as wasteful as you could be.
So, there is an net reduction in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, as long as you're powering all of your processes using energy from the alcohol and don't have to factor in a whole web of energy inputs (but you have that problem with any carbon capture method or energy source).
posted by pipeski at 4:52 PM on August 4, 2016
If you burn the alcohol, you release some of that carbon back into the atmosphere, but not all of it. If for some reason you burn the plant waste, you still don't release 100% of the carbon back into the atmosphere, and that's about as wasteful as you could be.
So, there is an net reduction in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, as long as you're powering all of your processes using energy from the alcohol and don't have to factor in a whole web of energy inputs (but you have that problem with any carbon capture method or energy source).
posted by pipeski at 4:52 PM on August 4, 2016
Yeah. Driving a dumptruck does the same thing. It's not saving the world.
Sigh. I don't know what your problem is with my statement, but if you think the CO2 emitted by "Driving a dumptruck" is somehow concentrating atmospheric CO2, then I think I'm wasting my typing.
Have you ever heard the expression "Perfect is the enemy of good?"
All I was pointing out is that there is at least one example of existing infrastructure that already concentrates atmospheric CO2. I didn't try to claim that it would "save the world", or that the existing infrastructure was 100% carbon neutral, or that it was some sort of perfect solution.
If one were setting out to concentrate atmospheric CO2 from scratch, building a winery or brewery would be daft, but if one wanted a source of concentrated atmospheric CO2, one could do worse than make use of an existing industry that can provide it as a free by-product.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 5:56 PM on August 4, 2016
Sigh. I don't know what your problem is with my statement, but if you think the CO2 emitted by "Driving a dumptruck" is somehow concentrating atmospheric CO2, then I think I'm wasting my typing.
Have you ever heard the expression "Perfect is the enemy of good?"
All I was pointing out is that there is at least one example of existing infrastructure that already concentrates atmospheric CO2. I didn't try to claim that it would "save the world", or that the existing infrastructure was 100% carbon neutral, or that it was some sort of perfect solution.
If one were setting out to concentrate atmospheric CO2 from scratch, building a winery or brewery would be daft, but if one wanted a source of concentrated atmospheric CO2, one could do worse than make use of an existing industry that can provide it as a free by-product.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 5:56 PM on August 4, 2016
« Older Xerox Alto: Restoring the Legendary 1970s GUI... | The return of Claressa Shields, the 1st gold medal... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
And, like, you'd still have to build these things, right? Out of, you know, stuff, which needs to be extracted and processed and shipped and all that? Wouldn't that use a bunch of energy? How is this any more efficient than just growing a tree, cutting it down, and burning it?
posted by Sys Rq at 1:26 PM on July 31, 2016