MIT's artificial leaf is ten times more efficient than the real thing (Wired UK)
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: MIT's artificial leaf is ten times more efficient than the real thing (Wired UK)
#2If this is as good as it seems to be, why is the focus purely on the third world? Unless I'm missing something, this could bring cheap and extremely environmentally friendly energy to developed countries too.
If it's purely a case of "they need this more than we do", why not either just license out the technology to companies who can use it, or develop it themselves for developed countries. Either way, they could take the money raised through that side and use it to help bring the technology to third world countries. I can't see any downside of pushing to get this kind of technology widely used everywhere.
Re: MIT's artificial leaf is ten times more efficient than the real thing (Wired UK)
#3If this is as good as it seems to be, why is the focus purely on the third world? Unless I'm missing something, this could bring cheap and extremely environmentally friendly energy to developed countries too. If it's purely a case of "they need this more than we do", why not either just license out the technology to companies who can use it, or develop it themselves for developed countries. Either way, they could tak…
To me it sounds too good to be true, but I really hope it is.
Re: MIT's artificial leaf is ten times more efficient than the real thing (Wired UK)
#4If this is as good as it seems to be, why is the focus purely on the third world? Unless I'm missing something, this could bring cheap and extremely environmentally friendly energy to developed countries too. If it's purely a case of "they need this more than we do", why not either just license out the technology to companies who can use it, or develop it themselves for developed countries. Either way, they could tak…
Earth receives about 1.3 to 1.4 kW per square meter from the sun (and that's before the atmosphere absorbs and reflects a huge chunk of that) - which is effectively an upper bound on the energy that can be produced by any solar power source. A playing-card sized device is going to take more than a day to produce a day's worth of electricity for a current developed-world lifestyle, even if it were 100% efficient.
Re: MIT's artificial leaf is ten times more efficient than the real thing (Wired UK)
#5If this is as good as it seems to be, why is the focus purely on the third world? Unless I'm missing something, this could bring cheap and extremely environmentally friendly energy to developed countries too. If it's purely a case of "they need this more than we do", why not either just license out the technology to companies who can use it, or develop it themselves for developed countries. Either way, they could tak…
Earth receives about 1.3 to 1.4 kW per square meter from the sun (and that's before the atmosphere absorbs and reflects a huge chunk of that) - which is effectively an upper bound on the energy that can be produced by any solar power source. A playing-card sized device is going to take more than a day to produce a day's worth of electricity for a current developed-world lifestyle, even if it were 100% efficient.
I think the point is that it can use that small amount of energy to break the hydrogen bond in the water, releasing more energy than was used.
Edit: Apparently I made a mistake. See the correction, which I was the first to upvote.
Re: MIT's artificial leaf is ten times more efficient than the real thing (Wired UK)
#6If this is as good as it seems to be, why is the focus purely on the third world? Unless I'm missing something, this could bring cheap and extremely environmentally friendly energy to developed countries too. If it's purely a case of "they need this more than we do", why not either just license out the technology to companies who can use it, or develop it themselves for developed countries. Either way, they could tak…
Earth receives about 1.3 to 1.4 kW per square meter from the sun (and that's before the atmosphere absorbs and reflects a huge chunk of that) - which is effectively an upper bound on the energy that can be produced by any solar power source. A playing-card sized device is going to take more than a day to produce a day's worth of electricity for a current developed-world lifestyle, even if it were 100% efficient.
Solar panels are already good enough that they are used in developed countries such as USA and UK. Are they perfect? No, they cost too much, and they don't generate enough electricity, but they are used none-the-less.
By the sound of it, this new creation would be more efficient, either in price, electricity generation, or both, than traditional solar panels - if that wasn't the case, why on earth would any project use them in third world countries, when they could instead use solar panels.
So, based on those two facts, surely anyone who would be using solar panels ought to look to be using this product in the next few years? (And, depending on how much better than traditional solar panels it is, possibly more people/companies would want to use it than are willing to use solar power right now.)
Re: MIT's artificial leaf is ten times more efficient than the real thing (Wired UK)
#7How are these reconciled? Optimism?:
Re: previous artificial leaf: It was also highly unstable, and had a lifespan of barely one day.
and
Nocera's leaf is stable -- operating continuously for at least 45 hours without a drop in activity in preliminary tests
Re: MIT's artificial leaf is ten times more efficient than the real thing (Wired UK)
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Earth receives about 1.3 to 1.4 kW per square meter from the sun (and that's before the atmosphere absorbs and reflects a huge chunk of that) - which is effectively an upper bound on the energy that can be produced by any solar power source. A playing-card sized device is going to take more than a day to produce a day's worth of electricity for a current developed-world lifestyle, even if it were 100% efficient.
I think the point is that it can use that small amount of energy to break the hydrogen bond in the water, releasing more energy than was used. Edit: Apparently I made a mistake. See the correction, which I was the first to upvote.
Breaking bonds does not release energy. Bonds are the way the are because they are (locally) the lowest-energy configuration for the atoms that are taking part. You need to put energy in to get out of a low-energy configuration.
The device appears to use water->hydrogen as an energy storage mechanism, to solve (at some efficiency cost) the issue of energy demand generally being out of sync with the supply from the sun. You put energy in to convert water into hydrogen+oxygen, and then you can get that energy back out by converting it back into water.
Re: MIT's artificial leaf is ten times more efficient than the real thing (Wired UK)
#9If this is as good as it seems to be, why is the focus purely on the third world? Unless I'm missing something, this could bring cheap and extremely environmentally friendly energy to developed countries too. If it's purely a case of "they need this more than we do", why not either just license out the technology to companies who can use it, or develop it themselves for developed countries. Either way, they could tak…
"With a single gallon of water, Nocera says, the chip could produce enough electricity to power a house in a developing country for an entire day."
I think a house in a developing country is key. They say the chip is 10x more efficient than a natural leaf. I don't think 10 leaves produce a whole lot of power...
I'm curious how it compares to a traditional photovoltaic solar cell.
Re: MIT's artificial leaf is ten times more efficient than the real thing (Wired UK)
#10How are these reconciled? Optimism?: Re: previous artificial leaf: It was also highly unstable, and had a lifespan of barely one day. and Nocera's leaf is stable -- operating continuously for at least 45 hours without a drop in activity in preliminary tests
The previous artificial leaf and the current one are different things.