This is a printer friendly version of the page. Go back to the website version »

Science and technology

Babbage

Artificial photosynthesis

The Difference Engine: The sunbeam solution

Feb 11th 2011, 11:50 by N.V. | LOS ANGELES

FOR decades, your correspondent has watched, with more than casual interest, every new twist and turn in the quest for an “artificial leaf”. His hope has been that industry might one day replicate the photosynthetic process used by plants, and thus create forests of artificial trees for making hydrocarbon fuel direct from sunlight. Apart from helping offset the emission of carbon dioxide caused by burning fossil fuels, such man-made leaves could provide an endlessly supply of energy for transport. Finally, it seems, something is stirring in the forest.

In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama drew special attention to the $122m research programme on artificial photosynthesis that is underway in laboratories across California. “They’re developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars,” said the 44th president. He might have added that the Joint Centre for Artificial Photosynthesis (JCAP), involving some 200 scientists and engineers from universities and research laboratories around the state, was seeking to make liquid hydrocarbons not from solar-powered electrolysis, biomass, micro-organisms or other round-about routes, but direct from sunlight—just as the chlorophyll in a leaf does.

Sunlight is the world’s largest source of carbon-neutral power. In one hour, more energy from the sun strikes the Earth than all the energy consumed by humans in a year. Yet, solar energy, in the form of sustainable biomass, provides less than 1.5% of humanity’s energy needs. Meanwhile, solar panels contribute a mere 0.1% of electricity consumption.

The problem is that the sun does not shine all the time. Night intervenes. So do clouds. If people are to rely on the sun for more of their energy, then a reliable form of storage is required. And the best way to store solar energy is to convert it into chemical fuel. That is what nature has been doing for millions of years.

Unfortunately, artificial photosynthesis is still in its infancy. Researchers reckon that, at least in the laboratory, they can make fuel direct from sunlight far more efficiently than can the fastest-growing plants. But no-one can yet do so at a cost that would make the process economic. Nor can they make it robust enough to work continuously, year in and year out, under the full glare of the sun. And they are years away from integrating the various steps—from capturing the sunlight in the first place to producing the finished fuel—into working prototypes, let alone commercial-sized factories capable of producing something resembling petrol.

Nevertheless, chlorophyll—the stuff of life—is as good a place as any to start. This large organic molecule has a magnesium ion at its core, surrounded by a ring of porphyrin. In nature, porphyrins are a group of organic pigments that give plants, corals and even animal skins their colours. One of the most common porphyrins is heme, the pigment in red blood cells. The porphyrin in chlorophyll absorbs strongly in the red and blue-violet parts of the visible spectrum, but not in the green. By reflecting such wavelengths, chlorophyll gives plants their colour.  

It would be better, of course, if chlorophyll could absorb light across the whole of the visible spectrum. But plants take what they have been given. As such, chlorophyll’s job is to absorb all the energy it can from sunlight, and use it to transform carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and water from the soil into carbohydrates and oxygen. The energy stored this way is what makes it possible for practically all living things to survive and thrive.

What makes chlorophyll so good at capturing sunlight is the way its ring-like structure can lose and gain electrons easily. When a leaf absorbs photons from sunlight, electrons in the chlorophyll molecules get excited from lower energy states into higher ones, allowing them to migrate to other molecules. That forms the starting point for chains of electron transfers that end with electrons being "donated" to molecules of carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, the chlorophyll molecules that gave up electrons in the first place accept electrons from elsewhere. These form the end points of transfer processes that start with the removal of electrons from water.

In this way, chlorophyll acts as a catalyst that drives the oxidation-reduction reaction between carbon dioxide and water to produce carbohydrates and oxygen. In the pursuit of the artificial leaf, then, the main task is to find catalysts that can mimic the intricate dance of electron transfers that chlorophyll makes possible.

The JCAP programme, led by the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena in partnership with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory near San Francisco, will run for five years. The goal is to demonstrate a working solar-fuel generator that uses no biological components and no pricy catalysts (like platinum), yet can produce hydrocarbon fuel from the sun ten times more efficiently than maize (corn), sugar cane, switch grass or any other fast-growing crop.

To do so, the JCAP team will need to perfect a host of different components—including light absorbers and catalysts, molecular linkers to couple the two together, and special membranes for selectively separating the oxygen and hydrogen produced during the process. Two different catalysts are required: one to split water into hydrogen and oxygen; another to convert carbon dioxide and hydrogen into hydrocarbons. The various components for doing this will then need to be engineered into a practical bench-top system for demonstrating not only that solar fuel can be made efficiently and economically, but also that the process can be scaled up for commercial application.

At present, the JCAP team uses a carpet-like structure of microfibres made of a silicon-based semiconductor similar to those employed in photovoltaic solar panels. But instead of generating electricity, the charge-carriers produced by the semiconductor drive the catalytic process for splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. Special membranes vent the oxygen away, while collecting the hydrogen. Later, other catalysts will be used to convert carbon dioxide and hydrogen into basic fuels such as methane and methanol. Long-term, the goal is to make "drop-in" replacements for petrol, or even diesel.

Before that can happen, however, cheap catalysts will have to be found. Platinum is excellent for splitting water into storable hydrogen and oxygen, but it is far too expensive to use on a commercial scale. A more practical substitute has been developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where Daniel Nocera and his colleagues have perfected cheap and durable catalysts based on cobalt and phosphate, and, more recently, on nickel and borate.

Last year, Sun Catalytix, a Massachusetts-based company founded by Dr Nocera, was awarded a $4m contract by the Department of Energy to commercialise the process. The company aims to develop solar-fuel stations for places that are off the electricity grid, and eventually for the home. Meanwhile, the JCAP team in California is working on its own light absorbers and catalysts. So far, it has released few details—though it admits it needs to develop cheaper versions of what it is currently using.

But the dark horse in the race to develop a synthetic chlorophyll could be a small group at Massey University in New Zealand. Wayne Campbell, at the university’s Nanomaterials Research Centre, has come up with a series of porphyrin dyes that work with solar cells based on titanium dioxide rather than silicon. In the laboratory, Dr Campbell’s cells are said to generate electricity for a tenth the price of conventional photovoltaic panels.

There is talk of incorporating them into roofing materials and tinted windows. But if Dr Campbell’s porphyrin dyes are as efficient as claimed, they could prove to be better catalysts for producing solar fuel for motor cars, as well as electricity for homes. Your correspondent is gratified to see that artificial leaves are sprouting everywhere—and promising to make the world a greener place.

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please login or sign up for a free account.
1-17 of 17
russbrow wrote:
Feb 11th 2011 7:37 GMT

This proposition seems to pose a fundamental contest of rates. Could the conversion of carbon dioxide to hydrocarbon forms by artificial photosynthesis ever equal humanity's capability to oxidize the products? Tempering the current dynamics would only change the rate at which we approach a potential disaster.

russ

James in NM wrote:
Feb 11th 2011 8:22 GMT

Russbrow,it wouldn't need to exceed the rate of man's ability to oxidize the products. The issue today is that we're taking ancient carbon and oxidizing it. If we could develop a system whereby only the CO2 in the atmosphere could be recycled to meet our energy needs, the plants, plankton and other natural processes will continue to do what they've always done: reduce the carbon in the atmosphere and store it at the bottom of the sea, etc. This is the idea behind using biofuels and the like.

Feb 11th 2011 9:20 GMT

Adding nto the other two comments, when we have used up the availabe supply from other sources our capacity to oxidise the products will be limited by the rate of production of the products.

If it is all one way with the plankton etc. won't we run out?

haruspexb wrote:
Feb 12th 2011 12:17 GMT

Artificial photosynthesis will become practical with concentrated sources of CO2, such as the emissions from carbon-burning generators, long before it is with atmospheric CO2. It is under-appreciated that using emissions like that does not constitute zero-carbon technology. The conversion back into a fuel for transport (the most economically attractive application) would only be a single reuse. It will not be captured a second time. The system as a whole would still be mining carbon that had been safely out of circulation for millennia and adding it into the biospheric cycle.
If the generator could be completely closed-circuit, burning only the fuel made from its own emissions, that would be ok, but it would not provide gas for the car. Therefore electricity is still a much better bet for transport.
If the aim is purely to make electricity from sunlight 24x7, there are much easier ways. Concentrated solar thermal plant with molten salt storage does the job today.

Nirvana-bound wrote:
Feb 13th 2011 12:01 GMT

Maybe synthetic chlorophyl/porphyrin dyes are the answer to our prayers. Let's hope the scientists come up with a viable substitute for oil soon. Or else we are all in deep s**t!

embb wrote:
Feb 13th 2011 3:11 GMT

haruspexb: you are right but still it will reduce the rate of production of new cO2 in the atmosphere (in case you subscribe to the theory of atmospheric CO2 being evil - a good thing). It will also reduce the dependence from countries with increasingly volatile politics - like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran etc. which is also a good thing.

However, I trust the greens will soon find a way to present this as something evil and a further step towards our doom . I am just curious to see what this will be.

Feb 13th 2011 10:53 GMT

Slightly off-topic:

if, as Babbage writes, "In one hour, more energy from the sun strikes the Earth than all the energy consumed by humans in a year",

then, how Cap-and-Trade, as well as any other green Ponzi scheme are supposed to stop and even reverse changes in climate generated by the changes in the sun's energy flow?

Robert North wrote:
Feb 14th 2011 12:09 GMT

@embb: Like you Im all for evolving to "greener" technologies, and on the side though I wonder if we do this wont it make the states you mentioned (saudi arabia, russia, etc) more unstable? it strikes me that these states are not diversified economically speaking, as such when their chief exports wane, they will surely want to blame someone. Or perhaps the transition will be more subtle?

Feb 14th 2011 12:50 GMT

Robert North:

"...these states are not diversified economically speaking, as such when their chief exports wane, they will surely want to blame someone."

Wouldn't it be more logical if they tried to diversify their economies instead of blaming someone else for their self-made troubles? Their prices for the only commodity they have for sale are ransom-like, so isn't it natural for the blackmailed to try and find some solution - and take care about environment by the way?

Robert North wrote:
Feb 14th 2011 3:24 GMT

@reluctant polutter; yes, and in fact thats what some of the smaller states are trying to do with some success (UAE, Qatar), but it takes a lot to create an export proof economy (diversification is a start), especially if you have to drop living standards along the way. I still think that when the oil taps begin to be turned off there will be some states who will have their head in the sand.

Feb 14th 2011 5:35 GMT

@ Robert North:

Head in sand? You bet! Hm, in the case of Russia it's the head constantly in a snowdrift... helps for the hang-over, also constant. But decline of the living standard is certainly not about them... there is no room for dropping.

Feb 14th 2011 5:36 GMT

@ Robert North:

Head in sand? You bet! Hm, in the case of Russia it's the head constantly in a snowdrift... helps for the hang-over, also constant. But decline of the living standard is certainly not about them... there is no room for dropping.

Colonialist wrote:
Feb 14th 2011 6:06 GMT

I think the drop in fuel solution is going to be the only way to solve much of the transportation problems. I mean something approaching the energy density of gasoline and diesel really is required. For all of the enthusiasm for electric cars, battery technology has so many hurtles to making it broadly viable for passenger traffic. Not to mention no chance for air travel, ocean transport or even road based freight.

To the guys talking about the countries who rely on petroleum to float their governments I think history has show what will happen. The transition from caravan to caravel wasn't kind on the Middle East. I doubt the transition from petroleum based transportation to anything else will be much better.

mnemos wrote:
Feb 15th 2011 11:21 GMT

I enjoyed the article. In our technical developments we tend to characterize the open work into the levels of effort vs. invention required - so we differentiate between an idea that needs implementation, vs. a development which still requires novel ideas to make it work before implementation makes sense, vs. a development which still requires some basic inventions. I would be interested in how the different efforts here stack up in that scale.

farfrom wrote:
Feb 21st 2011 12:45 GMT

Nature having had a long time for experiment and development , for locomotion has settled on burning liquid fuel in muscles for locomotion.
Electricity only seems to be used by the electric eel , which is mostly batteries and then not for locomotion but as a weapon.

embb wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 10:17 GMT

There is a famous qoute from Paul Ehrlich (of the Population Bomb ) which says that giving cheap and abundant energy to mankind is like giving a machine gun to an idiot. In this light artificial clorophyle will surely be seen as very Bad Idea. It will probably hurt the plankton and cause the world to go under.

12344 wrote:
Feb 24th 2011 9:10 GMT

I do not understand why platinum is too expensive to be used as a catalyst for "pseudo-cholorophyl". I thought that platinum is used in the world's catalytic converters in cars, in which case the economics are not an inhibitor.

If I can afford to pay for platinum in my car's anti-pollutor, surely I can afford to pay for it to generate anti-pollutant fuel?

1-17 of 17

Latest blog posts - All times are GMT

Kabuki comes home
From Asia view - March 3rd, 3:47
Link exchange
From Free exchange - March 2nd, 21:42
An abundance of activity
From Multimedia - March 2nd, 21:14
About that Goldman estimate
From Free exchange - March 2nd, 21:10
More from our blogs »
Products & events
Stay informed today and every day

Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.


Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter


See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.