Mining Plants for Energy: Artificial Photosynthesis
“Mother Nature knows best” is an adage people are prone to forget; however, more and more scientists and entrepreneurs are looking to nature for a bit of motherly advice. Want to build strong, light-weight cables? Take a page from spiders: spider silk is a material with one of the highest strength to weight ratios on earth. How about improving flight technology? Do as the birds and bees do: scientists at top institutions are studying airborne organisms to optimize flight. At a time when our dependence on oil and gas for fuel is harming the environment, “a little scientist at MIT” is turning to plants for the answer. Daniel Nocera’s “magic bullet” is to develop and implement a stream-lined artificial photosynthesis technology that will use only light and water to generate inexpensive and sustainable energy. Scientific advancements for this technology and the beneficial social implications of global application make stream-lined artificial photosynthesis a very bright idea.
As the name implies, Nocera’s emergent technology uses photosynthesis as a model. Photosynthesis normally involves two stages: 1) a light-dependent stage in which energy from the sun splits water into hydrogen and oxygen and 2) a light-independent stage in which carbon is fixed to produce to glucose. The plan is to stream-line the process by completing only step 1, storing the hydrogen and oxygen in fuel cells, and then converting them to electricity when needed. Essentially, plentiful and low-cost materials, water and sunlight, are utilized to generate a highly valued commodity, electricity.
As far as the science goes, one has every reason to be optimistic about the feasibility of such a grand scheme. Nocera was optimistic about his ideas at a 2006 meeting at MIT in which The Role of New Technologies in a Sustainable Energy Economy was discussed. Just a couple of years later in 2008, he and colleague Matthew Kanan succeeded in developing an inexpensive and extremely efficient technique for electrolysis of water.
While this emergent technology’s scientific contribution is electrifying by itself, Nocera and advocates see its use of sunlight as a solution to the global communities’ energy-related economic and social problems. Why? First, sunlight is abundant: the sun puts out enough energy in an hour to supply humans for a year. Second, sunlight is free: theoretically, a person living in the most impoverished region in India could get the same amount of the sun’s energy as a person living in Hollywood, California. One could debate the equal distribution and accessibility of sunlight between two people living in rainy Seattle and sunny Orlando, but this is a climatic and not a social issue. The equality inherent in using the sun as an energy source leads supporters to conclude that wars and conflicts associated with energy procurement will decrease and the world will be a more peaceful place.
Although the scientific community has every reason to celebrate, getting this technology to be commercially viable is another issue. Electromaterials science research being performed at Monash University in Australia, as well as others, is helping to drive down the cost of stream-lined artificial photosynthesis. However, cost is not the only hindrance to the attainment of Nocera’s energy “nirvana”. Those with vested interests in oil and gas, such as politicians and many Middle East countries, will most likely oppose the transition. These stakeholders have the political savvy and power to pile on enough red tape to halt the process.
While there are major obstacles, the world probably has more reason to hope now than ever before that technology like the one proposed by Nocera will be implemented to address sustainable energy. The everyday citizen can push the process along by refusing to put dialogues regarding alternative energy on the backburner. Putting the pressure on policymakers holds them accountable. Timing is everything and three key components are merging to make surmounting these political hurdles achievable: 1) the growing immediacy of the energy problem 2) increased awareness due to much media attention, and 3) the Obama presidency’s commitment to utilizing alternative forms of energy. It is not a matter of if an alternative energy source will replace oil and gas; it is a matter of when. Nocera’s nature-modeled technology appears to be an effective and feasible vehicle to help the global community make this transition. With the world heating up on this matter, the sooner we do so the better.
March 8, 2009 at 8:17 pm
I think that there is much substantiated rationale in this argument for further implementation of photosynthetic energy sources. The only qualm I would have with the argument is the assertion that climatic differences that would create contrasting energy environments, is not a social issue. I think it could become quite a heated one. Your thoughts?
Furthermore, in light of all that you have to say on this subject I was wondering what response you had to Dr. Belcher’s research. This is an especially intriguing question in light of your reference to mother nature and the efficiency of a spider’s web production; both of these have relevance to genetically determined efficiency within nature. I found your argument to be especially concrete because of its function as an epilogue to give a broader perspective to the ideas that Nocera was proposing. Do you think that the research of both professors could be interconnected somehow now that you’ve seen the further progression of Nocera’s project?