backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 48 comment(s) - last by geddarkstorm.. on Jul 3 at 5:17 PM

Yale is the latest institution to join the DOE's Solar Energy to Chemical Fuels Initiative.
$12.8 million DOE project seeks to convert solar energy into chemical form

A team of Yale chemists accepted the challenge from the Department of Energy search for a way to distill sunlight into liquid fuel.

The Yale researchers will join 12 other institutions in attempting to create an affordable photocatalytic cell for water cleavage with visible light power. The goal of the $12.8 million DOE Solar Energy to Chemical Fuels Initiative is to create economically viable fuels suitable for use in transportation.

If the effort should prove successful, one of the major achievements will be to "overcome the problem of day/night variation of the solar resource,” according to a statement  from the Yale Department of Chemistry.

"This has been a goal of photoelectrochemistry research for more than three decades," said Yale’s project leader and  department chair, Professor Gary Brudvig. "Our challenge is to improve efficiency of solar energy utilization.”

The Yale team will focus on attaching manganese complexes to titanium dioxide nanoparticles. In the process, the team plans to develop a comprehensive understanding of the molecular-level  structural and dynamic principles underlying photocatalytic devices.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Maybe if it's really really cold out...
By vamin on 7/1/2007 4:27:04 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, they are trying to turn sunlight into gaseous fuel. Cleaving water gives you hydrogen and oxygen.




By The Boston Dangler on 7/1/2007 5:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
...and produces less enegry than it consumes.


RE: Maybe if it's really really cold out...
By vamin on 7/1/2007 5:24:43 PM , Rating: 3
...unless you are getting it for free from sunlight.


RE: Maybe if it's really really cold out...
By zsdersw on 7/1/2007 6:09:34 PM , Rating: 5
Light from the sun is quite abundant and about as renewable as a source of power can be.

It's very compelling. At any given moment, the Earth receives an immense amount of energy from the sun. Most of it we're *not* using as a source of electricity.. and that's a shame. Any effort to attempt to get more of that energy from the sun into our electric power grid or into a fuel tank is worth exploring.


RE: Maybe if it's really really cold out...
By Oregonian2 on 7/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: Maybe if it's really really cold out...
By detinith on 7/2/2007 2:58:30 AM , Rating: 5
The sun is predicted to run out of its main fuel source in 6 billion years, and will almost definitely result in the destruction of the inner planets. If we master solar power, the fact it eventually runs out and we need to find a new fuel source will be the least of our worries.


By Samus on 7/2/2007 6:59:02 AM , Rating: 1
We are so going to destroy ourselves within the next hundred years anyway.


RE: Maybe if it's really really cold out...
By zsdersw on 7/2/2007 6:22:34 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, and when it runs out there won't be an Earth anymore to need it.

Earth, if it survives the death of the sun, will be nothing but a charred smoldering ball of rock.

If humanity survives 5-6 billion years, I find it highly unlikely that Earth will be our only home and place on which we can survive.

Finally, what is "renewable" anyway? 5 or 6 billion years is, as I said, about as renewable as they come. What are other renewable sources of energy? Wind? Tidal? Guess what.. those would go away when the sun dies too. The atmosphere would burn off and all of the water would evaporate.


RE: Maybe if it's really really cold out...
By Scorpion on 7/2/2007 2:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
For all intents and purposes, the sun's energy is "free". By "free" it means that it does not require resources on Earth to produce it's power.

The closer we get to harnessing the Sun's power, the closer we get to becoming a Type I civilization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale


RE: Maybe if it's really really cold out...
By mindless1 on 7/2/2007 5:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
I think the DOE would disagree about free, having just spent 12.8 Million, and it certainly does require resources to produce power. What it is not is a reasonably exhaustible source of power per period, the density of that power is (and will always be) the main problem but now post-conversion into their alternative fuel.


By Scorpion on 7/3/2007 2:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
See again... I clarify what "free" means and you twist it back to the wrong interpretation. Nothing is "free" by your definition. All energy which is not in a directly usable form for our houses/cars/factories/etc require conversion from one form to another. This of course is NEVER free. These are the laws of Thermodynamics.


RE: Maybe if it's really really cold out...
By BladeVenom on 7/1/2007 6:41:30 PM , Rating: 5
Of course it's free. I've never had to pay for sunlight, and I don't pirate it either.


RE: Maybe if it's really really cold out...
By jak3676 on 7/1/2007 9:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
Thief


RE: Maybe if it's really really cold out...
By PAPutzback on 7/2/2007 8:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
To think someone argued this point past the reply "Theif". too many scientists in this thread. I'd hate to be at their party.


By ebakke on 7/2/2007 5:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
Humor not allowed at your parties?


RE: Maybe if it's really really cold out...
By kamel5547 on 7/2/2007 12:09:40 AM , Rating: 2
YOu don't pay for light... however, its quite possible his point was that it dose cost money to capture sunlight and turn it into power. A recoupable amount of money given enough time though... but solar power IS NOT free.


By rsmech on 7/2/2007 3:12:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
its quite possible his point was that it dose cost money to capture sunlight and turn it into power.


What fuel source doesn't cost money to "capture"? So all things being equal it is "free". Most energy sources are "free" natural. Oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, water. The cost to capture is the variable. But in terms of the amount available and finding deposits the sun is the most abundant and the easiest to locate.

It isn't cheap to find, process, and distribute many of our fuel sources but the cost is made up in the quantity used. This may seem expensive (any new source would be) but if viable the quantity that could be used would easily cover the cost. Where would we see a negative impact versus ethanol which is food based and would have a major impact on our land use and water usage. As far as I'm concerned anything is better.


By OxBow on 7/2/2007 10:06:52 AM , Rating: 2
Solar power is free just like a mustang was free 150 years ago. The horse didn't cost anything, just run out on the range and catch one. Training and harnessing it did cost something, which was why horse thieving was a capital offense.

It costs money to turn solar power into some form of energy that we'd use in a commercial application. The key is, can that cost ratio be made economically viable or not.


RE: Maybe if it's really really cold out...
By jc24 on 7/2/2007 1:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
Let's take it for granted that the solar power/sunlight is free. What about the water? Additionally, with water being as scarce as it is now, imagine what will happen when we start using it as fuel. The wars of the future which are most likely to be over water (instead of oil) wou