Deseret News | MIT chemist turns to nature to solve solar energy problem

Reader comments
MIT chemist turns to nature to solve solar energy problem

McKenny | 4:18 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Thank you for the details of the discovery. I would like to know if the actual process is published anywhere?
Is the hydrogen/oxygen separation process done by using solar panels creating vibrations so small it can cause this, or is this process not yet public?

JMT | 6:58 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008

This kind of technology is obviously the future. I love technology though I am a political hack, and non-scientific type. I follow this due to the policy implications.

Sadly, we get so hyped and bothered about global warming and the marxist economic policies some dream of, that massive breakthroughs like this go almost unnoticed.

It should be noted that if this technology were commercially viable tomorrow it would still take our economy the better part of two decades to completely switch over, maybe a few years sooner. And the un- or underdeveloped world far, far longer. Fossil fuels and petro-wars are sadly a thing of the near future, but hopefully not our grandchildrens future.

WHEN WILL IT COME | 7:49 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008

I'd like to know if this is going to hit the market in 5 years or so. It sounds very interesting!!!!

Comments continue below

Sean | 9:29 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Google his name and the paper can be found easily. The abstract will be free and the body will be about $10. This is the real deal, folks, with implications far beyond solar. Hydrogen is an energy-intensive industrial requirement and a possible transport, home heat, and power fuel. This guy might be the first person to get the Nobel prize in Chemistry and the Nobel Peace Prize in one fell swoop.

Mother Nature has the answers | 12:39 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Now if we could only figure out how it works. Artificial Photo sythsis. Mother nature has been doing it for billions of years or longer. Only now are we are beginning to understand how it works, maybe. I sure do hope this is the real deal.

BobinNewMexico | 2:05 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Photosynthesis involves producing multi-carbon (mostly six carbon) carbohydrates and oxygen from CO2 (a single carbon molecule) and water. What this article describes is photo-electrolysis; using sunlight rather than electricity to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water. Photosynthesis involves a very complicated Nature-developed cycle (called the Calvin cycle, plus C4 and CAM cycles) which we have yet to improve on in the laboratory.
Example
6(CO2) + 6(H2O) -> C6H12O6 + 6O2
while electrolysis is
2(H2O) -> H2 + O2

g. polanco panama | 3:05 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

When this technology is available.
Looks great. However, all world economy is based in the ate petroleum. Any change on this matter shall be done slowly. It sounds good to start with the poor people.

DraperSteve | 3:23 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Many exciting developments are happening--but Dr. Nocera's takes the cake in my opinion. Plus, rather than profit personally from it he has turned it over to the public domain. It is a remarkable discovery and amazing gesture on his part.

Groups the world over are already taking this and running with it. Although there are hurdles to overcome the sheer amount of resources aligning behind this process assure some amazing products for us in the not too distant future.

Keep in mind that the scope of what he is saying addresses most facets of our energy issues because it works as a transport, for home, commercial, etc.

Anonymous | 3:43 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Quick, let's tax and spend billions to develope currently available but not economical renewable resources, and waste the money. Then, when a real technology comes along, we'll complain about the lack of forsight and patience. In the meantime, Boone Pickens and Pope Pelosi will make out like bandits off their wind farm and nat. gas investments while the taxpayer under a democratic, America hating congress will only see their power bills go up and right into Picken's and Pelosi's pockets.

DavidS | 6:09 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Everyone on this thread had something constructive or interesting to say until Anonymous had to put his 2 cents in. He has the typical conservative response. Slam every idea that doesn't make the oil companies rich and suggest no answer. Did you bother to look at the technology? It uses renewables in the process. Renewables are economically feasable today. If you took away all the government subsidized loans and tax breaks to the utilities the costs would be similar. Not to mention the cost of global warming. But I am sure Anonymous thinks global warming isn't happening.

Interested | 4:42 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

Lest we forget, oil companies are also ENERGY companies. You may be interested to know that ENI, an global scale OIL company, of Italy has contributed 20 million dollars to MIT to sponsor a consortium between Nocera's department and the solar panel developmnent wing of MIT(I've forgotten all the proper names, but it is on the web). Their mission is to develop this pairing of technologies to a practical end. ENI could be the energy play for interested investors, but I don't know.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.