• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Scientist invents way to trigger trigger artificial photosynthesis to reduce C02 lvls

The title is a bit awkward, but hopefully it gets the idea across.

A chemistry professor in Florida has just found a way to trigger the process of photosynthesis in a synthetic material, turning greenhouse gases into clean air and producing energy all at the same time.

The process has great potential for creating a technology that could significantly reduce greenhouse gases linked to climate change, while also creating a clean way to produce energy.

"This work is a breakthrough," said UCF Assistant Professor Fernando Uribe-Romo. "Tailoring materials that will absorb a specific color of light is very difficult from the scientific point of view, but from the societal point of view we are contributing to the development of a technology that can help reduce greenhouse gases."

The findings of his research are published in the Journal of Materials Chemistry A.

Uribe-Romo and his team of students created a way to trigger a chemical reaction in a synthetic material called metal-organic frameworks (MOF) that breaks down carbon dioxide into harmless organic materials. Think of it as an artificial photosynthesis process similar to the way plants convert carbon dioxide (CO2) and sunlight into food. But instead of producing food, Uribe-Romo's method produces solar fuel.

It's something scientists around the world have been pursuing for years, but the challenge is finding a way for visible light to trigger the chemical transformation. Ultraviolet rays have enough energy to allow the reaction in common materials such as titanium dioxide, but UVs make up only about 4 percent of the light Earth receives from the sun. The visible range—the violet to red wavelengths—represent the majority of the sun's rays, but there are few materials that pick up these light colors to create the chemical reaction that transforms CO2 into fuel.

Read more at the source.

Even if it can't remove existing C02 from the atmosphere, something like this that's larger-scale and more efficient could go a long way towards mitigating the damage fossil fuels have on the planet's climate while simultaneously providing another clean source of energy. But if we can use it to reverse climate change on a global scale by reducing atmospheric C02 somehow, that's terrific in itself.

Of course, this technology could take a good while to properly become viable outside of lab tests, but it's a promising development nonetheless.
 

Sojgat

Member
reverse-florida.gif


i knew god wouldn't let us down.

lol
 
Fantastic research and all, but can't we just let nature do its job and stop excessively cutting down forrests and trees. We can't always expect scientists to solve problems we create and sustain. Similar to obese people that keep eating and relying on the health care system to save them when their lifestyle starts endangering their lives.
 
Fantastic research and all, but can't we just let nature do its job and stop excessively cutting down forrests and trees. We can't always expect scientists to solve problems we create and sustain. Similar to obese people that keep eating and relying on the health care system to save them when their lifestyle starts endangering their lives.

No, it's too late for that. Most of the important filtering and oxygen production is done by algae/Phytoplankton in the ocean. Even if we never cut down another tree it wouldn't solve the issues. That being said we really should be trying to use way more bamboo.
 
No, it's too late for that. Most of the important filtering and oxygen production is done by algae/Phytoplankton in the ocean. Even if we never cut down another tree it wouldn't solve the issues. That being said we really should be trying to use way more bamboo.

I don't know how efficient this material is, but if it's similar to normal plantlife and algea, we would need to produce a shitton of this synthetic material to see an effect on a global scale. Production requires energy and fuel, worsening the issue before making it better.
 

Micael

Member
You won't make the situation worse if you are using this sort of material in the chain of production of it, since you would not be emitting co2 into the atmosphere.

Fantastic research and all, but can't we just let nature do its job and stop excessively cutting down forrests and trees. We can't always expect scientists to solve problems we create and sustain. Similar to obese people that keep eating and relying on the health care system to save them when their lifestyle starts endangering their lives.

Only if you can find a way to do all this:

Inventing nuclear fusion or more efficient renewable energies and better batteries (much better)
Putting nuclear fusion power plants in most countries
Replacing over 1 billion motor vehicles with electric vehicles.
Making production of industrial goods co2 neutral (without this sort of technology).
Eliminate the co2 generated by food production (hope you don't like meat it accounts for about 1/3 of all co2 emissions).
Find a way to solve the pollution caused by all forms of transportation that are unlikely to work electrically anytime soon (boats and planes).
Solve the issue with industries that have to use massive generators to produce their own power because they are off grid, along with get the battery technology up to speed so that really big machines can operate from battery power like cars and hopefully in the near future trucks.
Solve a few more niggling issues (quite a few I'm sure).

Oh yeah and preferably you do all this until 2050, so as to keep extinction levels of species and rising seas to """low""" levels.

If you can solve all that, co2 scrubbing is not super necessary.
 
Fantastic research and all, but can't we just let nature do its job and stop excessively cutting down forrests and trees. We can't always expect scientists to solve problems we create and sustain. Similar to obese people that keep eating and relying on the health care system to save them when their lifestyle starts endangering their lives.

that's human nature. take as much as you can, and when supplies run short, figure out a way to keep taking.
 

830920

Member
Cool stuff. In terms of practicality, how long would it take for the material to absorb as much CO2 as it took to produce?
 

sinxtanx

Member
I don't know how efficient this material is, but if it's similar to normal plantlife and algea, we would need to produce a shitton of this synthetic material to see an effect on a global scale. Production requires energy and fuel, worsening the issue before making it better.

so when are we transitioning to things that are environment-friendly and do not need to be produced?

clean tech isn't invalid just because its' first revision was produced by unclean tech

only way to save the planet is to transition via the production measures already in place

first step is already happening with the current drive towards electric motors and more widespread solar power, battery tech investments and it's all driven by profit since solar started getting competetive with fossil fuel

something like CO2 scrubbers would be a very nice bonus taken together with a bunch of other reductions in CO2 emissions, never the sole solution
 
That's nice and all but I'd rather see governments supporting wood production by making planting tress more profitable since it gives us both CO2 absorption and it's source of clean building material for housing/furniture.
 
so breakthroughs in synthetic photosynthesis and fusion energy in the same week?

i wonder if we'll last long enough to reap the benefits.



i highly doubt the scientists are Florida natives ;D
Florida natives aren't even Florida natives. They have a history not too long ago that is from other countries. I get the Florida thing is more tongue in cheers for many though.
 

whytemyke

Honorary Canadian.
Fantastic research and all, but can't we just let nature do its job and stop excessively cutting down forrests and trees. We can't always expect scientists to solve problems we create and sustain. Similar to obese people that keep eating and relying on the health care system to save them when their lifestyle starts endangering their lives.
This is a good and well thought out post.
 
Fantastic research and all, but can't we just let nature do its job and stop excessively cutting down forrests and trees. We can't always expect scientists to solve problems we create and sustain. Similar to obese people that keep eating and relying on the health care system to save them when their lifestyle starts endangering their lives.

The difference to a forest is that you would produce energy directly from the process.
 
Top Bottom