British Scientists Studying Leaf Power

Last September, I took a look at research in Australia aimed at creating synthetic chlorophyll in order to produce much more efficient solar panels. Today's National Geographic News points to other experiments that involve attempts to mimic how plants convert sunlight into energy, with a focus on the process of "water splitting." According to the article,

Water splitting is a complex chemical reaction that takes place in leaves, algae, phytoplankton, and other green organisms.

The plants use the sun's energy to break down water into its components: oxygen and hydrogen.

The oxygen produced is released into the atmosphere. The hydrogen is used to convert carbon dioxide taken from the air into the carbon-based organic molecules that form plants' tissues.

Researchers in London believe they've discovered the enzyme responsible for this process, called photosystem II. Like their Australian counterparts, these scientists believe that creating a synthetic version of this enzyme could allow us to mimic the process of photosynthesis, and create either hydrogen from water, or "...further mimic plants and combine the hydrogen with carbon compounds to produce fuels."

It sounds like this research is in fairly early stages, but the idea is kind of staggering: literally making fuel from water and sunlight by harnessing natural processes. According to lead scientist James Barber from Imperial College London, "If the leaf can do it, we can do it." That may strike some as arrogant, but I'd say these scientists are definitely looking at the right model for clean energy production.

Categories: fuel, energy, renewable, photosynthesis, research, london, uk

Cavemen and Climate Change

Just finished reading a fascinating post at The Oil Drum that Prof. Goose emailed out on Friday. Titled "Climate Change, Sabre Tooth Tigers and Devaluing the Future," writer Nate Hagens thinks about the inability to generate wide-scale action on peak oil (the focus at TOD) and climate change. Digging deeply (for a blog post, anyway) into both evolutionary biology and economics, Hagens ultimately comes to the conclusion that the pay-off isn't close enough for us: we're "wired" to focus on needs and desires that bring relatively immediate rewards. If we're going to move people to action, we have to create a means of marketing these issues that creates emotional triggers for immediate action -- getting people to think about it won't work on its own. That's a really quick and dirty summary, but it's an issue that most of us here should be familiar. Read the post... it's full of ideas that all of concerned about environmental challenges need to consider.

The big question, of course, is what to do about it: how do we address long-term changes with results that we likely won't live to see? Is it simply a matter of marketing? Seth Godin brought up the problems with the term "global warming" last year, and that seems particularly relevant to this discussion. On the other hand, if we try to reframe these issues in such a way to produce more desire for immediate action, are we playing right into charges of "chicken little" pronouncements? It's a conundrum, and a new one: we've only been able to make these kinds of predictions (with any accuracy) for a very tiny portion of our history as a species; for most of our collective existence, we've focused on the here and now.

I could ramble on, but I think I'll leave it at that, and open it up to the rest of you.Whaddaya think?

Categories: climatechange, peakoil, evolution, biology, economics, science