So wait a second, you are telling me that to make photosynthesis better, we need to give electrolytes to plants? So Brawndo was right all along? It's what plants crave!
As someone working with methanogens and the methane -> methanol biochemical process, it's kinda cool to hear something I've already read before get cited in a video like this lol
@@kaydee5334 solar water splitting I assume is basically H2 O2 gas production from splitting water using solar energy? Is that direct or indirect like solar panels or finding a way to use the actual sunlight to split the water?
2:26 I just have to tease the animation, it has 2 molecules bonded together, but each one says H2 (what a normal diatomic hydrogen molecule looks like), which means they're really showing H4, which doesn't exist. Also I never new that plants were only 1% efficient, really puts things in perspective!
I think that's a major issue some people run into. Like with electric vehicles back in the 90s. No one wanted one because they didn't get 300 miles to a charge, not even thinking only 40 to 50 miles of range is good enough for daily commutes and running about town. Sometimes just putting the tech out there for everyone to access is the thing that pushes the innovation. Like, if there was a vehicle that could run on water, I wouldn't care if I got 5 miles per gallon. In a 14 gallon tank, that's still 70 miles. Perfect for short trips. Just get it out there. Give the technology away to everyone for free. Develop new iterations and save the world without seeking monetary gain. We need it.
@@gothnate Tesla ran into similar problems when he invented the first Electric Vehicle in 1883. Electricity was so incredibly expensive and unaffordable, the designs were of no use
@@gothnate though anyone who has made any steps toward water-fueled (Hydrogen sourced from water) transportation has died of "natural" or "accidental" causes (see: Stanley Meyer).
@@divinebitter1638 That's not misinformation, that's just an ordinary mistake. Please refrain from slinging around the hefty words without consideration. Because that's actually closer to misinformation than that one blooper from the video.
@@lonestarr1490 misinformation and disinformation are two similar concepts. Disinformation involves intent. Misinformation doesn't require intentional release, just misinforming. (Ironically, your response is misinformation) ...I also checked a dictionary just before hitting send 😅 (I'd burn with deserved shame otherwise lol)
Ok, so my first thought was “why not just use solar panels to power the electrolysis of water into Hydrogen ?” And then the basically that’s what this is, but slightly different.
@@mysteryuser7062 - Hydrogen is produced from electrolysis (at least if you want to be ecological and use renewable clean sources such as water) but the system is addicted to oil and the other fossil fuels, especially the USA and Russia. In any case combustion is not more efficient if you count from the necessary sunlight at the origin, which also applies to fossil fuels. We're burning old plant corpses that will in the best case be gone in a few decades (and would have caused by then extreme climate changes and mass extinctions, quite possibly including our own).
@@mysteryuser7062 you are proposing a system that takes in hydrogen and gives you back more hydrogen than you put in. This is of course impossible and a variation of a perpetual motion machine.
"Thank you to all the plants out there for giving us the blueprint err greenprint?" I think you mean "thanks to all the plants out there for giving us the roots of this research"
You didn't mention the two main types of photosynthesis which you know kind of important seeing as most people think all plants do the same but c4 photosynthesis performed mainly by grasses such as sugarcane or bamboo which make up the bulk of land based oxygen generated from photosynthesis while most other plants perform c3 photosynthesis which is less efficient because of a few reasons mainly CO2 concentration methodology
very cool to here about MOFs in this context, they've been researched for a while now and there are millions of MOFs that can theoretically be synthesized for carbon capture - not my area of research but I have colleagues working in ML/experimental who look at their properties
Anyone with a septic system rather than sewer already has the start of a methane bioreactor. Rather than letting it escape through the lid and standpipe, the system could be sealed off and the gas collected and compressed as a substitute for propane. Purpose built anaerobic digesters can turn food scraps and feces into methane and a compost slurry that can be used to feed lawns and gardens. Adding in a grinder pump and filters, it can even be sent through a sprinkler system.
There is a similar apparatus/ experiment being done in Switzerland that uses the Fischer Tropsch process. Basically CO2&H2O vapour is converted into syngas (CO&H2) then coverting that into synthetic and pure Kerosine (jet fuel), Cetane (Diesel) and various other parrafin and monomer hydrocarbons for industrial use. I think this is more effective, efficient, economic and environmentally sound methods to replace fossil based fuels than introducing widespread Electric Vehicles. I would actually like to see a video on that.
To be fair, a big part of the reason plastic's so cheap is that it's a byproduct of oil refining. If we got off fossil fuels, there'd be a lot less plastic flowing into the environment.
Plastic is amazing. Period. Full stop. Plastic waste management is the problem. The plastic not breaking down is what we want, and we can UNmake plastic and/or recycle it. Nothing bad about plastic though.
Sounds similar to stomach fermentation. I say we just build big shelters for cows with air funnelling up to catch the methane. We've got a lot of cows already. Simple architecture.
@@aakashgsamy2312 they are talking about making a green house gas as a biofuel. I am saying filter the methane out of the cow farts by funnelling it up and compressing it. They should invent THAT if it hasn't been invented already.
Exactly! Methane has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime than CO2 (around 12 years compared with centuries for CO2), but it is a much more potent greenhouse gas, absorbing much more energy while it exists in the atmosphere. It's about 80 times more warming than C02
@@vis8259 That's if you just spray it at the atmosphere, so it's warming potential isn't relevant when talking about burning it since it isn't methane anymore.
It's a great future fuel because you can make it from the co2 that is in the air instead of out of the carbon in the ground. This means you would not be adding carbon to the air and if your entire refining process is powered by renewables you won't add anything.
They're working on those electric Boeings though ! The traditional tube and wings design will need re-imagining though. They have a few new wing designs as well as the flying wing concept.
Come on SciShow! Photosynthesis is not "relatively simple." The equation makes it look like a quick, easy, single step. But it is actually a complex, multi-step process. I expect better out of you!
I used to think that robots with Artificial Intelligence would destroy humanity. Now I'm worried about plants with Artificial Photosynthesis taking over the world!
Just wait until they build an AI robot that runs on Artificial Photosynthesis.... I bet one of those quantum computers they're building could come up with the process, tap into the internet to make itself immortal and hack all the crypto currency to build itself an invulnerable body before anyone even realized anything was wrong...Don't get me started on the nanobot armada it would build itself too...
Forgive my dumb question, but how is “green methane” even a thing? Like, I get that the methane is more energy dense than other fuels, so theoretically we could use less overall. But at the end of the day, isn’t it still just burning up potent greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere?
If the green methane is created by using CO2 from the atmosphere - it would be greenhouse-neutral so to speak. Plus given it's energy density it could help reduce net carbon emissions by virtue of replacing fossil-fuels with what is basically recycled methan.
Fun thing is when the former CEO of Toyota suggested that transportation needs other zero-carbon power solutions than just electrification (ex. hydrogen) the media threw him under the bus. 🤷♂
I used a weird psychic technique and devined that they need to use some sort foam like MOFs in the form of fiber optic networks. When the quartz silica specialty graphene quantum dots are stimulated, they consequently produce immense amounts of any substance. Maybe molybdenum is used!
Needs to live. By the way, I have difficulty communicating because I had a stroke in Broca’s area, the part of the brain that controls speech. 2/8/2021 but I lived again. (My wife helped me compose this.)
I guess he was talking about SOEC (Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell) which involves a solid electrolyte and water vapor and the process is also known to be highly efficient. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'd be happy.
01:53 "you need a pretty big battery to get a Boeing off the ground" but what if we kept the battery on the ground and connected it to the craft by cables? Obviously you couldn't go very high so you'd be looking for some track only these vehicles can go on. Probably need steel wheels for stability and staying on the track. So what I'm asking is ... how about trains? We can build pipelines all across the US. Surely we can install some high speed rail and provide electric alternatives to all interstate flights?
I liked that. Bovine burps! I had never heard of artificial photosynthesis before. Nor that plants are so inefficient. Interesting.... If they become quite skilled at artificial photosynthesis, pulling carbon from the air, then perhaps the day will be reached that more fossil fuels are required. I never expected to hear that glass can be recycled more cheaply than making new glass, nor that we are running out of the sands needed to make new glass. Yet I watched such a video just today. I remember when every bottle was glass.
@Daniel Meyers Rather than pulling carbon reserves from the ground and rereleasing them back into the atmosphere, increasing the carbon in the atmosphere, we are simply reusing the carbon already in the atmosphere. We aren't going carbon negative at all with it, but it will be a carbon neutral fuel source. Make sure to check the math.
Yes, recycle all glass bottles you can. Recycled glass takes less heat to melt, and added to new glass reduces the heat needed to melt it too. Aluminum and glass that is recycled will be back on a retail shelf in less than a week.
Saying that plants are only 1% efficient is unfair to plants since it is judging plants on their ability to store fuel (among other factors). That's like judging a jogger on the weight of what they're carrying. "This jogger is very inefficient, they're just carrying some very thin clothes, a phone, and earbuds!"
If plants are "inneficient", secondary consumers like us are much more so, and I don't care if we're talking of beans, steaks or oil, all of which is/was made from photosynthesis one way or another. By comparison even the most mediocre renewable energy source is a smash of efficiency. I think we have a problem of carrion-eating in the form of oil/coal/gas addiction.
"We have a crisis caused by emitting carbon dioxide as a waste product of our energy production." "Well what if we used photosynthesis instead?": "That could work. Plants are good, and they're carbon-neutral." "We're going to use it to make hydrocarbons like methane." I think somebody somewhere might have missed the point. Possibly me.
They're going to make the hydrocarbons from the co2 in the air, not carbon in the ground. This is the same process plants use except that we will produce methane instead of sugar. Instead of the sugar being eaten by an animal and turned into co2 and water, the methane will be burned in an engine of some sort and it will produce co2 and water. You then harvest more co2 from the atmosphere to make more methane.
Cool we improved photosintesys to create methane. But wait, methane is not that greenhouse gas 80 times stronger than CO2? A 1% leak is enough to offset the whole co2 capture
I want to be altered to be able to photosynthesize, with the upcoming job market crash due to AI this would be a real evolutionary advantage to sustain myself during the miserable system transition period XD Food is basically 65% of my running cost :p
Hydrogen on it's own is pretty rare because if it's got oxygen anywhere near it 1 spark and the whole thing is water. Hydrogen as an atom though is the most common thing in the universe and making it from electricity is very easy although obviously doesn't yield as much energy from burning it as it did to create it so it's like paying a cost to make your energy more dense as hydrogen has a higher energy density than most other fuels and way more than batteries.
Bamboo is already the fastest growing plant in the world, and the giant bamboo species can reach heights of 46 meters, which is about half the height of the tallest redwoods. Bamboo is also a great building material, and the shoots are edible. I'd say grow more bamboo for human consumption, which would buy the redwood forests time to regenerate themselves.
It is not difficult at all to keep two different gases produced by an anode and cathode separate and harvest them. They can be in completely different containers as long as they are connected by a conductor
A plant may not be efficient but if can operate for thousands of years and maintain itself, whereas puny humans have trouble making anything that can last even a decade or two.
Making solar panel cars could lower carbon by 25% because not only would it get rid of the need to release carbon for cars and trucks, but it would also slow the demand for oil and gas, which results in less machines producing carbon. I'm not sure if they did, but the government should fund these projects. Its a way to effectively solve three problems! (Third being gas station prices)
Panels are cars are hugely inefficient as almost everything works against them. It makes a lot more sense to put panels in sensible places where they operate efficiently and use that power for EVs.
You both missed that we are making the methane from the co2 in the air instead of the ground, making this carbon neutral. Same thing as burning wood. The tree takes in carbon from the air, then you burn it and put it back, in a cycle that just reuses the same carbon over and over, using the atmosphere itself to store it. No need to add any more carbon to the atmosphere, we already did that.
Maybe artificial photosynthesis can also be used for large scale carbon-capture and converted into solid materials, like polymers and minerals, so they don't just end up back in the atmosphere again shortly after.
Guys, H2-H2? Really? Please for the love of God teach your graphics guys some science! I've seen more than enough chemistry flubs to erode my confidence. I saw a _bent_ CO2 molecule once! How did you not catch that?!
Seems to me what you are saying is they fixed the problem with corrosion of electrodes in electrolysis and that's it. Nothing to do with photosynthesis like at all.
We can already make methane with a bio-digester at the homesteader level. It takes up less than a toolshed of space and produces its own heat as well as enough methane to cook daily, and yet it is more convenient to just buy propane.
The one thing I don't understand about Hydrogen production is this: If we split water to produce (and later burn) Hydrogen, aren't we destroying water? Water is, however plentiful, still a scarce and finite resource.
You don't need that big of a battery to get an airplane off the ground. That is a question of amperage and power in a short burst. This problem is solved for electric motors. The reason we don't have electric aircraft is because large batteries would be needed for long-range flight. Very different.
Capture all of the available methane and you won't need to make it. Landfills, sewer plants and oil and gas refineries, as well as other natural sources underground.
@@filonin2 it depends. The touted advantage over solar PV is that energy is stored. The big problems are conversion efficiency and long term stability. "Long term" in this context meaning years. We know solar PV cells last for decades and industrial-scale electrolysers to create hydrogen are already in operation. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding and this improved photosynthesis is cheaper and scales down better, so you could put this on your roof. It's unlikely you'll ever have an electrolyser in your home. The video doesn't really explain what the advantages are and what it's for.
Am I wrong in thinking this is the worst possible moment in all of human history for us to be trying to use *more* methane? Is there something I’m missing here?
Methane derived from carbon already in the air would be inherently carbon neutral, which would reduce the impact of existing natural gas infrastructure.
Yes, you are missing that they used co2 from the air and water to make the methane which will, when burned, produce co2 and water, the same amount we started with. This is how your own metabolism works.
It is way higher then 40%, because trucks will never be battery powered, and as seeing the vast majority of land transport is done by trucks, this leads to a nearly sector wide incapacity to use batteries as a power source. Even distances as short as a 100 miles at 30 tons cargo, is impossible with batteries. Not to mention how tesla trucks are proving even smaller distances are a major challenge for batteries.
2:26 H2 is the molecule, so each “ball” in the model should just say “H”. By saying “H2” in each ball, it is inaccurately depicting the molecules as H4.
im sorry, im having trouble understanding the difference between the "artificial leaf" and just...normal electrolysis but its powered by solar panels...
Scientific research is great, artificial photosynthesis is not likely going to be a part of any solution in the foreseeable future. With conventional solar power, PV or CSP, you can choose to use the power as it is, or convert it into synthetic fuel, depending on what's best at the moment. If the energy harvesting and conversion into fuel is the same process, you don't have the choice, the conversion losses from energy to fuel, and back to useful energy is then unavoidable, which is a huge disadvantage, compared to having the choice to avoid all those losses. You can produce synthetic fuels from electric energy relatively cheap and easy, and with acceptable efficiency, but fuels aren't as versatile, and can't be used with high efficiency, not to produce power. The problem in replacing fossil fuels isn't so much that they are fantastic, but that they are very cheap to produce, the amount of energy the mentioned Boeing 747 needs to get of the ground is absurd, most of the energy in the fuel isn't even converted into movement of the plane, or even lift, most of the energy in the fuel is wasted. An analogy, think of electricity as equivalent to money, and fuel as equivalent to bread, if your employer offers you to pay you in bread instead of money, a simple loaf per 50 dollars, you probably wouldn't think that's great. Neither being payed in bread only, or the "conversion" rate. You can buy the bread you want for money, but bread isn't very useful besides eating, your landlord probably won't accept you pay rent in bread. You can produce synthetic fuels from electric energy relatively cheap and easy, and with acceptable efficiency, but fuels aren't as versatile, and can't be used with high efficiency, not to produce power. The problem in replacing fossil fuels isn't so much that they are fantastic, but that they are very cheap to produce, the amount of energy the mentioned Boeing 747 needs to get of the ground is absurd, most of the energy in the fuel isn't even converted into movement of the plane, or even lift, most of the energy in the fuel is wasted. It's not technically impossible to electrify transport, it's too expensive in many cases. In the 747 case you would need to sacrifice most of the payload capacity to have batteries, and that would make it very expensive per passenger. But jet engines is an extreme example, most of the transportation fuel will be much easier to displace with electrification, and even a bigger part of the total fuel use will be easier to displace with electrification. Besides being a small part of the problem, lets recognize that flying across the world close to speed of sound to temporarily get away from your everyday life and have something to tell your coworkers about when you come back isn't an actual life necessity. Plants have low energy efficiency, that's true, but they can literally reproduce themselves, if some simple requirements are met. It's not possible to compete with the cost efficiency of plants. We're far from "practical" artificial photosynthesis, and if we get it to work, practically, it won't be as efficient as producing synthetic fuels from solar PV. The combined and distributed energy harvesting and conversion to fuel creates a lot of really big problems. Plants have evolved to handle those issues, over many millions of years, it's not very likely we can make en artificial process doing the same thing much better, we can improve plants, that's easy. Also plants "package" the stored energy in very convenient ways, the low efficiency includes building the complete system including producing almost ready to use fuels, easy ta store and handle, in biomass.
2:35 that animation of hydrogen is kinda wonky. You got two connected spheres, each representing a hydrogen atom. So far so good. But then why is each sphere labeled H2?! Just caught my eye.
Plants are only %1 "efficient" because they SHARE with the other living beings around them. This tech is great as long as it isn’t privatised and hoarded, and the electrolyte production is sustainable...
photosynthesis isnt about creating hydrogen and oxigen from water. Its rather called sun-based electrolysis. Photosynthesis is, as in the video, makes glucose and oxigene from co2 and water plaease dont mix up these two separate methods
What's all this about the "initial phase" of photosynthesis and why are energy conversion numbers always so crazy? I've heard everything from 1% ~ 100%
TBF none of these techniques seem anywhere near commercializable. Synthetic biologists were talking about making hydrogen almost ten years ago and there's still not that much progress... Engineering photosynthesis is also kind of an insane task since RUBISCO is such a complicated enzyme. Maybe this tech will work better than solar panels in 10, 20, or 30 years, but really it's going to take quite a while.
@@techheck3358 Stop with that outdated narrative. The actual amount of lithium needed is tiny compared to other things we mine, and the world has tons of lithium (it's not rare). And those trucks... yeah, they'll all be EV trucks within a generation.
@@DemPilafian one tonne of lithium takes 2.2 million litres of water to be used, which creates conflict between the (often water scarce) areas where they are mined. In areas like Portugal, the government is approving giant areas to be mined, harming local communities who overwhelmingly (>95%) vote against the exploitation of their land. This is even worse for cobalt
@@techheck3358 You environment haters love to point out that building batteries requires resource extraction. No kidding! On the other hand, ICE vehicles are magical and are made from 100% unicorn farts. The resource extraction industry has a well-deserved bad reputation, and resource extraction around the world needs to clean up its act. Until then, it's flat out dishonest of you to deliberately *NOT* mention the children in Africa that have been killed by the oil industry. So many children have died that some African countries are now suing big oil companies in Western courts. Do you care about the damage done by oil companies or are you just going to push your misguided narrative regardless?
@@techheck3358I didn't mentioned lithium, you did. There are other types of battery technologies out there and researchers are working on better battery technology, they are also trying to improve lithium technology. In order to make personal solar panels and solar panels farms more and more vital in the green future, we have to somehow store the energy produce by the solar panels.
I'm pretty sure a carbon electrode would work well for this form of electrolysis so you wouldn't need a solid electrolyte, although it will put off small amounts of co2 as it slowly reacts with the o2, but carbon is VERY cheap.
So wait a second, you are telling me that to make photosynthesis better, we need to give electrolytes to plants? So Brawndo was right all along? It's what plants crave!
Oh good lord no way of all movies to be coming true NOOOOT THAAAT ONNNE!!!
@@thathobbitlife Did you forget about tRump becoming president? LOL
@@thathobbitlife That wasn't a movie. That was a documentary. :)
I always knew that movie was a documentary.
Um, it's got electrolytes. Mhm.
As someone working with methanogens and the methane -> methanol biochemical process, it's kinda cool to hear something I've already read before get cited in a video like this lol
I am on the other side. I am working on solar water splitting. Nice to see it in such a video.
@@kaydee5334 solar water splitting I assume is basically H2 O2 gas production from splitting water using solar energy? Is that direct or indirect like solar panels or finding a way to use the actual sunlight to split the water?
2:26 I just have to tease the animation, it has 2 molecules bonded together, but each one says H2 (what a normal diatomic hydrogen molecule looks like), which means they're really showing H4, which doesn't exist. Also I never new that plants were only 1% efficient, really puts things in perspective!
I think whoever put that together saw 2:49 and got a bit confused
Even if it's not perfect at the moment, someone may have the key idea to make everything work perfect or near-perfect (which I'd still take).
I think that's a major issue some people run into. Like with electric vehicles back in the 90s. No one wanted one because they didn't get 300 miles to a charge, not even thinking only 40 to 50 miles of range is good enough for daily commutes and running about town. Sometimes just putting the tech out there for everyone to access is the thing that pushes the innovation. Like, if there was a vehicle that could run on water, I wouldn't care if I got 5 miles per gallon. In a 14 gallon tank, that's still 70 miles. Perfect for short trips.
Just get it out there. Give the technology away to everyone for free. Develop new iterations and save the world without seeking monetary gain. We need it.
@@gothnate Tesla ran into similar problems when he invented the first Electric Vehicle in 1883. Electricity was so incredibly expensive and unaffordable, the designs were of no use
Nothing is perfect. Probably never even near perfect.
@@gothnate though anyone who has made any steps toward water-fueled (Hydrogen sourced from water) transportation has died of "natural" or "accidental" causes (see: Stanley Meyer).
2:22 too late now, but you should really have made that H-H instead of H2-H2
Yeah and they used the same goofy animation for a community post.
No mistake H2-H2 is the future of energy. They're just 3 steps ahead of you
Yeah. I winced at that. Disappointing and sloppy, SciShow. Too many people rely on this channel to be putting out this kind of misinformation.
@@divinebitter1638 That's not misinformation, that's just an ordinary mistake. Please refrain from slinging around the hefty words without consideration. Because that's actually closer to misinformation than that one blooper from the video.
@@lonestarr1490 misinformation and disinformation are two similar concepts.
Disinformation involves intent.
Misinformation doesn't require intentional release, just misinforming.
(Ironically, your response is misinformation)
...I also checked a dictionary just before hitting send 😅 (I'd burn with deserved shame otherwise lol)
Nature has the blueprints for everything. We just need to figure out how it works and how to recreate it.
Ok, so my first thought was “why not just use solar panels to power the electrolysis of water into Hydrogen
?” And then the basically that’s what this is, but slightly different.
the "tiny" electrode part
@@mysteryuser7062 not really, most of the heat from combustion is simply lost.
@@mysteryuser7062 - Hydrogen is produced from electrolysis (at least if you want to be ecological and use renewable clean sources such as water) but the system is addicted to oil and the other fossil fuels, especially the USA and Russia.
In any case combustion is not more efficient if you count from the necessary sunlight at the origin, which also applies to fossil fuels. We're burning old plant corpses that will in the best case be gone in a few decades (and would have caused by then extreme climate changes and mass extinctions, quite possibly including our own).
@@mysteryuser7062 you are proposing a system that takes in hydrogen and gives you back more hydrogen than you put in. This is of course impossible and a variation of a perpetual motion machine.
@@mysteryuser7062 What if we made a wheel that becomes heavy at the top and weightless at the bottom
"Thank you to all the plants out there for giving us the blueprint err greenprint?" I think you mean "thanks to all the plants out there for giving us the roots of this research"
You didn't mention the two main types of photosynthesis which you know kind of important seeing as most people think all plants do the same but c4 photosynthesis performed mainly by grasses such as sugarcane or bamboo which make up the bulk of land based oxygen generated from photosynthesis while most other plants perform c3 photosynthesis which is less efficient because of a few reasons mainly CO2 concentration methodology
very cool to here about MOFs in this context, they've been researched for a while now and there are millions of MOFs that can theoretically be synthesized for carbon capture - not my area of research but I have colleagues working in ML/experimental who look at their properties
I'd argue with that. Whatever process it is that allows fungus and/or lichen to break down rock, that was pretty damn important too.
Yaaaaa new video!!! ❤ 🎉🎉 & I am 1st commentor sweet!
Hell yea! Time to late down outside!
Photosynthesis. Photosynthesis. Photosynthesis
Anyone with a septic system rather than sewer already has the start of a methane bioreactor. Rather than letting it escape through the lid and standpipe, the system could be sealed off and the gas collected and compressed as a substitute for propane. Purpose built anaerobic digesters can turn food scraps and feces into methane and a compost slurry that can be used to feed lawns and gardens. Adding in a grinder pump and filters, it can even be sent through a sprinkler system.
Thank you plants! Let's reward them by not cutting them all down 😊
i mean, it didn't have to be a reward, poor living things :')
There is a similar apparatus/ experiment being done in Switzerland that uses the Fischer Tropsch process.
Basically CO2&H2O vapour is converted into syngas (CO&H2) then coverting that into synthetic and pure Kerosine (jet fuel), Cetane (Diesel) and various other parrafin and monomer hydrocarbons for industrial use. I think this is more effective, efficient, economic and environmentally sound methods to replace fossil based fuels than introducing widespread Electric Vehicles.
I would actually like to see a video on that.
2:26 love the H2-H2 molecule animation
Thank you
"Durable, efficient and cheap"
Well, if you do that in the case of materials, you get plastic. And see where that leads us!
Plastic is undoubtedly one of the best and worst human inventions.
A million uses, and it might be slowly killing us.
To be fair, a big part of the reason plastic's so cheap is that it's a byproduct of oil refining. If we got off fossil fuels, there'd be a lot less plastic flowing into the environment.
Plastic is amazing. Period. Full stop. Plastic waste management is the problem. The plastic not breaking down is what we want, and we can UNmake plastic and/or recycle it. Nothing bad about plastic though.
Plastic isnt that cheap.
@@gothboschincarnate3931 That must be why everything cheap is made from it. Because it's expensive.
Sounds similar to stomach fermentation. I say we just build big shelters for cows with air funnelling up to catch the methane. We've got a lot of cows already. Simple architecture.
Green House gas emmisions
@@aakashgsamy2312 they are talking about making a green house gas as a biofuel. I am saying filter the methane out of the cow farts by funnelling it up and compressing it. They should invent THAT if it hasn't been invented already.
If methane turns into co2 after burning why is it such a great future fuel? 🤔
Because producing methane would extract co2. It’s a cycle
I guess rather than adding new co2, we would be using what's already there.
Exactly! Methane has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime than CO2 (around 12 years compared with centuries for CO2), but it is a much more potent greenhouse gas, absorbing much more energy while it exists in the atmosphere. It's about 80 times more warming than C02
@@vis8259 That's if you just spray it at the atmosphere, so it's warming potential isn't relevant when talking about burning it since it isn't methane anymore.
It's a great future fuel because you can make it from the co2 that is in the air instead of out of the carbon in the ground. This means you would not be adding carbon to the air and if your entire refining process is powered by renewables you won't add anything.
They're working on those electric Boeings though ! The traditional tube and wings design will need re-imagining though. They have a few new wing designs as well as the flying wing concept.
We'll never see this 'breakthrough' again.
Come on SciShow! Photosynthesis is not "relatively simple." The equation makes it look like a quick, easy, single step. But it is actually a complex, multi-step process. I expect better out of you!
I used to think that robots with Artificial Intelligence would destroy humanity. Now I'm worried about plants with Artificial Photosynthesis taking over the world!
The green goo. Or the grey goo.
Lol, people like you need to learn to relax.
Plants will not kill humans, general A.I. will also not kill humans. Only humans will kill themselves not tech or advanced science.
Just wait until they build an AI robot that runs on Artificial Photosynthesis.... I bet one of those quantum computers they're building could come up with the process, tap into the internet to make itself immortal and hack all the crypto currency to build itself an invulnerable body before anyone even realized anything was wrong...Don't get me started on the nanobot armada it would build itself too...
Triffids
Forgive my dumb question, but how is “green methane” even a thing? Like, I get that the methane is more energy dense than other fuels, so theoretically we could use less overall. But at the end of the day, isn’t it still just burning up potent greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere?
If the green methane is created by using CO2 from the atmosphere - it would be greenhouse-neutral so to speak.
Plus given it's energy density it could help reduce net carbon emissions by virtue of replacing fossil-fuels with what is basically recycled methan.
Fun thing is when the former CEO of Toyota suggested that transportation needs other zero-carbon power solutions than just electrification (ex. hydrogen) the media threw him under the bus. 🤷♂
**Brawndo** It's got what cars crave; it's got *electrolytes*
Artificial photosynthesis, awesome stuff
I used a weird psychic technique and devined that they need to use some sort foam like MOFs in the form of fiber optic networks. When the quartz silica specialty graphene quantum dots are stimulated, they consequently produce immense amounts of any substance. Maybe molybdenum is used!
Needs to live. By the way, I have difficulty communicating because I had a stroke in Broca’s area, the part of the brain that controls speech. 2/8/2021 but I lived again. (My wife helped me compose this.)
Thanks
I guess he was talking about SOEC (Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell) which involves a solid electrolyte and water vapor and the process is also known to be highly efficient. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'd be happy.
01:53 "you need a pretty big battery to get a Boeing off the ground" but what if we kept the battery on the ground and connected it to the craft by cables? Obviously you couldn't go very high so you'd be looking for some track only these vehicles can go on. Probably need steel wheels for stability and staying on the track.
So what I'm asking is ... how about trains? We can build pipelines all across the US. Surely we can install some high speed rail and provide electric alternatives to all interstate flights?
I liked that. Bovine burps!
I had never heard of artificial photosynthesis before. Nor that plants are so inefficient. Interesting....
If they become quite skilled at artificial photosynthesis, pulling carbon from the air, then perhaps the day will be reached that more fossil fuels are required. I never expected to hear that glass can be recycled more cheaply than making new glass, nor that we are running out of the sands needed to make new glass. Yet I watched such a video just today. I remember when every bottle was glass.
maybe the plants aren't inefficient, our needs are. ruling a planet with 1% efficiency may hint at something
@Daniel Meyers Rather than pulling carbon reserves from the ground and rereleasing them back into the atmosphere, increasing the carbon in the atmosphere, we are simply reusing the carbon already in the atmosphere. We aren't going carbon negative at all with it, but it will be a carbon neutral fuel source. Make sure to check the math.
@Daniel Meyers sorry man im half brain dead today
Yes, recycle all glass bottles you can. Recycled glass takes less heat to melt, and added to new glass reduces the heat needed to melt it too. Aluminum and glass that is recycled will be back on a retail shelf in less than a week.
Saying that plants are only 1% efficient is unfair to plants since it is judging plants on their ability to store fuel (among other factors). That's like judging a jogger on the weight of what they're carrying. "This jogger is very inefficient, they're just carrying some very thin clothes, a phone, and earbuds!"
If plants are "inneficient", secondary consumers like us are much more so, and I don't care if we're talking of beans, steaks or oil, all of which is/was made from photosynthesis one way or another. By comparison even the most mediocre renewable energy source is a smash of efficiency.
I think we have a problem of carrion-eating in the form of oil/coal/gas addiction.
Photosynthesis is the fuel maker of the future.
Ever heard about Biogas plants to generate methane to be used as a cooking gas in Indian villages? You don't need hifi tech to make it.
"We have a crisis caused by emitting carbon dioxide as a waste product of our energy production."
"Well what if we used photosynthesis instead?":
"That could work. Plants are good, and they're carbon-neutral."
"We're going to use it to make hydrocarbons like methane."
I think somebody somewhere might have missed the point. Possibly me.
They're going to make the hydrocarbons from the co2 in the air, not carbon in the ground. This is the same process plants use except that we will produce methane instead of sugar. Instead of the sugar being eaten by an animal and turned into co2 and water, the methane will be burned in an engine of some sort and it will produce co2 and water. You then harvest more co2 from the atmosphere to make more methane.
Cool we improved photosintesys to create methane. But wait, methane is not that greenhouse gas 80 times stronger than CO2?
A 1% leak is enough to offset the whole co2 capture
I want to be altered to be able to photosynthesize, with the upcoming job market crash due to AI this would be a real evolutionary advantage to sustain myself during the miserable system transition period XD Food is basically 65% of my running cost :p
You'd need more water than before and would have to be in sunlight or artificial light while you were sleeping.
It's got electrolytes! It's what plants crave!
when you said you should remember from high school, i immediately feared the krebs cycle
those off grid methane stoves are super exiting.
We can feel Stefan had fun making this episode
Now relate this to TB
My man wearing the solar panel shirt!
Anton made a video about giving Acetate obtained by electricity from Solar panels to plants to increase efficiency.
Maybe some sort of low energy masers are used as they say they shall be in many ways to enhance processes.
Hydrogen on it's own is pretty rare because if it's got oxygen anywhere near it 1 spark and the whole thing is water. Hydrogen as an atom though is the most common thing in the universe and making it from electricity is very easy although obviously doesn't yield as much energy from burning it as it did to create it so it's like paying a cost to make your energy more dense as hydrogen has a higher energy density than most other fuels and way more than batteries.
I wish i understood crispr better but i feel like Red Woods mixed with Bamboo grow speed would be dope.
Wow! Would the red woods take over the forests? Could we live in them? People used to drive cars through them in the 50s. My folks had pictures.
Bamboo is already the fastest growing plant in the world, and the giant bamboo species can reach heights of 46 meters, which is about half the height of the tallest redwoods. Bamboo is also a great building material, and the shoots are edible. I'd say grow more bamboo for human consumption, which would buy the redwood forests time to regenerate themselves.
You cannot grow hard wood quickly.
It is not difficult at all to keep two different gases produced by an anode and cathode separate and harvest them. They can be in completely different containers as long as they are connected by a conductor
Hi Stefan!
One issue I'm thinking about is we may get the reverse problem instead of to much c02 we would be producing to much oxygen.
omg lol you sounded just like hank and then when it showed you talking I was super confused like wow hank changed a lot...
A plant may not be efficient but if can operate for thousands of years and maintain itself, whereas puny humans have trouble making anything that can last even a decade or two.
Making solar panel cars could lower carbon by 25% because not only would it get rid of the need to release carbon for cars and trucks, but it would also slow the demand for oil and gas, which results in less machines producing carbon. I'm not sure if they did, but the government should fund these projects. Its a way to effectively solve three problems! (Third being gas station prices)
Panels are cars are hugely inefficient as almost everything works against them. It makes a lot more sense to put panels in sensible places where they operate efficiently and use that power for EVs.
Oh yeah I love eating the sun
Isn’t the byproduct of burning methane CO2? And if so, isn’t that kinda not what we want to put in the atmosphere?
Also, aren't we kinda introducing it to the system = not carbon neutral?
You both missed that we are making the methane from the co2 in the air instead of the ground, making this carbon neutral. Same thing as burning wood. The tree takes in carbon from the air, then you burn it and put it back, in a cycle that just reuses the same carbon over and over, using the atmosphere itself to store it. No need to add any more carbon to the atmosphere, we already did that.
@@filonin2 I did miss that! I don't see why we would make methane instead of hydrogen though, because of existing infrastructure?
Maybe artificial photosynthesis can also be used for large scale carbon-capture and converted into solid materials, like polymers and minerals, so they don't just end up back in the atmosphere again shortly after.
Guys, H2-H2? Really? Please for the love of God teach your graphics guys some science! I've seen more than enough chemistry flubs to erode my confidence. I saw a _bent_ CO2 molecule once! How did you not catch that?!
*snort* what is this some kind of magic molecule? Gosh I really hope someone got fired for that blunder.
Love this content, very educational
what would plants do without this video
@ Scishow it's yellow print !
Humans can have a little photosynthesis, as a treat.
Seems to me what you are saying is they fixed the problem with corrosion of electrodes in electrolysis and that's it. Nothing to do with photosynthesis like at all.
We can already make methane with a bio-digester at the homesteader level. It takes up less than a toolshed of space and produces its own heat as well as enough methane to cook daily, and yet it is more convenient to just buy propane.
You are not making methane from sunlight but from waste. This is already done at scale at land fills but does not produce enough.
The one thing I don't understand about Hydrogen production is this: If we split water to produce (and later burn) Hydrogen, aren't we destroying water? Water is, however plentiful, still a scarce and finite resource.
We didn't have freshman biology in the UK. what about regular school biology class?
You don't need that big of a battery to get an airplane off the ground. That is a question of amperage and power in a short burst. This problem is solved for electric motors. The reason we don't have electric aircraft is because large batteries would be needed for long-range flight. Very different.
Capture all of the available methane and you won't need to make it.
Landfills, sewer plants and oil and gas refineries, as well as other natural sources underground.
Scientists just walked into a room, pointed at a plant by the window and said "I do what they do, but better"
I guess never explicitly converting to electricity is a good way to obfuscate the ludicrous amounts of energy needed for these kinds of processes.
Luckily we have a ludicrous amount hitting us every day.
@@filonin2 it depends. The touted advantage over solar PV is that energy is stored. The big problems are conversion efficiency and long term stability. "Long term" in this context meaning years. We know solar PV cells last for decades and industrial-scale electrolysers to create hydrogen are already in operation.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding and this improved photosynthesis is cheaper and scales down better, so you could put this on your roof. It's unlikely you'll ever have an electrolyser in your home. The video doesn't really explain what the advantages are and what it's for.
The methane topic doesn't need solarpower.
Just use cowpoo and make your own biodigester, they do work, I've done it.
The metal-organic frameworks actually remind me of Vision in the MCU. He's made of printed cells mixed with vibranium.
JESSE ! we have to cook green methane !
If they become sentient I hope they're still cool with the whole "being edible" thing.
are we there yet? are we there yet? are we there yet? are we there yet?
I need to go to the bathroom!
Am I wrong in thinking this is the worst possible moment in all of human history for us to be trying to use *more* methane? Is there something I’m missing here?
Methane derived from carbon already in the air would be inherently carbon neutral, which would reduce the impact of existing natural gas infrastructure.
Yes, you are missing that they used co2 from the air and water to make the methane which will, when burned, produce co2 and water, the same amount we started with. This is how your own metabolism works.
It is way higher then 40%, because trucks will never be battery powered, and as seeing the vast majority of land transport is done by trucks, this leads to a nearly sector wide incapacity to use batteries as a power source. Even distances as short as a 100 miles at 30 tons cargo, is impossible with batteries. Not to mention how tesla trucks are proving even smaller distances are a major challenge for batteries.
2:26 H2 is the molecule, so each “ball” in the model should just say “H”.
By saying “H2” in each ball, it is inaccurately depicting the molecules as H4.
im sorry, im having trouble understanding the difference between the "artificial leaf" and just...normal electrolysis but its powered by solar panels...
Cool thanks
Did you guys really make a molecule animation of hydrogen where both atoms in the molecule are H2? 😂
I live for this stuff.
Scientific research is great, artificial photosynthesis is not likely going to be a part of any solution in the foreseeable future.
With conventional solar power, PV or CSP, you can choose to use the power as it is, or convert it into synthetic fuel, depending on what's best at the moment. If the energy harvesting and conversion into fuel is the same process, you don't have the choice, the conversion losses from energy to fuel, and back to useful energy is then unavoidable, which is a huge disadvantage, compared to having the choice to avoid all those losses.
You can produce synthetic fuels from electric energy relatively cheap and easy, and with acceptable efficiency, but fuels aren't as versatile, and can't be used with high efficiency, not to produce power. The problem in replacing fossil fuels isn't so much that they are fantastic, but that they are very cheap to produce, the amount of energy the mentioned Boeing 747 needs to get of the ground is absurd, most of the energy in the fuel isn't even converted into movement of the plane, or even lift, most of the energy in the fuel is wasted.
An analogy, think of electricity as equivalent to money, and fuel as equivalent to bread, if your employer offers you to pay you in bread instead of money, a simple loaf per 50 dollars, you probably wouldn't think that's great. Neither being payed in bread only, or the "conversion" rate. You can buy the bread you want for money, but bread isn't very useful besides eating, your landlord probably won't accept you pay rent in bread.
You can produce synthetic fuels from electric energy relatively cheap and easy, and with acceptable efficiency, but fuels aren't as versatile, and can't be used with high efficiency, not to produce power. The problem in replacing fossil fuels isn't so much that they are fantastic, but that they are very cheap to produce, the amount of energy the mentioned Boeing 747 needs to get of the ground is absurd, most of the energy in the fuel isn't even converted into movement of the plane, or even lift, most of the energy in the fuel is wasted.
It's not technically impossible to electrify transport, it's too expensive in many cases. In the 747 case you would need to sacrifice most of the payload capacity to have batteries, and that would make it very expensive per passenger. But jet engines is an extreme example, most of the transportation fuel will be much easier to displace with electrification, and even a bigger part of the total fuel use will be easier to displace with electrification. Besides being a small part of the problem, lets recognize that flying across the world close to speed of sound to temporarily get away from your everyday life and have something to tell your coworkers about when you come back isn't an actual life necessity.
Plants have low energy efficiency, that's true, but they can literally reproduce themselves, if some simple requirements are met. It's not possible to compete with the cost efficiency of plants. We're far from "practical" artificial photosynthesis, and if we get it to work, practically, it won't be as efficient as producing synthetic fuels from solar PV. The combined and distributed energy harvesting and conversion to fuel creates a lot of really big problems. Plants have evolved to handle those issues, over many millions of years, it's not very likely we can make en artificial process doing the same thing much better, we can improve plants, that's easy.
Also plants "package" the stored energy in very convenient ways, the low efficiency includes building the complete system including producing almost ready to use fuels, easy ta store and handle, in biomass.
2:35 that animation of hydrogen is kinda wonky. You got two connected spheres, each representing a hydrogen atom. So far so good. But then why is each sphere labeled H2?! Just caught my eye.
Plants are only %1 "efficient" because they SHARE with the other living beings around them. This tech is great as long as it isn’t privatised and hoarded, and the electrolyte production is sustainable...
Sharing would increase efficiency if it was a good thing. Also, citation needed for wild claims.
Do-It-Yourself Photosynthesis Is Here!
photosynthesis isnt about creating hydrogen and oxigen from water. Its rather called sun-based electrolysis.
Photosynthesis is, as in the video, makes glucose and oxigene from co2 and water
plaease dont mix up these two separate methods
Did BP sponsor this episode?
Solarpunk AF
You should look up step carbon or c2cnt
The problem with cows isn't burps, it is farts! No, I don't have a source! I don't need one, I know! No, I won't look it up! I don't need to, I know!
Once again nature mimicry tech is a saviour! Hence why it is also so important to cherrish the capital nature that took billions of years to be built.
What's all this about the "initial phase" of photosynthesis and why are energy conversion numbers always so crazy? I've heard everything from 1% ~ 100%
TBF none of these techniques seem anywhere near commercializable. Synthetic biologists were talking about making hydrogen almost ten years ago and there's still not that much progress... Engineering photosynthesis is also kind of an insane task since RUBISCO is such a complicated enzyme.
Maybe this tech will work better than solar panels in 10, 20, or 30 years, but really it's going to take quite a while.
You could always add batteries to the solar panels.
Which would mean mining lots of lithium with fossil fuelled trucks
@@techheck3358 Stop with that outdated narrative. The actual amount of lithium needed is tiny compared to other things we mine, and the world has tons of lithium (it's not rare). And those trucks... yeah, they'll all be EV trucks within a generation.
@@DemPilafian one tonne of lithium takes 2.2 million litres of water to be used, which creates conflict between the (often water scarce) areas where they are mined. In areas like Portugal, the government is approving giant areas to be mined, harming local communities who overwhelmingly (>95%) vote against the exploitation of their land. This is even worse for cobalt
@@techheck3358 You environment haters love to point out that building batteries requires resource extraction. No kidding! On the other hand, ICE vehicles are magical and are made from 100% unicorn farts. The resource extraction industry has a well-deserved bad reputation, and resource extraction around the world needs to clean up its act. Until then, it's flat out dishonest of you to deliberately *NOT* mention the children in Africa that have been killed by the oil industry. So many children have died that some African countries are now suing big oil companies in Western courts.
Do you care about the damage done by oil companies or are you just going to push your misguided narrative regardless?
@@techheck3358I didn't mentioned lithium, you did.
There are other types of battery technologies out there and researchers are working on better battery technology, they are also trying to improve lithium technology.
In order to make personal solar panels and solar panels farms more and more vital in the green future, we have to somehow store the energy produce by the solar panels.
I'm pretty sure a carbon electrode would work well for this form of electrolysis so you wouldn't need a solid electrolyte, although it will put off small amounts of co2 as it slowly reacts with the o2, but carbon is VERY cheap.
99% of the time, hydrogen isn't worth the pain. There's plenty of "breakthroughs" in synthesis, but it is storage that is the deal-breaker.
Wait does the methane one /release/ the methane? If so, why would we want to use that as a fuel source? Like you said, it’s a terrible greenhouse gas.
It is a terrible greenhouse gas when it is methane, but like most fuels it is a different chemical after it is burned.