<story><title>Breakthrough solar cell captures CO2 and sunlight, produces burnable fuel</title><url>https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuel</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Animats</author><text>&amp;quot;Nanotechnology&amp;quot; again. It&amp;#x27;s just surface chemistry, people. It&amp;#x27;s nice that they can do this in the lab, but as usual, the PR is excessive.  &amp;quot;The ability to turn CO2 into fuel at a cost comparable to a gallon of gasoline would render fossil fuels obsolete.&amp;quot;  At least get to pilot plant stage before issuing statements like that.&lt;p&gt;Especially since UC Berkeley announced a similar breakthrough last year.[1] Wikipedia points out that artificial photosynthesis was first achieved in 1912, and some of the same claims were made back then.  There are lots of artificial photosynthesis projects. One of the best was in 2011, the first &amp;quot;artificial leaf&amp;quot;[3]. It ran for 44 hours.&lt;p&gt;The usual questions apply. How efficient is this?  Does the catalyst get used up, or crud up with contaminants, and if so, how fast? What limits the life of the system?  What are the costs like?  (Excessive catalyst cost has been a problem.)
Is this better than all the other groups doing similar work?&lt;p&gt;Artificial photosynthesis may be useful someday, but this probably isn&amp;#x27;t the big breakthrough that makes it a commercial product. That may come, though.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;newscenter.lbl.gov&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;16&amp;#x2F;major-advance-in-artificial-photosynthesis&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;newscenter.lbl.gov&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;16&amp;#x2F;major-advance-in-artifi...&lt;/a&gt;
[2] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Artificial_photosynthesis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Artificial_photosynthesis&lt;/a&gt;
[3] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.acs.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;acs&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;pressroom&amp;#x2F;newsreleases&amp;#x2F;2011&amp;#x2F;march&amp;#x2F;debut-of-the-first-practical-artificial-leaf.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.acs.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;acs&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;pressroom&amp;#x2F;newsreleases&amp;#x2F;20...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>nhebb</author><text>&amp;gt; as usual, the PR is excessive&lt;p&gt;I think articles that over hype lab results make it to the top of HN because there is no downvote button and flagging them doesn&amp;#x27;t seem appropriate. I wish there was a &amp;quot;meh&amp;quot; option.</text></comment>
<story><title>Breakthrough solar cell captures CO2 and sunlight, produces burnable fuel</title><url>https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuel</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Animats</author><text>&amp;quot;Nanotechnology&amp;quot; again. It&amp;#x27;s just surface chemistry, people. It&amp;#x27;s nice that they can do this in the lab, but as usual, the PR is excessive.  &amp;quot;The ability to turn CO2 into fuel at a cost comparable to a gallon of gasoline would render fossil fuels obsolete.&amp;quot;  At least get to pilot plant stage before issuing statements like that.&lt;p&gt;Especially since UC Berkeley announced a similar breakthrough last year.[1] Wikipedia points out that artificial photosynthesis was first achieved in 1912, and some of the same claims were made back then.  There are lots of artificial photosynthesis projects. One of the best was in 2011, the first &amp;quot;artificial leaf&amp;quot;[3]. It ran for 44 hours.&lt;p&gt;The usual questions apply. How efficient is this?  Does the catalyst get used up, or crud up with contaminants, and if so, how fast? What limits the life of the system?  What are the costs like?  (Excessive catalyst cost has been a problem.)
Is this better than all the other groups doing similar work?&lt;p&gt;Artificial photosynthesis may be useful someday, but this probably isn&amp;#x27;t the big breakthrough that makes it a commercial product. That may come, though.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;newscenter.lbl.gov&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;16&amp;#x2F;major-advance-in-artificial-photosynthesis&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;newscenter.lbl.gov&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;16&amp;#x2F;major-advance-in-artifi...&lt;/a&gt;
[2] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Artificial_photosynthesis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Artificial_photosynthesis&lt;/a&gt;
[3] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.acs.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;acs&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;pressroom&amp;#x2F;newsreleases&amp;#x2F;2011&amp;#x2F;march&amp;#x2F;debut-of-the-first-practical-artificial-leaf.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.acs.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;acs&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;pressroom&amp;#x2F;newsreleases&amp;#x2F;20...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mistercow</author><text>&amp;gt;At least get to pilot plant stage before issuing statements like that.&lt;p&gt;To be fair, making statements like that can help you get to that stage. It sucks that this is how it works, but playing the game is understandable.</text></comment>