As you may know, the economy right now runs on fossil fuel which
is not the cleanest source of fuel out there in this world. Knowing this,
couple millions of dollar was put into various organizations to research a
better fueling source instead of using fossil fuel. However, it was a professor
at the California Institute of Technology who found an alternative source of
fuel. Nathan S. Lewis, a chemistry professor who led the national and
international effort to produce fuels directly from sunlight did succeed in
creating a prototype artificial “leaf” fuel. This prototype artificial “leaf”
fuel was constructed off the basis was photosynthesis which is a process by
which plants convert and store energy form the sun. If leaves are able to do
that with the support from the sun, then there must be a way to use
photosynthesis to convert the energy in leaves to fuel. So…..that’s Nathan S.
Lewis did, he created a artificial leaf that is inspired by leaves, but will
not look like them. The “artificial leaf” is composed of a thin sheet of
plastic embedded with light-absorbing materials, or sheets of bubble-wrap like
material spread out over a field that “take in sunlight and water vapor and
emit, for example, hydrogen or methanol.”
Because
this prototype of clean fuel is made, there are many benefits that can be
spread across nations all over the world. For example, once the leaf has gone
through the process of photosynthesis, the materials will soon be broken down
into hydrogen and oxygen where this will be collected as fuel. This artificial
leaf can then be used right on the spot. Basically, the article states that if
the scientist breaks through the difficulties then “people in third-world
countries may generate the hydrogen in the place they want to use it.” Because
of this we can now move from a fossil-fuel energy economy to a renewable-energy
economy.
Eisenberg, Anne. "NOVELTIES; The Answer Is (Artificially) Blowing in the Wind." The New York Times. The New York Times, 22 May 2011. Web. 06 Feb. 2013.
6 comments:
Jimmy Purdy
I thought Kenny did a very good and thorough job on his article summary and review. For one, I thought he did a good job in explaining the importance of this topic. Usage of fossil fuels is a very important topic these days and I think Kenny did a good job in getting that across. I also thought that Kenny did a good job in describing what an artificial leaf is. That is a very difficult topic to understand but he explained it very well. I also liked how he summed up the benefits in the last sentence where he stated, “Because of this we can move from a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy economy.” This just summed it up well and left an idea for what the future may look like.
Although as stated previously, he did a good job explaining some things, I think he could have explained others more clearly. For one, I thought he could have explained less about what the leaf is and how it works. He did explain the basics, but I would of liked to find out more about it. I also think Kenny could have talked more about the back round of fossil fuels and how they are hurting the environment today, compared to what the new fuels will do.
One thing that I found interesting about this article is that we have the technology and brains to create a fuel that works like photosynthesis. The more I read about todays discoveries the more I am absolutely astounded by the things that are being done.
Matt James
Overall I liked Kenny’s summary of this article. I agree with the main point that fossil fuels are a dying and not an environmentally sound resource, he did a good job explaining in brief the issue with fossil fuels and the possibilities that this new leaf fuel could make. I liked how Kenny was not simply repeating the article, but in fact giving his own opinion on certain of the topics, allowing us to see both the author and his points of view. I thought the quote he used was well placed as it sums up the goals of the creator of this new energy source. I thought he could do a slightly better job explaining how this new technology differed form solar power. I learned that solar power keeps progressing and the near future could bring us a clean fuel source.
Maxim Izotov
Article review 2/14 (Kenny on the answer)
As soon as I started reading the review, I noticed that Kenny did three things really well. To begin, he introduced the problem that our society is facing. This touched me because it relates to the world that I know, and instantly I was hooked by the article. Next, he gave a brief background that did not cause his writing to trail away from the topic, but let us know of everything we needed to about the scientist’s background. To me, it is a representation of the caliber of the scientist’s experience and level of knowledge. Last but not least, Kenny did a great job of explaining certain terms, such as “photosynthesis” and the general concept of “artificiality.” This literary element caught my eye because I have not gone over “photosynthesis” in a while and realized that “artificiality” can have multiple meanings, although in general it is the same.
Although the review was great, two things could be adjusted. The first problem that I noticed was that Kenny never explained how the energy that the leaves produce/convert is stored. Since they want to use it, they must be able to access it somehow. Second and last, Kenny never mentioned whether there are any side effects or negative outputs. I had trouble coming to a solid conclusion about this topic because I was unclear of whether this “leaf” is 100% productive in a positive way.
Overall, this concept seemed quite interesting to me. I think that this is a great source of energy, but I am sure it is not a long term provider of power. Rather, lithium is a much more convenient resource, although it could possibly get taken away by nature any second (tsunami in Japan reference).
I read the article review of “The Answer Is (Artificially) blowing in the Wind,” by Kenny. I liked how he went into detail about the “leaf” and really let us know what this would do. I also liked how he put in the benefits of this new invention. And I also liked how he went into what we had before and what this can bring us. One thing I would have liked is to know more about the bad effects of previous fuels that we had. I also would have like to know more about the “leaf.” Such as when it will be done or how much it cost and who will own them. Overall I liked his review and I thought the topic was very interesting.
I thought Kenny did a very good job in summarizing the article. He explained in detail about why researching other sources of fueling is so important. He then explained how the Cal-tech professor, Nathan Lewis, found a product that could be used as a better source of energy. He also did a very clear job in explaining what the “leaf” fuel was, which could be difficult to understand if not explained properly. It was found off the basis of photosynthesis,. Which was also made very clear. Finally, he did a good job in explaining how this fuel will help reduce gases emitted by the burning of fossil fuel. By using sunlight and water vapor, this method can be very effective.
I thought Kenny’s explanation of the article could have been improved by fixing his first sentence. “Economy” is not the right work to describe what source of fuel people run on. Economy leads me to think of money, but that is not what he is trying to point out. If he said something along the lines of “people heavily depend on fossil fuels to go about their lives, which is not the safest resource in the environment because it lets out fumes when burned.” I also thought there were many grammatical error, besides this vocabulary error. He used many wrong tenses and unnecessary words. If he had reread his work, he could have easily spotted some of these mistakes making his review more coherent.
I was very interested in learning about this new fuel because the problem of limited fossil fuel and the destruction of the ozone layer by fossil fuel bases gases emitted into the air are problems that will concern out generation for years to come. It was kind of relieving to hear that there will be options for the future of gas consumption and that is all thanks to Professor Lewis.
I thought Kenny did a very good job in summarizing the article. He explained in detail about why researching other sources of fueling is so important. He then explained how the Cal-tech professor, Nathan Lewis, found a product that could be used as a better source of energy. He also did a very clear job in explaining what the “leaf” fuel was, which could be difficult to understand if not explained properly. It was found off the basis of photosynthesis,. Which was also made very clear. Finally, he did a good job in explaining how this fuel will help reduce gases emitted by the burning of fossil fuel. By using sunlight and water vapor, this method can be very effective.
I thought Kenny’s explanation of the article could have been improved by fixing his first sentence. “Economy” is not the right work to describe what source of fuel people run on. Economy leads me to think of money, but that is not what he is trying to point out. If he said something along the lines of “people heavily depend on fossil fuels to go about their lives, which is not the safest resource in the environment because it lets out fumes when burned.” I also thought there were many grammatical error, besides this vocabulary error. He used many wrong tenses and unnecessary words. If he had reread his work, he could have easily spotted some of these mistakes making his review more coherent.
I was very interested in learning about this new fuel because the problem of limited fossil fuel and the destruction of the ozone layer by fossil fuel bases gases emitted into the air are problems that will concern out generation for years to come. It was kind of relieving to hear that there will be options for the future of gas consumption and that is all thanks to Professor Lewis.
Post a Comment