Nanotech: overheated promises and hot air
By Jason Major
TechNyou
Friends of the Earth recently released a report, Nanotechnology, climate and energy: Over-heated promises and hot air? The report sets out to debunk industry’s promise of using nanotechnologies to solve the world’s energy and environmental problems.
All well and good, but apart from giving the industry marketing guys are poke in the eye, my examination of the exec summary, highlights and a few chapters found it devoid of anything revelatory, certain nothing apocalyptic. Its content has already been reported on or acknowledged elsewhere. The fact they are quoting or using science-based references alone suggests the issues they highlight are already acknowledged, at least in the scientific community.
If it is just the lay person they are trying to reach, then fine. It is a report that helps put the nano science and potential applications and issues into some perspective. But if it is those in policy, regulation, communication or involved the actual scientific research they are trying to influence I think they are simply stating the obvious, although there will likely be many in these fields that disagree about the best way to resolve the issues FOE raise.
Not the silver bullet
One of the key points FOE make is that industry has over-promised and under-delivered with nanotech. With any new technology there is hype and expectations, but eventually, as the knowledge progresses, realities will emerge.
OK, for the average non-scientist out there who gets his technological insights from the newspaper and TV he may have notions of nanobots, space elevators and cheap solar energy, but in my world involving the scientists and related institutions, communicators such as myself, and even governments we are well aware of the realities of nanotech. For any problem people try to solve with technology there will be 100s of good ideas, but only a handful will turn out to be viable. And this takes time and robust science to work it out. Thin-film nano solar cells do have issues, as pointed out in the report, but are still potentially a good idea. Nobody I know is running around saying we have solved the problem, perfected the technology….or anything of that ilk. It will take time to find which ideas, or which scientific advance will be viable – if any. Those that are too dangerous or simply uneconomic will eventually disappear. And just because the research effort may not deliver for another 10-20 years doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fund the research. Science rarely progresses in revolutionary leaps.
Infiltration by stealth?
FOE also make the point that intentionally manufactured nanoparticles are already found in a wide range of other products, such as cosmetics, sunscreens, clothing and paints. And that most nanoparticles are not developed or used for energy efficiency or to reduce a product’s environmental footprint.
Correct, in the same way the modern electric vacuum cleaner was not designed for energy efficiency or to reduce the environmental footprint. It was designed to clean carpets. Personally, I have no problem with my grandmother’s old manual carpet cleaner with the rotating brushes. We can all make that choice. But does that mean we should prevent people applying the knowledge for these purposes. If that is the case you could ban a lot of other non-nano things as well – eg vacuum cleaners, leaf blowers, whipper snippers. Actually the last two should be banned – noisy, smelly, pointless things that destroy my serenity.
And yes, the manufacturing of some nanomaterials is incredibly energy intensive and can release harmful emissions, especially as pointed out in the report, carbon nano tubes. This is certainly a valid point and one for consideration, but this is all very early stage science. We are still grappling with the absolute basics here. They seem to leave out science’s attempts to address the issues they raise. For example, recent research out of MIT has found a potentially greener way to grow carbon nanotubes. Initial results suggest they can reduce emissions of harmful by-products at least tenfold and, in some cases, by a factor of 100. It also cut the amount of energy used in the process by half.
Professor Paul Mulvaney’s lab in the University of Melbourne’s Bio21 Institute has a PV cell based on quantum dot technology that is 7% efficient, but it is based on CdTe (Cadmium Tellurium), so is toxic. In the US, they claim they can recycle these chemicals and there will be no environmental fallout. Even so, Mulvaney and other labs worldwide are working on alternatives. Mulvaney’s lab is trying to make thin film semiconductors using nanocrystals as an ink from materials such as Cu2S, FeS2 (pyrite) and CuInSe2.
(For those wondering – Cu: copper; S: Sulfur; Fe: iron; In: Indium; Se: selenium)
We have the technology
The one point FOE do make which needs greater public debate is our apparent obsession with the technological fix. That is, to solve the problems we face we just need to generate a technology to overcome it when in fact there are is raft of social and ethical issues that underpin our behaviour that also need to be considered and incorporated into any scientific process. For example, short of one of those revolutionary scientific leaps, focusing on growing more food per hectare is not going to feed a growing population unless we go some way to sorting out the issue of poverty, wastage, corruption, war and so on… In my opinion, there is a lot of talk about the need for this integration of the science and social, but not much translation into action. It is happening on a small scale and the acknowledgement that it is important is also growing, but there is considerable room for improvement.
There may be revelations in the later chapters of this report and I am happy to be enlightened, should anyone have comments or further thoughts about this.