New energy source discovered?
A CNN report on a “new energy source” needs scrutiny and more explanation so readers do not misinterpret the findings.
In a recent CNN article, Shelby Lin Erdman reports on a new development from MIT researchers who “discovered an energy source that you can see only through a microscope,”
The original research published in the journal Nature Materials describes a highly novel way of channeling energy generated by a chemical reaction through carbon nanotubes. This discovery has revolutionary implications for reducing the size of batteries and other devices, and as such should be applauded.
But, Erdman could have offered more information to clarify for readers the technology’s limitations, its long-term prospects and its potential toxicity. Simply including comments from one or more experts not involved in the development of the technology would have gone a long way to putting this story into context.
Firstly, the discovery is not an “energy source;” instead it is a new way of transmitting energy generated by a chemical reaction. Secondly, the realistic applications of this technology are still a long way from becoming a reality.
A third point concerns toxicity. The article’s senior author asserts that “batteries made from this new thermopower technology would be completely nontoxic.” While reassuring, this is not accurate. Recent research studies have repeatedly shown that carbon nanotubes – the nanomaterials used to make these new devices – are toxic to cells, rats and mice.
The article further states that when burnt the devices would produce only carbon since these new “batteries” would be made of carbon-containing materials. While this is theoretically true, the process of making carbon nanotubes usually requires heavy metals – such as cobalt, nickel or iron – which become incorporated into the nanomaterials. Incinerating the tubes could produce toxic metal oxides, although little is understood about how nanomaterials behave under those circumstances.
In sum, while this article highlights an important step forward in the development of small energetic materials, by misinterpreting the science, the journalist gives readers an overly optimistic understanding of this discovery’s implications. This could be easily avoided by including opinions from other experts knowledgeable about the subject.