From the University of Minnesota:
MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (03/23/2011) —University of Minnesota researchers are a key step closer to making renewable petroleum fuels using bacteria, sunlight and carbon dioxide, a goal funded by a $2.2 million United States Department of Energy grant.
Graduate student Janice Frias, who earned her doctorate in January, made the critical step by figuring out how to use a protein to transform fatty acids produced by the bacteria into ketones, which can be cracked to make hydrocarbon fuels. The university is filing patents on the process.
The research is published in the April 1 issue of the Journal of Biological Chemistry. Frias, whose advisor was Larry Wackett, Distinguished McKnight Professor of Biochemistry, is lead author. Other team members include organic chemist Jack Richman, a researcher in the College of Biological Sciences’ Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biophysics, and undergraduate Jasmine Erickson, a junior in the College of Biological Sciences. Wackett, who is senior author, is a faculty member in the College of Biological Sciences and the university’s BioTechnology Institute.
“Janice Frias is a very capable and hard-working young scientist,” Wackett says. “She exemplifies the valuable role graduate students play at a public research university.”
Aditya Bhan and Lanny Schmidt, chemical engineering professors in the College of Science and Engineering, are turning the ketones into diesel fuel using catalytic technology they have developed. The ability to produce ketones opens the door to making petroleum-like hydrocarbon fuels using only bacteria, sunlight and carbon dioxide.
“There is enormous interest in using carbon dioxide to make hydrocarbon fuels,” Wackett says. “CO2 is the major greenhouse gas mediating global climate change, so removing it from the atmosphere is good for the environment. It’s also free. And we can use the same infrastructure to process and transport this new hydrocarbon fuel that we use for fossil fuels.”
The research is funded by a $2.2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-energy (ARPA-e) program, created to stimulate American leadership in renewable energy technology.
The U of M proposal was one of only 37 selected from 3,700 and one of only three featured in the New York Times when the grants were announced in October 2009. The University of Minnesota’s Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment (IREE) and the College of Biological Sciences also provided funding.
Wackett is principal investigator for the ARPA-e grant. His team of co-investigators includes Jeffrey Gralnick, assistant professor of microbiology and Marc von Keitz, chief technical officer of BioCee, as well as Bhan and Schmidt. They are the only group using a photosynthetic bacterium and a hydrocarbon-producing bacterium together to make hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide.
The U of M team is using Synechococcus, a bacterium that fixes carbon dioxide in sunlight and converts CO2 to sugars. Next, they feed the sugars to Shewanella, a bacterium that produces hydrocarbons. This turns CO2, a greenhouse gas produced by combustion of fossil fuel petroleum, into hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbons (made from carbon and hydrogen) are the main component of fossil fuels. It took hundreds of millions of years of heat and compression to produce fossil fuels, which experts expect to be largely depleted within 50 years.
###
In press at the Journal of Biological Chemistry
Purification and Characterization of OleA from Xanthomonas campestris and Demonstration of a Non-decarboxylative Claisen Condensation Reaction*
+ Author Affiliations
From the Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics and BioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108
- 1↵ To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics, 140 Gortner Laboratory, 1479 Gortner Ave., University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108. Tel.: 612-625-3785; Fax: 612-624-5780; E-mail: wacke003@umn.edu.
Abstract
OleA catalyzes the condensation of fatty acyl groups in the first step of bacterial long-chain olefin biosynthesis, but the mechanism of the condensation reaction is controversial. In this study, OleA from Xanthomonas campestris was expressed in Escherichia coli and purified to homogeneity. The purified protein was shown to be active with fatty acyl-CoA substrates that ranged from C8 to C16 in length. With limiting myristoyl-CoA (C14), 1 mol of the free coenzyme A was released/mol of myristoyl-CoA consumed. Using [14C]myristoyl-CoA, the other products were identified as myristic acid, 2-myristoylmyristic acid, and 14-heptacosanone. 2-Myristoylmyristic acid was indicated to be the physiologically relevant product of OleA in several ways. First, 2-myristoylmyristic acid was the major condensed product in short incubations, but over time, it decreased with the concomitant increase of 14-heptacosanone. Second, synthetic 2-myristoylmyristic acid showed similar decarboxylation kinetics in the absence of OleA. Third, 2-myristoylmyristic acid was shown to be reactive with purified OleC and OleD to generate the olefin 14-heptacosene, a product seen in previous in vivo studies. The decarboxylation product, 14-heptacosanone, did not react with OleC and OleD to produce any demonstrable product. Substantial hydrolysis of fatty acyl-CoA substrates to the corresponding fatty acids was observed, but it is currently unclear if this occurs in vivo. In total, these data are consistent with OleA catalyzing a non-decarboxylative Claisen condensation reaction in the first step of the olefin biosynthetic pathway previously found to be present in at least 70 different bacterial strains.
=================================================
h/t to WUWT reader JPE for the starting point link to Science Daily in Tips and Notes
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
crosspatch says:
March 29, 2011 at 9:13 pm
crosspatch, you are sorely mistaken with your wild and obviously flawed hypothesis. Don’t you know hydrocarbon fuels only come from the decayed remains of dinosaurs which means they will soon run out (aka peak oil). To me, the most amazing aspect of hydrocarbon fuel creation is that all those dinosaurs knew exactly where to migrate to when they sensed death coming on. That way they could all be piled up together in large enough numbers to create the large deposits of petroleum we tap into today.
/sarc off (as if that was really necessary) 🙂
Larry says:
March 30, 2011 at 3:24 am
according to wikipedia’s discussion of energy consumption this would have to be pretty efficient to be a complete solution to energy consumption – it seems our energy consumption is about 25% of radiant energy.
__________
You are presuming that all electricity is or will be from combustion and not fission or fusion, hydro or photovoltaic. (I think wind is a non-starter.) Look into both LFTR and POLLYWELL technology. There is plenty of hydrocarbon and carbonate rock available for reactivation into the CO2 energy cycle.
The ethanol-from-corn-subsidy lobby will fight this one with all they’ve got. That’s not sarc.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed. The energy for the bacteria to do their work has to come from somewhere. So, it’s right back to the source for the biofuels/fossilised biofuels: The Sun = Fusion. What this process is all about is another form of Solar Energy. This might just work.
How much area and investment does the average Fossil Fueled Power Plant need to keep up with this Solar Energy biofuel replacement scheme?
Seriously, Anthony may well have never written anything that displays a lack of credibility more than that sentence.
So Greens have nightmares about reductions in CO2 emissions?
Ok, and libz hate America and want all their friends and neighbors to die at the hands of terrorists.
Got it.
Classic. Greens want you and me, their friends and family, and almost everyone else to be dead. Yup. That’s what they want. Why do you think that they’re called enviro-Nazis?
This study is another example of how tying your research to the global warming philosophy will help get your study funded.
Matt Taylor says: “RE: Anthony. I would argue that any “green” that is more concerned about the loss of a talking point over the gain of a potential energy source is more of a subversive dissident [of the establishment] than a true advocate for environmentalism.”
But the media make absolutely no distinction. “If it’s green, it’s peachy keen,” is their motto, no matter how wacko the green ideology.
C’mon, you just know that Big Oil is already knocking at their door with bags of money to buy the patent, then bury it! Why if it wasn’t for Big Oil, we would already have cars that would get 200 miles to the gallon!
🙂
Matt Taylor,
Sorry to burst the bubble of euphoria you appear to be living in, but anyone who dedicates themselves to the fight against carbon (dioxide) and the gullible warming it is allegedly responsible for isn’t a true advocate for environmentlism, anyone who genuinely cares for the environment should be disgusted by the waste which is encouraged, even made compulsory by legislation, in this pointless act on carbon (dioxide).
Don’t waste your admiration on self proclaimed Greens, they’re only interested in the excuse to negatively argue or in protecting their own personal habitat (must have somewhere clean to park their Toyota Pious after all).
‘Solve’ the mythical problem and there are a lot of out of ‘work’ slacktivists, so describing this reserch as a Green’s worst nightmare is wholly justified.
Surely the step of capturing CO2 from the atmosphere is more efficiently/cheaply achived by natural photosynthesis – like commercialising this for example:
http://www.statoil.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/NewEnergy/SustainableFuels/Biofuels/Pages/Seaweed.aspx
which also doesn’t compete for arable land and drive up food prices; even though the tiny increase in atmospheric [CO2] is increasing the area of land which can be considered arable (now if we can just arrest urbal sprawl…)
If it works, let them build right next door to the coal plants! wow, what a boom in employment! Or we can wait and see how the Chinese and Japanese will use our tech again to build for us in 5-10 years at a cost that will triple our national debt!
crosspatch says:
March 29, 2011 at 9:13 pm
“There is enormous interest in using carbon dioxide to make hydrocarbon fuels”
Well, lets see. There’s lots of CO2 deep down in the earth, volcanoes tend to leak a lot of it. We have bacteria that live in rocks. Hmmm.
Maybe Earth has been making hydrocarbon fuels out of CO2 for a very long time.
Actually there is a body of scientific opinion, of which the late Thomas Gold was a leading exponent, that much so-called “fossil fuel” is not fossil at all and that earth has been making it for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
What could possibly go wrong?
“David S says:
March 30, 2011 at 7:48 am
Oh No!!! The bacteria will escape into the enviroment and begin consumming all CO2 from the atmosphere until it is devoid of CO2. Then, lacking CO2 the plants will die and then there will be no food and without CO2 there will be no greenhouse effect and the world will plunge into another ice age. and …and… and… ahhhh !!! We’re all gonna die! /sarc”… not sure how far off this sarc is?
When so called scientists find the need to lie, distort, and commit multiple frauds
( hockey sticks – lost temperature data – models that do not seem to work – etc.)!
Can we really expect these clowns to get such a grand program right… ?
I think this is just more evidence that Mother Earth is constantly making oil deep down… it is up to us to try and understand what really is going on here!
Viva Real Scientists – Jail the Frauds!
I think the manufacture of fuel from C02 would be a great thing. So with out the addition of so called fossil fuels, C02 in equals C02 out when burned, neutral usage of C02, no added C02 to the atmosphere. So the reasoning being if C02 in the atmosphere then keeps increasing, not man caused. If co2 decreases then oh oh there goes my garden.
Old news, I’ve been doing this stuff at the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) and the University of Illinois since 1979. Reactor volume, energetics and competition from undesirable species are all considerations that have to be addressed, but I think our group has done this.
We’ll let you know when we publish. Buy CO2, it will be the next oil (we actually said this to an annual alumni meeting at IIT last year).
rbateman, you nailed it. This scheme is utter stupidity. A certain quantity of the potential energy of fossil fuels is wasted in conversion to useful work. So, if you want to refabricate the CO2 into fossil fuels a certain portion of the potential energy of sunlight will be wasted converting it back. And thus not available for doing anything else. Oh, like growing crops or maintaining the biosphere, perchance?
More stupid delusions from people who imagine that the second law of thermodynamics can be cheated.
For all of the slow learners out there who don’t understand the three laws, here they are in simple language:
You can’t win. (There’s no new energy in the universe; the Big Bang created it all)
You can’t break even. (Every use of energy diminishes the remaining potential)
You can’t get out of the game. (Thermodynamics applies to everything)
In short, entropy always wins.
Hey we’ve got it made. How about burning all that dirty coal we have to get CO2 to microbiate into gasoline; forget about going all the way back to Arabian Crude; just make gasoline.
What else does it take to feedt these little laboratory pets to get them to make oil. What is PETA’s position on the mistreatment of microbes ?
I also believe, as someone else suggested, that there are “good greens” and “bad greens”.
The good ones want to the protect the environment but also want a better standard of living for humans. The bad ones are more concerned with shaping (or even destroying) society.
Several bloggers and commentators have wryly noted the green vs. green battles regarding, for example, the siting of solar cells in the desert or windmills in various locations. I view these as good vs bad green battles, wherein the good greens want to protect the tortoises/landscapes/birds whereas the bad ones are more interested in what is politically correct.
I would even go so far as to say that the bad greens are not really greens at all (I’ve seen the term “watermelons” used – green on the outside, red inside), but rather they are folks who are attempting to hijack the green movement for their own ends.
I think that most commentators here can often/usually support the good greens, but will never support the bad ones.
Madman2001 says:
March 30, 2011 at 11:21 am
“I also believe, as someone else suggested, that there are “good greens” and “bad greens”.
The good ones want to the protect the environment but also want a better standard of living for humans. The bad ones are more concerned with shaping (or even destroying) society. ”
Yes, and they are in the same party.
The bad ones are called “the bosses”.
Colin says:
March 30, 2011 at 11:15 am
rbateman, you nailed it. This scheme is utter stupidity.
In short, entropy always wins.
————————————
A little harsh I think Colin. Nothing wrong with life borrowing sunlight and converting it to heat on its way to entropy. (Remember sunlight is free – still !!)
Also, this is a different kind of science from “data torturing”. This is real live scientists increasing yields, moving onwards and upwards and tossing failed experiments. The game is changing fairly rapidly, but a lot of it is kept confidential as it is difficult to build strong global IP protection in this field.
Dave Springer says:
March 30, 2011 at 6:31 am
Atmospheric CO2 will shortly become one of the most valuable commodities in the world when it is being utilized to build durable goods that for all practical purposes permanently remove it from the atmosphere.
You do see the danger in this, Dave, I hope.
It’s an interesting fact that to this day, no one really knows for sure how oil forms in nature. The classical theory was detritus of phytoplankton getting compressed and incurring geothermal heating. However, I don’t think some sort of bacterial process can be ruled out. In which case formation time frames may be substantially shorter than originally thought.
Much cheaper to let CO2 into the atmosphere and have plants gobble it up.
Colin says:
More stupid delusions from people who imagine that the second law of thermodynamics can be cheated.
This is something I keep coming across in all the “green” energy schemes – like the idea I see on the TV commercial to ‘reclaim’ energy from a roller coaster – the one thing they all seem to have in common is that the energy seems to come from nowhere. No concern at all for the fact that in order to ‘reclaim’ that energy, you would have to STOP the roller coaster. And even then you wouldn’t get it all back.
Maybe the guy in ‘Gulliver’s Travels’ who was working on a method ‘of extracting sunbeams from cucumbers’ wasn’t quite so daft after all!