From the University of Georgia:
UGA discovery may allow scientists to make fuel from CO2 in the atmosphere
![Pyrococcus-1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/pyrococcus-11.jpg?w=300)
Now, researchers at the University of Georgia have found a way to transform the carbon dioxide trapped in the atmosphere into useful industrial products. Their discovery may soon lead to the creation of biofuels made directly from the carbon dioxide in the air that is responsible for trapping the sun’s rays and raising global temperatures.
“Basically, what we have done is create a microorganism that does with carbon dioxide exactly what plants do-absorb it and generate something useful,” said Michael Adams, member of UGA’s Bioenergy Systems Research Institute, Georgia Power professor of biotechnology and Distinguished Research Professor of biochemistry and molecular biology in the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences.
During the process of photosynthesis, plants use sunlight to transform water and carbon dioxide into sugars that the plants use for energy, much like humans burn calories from food.
These sugars can be fermented into fuels like ethanol, but it has proven extraordinarily difficult to efficiently extract the sugars, which are locked away inside the plant’s complex cell walls.
“What this discovery means is that we can remove plants as the middleman,” said Adams, who is co-author of the study detailing their results published March 25 in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. “We can take carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and turn it into useful products like fuels and chemicals without having to go through the inefficient process of growing plants and extracting sugars from biomass.”
The process is made possible by a unique microorganism called Pyrococcus furiosus, or “rushing fireball,” which thrives by feeding on carbohydrates in the super-heated ocean waters near geothermal vents. By manipulating the organism’s genetic material, Adams and his colleagues created a kind of P. furiosus that is capable of feeding at much lower temperatures on carbon dioxide.
The research team then used hydrogen gas to create a chemical reaction in the microorganism that incorporates carbon dioxide into 3-hydroxypropionic acid, a common industrial chemical used to make acrylics and many other products.
With other genetic manipulations of this new strain of P. furiosus, Adams and his colleagues could create a version that generates a host of other useful industrial products, including fuel, from carbon dioxide.
When the fuel created through the P. furiosus process is burned, it releases the same amount of carbon dioxide used to create it, effectively making it carbon neutral, and a much cleaner alternative to gasoline, coal and oil.
“This is an important first step that has great promise as an efficient and cost-effective method of producing fuels,” Adams said. “In the future we will refine the process and begin testing it on larger scales.”
The research was supported by the Department of Energy as part of the Electrofuels Program of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy under Grant DE-AR0000081.
UGA Bioenergy Systems Research Institute
The Bioenergy Systems Research Institute at the University of Georgia supports alternative energy, fuel and materials production through the conversion of biomass. The institute encourages and facilitates research projects in bioenergy that pool UGA’s strengths in forestry, environmental science and engineering with carbohydrate science, genetics and microbiology. The institute also supports education and training of scientists as well as outreach projects designed to involve public and private stakeholders in the development of next-generation bioenergy technologies. For more information about the institute, see bioenergy.ovpr.uga.edu.
I read of this YEARSSSSSS ago.
they were saying then it woyuld “soon” do yadadada
Whatshappennedsince?
“The process is made possible by a unique microorganism called Pyrococcus furiosus, or “rushing fireball,” which thrives by feeding on carbohydrates in the super-heated ocean waters near geothermal vents. ”
It amazing down deep in the oceans how microorganisms can survive without sunlight. Where some of the vents are located, live thrives in 700 to 800 degreewater off the carbohydrates .The water does not boil since it is unter so many PSI..
On the other note,
With all the nano tech today the “WATER CAR” will be one day a reality!!!! Microorganisms splitting water into HHO.
If you really want to build a system that can overcome some of the problems with solar and wind, but still let older power stations function without major redesign…
Use the power from the current solar / wind farms to split water into its component molecules.
Eg. Hydrogen and Oxygen. (sea water works, since salt helps the flow of electrons.)
Sell the Oxygen you create as a byproduct.
Pump the hydrogen to storage tanks near the current coal burning power stations.
Use the hydrogen instead of coal.
The system is not very efficient , I know, but it does overcome in part the problems with the inherently unstable supplies of energy from solar and wind generators.
Plus the environmentalists cannot complain, since burning hydrogen just produces clean water as a byproduct.
Yeah, I know, not as easy as it seems, but it has a shot for funding if I can just work something about saving the environment into the grant application…
E.M.Smith says:
March 27, 2013 at 1:32 am
@Jeez
Already available, and natural too. Called the “Diesel Tree” or “Kerosene Tree”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can’t get a grant and a patent from a natural tree and you can’t use it to scam $$$$$ from the Department of Energy. Just don’t mention that tree to Monsanto or they will bio-engineer it so it will grow in the USA south like they did to the eucalyptus Genetically Modified Forest Planned for U.S. Southeast
Info on a pilot plant in Hobbs, NM. – Set to eventually produce 25,000 gallons of ethanol per acre at a cost of $50/barrel for oil and $1.23/barrel for ethanol *without* subsidies Construction engineering problem solver Fluor Corporation is a huge and respected engineering and construction outfit, not some fly-by-night subsidy seeker.
http://tinyurl.com/cuaytu7
Nick Stokes says:
March 27, 2013 at 12:17 am
Reducing CO2 takes a lot of energy.
Warrick says:
March 27, 2013 at 12:53 am
Ummm – and where does the energy to produce the hydrogen come from?
============
Steam + iron releases hydrogen.
This works well within the earth with a moten mantle, iron core, and water and limestone (fossilized co2) carried by plate techtonics into the interior. The result is hydrocarbons, the so called fossil fuels. The interesting part about this article is that microorganisms deep within the earth may be the missing piece of the puzzle. They provide the necessary enzymes to catalyze the reduction of CO2 and H2O into C4H4 and more complex hydrocarbons using iron as the reducing agent and heat from within the earth as the energy source. .
Ah yes,,,,,,,, memories of an old science fiction movie come to my non-fiction mind.
Some genetically engineered bug spray may be in order, just in case, no?
Every time I read these articles and papers I think that Scientist Dumb and Scientist Dumber are loopier than ever ever. I keep thinking that I have met Scientist Dumber or read papers from Scientist Dumber — then a new candidate appears.
Will the real Scientist Dumber please stand up?
We need to send you on a non-politicized Carbon Cycle course…
Let’s end this bad movie now!
They want to compete with plants for CO2?! It’s the plants that provide humans with oxygen. Wouldn’t this mean they’ll deplete the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere?
The critical information here is the final paragraph of the press release:
“The research was supported by the Department of Energy as part of the Electrofuels Program of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy under Grant DE-AR0000081.”
The researchers were simply responding to the DoE’s call for proposals and probably getting a good chunk of money for training a couple of PhD students in the process. Whether this is ever economically relevant will be a commercial decision by a non-academic enterprise, but probably heavily dependant on some subsidy scheme or other. The press release is a press release – what more can you expect in an age when perception is more important than reality?
Green plants are very good at photosynthesis and production of biomass – especially when they have higher levels of CO2. The problem is energy density, especially when it comes to liquid fuels for transport, hence the interest in biodiesel conversion (from plant oils) and ethanol production from starch (and cellulose). However, the net energy production in both biodiesel and ethanol production are not all that great because the starting materials either take a lot of energy to produce or need a lot of energy to convert.
Using microorganisms (bacterial or algae) is a way to try and reduce some of the energy input, with modification of basic metabolism usually needed to overproduce some kind of storage molecule. In small scale examples, there are impressive results often with high levels of conversion to useful compounds (short chain carbohydrates and fatty acids).
However, these projects have been going on for a long time now (I have 12 years of personal experience) and – just like ethanol from cellulose – are always a “couple of years away from commercial success”. Forgive me if I remain skeptical that this one will be any different.
‘agricultural economist says:
March 27, 2013 at 2:16 am
The energy source to reduce CO2 is the crucial question. Could it work like this?
1. Nuclear energy produces H2 from seawater
2. H2 and CO2 are synthesized into some carbohydrate …
Guys, please discuss this more seriously. We will need a lot of technology to overcome energy scarcity.”
#######################
in 2050 there will be 6 billion humans without adequate energy. i would have hoped that this article got a little better response than the knee jerk reactions Ive seen.
AndyG55 says:
March 27, 2013 at 2:17 am
The VERY LAST thing the Earth needs is to lower the atmospheric CO2 concentration
============
If CO2 actually warmed the planet as a whole it would be impossible for the cycle of ice ages to occur, given the very small change in solar energy that results from the earth’s orbit, and the fact that a warming ocean releases CO2 and a cooling ocean absorbs CO2.
Thus, it is illogical for scientists to argue that CO2 warms the planet until this paradox is resolved. Any theory that is at odds with observation is wrong.
R. de Haan
You are a victim of the misinformation highway. I refer to your inference about Dutch natural gas. You link to a 2009 European Energy Review article, whose title says ‘reserves’ but whose first paragraph immediately switches to resources (OGIP). In the US in the past decade, fracking of the Barnett, Fayetteville, Marcellus, and other gas shales has led to technically recoverable reserves of at most 13% of OGIP, and that only economically recoverable in geographically limited sweet spots. Translation, it is not nearly as big as the article misleads.
The EBN report “Focus on Dutch gas 2009″ on which this internet article was based is available. Its first paragraph reads in part, ” In 2008 Dutch gas production was about 80 billion cubic meters…. the total expectation of all [future] prospects is 400 bcd” That is, exhaustion from all future to be drilled possibilities in 5 years at current production rates.That expectation specifically includes shale gas in unconventional resources figure 2.4. The Dutch OIGP is large but the potential TRR is small. Actually, what the report specifically shows is that Dutch natural gas output peaks in 2010, and will have declined by more than 90% by 2040 including fracked shale gas.
“Athens, Ga. – Excess carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere created by the widespread burning of fossil fuels is the major driving force of global climate change, and researchers the world over are looking for new ways to generate power that leaves a smaller carbon footprint.”
Stopped reading after this opening sentence. All pretense of objectivity is out the window when articles open like this, therefore the “science” in the article is questionable.
agricultural economist says:
March 27, 2013 at 2:16 am
The energy source to reduce CO2 is the crucial question…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As an agricultural economist you want to REDUCE CO2 when C3 plants are near starvation levels??? Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California And we may be near the end of the Holocene?
Given the arguments going on as to if/when the Holocene will end and whether we are already entering the long ‘bumpy’ descent into glaciation link, the last thing I want to do is mess with our CO2 security blanket and the food supply it provides.
Only grant seekers, crony capitalists and the brainwashed would not take a good long look at the downside of this idea because even those who think we are looking at a double precessional cycle like MIS-11 instead of the normal half of a precessional cycle agree the earth will be only ~ 10 Wm2 above the low necessary to cause glaciation and that is the subject of much debate. This means, as the proxy records shows, a long term cooling as the oceans lose heat. Colder water ABSORBS CO2 so messing with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere could well be suicide for much of the animal life on earth long term.
This is a newer paper ( April 2012)
“Enivronmentalists … ”
Suggested spelling change: Enivronmentalists to Environmentalists in several appearances.
Call the Center for Disease Control!! It’s just down the road from them. Don’t let these little bastards outside! Ya know, there should be a rule that these researchers get out more. There is something in these towers that short circuits the brain. Don’t they wonder if this could be a terrible thing to do. Nearly every commenter here picked up on this, but no one from UGA appears to have. I thought bringing in lions to take care of the rabbit problem was a thing of the past.
Environmentalists should be cheering about this new bug, but something tells me they will hate the whole idea of a CO2 munching organism. How they respond to this will be a test of their sincerity.
Um, shouldn’t the creators of this bug create predator for it as well?
jayhd says: March 27, 2013 at 8:03 am
“Athens, Ga. – Excess carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere created by the widespread burning of fossil fuels is the major driving force of global climate change, and researchers the world over are looking for new ways to generate power that leaves a smaller carbon footprint.”
Stopped reading after this opening sentence. All pretense of objectivity is out the window when articles open like this, therefore the “science” in the article is questionable.
With all due respect Jay, you are going to miss out on a lot of good information with that approach.
I think it is very common for any researcher to try to tie his paper to current issues (whether or not the researcher really has any belief in the issue), and perhaps even more so for his reviewers to insist he/she does so.
ferdberple says:
March 27, 2013 at 7:35 am
Nick Stokes says:
March 27, 2013 at 12:17 am
Reducing CO2 takes a lot of energy.
Warrick says:
March 27, 2013 at 12:53 am
Ummm – and where does the energy to produce the hydrogen come from?
============
Steam + iron releases hydrogen.
This works well within the earth with a moten mantle, iron core, and water and limestone (fossilized co2) carried by plate techtonics into the interior. The result is hydrocarbons, the so called fossil fuels. The interesting part about this article is that microorganisms deep within the earth may be the missing piece of the puzzle. They provide the necessary enzymes to catalyze the reduction of CO2 and H2O into C4H4 and more complex hydrocarbons using iron as the reducing agent and heat from within the earth as the energy source. .
————————————————————————————————————————
I agree that an ingredient in Gold’s hypothesized “abiogenic” petroleum may well be deep subterranean microbes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
That the crust- or lower-dwelling biogenic organisms might resemble deep sea vent extremophiles naturally suggests itself. Imagine the peak horror if life in the Earth were found to produce “fossil fuels” continuously (even if at a lower pace than our use or not economically recoverably).
DrDelos says:
March 27, 2013 at 7:24 am
Info on a pilot plant in Hobbs, NM….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At least they have done the pilot scale work and are now doing a “proof of design plant,” so they get several thumbs up from me.
I HATE the lab bench to plant using a Department of Defense grant – OOPS stockholders it didn’t work, sorry better luck next time scams. Maurice Strong/Al Gore’s Molten Metals Inc scam being an all time classic.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130326151125.htm
Assuming it’s correct, it raises an interesting problem. Fluid Injection doesn’t cause earthquakes (how could it?). it merely triggers a quake that would have happened sooner or later anyway by lubricating the slip zone. So, if one were to inject fluids into the San Andreas fault and it set off a multi-billion dollar magnitude 6.0 eathquake, would that be better or worse than waiting a century for another 8.0 quake that will, for a near certainty, completely flatten San Francisco (again) a century hence?
Oops posted that to the wrong web site . [snip . . OT . . mod]
Totally unconnected to WUWT and this thread
And when these bugs consume ALL of the CO2 then what?
To Matt who questioned the efficiency:
This is a technological step, not the endpoint. However, if one were eventually to develop a bug/s that produced, let’s say ethanol, directly, then it is perfectly possible for a 3% (or even worse) efficiency to compete with a solar panel at 20% or greater. The form of the energy output is part of it’s value, and a liquid fuel has advantages (market value) a stream of electrical power may not.