SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Engineered E. coli could make carbohydrates, renewable fuel, from CO2:
Researchers from Newcastle University, UK have engineered Escherichia coli bacteria to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) using hydrogen gas (H2) to convert it into formic acid. The research, published today in Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Normally, an enzyme in E. coli catalyzes the reverse of this reaction—production of H2 and CO2 from formic acid. In nature, the latter is best known as a type of vinegar compound ants use to ward off predators (Formic comes from the Latin 'formica', meaning ant.)
To reverse the normal reaction in E. coli, the investigators got the bacteria to switch out molybdenum, a metal that is normally a critical part of the enzyme, for tungsten, by growing the bacteria in an excess of the latter. "This is fairly easy to do as E. colicannot readily tell the difference between the 2," said principal investigator Frank Sargent.
"Swapping of tungsten for molybdenum changed the properties of our enzyme so that it was locked in CO2 capturing mode rather than being able to switch between CO2 capture and CO2 production," said Dr. Sargent.
[...] Dr. Sargent developed the idea from reading about the emergence of life on Earth, both in primary literature and popular science books, he said. Three and a half billion years ago, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, but there were high levels of CO2 and H2, and cellular life had begun evolving 10,000 meters below the ocean's surface.
[...] "Around the world, societies understand the importance of combatting climate change, developing sustainable energy sources and reducing waste," said Dr. Sargent. "Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will require a basket of different solutions. Biology and microbiology offer some exciting options."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday September 18 2021, @04:00AM (7 children)
I have to ask where they hope to source the Hydrogen from. Currently the most efficient process to get it involves cracking fossil fuels using heat generated from burning fossil fuels.
Solar powered electrolysis might provide enough but at horrible efficiencies that would make it better to just use the electricity directly on the Grid or to charge cars.
Only other viable option would be to use a powerful Carbon neutral source of heat to break water H2O into pure H@ and O2. With the added benifit that the waste heat from the cracking could then be used to desalinate seawater plus generate the electricity to power the rest of the process. Problem with that is the best heat source that currently meets the requirement are LFTRs [wikipedia.org] and other MSR [wikipedia.org] based system which most of the green energy crowd really don't like talking about beyond near fanatical opposition.
We need to face the fact that all the Carbon capture or synthetic fuel technologies being proposed are going to need a LOT of energy, both thermal and/or electrical to work. Currently there is only one power source that is Carbon neutral, would be available 24/7/365, and can be put anywhere there is space for it. So we might as well just accept that nuclear energy is an option to be considered and go with the safest design we can build with existing tech.
Once someone makes what ever breakthrough is needed for cheap 99% efficient solar panels and high capacity grid storage batteries we can talk about phasing out nuclear power. But till then we better use what we have because waiting for some near magical breakthrough to save us from our own folly is not an option.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18 2021, @06:52AM (1 child)
I see what you did there.. bait and switch. Bait with likely realistic issues and switch to propaganda. The reality is, when you do have
1. general problem
2. very very specific solution
it generally means the solution is only in your head and you are definitely biased.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday September 18 2021, @08:11PM
Guilty as charged :)
I pointed out the Hydrogen problem and used that as a lead in to advocate a Carbon neutral energy source. Its a common tactic and effective for getting new/different idea introduced into discussions.
50 plus years of research and development into MSRs and other methods of using nuclear power safely by various institutes and organizations not withstanding.
As are we all in one way or another.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Saturday September 18 2021, @10:53AM (4 children)
> We need to face the fact that all the Carbon capture or synthetic fuel technologies being proposed are going to need a LOT of energy
Civilisation requires a lot of energy. Synthetic fuels are energy storage systems, they are NOT fuel sources themselves (just like all natural chemical fuels, including oil). At the moment we are using chemical fuels that have been stored underground. If we want to replace that with fuels that are generated by ourselves at the same rate of consumption, we are going to need a LOT of energy.
People don't realise how dense chemical fuels are. The only denser fuel we know of is atomic power. So if we want to keep (or grow) our civilisation, we are going to need to look at atomic power.
If we do start making use of atomic power en masse. Then whether we generate synthetic fuels to ship around the world and use on site using existing infrastructure, or we ship the energy via power lines to batteries etc... is irrelevant. Both will work (and chances are we will have a mix, as we do now).
Throughout history, human race has always shifted to denser sources of power. From human power, to large animals, to wind/hydro, onwards to wood, coal, to our present oil powered society. This is the first time that humanity has not jumped to the next densest source (atomic power), and in fact a very strong "eco" segment of the population is arguing we should go back to the very beginning (animal/wind power). That cannot happen while keeping our present civilisation, those energy sources are just not dense enough.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18 2021, @03:23PM (1 child)
There is another dense energy and we standing over it. Geo-Thermal. Currently the main process to used it local ground water leaks into hot ground and geysers come backup. Plumb the geysers into stream turbines and power is drawn out. See Geyserville, CA
Downside is the dissolved minerals in the water, then to muck it up, so heat exchanges are placed inline to keeps the "hot water" from stream turbines.
Now, with that said. A hybrid Geo-Thermal / Nuclear plant would be the thing. Or even converting from Nuclear to Geo-Thermal. Let alone Gs/Oil/Coal to Geo-Thermal.
You do not have to build on existing sites like Yellowstone or Iceland or Hawaii, but you create new Geysers. Drill to large boreholes near each other. Go down about 5k to 10k feet. Fracture the rock between the two holes, One large explosion. Pump water down one hole and stream comes up the other. Heat exchanger, and pump it back down.
Does that not sound like Nuclear plant today? Just changing the heating core.
Over the years of large scale power generation, we have only used 4 methods:
1) Boiling water - Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Geo-Thermal, Solar Reflectors
2) Moving water - Dams, Mills (water wheels), Wave Pumps
3) Moving air - Wind Mills - though could be thought as part of 2) since the density of air helps make it more efficient.
4) Direct Sun to Electric - photo fields
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday September 18 2021, @07:59PM
Problem is that number of locations that are suitable for geo-therma power is pretty low. Your proposal of creating artificial geysers would work in location that have a high heat gradient as you drill down. Theoretically you could just drill really, really deep at any point on the Earth and get the heat you would need but drilling that deep is expensive and damaging to the local environment.
You Hybrid idea also has a lot of merit, though Geo-therm wouldn't really need the nuclear supliment part since the therma energy is available 24/7 unlike solar.
There are already projects in the works to convert coal fired power plants to nuclear. The total cost is lower than a new plant since really all your doing to replacing how the water gets boiled to turn the generators.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18 2021, @05:21PM
You don't realise how dense people are.
School taught them two things; that they are smartest snowflakes in creation, and that energy comes from a wall socket. Till the latter stops coming, their belief in the former will never waver.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18 2021, @06:36PM
> That cannot happen while keeping our present civilisation
Perhaps it's time for the Archaic Revival [wikipedia.org]