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 deimtee on Saturday September 18 2021, @06:10AM (2 children)
Back then it was about 210ppm. That is too low. At 180ppm almost all plants will die. Even at 210ppm most of the "green revolution" will roll back. If you could magically drop the CO2 level to 210ppm, the result would be mass starvation.
We should aim to stabilize it in the range of 400 to 600 ppm.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18 2021, @06:43AM
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-concentration-of-carbon-dioxide-5#tab-chart_5_filters=%7B%22rowFilters%22%3A%7B%7D%3B%22columnFilters%22%3A%7B%22pre_config_polutant%22%3A%5B%22CO2%20(ppm)%22%5D%7D%7D [europa.eu]
If by 210, you mean 280. I guess I would stop here with your COMPLETELY WRONG information, but maybe continue
https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ [earth.org]
considering that level was ICE AGE with glaciers in Texas, I guess you are correct? But that was 100,000 years before Jesus was born.
At this range, the temperature was about +5C above what it is today, which is already about +2C above what it was in 1800. This is also the result that everyone wants to avoid. Most of human populated areas are also flooded at this temperature level. But whatever floats your boat, pun intended.
The one thing you need to understand, CO2 is like a flame setting on your stove and we live in the pot. When you set the flame high, the pot is not going to be boiling instantaneously -- it takes a while. By a while, it takes THOUSANDS OF YEARS to stabilize with largest changes taking approximately 300-500 YEARS. As long as ice remains on the poles, the earth will continue to be cooled and temperature be below the stabilized temperature. At 600ppm, there was no ice in Antarctica. You may want to read stuff from 10 years ago because it's as valid today as it was 10 years ago for this discussion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19077439 [bbc.com]
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday September 18 2021, @07:46PM
Good point. Though the Earth today has less vegetation than it did in the 1800's so that would need to be taken into account too. I'm not a climatologist or biologist or whatever *ologist would know all that. I'll leave the actual CO2ppm targets to the people who have more knowledge about where that level should be. Right now my main concern is to advocate methods that will stop the increase in green house gasses. Once that is done I'll put 100% into supporting Carbon capture methods, preferably ones that involve lots of vegetation.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."