Researchers engineer bacteria to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel!

The genetically modified cyanobacterium consumes carbon dioxide and produces the liquid fuel isobutanol by using energy from sunlight

Ok, whats the catch? This sounds too good to be true, turning carbon dioxide, the deadly villian of global warming, into fuel.. using sunlight!
Researchers engineer bacteria to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b6bb0ff39263.jpg[/atsimg]

Global climate change has prompted efforts to drastically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas produced by burning fossil fuels.

In a new approach, researchers from the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science have genetically modified a cyanobacterium to consume carbon dioxide and produce the liquid fuel isobutanol, which holds great potential as a gasoline alternative. The reaction is powered directly by energy from sunlight, through photosynthesis

I hope this isn't exploited by TPTB to find a way to overcharge us for it. Very promising research!

-E-


[edit on 10-12-2009 by MysterE]

The catch?

Just imagine the effects if it gets into the oceans. The largest carbon sinks in the world. Talk about mass environmental damage. It would be catastrophic. Or in the local lakes, etc.

Sounds more like a weapon to me.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


A bit pesemistic, but I get your point. I would hope we are ableto use it responsibly.

-E-

reply to post by MysterE


Sorry, but I really don't see a use of this to be honest, CO2 isn't a problem. The problem is all the other pollutants that are being outputted. Why anybody would want to develop a bacteria to turn an essential gas into something other than what it is just defies all logical sense.

I will also take a pessimistic stance. Imagine it creating a disease or reaction that attacks the lungs.

Every time science makes an amazing discovery I get nervous.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by MysterE

 

Sorry, but I really don't see a use of this to be honest, CO2 isn't a problem.

Please tell me you're kidding. I'm not saying that CO2 is causing global warming, but we are pumping it out at exponential rates. Ever heard the saying "too much of a goodthing"? How do you fail to see the logic in a clean method of producing fuel?

-E-

No strings as far as I can see, and I don't see any evidence it would be detrimental to oceanic environments. It would probably just be another bacteria species.

The only trick so far as I can see would be getting enough carbon dioxide to the bacteria to make a usable amount of fuel. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is so small that it is an exercise in futility to attempt to artificially produce fuel from carbon dioxide. I know; I actually investigated the idea of using carbon dioxide to produce methane at one point. The drawback? It would cost more to draw enough air across the apparatus to produce fuel than the fuel was worth.

Maybe they have intent to use it directly in power plant exhausts where carbon dioxide levels are many times higher than atmospheric levels?

TheRedneck

You know if they coupled this with the tech they've been researching to harness the CO2 that's being released by coal power plants to grow algae there'd be a real interesting result I bet. Also I'd say that you could do a lot more with a lot less mass of organism.

According to what I've seen, you'd have to have an acre of algae for every 1 MW of power. Supposedly one of the big hold ups is the conversion of matured algae into biofuels. Why bother turning the organism, just have it make the fuel for us!

I doubt this'll get very far though, because humans are the problem *cough*. If only we all held our breath.

Hey, how about as the next "Hour of" event that's what we do? Might thin the flak on the whole climate stuff eh?

Edit: Darn...power plant got beat to. Missed it by that much.

[edit on 12/10/2009 by Sir Solomon]

reply to post by MysterE


Well, the current make up of the atmosphere of CO2 is less than 1%. Take for example Greenhouses the PPM of CO2 in green houses is around 1200 to 1500 PPM it would take thousands of years of our current output to get to that point if we would ever get to that point.

But I have a real problem with a bacteria that can destroy whole ecosystems if it gets out into the wild, and as Seiko mentioned if it can survive in the human body then all they have to do is spray it over a major population to wipe out entire cities.

So in the same light have you ever heard of something, being too good to be true? This is one of those cases. Not to mention there are plenty of other ways to produce clean energy, nuclear power for one. And with the current technology of nuclear reactors the waste from it would fit into a shoebox.

This is the obvious roadblock to choosing a new fuel to power a nation off of. Either we can go nuclear and deal with the waste or we can continue to pump all kinds of other nasty stuff into the air that really screws stuff up. I would prefer the best option which is designing community or individual home size power generation.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Good points. The article states..

An ideal place for this system would be next to existing power plants that emit carbon dioxide, the researchers say, potentially allowing the greenhouse gas to be captured and directly recycled into liquid fuel.

And not only that but

can be used in the existing energy infrastructure, including in most automobiles

So we wouldn't even have to do a whole bunch of conversions just to use it!

-E-

Wow, another large waste of money. If you consider that there is something that will do it already, I believe that plant life uses Carbon Dioxide to create sugars, that in turn are eaten and make its way into the food chain. I could see if they were creating an organism that would eat and convert something like sulfer dioxide, or carbon monoxide into fuel or something else, but watch out, they are going to mess up a heavily strained environment, and muck it up more. So I guess those fruits, vegitables, grains, meats and dairy products will be going up in price.

reply to post by MysterE

Yes, and if it is commercially viable, not only would it recycle carbon dioxide out of the air (which would at least shut Al Gore up... maybe), but also be a boon to power plants, allowing them to actually make more money and possibly allow power rates to drop (or at least not increase) in response. It would also lessen dependence on foreign oil, which would be a wonderful thing politically.

I am a bit astonished at how bacteria is being used instead of more conventional chemical means. It is completely possible to do the conversion using such methods, as long as there is enough concentration of carbon dioxide to make it feasible.

But I won't look a gift horse in the mouth.

TheRedneck

Imagine this, we build a large biodiverse enclosure and in it we place plants and animal so that production of varying gases will be used by each efficiently.

Oh wait, God already did that.

OP, this is pretty cool. I wonder if we can next create a bacteria or algae that can eat oil, so that our next Alaskan oil spill can be cleaned up that way. Or, we can release a non-indigenous insect species to an area to eat another indigenous species that is causing problems with the agriculture. Do you get where I am going with this?

I believe science needs to take a step back and see that it has unintentionally (and sometimes intentionally) caused disastrous effects. No, I am not saying to stop progress but sometimes scientists have blinders on and they cannot see all of the ramifications of their applications.

Just one example, the non diversity of plants in the agricultural field. One I like to bring up is Monsanto's Terminator seeds. A seed that its plant produces seeds, that will not grow. How fracking stupid is that. If these seeds were to spread this trait through cross pollination, it could wipe out our ability to feed the worlds population.

Just saying.

reply to post by TheRedneck


If this bacteria would shut Al Gore up, then it may be the best research EVER! I really only see potential for good here, and i'm kind of suprised by all of the negativity towards the research.

-E-

reply to post by MysterE

The negativity is actually to be expected. It is an easily anticipated result of the AGW scam being perpetuated on us by a select group of 'scientists' who place politics before science.

It is not a good thing by any means. Science has given us many wonderful inventions and discoveries that have benefited mankind tremendously, and will continue to do so. It is a crying shame that the recent actions by one small group are having a negative effect on all scientists in all disciplines.

A shame, but not a surprise.

TheRedneck

reply to post by MysterE


Not negativity on my part, PER SE.

I just think we need to make sure before we try to fix that sore finger, we do not have to chop off the arm.

I always thought sooner or later we would find a technology, like water power (ability to convert to a H-O2-O2 ions excetera), that would fuel us into the next millenium.

I still think their are patents that have been deemed Top Secret-National Security rated, that are still to this day buried, for the purpose of the Mega Corps to keep the control that they so clearly have.

Advancement is growing at an exponential rate. That is why I like sci-fi so much. I am in my 40's and when I was growing up, the stories have become real.

There is a novel idea, why don't we fund a research think tank of the greatest sci-fi writers.

If you can imagine it, it usually becomes real. Hmmmm, I imagine I will become rich within the next few moments.............Damn!


edit to fix gramma

[edit on 12/10/2009 by endisnighe]

Doesn't bacteria mutate easily, so this scares me a little.
How about engineering trees to be more efficient at consuming carbon dioxide. Then burn the trees for fuel... but that will probably lead to more carbon dioxide in the air... but at least we would have super trees ( or we could just not burn the trees)