Bacteria Powered Batteries

Agent Provocateur writes "SpaceDaily reports on a battery that is powered by chemical reactions caused by bacteria. A Pentagon-backed project, University of Massachusetts researchers Swades Chaudhuri, an Indian, and Derek Lovley, an American, say the battery's source is an underground bacterium that gobbles up sugar and converts its energy into electricity. Their prototype device ran flawlessly without refuelling for up to 25 days and is cheap and stable." The chemistry behind this thing isn't really that complex - keeping the bacteria alive and kicking during that time is prolly the tougher part - you can read more on Al Jazeera, and USA Today. Now, what about replacing this battery?

My battery died...

[pcraven (191172)]

Now when we say our battery died, we'll mean it literally.

Re:My battery died...

[EvilTwinSkippy (112490)]

Lysol is now considered a terrorist substance capable of striking out electricity infrastructure!

'Cheap and stable'

[Channard (693317)]

While this development certainly sounds interesting, calling something cheap and stable based soley on a prototype wihout major major long-term testing seems to be jumping the gun a little.

Hidden cost of health care

[Trigun (685027)]

What happens when these batteries rupture, bringing cultured bacteria to the surface to wreak havoc on all living beings?

I'm telling you, it's SARS from cars. /tinfoil

One more piece to the puzzle

[Mycroft_514 (701676)]

This sounds like a neat power source for nano-technology. Power the nanobots off the sugar in the bloodstream.

And some get entered just to remove sugar from the bloodstreams of diabetics. Where do I sign up for that? (I'm a type II diabetic already, this could stave off more drastic treatment for years.)

Re:One more piece to the puzzle

[djeaux (620938)]

Well, if a massive bacterial infection sounds like a good cure for diabetes, you might want to sign up for my new cure for the common cold: a shot of malaria. ;-)

But the idea of sugar-powered nanobots is pretty nifty, so give yourself a triple word score & I can avoid the "M" word. Seems that those nanobots would need some pretty sophisticated membrane technology, though...

Re:One more piece to the puzzle

[HiThere (15173)]

Doesn't it rather depend on what the bacteria do? I can practically guarantee that you have several massive bacterial infections currently. Fortunately almost all such infections are either non-harmful, or even benign (as in one step short of symbiotic).

There would be nothing particularlly strange about designing a bacteria that could eat sugar and churn out insulin, with the levels of insulin dependant on the level of sugar. Of course, you'd need to design it to be extremely resistant to mutations, because I can thing of several mutations that would benefit the bacteria, but not the colonized individual. (And you'd probably also need to design it to be suseptible to some particular unusual anti-biotic. Preferably one that isn't used for any purpose besides removing mutated colonies.)

Re:One more piece to the puzzle

[Dot.Com.CEO (624226)]

No offence intended, but rather than waiting for nano-robots to cure you, perhaps you should eat proper foods and exercise. That would stave off more drastic treatment for years, certainly.

Re:One more piece to the puzzle

[Dot.Com.CEO (624226)]

As I said, no offence had been intended. I sidestepped diabetes by apparently a very very narrow step last year. My sugar levels were pretty high and I managed to put them down to normal levels through a sugar-free diet and regular aerobic exercise. I also know people who have diabetes and they simply don't care, which is weird enough since the consequences can be grave, if not lethal. One of them reflected what I thought was the point of your post "there will eventually be a cure so why should I diet", something I find stupid, especially since he's fast approaching 200 kilos. It was that attitude I was replying to, not the specific of your situation - you actually have my sympathies as well as my apology for any offence perceived.

Scary.

[cybermace5 (446439)]

Walk away from the conference table for a few seconds, when you come back there are no doughnuts left! Just a laptop and cell phone sitting there innocently. They'll never tell....

The Matrix is Real

[toofanx (679091)]

. . . for the bacteria.

Jolt!

[nherc (530930)]

So, that case of Jolt will now keep BOTH you and your laptop going for that all-nighter! Very convenient.

Obligatory Beowulf reference

[Crypto Gnome (651401)]

The downside, however, is that it's a slow process. That cup of sugar could take weeks to digest. Still, a slow but steady trickle of electricity can be used to charge up a battery, which can then discharge large amounts of power when needed.

Obviously stacking a large cluster of these in a battery [reference.com] type configuration would solve the voltage/current supply issue.

I can see the commercials no

[yoshi1013 (674815)]

"Just a spoonful of sugar makes the cell phone turn on, the cell phone turn on..."

All I know is

[Multiple Sanchez (16336)]

When the bacteria take over, there is gonna be MAJOR payback.

Re:All I know is

[jaf (121858)]

Can't believe nobody said it yet, but

I for one welcome our new bacteria overlords..

It was the Simpsons, and it was ants

[Cappy Red (576737)]

It was the episode where Homer became an astronaut. He was up on the shuttle, and he ended up breaking an ant farm and releasing all the ants. So the ants were floating around in the microgravity, and when Kent Brockman was relaying the story on the news, the picture that came in from the shuttle was an ant on the camera, and many floating around in the background.

(A page on the episode, with the quote [snpp.com])

So Kent Brockman says:
"Ladies and gentlemen, er, we've just lost the picture, but, uh, what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has been taken over -- "conquered", if you will -- by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain, there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves."

Great episode. A very good one to watch, if you get a chance.


*honks*

Are nationalities that important?

[Jon Abbott (723)]

...researchers Swades Chaudhuri, an Indian, and Derek Lovley, an American...

My question of the morning -- what is the point of providing the nationalities of these researchers in the article description? Is it supposed to affect how we view the research that has been conducted?

Re:Are nationalities that important?

[EvilTwinSkippy (112490)]

That's just to overcome everyone's assumption in the US that unless stated otherwise, it was invented here, back in WWII.

Re:Are nationalities that important?

[NihilSmurf (632575)]

Excellent point. Notice that the Al Jazeera version mentioned the nationalities, but the USA Today version didn't.

I wonder whether Swades Chaudhuri is an American born in India (or of Indian descent), or an Indian citizen? It isn't relevant to the research, but it could reveal Al Jazeera's spin.

Also notice how Al Jazeera said that was a "Pentagon-backed" project at the top of the article, while USA Today said it was DOD funded way down at the bottom.

I'll save a fortune!

[stu_coates (156061)]

If this comes through my fridge could be self powering by using that really old yoghurt that's in it! ;-)

83%?

[adeyadey (678765)]

83% Efficient? Thats impressive, if true. If you think that a typical car engine is only 20% efficient. Maybe one day you could run your car on Glucose..

Re:83%?

[simong_oz (321118)]

You can't compare the two - a car engine, ie. internal combustion engine, works on a heat cycle and so it's thermal efficiency (which is different from mechanical efficiency) is limited by what is known as the carnot cycle efficiency (=[Th-Tc]/Th; google for "carnot cycle" if interested further). The carnot cycle efficiency for internal combustion (petrol/gasoline for the Americans ;-) !) engines is about 59% (going from a hazy memory here), average car engine efficiency is more like ~32% so the efficiency

Bio-cybernetics?

[SealBeater (143912)]

I wonder how safe these bacteria are? Not in any fearful way, but could they
be used to power an artificial heart, getting the sugar from the body? Perhaps
power artificial limbs?

SealBeater

Deja Fuel?

[greenhide (597777)]

There was an article on this nearly a year ago [slashdot.org]. As soon as I saw this, I assumed I was looking at a dupe. However, the earlier battery was developed in England, and part of the goal was to eventually have the battery run not off of pure sugar, but rather garbage. As you can imagine, witty comments about Mr. Fusion and the general cleaniness level of geeks [slashdot.org] ensued.

Chemistry question

[rzbx (236929)]

It doesn't state how much sugar it needs, nor the cost for electricity based on sugar prices. Any chemist know how 83% efficiency translates into cost and amount of sugar needed for a certain amount of power consumption?

Re:Chemistry question

[Insightfill (554828)]

Well, in the US, sugar (crystal, cane, etc.) prices are kept artificially high through protectionism. Maybe these germs can run off of corn syrup?

It got so bad that American companies were importing iced tea mix to extract the sugar and get around the tariff. That soon got caught. Some American companies actually would have a Canadian branch/company convert sugar to molasses, import the exempt molasses, and convert it back to sugar. That got caught, too.

The price difference got bad enough that the Lif

I can hear the radicals now...

[mblase (200735)]

Free the battery bacteria!
No slavery for electricity!
How many Rhodoferax died for your Walkman today?
Single-celled life forms are people too!

Et cetera, et cetera....

Re:I can hear the radicals now...

[sielwolf (246764)]

All wackiness aside, this is an interesting point. Of course the article is sparse but I assume the battery allows for A) the bacteria to consume as much sugar as they wish, and B) allows them to reproduce as often as possible. And as far as I can tell, that is the sum purpose of existence for these little guys.

So then the question of 'slavery' all comes down to perspective: is it slavery when there is in fact no limitation on your lifestyle? Or is the 'sense' of slavery enough (i.e. to feel enslaved i

HEH!

[CheeseEatingBulldog (703915)]

Coffee sweetners become the new unleaded.

Unreleased picture of prototype...

[ryanvm (247662)]

Amazingly, I've been able to obtain this confidential photograph of their prototype [wisc.edu].

Don't hold your breath

[Rolken (703064)]

"Where we are now is where solar power was 20 or 30 years ago." So we have a few more decades to bicker about it while they make a working device.

applicable on humans?

[dharash (652371)]

The process that is core to this experiment(breaking down of sugar ) takes place in our bodies also.
How long will it take for researchers to come up with a method to tap the extra energy in human beings(that usually gets converted to fat)? And then, when your cell goes dead - you'll have to eat more sugar :-)
Further imagine what would happen if some major energy company decided to couple this knowledge with genetic cloning? Welcome to the real world!

it all depends on the dose...

[jlemmerer (242376)]

even if we use "harmless" bacteria, nobody knows how they will influence our health and above all - the ecosystem - if they really are cultivated in large masses to satisfy the market for battery's. so what if the "living battery" is depleted, how do you prevent the bacteria from spreading like a wildfire and eventually mutating in something harmful? before this tech should go into large scale production, massive, and i emphazise the word !massive!, tests about the implications on human immunesystem and the ecosystem of this sort of bacteria should be conducted

Re:it all depends on the dose...

[jandrese (485)]

Are you planning to eat these batteries or something? I'd imagine the bacteria would be prevented from spreading by being outside of it's natual habitat, underground.

I've got a scary fact for you. All of the surfaces around you are covered in bacteria. Even that chair, even your bottle of soap, even the water faucets. You cant get away from them. They're everywhere. If you aren't in a full fledged panic yet, you might remember that humans have lived with bactera for as long as their have been humans. The vast majority of them are harmless to humans.

It's also unlikly that a company would release a battery that killed everyone who bought it, and traditional batteries aren't exactly nice to the environment, so the bar is not set very high for these things to be more eco-friendly.

Re:it all depends on the dose...

[jlemmerer (242376)]

well i know that bacteria are everywhere... but nobody (except pharma and wmd company's) actually produced them in great masses an released them in an everyday product. also bacteria are very well known for the fact to mutate rather rapidly and spread REALLY fast.

yoghurt for starters

[wadiwood (601205)]

Yoghurt contains mass produced bacteria.

Most soft cheeses like Camenbert and Brie depend on bacteria for their production.

Bacteria is used in most sewerage treatment plants.

You're hatching them in your gut and every day you shit them. Multiply that by everyone in your city, the world etc and be very afraid. Ie you are mass producing them.

Did you know living in an environment artificially depleted of bacteria (eg too much bleach), can increase your chances of things like Asthma?

Bacteria are used every day by farmers to control other pests like mould and fungus and caterpillers (dipel). (Ironically penicillin is a fungus to control bacteria). Bacteria are also important to good quality soil and natural recycling of vegetation and animal manure.

It probably wouldn't be a good idea to eat your phone battery, but that's no reason to be afraid of it.

Bacteria only multiply out of control in very favourable conditions. That's why they say you should keep your food refrigerated or boiling ie keep your food at temperatures not conducive to growing toxic bacteria like some salmonella.

I suppose you still eat chicken or eggs? The salmonella is not completely eliminated, only minimised...

And bacteria doesn't generally "spread" really fast without help.

Battery Abuse

[niko9 (315647)]

So if I catch someone recharging a half discharged battery do I report [aspca.org] them?

Someone tell the Wachowski brothers....

[mblase (200735)]

We've now got a solution to the whole Matrix enigma. The machines can just unplug all the humans and harness bacteria instead.

I can imagine the new movie already....

"You are the One-Celled, Neo."

"You bacteria are a disease, a plague on this planet... but I guess you already knew that...."
"Somehow he's found a way to copy himself. 'Mitosis,' I think he called it."

Ok, bacteria aren't yeast, but

[e-gold (36755)]

I'm still wondering if this variety of battery would have any ethyl alcohol output...

I could use a laptop battery that puts out a nice little shot of vodka for the end of the day. This feature could also motivate users to take very-good care of their bacteria.
JMR

Great! Now my battery can get a virus too.

[G4from128k (686170)]

As biological systems, these battery bacteria should be susceptible to a host of illnesses -- viruses (called bacteriophages), mold, other bacteria, etc.. Swiping a packet of sugar from the restaurant to fuel a laptop might get you some extra surfing time (about half an hour according to my back-of-the-envelope-calcs) or it may get you some nasty battery disease. Will we need public service announcements on practicing safe laptop recharging?

Sugar may be cheap, but sterilized sugar solution in a handy refill cartridge will cost a pretty penny. And, yes, it only means more sweet spam.

Dear god, kill me now

[Rogerborg (306625)]

Just as I was getting set up to rant, I discover that "prolly" is now a recognised acronym for "probably" [acronymfinder.com].

To newspeak is good. I did plus ungood thoughtcrime.

Arthur C Clarke beat them to it - again

[Alain Williams (2972)]

Arthur C Clarke talked about this years ago in one of the Rendezvous with Rama trilogy [2think.org] - technology from the giant spiders IIRC.

Bacterial Matrix

[defishguy (649645)]

Somewhere, there is a tiny bacteria named NEO being offered a blue pill.....

Re:Nice technology - wrong forum to highlight it o

[AlecC (512609)]

I know this will be modded OffTopic, but I think it important to reply to this (and I have karma to burn).

It is important to see the other man's point of view. One of the problems in Iraq at the moment is incomprehsnsion between the US forces and the locals. I agree that Al Jazeera does reflect an anti-US viewpoint. However, it does not create such a viewpoint - it reflects that of the world in which it lives. AJ is not killing US soldiers - is just speaks the same language as people who are. If you disreg

Re:Nice technology - wrong forum to highlight it o

[AlecC (512609)]

Women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.
Al Jazeera comes freom Qatar, where women are allowed to drive - as they are in Iraq and most of the rest of the Arab world.

You prove my point - you are treating the Arab world as if it was a monolithic whole, then apply the worst of the worst to the whole. Of cvourse Al Quaida and Saddams thugs are murderous thugs. Bu they are no more typical of the whole Arab world than the Klu Klux Klan are typical of the USA.

Re:Bacteria power!

[xanadu-xtroot.com (450073)]

leave them in my kitchen for a few seconds

Wouldn't any of our Computer Desks make for a better enviroment? I guess if you look at it that way, the battery would almost never die...

Re:Al-Jazeera

[barryfandango (627554)]

Have you read USA Today before?

From Al Jazeera:

"The bug in question is Rhodoferax ferriducens, which was found in airless sediment deep below ground at a terrestrial site at Oyster Bay, Virginia, and identified as a promising candidate for oxidising simple sugars."

USA Today:

"Bacteria are tiny living things. So tiny you can't even see them with your eyes! You need a microscope to see them. Microscopes help scientists see very small things."

note: usa today quote made up for fun's sake.

Re:PROLLY!!!???!!!

[canajin56 (660655)]

wats ur prob? lngwg alwys evolvs. lemme ax u somfin, do u use cntractns? prolly do, sinc u sed "I'll". dis is no diffrnt, u only sav 2 lttrs.

Ow. That sprained my language center.

Al Jazeera is one source among many

[ianscot (591483)]

Funny -- I read their story first, mostly to see if I could spot any particular bias or overriding point of view. I will say, the Al Jazeera project clearly identified the Pentagon's connection to the project:

In a Pentagon-backed project, University of Massachusetts researchers Swades Chaudhuri, an Indian, and Derek Lovley, an American, say the battery's source is an underground bacterium that gobbles up sugar and converts its energy into electricity.

They didn't go on to show any especial suspicion about that, they just noted it. Later on, at the end of the article, they described the Military applications -- "the US Department of Defence was interested in it for powering underwater microphones and sonar to spot passing ships and submarines." They were quite positive, all told, describing the batteries as remarkable for a proof-of-concept. They mentioned applications in impoverished areas, using batteries working from sewage for example.

On the other hand, USA Today didn't mention the Pentagon connection, describing the scientists only as being "at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst." The USA Today story was considerably shorter, lacked Al Jazeera's detailed description of how the thing worked ("...each side containing a graphite electrode and separated by a membrane. On one side was R ferriducens swimming in a glucose solution, which it broke down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and electrons. The electrons were transported to the nearby electrode...") and just generally read much more superficially.

I wouldn't describe the Al Jazeera story as amazingly well-written -- it included some grammatical slips that read as if they'd been made in translation -- but it was a more complete bit of reporting by far, and showed no determined bias other than noting the military connection in a neutral way, IMHO.

I'd bet the story's submitter included that Al Jazeera link because it's just plain better. Take a look yourself.

(And as far as the world news thing goes, you should try to understand why it is that the Arab world watches this channel rather than the Western World's channels, which they see as bought and paid for by US corporate interests. It is a point of view, and you might want to understand it even if you don't agree.)