Hydrogen-Emitting Microbe Examined 192
Concerned Onlooker wrote to mention an article at Science Daily discussing a microbe that lives in volcanic environments, which emits Hydrogen gas as a waste product. "As the world increasingly considers hydrogen as a potential biofuel, technology could benefit from having the genomes of such microbes. 'C. hydrogenoformans is one of the fastest-growing microbes that can convert water and carbon monoxide to hydrogen," remarks TIGR evolutionary biologist Jonathan Eisen, senior author of the PLoS Genetics study. "So if you're interested in making clean fuels, this microbe makes an excellent starting point.'"
Quick question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Interesting)
So, while you might be quick to think "we still need to burn fossil fuels to produce this hydrogen", the point is, currently it's a WASTE material.
And besides, that, Its a nice carbon fixer.
In theory, these bacteria could be burned to produce more carbon monoxide (of course, that's just speculation, but I assume they're carbon based life forms).
Re:Quick question (Score:2)
Also, you are *speculating* that the bacteria are carbon-based? I'm pretty sure that all life on earth is carbon based. Isn't that the current theory of evolution as well?
Re:Quick question (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, you are *speculating* that the bacteria are carbon-based? I'm pretty sure that all life on earth is carbon based. Isn't that the current theory of evolution as well?
I think it is unlikely we will find squishy life that isn't carbon based simply because carbon is the only atom that can form highly complex molecules (well under extreme pressue silicon can form some fancy stuff but that's really academic). It's not that we haven't looked hard enough it's just plain impossible to form molecules as com
Re:Quick question (Score:2)
Come back and say that again when you have studied MO theory. You will find that extended bond formation as found in things like proteins is simply not possible with any atom other than carbon due to the way the molecular orbitals are arranged*. I'll grant you that under extreme pressure it is possible to make some very short chains of silcon and they have, IIRC, been observed (spectroscopically) in space.
As far as we can tell life requires complex molecules. Complex molecules can only be formed by carbon
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I really don't think we can think of chemotrophs (organisms that survive by converting one chemical to another) as a very good energy source. Recreating their environment and feedstocks on an industrial scale would be very energy intensive. In the case of the bacteria in the article, even gathering and purifying the carbon monoxide from emissions of hydrocarbon burning energy plants would be quite energy inefficient. You can probably just forget about collecting the carbon monoxide from a car's tailpipe; it would be a total waste of energy.
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow I doubt that this would produce enough carbon monoxyde to keep the cycle going. You know, perpetuum mobiles and all (laws of physics apply to living creatures too!). Btw, it has already been tried with other critters [snopes.com].
Re:Quick question (Score:2)
Re:Quick question (Score:2, Informative)
Except that the article didn't say anything about that bacterium's photosynthetic abilities. On the contrary, the article is making it pretty clear that the bacterium gets its energy by oxydizing carbon monoxyde to carbon dioxyde. Part of the energy goes into the hydrogen, and another part (the most important for the organism itself) goes into reducing CO to C for its own needs. However, it should be obvious than any energy that can be gained by oxydizing that C is much less than what went int
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Informative)
That's in the eye of the beholder. Solid oxide fuel cells can use carbon monoxide as fuel just as well as hydrogen. Carbon monoxide is a fairly energy rich substance. The guy who first prepared it in 1776 by heating ZnO and coke even thought he had made hydrogen because the blue flame it produces is so similar. I don't have numbers for CO and H2 handy, and if I did I'd be too lazy to check, but I'd suspect that burning a mole of CO releases more energy than burning a mole of H2, just by virtue of the fact that this bacterium makes its living converting H2O + CO -> CO2 + H2.
I assume they're carbon based life forms
Of course they are. Carbon monoxide is a fairly energy rich substance and is surprisingly inert. It kills you by forming a stable complex with the hemoglobin in your blood. It adheres to binding sites meant for oxygen (cyanide has an even greater affinity) and ruins the entire hemoglobin molecule. Bacteria generally have no use for oxygen binding and transport proteins, and do not use hemoglobin or any other heme-containing protein (except for nitrogen-fixing bacteria), so in general one would not expect them to care about carbon monoxide- although being able to eat it is impressive.
Re:Quick question (Score:2)
If I sniffed the smoke of coke and ZnO together, I'm sure I'll be seeing more than a blue flame...
Disclaimer: I fully know that coke is one of the variants of fuel carbon
Re:Quick question (Score:4, Informative)
CO + H20 -> CO2 + H2
This wouldn't be the first microbe investigated to replace water gas shift reactors, but previous examples would need to come a long way to even approach the economy of the inorganic method.
Re:Quick question (Score:2)
Re:Quick question (Score:2)
I think that in some cases it might be a legitimate waste product (making charcoal, I think). I can't see why you couldn't also burn CO in steam, 2(CO) + H2O = H2 + 2(CO2) + energy. This should be exothermic otherwise the bacteria couldn't do it as an energy source.
Oops (Score:2)
That should be CO + H2O = H2 + CO2
About that Sig... (Score:2)
Except, possibly, "goodbye welfare, hello eugenics!"?
Re:About that Sig... (Score:2)
Except, possibly, "goodbye welfare, hello eugenics!"?
Scary thought, huh? But how much is reality woth?
Re:About that Sig... (Score:2)
Seriously, what moral teachings do you get from biology textbooks? In what way do you find them superior to the moral teachings of the religious orders?
Re:About that Sig... (Score:2)
Re:About that Sig... (Score:2)
So you seem to be saying that the genetic imperatives, as described and interpreted by you, here, are an objective moral code, the only moral code, and our only proper guide in times of moral uncertainty?
Re:About that Sig... (Score:2)
Re:Quick question (Score:2)
So how long... (Score:2, Funny)
let me get this straight... (Score:2, Funny)
Excellent! (Score:5, Funny)
Working temperature? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Working temperature? (Score:4, Informative)
It might live near a volcano. It doesn't live in it! Even the most extreme extremophile is only able to withstand aroudn 120 degC. Nothing like the 700+ found in the heart of volcanos. The environment might be hard to replicate but not because of the temperature. More likely it will be hard to replicate because we probably don't properly understand the chemistry of the bacterias natural environment.
Re:Working temperature? (Score:2)
Re:Working temperature? (Score:2)
Correct. There have been a few extremeophiles that have been found living around ocean vents that are capable if living in water over 100 deg C. IIRC some were also found deep down geysers. Bring them to the surface and they die.
Re:Working temperature? (Score:2)
Yes, pressure alters the boiling temp a GREAT deal .
Naval ships use high pressure boilers to make 1,200 lb. steam to run their turbines if they
are not Gas Turbine ships .
Ex-MislTech
Re:Working temperature? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, that may work for it. (Score:2)
Re:Working temperature? (Score:2)
The required heat could be provided by waste energy from a power plant. The flow of hot water from a gas fired power plant in my city is a well known fishing spot.
Re:Working temperature? (Score:2)
True, but bioreactors lend themselves to reuse of many kinds of low quality (low temperature) waste heat. I recall something from Israel about accumulating heat in the bottom of extremely salty shallow ponds; also you could look at using waste heat (and gas) from landfill sites.
Re:Working temperature? (Score:2)
What's wrong fossil fuel power plant, obviously CO2 and worse emmisions are wrong but those are increasingly controllable at large scale point sources, but the alternative is basicly nuclear fission and we all know the emotional
So it "converts" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So it "converts" ... (Score:3, Informative)
A current method of getting hydrogen is by passing steam over coal -- basically burning coal in water. I can't imagine it being much different to burn carbon monoxide in water to get steam, but maybe these bacteria do it more efficiently than we can?
Re:So it "converts" ... (Score:3, Funny)
Dihydrogen Monoxide is not believed to be carcinogenic, although it is known to be a component of a number of cancer-causing agents. Additionally, the cause of approximately 20 percent of all cancers is not known, and there is reason to suspect that DHMO may play some role in these as well. Clearly, more research is needed before DHMO's role is fully enumerated.
More information is available from the main website [dhmo.org]
Re:So it "converts" ... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is just a bacterial version of the water-gas shift reaction [wikipedia.org]. What makes people think that a microbe is going to be any more efficient that a big hunk of specially designed plant (sorry for the pun).
The bacteria might be cheap but it comes with a huge amount of overhead in terms of having to maintain all its cellular functions. I bet half it's energy is wated multiplying.
Re:So it "converts" ... (Score:3, Funny)
I bet half it's energy is wasted multiplying.
I have the same problem...Re:So it "converts" ... (Score:2)
I have the same problem...
Wow... You are so much more efficient than me its not even funny.
Or was that in math class?
You should have followed the links (Score:2)
possible that this bacteria may do the job for a fraction of the price. esp when combined with other processes.
Re:You should have followed the links (Score:2)
Well the great thing about a catalyst is that it's not consumed in the reaction so it shouldn't cost that much. IIRC it is now possible to use iron oxide as the catalyst which is, I think you would agree, pretty cheap. The high temperature is a problem but it's possible to get 85% efficiency [bellona.no]. I would be supprised if the microbe can manage 10%. The heat may not be that much of a problem either. I have seen test steam reformers that run off mirrors (presumably they could also be made to perform the shift reac
Re:So it "converts" ... (Score:2)
The bacterium gets its energy from converting CO to H2. All the CO it takes in is converted to H2; this is how it "breathes". It uses the excess energy to live and reproduce. After using the energy it comes out as heat, so that it would be no less efficient than burning the CO (as that would directly produce heat). However, maybe t
Re:So it "converts" ... (Score:2, Informative)
Nonsense.
Conversion of carbon or oxygen to hydrogen requires nuclear fission.
No such life form exists outside science fiction.
Re:So it "converts" ... (Score:2)
It can be a problem. More bacteria means you have to keep more warm and fed. If 50% of the CO you are putting in is being used simply for bacterial growth you had better have a very cheap supply of CO and very cheap way of looking after the bacterial culture. My guess is that it would be to expensive to run the hydrogen plant simply due to running costs. Things like this have been tried before (I was taught by one of the lead researches). They got close to making it economical but had to give up as they cou
Mods on crack? (Score:4, Interesting)
From TFA:
The bug boasts at least five different forms of a protein machine, dubbed carbon monoxide deyhydrogenase, that is able to manipulate the poisonous gas. Each form of the machine appears to allow the organism to use carbon monoxide in a different way. Most other organisms that live on carbon monoxide have only one form of this machine. In other words, while other organisms may have the equivalent of a modest mixing bowl to process their supper of carbon monoxide, this species has a veritable food processor, letting it gorge on a hot spring buffet all day.
So apparently the CO is acted upon by the proteins, and likely the H2O is used to sustain other life processes in some other way, and the H2 is simply the end result of some metabolic process at the end. If you want to account for the C and the O's, they probably went into forming some protein somewhere.
Re:Mods on crack? (Score:2)
No. This is how the bacteria breathes, and almost none of that should end up in its body. CO2 is a gas, it's not useful for forming proteins. True, there's a bunch of obscene chemical processes between ta
Re:Mods on crack? (Score:2)
Re:Mods on crack? (Score:2)
Plant don't use CO2. They use the C, and give off O2 as waste. And they require energy to do this.
Re:So it "converts" ... (Score:2)
Eh? (Score:4, Funny)
Take a pot of scalding water, remove all the oxygen, mix in a bit of poisonous carbon monoxide, and add a pinch of hydrogen gas. It sounds like a recipe for a witch's brew. It may be, but it is also the preferred environment for a microbe known as Carboxydothermus hydrogenoformans.
If you remove the oxygen, won't you be left with Hydrogen anyway?
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Informative)
It was referring to the atmospheric oxygen (O2). This microbe is anaerobic.
A reverse form of catalytic converter (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2)
If you think this is not already being done, clearly you've never used a gas station restroom.
A few questions (Score:5, Interesting)
- The article mentions that oxygens need to be removed from the water; How much energy does this require?
- In what quantities is the hydrogen produced; What quantities is needed to power a fuel cell?
- How efficient is this process compared to electrolysis.
Also it says that the water needs to be boiling in order for the microbes to have optimal conditions; But then of course the energy has to come from somewhere. The water might be heated using solar or wind power i guess. Which brings us back to to the storage problem, and most hydrogen storage solutions(not based on pressure-tanks) require heat to release the hydrogen.
Re:A few questions (Score:3, Interesting)
As to how efifcient or the quantities, it probably does not matter if if can be used on a waste product. That is, if we use if on the exhaust from a power plant. Then, not only is the power plant cleaning up after itself, but it also has a product to sell.
As to electrolysis, well, I do know THAT it is every inefficient. Doing a water shift is much cheaper, and more efficient.
As to the storage, that is a different issue (you have already es
Re:A few questions (Score:2)
An efficient power plant shouldn't have much in the way of CO emissions though. Typical concentrations of CO in a coal power plant flue stream are less than 0.1%, whereas carbon dioxide will probably be more like 15%. It also should be pointed out that
Re:A few questions (Score:3, Interesting)
Not much, if any significant portion of the water is converted to hydrogen.
In what quantities is the hydrogen produced; What quantities is needed to power a fuel cell?
One molecule of hydrogen for each molecule of carbon monoxite. How much wattage does your fuel cell output?
How efficient is this process compared to electrolysis.
Probably more so; however, how efficient is it compared to making hydrogen by b
Re:A few questions (Score:2)
That really depends. If the input energy required is lower than that which can be obtained from the liberated hydrogen then - after bootstrapping the process with some other source - it can maintain itself with no further energey input. All that happens is that the output is lower than it could have been otherwise.
Of course, I have no idea whether or not this is the case; just raising it as a possibility.
Prior art (Score:4, Funny)
As described in a 1950's science fiction story.
Re:Prior art (Score:2)
I would have to dig up the book but I am pretty sure The Andromeda Strain dates from the mid to late 60's at the earliest.
Of his earlier books, Terminal Man is probably closest to realisation now.
Re:Prior art (Score:2)
Actually I think he's referring to a 1970's story more than a 1950's. Specifically Mutant 59 - The Plastic Eaters [shorterlink.org]. Not a bad read really.
Re:Prior art (Score:2)
Re:Prior art (Score:2)
As to fast enough to make a plane crash, in the original story, whose name I forget, having last read it before jfk was assassinated, it eats the insulation off the wires which is not only fatal, but prevents mayday messages cos the radio needs wires.
I think the story was written by the same g
PBS NOVA ScienceNOW (Score:2, Informative)
I believe the question of where to get the hydrogen from is discussed and microbes come up.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3210/01.h
Re:PBS NOVA ScienceNOW (Score:3, Insightful)
Not new, but maybe promising (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not new, but maybe promising (Score:2)
Re:Not new, but maybe promising (Score:2)
outpaces soybean oil by a massive magnitude . In fact I don't think any other known bio
process can beat the Algae production of oil at this time
Article here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel [wikipedia.org]
Excerpt:
* Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre (40 to 50 m/km)
* Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre (100 to 140 m/km)
* Mustard: 140 US gal/acre (130 m/km)
ObFarscape quote (Score:2)
My ongoing gripe... (Score:2)
Names of biological species consist of two parts: the generic name and the specific epithet. Now, since there's significantly more than 1 genus of
Re:My ongoing gripe... (Score:2)
Why oh why do people, who feel they have somethin to tell that involves references to species ALWAYS abbreviate the generic name? How the hell is anybody to guess WTF things like 'E. coli', 'D. radiourans' or other phrases refer to? So what does the 'C' in 'C. hydrogenoformans' mean - assuming that 'hydrogenoformans' shouldn't have been 'hydrogeniformans' as well?
Oh, come on. Ever heard of Google? I got "Carboxydothermus hydrogenoformans", plus a bunch of articles on the subject, in about 10 secon
Hey! I know! (Score:2)
Why don't you RTFA? Your question is only answered in the first freakin' paragraph:
Cue the "you must be new here" remarks in 3... 2... 1...
Sean
Re:My ongoing gripe... (Score:2)
You can't rely on the link to the article to be available; especially not if the article gets slashdotted. You can use abbreviations when you are in a context. You are not in the context of the article when you just copy a paragraph from the middle of it and create a link.
What the hell is that called? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What the hell is that called? (Score:2)
Are you referring to the clearly marked section at the bottom of the page that says "Ads by Gooogle"???
If not then you've got your own problems with an adbot of some sort injecting ads into your browser...
Re:What the hell is that called? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is that called? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is that called? (Score:2)
Who farted? (Score:2)
CO as a fuel itself (Score:2)
Under pressure CO will Burn just like any other "fuel" it requires a slightly advanced timing and higher compression (although not as high as diesel) but it burns fine and will work with current internal combustion engines, the PROBLEM is is nasty stuff to living organisms that depend on OXYGEN.
Google around for Woo
Lots of research (Score:2)
Give us a story about moving from the lab to the production line. Bacteria/enzymes that produce hydrogen is nothing new [google.com].
Efficiency? (Score:2)
Or is efficiency beside the point?
Everyone can read the whole paper online (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, If... (Score:2)
Yeah, if you live in a world full of CO. Of course, since CO is a highly toxic gas, you wouldn't actually be "living" there. And CO hardly comes for free since it's combustable as well.
I'd have found this more interesting if we had toxic CO dumps in need of cleanup.
Insightfull my ass (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Insightfull my ass (Score:2)
The South Australian government recently moved to double the uranium output of the Olympic Dam uranium mine. Guess how they're getting the water to mine the uranium? Desalination, powered by coal power plants.
Re:Insightfull my ass (Score:2)
As to your comment about using coal power to mine uranium -- does Australia hove the ability to enrich uranium and build a nuclear power plant? Is more energy burned as coal than can be extracted from the uranium (my guess is hell no), or is coal simply cheaper, at the current pri
Re:Insightfull my ass (Score:2)
To put things into perspective, my state government (which ironically sanctioned the expansion of olympic dam) threatened to take the Federal government to the full bench of the High Court because the feds wanted to store low level nuclear waste (think contaminated suits and the like) underground, in a desert town 400km away from the nearest major city.
Re:Insightfull my ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Insightfull my ass (Score:2)
Lord Kelvin calculated that the earth would cool to a solid rock within a few thousand years. He was quite a genius, but now we know that the earth is heated by radioactivity. This radioactivity is significantly different than a fission plant in that almost all of the radiation is due to "natural" decay (alpha, beta, but almost no gamma==fission). It's the sort of decay that takes a million years for half of
Troll my ass! (Score:2)
Photochemical Generation of Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen by Reduction of Carbon Dioxide and Water under Visible Light Irradiation [pnas.org]
Re:bad stomach bug! (Score:2)
Methane is a colorless, odorless gas; though it is odorized for safety. Farts smell because they are shitty air.
Re:bad stomach bug! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:bad stomach bug! (Score:2)
Yes, here in .au as well. I think it is a pretty standard safety measure. Perhaps marine fuel should have something similar? A guy I know blew himself up in a water ski boat accident because the bilge filled up with fuel. The vapour is hard to detect.
Re:bad stomach bug! (Score:2)
Yes, here in
And in the US as well. The compounds used are called mercaptans [factmonster.com].
Re:bad stomach bug! (Score:2)
Why did they have to go at the bottom of the ocean to get some of those, when they could've just probed their own asses?
Re:come on (Score:2)
Re:get a (*#&$%$ grip (Score:2)
Excuse me? Bush is a sock puppet for the oil companies and you and I both know it. He is an astonishing barrier to responsible behavior on the part of our nation and you can't talk about fuels without talking about our government's position.