Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

New Bacterium Could Herald Bio-Batteries 60

Posted by timothy from the are-animals-bio-batteries dept.
Clever Pun writes "According to this BBC article, a newly discovered bacterium is able to convert 'uranium and other radionuclides dissolved in water to solid compounds that can be extracted.' It reduces (adds electrons to) positively charged metal ions, making them insoluble in water (making them easier to clean up), which creates small charges of electricity. It has been speculated that this bacterium could potentially be used in a sort of bio-battery. Matrix v0.1b, anyone?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Bacterium Could Herald Bio-Batteries More

New Bacterium Could Herald Bio-Batteries

Comments Filter:

  • Alpha? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Feztaa ( 633745 )
    Matrix v0.1b, anyone?

    If this is the beta, what was the alpha?
    • I think that it was a joke.
    • the alpha was your..............

      ok going little low there.

      the matrix 'joke' was sooo lame though.. it's not like this had anything to do with it.
      • the matrix 'joke' was sooo lame though.. it's not like this had anything to do with it.

        well.....i saw a similarity in concept, and noticed that most other submissions that got turned into stories had clever quips at the ends, and that was the best i could come up with. it's finals week. leave me alone! ;)

  • heard this on NPR (Score:5, Informative)

    by jaredmauch ( 633928 ) <jared@puck.nether.net> on Saturday December 13, 2003 @06:26PM (#7712973) Homepage
    This was covered on NPR this past Friday. You can probally find some archive of it if you're interested in hearing it.. try here [sciencefriday.com]. It sounded interesting but not quite viable yet based on what I heard.

  • Sugar eating bacteria battery (Score:5, Interesting)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Saturday December 13, 2003 @06:36PM (#7713021)
    This sugar eating bacteria battery [usatoday.com] looks more promising. Runs on sugar and has an 80% conversion efficiency.

    • Applications to Uranium 235 Enrichment (Score:4, Insightful)

      by A55M0NKEY ( 554964 ) on Monday December 15, 2003 @03:39PM (#7727903) Homepage Journal
      A while back there was an article about 2 geophysiscists ( sp ) who found iron isotope ratios were affected by being metabolized by bacteria [usra.edu].

      Their bacteria Shenwala alga, reduces the iron from Fe(III) to Fe(II) ( uses the iron as oxygen in it's metabolism ) . Other bacteria ( Desulfovibrio Ferrireducens ( sp ) ) have shown to reduce uranium from U(VI) to the less soluable U(IV) and have been used to clean up mine tailing drainage by making all the uranium insoluable. [nih.gov]

      Since any chemical reaction that is not allowed to go to completion causes isotopic enrichment ( presumably the lighter isotope is the preferred reactant ) and metabolism by bacteria is really just a chemical reaction there is some enrichment there.

      Other bacteria which oxidize iron like Thiobacillus Ferrooxidans have been used to leach uranium out of ores by oxidizing it to a soluable state. [laurentian.ca]

      Since any chemical reaction not completed results in some isotopic enrichment one might enrich U235 by, feeding the dissolved Uranium oxide produced by Thiobacillus Ferrooxidans from raw ore to the anaerobic Desulfovibrio ferrireducens where it would reprecipitate. Then feed the precipitated uranium oxide back to thiobacillus ferrooxidans to produce more uranium liquor to feed to desulfovibrio ferrireducens forming cascaded stages which would gradually enrich the U235 until it was useful for fuel rods etc.

      The question is: how much energy does this take, and how efficient is the enrichment? How much sugar/light/whatever-these-bugs-eat do you need to feed them per stage and is it more economical energy-wise than other uranium enrichment methods already in use?

      A home experimenter interested in developing this into a patentable process would be breaking the law by enriching uranium. After learning how to grow these beasties ( I'm sure they'd sell them to you since they are not dangerous ) you would have to measure the enrichment achieved bu sending a sample off to a mass spectometry lab. It would behove one to send the depleted uranium rather than the enriched uranium so as not to piss anyone off ( hope it wasn't the heavy isotope the bugs liked better! ). Then you could measure how much it costs you to feed the bacteria per kilo of metabolized uranium and compare it to the cost of existing enrichment methods by looking it up, and decide if you have something worth patenting. Profit.

      • Since any chemical reaction not completed results in some isotopic enrichment one might enrich U235 by, feeding the dissolved Uranium oxide produced by Thiobacillus Ferrooxidans from raw ore to the anaerobic Desulfovibrio ferrireducens where it would reprecipitate. Then feed the precipitated uranium oxide back to thiobacillus ferrooxidans to produce more uranium liquor to feed to desulfovibrio ferrireducens forming cascaded stages which would gradually enrich the U235 until it was useful for fuel rods etc.

  • Who cares... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kobal ( 597997 ) on Saturday December 13, 2003 @06:40PM (#7713040)
    about directly producing electricity when you could probably extract uranium straight from sea water with the help of these babies? Probably even cheaper than buying it from third world countries in the long run.

    • Re:Who cares... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @01:35AM (#7714762)
      There's a difference between a side benefit and a direct purpose. The bacteria's greatest potential is in the area of environmental clean up. The ability to extract uranium can help in many polluted and toxic areas. The fact that it can generate electricity is a bonus. Sure, it can be adapted for other purposes but that is not the main reason that it is being developed.

      • Re:Who cares... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Nucleon500 ( 628631 ) <tcfelker@example.com> on Sunday December 14, 2003 @02:45AM (#7714945) Homepage
        I can think of one other use for heavy-metal extracting bacteria - medicine. Could they be used to counteract lead and mercury poisoning?

        • Re:Who cares... (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          From what I understand, geobacteria are pretty much everywhere in the soil. The key is feeding them enough vinegar to get the population to bloom so that you can have a sufficient quantity. They have an affinity for various metals, including iron. But the population levels are typically so low that they have very little effect on the soil.

          There are a few issues to overcome in a medical application of their properties. One is that human tissue is not really a hospitible environment for them. Another i

    • >Probably even cheaper than buying it from third world countries in the long run.

      Largest uranium exporter to the US market is Canada. Largest uranium deposit currently being mined in Olympic Dam in Australia. Doubt that either of these qualify as 3rd world since both provide free, modern health care to their citizens.

      -AD
      ps. IMAME (I am a mining engineer)
      • Don't forget not everyone here comes from anglo countries. France still mainly buys from Canada, and I'm pretty sure you know of the COGEMA. But the commercial relationship with Australia in the field has been strained in the last years. Since Gabon will shortly be out of the picture, this leaves the most interesting partner for us, politically speaking: Niger, not exactly a "first world" country. Yes, unlike Irak, we do import from Niger. ps. IANAME (passed the entrance exam, but forgone for a better scho

  • Evolution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ()vnorby() ( 732447 ) on Saturday December 13, 2003 @06:48PM (#7713093) Homepage
    Not saying evolution didnt happen, but someone explain how an organism like this bacterium could evolve due to "survival of the fittest?"
    It seems quite impossible to understand how a bacterium could have mutations that allow it to "convert 'uranium and other radionuclides dissolved in water to solid compounds that can be extracted.' It reduces (adds electrons to) positively charged metal ions, making them insoluble in water (making them easier to clean up), which creates small charges of electricity."

    • Re:Evolution (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kobal ( 597997 ) on Saturday December 13, 2003 @06:58PM (#7713147)
      Actually, there are quite a few species of bacteria who use this kind of cycle to get their energy. Not a bad thing to colonize layers where respiration won't help. And the ability to specifically reduce heavy metal ions probably comes, as the article implies, from mutations on cytochrome reductases genes.

      • Re:Evolution (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ()vnorby() ( 732447 )
        If there are other species of bacteria that we know can do this, why is this one special? Couldn't we theoretically use any kind of bacteria that creates charges of electricity using this type of cycle in a bio-battery? There might be a bacteria that gets their energy from a more common metal ion.
        • Most of biology gets its energy from passing electrons around from higher energy states to lower energy states, including you. Remember the NASA mars life claims from 1997 (or whenever), they argued that the rock had nodes of biologically derived magnetite. Similar stuff.

          -Sean

        • Re:Evolution (Score:5, Informative)

          by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Saturday December 13, 2003 @07:34PM (#7713334) Journal
          There is nothing special about this particular bug, except that it was used to gain some insight on how these kinds of bacteria work their magic.

          The whole battery idea comes from how we now understand that the "c-type cytochromes" add electrons to the heavy metal ions to newtralize them, and create a small electrical current in the process.

          Yes, in theory I would imagine any bacteria that has similar mechanics could be used.

          This little fella jsut happened to get the spotlight because it was the first to be studied in depth.

          Ref. http://www.geobacter.org/ [geobacter.org] for some more info

          You might also want to read through the talk.origins [talkorigins.org] archive, since I think you might not fully understand how evolution works. (Hint: "survival of the fittest" is a really poor way to describe it.)
          =Smidge=
          • "You might also want to read through the talk.origins archive, since I think you might not fully understand how evolution works. (Hint: "survival of the fittest" is a really poor way to describe it.)"
            Hey, its the way my biology teacher used to explain it, so yes, i probably don't fully understand how it works.
            • That's why I gave you the link... since you seem interested, I thought it might be informative for you.

              Just trying to help :P
              =Smidge=

          • oh no you didn't (Score:1, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward
            add electrons to the heavy metal ions to newtralize them

            *record scraaaaatch*

            "newtralize"?

            oh, man. that's a new low.

    • Re:Evolution (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CXI ( 46706 )
      Not saying evolution didnt happen, but someone explain how an organism like this bacterium could evolve due to "survival of the fittest?"

      It's pretty simple really. This type of bacterium is decended from a line which figured out how to live on a new type of food that others could not. That's evolution at work. The fact that it "convert[s] 'uranium and other radionuclides dissolved in water to solid compounds that can be extracted'" is a nice side effect for us, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

    • It didn't (Score:2, Informative)

      by gacp ( 601462 )

      Forget Neodarwinism: it's a myth, and dead wrong. Biological evolution does not happen that way. In short: autonomous systems cannot be instructed by the environment, so there can be no such thing as Natural Selection. The reason Neodarwinism (which is not the same as evolution!) is still the dominant paradigm are really very very close to the reason Micro$oft dominates the computer market. FUD included: I'm supposed to be a "cryptocreationist" because I demand this so-called "theory" to be put to the

      • so how does Biology explain evolution? sure Darwin's mechanisms are old and limited by the tools at his disposal, but how does the environment not have an effect on the evolution of an organism?
        • I have only a couple of min:

          >so how does Biology explain evolution?

          molecular autopoiesis (=life) + reproduction = evolution

          >but how does the environment not have an effect on the evolution of an organism?

          1. There is no such thing as The Environment. Each organism has its own environment (i.e. the rest of the universe that does not take part in the autopoietical process under consideration), all environment are != (by def).

          2. The effect of the environment on the organism is never and can never be
      • "autonomous systems cannot be instructed by the environment, so there can be no such thing as Natural Selection"

        What do you mean by this exactly?

        Do you realise that evolution applies to populations, not individuals?
        • First: WHAT is a "population"? Do answer this if you can, don't just dodge the question. You must be able to define every term you use, like "species", "organism", &c. No cheating!

          Do *you* realize that evolution applies to lineages, not to populations? If evolution is the change in ontogeny along a phylogeny---where does the population enters the picture? And you never mentioned generations, conditio sine qua non for evolution.

          Good luck defining population, species, organism, &c.---you'll ne
          • Sorry, but it's your statement that is truly vague, so I asked for clarification.

            Population is not a difficult concept. You have one animal, that's not a population, it's an individual. You have 100 of these same animals, it's a population. If you have only 10, 5 or 2 animals, it's probably not a viable population, but is a population nevertheless.

            Yes, but can you have a lineage without a population? Sure, an immortal species that doesn't reproduce will not evolve. That's getting silly though don't you t
            • Population IS a difficult concept. Because you'll have to define species before, see? Or would you call organisms of != species members of the same population? And... what is an organism? Again, no cheating! No circular defs. No pseudo-defs by characteristics. DEFINE those terms!

              >Yes, but can you have a lineage without a population?

              Actually, yes. Like the Sith Lords, a parent and a child. Or perhaps you could call that a pop of 2? Not a very likely scenario, of course.

              But the point is that "
              • No, it's not difficult, I just defined it in very simple language for you.

                It then seems to me that by your standards, 'lineage' becomes a non-term also. Obviously your theory is just going in circles.

                Certainly everything is not black and white, especially in biology, and we define terms which don't apply to all situations. Why do you think this means we can't discover anything useful even if this is the case.

                How about a thought experiment:

                Take 500 common house cats.
                Build a very large cage for them (1km^
                • lineage:: two or more molecular autopoietical systems (=organisms) conected by a (non-branching) line of descent (historical connection). Gets really interesting when you include metacellulars which (amost) invariable have gametic fusion, which gives you reticulation of lineages, but still you can follow lineages.

                  Where is the circle? Everything is defined, no cheating.

                  About the cats: oh golly, I know you can do that with bacteria, and you won't need kiloyears. Do you think I don't know about that? I h
                  • Yes, I was being facetious really, but I don't see that your definition for lineage is any less circular than the usual definitions for population, species etc. You did use the term organisms, no? Why then can't I say that a species is a set of organisms which interbreed?

                    The point of my cat experiment was that it can be explained and carried out without reference to or even a need for understanding of populations, species, organisms etc.

                    I dont think anyone is saying evolution is *caused* by NS, rather, th
                    • > Yes, I was being facetious really, but I don't see that your definition for lineage is any less circular than the usual definitions for population, species etc. You did use the term organisms, no?

                      I used organism AND defined it. Organism:: a molecular autopoietical system, of first (parts are mere molecules) or second order (parts are themselves organisms e.g. you and me).

                      >Why then can't I say that a species is a set of organisms which interbreed?

                      No good. No good AT ALL. Sorry, I *am* working o
                    • "Organism:: a molecular autopoietical system, of first (parts are mere molecules) or second order (parts are themselves organisms e.g. you and me)."

                      What about energy beings from Proxima Centauri?

                      Yes, I know my experiment was crap, but I'm sure you could learn something from it. What you would learn is that differences arise in the cat DNA as time passes, some of these differences are preserved, others are not. Compare phenotypes of preserved differences to non-preserved, and draw some conclusions. What yo
                    • >What about energy beings from Proxima Centauri?

                      Dunno man, never been there? What kind of enengy? If that kind of energy can sustain an autopoietical dymanmics, well, I won't call that "life", but well deffinitely have to add another category next to "life" and "symbolic autopoiesis".

                      >Yes, I know my experiment was crap, but I'm sure you could learn something from it.

                      How NOT to design an experiment? :-P

                      >A study of single nucleotide polymorphisms in surviving giraffes reveals...."

                      Gee, some eff
                    • Ok then, which of these are organisms by your definition:

                      a worker ant
                      an ant colony
                      the queen of the ant colony

                      Are they autopoietic systems?

                      How about commensalism or parasites? a virus?

                      Giraffe necks? Well, it's possible that an SNP could measureably affect the affinity of a growth hormone receptor. Complex systems are more easily perturbed than simple ones, IMO.

                      Yes, sure you won't be able to predict 100% exactly what will result from a given selection pressure. A random mutation might occur which grants

    • Re:Evolution (Score:3, Informative)

      by splerdu ( 187709 )
      If something can be eaten, it will be. Survival of the fittest doesn't only mean competition with peers, it also means adapting to make use of resources.. If this bacteria evolved because of exposure to a redionuclide rich environment, then that's evolution at work for you.
    • Iron reducing bacteria that live in anerobic conditions need somewhere for electrons to go in order to have a metabolism. Basically for them these metals are food, and the methane/hydrogen etc around them is the 'air'. The reduced metals are then edible for other bacteria if the surrounding environment should become aerobic. If it wasn't for bacteria metabolising metals we would probably have no ores to mine on earth and still be in the stone age.
    • well one day a bacterium came along and said "gee, I have no niche I wish there was some where I could specialize"

      then the bacterium noticed a glowing piece of rock that was not being touched by anything.

      "hmm" said the bacterium, "I could eat that thing"

      and so became the Uranium eating bacterium.

  • What I want to see (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hythlodaeus ( 411441 ) on Saturday December 13, 2003 @06:54PM (#7713119)
    What I want to see is a machine that operates
    carbon + electricty -> food
    in less labor and land area per calorie than farming plants.

    No one would want to eat it now, especially not the organic farming fans (mmm... organic parasites, yum!), but don't forget we're multiplying exponentially still, and you can only pile on so much fertilizer.
    • Hard to beat very low cost of 100+ bushels of corn per acre. actually, with the revised U.N. estimates of 9 billion people by 2300 a.d., it seems we may not have the "exponential" growth in population we once thought we had. Farming the land & oceans for 50% more people, we probably can do that, just need to be a little smarter about it. The main problem is that we aren't yet managing/farming the oceans yet, just plundering.
      • hell yes we can do that. if you give every person on earth .28 acres (the amount needed for shelter and personal food production) we could all fit inside texas.
      • it seems we may not have the "exponential" growth in population we once thought we had.

        What do you mean "thought"? We once had exponential growth. But exponential growth in biological systems sooner or later must necessarily level off. This is all standard population biology.

        The only question is why economists still cling to the absurd notion that economic growth can go on forever.

  • Web site (Score:5, Informative)

    by RML ( 135014 ) on Saturday December 13, 2003 @07:42PM (#7713374)
    Quite a lot of information about this bacteria (Geobacter sulfurreducens) can be found at the Geobacter project home page [geobacter.org].

  • My Batteries Died... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sunlighter ( 177996 ) on Saturday December 13, 2003 @08:28PM (#7713600)

    That phrase will have new meaning...

  • Call me a troll, but I think it's sad that this is going to spark a lot of "Bio-battery" VC money. It may just be me, but I think we should be investing in figuring out how this stuff works, so we can do it on our own without the bacteria, rather than trying to exploit this bacteria in ways that will definitely result in a living creature being put in an environment it wasn't intended for, with the possibility of mutation to adapt to that environment.

    • By gosh... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by splerdu ( 187709 )
      environment it wasn't intended for

      If someone hooks you up with a life's supply of food in exchange for taking your crap what would you do?

      I'd say the bacteria would be happy being in a battery.. They get to feed and we get our volts. It's a win-win situation!
    • result in a living creature being put in an environment it wasn't intended for

      Intended by whom?

  • ProtoCulture? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zarf ( 5735 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @03:22PM (#7719079) Journal
    I heard about this first on Science Friday [npr.org] on the December 12th show. When I heard them mention the bacteria making electricity I though of the "Proto-Culture" from Robotech. When I was a kid I used to think it was an electricity producing life-form that they found on the SDF-1 ... of course my memories are mostly of Robotech season three... "Genesis Climber Mospeada"

    It would be hilarious if science fact would follow this particular fiction and lead to...
    <Announcer Voice>
    "the awesome power of RoboTech!"
    </Announcer Voice>

  • Energy Yields too low (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spin2cool ( 651536 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @04:47PM (#7719737)

    I have my doubts that this sort of bio-battery will ever be useful on a widespread, large scale.

    Even anaerobic resiration by the most efficient organisms yields under 50% of the potential energy in their food. Secondary reactions like this typically occur at a much slower rate than life-sustaining reactions. What this means is that a fairly high amount of nutrients will have to be supplied, and that the resulting current generated will be relatively small compared to the potential energy sent in.

    I guess what I'm saying here is "don't expect a miracle bio-powered car from this."

    These bacteria will no doubt be useful in cleanup of contaminated sites, though. Perhaps soil could be placed into large decontamination devices, and the resulting electricity could be used for low-output pumps that drip nutrients into the chamber. Then you'd have a useful, self-powered detox device.

  • Really not a battery (Score:2, Informative)

    by juushin ( 632556 )
    Organisms that reduce other metals have been known for a long time - for example mercury. There are already programs using these sorts of bioorganisms for detoxifying heavy metal-containing soil and water.

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close