View Full Forums : Using Microbes To Fuel The New Hydrogen Economy


Panamah
09-13-2006, 07:57 PM
Just saw a Mythbuster where they were trying various "alternative" energy gizmos. The only one that worked was using old dry frying oil. All they did was filter it and they used it as fuel.

But here's another one about hydrogen (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060913100628.htm).

Van der Lelie’s group reports that experimental setups using Thermatoga neapolitana bacteria given a simple glucose feedstock can generate copious amounts of hydrogen gas at temperatures between 158 and 185 degrees Fahrenheit at atmospheric to elevated pressure. In his talk, van der Lelie will describe the complex biochemistry of these reactions as well as the potential to scale up this system for continuous, farm-based, economical hydrogen production. One significant finding was that Thermatoga neapolitana produced hydrogen most efficiently in a moderately low-oxygen environment. Previously, hydrogen production by bacteria has only been reported under anaerobic, or oxygen-free, conditions.

Panamah
09-13-2006, 07:58 PM
And more good news for the Hydrogen Hopefuls
Scientists Find New Way To Store Hydrogen Fuel (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040107071941.htm)

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-13-2006, 08:07 PM
Just saw a Mythbuster where they were trying various "alternative" energy gizmos. The only one that worked was using old dry frying oil. All they did was filter it and they used it as fuel.

But here's another one about hydrogen (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060913100628.htm).


How much glucose(sugar) must be used to produce X amount of H2(or joules of energy)?

Compared to using that same sugar to feed yeast to produce ethanol(in joules of energy).

ETOH, though flammable, is hardly as explosive as H2 is.

weoden
09-13-2006, 09:24 PM
Ethanol produced from sugar give more energy that is best thought of as kilowatts over time rather than joules. The process is planting, plus harvest, plus process/brewing energy which equals the ethonal output.

This "equation" can be offset by solar or wind power on the brewing side which would be more electricity intensive.

I question if hydrogen will be viable within the next 100 years. This is because of the tort system and lawyers breaking out videos of the Hindenburg bruning up and buring up people. All there needs to be is someone receiving a small burn and massive punitive damages will, most likely, be doled out.

Thicket Tundrabog
09-14-2006, 09:42 AM
Hydrogen production from fermentation is highly unlikely to be economically feasible for many reasons. I don't doubt the technical feasibility. One major hurdle is separating the hydrogen from the co-produced carbon dioxide. There is no energy efficient way of separating the two. In this respect, production of methanol or ethanol is much easier, since it requires simple distillation (which admittedly also uses a lot of energy.)

The hydrogen storage research using 'ice' is not particularly groundbreaking. At best, it's an extension of technology that's been around for decades. Natural gas pipeline 'hydrates' is one every-day example of the 'ice' phenomenon.

Even ice from pure water has a number of distinct forms. Contemporary science recognizes 12 different ice structures. There is a technical paper issued in March of this year about two additional ice structures --- Ice XIII and Ice XIV.

The lattice structure of ice is a function of molecular level hydrogen bonds between water molecules. Introducing pure hydrogen into a water-ice structure is of scientific or technical interest, but can't reasonably have widespread use to store hydrogen.

Panamah
09-14-2006, 10:29 AM
But what about Ice IX? :) (God, that book scared the beejebers out of me when I was a kid).

totally ignorant question, but can't you just burn the carbon dioxide along with the hydrogen? Or does it prevent the hydrogen from doing it's thing?

Thicket Tundrabog
09-14-2006, 02:18 PM
totally ignorant question, but can't you just burn the carbon dioxide along with the hydrogen? Or does it prevent the hydrogen from doing it's thing?

You can burn the carbon dioxide... well... it doesn't actually burn, it just goes through for a free ride. The problem is that hydrogen is a very low heat content fuel... ummm... let me say it differently. If you burn a fixed volume of hydrogen (not weight of hydrogen), you get a lot less heat or energy than you would for any other fuels like natural gas, coal or oil. If you dilute this hydrogen with carbon dioxide your heat content goes down even further. This results in two problems. First, the burning equipment (boilers, heaters, turbines) must be very large and expensive. In some cases, such as turbines, the technology has not been developed. Secondly, you are heating up inert and worthless carbon dioxide which uses up a lot of the energy you need for electricity/heat/motion.

Panamah
09-14-2006, 03:33 PM
As a side-note, Mythbusters used hydrogen directly in an unmodified car, seems like they fed it into the air filter area? Well, other than the big gas tank standing next to the car it was unmodified. It worked well for their first test. Car started and ran. Then they did it again. Huge backfire and a little flammage. :D

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-14-2006, 05:23 PM
I remember a "That's Incredible" episode from the 70s where this amateur guy took a VW Rabbit Diesel and converted it to run on used vegetable oil.

He drove it across the US, going from burger joint to burger joint, using their old french fry oil(for free or almost free).

It smoked horribly.

weoden
09-14-2006, 09:55 PM
totally ignorant question, but can't you just burn the carbon dioxide along with the hydrogen? Or does it prevent the hydrogen from doing it's thing?

The notion of "burn" refers to reacting oxygen with a chemical that generates energy. In the case of buring calories that is carbon dioxide and water...

Panamah
09-14-2006, 09:57 PM
So... by losing weight one is causing global warming! Eek! :p

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-15-2006, 06:06 AM
So... by losing weight one is causing global warming! Eek! :p

No, if you are breathing you are causing global warming.


If you held your breath, most of the CO2 you produce would stay in your body.

Erianaiel
09-15-2006, 08:10 AM
No, if you are breathing you are causing global warming.


If you held your breath, most of the CO2 you produce would stay in your body.

For about two minutes yes ...

CO2 forms a more or less closed loop (there is some anual fluctuation of course). Green plants take CO2 from the air and with the help of photosynthesis bind it. They also, like all living beings on earth, 'burn' sugars in their cells which releases CO2 again (e.g. at night plants actually produce CO2 and do not caputure it). The total production of CO2 by living beings rougly equals the capturing of it by plants so the CO2 that we breathe out is actually first captured by some plants, and thus does not contribute to the raise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
If a dead plant does not decompose (i.e. it is trapped in an oxygen free environment the CO2 it captured is removed from the cycle. If that dead plant later gets burned again its CO2 is added again. Coal and Oil are basically dead plants that had lots of CO2 removed from our atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years and that we are now reintroducing at a vastly accelerated speed compared to how long it took to remove the gas and store it deep underground.


Eri

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-15-2006, 08:40 AM
So are you saying that plants will not grow faster with increased atmospheric CO2?

We put out forest fires(which would release millions of tons of CO2 into the air) all the time now. Which did not occur prior to recent history. We in the US have more trees, not even planted trees-natural trees, than were here 200 years ago.

All these new trees and plants won't grow better and faster in the CO2 rich air; and absorb out the CO2 that you are worried about?

Or even kelp.

B_Delacroix
09-15-2006, 09:22 AM
My favourite among the pseudo-natural hydrogen producing ideas is the vat of genetically altered algae.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-15-2006, 10:23 AM
My favourite among the pseudo-natural hydrogen producing ideas is the vat of genetically altered algae.

Actually it was sugar, but thanks anyway.

Because it is solar powered that way.

As soon as we harness the chemistry and genetics of cholorplasts, we are going to rock as a species.

Hell, some of us might even take on green skin, to not have to eat ever again. That would be cool. Orion dancing girls all around.

Panamah
09-15-2006, 11:02 AM
Plants don't take up the C02 as fast as was once thought. And much of the things that were big c02 sinks, like jungles, peat bogs and such are getting razed and releasing it.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-15-2006, 11:08 AM
Do we have any jungles in the US?

I know Florida does. Are we burning the jungles in Florida?

Thicket Tundrabog
09-15-2006, 11:30 AM
Are we burning the jungles in Florida?

Nah... they're being cut down for condos. :)

Panamah
09-15-2006, 11:58 AM
Do we have any jungles in the US?

I know Florida does. Are we burning the jungles in Florida?
The word "global" in the phrase "global warming" sort of indicates that the problem doesn't stop at the US border.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-15-2006, 03:15 PM
The word "global" in the phrase "global warming" sort of indicates that the problem doesn't stop at the US border.

So this is much more than White Liberal Guilt forcing ME pay higher prices for shoes or lumber.

You want to use White Liberal Imperialism to force people in Third World countries to not be able to grow food or build houses for their kids.

Anka
09-15-2006, 06:04 PM
You want to use White Liberal Imperialism to force people in Third World countries to not be able to grow food or build houses for their kids.

If we could solve global warming without involving the third world, and without involving selfish luddites like yourself, be assured we'd be doing that.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-15-2006, 06:20 PM
If we could solve global warming without involving the third world, and without involving selfish luddites like yourself, be assured we'd be doing that.

A Luddite hates science.

I love science. I love science fiction too. But I generally know the difference between the two. And when I don't, I ask.

It was Pan who said that burning jungles was creating global warming. Not me. You are addressing the wrong person.

We here in the US, we actually have more trees than we did 200 years ago, or 400 years ago, for that matter. Even with all the asphalt, pavement, malls, and houses we have more trees now than ever before. In cities and in wilderness.

And look who is calling who selfish, I asked you 2 weeks ago to stop producing CO2. Seems you ignored me for selfish reasons.

Anka
09-15-2006, 08:34 PM
And look who is calling who selfish, I asked you 2 weeks ago to stop producing CO2. Seems you ignored me for selfish reasons.

Sounds like you're being selfish to me, asking me to do something that you're not prepared to do yourself.

Panamah
09-19-2006, 04:38 PM
Microbes churn out microdiesel fuel from E. Coli

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10116-gm-bacteria-churn-out-microdiesel-fuel.html
Genetically modified bacteria can produce a biodiesel from plant materials, researchers have shown. The GM bugs could help cut carbon dioxide emissions while also reducing the need to grow crops to make greener fuels, they say.

Biodiesel, also known as biologically-derived diesel substitute, can be made from rapeseed (canola), soy and oil palm, by heating it with a chemical catalyst.

This type of fuel can help offset greenhouse gas emissions because it is made from organisms that naturally remove CO2 from the atmosphere. However, large areas of land are still needed to cultivate raw materials, and toxic chemicals are also used to process them. The machinery used to harvest the materials also consumes fuel and oil themselves....