Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hydrogen-Emitting Microbe Examined

Posted by Zonk on from the such-lovely-genetics dept.

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.'"

12 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Quick question by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Where does the carbon monoxide come from?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Incomplete oxidation of carbon fuels.

      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).

    2. Re:Quick question by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Interesting
      In theory, these bacteria could be burned to produce more carbon monoxide

      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.

    3. Re:Quick question by squoozer · · Score: 2, 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 complex as DNA and proteins using anything other than carbon.

      Notice above that I said squishy life. I think it is entirely possible that we may develop or find machines that appear to us to be alive. If they were based around processors then I can believe we would have silicon based "life". It would be fundamentally different to us though. A lot of people, IMHO, fall into the trap of thinking that they will find life that is essentailly like us but made of silicon or some other element - that just isn't going to happen.

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
  2. Working temperature? by hunte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a nice job for a microbe, but I don't have see any information about the working temperature that this microbe needs to make the chemical process... Maybe this could be another problem... The volcanic habitat it's very hot (and hard to emulate)...

    --
    about me A - B
  3. A reverse form of catalytic converter by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This can be used for another form of Hydrogen Boost for Truckers. Instead of using electicity and water, it can use water, exaust gas, and microbe. Not only will it further reduce emissions by using them to produce hydrogen.

    --
    Fight Spammers!
  4. A few questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is very interesting indeed. A low-energy process by which free hydrogen can be produced. But a few questions.

    - 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.

    1. Re:A few questions by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I do not know the answer to #1, But I would guess not much.

      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 established via eltrolysis comparision, that this is desirable). There was a recent approach to H2 storage, that was suppose to be efficient, cheap, safe, and easy to do (news in the future at 11).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:A few questions by penguinoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The article mentions that oxygens need to be removed from the water; How much energy does this require?

      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 burning coal in steam?

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  5. Re:So it "converts" ... by squoozer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is just a bacterial version of the water-gas shift reaction. 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.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
  6. Mods on crack? by MaelstromX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No, the article says that the organism intakes CO and H2O and expels H2. This does not mean that a simple reaction occurs with CO and H2O as reactants and H2 as a product.

    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.

    --
    audioLibre - freedom of music
  7. Not new, but maybe promising by jxm387 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I worked at Mobil as an engineer (before Exxon swalled them) there was a project working on microbes that consumed CO2 and excreted long chain hydrocarbons that could be used as fuel. Unfortunately they were slow and difficult to control. I imagine that microbes thriving under volcanic conditions would be hard to use commercially, but perhaps the conditions could be replicated in certain settings or the mechanism transplanted into other microbes (any microbiologists want to comment?). The ideas are good but the technology is a long way off!