Slashdot Mirror


Generating Alcohol Fuels From Electrical Current and CO2

New submitter AcMNPV writes "A news release from UCLA describes a new process for producing biofuels using microorganisms, electrical current and carbon dioxide (abstract). Quoting: 'Liao and his team genetically engineered a lithoautotrophic microorganism known as Ralstonia eutropha H16 to produce isobutanol and 3-methyl-1-butanol in an electro-bioreactor using carbon dioxide as the sole carbon source and electricity as the sole energy input. Photosynthesis is the process of converting light energy to chemical energy and storing it in the bonds of sugar. There are two parts to photosynthesis — a light reaction and a dark reaction. The light reaction converts light energy to chemical energy and must take place in the light. The dark reaction, which converts CO2 to sugar, doesn't directly need light to occur. "We've been able to separate the light reaction from the dark reaction and instead of using biological photosynthesis, we are using solar panels to convert the sunlight to electrical energy, then to a chemical intermediate, and using that to power carbon dioxide fixation to produce the fuel," Liao said.'"

26 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Sure like to see some info about efficiency... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...and reaction rates. I'm guessing this wouldn't be useful in a regenerative-braking regime, but I'd love to know whether it's fast enough for grid load-balancing, efficient enough to eventually become cheaper than alternatives, or just an interesting proof-of-concept. My money is on the last.

    1. Re:Sure like to see some info about efficiency... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You might want to cut them some slack. This is a proof-of-concept, er, give-me-more-money demonstration. Of course, most of these sorts of things don't scale, don't work outside the bottle and won't end up commercialized, but it is an interesting way to go about doing things.

      In general, I'm leery of using bioreactors as a production tool. They're expensive, cranky of maintenance and tend to smell bad.

      But you've got to start somewhere.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Sure like to see some info about efficiency... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      But how much space and time does this need vs. trees? That's the problem with biofuels, maybe this could make them more practical on a large scale.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Sure like to see some info about efficiency... by ch-chuck · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm guessing this wouldn't be useful in a regenerative-braking regime

      I donno, every time you hit the breaks, you get a little bit of candy?

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    4. Re:Sure like to see some info about efficiency... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Funny

      In general, I'm leery of using bioreactors as a production tool. They're expensive, cranky of maintenance and tend to smell bad.

      -> insert ex-wife joke here <-

    5. Re:Sure like to see some info about efficiency... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2

      So if I say "Hmm, sounds like my ex-wife" it's Funny, but if I point out the meta-joke, it's Offtopic?

    6. Re:Sure like to see some info about efficiency... by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. I'd be a lot more impressed if they can build an entire catalytic converter, perhaps using templated nanoscale catalysts, that take hot CO_2 and H2_O in on one end, use either sunlight or electricity as a free energy source, and spit pure octane out the other side. That one might be able to figure out well enough to where one could engineer large scale electroconversion, production of ethanol or octane (ideally the latter) on an industrial scale. If it can work efficiently with natural CO_2 levels in the air, so much the better.

      Of course they can synthesize gasoline out of e.g. coal now -- I recall perhaps the Nazis doing this in WW II? -- but I think the process is still uneconomical compared to pumping and refining oil. I'd really like a rooftop collector that takes a gallon or two of water, atmospheric CO_2, and spits out a couple of gallons of pure gasoline in an normal day of sunshine. At 37 kW-hours per gallon, this wouldn't be terribly easy, actually (or rather, it would require a pretty big roof:-) but that's precisely why it is hard to beat gasoline as a fuel. A 5 kW rooftop collector, an 8 hour day, nearly perfect efficiency would make just one lousy gallon of gasoline. But that's more than I USE in a typical day, and at $4/gallon it would be $1200+ return per year...

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    7. Re:Sure like to see some info about efficiency... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

      Use a little electricity to re-fix some of the CO2 you have released, and you can immediately and locally offset CO2 instead of growing a tree farm hundreds of miles away.

      And everything would be just peachy if we could do that. But thermodynamics, that hidebound, officious boor, insists that undoing our messes takes more energy than making them in the first place. In other words, if you "use a little electricity", you'll re-fix only a very little of the CO2 you produced.

      Fixing CO2 to make fuel inherently consumes more energy than burning fuel to make CO2. You win if the energy you're consuming is extremely cheap, or something that would otherwise be wasted. But if your efficiency is only on par with natural photosynthesis (a few percent), you're not winning very much.

      Still better to charge a battery, if you can support the size, weight and cost. But it'll be a long time, if ever, before batteries can compete with hydrocarbons (and free ambient oxygen) on energy density.

    8. Re:Sure like to see some info about efficiency... by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      An added benefit would be that if you lived in a rural setting, you would have more space for panels and could use the fuel as a storage mechanism for generating electricity at night. It would make off grid solar more reasonable.

    9. Re:Sure like to see some info about efficiency... by FishTankX · · Score: 3, Informative

      The process your thinking of to make gasoline from coal is called the Fischer tropsch process and is currently economical however the facilities are not cheap and the end cost is equivalent to fifty dollar a barrel oil. The reason nobody has built them large scale other than south Africa is that once you start producing on a huge scale if it became a threat then the oil companies would probably ramp production crashing the price of oil and putting you out of business.

  2. Now this could be potentially game changing.... by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Butanol is an excellent replacement for petrol, because it can be used in cars with minimal/no modification to the engine (unlike running on ethanol) making it more akin to the petrol equivalent of biodiesel.

    It is also one of the highest density methods of storing energy, and can make use of existing infrastructure (which also doesn't need modification to store, like with ethanol)

    However I clicked a few links down and could not find the paper itself, anyone got a link? The ability to generate butanol without sunlight (and by removing CO2 from the atmosphere) sounds too good to be true quite frankly, as this could potentially solve a lot of problems (without needing to take up huge amounts of land, compete with food production, etc...).

    TFA mentions using solar panels, but the thing is that it uses electricity, you could just as easily generate it from Nuclear, Hydro or any other power source. The potential in future of people being able to generate their own fuel if they so desire could really be a game changer IMO.

    1. Re:Now this could be potentially game changing.... by autocannon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For mass production it's likely they would just connect to the power grid and use whatever was available. I'd imagine they demonstrated it at this stage with solar to show that the output of that panel was sufficient to drive the reaction, thereby making it a standalone system.

      So would they envision the entire system being in place on a vehicle, or putting larger systems in place at refueling stations. Seems like the latter would be more efficient as well as necessary for extensive night driving. It'd be really good to know what their throughput is for getting fuel out for the size of reaction chamber.

    2. Re:Now this could be potentially game changing.... by mlts · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In theory, this would be the next best thing to room temperature superconductors for getting electricity long distances.

      I can envision a nuclear/solar/wind farm out in west Texas generating energy, then using this method to create butanol, which runs via a pipeline to a burning facility that is near a populated area, which powers the grid. Yes, this is not that efficient, but neither is the large energy loss from long distance power lines.

    3. Re:Now this could be potentially game changing.... by walkerp1 · · Score: 2

      The potential in future of people being able to generate their own fuel if they so desire could really be a game changer IMO.

      It will definitely spark a revenuer's revival.

    4. Re:Now this could be potentially game changing.... by chichilalescu · · Score: 4, Informative

      the link to the abstract is in the summary; here's the link to the full text: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/1596.full

      my knowledge of organic chemistry is very bad, so I can't go through the details. what I see is "we have a process that takes in energy and can convert atmospheric CO2 into fuel", which basically means that we no longer need oil for burning (I don't know about plastics). this would be very nice because we could in principle reach an equilibrium between burning fuel and eating up CO2.

      couple this with the research from a few weeks ago that allowed "heat extraction" with tiny LEDs, and we may just solve the big problem: nuclear fusion/fission to generate electricity which is then used for a carbon neutral industry/transport, and eliminate extra heat by pointing LEDs at the sky; basically we could have a society that uses a lot of energy, but we don't produce any extra heat or CO2 on average.

      --
      new sig
    5. Re:Now this could be potentially game changing.... by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but gasoline is one of the highest methods of storing energy we have (as in, both from a scientific and economical perspective). To have something that is similar to gasoline in energy density, can use existing infrastructure (which has had what, 100 odd years of investment and process refining?), fast transfer of said energy, and is compatible with all existing gasoline engines, I think it quite outstanding.

      There may be better methods of energy storage, but a pragmatic balance needs to be found, I believe Butanol has potential.

      And yet, despite it being of no surprise to anyone of normal education level, it has proved to be very hard to do it in a cost effective way, specifically in a way that does not need light/growing on land (like other algae-based methods of butanol production).

      The idea that you could for example, bury the entire butanol production facility underground, and pipe CO2/electricity to it and get fuel, and leave the land above for conventional farming/life/etc... would be quite a cool feature.

    6. Re:Now this could be potentially game changing.... by TheLink · · Score: 2

      And what percentage do you regard as "large energy loss"?

      I doubt butanol creation and "transmission" losses will be lower than 6.5%:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses

      --
    7. Re:Now this could be potentially game changing.... by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      On transmission I agree with you, there are minimal losses moving electrical energy. However, storing energy is a whole different issue. Storing electricity as a liquid fuel is a very attractive possibility.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    8. Re:Now this could be potentially game changing.... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To put it in perspective, gasoline contains about 34 MJ per liter (129 MJ per gallon). Even if you assume an internal combustion engine vehicle has an abysmal 15% efficiency (fuel to wheels), its usable energy density is 5.1 MJ/l (19.3 MJ/gal). If you spend 3 minutes at the pump filling up 50 liters (13.2 gal), you're transferring energy at a rate of 1.42 MegaWatts.

      If you then assume the electric vehicle is 100% efficient (socket to wheels), to reach 1.42 MW with the 220 V circuit found in most homes, you'd need 6440 Amps. More than 40x the amperage which feeds into the typical home and enough to melt pretty much any wiring most people commonly deal with. This is the big problem with the idea of capacitors as batteries - unless you switch to extremely high voltages (meaning a steep step-down transformer needs to be on board the car with associated weight and efficiency losses), you're not gonna be able to use a cable in place of a gas pump hose to charge them up in a few minutes. The current will need to be transferred by something much more substantial.

      Or if you like the idea of kinetic batteries (flywheels), 1.42 MW is about the same energy dissipation rate as two 2000 kg vehicles traveling 96 kph (60 mph) colliding and coming to a complete stop within 1 second. If you imagine 180 of such crashes happening in the span of 3 minutes, that's how much usable energy you're pumping into your gas tank every time you fill up.

      Liquid chemical fuels contain a helluva lot of energy; so much that it's going to be very difficult for other technologies to supplant them for transportation. I really think the energy storage medium for vehicles in the future will turn out to be alcohol-based biofuels generated like in TFA.

    9. Re:Now this could be potentially game changing.... by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For mass production it's likely they would just connect to the power grid and use whatever was available. I'd imagine they demonstrated it at this stage with solar to show that the output of that panel was sufficient to drive the reaction, thereby making it a standalone system.

      I suspect they chose solar because virtually any other source of power creates more CO2 than this process would use.
      Solar or Wind, which become available on their own schedule, and not always in sync with mankind's needs could use a good sink, and that makes them the logical choice for this type of project.

      We don't have enough power on anybody's national grid to accommodate all the recharging of electric vehicles planned for the market as it is. So in my mind its doubtful this process would EVER make economic sense, because its a pretty inefficient storage mechanism, and merely a short term sequestration of Carbon.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  3. Slime by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is one issue that all bioreactors have when they attempt to scale; contamination. They generally work well in laboratory setting where conditions are pristine and test cycles are short but when they attempt to scale they find that the biological reactant very quickly becomes contaminated with other algae and the remains of dead algae. It very quickly become unusable slime. This is an issue that needs to be overcome before large scale bioreactors will ever become viable. Research into the next step, which is the specific process to create a desired output, is useless until this fundamental roadblock is dealt with. It is a bit like designing a robot powered by a fusion engine before the fusion engine has been invented.

    1. Re:Slime by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but to continue your analogy, if we develop said robot so well, and to a point where it becomes so cheap to have one, people would push towards investing in getting the other side (fusion engine) working in the knowledge that its the missing link.

      In fact knowing the potential of the robot if you could only get the engine working could well motivate more people into investigating solutions, be it for profit, changing the world, fame, or whatever other reason people have.

  4. Re:Basically a battery by JazzHarper · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not really. This is a reverse fuel cell. Liquid fuels have higher energy density than batteries.

    ARPA-E has funded a whole bunch of these electrofuels projects.

    Here's one at Harvard, using a different species of bacteria: http://arpa-e.energy.gov/ProgramsProjects/Electrofuels/EngineeringaBacterialReverseFuelCell.aspx

    And yet another one at Columbia: http://arpa-e.energy.gov/ProgramsProjects/Electrofuels/BiofuelsfromCO2UsingAmmoniaOxidizingBacteria.aspx

  5. Re:Where does the hygrogen come from? by fnj · · Score: 2

    It's pretty obvious water is necessary, too.

  6. This beats war any day by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Our current energy policy subsidizes pumping crude oil from the ground. The subsidy consists of a massive influx of American military forces into the Middle East. Imagine life without that. Before you say it is too expensive, make sure you are comparing the cost of this promising new technology to the current costs of war.

  7. DARPA interest for forward military bases by crow · · Score: 4, Informative

    DARPA was funding research into something like this recently. The idea is that for forward military bases, such as in Afghanistan, you can install a small nuclear reactor for electrical power (much like the navy's reactors), but you have a huge logistical issue with supplying adequate fuel for trucks and planes. So the solution is to synthesize the fuel from the excess electricity, greatly reducing the resupply needs of the bases.

    Apparently European countries like France that generate a lot of nuclear power are also interested because nuclear reactors don't scale their power generation with dynamic demand, so there is often excess power. If there are enough non-nuclear plants that can be idled when demand drops, that's great, but if not, then being able to produce diesel fuel for free with the excess is a good option.

    I wonder if this was funded as part of that DARPA program?