Slashdot Mirror


Biochemist Creates CO2-Eating Light That Runs On Algae

An anonymous reader writes "Biochemist Pierre Calleja has a solution to reducing carbon emissions that doesn't require us to cut back on our use of carbon-producing devices. Calleja has developed a lighting system that requires no electricity for power. Instead it draws CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produce light as well as oxygen as a byproduct. The key ingredient to this eco-friendly light? Algae. Certain types of algae can feed off of organic carbon as well as sunlight, and in the process produce carbohydrate energy for themselves as well as oxygen as a waste product. Cajella's lamps consist of algae-filled water along with a light and battery system. During the day the algae produce energy from sunlight that is then stored in the batteries. Then at night the energy is used to power the light. However, as the algae can also produce energy from carbon, sunlight isn't required for the process to work. That means such lights can be placed where there is no natural light and the air will effectively be cleaned on a daily basis."

31 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. One place for use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In mines.
    Another, is in your mom's basement.

  2. At last by MRe_nl · · Score: 2

    Light emitting underwear.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  3. Rearranging the Equation by paleo2002 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Normally:
    CO2 + Light = Algae

    Now:
    CO2 + Algae = Light

    Brilliant!

    1. Re:Rearranging the Equation by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 5, Funny

      Even better

      Light - Algae = - CO2

      a cheap way to produce antimatter!

    2. Re:Rearranging the Equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      F

      Your equation requires we first have negative algae.

    3. Re:Rearranging the Equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      HA! take that climate change deniers!

      CO2 + Light = Algae
      Light = CO2 + Algae
      CO2 + CO2 + Algae = Algae
      2CO2 = Algae - Algae
      2CO2 = 0
      CO2 = 0

      therefore, CO2 kills everything...

    4. Re:Rearranging the Equation by artor3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good math, bad conclusion. This proves that CO2 doesn't exist! Just wait till Fox catches wind of this!

    5. Re:Rearranging the Equation by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 2

      Using this new technology, you can easily produce negative algae by not shining light on CO2.

  4. I call bulls*it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Algae can produce energy via photosynthesis. Sure.

    Claiming (as is heavily implied) the can extract energy somehow from CO2 sans sunlight is about as sound as claims you can run your car on hydrogen "extracted" from water.

    Carbon isn't inherently a source of energy. Energy can be stored in carbon compounds by having carbon in certain oxidation states. Then in a redox reaction it gets oxidized to CO2. At that point, no more energy to extract. You need energy in at that point. Carbon isn't magic.

    Thermodynamics. It's not just a good idea. It's the law.

  5. This is the worst article ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The video in the article describes something completely different from the text article.

    The thing, as described in the video, is completely useless for carbon sequestration purposes until electricity production is almost totally carbon-neutral (which won't be for many years).

    The thing, as described in the text, violates the first law of thermodynamics.

    At least one of them is grotesquely wrong, and possibly both. Either way, this lamp is utterly useless in an "underground parking garage," which is the proposed use as discussed in the video.

    1. Re:This is the worst article ever by formfeed · · Score: 3, Funny

      The thing, as described in the text, violates the first law of thermodynamics.

      The first law of thermodynamics is a universal law. Universal laws violate US sovereignty.

    2. Re:This is the worst article ever by dbet · · Score: 2

      The problem with the article is it says something nonsensical. CO2 + algae = more algae + light + O2. This is exactly what all plants do, minus the light show. The article seems to suggest that CO2 turns into light. It doesn't work that way, outside of a star.

    3. Re:This is the worst article ever by blueg3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Inside of a star, it's too hot for atoms to form molecular bonds, so there is no CO2.

  6. Video Transitions Annoying by hort_wort · · Score: 2

    Am I the only one who was very much distracted seeing the constant screen transitions in the video? I could hardly focus on what was being said because I was trying to figure out what the finger was doing. -grumbles-

    1. Re:Video Transitions Annoying by ericloewe · · Score: 2

      It's better that way. Keeps you from murdering snake oil salesmen.

    2. Re:Video Transitions Annoying by emaname · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yup. It's annoying. The current generation of video producers are afflicted with the same behavior we saw in the early years of the web. Remember when people used the now infamous "blink" tag? Yah! It was a real treat to load a page with 20 blinking links. And this behavior was carried on with animated gifs. I remember opening pages that had lists with each list item bulleted with an animated gif; eg, a spinning ball or star, or a flashing diamond, etc. The next "craze" was to do all sorts of stuff with flash. I'm amazed how many sites are still doing all their nav in flash. The most recent bane to web design is jQuery. Take a look at the source of some pages once. It's astonishing just how many jQuery scripts are being used on some pages.

      [begin rant] Well, now video producers are going through the same thing. It's cool to video the person talking, but they're looking somewhere else entirely. Or they zoom on the person's eye or hands or mouth while the person is talking. Real cool! I know that always stimulates my interest.[/sarcasm]

      Now they're going absolutely freaking nuts using zooming in then out and back in, fast motion to slow back to fast, strobing, flashing, blurring, jerky images, a series of 30 images within 2 secs, etc. And NONE of the programs or ads using these effects contain ANY worthwhile information.

      I was always amused by the Ford truck commercials and just how juvenile and primitive they were. All big, block letters sliding around the screen. Brilliant! I swear a person has to be functioning full-time with their lizard brain to respond to a commercial like that.

      If I should happen to meet one of these video producers, I just might club him/her senseless. Then ask, "How's THAT for a special effect?"[/end rant]

      Aw nuts! I forgot to take my meds again. Excuse me. I have to go.

      --
      An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
  7. Mars? by kolbe · · Score: 2

    With an atmosphere consisting of over 95% carbon dioxide, wouldn't a few million of these "pods" help the Terra-forming efforts of mars' atmosphere? Sure, it'd take a few MILLION years, but think of the possibilities here!

    On the note of the article, it sounds too good to be true really. I don't buy into the idea until a more scientific analysis has been done.

    1. Re:Mars? by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      atmosphere consisting of over 95% carbon dioxide

      It might be made up of interesting stuff for plants, but it is exceptionally sparse. At surface level (even at the lowest point) it is a mere 0.1675 psi where earth has a sea level pressure of around 14.69 psi. This leads plants to do some funny things. NASA has been experimenting with plants and low pressures for a while now but it isn't going all that well - the plants think there is a drought when the low pressure basically sucks all the moisture from them - even if they are hydrated very well.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  8. Too good to be true... by malakai · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apparently Geek.com has it's own problems with editors & science....

    This article is completely incorrect.

    The total equation for oxygenic photosynthesis is:
    6CO2 + 12H2O + light C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O
    Broken down, the equations are:
    water + light -> chemical energy and gaseous oxygen (a waste product)

    (Historically called the "light reactions" because they require light. Photosystem II drives this light capture.)

    That chemical energy is then used to capture carbon dioxide to make carbohydrates or sugars:
    chemical energy from photosynthesis + carbon dioxide -> carbohydrates

    (Historically called the "dark reactions" because the two processes can be uncoupled. The enzyme Rubisco uses the chemical energy from photosynthesis to capture CO2, which goes on to make sugars, etc.)

    The carbohydrates can then be used for cellular functions OR as an energy source by the mitochondria, just like we as people use sugar as energy.These algae (What kind are they? I can't even find Pierre Calleja's research page. All I get is mixotrophic algae, which could be any number of algae. I'm assuming that it is a eukaryote like Chlamydomonas, but it could be a prokaryote like Synechocystis.) do NOT use carbon dioxide as an energy source. By definition, a mixotrophic algae CAN use carbon as an energy source, but NOT in the form of CO2, it must be in the form of sugar, acetate, etc.Furthermore, these lamps are NOT powered by the algae themselves. These lamps are powered by electricity to give the algae light to grow. That light then gives the algae the energy to pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

    1. Re:Too good to be true... by ericloewe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pretty much sums up the whole thing.

      Sounds like the analogue of a perpetual motion machine, but for the carbon cycle.

  9. Re:Algae by Whumpsnatz · · Score: 2

    My question is, how? How do they store the energy in batteries? We're talking about algae, not solar cells. What are they using, magic?

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:Does this make sense? by ericloewe · · Score: 2

    Could be the basis for the infinite energy chips prophesized by someone I know.

  13. Pure snake oil by Grayhand · · Score: 3, Informative

    He says in the video that they absorb a ton a CO2 a year. The US releases 5.5 billion tons a year so just this country would need 5.5 billion of these lamps to absorb it all. He also claims he's the only one that ever thought of using algae. There are a lot of people working in algae it's just you have to work on a large scale for it to have any affect.

  14. Badly written article by zrbyte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think this is just bad journalism. I suppose the lamp uses electricity to give light to the algae, which use this to store CO2 in carbohydrates. Not a very brilliant idea. If it was that brilliant we'd be reading about it from Nature or Science and not geek.com

    1. Re:Badly written article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, if it were really brilliant, other people would be reading about it in Nature. We would be reading about it on geek.com, in an article that misrepresents the research in Nature in 6 different ways and doesn't provide enough information for us to locate the Nature article. That is, if we bothered to read the article at all.

      Because that is how we roll around here.

  15. Re:Algae by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

    My question is, how? How do they store the energy in batteries? We're talking about algae, not solar cells. What are they using, magic?

    The algae produce carbohydrate energy for themselves as well as oxygen as a waste product.

    Left out of the summary was the step where the carbohydrate gets converted to electricity and stored in batteries. Following the link in the summary to TFA, and then to the source, and even watching the video, I was still unable to find anything about this step.

    The video showed that the Algae were in the outer cylinder of two concentric cylinders, and the inner won was apparently a light source of some kind.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  16. how do you get energy from CO2? by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Informative

    Isn't it thermodynamically impossible to do this without USING energy?

    Plants take in CO2 and make oxygen all the time. But they use energy in the form of sunlight to do it. So if the plant can produce power in the dark without any light at all... How?

    Magic plant? Put a plant in a dark place with all the CO2 it wants... see how happy it is... it will die. Of course, then fungus and mold will eat it in the dark but that's a different family of life.

    This whole report sounds like pseudo-science. Not unlike those perpetual energy machines that cranks keep claiming to have invented in their garages with nothing more then some old soda cans and a dream.

    Here's another question, you know that guy that claimed to have cracked Fusion and wants to sell municipal grade fusion reactors? Well... where is he now? Claiming sudden technical difficulties owing to the fact that like all these other guys he made it up.

    I don't know if it's the inventor's fault in this case or just a stupid press. But this story doesn't add up.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:how do you get energy from CO2? by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      I run into this sort of thing all the time and I find it disturbing because I'm not a scientist or any kind of expert. I'm just a moderately well rounded American... both in mind in body (hey, those cheese burgers were delicious.) And it seems like all too often the press, politicians, etc are making mistakes I was taught to spot in high school. I mean, this isn't even a college level mistake. This is a basic rudimentary failure to understand a fairly simple concept.

      Sorry to rant, but the one thing that annoys me the most is the failure to grasp that correlation is not causation. This happens all the time. Some stupid statistical "study" will come out that shows a given graph plot goes up or down at the same time as another variable. They always assume that variable A went up because variable B went up.

      This lead to absurd conclusions such as "red wine improves health"... It doesn't. But moderate red wine consumption correlates with better physical health. Why? Mostly socioeconomic and cultural factors. Wealthier, more intelligent, better exercised, etc people tend to drink red wine where as poorer people with all sorts of demographic health problems tend to not drink red wine. So red wine in no way makes people healthy. You could feed the wine to the unhealthy people and you'd merely make them drunk or deny the wine to the healthy people and they'd likely show no health difference.

      Yet time and again people that don't know how to read statistics conclude that correlation is causation. This is merely depressing in the average public who were given the opportunity to learn better in school. But it's totally unacceptable in the media, the government, or most unforgivably I've seen some scientists try to get away with this logic.

      It all goes back to cargo cult science:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg

      Everyone values the concept of science more as an ideology or a symbol of status then as an actual intellectual discipline. And so they don't even notice when they wander off into lala land because for them it was never about accuracy or the basic curiosity about the universe. It was always about power, status, and social conformity.

      Sorry for the rant... /rant.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  17. Don't turn those alge loose by tomhath · · Score: 2

    What's to stop them from runaway population growth in the atmosphere. Night and day, knoshing on CO2 and making light all over the globe? In fact, why didn't they do exactly that eons ago? Maybe because what's describe is impossible.