NASA Is Offerring $1 Million To Turn CO2 Into Sugar (space.com)

NASA is challenging people in the United States to come up with an efficient method to convert carbon dioxide into glucose, a simple sugar. The atmosphere of Mars consists predominantly of CO2 (95%), and glucose is a great fuel for microbe-milking "bioreactors" that could manufacture a variety of items for future settlers of the Red Planet, NASA officials said. Space.com reports: The new competition consists of two phases. During Phase 1, applicants submit a detailed description of their CO2-to-glucose conversion system. Interested parties must register by Jan. 24, 2019 and submit their proposals by Feb. 28, 2019. In April, NASA will announce the selection of up to five finalists from this initial crop, each of whom will receive $50,000. Phase 2 will involve the construction and demonstration of a conversion system. Winning this round is worth $750,000, bringing the competition's total purse to $1 million (assuming five finalists are indeed selected from Phase 1). You don't have to win, or even participate in, Phase 1 to compete in Phase 2. The challenge is open to citizens and permanent residents of the United States; foreign nationals can compete if they're part of a U.S.-based team. To register or learn more, go to the CO2 Conversion Challenge website.

Comments

It would be better

[Vinegar Joe]

To turn CO2 into beer. And pay $1 Billion.

Re:It would be better

[DontBeAMoran]

I say potato, you say vodka.

Plants & CO2 & sunlight

[Alain Williams]

Where do I claim my prize ?

Re:Plants & CO2 & sunlight

[Rei]

The key is "efficient". Sugar crops as a whole generally only yield a fraction of a percent of their received solar energy as sugar. Even just considering the leaves alone, they only net about 5% net sugar yield.

If you want efficiency, you're going to want a direct chemical process. I looked into this at one point and was surprised at how complicated it appears to be to make simple sugars, in terms of the number of requisite steps. Much simpler would probably be a direct conversion to fatty acids; they're carboxylic acids and there's a number of ways to directly synthesize free carboxylic acids from simple raw materials (the main challenge would be specificity)

Re: Plants & CO2 & sunlight

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially something like potatoes. We can science the shit out of this.

Re:Plants & CO2 & sunlight

[stevelinton]

I'm sure this is a valid approach, but I think they will want more detail. What plants? What kind of structure will you grow them in? Will they need soil, if so, how much? Can they grow in pure CO2 (and at what range of pressures)? If not, what other gases will they need? What additional nutrients will they need? Will you be able to recycle those nutrients from what's left of the plants after you extract the glucose? etc.?

Re: Plants & CO2 & sunlight

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'd imagine that Mars would be a case where much more intensive cultivation practices would make sense(compared to the cost of shipping pretty much any crazy hydroponics setup looks like a rounding error; and nobody is going to worry too much about your genetically engineered sugar-algae escaping into the pristine Martian oceans; but that space would be at something of a premium:

If you want to use it you need to enclose it(or excavate it and seal as needed), heat it; quite likely light it; and initial reports are that the local soil may have perchlorates that need to be dealt with, in addition to just having absolutely zero accumulated humus, just mineral sand and dust, if you want to try non-hydroponic techniques.

Even so, though, something resembling agriculture (potentially with algae or e coli with plant genes spliced in or something; but using biological sugar synthesis rather than some sort of industrial chemical synthesis: if you are 6 months and a lot of money away from spare parts/fresh reagents/replacement catalyst bits, the ability of organisms to reproduce themselves a new population could come in very handy indeed. Keep a bunch of samples of the relevant organisms in storage(cryo, dried seeds, etc.) and you'll be much more resilient: worst case you have to irradiate the grow vats until the contaminant organisms are cleared out, then restart from a frozen sample.

They have their limits, some very annoying, and our understanding of how to control them is still a work in progress; but it's still the case that biology has effectively delivered replicator nanites a billion-odd years before robotics. And on a planet where you can't just FedEx in spares if something goes unexpectedly badly that could be quite useful.

Re:Plants & CO2 & sunlight

[RandomFactor]

While parent is basically a throwaway, there's a grain of truth to it completely by accident.

If there was a reasonably accessible way to do this more efficiently, plants would use that instead of photosynthesis.

Doesn't mean there is no way to do it, but it's not likely going to be some obvious or simple process that nature could have managed on its own.

Re:Plants & CO2 & sunlight

[Anonymous Coward]

If there was a reasonably accessible way to do this more efficiently, plants would use that instead of photosynthesis.

Not necessarily. There is a lot of interesting electrochemistry you can do, if you have access to 12V from photovoltaic panels. Plants do none of that, they never developed any kind of electronics. Generally, you can create energy-rich chemicals, some of which may be useful precursors to sugar synthesis. Also, chemistry may use steps nature avoids - because something too extreme (poisonous, temperature, pressure) is involved. Plants have a narrow temperature range compared to a factory - and do everything at normal atmospheric pressure.

The clorophyll process is likely optimal as-is though.

Re:Plants & CO2 & sunlight

[msauve]

" it's not as if space is at a premium on Mars, though, is it?"

Pressure, temperature, and atmosphere controlled space is.

Re:Plants & CO2 & sunlight

[vtcodger]

Were it easy to convert CO2 (plus Water incidentally) to sugar ( 6CO2 + 6H2O --> C6H12O6 + 6O2)), plants would probably do it more efficiently already. Really, what else do they have to do?

BTW, plants don't have to create glucose per. se.. Starch (Potatoes, Casava, Taro, etc) is easily broken down to glucose by adding a bit of hydrochloric acid.

Re:Plants & CO2 & sunlight

[Jerry]

The key is "efficient". Sugar crops as a whole generally only yield a fraction of a percent of their received solar energy as sugar. Even just considering the leaves alone, they only net about 5% net sugar yield.

If you want efficiency, you're going to want a direct chemical process. I looked into this at one point and was surprised at how complicated it appears to be to make simple sugars, in terms of the number of requisite steps. Much simpler would probably be a direct conversion to fatty acids; they're carboxylic acids and there's a number of ways to directly synthesize free carboxylic acids from simple raw materials (the main challenge would be specificity)

You ignore the fact that the majority of any "sugar" crop is cellulose, a polymer of sugar. Since you want to jump to chemical processes right off the bat then add enzymes to cellulose pulp that converts it to sugar.

Where does the Hydrogen come from?

[Grog6]

Glucose has Carbon Hydrogen and Oxygen.

For every 6 CO2 molecules and Water molecules you put in, you get 1x glucose molecule, and 1x O2 molecule.

That's at 100% efficiency.

Water and CO2 are the two lowest energy states for those atoms, so it takes a lot of energy too.

With unlimited solar, anything's possible, but it will be interesting to watch.

Re:Where does the Hydrogen come from?

[Pollux]

Maybe from here.

Course, knowing where it is is one thing. Knowing how to extract it efficiently is quite another.

Re:Where does the Hydrogen come from?

[phayes]

The target is Mars which has been determined to have enough subsurface water ice that were it lall iquid would cover Mars wit a global ocean 30 meters deep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Where does the Hydrogen come from?

[Cyberax]

Humans need around 2000 food calories per day or around 8MJ. Assuming 10% efficiency that's 80MJ of energy needed. If you want to get it over 24 hours that'd require around 1kWt of continuous power.

Re:Where does the Hydrogen come from?

[taiwanjohn]

For every 6 CO2 molecules and Water molecules you put in, you get 1x glucose molecule, and 1x O2 molecule.

Glucose is C6-H12-O6... I'm pretty sure you'd get 6x O2 molecules, not 1x.

Worth so much more than $1 million

[fintux]

If a very efficient method for this was found, it would be worth so much more on Earth. The sugar could be used as a relatively high-density, stable, easy-to-transport energy storage - and if not viable directly, then for could be used for example through fermentation to alcohol as well (though I don't know how efficient that process is).

Re:Forget Mars

[DarenN]

If a chemical process works on Mars it will almost certainly work here. It's also possible that this is Mars-focused to avoid the inevitable political wrangling if it was directly aimed at climate change.

Yeah, that's kinda what I mean...

[Grog6]

The only way something like this works is if there's a good source of Treatable water.

If you have to run it thru a desalination plant, that likely includes perchlorates, it's going to be even that much harder.

A rocky mountain stream might be easily usable; ice dissolved into rock formations, or even covered with mars soil, is another problem.

It's true that vacuum stills would work pretty well, so it's not impossible, just Almost impossible. :)

Re:Yeah, that's kinda what I mean...

[phayes]

Processing even very salty water on mars is not a significant problem. Just like on Earth, if you freeze water, almost pure H20 floats to the top where it can be collected. Perchlorates are merely a particuler form of salt.

Re:Yeah, that's kinda what I mean...

[crunchygranola]

The only way something like this works is if there's a good source of Treatable water.

If you have to run it thru a desalination plant, that likely includes perchlorates, it's going to be even that much harder.

...

Water is found in the regolith ("soil") of Mars everywhere in significant quantities. You will have to strip mine it, but as mining operations go it is easy to get. From The microbial case for Mars and its implication for human expeditions to Mars, Gerda Horneck, Acta Astronautica 63 (2008) 1015 – 1024:

From the global neutron mapping of the Mars Odyssey mission, the present distribution of water in the shallow subsurface was divided in four types of regions: (i) regions with dry soil with a water content of about 2 wt%; (ii) northern permafrost regions with a high content of water ice (up to 53 wt% of water); (iii) southern permafrost regions with high content of water ice (>60 wt% of water) covered by a dry layer of regolith; and (iv) regions with water-rich soil at moderate latitudes (about 10 wt% of water).

So we get to decide how important the water content is when selecting a site to set up operations. At worst the content would be 2%, or 20 liters per tonne, but we may prefer those "moderate latitudes" with 100 liters per tonne. Extraction would involve simply heating the soil in a retort and condensing the escaped water. You will be digging up a lot of soil (especially in the 2% case) and discarding it as the water is extracted.

Preparing regolith for use as a cultivation medium will probably take a few steps, but removing the perchlorates will be the easiest of those steps. Simply use said water to extract them as perchlorates are highly water soluble. Hydroponics is all about circulating water through a growing medium, so extraction of all soluble compounds is inherently part of the operation. I suspect that some sort of granulating/pelletizing process would be used to get an appropriate porosity. Martian regolith is naturally high in phosphorus and potassium, and trace elements, so the only thing lacking is usable nitrogen. A Haber process system to make ammonia is the most likely way of getting that, and the ammonia could be dissolved directly in the water. A bit different from how hydroponics is done on Earth, which used an inert medium with all the nutrients in solution, but not that different.

Just what we need...

[XB-70]

Newsflash, 09-Sep-2021: In a major announcement today, McDonald's has perfected the process by which to convert CO2 into sugar. They are now scrubbing the CO2 out of the air in their restaurants and, using the new process, producing sugar which is going directly into milk shake production. Oh, and NASA may use this system on Mars.

Don't plants already to this?

[labradort]

Pick a plant. They all convert light and CO2 to sugar. In terms of efficiency it depends on what is being measured. If it is the object's size vs their output over time, that it one way to look at efficiency. If it is a huge forest of maple trees, a field of sugar cane, or beet plants, they don't need much maintenance. Entire forests exist without any human effort, electricity, chemical additive, etc.

Anyway, the research seems kinda pointless after NASA just announced Terra-forming Mars won't be possible for many reasons. I will let NASA explain why...

https://www.nasa.gov/press-rel...

Mars just happens to look like an Earth desert in pictures. It doesn't mean it just needs oxygen and water and then go.

Re:Don't plants already to this?

[pz]

Plants need water, generally speaking. And, generally speaking, there isn't much of that on Mars since, as you point out, it's largely desert-like.

So, some other method is going to be required for Martian use, and we can reasonably expect that it will not be so useful for terrestrial use because the conditions are so different.

Re:Grow sugar cane?

[RenderSeven]

Eating other animals has been common for 2 billion years or so. Seems pretty damned natural to me.

Well this would get you most of the way there

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Since making alcohol is pretty much get a bunch of sugar, dissolve it in water, and then get yeast to convert it for you.

basically yes

[DrYak]

basically yes, that's the plan.

this NASA project is about "sciencing the shit out of" all the tiny details that go behind the general word "tree":

- how to deal growinv something in a soil that is mostly perchlorate (not exactly a rich soil)?
- how to deal with an atmospheric pressure that is a tiny fraction of earth's?
- how to deal with sun's output which is a lot less (in terms of useful light) but higher (in term of radiations)
- and which exact plant are you going to use as "tree" ? (probably some cyanobacteriae)

it's the detailled answers to these questions that is going to cost this budget

Re:basically yes

[lcam]

Geo-engineering Mars to support earth type life requires that long term priorities to be defined clearly.

It seems to me that glucose production from Martian raw materials is critical for the sustainability of human life; that a long term priority is already presumed by NASA in this exercise. We are not geo-engineering by altering the environment but rather by containing an environment.

That means the primary engineering a technological solution which leads into the questions you ask.

- how to deal growinv something in a soil that is mostly perchlorate (not exactly a rich soil)?

Soil minerals obviously need to be substituted with "plant food". Once the initial generation of "tree" has grown, a portion of it is permitted to decompose to fulfill the nutrition gap requisite for the sustainability of the next generation.

- how to deal with an atmospheric pressure that is a tiny fraction of earth's?

Eucalyptus trees where bred near the Mojave desert so as to derive a strain that would hold up to the desert conditions.

A similar process could be used to derive a strain of algea that thrives in low atmospheric pressure.

- how to deal with sun's output which is a lot less (in terms of useful light) but higher (in term of radiations)

A similar process to above, furthermore the light will need to be filtered as the greenhouse environment will necessarily involve sunlight passing through a transparent material of some sort.

Further up-concentration / transformation of solar energy can be done with mirrors or other technological enhancements.

- and which exact plant are you going to use as "tree" ? (probably some cyanobacteriae)

The exact plant chosen has to do with efficient use of energy by the plant... A cheap solar cell is 10 times more efficient at gathering energy than the most efficient plant. The biggest external factor is the wavelength of light energy available; light outside the nominal 400 - 700 nm wavelength plants use is unavailable to power photosynthesis.

A technological enhancement may be to employ solar panels and lighting systems wherein the energy density introduced to the plant is maximized by way of utilizing components designed to enhance the suns energy spectrum.

It is noteworth to point out that a similar efficiency problem exists with regards to the amount of CO2 dissolved in the water and in that CO2 being in close proximity to the photosynthetic bio-agent. Greater pressures enhance the solubility of CO2 in the watery solution so perhaps breeding a bio-agent for low pressure environment is the wrong approach initially. Especially where technological enhancements are being applied.

However if sustainability of human life is not the primary objective, geo-engineering boils down to how can we change the energy dynamics on a planetary scale so as to advance the dynamic in the desired "direction".

For example, what would be the result of adding 0.0005% of sulfure dioxide, or hydrogen sulfide to the atmosphere? Is there a better chemical agent to introduce?

p>Another example, what can be done to enhance the magnetic field of the planet so that the atmosphere doesn't get stripped away during CME events?

Re: Totally confused

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) Mars atmosphere is thinner, meaning it cannot retain as much heat as Earth
(2) Mars is farther away from the Sun

Why not on earth?

[DaMattster]

Mars colonization is many, many years away. Since we humans here on earth are belching out CO2 like it's going out of style, why don't we start doing some of that here? Let's make earth more inhabitable.

Re: Why not on earth?

[jd]

I'll agree it's many years away. If you choose an optimal path, it will take 15 years to build a complete self-sustaining environment. It won't be cheap, but if you spend what it takes, that's what it will take.

That's arguably many.

Fixing the Earth requires fossil fuels to be abandoned by 2030 at the latest and around 1960s level by the end of this decade. Otherwise, even with geoengineering, it can't be done.

It also requires that, by 2050, the global population is down to 1 billion on the surface (and no more than an additional 3 billion subsurface). Again, if you can't do that, it doesn't matter what you engineer.

I don't think these constraints will be met.

Not sure I trust them

[jd]

They abandoned their CFD bugfix challenge because too many applied. That doesn't give me confidence in their crowdsourcing ability.

Easy

[Roger W Moore]

To turn CO2 into beer. And pay $1 Billion.

Easy, plant some barley and hops, these will grow absorbing CO2 and then use these to make beer. Can I have my $1 billion please?

Re:Totally confused

[crunchygranola]

You need to actually put in some effort to learn the subject, instead of just picking random factoids out of the aether (assuming that this is a serious post, and not just being disingenuous).

Mars gets only 40% of the solar energy that Earth gets, so to get Mars to the same temperature as Earth far more heat trapping is needed. Carbon dioxide on Earth traps heat as part of system that is 160 time thicker than Mars, including a lot of water vapor, which provides most of the trapping effect. Carbon dioxide is not warming Earth all by its lonesome. There is more water vapor in Earth's atmosphere, on average, than Mars has atmosphere, period. The atmosphere of Mars is bone dry.

Re: Totally confused

[jd]

I'll assume these are serious questions.

No, you have not been told the sun isn't the cause. What you have been told is that variation in solar output is not the cause.

CO2 is like a blanket, but blankets do nothing without a source of heat. You need a source of heat before CO2 can trap it. That source is the sun.

Mars has a very thin atmosphere. As a result, it's not going to trap anything. It's the density that matters, not the percentage. Think of silver foil. It's reflective. If you cover the floor of a room and shine light on it, it'll reflect a lot of that light even if the floor is only 0.04% of the room. That's Earth's global warming.

Earth has a very thick atmosphere, almost syrupy. A typical cloud weighs 1.1 million pounds, so to be buoyant, it must displace 1.1 million pounds of air. That's a lot. And yet a cloud is small.

Mars' atmosphere is whispy thin. That same cloud on Mars would crash into the ground and form a crater before being blasted into space by solar winds.

To go back to the room analogy, it's like instead of having a proper room, all you've got is a handful of threads. Yes, they're 95% wrapped in silver foil but you've still only got a handful. It's not going to reflect much of anything.