UCLA researchers engineer bacteria to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel (isobutanol)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-researchers-engineer-bacteria-149726.aspx

UCLA researchers engineer bacteria to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel

By Matthew Chin | December 10, 2009

Global climate change has prompted efforts to drastically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas produced by burning fossil fuels.

In a new approach, researchers from the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science have genetically modified a cyanobacterium to consume carbon dioxide and produce the liquid fuel isobutanol, which holds great potential as a gasoline alternative. The reaction is powered directly by energy from sunlight, through photosynthesis.

The research appears in the Dec. 9 print edition of the journal Nature Biotechnology and is available http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n12/abs/nbt.1586.html">online.

This new method has two advantages for the long-term, global-scale goal of achieving a cleaner and greener energy economy, the researchers say. First, it recycles carbon dioxide, reducing greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Second, it uses solar energy to convert the carbon dioxide into a liquid fuel that can be used in the existing energy infrastructure, including in most automobiles.

While other alternatives to gasoline include deriving biofuels from plants or from algae, both of these processes require several intermediate steps before refinement into usable fuels.

"This new approach avoids the need for biomass deconstruction, either in the case of cellulosic biomass or algal biomass, which is a major economic barrier for biofuel production," said team leader James C. Liao, Chancellor's Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at UCLA and associate director of the UCLA–Department of Energy Institute for Genomics and Proteomics. "Therefore, this is potentially much more efficient and less expensive than the current approach."

Using the cyanobacterium Synechoccus elongatus, researchers first genetically increased the quantity of the carbon dioxide–fixing enzyme RuBisCO. Then they spliced genes from other microorganisms to engineer a strain that intakes carbon dioxide and sunlight and produces isobutyraldehyde gas. The low boiling point and high vapor pressure of the gas allows it to easily be stripped from the system.

The engineered bacteria can produce isobutanol directly, but researchers say it is currently easier to use an existing and relatively inexpensive chemical catalysis process to convert isobutyraldehyde gas to isobutanol, as well as other useful petroleum-based products.

In addition to Liao, the research team included lead author Shota Atsumi, a former UCLA postdoctoral scholar now on the UC Davis faculty, and UCLA postdoctoral scholar Wendy Higashide.

An ideal place for this system would be next to existing power plants that emit carbon dioxide, the researchers say, potentially allowing the greenhouse gas to be captured and directly recycled into liquid fuel.

"We are continuing to improve the rate and yield of the production," Liao said. "Other obstacles include the efficiency of light distribution and reduction of bioreactor cost. We are working on solutions to these problems."

The research was supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.

http://www.engineer.ucla.edu/">The UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science, established in 1945, offers 28 academic and professional degree programs, including an interdepartmental graduate degree program in biomedical engineering. Ranked among the top 10 engineering schools at public universities nationwide, the school is home to seven multimillion-dollar interdisciplinary research centers in wireless sensor systems, nanotechnology, nanomanufacturing and nanoelectronics, all funded by federal and private agencies.

[daninthemoon]

1. Is this too good to be true? Sounds elegantly perfect. Cyanobacteria

were responsible for cleaning the original carbon dioxide from Earth's atmosphere. Who will be the first to stop this from production? Boone Pickens? Jim Inhoffe? The Cheneys?

[endless october]

2. this is interesting.

k/r

[kestrel91316]

3. That would be cool if it turns out the lowly microbiologists are the ones

to save the world from climate change. Yay.

[kristopher]

4. Calling bullshit on this fossil fuel greenwashing

Quote, "An ideal place for this system would be next to existing power plants that emit carbon dioxide, the researchers say, potentially allowing the greenhouse gas to be captured and directly recycled into liquid fuel."

This is a technology that encourages business as usual in two key areas - the burning of coal for electricity and the use of massively inefficient internal combustion engines (82-88% waste) for personal transportation.


The obstacle for all CO2 recycling proposals is that they require CONCENTRATED CO2. In the atmosphere CO2 is in extremely low concentrations. While 380 parts per million is huge as it relates to the greenhouse effect, it is nearly a vacuum when it comes to achieving the concentrations needed for proposals to make fuels.

[izquierdista]

5. Maybe you should go back to school first

There are many ways that you could get an enriched CO2 stream to feed to these bacteria.

[kristopher]

7. I understand that but they are invaribly presented as piggybacking on current power plants

Perhaps you should pay more attention to the claims presented by those pushing the technologies.

I've posted a number of times on algal claims like this, and I usually include the suggestion that organic waste streams (sewage,farm wastes etc) are the only currently envisioned route to successfully deploying these techs. Claims made on performance achieved though coupling with coal plants are nothing but greenwashing.

[hunter]

9. Maybe in the manufacture of cement somehow...

Fuel producing microbes remove carbon dioxide from carbonate rocks in some manner, rocks are made into cement, then the carbon dioxide released in burning of fuel is absorbed from the atmosphere as this cement cures.

Carbon neutral concrete plus carbon neutral fuel.... Quick, I need to patent that!

[joshcryer]

15. Yeah, concrete is the biggest producer of CO2 after cars and coal.

And even if we get rid of cars that burn fossil fuels and after we get rid of coal, we'll still be making concrete. This can be useful.

[drm604]

8. At least then we're recycling the carbon and using it twice before releasing it.

That should achieve a substantial reduction right there.

But notice that the article says that "An ideal place for this system would be next to existing power plants that emit carbon dioxide" (the emphasis is mine). That would seem to imply that it could also be used in less than ideal situations, maybe taking it straight from the raw atmosphere.

And maybe there are other ways (besides industrial smokestacks) to increase the concentration of CO2 in the air they receive. I'm not a biologist, but could it be possible to use nitrogen fixing bacteria to reduce the amount of nitrogen in an air stream? Since nitrogen is something like 70% or 80% of the atmosphere, removing some of it would leave a higher concentration of CO2 wouldn't it? You bubble plain old air through a tank of nitrogen fixers, or perhaps a catalyst that removes nitrogen, then bubble the results through a tank of the bacteria mentioned in this article.

There's obviously a question of energy ROI here, but it seems like something to think about. At least until a biologist or atmospheric chemist comes along and explains to me why I'm a total idiot. :D

[kristopher]

10. The best source is waste.

For example you'd structure an operation to compost chicken house waste, capture and burn the resulting methane to produce power and heat for your chicken ranch, and then run the CO2 laden exhaust through the nutrient solution.

Concentrating from atmospheric levels is prohibitively energy intensive with any known technology.

For a great practical overview of the issue, take a look at this paper laying out how to build the facility I just described. It is for the production of algae, but the co2 obstacle is probably the same for either bug.

http://bioenergy.msu.edu/feedstocks/algae_feasibility_alabama.pdf

As for "recycling the carbon" that is true. A good way to evaluate it would be the same way you would a combined cycle power plant. The problem is that only a tiny portion of a typical coal plants CO2 emissions could be captured by any conceivable (algae) facility. The amount of CO2 those beasts produce is massive, and an algae farm to capture it all would be so large it is simply not even an option.

That means the the percentage of increase in efficiency that the process would add to the coal plant would be very small (you might go from 28% to 30% if you were lucky) and *all* of the emissions would still there.

[kestrel91316]

13. They could piggyback this onto the biogas digesters at the Hyperion plant in L.A.

They also should be using the spent biosolids to make charcoal for Terra Preta instead of spreading the biosolids directly onto farmland, but that's a whole nother subject.

[kristopher]

24. Exactly.

The trouble is, the articles and press releases all seem to do two things, 1) they tie the technology to creating a greener image of fossil fuel use and 2) they predicate economic viability based on the relationship with fossil fuel power plants, not on organic waste streams.

[drm604]

14. So there you go. This could be used with waste.

Maybe municipal waste as well as farm waste? It certainly wouldn't be a total answer to our energy needs, but every little bit helps, right?

[kristopher]

25. Mnucipal wastes can work.

And every bit does help. There is a strong need for liquid fuels to power planes, ships, heavy equipment and agriculture. The problem is that too many see them as a way to continue business as usual, and they aren't. They are the promise of eliminating fossil fuels in the heavy lifting sector. We are a fair bit away from anything that is both sustainable and economically viable.

[Mopar151]

11. Calling bullshit on your bullshit

Unless you're buying a whole new ifrastructure, including mass transit for most of us, this isn't a bad deal. The very act of building 50 million electric cars will release plenty of carbon and other pollutants, as will building a bazillion wind turbines and solar cells. Find out how carbon fiber is made - it won't make you happy. Your efficency figures on IC engines are suspect too - the best electric motors are about 50% efficent - but every time you change energy's form - from thermal to mechanical to electrical to storage battery to electrical to mechanical - 50% is about as good as it gets. Do the math, kid - it does'nt add up to utopia.
Like it or not, we ned to work with what we have, because we, or the planet, cannot replace everything at once. And if we can clean up some currently dirty power plants by making a gasoline replacement, we ought to be about it!

[kristopher]

12. nothing like just making things up is there?

Here is one source:
... the replacement of fossil-fuel vehicles, which have an average tank-to-wheel efficiency of
17%, with battery-electric vehicles, which have a plug-to-wheel efficiency of 75- 86%..
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WindEnergy0108.pdf

Now that is plug to wheels and includes ALL losses so 50% definitely ISN'T "as good as it gets". And hey, what about that 17% for the ICE vehicles, eh?

Electric motor efficiency is more than 90%. Electric vehicles are less complex use less metal and weigh less, they are therefore less energy intensive to produce leading to fewer GHG emissions in the process.


Perhaps you can support your opinion a little better?

[Mopar151]

17. Show me the specs on that 90% efficent motor

Who makes it? what does it draw for power vs. outputs? Is it commercially available? how much power does it draw to make 0 output torque?
And how many pounds of batteries does it take to equal the energy stored in a gallon of gasoline? With lead/acid, it's around 1500#/

PS 1 horsepower = 746 watts In the real dirty ol world, a 1 hp motor draws about 1500 watts.

If electrics were th answer, UPS and Wal-mart would have fleets of electric trucks -- so far, UPS has debuted a HYDRAULIC hybrid (regenerative braking) in test - and those guys are as sick for operating cost as bike racers are for weight.

[Statistical]

21. Virtually all EV motors are in 90%-95% range.

There are virtually no electric motors in anything (even $3 toys) that are only 50% efficient.

Here is just one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_roadster#Motor

92% efficient battery to wheel (that includes all power conversion, distribution, motor, transmission, and wheels.

[Statistical]

20. Best electric motors are 50% efficient? On what planet.

Most EV have a battery to wheel efficiency of 90% to 95%+ compared to most internal combustion vehicles have a tank to wheel efficiency of 15%-20%.

Here is just one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_roadster

The Roadster can travel 244 miles (393 km) on a single charge of its lithium-ion battery pack, and can accelerate from 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) in 3.7 seconds. The Roadster's efficiency, as of September 2008, was reported as 120 mpgge (2.0 L/100 km). It uses 135 W·h/km (21.7 kW·h/100mi or 490 kJ/km) battery-to-wheel, and has an efficiency of 92% on average.<4><5>

I agree with your premise that the poster "bullshit" you are responding to is bullshit but a fake 50% efficiency on electric motors is a joke. Hell even toy (slot car, or RC car) electric motors are normally 80%-90% efficient. A 50% electric motor would convert thousands of watts of electricity (motor of Tesla roadster is 185,000 watts) into heat and literally melt itself in matter of minutes.

[kristopher]

23. I'd love to see you defend this

You wrote: "I agree with your premise that the poster "bullshit" you are responding to is bullshit".

Care to support your critique?

[Mopar151]

37. From current nameplate data

Not a press release, or "white paper", but a real, commonly specified electric motor:


Motor,1 HP,General
Item # 6XJ34
Capacitor Start Open Dripproof Motor, HP 1, RPM 1725/1140, Voltage 115 V, NEMA Frame 56, Service Factor 1.15, Frequency 60 Hz, Mounting Cradle/Stud DAYTON
6XJ34 11 Usually ships
Today 1 $378.50
Manufacturer:
DAYTON ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CO. Capacitor-Start Open and Totally Enclosed Cradle-Mount Motors
Open dripproof motors are for use in clean, dry, nonhazardous applications including fans, blowers, pumps, printing equipment, and other business machines.
Totally enclosed motors are suitable for the above and also dusty, dirty, nonhazardous environments.
Max. ambient: 40 DegreeC
Rotation: CW/CCW
UL Recognized and CSA Certified
Technical Specifications:

Ambient (C) 40
Bearings Ball
Enclosure Open Dripproof
Footnotes 24,41,45
Full Load Amps 10.7/7.1
HP 1, 1/3
HP @ Lower RPM 1/3
Insulation Class B
Item General Purpose Motor
Motor Type Capacitor-Start
Mounting Cradle/Stud
NEMA/IEC Frame 56
Nameplate RPM 1725/1140
Number of Speeds 2
Phase 1
RPM Range 2 Speed
Rotation CW/CCW
Service Factor 1.15
Shaft Dia. (In.) 5/8
Shaft Length (In.) 1 7/8
Standards UL Recognized (E47479), CSA Certified (701887)
Thermal Protection None
Voltage 115

When I do the math, I get 60% efficency, on the more efficent of the 2 operating modes. A 1230 watt draw, to make 746 watts of output power.
That enough support for you?
I've worked with the engineering team that developed the Solectria Sunrise electric, and several of the builders of solar/electric cars in engineering school competition. Virtually none of them beleive that plug-in electrics are worth much - and many of them tell me that batteries and Hi-Amperage wiring are a good deal more dangerous than many people beleive. If they are doing anything with efficent cars now, it's a VW diesel running on fry grease.

[Dead_Parrot]

26. So, you're no longer arguing for nat gas generation as a key to renewable energy? nt

[kristopher]

27. Excellent question.

I'm not arguing "for" any position relative to natural gas. What I've said is that natural gas use will inevitably increase in the short term as coal is taken off line. This is inevitable for the same reason that we will initially put more focus on spending for efficiency improvements than we will for building large scale storage - because we get more bang for the carbon reduction buck by this sequencing.

This technology requires the building of an entire infrastructure. The particular sector that it will serve is not inconsequential, but it is one that (with current and near term technologies) returns fewer reduction per dollar spent than other sectors. Therefore economics will delay the adoption of the technology relative to others. Remember that this sequencing is largely driven by the value of the energy provided by the renewable technologies in relation to both the raw cost of existing alternatives and the costs of those alternatives with a carbon pricing included.

To spend money deploying this tech piggybacked on fossil sources that are destined to be phased out is a waste of funds. Those funds are better spent on developing totally sustainable strategies for their use.

This logic is covered in most independent discussions of the future biofuels.

[Dead_Parrot]

28. Reducing carbon emissions is a waste of funds?

:wtf:

[kristopher]

29. Playing stupid again?

Limited funds mean making choices. I need 2 items, but I only have the money to buy one at a time. So I will prioritize them and buy the one I think is most necessary first. Larger reductions per dollar spent take precedence over smaller reductions per dollar spent.

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

[Dead_Parrot]

30. Ahh, insults. How original.

So you argument boils down buy whatever is cheap and fuck the enviroment.

Don't build renewables
Don't build nuclear
Don't mitigate existing fossil fuels

Build gas, and don't worry about making it vaguely clean

Hmm. Ever wondered why so many people argue with you all the time?

[kristopher]

31. Since that isn't my argument, your statement is meaningless.

My statement:

I'm not arguing "for" any position relative to natural gas. What I've said is that natural gas use will inevitably increase in the short term as coal is taken off line. This is inevitable for the same reason that we will initially put more focus on spending for efficiency improvements than we will for building large scale storage - because we get more bang for the carbon reduction buck by this sequencing.

This technology requires the building of an entire infrastructure. The particular sector that it will serve is not inconsequential, but it is one that (with current and near term technologies) returns fewer reduction per dollar spent than other sectors. Therefore economics will delay the adoption of the technology relative to others. Remember that this sequencing is largely driven by the value of the energy provided by the renewable technologies in relation to both the raw cost of existing alternatives and the costs of those alternatives with a carbon pricing included.

To spend money deploying this tech piggybacked on fossil sources that are destined to be phased out is a waste of funds. Those funds are better spent on developing totally sustainable strategies for their use.

This logic is covered in most independent discussions of the future biofuels.

[Dead_Parrot]

32. Really?

It's cheaper to build a gas plant "destined to be phased out", and then a storage facility, than it is to build just a storage facility?

[kristopher]

33. Yes I really reposted my words to correct your lie about what was said.

Now you do it again.

You are inserting YOUR claim and attributing it falsely to me.

Nowhere did I write that "It's cheaper to build a gas plant "destined to be phased out", and then a storage facility, than it is to build just a storage facility" as an isolated argument.

The broad picture is (as you know in sprite of your pretense of stupidity) that there is a huge amount of unused EXISTING natural gas capacity. Taken as a whole this means that turning on those EXISTING natural gas facilities to enable full utilization of renewables allows us to turn off coal plants long before it would happen if we were to spend money on storage instead of more renewable generation.

That, in turn, means that near and mid-term policies will be crafted that will encourage the building of renewable generation while putting the deployment of storage at a lower priority.

That, in turn, means that some natural gas plants will get built even though they are going to have a limited lifespan.

Contributing to that is the fact that natural gas is much cheaper to build than any existing storage technology that I know of.

Also as a contributing factor we should consider that the facilities that operate on fossil fuel natural gas have the *potential* of being successfully converted to biologically derived methane and *perhaps* some will be coupled with plans like the compressed air storage system that fits in used cargo containers. These points are totally speculative, but they are reasonable speculations about how value can be enhanced to achieve our overall carbon reduction goals most quickly and efficiently.

Meanwhile we have to deal with you nukenuts trying to misinform people about renewables every chance you get. Get a clue - if your preference had merit, you wouldn't need to lie nor would you be arguing with me.

I have no intrinsic or irrational bias against nuclear energy. If it was a good solution I'd be arguing for it just as I argue that natural gas has to be part of the solution.

Nuclear just doesn't get the job done right.

[Dead_Parrot]

34. Ahh, right.

So, it's not what you're saying, even though you then list your reasons for saying it.

Followed by an other insult, naturally. Hey, can I have a wall of copy-and-paste? That's always a winner.

[kristopher]

35. Correcting your misinformation isn't "listing my reasons"

You are aware that there are rules against both stalking and deliberately spreading false information, aren't you?


Since that isn't my argument, your statement is meaningless.

My statement:

I'm not arguing "for" any position relative to natural gas. What I've said is that natural gas use will inevitably increase in the short term as coal is taken off line. This is inevitable for the same reason that we will initially put more focus on spending for efficiency improvements than we will for building large scale storage - because we get more bang for the carbon reduction buck by this sequencing.

This technology requires the building of an entire infrastructure. The particular sector that it will serve is not inconsequential, but it is one that (with current and near term technologies) returns fewer reduction per dollar spent than other sectors. Therefore economics will delay the adoption of the technology relative to others. Remember that this sequencing is largely driven by the value of the energy provided by the renewable technologies in relation to both the raw cost of existing alternatives and the costs of those alternatives with a carbon pricing included.

To spend money deploying this tech piggybacked on fossil sources that are destined to be phased out is a waste of funds. Those funds are better spent on developing totally sustainable strategies for their use.

This logic is covered in most independent discussions of the future biofuels.


Yes I really reposted my words to correct your lie about what was said.

Now you do it again.

You are inserting YOUR claim and attributing it falsely to me.

Nowhere did I write that "It's cheaper to build a gas plant "destined to be phased out", and then a storage facility, than it is to build just a storage facility" as an isolated argument.

The broad picture is (as you know in sprite of your pretense of stupidity) that there is a huge amount of unused EXISTING natural gas capacity. Taken as a whole this means that turning on those EXISTING natural gas facilities to enable full utilization of renewables allows us to turn off coal plants long before it would happen if we were to spend money on storage instead of more renewable generation.

That, in turn, means that near and mid-term policies will be crafted that will encourage the building of renewable generation while putting the deployment of storage at a lower priority.

That, in turn, means that some natural gas plants will get built even though they are going to have a limited lifespan.

Contributing to that is the fact that natural gas is much cheaper to build than any existing storage technology that I know of.

Also as a contributing factor we should consider that the facilities that operate on fossil fuel natural gas have the *potential* of being successfully converted to biologically derived methane and *perhaps* some will be coupled with plans like the compressed air storage system that fits in used cargo containers. These points are totally speculative, but they are reasonable speculations about how value can be enhanced to achieve our overall carbon reduction goals most quickly and efficiently.

Meanwhile we have to deal with you nukenuts trying to misinform people about renewables every chance you get. Get a clue - if your preference had merit, you wouldn't need to lie nor would you be arguing with me.

I have no intrinsic or irrational bias against nuclear energy. If it was a good solution I'd be arguing for it just as I argue that natural gas has to be part of the solution.

Nuclear just doesn't get the job done right.

[Dead_Parrot]

36. Thanks

I really don't feel your point is made until you've repasted it a few times.

[glitch]

6. Ice-9!

Actually, I love stuff like this, I just think we should be very very very careful.

[eppur_se_muova]

16. Only 2 recs ??

Amazing work. I wonder how much of this was inspired by the use of 1-butanol (an isomer of isobutanol) as a direct substitute for gasoline? 1-Butanol can be produced by fermentation of ag waste (surplus starch): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel as well as by algae and diatoms -- also directly from CO2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel#Biobutanol .

[tinrobot]

18. If the microbes escape, do the oceans fill with isobutanol?

Probably not, but we still need to ask these questions.

[drm604]

19. I'm guessing that they require a very specific and protected environment.

A wild environment may not meet their temperature, PH, etc. requirements, plus they'd probably be out-competed in the wild.

[Statistical]

22. Good questions to ask but CO2 is relatively rare.

CO is about 350 parts per MILLION in atmosphere.

To visualize that imagine you are in a stadium with 10,000 people. The people representing CO2 are only 3.

In a low CO2 enviroment it is doubtful these bacteria could survive. However experiments should (and likely already have been) done to verify this.