Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Asking “what would nature do?” leads to a way to break down a greenhouse gas

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 06:59 PM
Original message
Asking “what would nature do?” leads to a way to break down a greenhouse gas
http://energy.umich.edu/news/news_stories_10/microbes_CO2.html

Asking “what would nature do?” leads to a way to break down a greenhouse gas

Mar. 5, 2010

ANN ARBOR, Mich. – A recent discovery in understanding how to chemically break down the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into a useful form opens the doors for scientists to wonder what organism is out there – or could be created – to accomplish the task.

University of Michigan biological chemist Steve Ragsdale, along with research assistant Elizabeth Pierce and scientists led by Fraser Armstrong from the University of Oxford in the U.K., have figured out a way to efficiently turn carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide using visible light, like sunlight.

The results are reported in the recent online edition of the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

Not only is it a demonstration that an abundant compound can be converted into a commercially useful compound with considerably less energy input than current methods, it also is a method not so different from what organisms regularly do.

“This is a first step in showing it’s possible, and imagine microbes doing something similar,” Ragsdale said. “I don’t know of any organism that uses light energy to activate carbon dioxide and reduce it to carbon monoxide, but I can imagine either finding an organism that can do it, or genetically engineering one to channel light energy to coax it to do that.”

In this collaboration between Ann Arbor and Oxford, Ragsdale’s laboratory at the U-M Medical School does the biochemistry and microbiology experiments and Armstrong’s lab performs the physical- and photochemical applications.

Ragsdale and his associates succeeded in using an enzyme-modified titanium oxide to get carbon dioxide’s electrons excited and willing to jump to the enzyme, which then catalyzes the reduction of carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide. A photosensitizer that binds to the titanium allows the use of visible light for the process. The enzyme is more robust than other catalysts, willing to facilitate the conversion again and again. The trick: It can’t come near oxygen.

“By using this enzyme, you put it into a solution that contains titanium dioxide in the presence of a photosensitizer,” he said. “We looked for a way that seems like nature’s way of doing it, which is more efficient.” Armstrong notes that “essentially it shows what is possible were we to be able to mass-produce a catalyst with such properties”.

The direct product – carbon monoxide – is a desirable chemical that can be used in other processes to produce electricity or hydrogen. Carbon monoxide also has significant fuel value and readily can be converted by known catalysts into hydrocarbons or into methanol for use as a liquid fuel. Although carbon monoxide serves as a source of energy and biomass for microbes, it is toxic for animals and this risk needs to be managed when it is generated or used in chemical reactions.

Research in Ragsdale’s lab was funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.

Ragsdale, a professor of biological chemistry at the U-M Medical School, is a fellow of the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute, which develops, coordinates and promotes multidisciplinary energy research and education at U-M.

Ragsdale’s lab: www.biochem.med.umich.edu/?q=ragsdale
Armstrong’s lab: www.chem.ox.ac.uk/researchguide/faarmstrong.html

Contact: Steve Ragsdale, (734) 615-4621, sragsdal@umich.edu or Sue Nichols, Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute, (734) 615-5678, suenic@umich.edu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Still Ph D level...they can do better...We can....We all Can,,,,,do better...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. Interesting and dangerous at the same time. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. CO has fuel value?????? That's news to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chemisse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yeah, to me too - but makes sense
"Carbon monoxide also has significant fuel value and readily can be converted by known catalysts into hydrocarbons or into methanol for use as a liquid fuel."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. It's poorly written. ".....has significant fuel value WHEN converted by known catalysts...."
makes much more sense. CO in and of itself has NO fuel value. It is noncombustible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chemisse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yep, you're exactly right. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. CO loves to glom onto other molecules (that's why it's so dangerous!)
Edited on Mon Mar-08-10 08:21 PM by OKIsItJustMe
It's usually formed by incomplete combustion, so, it's glad to complete that combustion
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/co/coh.htm
... Carbon monoxide does support combustion and burns with a pale blue flame. The blue flame used to be seen over the fires made from coke (essentially a very pure form of carbon) by night watchmen on industrial sites.

...

Carbon monoxide is a very poisonous gas. It is poisonous at levels of only 0.1% (1000 ppm). Its toxicity arises from its ability to bind to transition metals such as iron found at the centre of a haem molecule. Carbon monoxide is attracted to haemoglobin over 200 times more strongly than oxygen. Therefore, in the blood, the presence of carbon monoxide prevents some of the haemoglobin found in red blood cells from carrying sufficient oxygen.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I'll be the first to admit that the only thing I really know about CO is how it
it gloms onto hemoglobin and won't hardly EVER let go.

But I don't think it makes its victims fly around the room.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Carbon Monoxide is most certainly combustable.
It isn't particularly good "fuel" having thermal energy (heat of combustion) of only 10 MJ / kg.

For comparison natural gas is 54 MJ / kg and H2 is 141 MJ per kg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustio
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. This appears to be hindered by the same systemic problem as all CO2 scrubbing
That is, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are so low the only practical application is as a scrubber for fossil fuel emissions. That, in turn, means any proposal to turn the scrubbed CO2 into a fuel is actually just a method of increasing the efficiency of the original fossil fuel. Since FF use is hopefully ending, that means the fuel aspect is mostly window dressing as it is, at best, a temporary assist to meeting our fuel needs.

When I see a highly efficient mechanism for capturing and concentrating CO2 from the air, I'll be impressed because that will enable a whole range of technologies like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-09-10 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. It also has another negative ...
> That, in turn, means any proposal to turn the scrubbed CO2 into a fuel
> is actually just a method of increasing the efficiency of the original
> fossil fuel. Since FF use is hopefully ending, that means the fuel aspect
> is mostly window dressing as it is, at best, a temporary assist to meeting
> our fuel needs.

Not only could it be considered "window dressing" but the "temporary assist"
that it provides would tip the balance in favour of keeping FF use for longer
than would otherwise happen (due to "cleaner" waste products and higher
efficiency through higher energy output for the same input fuel cost).

Fortunately, this is just at the "dreaming" level but it's one dream that
I don't particularly want to come true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-09-10 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. One potential use would be CO2 scrubbers of vehicles.
15% of all CO2 emissions are from transportation. Even if grid tomorrow is emission free solving the transportation problem is more difficult. That % is likely to grow as third world gains access to transportation at the same time power grids becomes more emission-free.

Batteries have too low energy density for long range travel. You will never have a super tanker, cruise ship, or passenger jet that runs on batteries. In the moderate term (say next 50 years) a substantial amount of transportation energy will be via fossil fuels.

Now we can cut CO2 emissions by 2/3rds simply going to fuel cells + fossil fuels vs combustion engine + fossil fuels.
Some sort of CO2 scrubber system of exhaust might be able to cut that even further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-09-10 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. You divide the transportation sector into sections
Batteries are going to be fine for personal transport. Technologies already in the pipeline to manufacturing are able to hold enough power to extend the range of a battery pack the weight of the current 100 mile range to about 800 miles.

that still leaves heavy transport and agriculture; both of which can be expected to run on biofuels. The use of what particular technology is best for each need isn't clear. If fuel cells can get their cost down, they offer a good opportunity to decrease the infrastructure needed to provide enough biofuels for these sectors. It is unlikely we could run the entire transportation sector on *sustainable* biofuels, however, since the nonfossil carbon streams are limited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC