Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2008
Can Microorganisms Be A Solution To The World's Energy Problems?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
rpautrey2 - 16 Jul 2008 19:36 GMT http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080710094033.htm
Can Microorganisms Be A Solution To The World's Energy Problems?
Rendered image of bacteria. Microorganisms once reigned supreme on the Earth, thriving by filling every nook and cranny of the environment billions of years before humans first arrived on the scene. (Credit: iStockphoto/Henrik Jonsson)ScienceDaily (July 11, 2008) — Microorganisms once reigned supreme on the Earth, thriving by filling every nook and cranny of the environment billions of years before humans first arrived on the scene. Now, this ability of microorganisms to grow from an almost infinite variety of food sources may play a significant role in bailing out society from its current energy crisis, according to the Biodesign Institute's Bruce Rittmann, Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown, and Rolf Halden.
In a new issue on "microbial ecology and sustainable energy" in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology, the Biodesign researchers outline paths where bacteria are the best hope in producing renewable energy in large quantities without damaging the environment or competing with our food supply.
Two distinct, but complementary approaches will be needed. The first is to use microbes to convert biomass to useful energy. Different microorganisms can grow without oxygen to take this abundant organic matter and convert it to useful forms of energy such as methane, hydrogen, or even electricity. The second uses bacteria or algae that can capture sunlight to produce new biomass that can be turned into liquid fuels, like biodiesel, or converted by other microorganisms to useful energy. Both approaches currently are intensive areas of biofuel research at the Biodesign Institute, which has a joint project with petroleum giant BP to harvest photosynthetic bacteria to produce renewable liquid fuels, such as biodiesel.
What is it about bacteria that make them an attractive tool for a bioenergy researcher? Consider that one species of bacteria, the human gut bacterium E. coli, has become the workhorse of the multi-trillion dollar global biotech industry. Might other unearthed microbial treasures have the same potential in bioenergy applications?
The Biodesign team, in their Nature Review Microbiology perspective article, outlines the prospects for such applications. They believe the future of microbial bioenergy is brightened by recent advancements in genome technologies and other molecular-biology techniques.
Unlike the E. coli situation, using just one species may not work well for bioenergy, since, in nature, bacteria do not grow in isolation. In other words, no bacterium is an island. The very biodiversity that fills the Earth with bacteria and offers great bioenergy potential also presents a challenge for engineers. Even if one picks the ideal "bug," growing, maintaining, and optimizing conditions for its use in bioenergy applications remains a daunting challenge in terms of scalability and reliability.
"Microbial communities that are used to harvest energy must be resilient to fluctuations in environmental conditions, variations in nutrient and energy inputs and intrusion by microbial invaders that might consume the desired energy product," say the authors. The key to large-scale success in microbial bioenergy is managing the microbial community so that that the community delivers the desired bioenergy product reliably and at high rate.
In the absence of these molecular techniques, the authors state, our understanding of methanogenic communities progressed through slow, incremental advances over several decades. Today, society cannot wait decades for new bioenergy sources. Fortunately, an array of pre- genomic, genomic, and post-genomic tools is available to understand microorganisms involved in bioenergy production. Taking full advantage of these tools will greatly speed up scientific and technological advances, which is what society most needs.
Genomics provides the base sequence of the entire DNA in an organism, and the complete genome reveals all the possible biological reactions that a microorganism can carry out. In the past, complete genomes were only obtained for those microorganisms that could be isolated into pure culture, but it is now possible to sequence the genomes of uncultivated microorganisms using metagenomics.
To date, approximately 75 genomes are available from microorganisms that have a role in bioenergy production. These include 21 genomes from methane producing archaea, 24 genomes from bacteria that can produce hydrogen or electricity, and 30 genomes from cyanobacteria that are potential biodiesel producers. At least half of the completed microbial genomes that are relevant to bioenergy were released in the past 2 years, and more than 80 bioenergy-related genomes are currently being sequenced.
A great example is the Biodesign Institute's biofuel bacterium, Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803, the first bioenergy-relevant microorganism to be sequenced; its genome was released in 1995. This photosynthetic bacterium features membranes with high lipid (i.e., oil) content, which makes it an excellent biodiesel candidate.
The growing pool of genomic information provides molecular targets that support pre-genomic and post-genomic investigations, both of which provide essential information on what microorganisms are present in the community and what metabolic reactions they are carrying out. With genomics combined with high-throughput DNA sequencing and proteomics, our understanding of bioenergy-producing microorganisms should surge.
Because success with microbial bioenergy demands in-depth knowledge of the complex microbial communities that normally develop, a wide range of pre-genomic, genomic, and post-genomic tools is needed. The Biodesign team has unique expertise on using each kind of tool, and it's perspective article provides needed information about these tools and how they can be used to unravel the structures and functions of microbial communities involved in renewable bioenergy.
The authors conclude, "Information from these tools, when properly integrated with advanced engineering tools and material, should accelerate the rate at which microbial bioenergy processes can be converted from the realm of intriguing science to real world practice."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journal reference:
Bruce E. Rittmann, Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown & Rolf U. Halden. Pre- genomic, genomic and post-genomic study of microbial communities involved in bioenergy. Nature Reviews Microbiology, July 7, 2008 DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro1939
Adapted from materials provided by Arizona State University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats: APA
MLA
Arizona State University (2008, July 11). Can Microorganisms Be A Solution To The World's Energy Problems?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 16, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/ 2008/07/080710094033.htm
Mark Thorson - 16 Jul 2008 20:27 GMT > Unlike the E. coli situation, using just one species may not work well > for bioenergy, since, in nature, bacteria do not grow in isolation. In [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bioenergy applications remains a daunting challenge in terms of > scalability and reliability. That is the main problem. You can't keep a large culture completely free of invading organisms, viruses, etc.
Scientists have been beating on this problem for over half a century. One approach is to grow the organisms in a closed photobioreactor, but you'll never be able to prevent contamination with competing organisms or organisms that eat the desired organisms. Also, the low density of these systems makes them very expensive for the amount of energy they collect.
The other approach is to grow the organisms in open cultures such as shallow pits. In this case, contaminating organisms can be controlled by adjusting pH or salinity. That's how _Spirulina_ for human consumption is usually grown -- _Spirulina_ can grow in brackish water that would kill most other algae.
Then, you have the problem of processing the product into fuel. Unless the organisms are directly producing methane (as discussed in the article), this is likely to be difficult and consume energy (lowering the efficiency of the system even more).
Much better would be a drought-resistant plant that can be grown in scrub lands unsuitable for food production, with a sap that is easily convertible into liquid fuel. The late William Calvin identified certain species of Euphorbia that meet these requirements.
Euphorbes occupy the same ecological niche in the Old World that cacti occupy in the New World. Some euphorbes look just like a cactus, but they are not closely related. They have a milky sap, which consists largely of water and alkanes. Remove the water, and you end up with something very similar to diesel fuel. No photobioreactors or pits. Just scrub lands for growing the plants, and minimal processing gets you liquid fuel for transportation.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com | - 16 Jul 2008 21:22 GMT > That is the main problem. You can't keep a large culture > completely free of invading organisms, viruses, etc. Never? I doubt that. If the system uses gamma sterilization such that the medium is sterile the added culture should do OK provided it is otherwise viable.
But then I've been raking wine and sampling along the way. It seems I am ethanol powered.......Trig
Mark Thorson - 16 Jul 2008 23:02 GMT > > That is the main problem. You can't keep a large culture > > completely free of invading organisms, viruses, etc. > > Never? I doubt that. If the system uses gamma sterilization > such that the medium is sterile the added culture should do > OK provided it is otherwise viable. You can keep it sterile in lab scale, but a plant for production of fuel would have hundreds of thousands of gallons of culture medium per unit, and a large flow of air or flue gases through it to keep it growing. There is no photobioreactor which can keep out contaminating organisms at that scale.
> But then I've been raking wine and sampling along the way. > It seems I am ethanol powered.......Trig Dave - 16 Jul 2008 22:08 GMT > > Unlike the E. coli situation, using just one species may not work well > > for bioenergy, since, in nature, bacteria do not grow in isolation. In [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > growing the plants, and minimal processing gets you > liquid fuel for transportation. Mark,
You're suggesting that we take the desert southwest and start populating it with scrub cacti that would each produce a thimble full of gasoline at the end of the day, after sacrificing the plant? I don't think that sounds very smart from such an astute poster as yourself. Our energy demands are much greater than what could be delivered using cacti.
Instead, the desert southwest is the ideal growing climate for large algae ponds which can be used to produce ethanol. The technology is being developed right now, both by government (in CO, at the National Energy Research Laboratories) and in private industry -- and like in many fields, private industry is winning.
I just heard a talk delivered by a leading scientist from Sapphire Energy (http://www.sapphireenergy.com) at a conference called by the National Science Foundation to discuss the future of biotechnology and science education. This fellow told a remarkable story of how the wasted energy and agricultural resources we have going into today's corn ethanol can be turned around in the very near future if we as a country can get behind the production of what he called "Green crude" via algae.
I'd prefer to see growing ponds and processing plants for these systems in the southwest, as opposed to fields of low-producing plants like Euphorbes.
Dave
Mark Thorson - 17 Jul 2008 00:05 GMT > > > Unlike the E. coli situation, using just one species may not work well > > > for bioenergy, since, in nature, bacteria do not grow in isolation. In [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > yourself. Our energy demands are much greater than what could be > delivered using cacti. It's far more viable than algae. But you're right to be skeptical about any biofuel scheme returning more than it's energy cost. The beauty of euphorbes is that they require no man-made energy input during the growth phase, and minimal energy input for processing into fuel.
And the plant is not fully sacrificed. As you obviously don't know, after the top of the plant is cut down, it regrows from the stump.
> Instead, the desert southwest is the ideal growing climate for large > algae ponds which can be used to produce ethanol. The technology is > being developed right now, both by government (in CO, at the National > Energy Research Laboratories) and in private industry -- and like in > many fields, private industry is winning. The problem with ponds is they lose lots of water to the atmosphere (even if you cover them with plastic film, the air you pass through them will carry out a lot of water). All large pond operations currently are uncovered. The largest covered ponds are the Aquasearch Growth Modules operated by Mera Pharmaceuticals in Hawaii, which are arguably a closed system bioreactor. They are far too small to be used for production of fuel. The water losses from an uncovered pond in the southwest would be tremendous. Game over.
In addition to water losses, a large continuous energy input is required to run the motors for aerating the culture and keeping it moving. A typical large pond operation consists of a wide, shallow channel in a racetrack configuration, with a set of paddlewheels that crosses the track at one point. That's how Earthrise grows _Spirulina_ near Irvine, CA. The cost of the energy input can be justified there, because they are producing a high-value product -- it's sold for human consumption.
> I just heard a talk delivered by a leading scientist from Sapphire > Energy (http://www.sapphireenergy.com) at a conference called by the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > country can get behind the production of what he called "Green crude" > via algae. I've got books from the 1940's and 1950's making similar predictions. This field has a long, sorry history of broken promises with which you are completely unfamiliar. It's mostly a field of eternal optimists and a few charlatans, seeking government funding or venture capital.
> I'd prefer to see growing ponds and processing plants for these > systems in the southwest, as opposed to fields of low-producing > plants like Euphorbes. That's because you are ignorant of the science. If you knew more about algal culture systems, you'd recognize the staggering problems they face as a (not) practical source of fuel.
Euphorbes are not low-producing plants, though there's no way you would know something like that. Calvin estimated that _Euphorbia_tirucalli_ could produce 10 to 50 barrels of oil per acre. That is not "low-producing".
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/Euphorbia_tirucalli.html
There are no staggering technical problems here. The plants grow themselves. The processing technology is simple. Existing technology used for processing sugar cane and petroleum can be adapted for making liquid fuels from euphorbes.
Dave - 17 Jul 2008 02:51 GMT > > > > Unlike the E. coli situation, using just one species may not work well > > > > for bioenergy, since, in nature, bacteria do not grow in isolation. In [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > sugar cane and petroleum can be adapted for making > liquid fuels from euphorbes. Good luck with your cactus farming, Mark. Make sure and come back here to tell us all about how you are doing, You are such an intelligent and highly unusual Usenet poster. Why, you put us all to shame here.
Dave
|
|
|