Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Can Microorganisms Be A Solution To The World's Energy Problems?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.