How microbes can power America’s future
Scientists use tiny organisms to create fuel, viruses to make batteries.
By Robert C. Cowen | Columnist for The Christian Science Monitor/ April 3, 2009 edition
Donna Coveney/MIT
Angela Belcher holds a display of the virus-built battery she helped engineer. The battery – the silver-colored disc – is being used to power an LED.
For millenniums, microbes have been a staunch technological ally. They have leavened our bread and cured our cheeses. Now, engineers are asking them to convert carbon dioxide into fuel and to build a new generation of batteries. Some of the smallest life forms with which we share the planet are helping us cope with the energy challenges of the 21st century.
Forget about the so-called hydrogen economy for a moment. The much-discussed plan to use hydrogen as a major power source has serious problems, such as how to deliver the fuel to consumers.
Bruce Logan at Penn State says methane could be a much more appealing candidate. Through the study of how microbes produce methane in swamps, bogs, and landfills, he and his colleagues believe they have found a perfect source for the gas.
They found certain microbes that use electricity to convert CO2 and water into methane. These hydrolysis cells convert electrical energy into energy stored in methane with 80 percent efficiency.
Technical details of this research appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, and Professor Logan emphasized the potential environmental benefits in a separate statement. No extra carbon has to be added to make methane, he writes. When the gas is burned for fuel, it only lets off as much CO2 as originally went in, saving utilities from pumping more greenhouse gases into the environment. Furthermore, if the electricity used in the process comes from solar or wind power, the entire fuel cycle would not add any extra CO2 to the environment.
“The process does not sequester carbon, but it does turn carbon dioxide into fuel,” Logan explains. “If the methane is burned and carbon dioxide captured, then the process can be carbon neutral.”
At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Angela Belcher and colleagues are adopting viruses as engineering partners. With a little genetic tweaking, they have enabled what’s called an M13 virus to self-construct a wiring network for an improved lithium-ion battery. The technical details published in the April 2 online edition of Science described virus-produced batteries that MIT says “have the same energy capacity and power performance as state-of-the-art rechargeable batteries being considered to power plug-in hybrid cars.”
The MIT announcement explains that the viruses “first coat themselves with iron phosphate, then grab hold of carbon nanotubes to create a network of highly conducting material.” The batteries can’t be recharged as many times as regular lithium-ion cells. However, Dr. Belcher says that, as development progresses, “we expect them to be able to go much longer.”
The term “virus” often has a negative connotation. Yet they are part of the biology of our planet. The viruses used in this work are harmless to humans, according to the MIT announcement. As engineers face this century’s technical challenges, we can expect to see more knowledge from biology joining traditional, physical know-how in their tool kit.
( More stories )
Comments
3. Robert M. | 04.03.09
It’s a technology with a great deal of potential if it can be up-scaled for mass production. It will take time to do that. In the mean time, we need to greatly improve energy conservation and overcome our wasteful habits in order for this technology to be practical. What good is it to build a better battery just so we can waste the energy that it is stored in it.
This is not an energy source, it’s a storage device that will help make renewable energy resources more practical. We still will need energy efficient vehicles and homes. We can help make that happen now. (It would be nice if could I find my small car hidden amongst all the SUVs in the store parking lot.)
4. Ms. Thomas | 04.03.09
When I was a child in junior high school we use to practice experiments in ecology class involving running small led electronics, such as clocks, calculators and games, by sticking electrical conducting dynodes in raw vegetables. That was more than 35 years ago. I have recently seen similar kit on sale in toy stores today and I wonder why that science has never advanced beyond its’ early practices. Lets hope Angela Belcher does much more with her’s.
5. Christina | 04.03.09
I have also seen another great idea a year back where they took bacteria and grew batteries so that they would be completely biodegradable! Biomimicry at its best!!!
6. luosquery | 04.04.09
Please, for “millennia”, not millenniums!
In this internet age, it would be helpful to have a clckable URlion. for the Science Article, or a citat
7. pata | 04.04.09
Fascinating news, thanks for writing!
To Robert M: Couldn’t agree with you more. So far, my efficiency efforts have reduced household consumption by more than 30%, and I’m still fixing and upgrading things. Some astonishing discoveries were made after I bought a couple of excellent books on do-it-yourself renewable energy. The dollar amount of savings will run in the four figures per year, maybe five.
On average, we Americans waste more energy than we utilize.
8. Herb | 04.04.09
All this constant bitching about suv’s and big cars is a bit overdone.I have a lincoln town car004. I get 29mpg at 50 mph with the a/c on highway driving. Around town its about 20mpg. My wife is handicapped and needs the room a large car gives her to get in and out. My dog likes the bench seat so he can be with us. In four years i have put 17,000 miles on it.Probably worth $15,000 on a trade in for somethingI probably couldn’t get my growceries in costing me 10,000 to boot. Few of the so called efficient if driven the way most drivers drive don’t do much better than mine, look at consumer report tests.I also have a 95 chev. station wagon I use to transport her battery operated go-go vehicle so she can shop. It is a v8 also and with 71,000 miles on it still gets 28 on the highway. Don’t condem everyone that uses a vehicle you don’t like as large families and other factors enter the equation. I,d have a heck of a time towing my fishing boat with some of these small cars. thanks
9. Don Griffith | 04.05.09
Dear 123andy,
Thanks so much for this clarification (above). You are absolutely correct, the general reader doesn’t understand the “failure rate” for great ideas. I have often wondered what happened to all of the wonderful ideas that promise marvelous solutions to the many problems we face on our planet. I have read articles about them for many years and can’t think of many that actually materialized. It was explained to me that big business doesn’t want them to germinate, consequently, they are always on the alert and simply buy the rights/patent from the inventors and then scrap the idea–thus insuring their continued success by controlling the market (often at the expense of the environment and the consumer).
Your explanation has helped me understand. But, why does the media go along with these promises and allow the average reader to get up his/her hopee without letting us know why we probably will never see these great ideas get off the drawing board. I would love to see an article containing a timeline of the ideas that have been publicized as panaceas in print over the last couple of decades and what has happened to them.
10. Bogey | 04.06.09
Through the study of how microbes produce methane in swamps, bogs, and landfills, they found certain archaea use electricity to convert CO2 and water into methane. These hydrolysis cells convert electrical energy into methane with 80 percent efficiency. No extra carbon has to be added to make methane. If the gas is burned for fuel, it lets off as much CO2 as originally went in. Furthermore, if the electricity used in the process came from natural sources, the entire fuel cycle would not add any extra CO2 to the environment.
Edited for the layman.
11. Robert Skeffington | 04.07.09
Nice article, Bob. I disagree with the current world’s trend toward utilization of CH4 (methane) as a viable fuel alternative. Spills of any material, whether solid, liquid, or gas are unavoidable. The IPCC has Methane listed as a potent greenhouse gas with a 20-year index a very high 72, and a 500-year residual index of 7. That’s right up there with CO2 and hydrofluorocarbons as a long-life dangerous environmental substance. Although others may state it’s harmless because it is a natural substance, CO2 fits into that same category.
I also take MIT to task with the claim that M13 is “harmless” to humans. Literally any virus in the high quantities found in the new battery can negatively affect the health of any immune-compromised person, including infants, elderly, those on chemotherapy, etc. Upon significant production in manufacture, M13 would be found everywhere, which portends significant dark health complications, particularly when the virus has been altered to produce electricity. Additionally, secondary DNA/RNA transfer to humans is possible with any virus, particularly if the virus is ingested by eating plants/vegetables which contain the affected viral matter.
Further health-related research must be done before any potentially dangerous technology is unleashed. To assume the physicists at MIT have this in mind is ludicrous, based on the statement that M13, or any virus for that matter, is “harmless to humans”.
12. JP | 04.13.09
This is a very interesting idea. For myself I would rather see us use nuclear powered cars.The energy would be limitless with very little waste.The plutomeum could be collected in safe containers and then placed into a space capsule and sent on it’s way to the sun.
13. randall chambers | 04.15.09
why aren’t homes and other buildings being built usinq passive solar energy archectual concepts/techniques?arch. schoolsshould be strongly encouring this. go into a car (a dark colour is best) on a cold sunny day with the windshield facing south. no insulation, windows all around and very nice and warm. why not?
14. randall chambers | 04.15.09
i believe that using the suns energy thru passive means is very cheap to build into homes and other buildings. since most potential house or other building purchaser isn’t aware of what passive solar energy is i believe that architectual schools should be teaching how this conce3pt can be incorporated into a buildings designe and its itsw energy saving/money advantages. go into your car (a dark colored oe is best) on acold sunny day with the windshield fa
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. 123andy | 04.03.09
Both the Penn State and MIT results are really wonderful advances in basic science. The researchers involved should be congratulated for both creativity and perseverence. I have no problem with the discussion of the potential for these, but scientific integrity requires that some perspective be added. While they offer potential for practical use, they are far, far removed from that. As a scientist involved in energy research I understand that, but I wonder how many of the CSM general readers do? Only a few percentage of the initially very promising ideas and concepts make it to larger scale demonstration, and only a small percentage of those make it into practical test, and only a few of those make it commercially. The failure rate of breakthrough concepts is very high. Both the taxpayers and readers are entitled to that perspective.