Barry D. Bruce, professor of biochemistry, cellular and molecular biology, at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, is turning the term “power plant” on its head. The biochemist and a team of researchers have developed a system that taps into photosynthetic processes to produce efficient and inexpensive energy.

Bruce collaborated with researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Ecole Polytechnique Federale in Switzerland to develop a process that improves the efficiency of generating electric power using molecular structures extracted from plants. The biosolar breakthrough has the potential to make “green” electricity dramatically cheaper and easier.

“This system is a preferred method of sustainable energy because it is clean and it is potentially very efficient,” said Bruce, who was named one of “Ten Revolutionaries that May Change the World” by Forbes magazine in 2007 for his early work, which first demonstated biosolar electricity generation. “As opposed to conventional photovoltaic solar power systems, we are using renewable biological materials rather than toxic chemicals to generate energy. Likewise, our system will require less time, land, water and input of fossil fuels to produce energy than most biofuels.”

Their findings are in the current issue of Nature: Scientific Reports.

To produce the energy, the scientists harnessed the power of a key component of photosynthesis known as photosystem-I (PSI) from blue-green algae. This complex was then bioengineered to specifically interact with a semi-conductor so that, when illuminated, the process of photosynthesis produced electricity. Because of the engineered properties, the system self-assembles and is much easier to re-create than his earlier work. In fact, the approach is simple enough that it can be replicated in most labs—allowing others around the world to work toward further optimization.

“Because the system is so cheap and simple, my hope is that this system will develop with additional improvements to lead to a green, sustainable energy source,” said Bruce, noting that today’s fossil fuels were once, millions of years ago, energy-rich plant matter whose growth also was supported by the sun via the process of photosynthesis.

This green solar cell is a marriage of non-biological and biological materials. It consists of small tubes made of zinc oxide—this is the non-biological material. These tiny tubes are bioengineered to attract PSI particles and quickly become coated with them—that’s the biological part. Done correctly, the two materials intimately intermingle on the metal oxide interface, which when illuminated by sunlight, excites PSI to produce an electron which “jumps” into the zinc oxide semiconductor, producing an electric current.

The mechanism is orders of magnitude more efficient than Bruce’s earlier work for producing bio-electricity thanks to the interfacing of PS-I with the large surface provided by the nanostructured conductive zinc oxide; however it still needs to improve manifold to become useful. Still, the researchers are optimistic and expect rapid progress.

Bruce’s ability to extract the photosynthetic complexes from algae was key to the new biosolar process. His lab at UT isolated and bioengineered usable quantities of the PSI for the research.

Andreas Mershin, the lead author of the paper and a research scientist at MIT, conceptualized and created the nanoscale wires and platform. He credits his design to observing the way needles on pine trees are placed to maximize exposure to sunlight.

Mohammad Khaja Nazeeruddin in the lab of Michael Graetzel, a professor at the Ecole Polytechnique Federale in Lausanne, Switzerland, did the complex testing needed to determine that the new mechanism actually performed as expected. Graetzel is a pioneer in energy and electron transfer reactions and their application in solar energy conversion.

Michael Vaughn, once an undergraduate in Bruce’s lab and now a National Science Foundation (NSF) predoctoral fellow at Arizona State University, also collaborated on the paper.

“This is a real scientific breakthrough that could become a significant part of our renewable energy strategy in the future,” said Lee Riedinger, interim vice chancellor for research. “This success shows that the major energy challenges facing us require clever interdisciplinary solutions, which is what we are trying to achieve in our energy science and engineering PhD program at the Bredesen Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Education of which Dr. Bruce is one of the leading faculty.”

The Bredesen Center is a joint UT/Oak Ridge National Laboratory academic unit. Bruce is also a co-principal investigator and scientific thrust leader in TN: SCORE, the Tennessee Solar Conversion and Storage Using Outreach, Research and Education. The $20 million project is funded by the NSF and focuses on promoting research and education on solar energy problems across Tennessee. Additionally, he co-founded and is associate director of UT’s Sustainable Energy Education.

Bruce’s work is funded by the Emerging Frontiers Program at the National Science Foundation.

Source: University of Tennessee

Similar Articles

• Bacteria Engineered to Turn Carbon Dioxide Into Liquid Fuel (1)
• Is Nuclear Power A Solution For Global Warning? (0)
• Wind Energy (3)
• Closing the Gap (0)

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 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.

__________
Source: University of California – Los Angeles
Photo: Genetically engineered strains of the cyanobacterium Synechococcus elongatus in a Petri dish. (Credit: Image courtesy of University of California – Los Angeles)

Similar Articles

• What Bacteria Don’t Know Can Hurt Them (0)
• Innovative Environmental Services Turn Biowaste Into Biofuel (0)
• Is Nuclear Power A Solution For Global Warning? (0)
• To Predict Global Climate Change Look to the Sun (2)
• Petroleum, the Triple Threat to World Economies (0)

The European Union was unable to agree to a timetable to manage climate change because they could not agree on costs and the type of acceptable alternative fuels. McCain is promising 40 new nuclear power plants by 2030, while Barack Obama has concluded that they can not achieve their climate change goals, unless they include nuclear power. The French are already committed to nuclear power.

But where is all the uranium ore going to come from to fuel these power stations?

Geologists think that only 5.5 million metric tones can be mined economically. While the International Atomic Energy Agency argues that the nuclear power stations in use today use 70,000 metric tons a year. That is without any increase in the number of nuclear power plants.

If we really wanted to use nuclear powered electricity for all of our energy needs, could it really be done quickly? Not only would we have to build plants to replace the existing nuclear plants, we would also have to replace all existing fossil fuel plants, as well as build extra nuclear power plants to allow us independence from oil.

Figures for the amount of plants we will need vary, but we are looking at increasing energy production by at least 17 times its present output! That could account for at least 1,000,000 tons of uranium ore each year! All our known reserves would be used up within 5 years. Geologists think there is about 35 million tons of uranium ore, much of it uneconomical to mine. That would last only about 30 years.

If the aim is to replace all fossil fuels with nuclear energy, how would this be possible after the uranium has run out?

If nuclear power was to be introduced on a step by step basis, there would still be a problem. The G8 countries have agreed to cut carbon emissions by 50% and this is to be achieved by 2050. Nuclear power will take up the slack. If they are to produce the energy needed the uranium would run out by 2050. All this will do is buy use 42 years!

Mining is usually done on an ad hoc basis. We don’t try to mine everything, we feed it into the system as and when we need it. While large areas of the planet have yet to be explored for uranium. So there might be some large stocks out there. Often we find that there are more mineral stocks than we expect to find. Look at how many new gas fields we have discovered.

But until we know how much is out there, how can we base an alternative energy plan around nuclear power? Building nuclear power stations are very expensive, and just consider how many we will have to build. Can we really depend upon a nuclear powered solution based upon the stocks of uranium that we know about?

What if those new uranium stocks are in countries we have blacklisted? What if it is to be found in Syria, North Korea or Iran? There is also the possibility that those stocks are in areas we can not mine.

We are going to have to depend upon our ability to recover uranium from the spent uranium fuels themselves. However, a report by the International Atomic Energy found that in 2004 two thirds of all uranium used was being mined, and not recycled. A large part of the remainder came from army stock piles. We are going to have recycle about a million tons a year if we really want to convert to nuclear energy. This is going to be a huge task and at what financial cost?

One solution put forward is to use breeder reactors. They tend to create more nuclear fuel than they use. In America some breeder reactors were introduced but they stopped in the 1990s. Only a few are in use in the world today. The real technology to make these breeder reactors is simply not in existence yet. We still have to get it up and running. Also they can be used to make nuclear weapons and they would be controversial.

At best nuclear power could only be used as part of the solution, and even then as part of a short term solution. Unless we find more uranium it can not be the solution to our energy needs. Unless we stop and think this through we are going to be facing the same energy shortages we face now. All we are doing is putting it off for another few decades at best.

__________
About the Author:
Colin Stafford writes on environmental issues, which include the ecology, alternative energy, climate change and nature. You can find many more articles on his blog, A Better Quality of Life.

Similar Articles

• Is Nuclear Power A Solution For Global Warning? (0)
• To Predict Global Climate Change Look to the Sun (2)
• Shark Attack Deaths Highest Since 1993 (0)
• Why Bad Immunity Genes Survive: Germs v. Genes Arms Race (0)
• Our Amorphophallus is Smaller (0)

In fact, basic water fuel technology does work and has been around since World War II, when it was used in tanks and fighter plane engines. These simple water injection systems helped to increase gas mileage and cool engine temperatures under harsh conditions.

Hydrogen Fuel Cars were developed in the 1960s, but only became popular in the past few years since they require special fuel that’s expensive and not readily available. These vehicles can cost as much as $100,000, like the BMW H7 or the Audi A2H2. Most manufacturers aren’t even selling Hydrogen Cars yet since the science is still not perfect and there are few Hydrogen Gas Stations in operation.

Japanese scientists have also been working on a car that converts water to electricity, which drives the power train. This is expected to be available in North America and Europe, but not for several years.

However, a completely new technology was recently developed that combines water molecules with electricity and gasoline, creating 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. This generates a gas known as HHO, which is both extremely clean burning, and very safe for use. Most of the reputable water fuel advocates recommend the HHO method since it’s universal, and works on all vehicles.

Professionally installed HHO systems can cost as much as $2,500, and HHO conversion kits start at $500. However, the parts to make an effective HHO system yourself can be had for less than $150, and they are actually very easy to install. The best Water Fuel kits give you full instructions, a detailed parts list, and easy illustrated diagrams. You don’t need a lot of mechanical ability to do this.

HHO technology works for 98% of all cars, trucks, motorcycles, and SUV s. It’s easy, inexpensive, and you’ll save between 10% and 40% on your gas bill. Your car will run cleaner, helping to save the environment and increase mileage. And the best part is, HHO systems will not affect your warranty or harm your car in any way.

As gas prices keep going up, it makes sense to look into anything that can increase your mileage and save you cash, especially a proven technology that really works.

__________
About the Author:
Discover Water Fuel Technology written by the illustrious Paul Petersen found at http://www.CheapWaterFuel.com and get this Free WaterFuel Report.

Similar Articles

• No Related Post