digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Hydrogen-Producing Microbe: Key To New Energy?

sciencedaily.com — An ancient organism from the pit of a collapsed volcano may hold the key to tomorrow's hydrogen economy. Scientists from across the world have formed a team to unlock the process refined by a billions-year old archaea.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rocketman42, on 07/08/2008, -5/+11Queue the 'Hydrogen isn't an energy source!' rants.
    • JQP123, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2And also the "hydrogen is the solution" rants.

    • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3People actually say hydrogen isn't an energy source? Are people actually that stupid? Ahem...SUN..ahem...***** SUN. Hydrogen is THE energy source from which all else is derived...not only energy but matter too. What kind of ***** retard would make such a claim?
      • robdiggity, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Why so angry?

        Some might rationally argue with you that it is the incredible mass of the sun that provides the conditions for nuclear fusion. H is the simplest and most abundant element in the universe, so it is most likely to coalesce is massive quantities and ultimately fuse.

        Experiment 1: Put some H in your hand. Does it fuse and produce energy and heavier elements?

        Experiment 2: Put a stellar amount of H (and even heavier stuff) out there in space. How about now?
      • JQP123, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"Why so angry?"

        Just to provoke a reaction. Ignore it and it'll go away.
      • barc0de, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Fine, lets all go mine the sun then. You first.
      • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3@ robdiggity

        Lmao @ your remedial attempt to sound educated. Let me go ahead and totally debunk you now.

        Q: Why are neutron stars so much more massive and rare than most normal, hydrogen burning stars?

        A: Neutron stars are composed of heavier elements, such as iron. In order for heavier elements to fuse/burn, they require exponentially greater magnitudes of pressure to produce exponentially greater magnitudes of heat, hence proportionate magnitudes of mass must be present for gravity to exert the required force to catalyze the reaction. Therefore, in order for a neutron star to form, you must have an exponentially more massive amount of hydrogen to begin with than the average stellar mass (all stars, regardless of their current chemical composition, originated as a large mass of hydrogen which eventually fused into heavier elements).

        Meaning that hydrogen is a far more efficient source of energy than say…iron, because it can fuse and burn at exponentially smaller magnitudes of heat and pressure. But did we really need a lesson in astrophysics to figure that out? I doubt it. You could perform the following simple experiment:

        1. Put 1000 moles of iron in your left hand, and light a match to it. Watch nothing happen.
        2. Now put 1000 moles of hydrogen in your right hand, and light a match to it. Don’t forget to tell your family that you love them first.
        3. Enjoy transcendence into a rain of blood and giblets.

        In a normal star, pure hydrogen is burned, hence the big flaming balls that can be seen from millions upon millions of miles away. Just for argument’s sake…you could go compare the mass to brightness/heat ratios of a hydrogen star to that of a neutron star – I am not going to do this because I am 100% correct and do not need to waste my time proving it. I think I’ve made my point here.
      • Fordi, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1@PawnsofJoshua:

        "In a normal star, pure hydrogen is burned"

        In a normal star, pure hydrogen is *fused*. You're confusing chemical oxidation with fusion.

        Now, if we had sufficiently advanced fusion tech, yes, Hydrogen would be an energy source. Since we don't, it is not.

        Why?

        Because the most commonly available hydrogen-bearing compound on this planet is its ash*. In order to produce hydrogen from hydrogen ash, we have to add energy to it, in order to break the oxide bonds that formed during initial combustion. The process is about 50% efficient.

        Then, in order to use the resulting hydrogen, our best option is hydrogen fuel cells - which are also 50% efficient.

        The result? We've LOST 75% of the energy we put in. Great 'energy source' you've got there.

        Occasionally, you'll get one idiot or another telling us that it's possible to "catalyze" the conversion of H ash to H; this is, of course, idiotic. Catalysis does not remove the energy requirements for a system, it only reduces the initial input requirements for a reaction.

        Oh, damn. I just confused you. I can see, because you look like you're going to say I contradicted myself.

        Let me put it this way: A chemical reaction has fixed energy requirements; that is, in any given chemical equation, the difference between the bond energies on the left side and the bond energies on the right side is the overall energy balance. It takes energy input to break a bond, and energy is released when a bond is formed.

        So, when hydrogen is burned, in the equation:
        2(H-H) + (O=O) => 2(H-O-H)

        We get the resulting bond energies (in kcal/mol):
        2(104.2) + (119) => 2(2(111))
        223.2 => 444

        So, when hydrogen is burned, 211.8 kcal/mol is released. Similarly, in the reverse reaction, 211.8 kcal/mol is *required*. A catalyst can't change that.

        What a catalyst can do: in order to start a mole of hydrogen burning, you need that initial 223.2 kcal to start the reaction; since the energy balance is strongly positive, it self-sustains. Similarly, in the reverse reaction, you need that 444 kcal/mol to incite the reaction. A catalyst can reduce the initial energy (as they do in a fuel cell) by breaking the bonds over the catalyst's molecular structure. In a fuel cell, this allows you to obtain the energy from oxidation without fire. A reverse catalyst would reduce the initial energy - but you'd still be out that 211.8 kcal/mol. The reaction would *cool* itself.

        Which, mind you, if such a thing existed, would be a boon to everyone everywhere; in the summer, run a reactor of that nature rather than an air conditioner, and use the resulting hydrogen to run the fan, help buffet the power grid, whatever.

        But nothing exists to catalyze hydrogen ash into hydrogen. I'm sorry, but nothing does.

        * Hydrogen ash, and the process of converting it into Hydrogen, are terms more commonly known as "Water" and "electrolysis".
      • tim3094, on 07/09/2008, -1/+0basically, you are wrong, matter is the ultimate energy source for the earth (and a little bit of nuclear fission in the earths core, but whats that among friends?)
      • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1@ Fordi - Granted, you are clearly more educated than robdiggity. However, the 45 minutes that you spent composing your comment that you think will disprove me and/or make me look bad was an utter waste of time. In my post, I was well aware that I was speaking with a layman and hence using layman terminology. Rest assured, I have a clear and concise understanding of the nature of reactions that occur within a star, and the difference between oxidation and fusion. Rest assured, I know what electrolysis is, but I digress. You took one small piece of my comment to try and make a flawed point against it, when it obviously was intended to be read by someone who would not be aware of the difference between oxidation and fusion. But in your attempt, you inadvertently proved my point, but were not astute enough to realize it before clicking the ***** save button. Observe:

        "Now, if we had sufficiently advanced fusion tech, yes, Hydrogen would be an energy source. Since we don't, it is not.
        Why?
        Because the most commonly available hydrogen-bearing compound on this planet is its ash*."

        If you recall, which I am quite certain you probably do not, this string of comments was in regards to an article about a bacterial species that produces hydrogen as a by product of metabolic reactions. The point being that we *could* potentially have a source of hydrogen that would not require any reaction to separate from oxygen in water, thereby allowing us to harness is potential energy without requiring energy inputs to break the hydrogen bonds from whatever other atoms it may be bonded to. Thereby, according to your own words as quoted above, and according to this article, we could potentially have a source of hydrogen that could be used as a superior fuel, which is the point I was making all along. If you merely refer back to the original post you will see the validity of that statement.

        But rest assured that my reading comprehension level is high enough that in spite of the lengthy and highly technical language of your comment, I understand that the only points you made are in fallacy. The argument here is whether or not hydrogen is a viable energy source, and by focusing on irrelevant discrepancies in the language used to make my point you are simply trying to create a diversion to the truth that I am in fact correct. It would fall within the purview of classic psychology as to your motivations for such behavior, however, with my rudimentary understanding of the nature of the subject I am inclined to believe that you are trying to compensate for some aspect of yourself regarding which you have crippling insecurities, and probably noticeable deficiencies as well. So in the future, when trying to come off as a sanctimonious and knowledgeable ass that is superior to me, I strongly advise that you stay on point and keep your arguments relevant to the conversation at hand, else you end up seeming like a whining sniveling waste of some chemistry professors precious time. You may just want to consider responding only to robdiggity, as I clearly do not lack the capacity to make you look like a total fool in spite of your pointless knowledge. Ciao.
      • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Also, water is not ash, and you should get your facts straight before making yourself look stupid. The term ash, as used in chemical analysis, is reserved for all non-aqueous residual compounds left after an oxidation reaction occurs. Hence, you are a dumbass. And oxidation refers only to the transfer of valence electrons between molecules, has nothing to do with the element oxygen, and it happens continuously between atoms in a star.

        Also, I am aware of conservation of energy and do not need to be lectured on balancing chemical equations. So blow me, right after you finish your ***** homework.
      • Fordi, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2"This string of comments was in regards to an article about a bacterial species that produces hydrogen as a by product of metabolic reactions."
        FTA: "This novel hyperthermophilic archaea grows best at 80 to 82 degrees Celsius (176-180 Farenheit)"

        In short, you have to dump energy in for the bacteria to grow and produce hydrogen. I wonder at the balance.

        "Also, water is not ash...the term ash, as used in chemical analysis, is reserved for all non-aqueous residual compounds left after an oxidation reaction occurs"
        *sigh* So it's condensed hydrogen smoke, or the resulting low-potential compound from hydrogen oxidation if you want to be particular about it. Seriously, don't get uber-technical with me, man. I'm not the one flinging epithets around because someone disagreed with me.
    • Mactrekr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Hydrogen IS an energy source, however, current technology requires MORE energy used to create hydrogen than hydrogen can carry. Therefore, with CURRENT Technology, it really isn't a "viable" energy source. Now, if some amoeba can make it for next to nothing, then, maybe it'll be a useable energy source.
  • michaels73, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7So we can really wake up and kiss oil goodbye as a source of energy? Thank God, if everything didn't revolve around money then I am sure someone would reveal the alternatives to oil based fuels.
    • scoottie, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2do you really think no one will find a way to screw this up like they did oil?
    • getsaf, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4On the contrary, some would argue that *BECAUSE* the oil crisis revolves around money that we are seeing more breakthroughs. Think about it, whoever can come up with a valid alternative to oil will be inimaginably rich for selling his product/method etc.
      • naner, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3inimagi...what?
      • mchisari, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"On the contrary, some would argue that *BECAUSE* the oil crisis revolves around money that we are seeing more breakthroughs."

        If the market was so efficient, we'd have been off of oil 40 years ago, and avoided all the pollution and bloody conflicts that ensued.
      • LokitheComplex, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1But if we'd had political leadership we might have done something about this before it became a world crisis.
    • JQP123, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"So we can really wake up and kiss oil goodbye as a source of energy?"

      Not so fast. First you'll need to convert the state of Texas into one giant cellulose farm and the state of Oklahoma into a production facility consisting of one huge boiling vat of archaea.
    • timeshifter, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"if everything didn't revolve around money.."

      and if:
      - the Arizona Cardinals won the Super Bowl every year
      - pigs could fly
      - all the planets revolved around the earth..

      if money is such a problem I suggest you go live somewhere where it's not essential.
  • zacharytelschow, on 07/09/2008, -3/+8From reading the article... I feel like they're going about this in a very cautious, let's see what we have here kinda way. If this stuff does in fact produce hydrogen, shouldn't there also be a group of scientists experimenting to figure out the best way to use this organism to produce hydrogen?
    • Pittance, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6They are. They are trying to figure out HOW it produces hydrogen. That way they will probably use that DNA to further modify a special type of high-yield, fast reproducing organism that will make H2 very quickly. Kind of like how we modified some bacteria to produce some drugs for us.
    • McSwankypants, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Actually, from reading the article, they ARE trying to figure out the best way to produce hydrogen using this organism. They already know it uses cellulose (i.e. plant material) to produce the hydrogen. Now they are looking at HOW the process works, and by understanding that, they can "feed" D. fermentans what it needs to produce hydrogen optimally.
      • McSwankypants, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Well, not only does it look like Pittance beat me to the punch (must have been typing at the same time), but his/her info -- combined with PawnsOfJoshua's reply below -- are more informative than mine. Consider yourselves dugg.
    • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Ahem..I think its pretty clear that the hydrogen is produced by breaking down hydrocarbon molecules that make up virtually every meaningful molecular structure in an organism...the problem being that hydrogen normally inhibits the reproduction of an organism. I get the sense here that what they are trying to determine is which genes are responsible for this bacteria's tolerance to hydrogen so that they can genetically engineer a new, highly optimized hydrogen producing organism, as this tiny, rare bacteria is not likely the answer to our energy needs. So there will be inherent danger, as there always is with genetic engineering, hence the cautious approach. But in this instance, I think the potential benefits far outweigh the inherent dangers, and I would be all for the use of genetic engineering in this regard, whereas normally I would be against it.
  • GeorgeStone2, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6Why does nature keep coming up with the answers?
    I want big machines with levers and big flashing vacume tubes making hydrogen, not a field of microbes. It's just not impressive at all.
    • Pittance, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1You can have that. Big machines that run really hot that take food and plant waste as a food! Mow down the forests to power our super-machines that run off archae-power plants!
    • RudeTurnip, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Nature has had 13.78 billion years to come up with these microbes...nature is the world's oldest and most advanced technology in the world!
    • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Kinda similar to how nature provided us with cotton. That has always baffled me - what a strange strange (and uber-useful) plant. It's almost as if some other being came down and said "ok Earth...here go some ***** up organisms that will really help you guys out. Ciao." I mean, I believe in evolution, but at the same time, certain things seem a little to convenient to be random natural selection.
      • sodade, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Of all the plants to choose for your example, you pick cotton? I'm sure that hemp is much more strange and uber-useful than cotton.
      • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Hemp is more useful than cotton? You ever heard of a naked sailor? lol.
  • traveler19, on 07/09/2008, -4/+4guys I turned my car into hydrogen for just $50 from an online website!!

    /sarcasm
    • bobangitanov2, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2guy, you're an idiot.

      /not a sarcasm
    • buddyfarr, on 07/09/2008, -1/+0yeah, everybody knows that it was $49.99 anyway.
  • Unheilig, on 07/09/2008, -7/+0Okay this is at rocketman42, hydrogen is an energy source! If anyone thinks it isn't you are a complete tard. This article was very intersting by the way. If they can make use of these and give gas and oil the boot, all the better.
    • peaceninja, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4dont know how to use the reply button? buried.
    • thatspsychotic, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Hydrogen is not a plentiful resource here on earth, and it requires energy from another source to be generated. It's an energy storage medium, and not a very practical one at that.
  • seraph582, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Oh wow - this could be *huge!!* It would definitely transcend beyond the relatively mundane enabling of hydrogen-powered vehicular travel...

    I wonder how long it'll be until the followup article where they announce the first by-product of this process hits Digg's FP.
  • bombula, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11Not sure what the hubbub is about - what they are talking about is not particularly efficient or useful. Here's the short version:

    1. Grow plants.
    2. Feed plants to bacteria.
    3. Bacteria crap out hydrogen.
    4. Capture hydrogen.
    5. ??? [building $1 trillion H infrastructure; develop hydrogen storage and transport tech; develop hydrogen-burning engines; etc]
    6. Profit.

    Here's a much simpler option:

    1. Grow plants (specifically, algae).
    2. Press algae to extract vegetable oil.
    3. Profit.

    See all the steps avoided there? Note that in each step, energy is lost due to inefficiency. By eliminating steps, you retain energy efficiency. With these hydrogen bacteria, you'd be lucky to capture 0.5% of the original solar energy as fuel. With algae biofuel, you get closer to 12%.

    You can methylate the vegetable oil if you want and make diesel, but it isn't necessary in most modern clean-diesel engines (but it is necessary for aviation fuel).
    • TheNakedChef, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8You have missed one thing, the bacteria could be used to process a lot of the waste that we produce, converting it to hydrogen and other stuff, most likely carbon, etc... Increasing availability of energy and also reducing our waste footprint.
      • robdiggity, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Are you sue the energy return is net positive? This article said the microbes grow best at 176-180 F. How much energy does it take to keep them that hot?
      • sodade, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Sounds like a job for Mr. Sun to me.
      • TheNakedChef, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Utilise some solar water heaters like in previous digg article not long ago and it will cost nothing to maintain 80C (after initial energy input used to creating the heaters)
      • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2robdiggity is quickly becoming the master of brainless ostentatious commenting. The article says they are analyzing the gene sequence looking for the cause of this organism's tolerance to hydrogen, implying that they would like to genetically engineer another organism that produces hydrogen more efficiently. Also...180 degrees vs a thermonuclear bomb seems like a no-brainer to me.
      • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1You know actually I believe they are referring to hydrogen as being the by product of this bacteria's respiration...meaning it exhales hydrogen the same way that plants exhale oxygen and animals exhale CO2. In other words, it takes hydrogen out of the molecules in the atmosphere, uses the bond energies to power its cellular functions, then releases hydrogen as waste. It is a beautiful thing really and ultimately too convenient to be happen-chance evolution, imo.
    • iharbinger, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1burning hydrogen is ineffecient, utilizing hydrogen fuelcell technology, however, is quite effecient, as nothing is burnt. And as well, there would be no need for hydrogen plants, just build more nuclear reactors and sterling reactors, that would definately get the job done indefinately.
    • xamboozi, on 07/09/2008, -6/+0no wait! hydrogen is cool! haven''t you learned yet? it doesn't matter if its more efficient to drive battery electric cars powered from solar panels or press algae into veg oil or create fusion. its the fact that water comes out the tail pipe.


      lol i wanna make a battery electric car that you have to put a bottle of water in each day because all it does is drip a tiny bit of water out of a tail pipe. then maybe i can hang out with the cool hydrogen cars.
    • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Your point is retarded because the potential chemical energy of hydrogen is not even close to comparable to vegetable oil. I mean lets consider...the fusion reactions that occur in the SUN are the result of hydrogen burning...hmm...vegetable oil can cook a french fry. So which is the better energy source again??
      • bombula, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3You are aware there is a difference between chemical and nuclear reactions, right?
      • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Chemical reactions involve the transfer of electrons only, which create ionized atoms resulting in electromagnetic attraction that forms molecules. Nuclear reactions are a complete recombination of all sub-atomic materials, forming entirely new elements, and requiring a much greater amount of energy to catalyze.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Let's do it all.
      Spend a LOT more money on all these solutions. Especially the ones that don't require a huge infrastructure.

      The hydrogen bacteria would be great for converting waste we already have.

      I'm in favor of the bio-mass algae to oil path, because you can actually store more energy in an oil than in simple H2 gas. For now, Diesel engines are more efficient than converting energy to electricity and putting it in a battery.

      But multiple approaches will lend to greater advances in all areas. A fuel cell can be used in conjunction with diesel, for instance.
      • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1We don't need to convert the hydrogen energy into electric energy - we need to convert it into kinetic energy, aka MOTION. It seems a simple task of engineering to me. The electric battery crap is simply a temporary solution designed to accommodate the existing energy infrastructure and speaks nothing of the possibility of a new, superior type of engine.
  • JQP123, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9"This novel hyperthermophilic archaea grows best at 80 to 82 degrees Celsius (176-180 Farenheit), close to the boiling point of water."

    And a serious drawback has just been revealed. How much energy will be wasted just maintaining this temperature?

    Face it, nothing about hydrogen makes sense. Any way you look at it, there are better alternatives.
    • iharbinger, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1genetically engineering the microbe to grow at lower temperatures? Was that so hard?
      • JQP123, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"Was that so hard?"

        Don't know until someone shows that it can be done.
      • inigomntoya, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1It sounds like you have it all figured out. So, you tell me...
      • Luizzle, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1It probably is pretty hard..


        Hard.. huh huh
      • JQP123, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Someone figured it out long before me --- it's called the laws of thermodynamics.
    • TheSexyGeek, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Existing power plants maintain pretty high temperatures. Perhaps they can add the necessary equipment to produce hydrogen as well.
      • JQP123, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"Well, existing power plants maintain pretty high temperatures."

        They maintain high temperatures for a relatively small amount of water --- just enough to drive the turbines.
    • RudeTurnip, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Maybe volcanoes will become the new oil fields? Lots of free energy there!
    • sodade, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Sounds like a job for Mr Sun to me.
      • JQP123, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"Sounds like a job for Mr Sun to me."

        Yes but if Mr Sun can be used to heat huge vats of boiling microbes and generate hydrogen, why not just use Mr Sun instead to simply generate electricity? This offers a number of advantages:

        - More efficient use of land (no cellulose farms required).
        - Easier/cheaper to transport and distribute
        - Makes use of existing infrastructure
        - Eliminates the need for expensive fuel cells that use platinum as a catalyst.
        - Avoids the energy loses inherent to fuel cell conversion of hydrogen into electricity

        Like I said, any way you look at it, there are better alternatives than hydrogen.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Not much.

      More heat = faster reaction.

      A little insulation in a large vat could easily keep the temperature up.

      The other question is; Is this reaction exothermic or endothermic. My guess is that the bacteria activity is going to create heat by itself.

      But there aren't any conversions outside of a lab demonstration of energy that don't have heat involved in the process -- if they were, we'd have some systems that were 90% efficient and we don't.

      So, the high temperatures are seen as a benefit -- not a down-side.
      • JQP123, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"A little insulation in a large vat could easily keep the temperature up."

        Your house undoubtedly has insulation too but it must still be heated and cooled.

        "My guess is that the bacteria activity is going to create heat by itself."

        My guess is that heat is required; hence, these microbes are only found around volcanoes and they grow best at elevated temperatures.
  • xamboozi, on 07/09/2008, -6/+0yep the population is doomed. to rocketman42, very good im glad you recognize that hydrogen is not an energy source. however in the beginning of the article it states the organism breaks down cellulose to produce the hydrogen. probably the same way yeast makes bread rise but instead of making co2 when fermenting, it creates hydrogen. and to Unheilig, i really hope that was sarcasm. if your serious, PLEASE go die now or look up hydrogen on wikipedia before spurting garbage onto blogs.

    oh and to traveler19. haha i love your comment
    • inigomntoya, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Seriously people. Is the Reply link invisible or something?
  • Pittance, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Did anyone actually read this article? Ok, they are studying the archae (sp) to learn how it makes hydrogen. We will then modify the archae to produce mass quantities of H2 and reproduce very quickly and stably and also to make H2 from other organic sources. We will then throw food garbage at it to power at-home generators that produce H2 and pressurize it for our hydrogen cars. Sounds like a winner to me. (most of that was implied, not directly from the source. but it is probably the best way to do it).
    • TheSexyGeek, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I've always been interested in small energy solutions that can be used by a single home or family. I'd love to have some kind of machine outside that powers my home in an environmentally friendly way.
      • sanosuke001, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0This is the only way I see anything like this being practical. Honestly, I'd rather be self-sufficient than pay someone else to do something anyway.
  • Myztry, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1If they could engineer a bio-organism that consume salts and effluent, and release (any) combustible gas then THAT would be a break through.
    They could harness the two largest resources (Salt water and waste water) to produce energy, desalinated fresh water and reduce polution. Three of the largest problems in the modern world.
    Plus the concentrated biodegraded sludge waste (everything has waste) would help feed crops and thus world hunger.
    Sounds too good to be true, which unfortunately is the case...
    • gellfex, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Salt: umm, no. effluent: we've had that for ages, but like most alternative energy sources, the infrastructure development was too expensive to compete with artificially cheap oil.

      • Myztry, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2"was too expensive" - get with the times.
        The major advantage of petroleum (liquid) fuels is they are transportable with a high energy per volume/weight yeild. That's only really an advantage for transport.
        As for most other things, which happen to be fixed, Electricity is much better with an existing infrastructure. Gas (the real stuff - not the American corruption of the term) is volatile and finite.
        Electricity can be generated from many sources (including any combustible gas). I'm glade my household isn't powered by petroleum products.
    • buddyfarr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2we had a product like that working in prototype but we got bored and went back to gaming online...
  • gellfex, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0It seems stupid to pursue a hydrogen producing microbe to consume cellulose when there's numerous other microbial and enzymatic processes that are nearing commercial scale to convert cellulose into everything from ethanol to diesel to actual gasoline. All things which don't require trillions of dollars in new consumer infrastructure to distribute and use.

    The "hydrogen economy" was always a way to sound off about change without actually ever doing anything.
  • Smogtdi, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0can't we just use the regular bacteria and microbe and create methane out of our garbage ?

    *****, If we can light up our farts, sure it can power our BBQ grill.

    http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1 ...
  • Fluffycheese, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0"An ancient organism from the pit of a collapsed volcano may hold the key to tomorrow's hydrogen economy. Scientists from across the world have formed a team to unlock the process..." Cue the Michael Bay Film!!
  • Groovydoo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2I am convinced that there are people being paid to bash hydrogen on stock message boards and social networking sites.
    • evil-doer, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1or.. maybe its a bad idea? electric is the way to go. the infrastructure is already in place. the power plants can be any of dozens of different technologies. but the only roadblock (thats getting smaller every year) is the storage. serious money needs to be put into battery technology. thats it.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Or any other alternative.

      We can get solar farms set-up and supplying 15% of our electricity in LESS TIME, than it would take to get that 2% by drilling that all these industry shills keep promoting. They don't tell you that in 5 to ten years, you MIGHT save 8 pennies on your gas -- oh, those mean old environmentalists pushing around Big Energy.

      It is so much cheaper and practical to implement a half dozen alternative energy systems. Even at 2% efficiency, that is 100% more than just burying our waste.


  • GeauxLSU, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1One problem:
    This novel hyperthermophilic archaea grows best at 80 to 82 degrees Celsius (176-180 Farenheit), close to the boiling point of water. “The ability to operate at high temperatures has advantages – it is faster and the hydrogen producing bioreactor will not be contaminated by common microbes,” said Mukhopadhyay.

    While that may be a silver lining.....You need to add energy to the process (heat energy) to make the hydrogen. Sounds like it needs some work.
  • yaosio, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1There will never be a hydrogen economy. Get over it.
  • j0eb0nd7, on 07/09/2008, -1/+0Dugg down for NOT being the "Key To New Energy"
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.