The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Nick Reddyhoff
Combining synthetic biology and solar technology could provide a way to trap carbon dioxide and produce fuel.
By harvesting and burning fossil fuels, human beings essentially provide the tail end of a cycle hundreds of millions of years long. Plants and algae that grew by taking in carbon dioxide eventually turned into the deposits of coal and petroleum that we use to power our lives, rereleasing into the atmosphere the same carbon dioxide that nature had previously sequestered. Reducing these emissions will require us to change the way we think about both energy and carbon.
Reforestation is one tactic that has been broadly contemplated to mitigate rising levels of carbon dioxide; carbon capture and sequestration is another. These approaches close the carbon-energy cycle, but they have limited effectiveness in the near term and are difficult to implement on a large scale. Options such as corn ethanol, cellulosic biofuels, and fuels produced by algae offer a way to shorten the cycle: feedstock is grown for several years and then converted to ethanol or diesel. But these processes require input energy, typically from fossil fuels, and are therefore an imperfect solution.
There is a better way. A handful of projects--including an effort by Craig Venter's energy company, Synthetic Genomics--are now under way to use genetically modified photosynthetic organisms to generate fuels with input energy from the sun.
One such effort is Helioculture, an emerging technology pioneered by Joule Biotechnologies of Cambridge, MA, which can uniquely convert sunlight and carbon dioxide directly into a range of fuels and petroleum-derived chemicals that do not require any additional processing steps. The process consumes no fresh water or agricultural land. But while the organism is important, it is not sufficient. Photosynthetic organisms engineered to produce ethanol or other fuels are grown in special chambers shaped much like solar panels, where they absorb sunlight and generate liquid fuels rather than electrons.
Unlike solar energy from photovoltaics, which depends on costly batteries for storage, fuels are efficiently stored in barrels, simplifying distribution and demand management. And because the technology used to grow the organisms is modular, it is easy to scale up. Joule is now gearing up to build a pilot plant in the southwestern United States. I believe that this new fuel source can feasibly replace the 289 billion gallons of gasoline per year that the United States is projected to need in 2050, and it can be produced in an area about the size of the panhandle of Texas.
Technologies of this kind promise a path to true energy independence, enabling us to reduce, or at least stabilize, carbon-dioxide emissions while supporting the power-hungry society we have created.
David Berry is a partner at the venture capital firm Flagship Ventures and a cofounder of Joule Biotechnologies. He was the TR35 Innovator of the Year in 2007.
Nothing wrong with large distribution
under your idea people in rainy or foggy areas could not have fuel. That doesn't make sense.
The scale of this is reduced from a global trans-shipments of oil over seas and multiple pipelines to shorter pipelines from sunny areas to consumers, of a fuel that is not causing net warming as removed from atmosphere in production.
Also if some of that captured carbon was used to make carbon compounds (effectively sequestering it by making industrial and consumer goods) instead of fuel, like Dow is doing in the freeport tx plant with algae (see prev techrevu article on this) we could use this to reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels from 387ppm today to the 285ppm it was in 1850 at the beginning of the industrial age.
there's 42 teratonnes of carbon in the biosphere, 3 teratonnes of Co2 in the atmosphere. certainly there is room to take out the 1 teratonne of Co2 we've added to the atmosphere and put it back into the the non-atmospheric biosphere as carbon equivalent, in part of the biosphere that isn't annually cycling thru the earth and atmosphere by natural activities.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
trans
42 Comments
Progress
On the downside this technology perpetuates the need for large distribution systems. There is no doubt that liquid fuels will continue to play a roll in long range mobile applications, and this tech is great for that. But we should also consider the great impact on society of not transitioning to more self-sufficient energy techs.
Reply