Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Fuel from Coal-Eating Microbes

Continued from page 1

By Kevin Bullis

Thursday, January 08, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Mark Finkelstein, Luca's vice president of bioscience, says that the company has tested its methods in coal beds where wells had been drilled to collect natural gas (about 10 percent of the natural gas mined in the United States comes from coal beds). Many of these wells had stopped producing natural gas, or produced too little to be profitable. After treatment, production increased, and the wells became profitable again, Finkelstein says. The new funding will allow Luca to apply its techniques to more wells and continue research to understand the microorganisms involved, with the goal of further increasing methane production.

Finkelstein says that based on initial results, the company's process could extend the lifetime of natural-gas wells. Conventional techniques for extracting natural gas from coal kill the gas-producing organisms found naturally in these coal beds, first, by removing the water that they need, and second, by exposing them to oxygen, which is deadly to them. By carefully maintaining conditions favorable to the microorganisms, the company allows them to continue digesting the coal and producing methane. The company could also employ its techniques to collect useful fuel from coal that's inaccessible to conventional mining, Finkelstein says.

Scott says that it's still unclear how much of the coal reserves in the United States can be converted into methane. Much depends on the nature of the coal bed, including factors such as the surface area of the coal that the microbes feed on. Eventually, for example, waste produced by the microbes could cause them to die off. Scott is also concerned about public reaction to the use of microbes, even though they occur naturally in coal beds, especially in areas where the coal beds are the source of drinking water. (However, he says, the microbes aren't harmful to humans.)

Ultimately, Stiegel says, the success of the company will depend on the costs of Luca's process and the price of natural gas. But he says that as a way to reduce carbon emissions and develop more sources of domestic energy, "it's an intriguing approach."

Comments

  • less CO2??
    So, the bacteria make methane out of carbon + water, which is only possible, thermodynamically, by binding the oxygen in that water to carbon, i.e., by producing CO2. This is also where the bacteria get the energy they need to live.
    So, how is this scheme going to lessen the production of CO2 in the world?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    djs
    01/08/2009
    Posts:24
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: less CO2??
      Even so, one advantage  of coal-to-methane is that natural gas power production actually produces one fourth (not one half) the CO2 as coal power production. This is because combined cycle gas turbines like GE Model H achieve a thermal-electrical conversion efficiency of 60%, compared to a coal fired power plant efficiency only half as good.

      I'm more interested in carbon-free energy, such as generated by the liquid fluoride thorium reactor described at http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      robert.hargr...
      01/08/2009
      Posts:28
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
    • Re: less CO2??
      djs, water is only one possible source of hydrogen. The other is, of course, the coal itself, a hydrocarbon. According to Finkelstein, Luca supplies nutrients to microbes that obtain both the carbon and hydrogen from coal, mostly. Typically, he says, the production of CO2 is less than 1 percent.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Kevin Bullis
      01/08/2009
      Posts:101
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: less CO2??
        Coal has a low H to C ratio, less than 2 I think.  Methane has a ratio of 4 to 1.  That extra hydrogen has to come from somewhere other than the coal, or you need to have some carbon waste, most likely in the form of CO2, or you need to add some high energy nutrients containing H.  We need some mass balance here.

        Or do these microbs crap out diamonds?
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Kraig
        01/10/2009
        Posts:4
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        • Re: less CO2??
          This process would favor lower grade coal sources that are richer in hydrogen. But yeah, a lot of CO2 will be produced as the byproduct, so the emissions of CO2 will be much larger than for conventional natural gas - but still lower than conventional coal, and because the methane burns cleanly it should be cost-effective to sequester this relatively pure stream of CO2. Contaminants are actually one of the biggest issues for CCS systems.

          I also think that olivine sequestration is potentially a powerful tool for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, in an environmentally benign way.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          Siphon
          01/20/2009
          Posts:152
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
      • Re: less CO2??
        If CO2 emissions are lower than 1%, that would suggest that much of the carbon in the coal remains behind - as a very pure form of carbon?

        Perhaps pure enough to be processed into agrichar? Or are the heavy metals and other contaminants a major problem?
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Siphon
        01/20/2009
        Posts:152
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • A US solution to OPEC
    Congrats to these guys for possibly finding a way to produce a fuel that uses resources we have in great abundance. Now if it can be mass produced and the Big Three can create a natural gas powered powertrain for vehicles we can unplug from OPEC.

    When's the IPO?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mkogrady
    01/09/2009
    Posts:234
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • The IPO is called
      T Boone Pickens, who tried to con the California public into subsidizing a natural gas conversion for all semi trucks, tens of billions.  This ballot proposal failed, happily.

      Sure, natural gas is cleaner.  Sure it is less expensive.  But it still emits CO2.  So it still warms the earth.  And it will not remain inexpensive when vast numbers of trucks use it on long hauls.

      Regardless of both, why should taxpayers pay simply to convert to another CO2 polluting fuel?  Why should we pay so his nat gas holding instantly double or triple?

      Hopefully other plans of his to reduce fossil fuel usage will be more realistic.

      And to BS0420, sure some of the methane will probably escape during production and transport, but most of it will be burned so will be entering the atmosphere as CO2 not methane.

      In the end, anything that digs up all the carbon fuel sources and spews them into the atmosphere will make us end up with the earth like the steaming fetid swamps of the ancient periods where these deposits were laid down.

      If we dig up these carbon sources, we need to either sequester them BACK in the ground from power plant output, or to stimulate oil production. 

      But even better, USE the carbon as infrastructure materials.  Plastics are largely carbon backbone molecules.  There are multiple ways to turn the gas into plastics - with catalysts in reactors, by algae, etc.  Carbon fibers are immensely strong and make great airplanes, why not houses?

      Companies like fiberforge that make the hypercar out of carbon fiber have turned this from handmade and expensive into a computer controlled mass production process.  Another article mentioned another form, graphene sheets.  These also could be molded - formed into materials or ground up and added as re-inforcing to concretes to strengthen just about anything.

      If we create a balance between sequestering in non-gaseous form in our infrastructure and the amount newly added each year we will control global warming at a level we can determine via this balance.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      erbium
      01/14/2009
      Posts:136
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Methane is even worse for the environment
    Yeah, it's great that we are reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but it's not great that we are putting more methane into the atmosphere. Methane contributes much more to the greenhouse effect (ounce for ounce) than carbon dioxide does
    Rate this comment: 12345

    BS0420
    01/13/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Methane is even worse for the environment
      Virtually all of the methane will get burned rather than escaping into the atmosphere. The methane produced is valuable (in fact that's the idea) so there will be a strong economic incentive to have as little leaking as possible. Standards on maximum methane emissions can also help a lot.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Siphon
      01/20/2009
      Posts:152
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Promising
    This is one of the few new coal technologies that has great potential. If the coal can be converted underground to methane, this will leave many of the nasty heavy metals etc in the ground, and deeper, less accessible coal deposits become viable. And because this conversion process actually favors lower grade coal (with lots of hydrogen) that would otherwise be too dirty too burn or too low grade too dig out and transport, the resource can be increased while making the burn very clean.

    The only signficant risk would be that the ground could sink in a bit, but this may be acceptable by reasonable standards, considering all the benefits.

    I hope they can make something big out of this.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Siphon
    01/20/2009
    Posts:152
    Avg Rating:
    3/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Malleable Maps, Artistic Robots and Bubble Interfaces
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.