Metal eater: Metallosphaera sedula can draw energy from a copper-iron sulfide called chalcopyrite, the black substance shown here. As it feeds, it produces copper ions (green), iron oxide (orange), and sulfur (yellow). The organism uses the energy from the sulfides to produce acetyl-CoA, a fundamental building block in cells. Researchers have been able to engineer organisms to convert acetyl-CoA into butanol and other liquid fuels.
Robert Kelly, North Carolina State

Energy

Making Diesel from CO2 and Sunlight

A new program will develop novel approaches to renewable fuels.

  • Thursday, December 10, 2009
  • By Kevin Bullis

A new "electrofuels" program announced this week by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (Arpa-e) will fund research into novel ways to make renewable fuels. The approaches could prove more efficient than using photosynthetic organisms--such as plants and algae--to make biofuels. And instead of making ethanol, they will make fuels such as diesel, which could be easily distributed and sold with existing infrastructure.

The idea is to make liquid fuels using organisms that can convert carbon dioxide into organic molecules without using photosynthesis, says Arun Majumdar, the director of Arpa-e. The mechanisms these organisms use could be more efficient than photosynthesis, he says.

Photosynthetic approaches fall into two categories. The most common is to grow plants and then use yeasts or other microorganisms to ferment sugars from the plants to produce fuels--as in converting corn into ethanol. The other approach is to use photosynthetic organisms to make fuels more directly. This might involve using algae that make oils that can then be processed into biodiesel, or even experimenting with microorganisms that make gasoline or other hydrocarbons directly.

One nonphotosynthetic approach Arpa-e may fund is to pair organisms with solar cells. Recent research has suggested that some microorganisms can use electricity to form organic molecules, such as methane, says Bruce Logan, a professor of environmental engineering at the Pennsylvania State University. These microorganisms could be further engineered to make liquid fuels.

Advertisement

A second nonphotosynthetic approach involves microorganisms such as extremophiles. These microorganisms live in extreme environments, such as hot and acidic water. Unlike plants and algae, these organisms don't use light as an energy source, since they live in dark environments. They also don't draw energy from organic molecules, such as sugars, because those aren't available to them. Instead they draw energy from other sources, such as metal sulfides. They also don't use organic matter for making proteins and lipids, instead using inorganic molecules, such as carbon dioxide.

These organisms have long been studied for the enzymes they produce, since these enzymes can survive at high temperatures, and thus could be useful for industrial processes. But in recent years, researchers' access to the genomes of organisms has allowed them to identify entire metabolic pathways--series of reactions undertaken by organisms--for converting carbon dioxide into various organic molecules. It may be possible to modify these pathways so that these organisms produce fuels.

One such organism is called Metallosphaera sedula, says Robert Kelly, director of the North Carolina State biotechnology program. It's often found in mines. "It oxidizes the metal sulfide, and that's how it gets energy and electrons for cellular processes," he says. These organisms produce organic molecules that have been used to make butanol and other liquid fuels.

Numerous challenges exist to making a feasible process of the biochemistry. But Eric Toone, the project director in charge of the electrofuels program, thinks it's worth trying, because photosynthesis is a very inefficient way to make fuels. "Is this going to be more efficient than photosynthesis? I have no idea," he says. "But the only way we find out is to try. There's a lot of 'white space' here. This is not an area that has been investigated as a possible route toward biofuels. And this is what Arpa-e is supposed to do--try new things."

Arpa-e's electrofuels program will not be limited to approaches that use organisms, Majumdar says. The key is to find alternatives to photosynthesis. Another approach is to use solar energy and inorganic catalysts to make fuel from water and carbon dioxide, an approach called artificial photosynthesis.

Print

Related Articles

DOE's Agency Learns from Some Early Mistakes

ARPA-E's new director explains how it is evolving.

Big Oil Turns to Algae

ExxonMobil invests $300 million in Synthetic Genomics to develop algae biofuel.

Fuel from Algae

A startup's new process could make fuel from algae as cheap as petroleum.

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

Solderinggunslinger

6 Comments

  • 794 Days Ago
  • 12/10/2009

Wildcat Diesel

I believe that students at the University of Arizona are working with the photosynthesis approach thereby bringing a new meaning to "Wildcat" oil.

I remain,

The Old Soldering Gunslinger

Reply

mkogrady

423 Comments

  • 794 Days Ago
  • 12/10/2009

Direct conversion vs Processing

The direct electic microorganism aproach seems to avoid a processing step and therefore would be less labor intensive to manufacture the diesel fuels. 

I have never fully understood the mechanics that Co2 Algae propigated in Bio-Reactors would take to be converted (processed) into diesel.

Do they use a Cold Press or something similar to those used in the vegatable and olive oil industry to squeeze the oils from the plant materials and discard the waste before further processing?

Reply

Guest (Neil2009)

  • 794 Days Ago
  • 12/10/2009

Photosynthesis will always be a better approach

Photosynthesis is inherently superior to the non-photosynthetic methods for two reasons:

1. It is inherently renewable
2. It uses energy that would otherwise contribute to warming the earth

Reply

johnaxe

1 Comment

  • 620 Days Ago
  • 06/02/2010

Re: Photosynthesis will always be a better approach

What concentrations of CO2 are emitted from Coal burning smokestacks? Could they be too concentrated, such that the converter organisms would be poisoned? O2 poisons us in higher concentrations. Could there be significant limits here?
   Naturally, you'd like to capture the CO2 at high concentrations, just as you prefer any valuable ore to be highly concentrated. (It costs a lot more to re-plow thru old tailings.) Natural air is LOW in CO2, even though it's climbing fast. Can any organism handle very high CO2 concentrations?

Reply

Advertisement

MAGAZINE

Can We Build Tomorrow's Breakthroughs?

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.

Videos

Printing Parts

More

Advertisement

Technology Review Lists

TR50

Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:

Amyris

Zynga

IBM

BrightSource Energy

More

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement