At the last national meeting of the American Chemical Society, a revolutionary new process was announced for the conversion of vegetable sugars into hydrogen using enzymes. Hydrogen can be used as a cheap and efficient fuel for cars equipped with hydrogen fuel cells, which do not emit pollutants
Although hydrogen is widely recognized as an environmentally friendly alternative to oil, hydrogen production processes are still expensive and inefficient. Most commercial production methods rely on fossil fuels, such as natural gas. Fuel cells containing bacteria have also been invented, but they produce low levels of hydrogen. For this reason, researchers all over the world are now looking for better ways to produce hydrogen from renewable sources.
Percival Zhang, a biochemical engineer at Virginia Tech, and his colleagues believe they have found the most promising system to create hydrogen from plant matter. In laboratory experiments, the researchers mixed 13 unique enzymes together with water and starches in a special reactor. They raised the temperature to moderate reaction conditions - about 30 degrees Celsius - and got the creation of carbon dioxide and hydrogen only, without polluting substances.
The new method produced 3 times more hydrogen than the theoretical yield of anaerobic fermentation methods. At the same time, Zhang admits that the amount of hydrogen produced is still too low for commercial use, and that the speed of the reactions is not optimal.
The researchers are now trying to make the system faster and more efficient in two ways. In the first way, they are looking for enzymes that can work at higher temperatures that will accelerate the rate of hydrogen production. In the second way, they try to extract hydrogen from cellulose, which makes up about 93% of the plant mass in the world. Cellulose is similar in chemical composition to starch, and the researchers hope that by replacing several enzymes in the process, they will be able to break down cellulose as well.
Zhang predicts that one day people will be able to go to their neighborhood grocery store, buy a package of solid starch or cellulose and thread it into their car's gas tank. The trip will be free of air pollution, and will be cheaper and more efficient than any gasoline-based fuel tank that exists today. And unlike cars that burn gasoline, the new system will not produce an odor, he said. The researchers also note that the system will be safe because the hydrogen produced will be consumed immediately.
Alternatively, the new plant-based technology could be used to develop an infrastructure of hydrogen filling stations, or even home hydrogen filling stations. But none of this will happen in the near future. Zhang estimates that it may take 8-10 years for the system to be perfected enough for use in vehicles. At the same time, it is possible that a scaled-down version of the same technology could in the near future create powerful, long-life sugar batteries for music players, laptops and cell phones. Zhang says we may get there in just 3-5 years.
Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/acs-hsi031208.php
Caption: Percival Zhang, a scientist at Virginia Tech, develops a new process for turning plant sugars into hydrogen. Hydrogen can be used to drive vehicles in an efficient and clean way. Photo courtesy of Virginia Tech.
28 תגובות
Sugar cane or sugar beet?
When asked, invent Hebrew letters...
Raphael:
Check all directions.
All in all, using plants is only one of the ways to convert solar energy into usable energy and is not fundamentally different from other methods. Each of the solutions has a cost (and the utilization of land and other resources, including energy, for this purpose instead of another is a cost) and benefit, and in the end we will have to choose the best based on these considerations and not on the basis of preaching and prophecies.
The whole thing about taking resources like food and fresh water and turning them into energy is a waste of time and resources in the direction of impractical research. After all, the solution to the world's energy shortage will not come at the expense of food and water because there is still hunger in the world and a shortage of drinking water today
The solution must be solar and the solar panels can even be in space and the electricity from them will reach the earth through a cable (this is not science fiction it already exists and it is called a "space elevator") similar to the children's fairy tale "Jack and the Pea"
Miko:
With God's help, I hope that no one will suspect that you are from HBS.
Although we are ahead of the curve because currently the technology uses sugars and not cellulose and the whole discussion refers to a period when you might use cellulose, but I think that it will not necessarily be required in deforestation.
We are also making progress in genetic engineering and it is certainly possible that we will be able to engineer plants that will grow in places where there is currently not much vegetation.
Apart from that, maybe (I wish) more people would understand that being based on eating meat - beyond the moral problem of it, also harms the ecology. If and when this happens, it is possible that the areas necessary for grazing will decrease and we will be able to sow "energy plants" in the areas that will be freed up and profit twice.
Anyway - another vision for the time.
I would like to throw in a figure here as a side note that is only indirectly related to the discussion:
The enzyme that fixes carbon in the photosynthesis process (known as "rubisco") works competitively against carbon and oxygen. When there is a lot of oxygen, it uses oxygen and when there is more carbon dioxide, its efficiency in absorbing the carbon dioxide and fixing it to organic matter increases.
On the level of belief alone, I tend to think that these changes in the level of concentration of carbon in the atmosphere can be offset against the increase in the efficiency of carbon dioxide fixation by plants. Moreover, we still haven't said a word about microbial carbon fixation in processes that don't create oxygen (anoxygenic photosynthesis, like autotrophy and maybe some other processes that are less known or not at all).
happy holiday,
Ami Bachar
To create = to create
God forbid I will not be associated with the Jewish authorities 🙂
Michael,
I am aware of what I said
In addition, I said that as long as it is organic waste, then yes, the solution is successful.
But we all know that the appropriate organic waste in question will not be able to satisfy the world's energy requirements since it also has uses (as I said.. fertilizer, feeding farm animals and even industrial uses).
Which brings us, quite directly, to creating a forested area and replacing it with agricultural crops for energy purposes.
If they manage to engineer a plant that is able to produce enough hydrogen through the process and at the same time store as much carbon in its body as a tree that is hundreds and thousands of years old in the Brazilian rain forests - I will take my hat off (I doubt it since the dimensions are completely different, the space occupied is completely different and there can be no situation for a domesticated plant to reach the dimensions These because it will make it difficult to harvest it, etc., etc., etc.).
Don't get me wrong, I welcome technology but I don't believe it is really the way.
Of course there is a situation (which is not so far fetched) that I talk nonsense, that's how it is with amateurs. 🙂
Miko:
But it has already been said, even by you, that it is not necessarily about reducing the green lung.
As you mentioned, one of the possible sources is one that we neglect anyway and it decomposes without benefiting us and other sources could be additional tumors - ones that would not have been created without human intervention. It must be remembered, in addition to the fact that each such growth will always be replaced by the next generation of the same growth so that in general the green area will not decrease but only the details that make it up will be replaced.
Ami, the discussion you sent is mainly about reading comprehension and not necessarily about the carbon balance. You both gave correct answers to two different questions, but I was still outwitted.
and to continue the discussion,
The very fact that all the carbon in the plant eventually ends up in the atmosphere by a non-pathway given enough time is a nice fact but not relevant to my question. It's like asking "Do I have a chance to survive?" and get the answer "given enough time, all chances of survival tend to zero".
In order to sustain human life (and perhaps complex life in the form we know today in general) the atmosphere must contain a certain ratio of carbon-oxygen-nitrogen and other gases.
Yes, in the end all the carbon from the plants and the soil will be emitted into the atmosphere, but his honor should not forget that in the meantime the plants and the soil hold a significant part of the carbon on the surface and on the earth, which allows the atmosphere to maintain the ratio necessary for us to live.
If we burn/exploit the plant in any way and result in the emission of our carbon - we have lost the plant "as a carbon holder".
In the bottom line - a loss, even temporarily, of lifting off the Earth can have a devastating effect on the relationship. Therefore, in my opinion, the method in question is not the desired solution for alternative energy.
We have already seen it happen - burning fossil fuels is only part of the problem - reducing forested areas is the other part
Not only did we emit more carbon into the atmosphere from the earth, but we also subtracted from an element that isolates the carbon on the surface and thus damaged the desired ratio.
oak,
Assuming your statement is correct (that all the carbon in the plant comes from the atmosphere) then yes, that closed the issue for me.
I have no information to contradict it
But when I'm free I'll read the discussion that I shared with you and then I believe I'll come here more educated 🙂
Lamiko is safe.
The source of every carbon molecule found in the plant (cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, pectin and other sugars) is from the carbon dioxide that the plant fixes during photosynthesis. So 100% of the carbon in the plant comes from the CO2 in the atmosphere.
For example, if a certain plant has 100 kilos of carbon - these are 100 kilos of carbon absorbed by the atmosphere (in the form of CO2). Now if you manage to turn all these sugars into ethanol (=cellulite ethanol) burning them will return the same 100 kg of carbon to the atmosphere. That is, it came out in carbon equilibrium while creating fuel
Stiff?
The price of black gold is already $114 🙂 🙂 🙂
China reported today a 49% increase in diesel imports to its territory during the month of March.
Leave you the green shit
Listen to me, invest in oil magic and profit from the situation.
Within 10 seconds you will double your money 🙂 🙂 🙂 1 at worst
https://www.hayadan.org.il/marine-vegatation-against-warming-3003081/
Yes... minor detail
A link should also be given
Hello Miko,
Allow me to direct you to a discussion related to the topic in an interesting article published here in Bidan a few days ago. Also there the commenters, including myself, debated about the carbon balance. It seems to me that the discussion there will violate the discussion here.
Greetings friends
Ami Bachar
My intention was that during the life of the plant from germination to uprooting, it did not necessarily have enough time to handle an amount of carbon from the atmosphere that exceeds the amount it is going to emit when using it as fuel
But these are already numbers that we are not aware of.
You are basically right, but have you ever asked yourself where the carbon comes from for the plant?
It seems to me that this is the missing link in you...
The carbon for plants comes from the soil and the air. By and large, you are right that when you uproot plants to use as fuel, you are adding more carbon to the atmosphere. The point is that you will start growing the plants again, and then the carbon you added to the atmosphere from the Yossi plant, you will absorb with the help of the Moshe ben Yossi plant.
Or as it is said "Plants have become fuel, and sprouts will grow"
Thanks Roy for the explanation
But there is still no answer to my question.
As soon as you damage the factor that handles carbon dioxide (plants) and drains all the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere you
1) loses some of its ability to handle carbon dioxide over time
2) draining carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
What does it matter if the carbon came from a plant or from oil? You have de facto drained additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere "where it does not belong" and all the more - you have lost part of the ability to handle it.
It's like a woodcutter burning the handle of his only ax because he needed fuel for a grill. (Apologies for the delusional analogy... hope it's clear)
My opinion is that as long as it is organic waste and not natural biomass (or more correctly - organic waste that does not come at the expense of the little natural biomass that remains) then the technology is "friendly" otherwise it is simply "less immediately destructive".
Or I still don't understand something and then I'll ask you to enlighten me.
I even found a website with a slideshow, in case you want a live demo….
http://ichut.macam.ac.il/matzagot/carbon-circle.htm
Miko,
I wanted to explain to you what the carbon cycle is in nature, but I got a little confused...
So I found a short explanation that you can reach if you Google the carbon cycle in nature:
"
The carbon cycle
Author: Hagit Maor
Carbon is one of the basic components of all molecules in the living body.
The main source of carbon in nature is carbon dioxide, which appears in two forms: a. as a gas in the atmosphere; B. Dissolved in bodies of water. In addition to this, carbon also appears in compounds found in rocks and in the depths of the earth (in the form of coal, oil and natural gas).
The vegetation - both terrestrial and marine - assimilates the carbon in the process of photosynthesis and turns it into organic compounds (carbohydrates, proteins and fats). These are the main source of carbon in the animals' food and it is passed on through the food chain.
In the process of respiration, part of the carbon dioxide returns to the atmosphere, another amount is released from decay and a small part is accumulated in the form of organic matter or as minerals of coal, oil and natural gas.
In the last two hundred years, industrial processes that release large amounts of carbon dioxide have accelerated
to the atmosphere (mainly burning of fossil fuels) - the natural balance of carbon dioxide has been disturbed. Also contributing to this is the reduction in the amount of vegetation existing on Earth, which assimilates less carbon dioxide.
The amount of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere today is 50 percent greater than the amount it was two hundred years ago."
Basically, when you use oil that is buried in the ground, and is not part of the carbon cycle, you are adding more material to the system. The carbon you added is stored in the atmosphere, since it is able to absorb the most and the fastest carbon, as well as the majority of the product is gaseous
Hope I helped in understanding…
Beelzebub,
I didn't just talk about the stalks and the other organic waste that remains from the process of separating the corncob from the rest of the plant and other processes like that.
To remind you, flour is produced from the seeds that are located in the bush, everything else - the stem, the chaff and the leaves are waste that rots in the fields after the combine passes -> we have already invested the energy in the harvest, why not use these sources of cellulose? There is no need to invest in new areas and new crops (as long as the quantity is really sufficient.. and I believe it is).
Regarding the carbon dioxide - I'm still missing something.
Not only do we destroy a plant, whose job, among other things, is to convert carbon dioxide into sugars and thus "filter" our atmosphere, but we emit additional carbon dioxide.
How this fits with the fact that he "does not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere" is still unclear to me.
And of course, I did not claim that ethanol and biodiesel do not emit carbon.. but there is a difference between "non-polluting" and "less polluting" but that is already a claim against Mr. Zhang.
Beelzebub
what is this name Is the idea a "fly"?
Be that as it may, the article talks about a non-polluting process and not about a process that pollutes less than others. Miko commented on this and I agree with his comment.
If you read his words again you will see that he also points to the possibility of reaching energy without growing anything else. It is not clear if it is possible to reach all the necessary energy this way, but certainly a significant part of it.
Add to this the fact that cellulose can also be extracted from crops that do not need any treatment (such as wild plants that today we mainly invest energy in exterminating) and you will see that the matter can be quite serious.
I wanted to respond exactly like Miko, but since I entered the site just now, I had no choice but to say: Miko - I support everything you said.
Miko,
Biodiesel and other things also release carbon dioxide. The assumption is that the carbon dioxide that is released in the process is identical in quantity to the carbon dioxide that is assimilated by plants during photosynthesis, and therefore does not actually add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
The real problem with growing plants - as shown by two articles in "Science" - is that the clearing of the land and the machines used to grow the plants greatly increase the pollution to the air so that the whole process increases the pollution and the emission of carbon dioxide.
dan solo,
Cellulose can be produced from any plant cell, not necessarily from edible plants, unlike biodiesel produced from vegetable oils (which is easier to produce from edible plants) or ethanol produced from sugar (which is also easier to produce from edible and domesticated plants) - these are the fuels that affect world hunger and the price of wheat and corn while Cellulose can be extracted from the stalks of the wheat/corn and any other residue that is currently growing mold or feeding pigs.
You may be interested to read:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%90%D7%99%D7%AA
What is not clear to me in the article is this sentence:
"And they got the creation of carbon dioxide and hydrogen only, without polluting substances"
Carbon dioxide is one of the main greenhouse gases
How exactly is the process called "non-polluting" when it causes the emission of carbon dioxide?
Dan,
Everything has consequences, and they need to be carefully balanced against each other. For example, air pollution (oil) leads, among other things, to the warming of the earth. Hydrogen technology can eliminate this effect.
In any case, it is important to continue to research and make sure that we have all the possible knowledge when we come to solve the problems.
Producing fuel from plants causes food prices to rise and hunger in the third world due to the direct use of plants, for example corn, or due to the use of growing areas that were used as food for fuel crops.
You can hear Percival Zhang being interviewed on the program Science: Friday
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89562590&ft=2&f=510221
to travel and not to travel…..