A Harvard researcher has developed a fuel cell based on the natural activity of anaerobic microbes - single-celled organisms that are able to live without oxygen. The fuel cells can be produced for the nominal price of a few dollars, and at this price many poor people in the world will be able to buy them - including those who do not yet have access to electricity
Peter Girgois, assistant professor of organic and evolutionary biology, developed a fuel cell based on the natural activity of anaerobic microbes - single-celled creatures that are able to live without oxygen. The fuel cells can be produced for the nominal price of a few dollars, and at this price many poor people in the world will be able to buy them - including those who do not yet have access to electricity.
Although the power output is still relatively low, Girgois says it is enough to provide low-energy lighting, or to charge the batteries of various devices, such as cell phones and other communication devices. "There are 2.8 billion people on the planet today who do not have electricity," Girgois says. "Most people want electricity for lighting and communication."
Scientists have been researching fuel cells based on single-celled organisms for decades, but Girgois' stated goal was to use existing knowledge and apply it to the creation of a usable and inexpensive device that could be distributed to areas without electricity.
The breakthrough in the development process came when Girgois realized that to assemble the fuel cells there is no need for the expensive materials used in the research laboratories. He managed to assemble fuel cells that worked quite well even when he limited himself to less expensive materials - which significantly lowered the production price.
The fuel cells rely on a unique property of anaerobic bacteria. These bacteria live in an oxygen-free environment, and when they 'digest' their food, they release excess electrons into the environment. Under normal conditions, these electrons are simply released into the material around them. In Girgois' fuel cells, the electrons move to the electrode and are thereby used to generate a small electric current.
Girgois' fuel cell is based on an electrode, wires for conduction and a small printed circuit about the size of a pack of cards. The electricity flows from the electrode to the printed circuit and from there to one of the two ports on the other side. One port provides power to electronic devices such as LED lights. A cell phone charger is connected to the other port.
Another advantage of the organic fuel cell is that it does not involve the burning of fuel such as oil. It produces energy without adversely affecting the climate. Nevertheless, Girgois says that the organic fuel cells are not an adequate replacement for the fuels used today. It is possible to enlarge the fuel cells so that they produce more energy and channel it through wires that reach into houses, but to supply the energy to even a small city, a huge power plant would be needed, which would span several neighborhoods.
In Bangladesh, a country with a population of 147 million people, they have already started looking towards Girgois' fuel cells. Iqbal Quadir, who owns a company that provides cell phone services to millions of people in Bangladesh, is interested in allowing Girgois to distribute his organic fuel cells as part of a new avenue to create energy that Quadir is promoting. "I like his technology," Kadir said, "it's a paradigm shift."
Before such a mass distribution takes place, several stages of development still need to be passed. Although Girgois has developed several different fuel cells, he has not yet started manufacturing them. He recently won a $10,580 Lindbergh Award for his work, and he intends to use the money to fund continued research on the cells. He expects to improve the fuel cells by measuring the power output obtained from using different types of growing sediments, and what happens when the growing soil is enriched with organic matter.
In order to promote awareness of his work, Girgois is considering demonstrating it publicly. He suggests putting a fuel cell inside a trash can, and connecting a public phone and charger to it. People will be able to chat over the phone, and every time someone throws trash into the trash can, they will feed the bacteria that feed the cargo.
Throughout the history of science, important applications have been produced from areas of research that were considered negligible at the time. Research of bacteria living on the seabed may not be useful in itself, but it can pave the way for innovative and efficient technologies. Again and again we see that when countries limit the ability of academic researchers to choose their research freely - however marginal these studies may be - they collapse the foundation for innovation and technological independence under their feet.
13 תגובות
What exactly is 'power output'? the supplier?
to Babylon,
We must remember that all organic matter will eventually decompose, unless it is buried in such a way that it becomes part of the minerals. We, the people at home, cannot store organic matter in a simple way so that in the future it will naturally turn into oil. Therefore, any organic material we produce will soon be decomposed and all the carbon in it will be released one way or another as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Therefore, in this matter - it is about the creation of "green" energy using the chemical bond created in the living past of the organic material in question.
By the way, even in the large rain forests that are considered the green lungs of the earth, there is no special extraction of carbon dioxide. For every leaf that falls in the forest, a new leaf grows, and if a leaf does not fall, then there is no room for a new one to grow. The tropical forest is an enclave (and for this matter also serves as an ecological explosive barrel) of carbon but not a source of inexhaustible carbon extraction that in time can clean the amount of carbon from the atmosphere.
The only processes that practically "remove" carbon are fossil fuel burial processes. From a technical point of view, even a creation of plastic (carbon polymer) is a burial of carbon for thousands of years, since it is an almost indestructible material. Theoretically, if the process was not so polluting, it would be possible to polymerize many plastic units (which can be used for a variety of applications - if not for burial) and thus create an additional source of pumping carbon from the atmosphere. But in practice - the process is polluting and toxic and in itself emits a lot of energy and carbon into the environment and is therefore not worthwhile.
A nice idea, but it cannot be non-polluting - in the aerial or non-aerial decomposition of compost, greenhouse gases are emitted. Therefore, according to Nature's recommendation, it is sometimes better to throw away and bury the waste than to produce excess compost
(http://www.npg.nature.com/news/2007/071212/full/450937a.html)
It's interesting that no one has written about the lifespan of such a cell.
I also think the state should not invest money in the humanities.
She needs to invest money in something that can pay it back.
If someone likes literature, let them go to Stimatsky or write a book,
And if the public thinks it is important enough, then they will find the money to develop the issue.
Hello Aviv, and thank you for your comment.
Biology is indeed a fascinating field of research, but even in it there are 'negligible' fields, the practical consequences of which are difficult to see in the near future. Such research, for example, could be of rare bacteria that live at the bottom of the sea and do not affect humans or the climate.
The knowledge about the bacteria on which Dr. Girgois's current research is based comes from such studies, the practical implications of which in themselves were negligible.
In conditions where the freedom of research is restricted, it is hard to believe that those 'negligible' studies could have existed, and as a result the current research based on them would not have come into being either.
Shuki asks what about the cats, so that's the answer. We will also extract energy from the cat by forcing the cat, upon entering the trash can, to rub against something plastic and thus cause static electricity in its fur. This electricity will be transferred to the receiver and from there to appropriate use.
Spring,
Let me disagree with what you said.
Let's start with the fact that you wanted to say two things, but you said 4.
Second thing, regarding sections 3 and 4: you should have said only two things. Your claims in these sections are that one should only invest in research that has a profitable/industrial/useful result. And how will you know if a study meets these criteria?
When they invented the laser they did not think at all that it would have uses, and it was not industrial research or for profitability.
Regarding the fourth section, history is not a profitable profession. As above, stories and usually also geography. So not invest in research? The Shohat Committee's goal is to narrow down the research areas to what brings profit to the bottom line. You don't need humanities. No need for social sciences. Philosophy is also very unnecessary for this.
It's eye trouble. Instead of expanding our horizons and becoming a country that creates culture, we will become a country that creates chips.
two things
1. Why does the author of the article decide that the scientific field in which the research is conducted is a "negligible" field. Biology is the gateway to a full world of inventions such as new medicines or innovative food crops. There is here an exploitation of the interesting story for the purpose of serving an agenda that does not derive directly from the content of the story.
2. The article actually demonstrates that especially research with not a lot of funding can yield relevant and innovative results, perhaps much more than research saturated with funding such as elementary particle physics or space exploration programs. Something that perhaps points to the feasibility of conducting many low-funded studies as opposed to a few high-funded studies.
3. Funding will come when the research topic will be relevant and "sexy" not, for example, a casual sorting of anaerobic bacteria, but a search for bacteria that will provide solutions to the energy crisis or energy availability. Such sexy wording has not yet harmed any research, the opposite is true, a useful orientation will help the research focus And mysterious discoveries will multiply as the researches multiply even if these are in useful fields.
4. In contrast, there are academic fields (mainly in the humanities and somewhat less so in the social sciences) in which the expectation of a discovery that will bring economic well-being (as opposed to intellectual pleasure) is very low, and therefore in these fields it is possible to justify a kind of cutback in the spirit of the Shohat Committee.
Uncle,
Would you mind refreshing my memory about the movie?
The thing with the garbage can is like getting a greeting from "Back to the Future"...
In my opinion, the idea is really genius to put a fuel cell inside a garbage can and connect a public phone and a charger to it, and every time someone throws garbage, it will be possible to inform the whole company that there is something to eat.
And what about the cats??
Cute article 🙂
I hope that the "Electricity for every child" project will not fail like the "Computer for every child" project failed. In any case, we have been hearing and thinking and writing and reading for many years now that we will automatically take our garbage and turn it into electricity or gold or silver or something positive. In the meantime it fails to raise its head even though there are beautiful ideas, like the one presented in this article, whose future is still ahead of them.
Organic materials are complexes that were built while investing energy in the creation of chemical bonds and therefore the same energy is stored within them. Today, with the progress of genetic engineering and the development of molecular tools, we are able to identify and improve and develop strains of animals that can enhance or silence specific actions that in practice mean energy production (whether in the form of "flow of electrons" or in the form of creation of molecular hydrogen or even the practical assembly of oils that can be burned effectively ). In theory this is possible and in practice you can even see non-commercial applications that realize this green dream. In practice, it is easiest to pay a few shekels for a liter of oil and not to break your head and/or replace our good old energy devices for the same purpose. Too bad. But this is not the end of the verse! The earth will still speak (and some say it is already shouting today) and in the coming years the world's oil reserves will be lost, perhaps. A day will come and economists will do a simple calculation: the sickness and the lack of oil and the global warming and the rise of the water level and the death of the reefs, etc., etc., etc. All these are simply more expensive than using green energy. It's just profitable to work with junk cells. It's better. Then things will change.
Shalom Hanoch, if my memory serves me right, said "the public is stupid and therefore the public pays". The public always pays. Today it's money, tomorrow it's health and the day after tomorrow it's shattering the illusion of the world-as usual-and don't worry about tomorrow because tomorrow will take care of itself and enough trouble in its time.