Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientist Engineers Bacterium That Inhales CO2, Produces Energy

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: Scientist Engineers Bacterium That Inhales CO2, Produces Energy

#71

Post by stplsd »

steffenfrost wrote: post #67
jerf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 10x more efficient for human purposes . It's not a 10x more efficient mechanism in general. Evolution has no need to produce 10x more rather energy-expensive molecules than it needs, so it doesn't produce bacteria that do that. Which is also the answer to everybody else wondering about what happens if this gets into the biosphere. Well, have you ever been walking in a relatively natural forest area and come acro…

If this is so, then why can invasive species wreak havoc in an ecosystem? http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-news/5-invasive-species-you-should...

How is even related to the points discussed by parent comment?

Re: Scientist Engineers Bacterium That Inhales CO2, Produces Energy

#72

Post by smt88 »

DougWebb wrote: post #39
smt88 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolution isn't designed, but it also isn't random. It's just directed by survival, which isn't always best served by maximum efficiency in specific functions like this one.

Evolutionary changes occur by random mutation and, in sexual reproduction, by random genetic mixing. Whether or not those changes are successful is governed by survival, but it's not directed by survival. Survival doesn't choose specific evolutionary changes with a goal of increasing survivability.

This has become a completely semantic argument, but HN is a great place to argue semantics, so here we go.

> Evolutionary changes occur by random mutation and, in sexual reproduction, by random genetic mixing

The genetic changes of evolution are due to random mutation, but the ones that don't survive are not "evolution". Evolution is the subset of random mutations that increase reproduction/survival rates. If, at some point, a chimp was born with two heads, we wouldn't say that "chimps evolved to have two heads" because that two-headed chimp didn't pass on its genes. We'd say "a chimp randomly had two heads one time" and wouldn't bring it up in a discussion of evolution at all.

> governed by survival, but it's not directed by survival

To be directed by something does not always imply intentionality. Of course the most common usage of "direct" indicates something intentional, but that wasn't how I meant it. I meant "direct" in the sense that a particular landscape will direct the course of a river.

Re: Scientist Engineers Bacterium That Inhales CO2, Produces Energy

#73

Post by johngalt »

staticvar wrote: post #22
shaqbert wrote: post #7

Any mechanism to capture CO2 emissions is a huge win for the environment. What is missing is an assessment of cost. If this is economically feasible at some point in time in the future, then goodbye oil and coal. Open question is how to ensure these bio-engineered organisms don't seep into the environment and trigger some unintended consequences. There needs to be some kill switch in there as well.

My tinfoil hat is buzzing. What happens when this bacteria is released in our lakes and oceans?

That's like worrying about cattle getting loose and taking over Africa. The same things that make them useful to us also make them horrible at competing in a natural setting.

Re: Scientist Engineers Bacterium That Inhales CO2, Produces Energy

#74

Post by johngalt »

My brilliant invention: A solar powered self replicating machine that eats CO2 and uses it to create building material. With minimal preparation the material could also be burned for energy.

I wonder how far I'd get before people realized I was planting trees.

Re: Scientist Engineers Bacterium That Inhales CO2, Produces Energy

#75

Post by dogma1138 »

myrryr wrote: post #69
ams6110 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the smallest molecule there is. It's really difficult to contain. It will leak out of steel containers while embrittling the metal. However it's not necessary to use pure hydrogen as vehicle fuel. Alcohol or other hydrocarbons can be used directly in a fuel cell to produce electric power, or be burned in an more traditional combustion engine.

Helium is the smallest molecule. H2 is quite a bit bigger.

Helium is the smallest atom iirc helium doesn't have a molecule.

Re: Scientist Engineers Bacterium That Inhales CO2, Produces Energy

#76

Post by lugg »

johngalt wrote: post #74

My brilliant invention: A solar powered self replicating machine that eats CO2 and uses it to create building material. With minimal preparation the material could also be burned for energy. I wonder how far I'd get before people realized I was planting trees.

To be fair, this is 10 times as efficient as plants.

Fwiw, it took me to the third sentence.

Re: Scientist Engineers Bacterium That Inhales CO2, Produces Energy

#77

Post by deciplex »

peatmoss wrote: post #62
ams6110 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This won't reduce atmospheric CO2.

It does if you use it to produce more fuel than is consumed.

It's unlikely we wouldn't consume it, but we could "consume" it without releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere, e.g. by making polyethylene from the alcohol.

Re: Scientist Engineers Bacterium That Inhales CO2, Produces Energy

#78

Post by deciplex »

ams6110 wrote: post #59
shaqbert wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydrogen fuel is indeed really difficult to manage. The Hindenburg accident come to mind, or the weight problems of fuel cell cars...

It's the smallest molecule there is. It's really difficult to contain. It will leak out of steel containers while embrittling the metal. However it's not necessary to use pure hydrogen as vehicle fuel. Alcohol or other hydrocarbons can be used directly in a fuel cell to produce electric power, or be burned in an more traditional combustion engine.

Hydrogen leaks out of steel containers because it's "small"? Doesn't the size of even the largest atom (or, for that matter, molecule) pale in comparison to even the smallest leaks you will typically find in a steel container?

Re: Scientist Engineers Bacterium That Inhales CO2, Produces Energy

#79

Post by iamgopal »

goda90 wrote: post #6

"The leaf hasn’t lived up to its promise, Nocera said, because the world isn’t ready for hydrogen fuel." And probably won't be for transportation because battery tech is improving. But if this proves to be an effective way to produce liquid biofuel that can replace gasoline/diesel with simple engine conversions, then we can repurpose our existing liquid fuel infrastructure and existing cars instead of building a whol…

Why Toyota do not understand this ?

Re: Scientist Engineers Bacterium That Inhales CO2, Produces Energy

#80

Post by eru »

shaqbert wrote: post #8
goda90 wrote: post #6

"The leaf hasn’t lived up to its promise, Nocera said, because the world isn’t ready for hydrogen fuel." And probably won't be for transportation because battery tech is improving. But if this proves to be an effective way to produce liquid biofuel that can replace gasoline/diesel with simple engine conversions, then we can repurpose our existing liquid fuel infrastructure and existing cars instead of building a whol…

Hydrogen fuel is indeed really difficult to manage. The Hindenburg accident come to mind, or the weight problems of fuel cell cars...

The Hindenburg had some other problems, too. The paint on the outside was extremely flammable.

(And still, casualties came mostly from people jumping off the ship. The people that stayed on mostly survived.)

Post reply on HN