The University of Minnesota team is using Synechococcus, a bacterium that fixes carbon dioxide in sunlight and converts CO2 to sugars. Next, they feed the sugars to Shewanella, a bacterium that produces hydrocarbons. This turns CO2, a greenhouse gas produced by combustion of fossil fuel petroleum, into hydrocarbons.If we can make fuel out of CO2, that will be awesome. Especially, on these nuclearly screwed days. Closing cricle, that is the goal!
About "Catch & Research"
Welcome. I found my passion in ecological economics and fishing. They are all about pursuit of unknown and uncertain objects. I always enjoy the seemingly reckless pursuit itself. This blog is a record of my long journey in research and fishing. Your comments are welcome and appreciated.
Monday, March 28, 2011
[News Clip] CO2 to Fossil Fule
Interesting article at Science Daily. Researchers made a seemingly critical finding which could be a key step to make man-made fossil fuel. Don't be so excited, though. Reporters are always exerating. Read this first, how does it sound? Can it be commercially available in the future?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Climate fight without nuclear generation?
Japanese earthquake turned many things upside down. Nuclear power is one thing, the hot potato. Governments are reviewing their nuclear policy. German government is planning to fade out their nuclear power plants.
Surprisingly, strong support for nuclear power is coming from some environmental groups. They claim that it is almost impossible to achieve cliamte goal without nuclear generation. Climate benefit from nuclear generation is bigger than potential danger of it. It is hard to tell when we see the horrible pictures of Fukushima nuclear plants.
For your reference, Emmanuel Fages, head of power, gas, carbon and coal research group, at French bank Societe Generale provides estimates of potential GHG emissions:
Surprisingly, strong support for nuclear power is coming from some environmental groups. They claim that it is almost impossible to achieve cliamte goal without nuclear generation. Climate benefit from nuclear generation is bigger than potential danger of it. It is hard to tell when we see the horrible pictures of Fukushima nuclear plants.
For your reference, Emmanuel Fages, head of power, gas, carbon and coal research group, at French bank Societe Generale provides estimates of potential GHG emissions:
A global freeze on nuclear expansion projects would mean an additional 280 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in annual average emissions over the next 20 years. And if existing plants are retired and replaced with fossil-fuel burning generation and some renewables, then annual emissions could increase by as much as 860 million tonnes on average over the period 2010-2030.What do you think? Keep going with nuclear power in order to achieve climate goal? Or, find and promote alternative energy risking climate future? We all are facing tough decisions.
(from Carbon Market News by Point Carbon, Published: 18 Mar 2011 01:01 PM CET)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)