Can we create genetically engineered microbes that consume CO2 and put out O2 and carbon as waste?

Question

This might fight global warming.

The difference between these microbes and plants would be that the carbon does not need to become part of the mass of the plant. The nagging problem with this might be that the carbon would burn!

For those of you who said "phytoplankton" and "algae", does the carbon become part of the microbe, or is it excreted as part of its waste?

Answer 1

As 3DM says (first answer) we can use phytoplankton.

These are minute plants found in the seas and oceans in vast quantities - invisible to the naked eye but visible from space as blooms in the ocean. They sequester (remove) carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and when they die they sink to the sea-bed taking the carbon with them. In time, millions of years time, they form sedimentary rocks (limestone, chalk etc).

There is a lack of phytoplankton in some parts of the ocean, by making the marine environment more conducive to their survival we could theoretically increase the numbers of phytoplankton and thus sequester more carbon dioxide.

The same principle works with algae as well.

Answer 2

The carbon would have to go somewhere. If it isn't adding to the mass of the microbe, it would need to be released back into the atmosphere, soil or water system. However, if we could maybe pump them into a place like a spent oil well, maybe this would work. However, as a previous answerer noted, it would really take a lot of them to do the trick.

Answer 3

One other possible problem would be that in order for these microbes to consume enough CO2 to be worth it, the total mass of these microbes would likely rival the total mass of plant life on Earth. It would take a lot of Petri dishes, or whatever.

Answer 4

What about algae? and why does it matter if the carbon becomes part of the mass of the plant?

Maybe you could get these proposed microbes to poo nanotubes and buckyballs?

Answer 5

There are sythetic versions of photosynthesis but, right now, they are too expensive to replace trees or plants.
Maybe someday you can do it and earn the Nobel Peace Prize for saving humanity.
-------
Trees bury the Carbon and the soil is loaded with gigatons of Carbon, some of it was stored a zillion years ago and they formed our Coal Mines.
The Bad News: Everytime there is a forest fire, the fire not only produces CO2 from burning wood, if the heat is high enough, it will burn the Carbon buried in the soil.
The worse news: The fire leaves behing a lot of charcoal and dry wood that is ready to start a new fire, for years.

Answer 6

Use algae , you could get biodiesel from them too. How bout planting trees like Jatropha same purpose. Thats what biofuels are all about and biodiesel is better for your car, much better than ethanol.

Answer 7

We might be able to modify an organism that already exists to be a bit more efficient at it although the scale we'd need would be pretty huge.

A technofix though is probably what we're going to have to do to solve our problems.

Answer 8

Sure, have the little microbes make synthetic monomers instead of sugars and starches, that way you can just cook up a pot of the little buggers to make plastic products.

You're a little confused about them "not becoming part of the mass of the planet." Mass is neither created nor destroyed by chemical processes, organic or otherwise.

Answer 9

no need to geneticly engineer the microbes...

They exist in nature

They are called Algae

Answer 10

Maybe we could just buy all the Dry Ice in this country and bury it deep in the ground.

What do you think?