Methane-Eating Bacteria Could Combat Global Warming

realwx writes "New Zealand scientists have found a bacterium, named 'Methylokorus infernorum,' that eats a key global warming chemical. Found in a hot spring, the bug lives off of methane emissions from geothermically active areas. A scientist quoted in the article stated that a cubic meter of liquid containing the bacterium would consume about 11kg of methane each year. 'But Dr Stott cautioned that such an application was probably some years into the future. He said it was unlikely the micro-organism, which prefers acidic conditions of about 60C, could ever be added to sheep or cows' food to stop the animals releasing methane.'"

Comments

interesting timing

[Anonymous Coward]

my wife would appreciate some methane reducing lifeforms to combat my post-Thanksgiving gas venting. I've literally been a musical instrument all day long.

Oblig.

[Ethanol-fueled]

From TFS: "He said it was unlikely the micro-organism, which prefers acidic conditions of about 60C, could ever be added to sheep or cows' food to stop the animals releasing methane."

No, that's what this is for!

Just burn it?

[BlueParrot]

Wouldn't it be better to just collect the methane and burn it to displace coal/oil? Sure, you still get CO2 , but methane has the highest energy yield per CO2 yield of all the hydrocarbons, and it is orders of magnitude cleaner than Coal.

Re:Just burn it?

[vvaduva]

That would make too much sense :) Actually a lot of waste dumps are already collecting the methane released and using it for those purposes. Let's face it - this is BS propagandistic garbage; most likely coming from the same people saying that farting cows are destroying the world. First it was CO2, then it was freon, now it's methane, next will be rich capitalists who need their money taken away as punishment. Nobody is offering any real solutions, only blame. It's politics more than it's real concern for the problem.

Re:Just burn it?

[TheRaven64]

Methane has a much greater effect on the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, I'm told. If you burn methane, however, you get carbon dioxide and water, so it seems that the solution to the problem is to collect and burn the methane. For bonus points, you also get energy.

As I see it, the problem is that the cycle is carbon dioxide to long chain hydrocarbons in plants then animals to methane. If you burn the methane, you create a closed cycle, which has no net effect on the atmosphere (you put back the same amount of carbon dioxide you remove). Sequestering methane makes a lot less sense than sequestering carbon dioxide, since you can't easily get energy out of carbon dioxide.

The hidden danger.

[Anonymous Coward]

If this substance found its way into the food supply, it could be the end of ancient tradition of fart-lighting. The cultural loss would be incalculable.

Re:Sounds promising...

[SeekerDarksteel]

I don't think it should be written off as "vaporware" but this is obviously still very much in it's infancy.

I pretty sure that even if this technology is sufficiently developed it should still be classified as vaporware.

Just imagine

[postbigbang]

How many liters would have to be put into Capitol Hill each year to offset the methane there.... the mind boggles!

Re:Solution #2

[MightyYar]

Great idea - just change human behavior and it'll work great! Hey, it worked for the communists.

Ooooor, you could try to use technology to improve the situation. But don't let me interrupt your Quixotian quest to change people by admonishing them. Get them to stop eating beef while you are at it.

CO2-Eating Organism Could Combat Global Warming

[dondonz]

In other news, scientists also discover a way of combatting another major greenhouse gas - carbon dioxide. This newly discovered group of organisms, tentatively called "plants", not only absorbs the carbon dioxide gas, but also produces oxygen AND SOME can be quite tasty in a stir-fry. Further research is continuing, with the hopes these so-called "plants" becoming commercially viable by 2010.

Re:Solution #2

[Telvin_3d]

I don't know. I think building all those country acreages helps combat global warming. After all, it doesn't take many city drivers who are unused to the country running over stray cows to make a measurable difference in methane output.

L'histoire se répète?

[Diddlbiker]

Because other experiments in the past to release some kind of life form to combat something we deem as inconvenient has worked soooooo well: * introducing rabbits in Australia * introducing foxes to eat said rabbits * crossing European and African honey bees to get the best of both worlds... * snakeheads in Eastern USA * american frogs in europe And about another 1000 examples of introducing animals outside their natural habitat have all worked out so well. So, yeah, let's release those bugs!

Human meddling...

[LoadWB]

Anyone ever get the feeling that we are going to really muck things up by trying to "fix" things? We introduce new species of animal or bacteria to an environment to control naturally occurring beings, then these predators completely take over and become a problem in and of themselves. So and on so forth.

I have to believe sometimes that we as humans are simply not smart enough, or perhaps do not see enough of the big picture, to understand the intricacies of the world or the universe to implement such grand scale processes.

Solutions are tough when egos are involved

[Wingit]

Methylokorus infernorum. What consumes it when it gets out of control. I am being corny and soy-ey. (sorry)

Still, the globe on which we currently reside is going through changes. I am sure we play a part, but let us not get an ego. This planet has known this for some time longer than us.

Reducing our negative impacts and increasing our positive cannot be wrong by definition in my book. We can only do positive together.

Re:This will do little or nothing to stop Global

[QuantumG]

Yes, solutions that start with "force everyone to" are not very helpful.

Re:here's a shocker

[camperdave]

Here's a better idea. Stop cutting them down in the first place.

One fifth of the world's tropical rainforest was destroyed between 1960 and 1990. Estimates of deforestation of tropical forest for the 1990s range from about 55,630 to 120,000 square kilometres each year. At this rate, all tropical forests may be gone by the year 2090.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

Re:This will do little or nothing to stop Global

[Whiteox]

We can't all afford to be vegan. After all, we need all those crops for biodiesel.

Re:Solution #2

[4D6963]

Quixotian? LOL

There's nothing wrong with this neologism, as it conveys perfectly accurately the message that the author intended to emit, by making a reference to something that everyone knows about...