Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Making Fuel With Newspapers and Bacteria

Posted by Soulskill on from the finally-a-use-for-newspapers-in-the-internet-age dept.

Debuting on the front page, Lifyre writes "Scientists at Tulane have found a natural bacteria (dubbed TU-103) that produces butanol. While butanol-producing bacteria aren't new, there are a few important points about this particular bacterium. It is the first natural bacteria that converts cellulose directly to butanol without the cellulose needing to be processed into sugar first, and it can do this in the presence of oxygen, which kills other butanol-producing bacteria. The simplification of the process could significantly decrease the production costs of butanol. This bacteria could allow virtually any plant product, such as newspaper or grass clippings, to be used to produce fuel for conventional vehicles."

16 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. wow, think of the impact this will have by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, we can turn old newspapers into fuel. This could create, I dunno, hundreds of gallons of fuel a year. Ok, let's say thousands. Ok ok ok, let's say a million gallons a year. This will surely make a dent in the 380 million gallons the US uses (www.eia.gov) every day.

    I was going to say, this will be useful on an individual basis because it gives savvy people the opportunity to make their own fuel at home. I mean... wait a minute... I haven't bought a newspaper in probably six years. I guess I'll need to start stealing my neighbors' paper.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:wow, think of the impact this will have by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Informative

      Food crops used as fuel are different than fuel crops. Bamboo can grow like wild. All the leftover bits from corn production can be turned into fuel while the corn itself remains food. Plenty of hardy grasses can grow places that we'd never try to grow food. Almost every suburb in the country produces large quantities of grass clippings on land that won't be turned (back) into farmland any time soon.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:wow, think of the impact this will have by wagnerrp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was thinking the same thing. 9 million barrels of gasoline comes to around 1.3 million tons per day, or just under 500 million tons per year. The article claims 'at least 323 million tons' of material would be available per year as feedstock, but it's not like all of that can be converted. A modest guess would say 5-10% of our current gasoline consumption could be offset by this mechanism, if it works as advertised. Far more desirable than your guess at 0.25%, but it won't be a "game changer". It will only be one of many technologies that will have to work together to become sustainable.

      The bigger issue is that gasoline consumption is only about half of our yearly petroleum usage, and for some fields such as aviation, there is simply no alternative. The automotive and rail industries can use electric motors. Anything on a track can draw power straight off the grid, while cars can use heavy batteries. Aircraft don't have the luxury of weight, and our current batteries are a good order of magnitude too heavy to be used. A renewable fuel source for them would be far more important than for cars. Of course, if we convert everything else over to electric over the next few decades, there will be enough petroleum to last the aviation industry several centuries. Presumably we will have come up with something to replace the kerosene fired gas turbine by then.

    3. Re:wow, think of the impact this will have by similar_name · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does everyone keep focusing on the newspapers? Usually things that start with 'such as' aren't exclusive. The summary also mentions grass clippings. So grass clippings and newspaper may not make a dent but since about 33% of all plant matter is made up of cellulose I don't think getting the cellulose would be a problem.

    4. Re:wow, think of the impact this will have by similar_name · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes that's a big number (and only a 1/4 of the what the world uses as a whole) and would probably be even more if the global economy hadn't been sluggish the last few years but I don't think it's orders of magnitude more than the amount of cellulose on the planet. I'm not presuming that we turn all plants into fuel but 33% of all plant matter is cellulose. While it's hard to come up with accurate numbers the earth's biomass, on the low end it would appear that cellulose would comprise about 40 billion tons. Of course for any honest consideration we would have to look at how much we could potentially collect and how much usable fuel we would get out of it.

      Besides, orders of magnitude are not as overwhelming as they seem. Oil production today is orders of magnitude more than it was 100 years ago, yet somehow we got to where we are. Help me understand the reasoning in disparaging a technology in its infancy because it is not instant solution. 10% here and 10% there can add up. Humans will continue to use more and more energy (if history is any indication). I don't think anything needs to instantly supplant petroleum, we just need to keep finding new ways to get energy wherever we can.

  2. Re:Alchohol? by eparker05 · · Score: 5, Informative

    First off, if it is n-butanol that is being produced, the water solubility of n-butanol (at 25 C) would only allow a ~6% concentration, thus the rest would float to the surface and would be easily skimmed off in a moderately pure state. Now I don't know the temperature dependence of the solubility so perhaps this wouldn't be practical at fermentation temperatures.

    Similar research is being done by Dr. Shota Atsumi et. al; they produced an organism with an engineered metabolic pathway which can produce isobutyraldehyde. This compound has a lower boiling point such that at the elevated temperatures of fermentation it is easily distilled from the culture without having to kill or filter the bacteria. Again, the issue of culture toxicity due to the metabolic product is avoided through in situ purification of the product.

  3. wait... by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Funny

    aren't newspapers rarer than oil now?

  4. Re:Huh? by OSU+ChemE · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, cellulose is a polymer of simple sugars. However most organisms lack the enzymes to break the chain up into its individual units. Ruminants and termites have symbiotic bacteria that digest it for them, and some species of fungus can break down cellulose (think mushrooms on a fallen tree) but as it stands, using cellulosic feedstocks require breaking up the chain via enzymes (expensive) or acids (nasty) so that bacteria can utilize it. And yes, newspaper does burn quite well, but I'd like to see you stuff it in your gas tank.

  5. Re:When the bacteria escapes... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given that nature is, in rough approximation, a large mass of meat eating itself(with enough solar meat to save the system from heat death), I'm inclined to doubt it.

    It would certainly try; but the world is already quite full indeed of vicious little organisms who want nothing more than to break the world down into its simple sugars, and the equally cunning countermeasures deployed against them by their intended victims. It is unlikely(though not 100%) impossible, that somebody's pampered little high-yield laboratory specialist would make much of a mark on the mean, mean, microbial streets...

  6. Re:Or don't live in the damn suburbs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because not everyone wants to live in high rise apartments. Some people want a yard for their kids to play in.

    Chicago's population is 2.7 million, but the metropolitan area is over 9.5 million. You can't just shove 3.5 times as many people into a city, it would be a nightmare to the infrastructure, not to mention the numerous rights violations that would be necessary to make that happen.

    How about just going back to living in cities, like in every sensible country, where personal transportation isn't as resource-intensive?

    You've confused "sensible country" with "small country", or possibly with "country where the government routinely takes your land and tells you where to live". While there are situations in which the latter can happen in the US, it is exceedingly rare. The US is huge compared to all of Western Europe and vastly larger than any single country there.

  7. Re:Just burn in right away by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Informative

    Using bacteria (or any other process) to rearrange the chemical bonds of a substance doesn't come free. It consumes energy.

    You mean like photosynthesis?

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  8. More to paper than cellulose by b4thyme · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A larger component percentage of the fiber in newsprint is hemi-cellulose and lignin than cellulose. Newsprint is generally made in a mechanical process rather than a chemical process so you are going to be left with all the turpentine and tall oil in the pulp as well. Are you going to just burn the rest? It seems awfully wasteful given how expensive your process is going to be. It is generally accepted that when it comes to newsprint, it is better to burn it than to recycle it as the fuel expended in the collection of it and energy and chemicals expended to de-ink it outweigh the value of the crappy chewed up fiber you get from recovering it. I am a process engineer in a paper mill

  9. Re:Huh? by Hartree · · Score: 3, Informative

    "First, cellulose is a sugar."

    No. It's a polymer of simple sugars.

    What you said is like saying starch is a sugar. It's also a polymer of simple sugars.

    Take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Chemical

    You might as well say protein is an amino acid since it's a polymer of amino acids. It's the same thinking and just as wrong.

  10. Re:Huh? by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Funny

    more to the point, we'd like to see him stuff rolls of newspapers into his "it's just sugar" face for breakfast, lunch and dinner; and see how much energy he gets.

  11. Re:Maybe by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, this would be very inefficient farming materials specifically for the cause. However, every existing food farm (that's right corn, wheat, and all) has a left over product called silage. This is the parts of the stalks and such that generally gets ground up and dumped back into the field. Some farmers will attempt to collect this and use it for animal bedding or feed. Not all of it is compatible with feed and most animals will snub it given the chance.

    Anyways, an existing corn field in good growing conditions could yield as much as 16 tons of silage per acre. And that's while growing food crops (despite the majority of corn grown isn't meant for human consumption). Now don't confuse refuse silage as cover crop silage which is a bit different in strategy.

    Either way, there is a lot of untapped cellulose wast that could be somewhat easily moved into a program like this.

  12. Re:Or don't live in the damn suburbs. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem with suburbia is not that the people moved out of the cities - the problem is that the places they moved to are horrid mono cultures of McMansions, dropped onto the land without any regard for city planning. If the burbs were mixed neighborhoods with housing, stores, restaurants and a functioning public transit, there wouldn't be a problem at all.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.