Slashdot Mirror
Producing Gasoline With Metabolically-Engineered Microorganisms
An anonymous reader writes "For many decades, we have been relying on fossil resources to produce liquid fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and many industrial and consumer chemicals for daily use. However, increasing strains on natural resources as well as environmental issues including global warming have triggered a strong interest in developing sustainable ways to obtain fuels and chemicals. A Korean research team led by Distinguished Professor Sang Yup Lee of the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) reported, for the first time, the development of a novel strategy for microbial gasoline production through metabolic engineering of E. coli."
My poop already comes out black and tarry. Turning it into crude oil is the next logical step.
No sig today...
Whatever it takes, defund Obamacare. Even if it means shutting down the Government. Whatever it takes. This law will bankrupt our country by providing free healthcare to people who do nothing to earn it.
And how will this will help global warming?
Do you believe in the U.S. constitution? This has already gone through ALL branches of government legally. So get over it.
the development of a novel strategy for microbial gasoline production through metabolic engineering of E. coli."
Isn't the problem the fact that we are burning gasoline and other petroleum products? Using bugs to create more fossil fuels is hardly more ecologically sound than pumping out the hydro-carbons produced millions of years ago by different creatures. Same action just time shifted. We're still eventually pumping a bunch of carbon and other problem gases into the atmosphere which is what is causing all the problems at the end of the day. At best it mitigates some geo-political tensions but does nothing to solve the problem that fossil fuels are bad for the environment.
Can you imagine if an invasive form of e.coli that produces large amounts of alkanes displaced e.coli normally occupying the lower bowels? Farts would become much more entertaining!
Bucket seats could take on a new meaning as well...
We can already make Butanol, a 1:1 replacement for gasoline, via the ABE process. The feedstock is any organic material. But we can't actually buy any, because Gevo and Butamax (a holding company owned by BP and Dupont) are fighting over the patents — which should have failed the test for obviousness.
Why would this process wind up any different?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And the volume expected from this process when it goes into widespread production, is what percentage of the world's consumption? I mean, is this viable in sufficient quantities, or is it another "coffee grounds into fuel" type deal? (See a slashdot article a couple years back.)
Although, mind you, this may appeal to survivalists. You may not be able to create enough gasoline for the entire countryside, but you might be able to eck out enough for a family.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Although growing gasoline in a factory like facility certainly beats ripping up the world to have the fuel available it really does have a hidden curse. The idea is to get off of fuels like gasoline entirely and this could perpetuate the use of gasoline. I would prefer the research money be spent on batteries than on producing gasoline.
Is there anything you *can't* make with E.coli? ...
How about competent politicians?
The article mentions that people have created hydrocarbons like this before. The problem is always scaling up from lab scale to industrial scale. If the price of oil doubles, this kind of technology might be cost competitive. If oil stays anywhere close to where it is now, I seriously doubt we'll see this make any impact.
Is this going to be just used for replacing gas in our over-engineered ICE cars? If so, then this is potentially very unexciting. Battery tech is surely the future, especially as we're seeing at least 5% gains in energy density year after year.
Granted, if it's as an economical alternative for creating energy other than coal or nuclear for general use, then sure, full steam ahead!
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
The Saudis will put the kibosh on this too.
So you don't think the fact that the carbon from fossil fuels is way underground has some sort of effect? Say like, keeping that carbon out of the atmosphere?
Where does the carbon come from when you are "Using bugs to create more fossil fuels"? Are you expecting microbial alchemy?
So if someone does get a scheme that does a good job of making hydrocarbons using microbes what do you think the effect of pumping surplus back into the ground?
There's so much carbon-rich waste that could theoretically be "fuel" for this process, it's about time that people are looking into this possibility.
In a sane competitive entrepreneurial world this would come out of the labs of the big oil companies, or from some "methane alley" start-up investment group. But seeing as how nearly every large tech-based corporation has repeated dropped the ball on follow-on technology and competition, I guess it's just more of the same.
Look, organically produced hydrocarbons, whether from poop, algae or [insert plant of your choice], are still either directly or indirectly dependent on the sun as an energy collector. As such, they are simply inefficient solar energy collection devices that produce a chemical as their output.
All still require infrastructure, water, sunlight and land, which would otherwise be used for human cropland or to support a natural ecology.
So, this might be great for something about the scale of a farm where the outputs weren't being put to any use, but don't expect to significantly add to civilization's energy budget.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Aren't we supposed to be trying to figure out ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels instead of figuring out ways to prolong such dependency?
By the way.... what's up with the new long delays that are required between postings? I used to be able to make another comment after waiting only a couple of minutes... now I have to wait 5.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Towns have been drowned in pig shit when dams failed. There are plenty of sources of carbon at the moment, thank you. Of course, methane digesters are a proven technology that will also work on pig shit, so it'd be better to just get to work generating power with them, rather than waiting for this pipe dream to become a reality. When people figure out how to make gasoline digesters, we can probably upgrade the methane digesters.
Farms already use microorganisms metabolize pig and cow waste into methane, in big vats. The resulting 'biogas', can be purified, and used much like natural gas.
A micro-organism capable of producing oil... Wasn't that part of the plot of Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake?
For more details on 'step e', where the fatty aldehyde is converted to the gasoline alkanes, look up the "cer1 enzyme": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC161066/
This enzyme is used by plants to create waxy coating on their leaves.
I find this to be a great example of what can happen when people are looking cross-disciple for solutions!
Do you know what scales nicely? A thousand different solutions where each won't scale.
If you convert your waste into fuel, you solve two problems: you get a bit of fuel, and you get ride of your waste. It does not need to scale beyond the waste supply for completely solving the second problem, and it will increase the efficiency of the inefficient solar energy collectors we use today.
Now, if you want to help at increasing the efficiency of the crop growing and harvest, go ahead. it'll add (or, more specifically - multiply) to this.
Rethinking email
WHO RUNS BARTERTOWN?!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
So no matter what, another source of energy is responsible for creating the gasoline molecules. If it's solar, why not just power the cars with electricity? Instead they're taking carbon and turning it into carbon dioxide in virtually unlimited amounts. Great idea!
This is exactly how Joules Energy is doing this, only with blue-green algae (cyanobacteria). The advantage of using cyanobacteria is that it uses the sun and our sewage for feed stock. OTOH, by doing e-coli, they will have to feed it corn and other energy expensive feedstock.
My guess is that since Joules Energy made the announcement 2 years ago about what they had worked towards for the previous 8 years, that South Korea is simply playing catch up.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If they make this stuff, and it works, , , , just think? We can pour it into the ocean!
:O
And then we'll have OCEANS of gasoline!
The problem is mass-manufacturing. You can't make cheap machinery that runs efficiently on whatever fuel happens to be made locally.
Back in the late 1800's and early 1900's, production of fuel oil used for lighting and heating was leaving behind a flammable byproduct which was being dumped into water courses. There were cities where the rivers were flammable due to the pollution. Someone saw this and got the bright idea that, hey, we could put that byproduct to use in something where nobody else cares or makes money from it. So they began using it to power their new automobiles. And just like that, the gasoline engine was born. And then an industry was born, making engines that burn a variant of the byproduct from lamp oil production. And then the lamp oil industry bit the green weenie and changed over to producing gasoline for these fancy new horseless carriages.
Why can't we have engines that run on whatever? Because designing, testing, building, and repairing those engines makes it too expensive. If there's only one type of engine that has to be maintained, mechanics can keep up. But when there are a bunch of different engines for different fuels, the maintenance costs go up, the replacement costs go up, the economies of scale get shot to hell, and everyone ends up paying out the ass for a slightly inferior product to what we have now. Basically, it locks out the little guys.
Then again, that's not a lot different from what we have now, since the oil companies have everyone by the balls and lock out the little guy just because they can.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2010/01/27/microbes-produce-biofuels/
All that gasoline will seriously harm, all the GMO transposed poor little flora and fauna - and cells - that are turning my guts into inflamed mush. Just when I was getting sorta accustomed to it, too. This must be backlash from the oil cartels. Some sort of gut-colonizing male envy, or something like that. .... thars a gonna be a rrrrrummmble!
They'll get apically sued, though, good and thorough. Tuoblasfemo considers anything colonized by "its" genes as its own "personal" property. When the gasoline damages them
A few days ago I saw an interesting comment about alternative fuels that re-cast the issue for me.
Namely: they're a distraction. By focusing on the "greenness" of the fuel for cars, be it gas, ethanol, hydrogen, CNG, electricity...we ignore the problem of operation space and storage space (not to mention, the inefficiency, energy-wise, of moving 2 tons of metal just to move one person.) As population grows, we don't have space for everyone to bop around by themselves in their car, nor do we have the space to put them when they're not in use. Bloomberg figured this out a couple of years ago, for example, and hence his strong push of cycle infrastructure in NYC, to great result.
Sure, more cars = not a problem in the middle of Nebraska. But in any metropolitan area, traffic is an enormous burden, and we cannot just throw more pavement at the problem. It's well known that adding lanes doesn't add capacity. We also don't have room for all these cars to park, at least not without paving every square inch in sight.
We need to get people out of their cars. That means higher gas taxes (which haven't been adjusted in decades), car-sharing systems, legal protection for pedestrians and cyclists, and infrastructure spending on pedestrian walkways, cycleways, usable long distance/regional/local public transit (and ending the insistence that public transit pay for itself, something "private" road/infrastructure users aren't expected to do). For example: it is *idiotic* that you cannot take luggage or a bicycle with you on the entire Amtrak northeast corridor.
Funding alternative fuels is fine, but don't do it if you won't fund alternative transportation infrastructure as well. Imagine what $2BN (what Obama wants to spend on "alternative fuels") can buy in terms of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.
Please help metamoderate.
In other words, path dependence.
Why can't we have engines that run on whatever
Because 'whatever' is harder to control and, above all else, tax. Bach when bio-diesel (from used cooking oil) was just becoming popular, the state practically shit itself to round up all the source stock and run it through its own licensed reprocessors. Just to protect the road tax revenue that might have been lost to a couple of hippies processing their own restaurant grease.
Diesels are less popular in the USA (and diesel fuel doesn't have the same tax breaks it does in the EU) because the use of petrol in passenger vehicles and diesel in commercial/military vehicles makes it easier to curtail passenger car use when we go to war with our fuel sources again. By directing refineries to change their product mix, the government can throttle the private sector market without adversely affecting commercial and military operations. Thus reducing the overall demand for scarce crude.
Have gnu, will travel.
The dinosaurs already had this technology, but it got out of hand and melted them down into oil and pretty much wiped them out.
Hydrocarbons may be inefficient to produce "from poop, algae or [insert plant of your choice]", but they are a nifty way to store energy. They're fairly energy dense, easy to transport and store well for reasonably long durations.
Until commercially available batteries approach their power density, hydrocarbon fuels aren't going away.
Just sayin'.
"Metabolically engineered"? Why not just use the usual name? These are GMO. And while I have concern with disseminating GMO crop outside, those one will live in a factory, no problem for me.
Compared to current solar photovoltaics and solar CO2 reduction, they're actually really efficient devices that produce a chemical as their output.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Making gasoline is not the activity that causes global warming, it's burning the stuff that does that, innit?