Slashdot Log In
Methane-Eating Bacteria Could Combat Global Warming
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:28 PM
from the now-just-need-to-work-on-oil-eating-bugs dept.
from the now-just-need-to-work-on-oil-eating-bugs dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
interesting timing (Score:5, Funny)
Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
No, that's what this [beanogas.com] is for!
Just burn it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How many cows and/or sheep would I have to keep on the roof of my car to get enough methane to drive to the store?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just burn it? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is highly relevant for New Zealand as 50% of our greenhouse gas emissions are in fact from cow methane.
The hidden danger. (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds promising... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sounds promising... (Score:5, Funny)
I pretty sure that even if this technology is sufficiently developed it should still be classified as vaporware.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A Cows Stomach (Score:2, Interesting)
So, im not Biologist, but wouldn't the inside of a cows stomach have lots of acid? And the internal body temperature of a cow is probably similar to a humans. So we have the acid, and we are off by about 20 degrees. I'm sure some geneticist somewhere can figure out how to adapt it to these conditions.
Another idea may be to put these bacteria into the pools where the manurer is left to decompose?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Cow body temperature: 38.6C [hypertextbook.com]
old news (Score:2, Interesting)
Just imagine (Score:5, Funny)
CO2-Eating Organism Could Combat Global Warming (Score:5, Funny)
mod parent Insightful (Score:2)
330 teragrams emitted annually by people (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
L'histoire se répète? (Score:5, Insightful)
Human meddling... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Solutions are tough when egos are involved (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Yeah, yeah... (Score:2)
rj
Hubris, Enviro (Score:2)
Humans are also pretty good at adapting, unless the planet undergoes dramatic climate change like it did in that scary movie.
ya let's stop the animals from farting (Score:2)
It's the ironic world we live in where we have to stop global warming at all costs even by disrupting the natural order of things.
Methane + Archaea = gasoline (Score:2)
Nevermind the tiger, put a genetically enhanced cow in your tank.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Solution #2 (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Solution #2 (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Solution #2 (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Did my comment turn you on to the point you had to perform that sort of intellectual masturbation that was strictly irrelevant to the topic at hand anyways?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:here's a shocker (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's another shocker. Planting trees isn't always a good solution, and it can sometimes contribute to the problem. Not all forests release more O2 than they store CO2, plus they decrease the Earth's surface albedo. Fortunately most tropical forests do release more O2, except new forests (young trees release more CO2 it seems).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Grow a tree and you have removed carbon from the atmosphere. Burn it down and you have put it back again
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Plants releasing CO2? That defies basic biology.
No it doesn't. All plants respire. They convert sugars (and starch) and oxygen to carbon dioxide and water. During the day, they also convert carbon dioxide and water to sugar (then starch) and oxygen. Photosynthesis is just a way of storing the chemicals they need for respiration. If they are not getting enough sunlight, then they will emit more carbon dioxide than they consume.
The real problem is when they decompose and turn carbon dioxide (which they sequestered) into methane.
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't going to change human nature. The only thing that you can do to reduce beef consumption in the long term is to make it more expensive for people to purchase.
Given that, technological solutions should be welcomed. I agree that reducing beef consumption would be the superior solution, but if that isn't going to happen, won't reducing the impact of beef production be better than nothing?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-karmaburn
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you really think any beef you eat nowadays ate grass only for a couple of years? Those days are long over.
Better check your facts. A pure corn will kill a cow in less than a year. The typical cow spends less than a fraction one season on a feedlot. It costs way more to feedlot a cow than to let it eat grass for most of it's life. Only in the final stages of fattening up is it productive. No sane person would grain feed anything over most of it's life. So if you base your conclusions on what you believed was a fact you need to reassess them.
Beef requires 25 kilocalories fodder input for 1 calorie meat output, _that's_ wasteful. Instead of producing beef fodder, you could feed 25 times more people with vegetables and they would live decades longer on top.
I'd like to see your facts. It takes prodigious amounts of water
Re:This will do little or nothing to stop Global (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)