Slashdot Log In
Biology Could Be Used To Turn Sugar Into Diesel
Journal written by Slithe (894946) and posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Feb 01, 2007 01:32 AM
from the goodbye-mr.-fusion dept.
from the goodbye-mr.-fusion dept.
ABCTech has an interesting article about an Emeryville-based tech startup, Amyris Biotechnologies, that is planning to use microbes to turn sugar into diesel. Ethanol is made by adding sugar to yeast, but Amyris believes that it can reprogram the microbes to make something closer to gasoline. The company was initially given a $43 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to attempt to research the applications of Synthetic Biology for making a cost-effective malaria drug. Jack Newman, the Vice-President of Amyris said, "Why are we making ethanol if we're trying to make a fuel? We should be making something that looks a lot more like gasoline. We should be making something that looks a lot more like diesel. And if you wanted to design, you name it, a jet fuel? We can make that too."
This discussion has been archived.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.
I can't wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Diesel tree, hydrogen, ethanol etc. (Score:5, Funny)
The trees. Man, the trees hate us too.
Parent
Re:Diesel tree, hydrogen, ethanol etc. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Diesel tree, hydrogen, ethanol etc. (Score:5, Funny)
+2 Concept for next Mel Gibson Movie
--
+1 Net points
Please mod accordingly.
Parent
the magical fruit (Score:5, Funny)
They should add suger to beans. They're great for making gas.
Re:the magical fruit (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:the magical fruit (Score:5, Informative)
Sugar cane.
Europe has zero tropical areas and still produces plenty of sugar - from sugar beets.
Parent
Re:the magical fruit (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:the magical fruit (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:the magical fruit (Score:5, Informative)
I think they produce a beet or two here in the US:
"U.S. farmers produced 33 million tons of sugar beets on 1.6 million acres in 2000, versus 28 million tons of sugar beets on 1.4 million acres in 1990"
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February05/Fin
Parent
Note from Africa (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Note from Africa (Score:5, Funny)
Quiet, if you tell the whole world you have cheap fuel, someone is likely to liberate you and/or the fuel.
Parent
Cheney got a gun... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Cheney got a gun... (Score:4, Funny)
Considering his current popularity the line "Run away, run-run-awayeyeyey, from the vice, pressss-ident" turned out to be quite prophetic
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't want it from sugar (Score:5, Interesting)
Waste cellulose is easy. (Score:5, Informative)
That's easy: Add xylene. (Either in a batch, or by incubating it with the sort of bacteria that hang out in the guts of termites.)
This cracks the cellulose back into starch.
Cracking starch to sugar is similarly trival. (Either add acid or feed it to certain microbes.)
Once you've got sugar, getting to ethanol is a previously-solved problem (as is getting it to "something more like gasoline or diesel fuel" if the other bioprocesses work out on an industrial scale.)
Of course if you are willing to go with METHanol, just heat the cellulose, in a centuries-old industrial process. (That's why they call it "wood alcohol", after all.)
Parent
Perhaps... (Score:5, Interesting)
Gasoline will be a bit harder as you don't want long chain parafins, you want branch chained C7 / C8s (seven and eight carbon hydrocarbons) as a straight chain C8 hase an octane number of zero (by definition) while the fully branched C7 has an octance number of 100 (again by definition). Getting octane numbers >90 is difficult without using aromatic compounds (benzene & toluene which have octane numbers in the 120 to 150s).
The original source for the octane 100 reference was from the cones of a particular pine tree.
So in theory there is a biological precendence but it could take 10 years to get there, once we do then the scale up will be very quick.
ZombieEngineer
Alternatives vs. peak oil (Score:4, Interesting)
Most alternatives require drastic infrastructure changes—converting hundreds of millions of cars to hydrogen or batteries isn't going to be easy or cheap. Adding ethanol to the mix could help, but the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) isn't all that great, and it will force food prices up as well. This company seems to have something rather novel up its sleeve—it'll be interesting to see how effecient their process is. If it's good, it'll be much more than a $10 billion company before too long.
Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Peak Oil and Plastics (Score:3, Informative)
A Tad Repugnant (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I mistaken, or did this company start with a $43 million gimme with the explicit goal of saving people from malaria?
absurd land use madness (Score:5, Insightful)
We could feed 10 billion today. We mostly do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Our food production on a *per acre* basis beats the hell out of any reasonable expectation of human population growth. Human population going to be 100 billion by 2100? Thats a big *yawn* from the perspective of our untapped agricultural capacity -- yields per acre in the US from 1900 to 2000 increased by over a factor of about 6 to 8 (depends on crop), due to improved agricultural practices, improved agricultural business models (sorry, family farm, agribusiness grinds you into dust on the efficiency scale), the Green revolution, etc etc. The best farmers in Iowa get over 20 times more yield per acre than the average farmers in Africa, and its not inherently due to the Iowa dirt just being superior dirt. Take modern technology plus modern societal organization, mix in some cruddy desert land that had been impoverished for millenia, and you get Israel (which is an agricultural powerhouse, especially compared to anybody in the neighborhood).
Over the same 1900 to 2000 time period, Japan had an even better relative increase in productivity, mostly because (like much of present-day Africa) they were starting from pretty darn close to the bottom of the curve.
Even assuming that technological progress in agriculture stops today (unlikely -- we're just getting the party started when it comes to GMO crops, and "640k should be enough for everybody"-type "All progress has already been accomplished" thinking is always a loser), all we'd have to do to feed 10, 15, 20 billion people is take the technological and organizational know-how of the leading edge of First World farmers and get that know-how to land which is already used for agricultural purposes. Sure, we could claim extra land too, but its hardly necessary.
So why, with this abundance of technology, do people still starve? Bad government, in every single case in the modern world. Governments practically evolved to combat famine and some countries in Europe (e.g. the Netherlands) haven't seen a non-war one in a couple hundred years. Many nations in Africa, North Korea, the Ukraine under the Soviet Union, on the other hand, have a government which either uses famine as a weapon to commit democide against their opponents (Sudan), or is just maliciously incompetent (North Korea, "Hey I've got an idea lets take all the land from the white farmers and give it to our black powerbase who have no experience managing farms, no possible downside there" in Africa).
Give your stock poor African nation 20 years of stable economic growth (i.e. capitalism and democracy, pretty much) and I'll guarantee you their main food-related health problem will be obesity, like it is for "poor" people in the United States. (Quote marks around "poor" because you can't speak about poor Americans and poor Africans in the same sentence, the situations are utterly incomparable.)
Now, as it regards bio-anything for a power source, I'm skeptical that we can increase agricultural efficiency faster than our energy needs, so I agree with you. Lets hear it for nukes, nukes, and some more nukes. (Solar, geothermal, and hydropower are all heavily dependent on you living somewhere they actually work, but you can split the atom pretty much anywhere.)
Parent
This is GREAT! (Score:5, Funny)
yes, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
(That has to be the longest sentence I've written on
B.
had to be said (Score:3, Funny)
So...How's the malaria reseach going? (Score:4, Insightful)
Jack Newman, PhD, Amyris Biotechnologies VP: "This was technology that was really great for the current application of making an anti-malarial drug and we said, great, pharmaceuticals, that's a wonderful model and then we realized, our market is in Africa and they make less than a dollar a day."
So they decided to aim for a more lucrative market as well -- bio-fuels -- a clean alternative to petroleum products.
Within months they had $20 million dollars in venture capital funding and a new CEO.
Well, well, well, isn't that nice...
So, whadup with that malaria thing?
Man...Damn chumps make less than a dollar a DAY! How we gonna make a livin' on that?
Oh yeah, right.
An now we need to clear cut a billion acres for our sugar plantation. Gonna get us some giant ants to run the place.
Cowabunga.
Why are we NOT making ethanol? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ethanol is actually an excellent fuel. I'd say it's actually _better_ than gasoline. While the mileage you get from either is about the same (provided you tune the engine for the fuel), ethanol burns cleaner, which is better for the environment and for the engine.
So, as far as I am concerned, the question is why we are _not_ making ethanol. And I think the answer to that is that some powerful entities don't want us to. For example, governments don't want you to produce ethanol - which is, after all, alcohol, and bad for your health, etc. Besides, many governments get a cut from all alcohol sales. And of gasoline sales, too. Which are also the lifeline of the powerful oil industry. I am not saying there is a conspiracy here, but it's undeniable that there are powerful parties who have much to lose from cars switching to gasoline for fuel.
By the way, all the above applies to gasoline engines. Diesel engines are a different story. They don't run on gasoline, and they don't run on ethanol (or at least, not well). However, they do run on biodiesel, and even straight vegetable oil (will need pre-heating in cold weather, though). Vegetable oil is much less problematic, and, if I ever get a car, I will make sure it's a diesel, fit it with the necessary fuel heating system, and run it on sunflower oil (or whatever vegetable oil is cheapest).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To get petroleum and natural gas, you drill a hole and suck out your product. You spend resources to construct drills, transportation, and refining equipment.
To get biofuels, you stop producing food or other cash crops, spend fertilizer, clean water, pesticides, etc. to produce the crop. Now you have to harvest it all, transport it to a production faci
What?!?! Isn't ethanol a fuel? (Score:3, Interesting)
My car runs with ethanol (it runs with gasoline too). Isn't it a fuel? (According to the dictionary, yes, it is.) More than that, my car does 11.8 kilometers per liter (27.75 miles per gallon for americans, 8.478 liters per 100 km for europeans) with ethanol and it costs only 65% of the price of gasoline.
It would have to run 18.15 km per liter with gasoline (42.69 mpg, 5.51 l/100km) to have the same cost per kilometer, but it doesn't go further than 15 km/l.
Gasoline? Not for me, thanks!
one ton of dry biomass = 2 barrels of oil (Score:5, Informative)
Starches are fine to start with, but only a small amount of the plant ends up as starch. An even smaller amount ends up as oils. Celulose, pentosans and lignins compose the majority of plant tissues. There are many fungi which digest these and some can be harnessed to produce alcohols. The issue is we are still stuck with one ton of dry plant matter equals about 2 barrels of oil.
The USA burns about 20 million barrels of oil per day. From a plant source this is 40 million tonnes per day.
A cheaper and more promising way to produce this oil is using the Fischer Tropche process and doing coal->liquids or coal->gas. Note that Alberta Tar Sands operations are essentually bitumin->liquids. Bitumin is a little closer chemically to what we need than coal is... IE both are hydrogen poor in that liquid fuels in the Alkane series (most of what we use) have about a 2:1 ratio of hydrogen to carbon.
Coal depending on the type is about 0.6:1 and bitumin is closer to 1:1.
Methane is 4:1. This means that methane is a good chemical feedstock from which to obtain the hydrogen needed.
This also means it is stupid to be burning methane... it is far more valuable as a chemical feedstock than a fuel.
Plant matter does fit into the equation, it is not as hydrogen poor. Plant matter is basically (CH2O)n and from this we can see that it is a partially oxidized hydrocarbon. This means that plant matter is hydrogen poor unless we can break the H2O bonds and this is the same problem we face with coal and bitumin. Ie... in the case of coal and bitumin, we can break H2O bonds in river water or lake water or ocean water to obtain our hydrogen.
Note that alcohols are also partially oxidized hydrocarbons. Ethanol for instance is C2H5OH. This means it is easier to obtain ethanol from sugar because both the sugar and the ethanol contains Oxygen. The flip side of this is that since the molecule is already partially oxidized, it doesn't contain as much energy as an un-oxydized Alkane such as the ethane (C2H6) parent molecule. Also note that ethane for instance has an atomic weight of 30 while ethanol has an atomic weight of 46. So you have less energy with about 1.5 times the weight.
(BTW - this is the short of why the oil industry is building LNG tankers. Methanol (CH3OH) is safer and easier to transport than CH4 (liquid), but 1/2 the weight of methanol is oxygen).
All this means is there isn't a free lunch. Production of any fuel from a sugar polymer source (dry plant matter) is going to require energy and the only biological source of this energy comes from oxidizing carbon to obtain the energy required to salvage the hydrogen. This results in massive releases of CO2 (of course - its the raw material plants use to create dry matter - hense it is not polution and is in fact fertilizer). Next you lose a significant amount of the total mass of the dry matter we start with. We eventually are left with one ton of dry plant matter is equivalent to 2 barrels of oil - if we can convert it for free.
We are back to needing 40 tonnes of dry plant matter per day and massive factories which don't exist.
Ethanol is Better (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, gasoline goes right into existing cars. But so does high-concentration ethanol/gasoline mixtures. By the time gasoline is too scarce to add, even if in a decade or two, we can have upgraded engines to fuelcells to use ethanol. And the greenhouse gas pollution we'll pump into the atmosphere will be much less: solving our two biggest "carbon economy" problems at once, instead of perpetuating one while taking pressure off by solving the other.
If anything, we should be looking at lower-energy/impact production techniques for methanol, which has 1/2 the carbon of every ethanol molecule to pump into the atmosphere as pollution.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope this isn't snake oil, we need an alternative to oil as it wont last forever. If you look at the current crop of alternative energy offerings, none of them offer the same energy density or ease of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hydrogen simply dosn't make a good replacement for existing fuels. Where as biodiesel, even regular vegetable oil, can go straight into the tank of an unmodified vehicle. Especially a modern one which comes complete with a computerised eng
Re:Fast Track Global Warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of us will get on with finding usable solutions to the problems we face. Gasoline happens to be a quite ideal energy storage mechanism for applications where weight, size, stability and reliability are important.
Parent
Re:Fast Track Global Warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
As an aside:
I think this mentality is also what allowed much of Europe to convert to fission power. One of the problems -- in my humble opinion -- is that the factions in the US that wrangle over environmental policy (unfettered business freedom, ecological scaremongers and nuts) don't leave any room for incremental improvement. Everyone is looking for the silver bullet instead of going with what we have to try and make that 1%, 5%, 10%, or even 20% difference in the meantime, thinking (I think maliciously) that an incremental solution is going to somehow fundamentally prevent us from finding or using that silver bullet should we find one.
Parent
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason Oil is so bad is because instead of pulling the excess carbon out of the air we are pulling it out of the ground and pumping it into the air. net impact is closer to 100%
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A negative return would be needed to actually save the
Actually, it is perfectly fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You talk about harming the environment on one hand, and then talk about covering a desert with plants and salt water as if it is a good and harmless thing? Deserts are a part of the environment too, and are a lot more delicately balanced than prairie grasslands or deciduous forests. Leave the salt water in the oceans where it belongs.
Re:Actually, it is perfectly fine (Score:4, Interesting)
last I heard we don't have a water shortage here on earth.
Actually there IS a huge water shortage in many parts of America, especially in midwest farm areas. Where do they get their water? They divert it from rivers and streams, and in the process affect habitats and ecosystems over a HUGE area downriver.
Unless you are making those fertilizers from biopetro...
Or unless those chemical fertilizers are destroying the soil, increasing erosion. Erosion is another huge problem. There are organic methods to combat erosion, but you can bet that a company like Monsanto isn't going to employ them on their 10,000,000 acre corn-for-diesel fields.
Until someone produces an economical biofuel grown in salt water in the desert, biofuel production is about the worst thing we could do to our environment.
I'm not green or crunchy or a tree-hugger or anything, but I agree with the grandparent. This would be HORRIBLE, not because biodiesel is particularly horrible in itself (despite its particulate emissions), but because the people who would be operating the agriculture side of it are HORRIBLE corporations.
Parent
Renewable ressources = ecological (Score:5, Insightful)
Any renewable energy, by being *renewable* must therefore be part of a cycle.
Not a resource that just must be mined for (like coal. There is a net positive release of CO2 and other pollution into the atmosphere), but a resource that is progressively rebuilt as part of the cycle :
Where at one end of the cycle, people are burning bio-diesel into CO2, at the other end, algae/corn/other plants are converting CO2 and light back into sugar which will be fed back to the diesel-producing bacteria (basically : they produce fat*).
Same with wood : if your burning down great tropical forest there's a net negtive bilan. But if you use wood from specially grown tree for that purpose, the net bilan is neutral : you destroy as much as you grow new tree whitch will fix back that CO2. (And therefore, heating with wood pellets happen to be more ecological)
In fact, if some scientist discovered a way to produce renewable gasoline (I mean, a faster way than the natural "just stand around a few million years and all that coal will finaly turn into oil"), it will be much more environment friendly because at one end of the process you'll be fixing back most of the pollution that was released on the other end.
BUT...
Although the problem of CO2 is corrected with renewable energy sources, there's still other pollution that is produced by burning diesel, whose problem isn't it's increase, but it's mere presence.
Namely : the finer particles that are emitted by burning diesel. All this micro-dust, at the moment of release, is bad for your health (even if in the long term, it's going to be degraded and then assimiled back into the diesel).
But that is a separate problem that is currently already being tackled in current diesel/bio-diesel engines.
------
* : Given the fact that bio-diesel is just refined fat, another solution beside the bio-diesel producing bacterias, would be adding bio-diesel facilities next to liposuction clinics. It is renewable (CO2 fixed back into fat through the food chain). Given the fact that the societies burning the most gaz are also the fattest (due to the lack of exercising related to the car usage), this could (...almost...) makes sense.
Parent
Re:Next they'll work on snakeoil (Score:5, Funny)
Which means instead of dino juice fueling air travel, we may have snakes on a plane. I'm not sure of the source now but something I saw recently makes me think this may not be such a great idea, to have snakes on a plane. (Maybe it's just me, as I don't trust reptiles in any form, since that one pretty good book, anyway.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Defendant: Yes your Honor. I mistook it for a diesel.
Or even Defendant: It won't do anything to harm the engine. I call up on my expert witnesses Savage and Hyneman.