Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Synthetic Biology For Natural Fuel

Posted by kdawson on Tue Jul 03, 2007 06:05 PM
from the powering-up-smart-bugs dept.
CoolBeans writes "Making ethanol is easy. Making enough ethanol to fill every gas tank in a developed country is tricky. The Department of Energy has promised $125 million to the Joint BioEnergy Institute, a team of six national labs and universities that will be run like a startup company. They intend to create new life forms that are optimized for alcohol production. The genes of crops that produce large amounts of cellulose will be tweaked to improve the yield per acre and to increase drought and pest resistance. Microbes that produce sugar from cellulose and ethanol from sugar will be built for speed and efficiency." The article mentions as an aside that earlier this year, "the energy giant BP gave $500 million to Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley lab, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for similar alternative energy research. That gift will fund the Energy Biosciences Institute, which will operate separately from the JBEI." So UC Berkeley and LBL are both participating in two separate energy-biotech research programs.

Related Stories

[+] Hardware: Ethanol Demand Is Boosting Food Prices Worldwide 599 comments
hereisnowhy writes "The rising demand for corn as a source of ethanol-blended fuel is largely to blame for increasing food costs around the world, the CBC reports. Increased prices for ethanol have already led to bigger grocery bills for the average American — an increase of $47 US compared to July 2006. In Mexico last year, corn tortillas, a crucial source of calories for 50 million poor people, doubled in price; the increase forced the government to introduce price controls. The move to ethanol-blended fuel is based in part on widespread belief that it produces cleaner emissions than regular gasoline. But a recent Environment Canada study found no statistical difference between the greenhouse gas emissions of regular unleaded fuel and 10 per cent ethanol-blended fuel. Environmental groups have argued that producing ethanol — whether from corn, beets, wheat, or other crops — requires more energy than can be derived from the product."
[+] Echeria Coli Co-Opted To Make Gasoline 331 comments
Flask_Man writes "Technology Review has an article about a small biotech company in the Silicon Valley that has successfully produced renewable gasoline from genetically modified bacteria, including the nefarious E.Coli bacteria. A pilot plant is slated to be constructed in California in 2008, and it is claimed that hundreds of different hydrocarbon molecules are capable of being produced. The modified bacteria make and excrete hydrocarbon molecules that are the length and molecular structure the company desires. From the article: 'To do this, the company is employing tools from the field of synthetic biology to modify the genetic pathways that bacteria, plants, and animals use to make fatty acids, one of the main ways that organisms store energy. Fatty acids are chains of carbon and hydrogen atoms strung together in a particular arrangement, with a carboxylic acid group made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen attached at one end. Take away the acid, and you're left with a hydrocarbon that can be made into fuel.'" We discussed something similar to this earlier this year.
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.

Synthetic Biology For Natural Fuel 25 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.
  • Why Ethanol? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Azuma Hazuki (955769) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @06:16PM (#19736631)
    Seriously, why? Why bother with all this expensive "synthetic biology" or (worse) growing and using perfectly good corn to make something that's less effective than gasoline when you can just grow an imperial fuckton of algae, render them down for biofuel, and use that? Carbon neutral, and you get something more akin to good ol' diesel fuel than ethanol.

    Plus there's some incentive to clean up eutrophicated bodies of water this way because, hey, that's profit floating on the top!
    • Answers (Score:5, Insightful)

      by goombah99 (560566) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @06:34PM (#19736827)
      Why Ethanol? Simple
      1) we have the infrastructure to use it immediately.
      2) It's not corrosive or particularly toxic.
      3) unlike algae it's grown by agricultiure so Archer Daniels Midland can get their cut of the pie.

      the latter is probably the most defining reason.

      But I think ethanol may be the wrong ticket. Obviously corn ethanol is a bad idea. But even cellulosic ethanol may be a bad idea.

      two reasons:
      1) Now matter how you produce it, evenif a miracle in effciency happened, at the end of the process any ethanol produced is going to be dissolved in water. Drying it out is going to eat the efficiency.

      2) Cellulose and Ligno-cellulose is desinged by trees to be indigestible and energetically inaccessible. If it were easy to digest the bacteria and termites would have eaten the whole forest a long time ago. Trees would not be huge cellulose containers. That should be a clue.

      Now it is true that man made enzymes can in some instances beat natural ones by an order of magnitude of more. But this is one place where nature has had a lot of different creatures all working on the same problem independently for quite some time.

      One the other hand it's almost commerically viable now. So we only need maybe a factor of ten improvement to open up wide spread production. However then other scaling issues will raise their heads. Farmland will be used. in many case it will be existing farm waste, but in others, say poplar trees, it will be for non-edible products. And if we try to open up new farmlands to compensate then were back to having a water budget problem.

      Algae making diesel would seem to bypass a lot of these problem. It can be grown off croplands, in many cases using sea water or brackish water. And it's easy to separate the oils from the water. the product has a higher energy value than Ethanol per volume and per weight. And it does not produce as much toxic waste in the production process (ethanol uses acid treatment and produces loads of crap to dispose of).

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Answers (Score:4, Informative)

        by Chandon Seldon (43083) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @07:12PM (#19737209) Homepage

        1) we have the infrastructure to use it immediately.

        We've got the infrastructure to distribute diesel fuel directly - and existing diesel engines can run on high quality commercial biodiesel with no modification at all; you can treat such biodiesel exactly like traditional diesel fuel.

        2) It's not corrosive or particularly toxic.

        I guess diesel fuel is a bit more toxic than ethanol, but it's nothing we haven't been dealing with for a very long time.

        3) unlike algae it's grown by agricultiure so Archer Daniels Midland can get their cut of the pie.

        This is the main reason, and it's a big mistake to let them turn subsidized food into fuel inefficiently. The algae to biodiesel process takes *no* food land and produces much higher energy density fuel through a much more efficient process.

        [ Parent ]
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Ya, but why not electric (hybrid + plug-in hybrid). I still haven't heard a good argument why this isn't "THE" way to go for our automobile fuel. The "well then it runs on Coal" argument doesn't really float, especially if you live in a state like Idaho o
          • Re:Answers (Score:5, Interesting)

            by e3kmouse (1123601) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @08:18PM (#19737941)
            Well the beauty of a plug-in hybrid is that you stay on "plugged-in" electricity for your every day commute.
            Most of the Prius' that are being modified as plug-in hybrids will last for 50-60 miles on one charge and then switch over to hybrid "mode" after that. So you can stay off petrol for your everyday commute, and switch to a still fuel efficient "hybrid mode" when you want to go skiing or hiking for the weekend.

            There was some stat listed on Google's site that said if every car in the world was switched to a plug-in hybrid, the current grid could power 82% of those cars. I'm not sure of the accuracy of that statement, but at the very least we know that the cars won't switch to plug-in hybrid over night. I think the infrastructure of the utility companies could grow to support that need over time. No matter what "solution" we choose it will take time to be adopted by the general public. If the utilities start ramping up now (being more efficient etc..), we might be able to support a world of plug-ins just fine.

            Last point. I'm not sure about your "energy efficiency won't work in SUV's" statement. I actually just got done test driving a Ford Escape (SUV) Hybrid edition this weekend. I had no problems with it's power output at all. I even took it up a 4-5% grade and it handled the climb with ease. (Averaged 40MPG for the trip too... not shabby for an SUV)
            [ Parent ]
    • Re:Why Ethanol? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Glonoinha (587375) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @07:19PM (#19737269) Journal
      Won't someone please think of the algae?
      [ Parent ]
  • More information (Score:4, Informative)

    by RobinH (124750) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @06:19PM (#19736665) Homepage
    There's a company in Ottawa that's working on cellulose ethanol as well. The company is Iogen Corporation [iogen.ca]. They have information on the process [iogen.ca] too. I first heard about them when I was at a Master Brewers Association of the Americas event, and there was a guest speaker from Iogen who talked about the similarities between ethanol production and brewing (i.e. some of the industry knowledge is transferrable).
  • Any money for biodiesel? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kadin2048 (468275) * <slashdot,kadin&xoxy,net> on Tuesday July 03 2007, @06:19PM (#19736669) Homepage Journal
    As much as I'm supportive of any program that might, conceivably, provide a partial alternative to our petroleum addiction, I have seen several pieces lately about ethanol vs. biodiesel, which seem to indicate that biodiesel is a much more realistic alternative to gasoline than ethanol is, but that its major shortcoming is that it doesn't reward corn production.

    While I don't have the background to really comment or hold an opinion one way or another, I just think it's a mistake to look too hard for "one solution" that we need to put all our money and hopes in. We need to be looking all over the place, and we need to realize that the final solution might not involve all the cars in the country running on the same fuel. There might be certain fuels that are preferable in certain regions or for certain types of vehicles, and although it might fundamentally alter the transportation network and your ability to drive one vehicle anywhere, that might not be a terrible outcome.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I have seen several pieces lately about ethanol vs. biodiesel, which seem to indicate that biodiesel is a much more realistic alternative to gasoline than ethanol is,

      On what planet is an incompatible fuel with a slightly higher yeild "a much more realistic
    • Re:Any money for biodiesel? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MtViewGuy (197597) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @09:54PM (#19738753)
      Actually, the biodiesel route is a far more practical one because most diesel engines only need minor modifications for run biodiesel fuel. With modern particulate traps, new exhaust catalyst designs to reduce NOx output, and urea gas injection to reduce NOx output even further, today's diesel engines with their common-rail pressurized direct fuel injection are quiet, powerful and don't generate the bad exhaust of older diesel engines. Also, diesel fuel is full compatible with the current fuel distribution network for gasoline/diesel fuel, which is not true for delivery of E85 fuel and hydrogen for fuel cells.

      For example, the new BMW 123d hatchback/coupé just announced now offers a 200 ps (197 bhp) dual-turbo turbodiesel engine that gives the car true high performance, yet can get around 40 mpg in normal limited-access motorway driving in the 100-120 km/h (62-75 mph) range. With today's new emission controls, that same engine could probably meet even the stringent EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 emission standard for automobile engines; the new Euro 5 emission rules will be similar to this EPA standard.
      [ Parent ]
  • Sometimes I wonder.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Twixter (662877) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @06:20PM (#19736675) Homepage
    If BP and other large energy companies fund this type of research because they know it won't ever be practical to grow gasoline. Even the most efficient converters from sunlight to sugar or ethanol aren't even close to what we have for solar cells. Granted, its cheaper to plant grass then build solar farms, but fixed cost will be nominal in the long run.

    With Ethonal BP can make money with its current infrastructure, keep positive press about their company, and develop alternatives that will never truly be able to replace fossil fuels.

    • Re:Sometimes I wonder.... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Rycross (836649) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @06:31PM (#19736797)
      BP also invests in solar. No doubt that there are a lot of scum at oil companies (particularly Exxon), but BP at least seems to see the writing on the wall. They're doing it to secure their future profits and pr, but thats ok as long as they're steadily lowering their contribution to the problem.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Mod parent up!

      BP is taking advantage of the political benefits of ethanol as transportation fuel. Politicians are winning over votes of corn growers by inflating the price of their crop and making them feel useful in solving a national problem. BP is posit
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        "oil companies are making profits that would make 19th century robber-barons feel guilty" If 19th Century robber barons had made the same return on investment that oil companies are, they would have disappeared without a trace. Yes, the oil companies are m
        • Re:Sometimes I wonder.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by reboot246 (623534) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @08:50PM (#19738237) Homepage
          I agree. It's no wonder oil companies are bashed for their profits, considering so few slashdotters know the difference between "profit" and "profit margin". Most major American companies have much higher profit margins than the oil companies.
          [ Parent ]
  • Creating life (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stinkwinkerton (609110) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @06:25PM (#19736731)
    I guess what is freaking me out on this (probably too much science fiction) is the whole "creating new life" thing. I don't consider myself a deeply religious guy, so it isn't that. It is more along the lines of the fact that we can barely understand what is going on with the life that CURRENTLY exists. That, and and the potential for this new type of life to make it into the ecosystem with unknown ramifications. Kind of like when a species from another continent hitches a ride on a cargo ship or something and decimates the native species. I realize that there is nothing we can do to stop the wheels of progress, I just wish there were a common code of ethics that was enforceable but not constraining to research and development. What a conundrum!
  • Hemp is already best suited for this (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hubbell (850646) <TKM_Donutman@excite.com> on Tuesday July 03 2007, @06:27PM (#19736745)
    More ethanol can be obtained from it than from corn and it is also a weed, so it can grow ANYWHERE. It produced 5-10x as much pulp as regular trees do so the paper industry could profit from them, and hemp ropes are what make the shipping industry possible, or atleast did back years ago.
  • Brazil, anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SuperBanana (662181) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @06:28PM (#19736753)

    Making ethanol is easy. Making enough ethanol to fill every gas tank in a developed country is tricky.

    So...Brazil [wikipedia.org] isn't a developed country? 40% of the gas used by *cars* comes from Ethanol [wikipedia.org] (they actually import oil because of diesel and petrochemical needs.) They do it with cane sugar.

    The reason we don't have cheap ethanol, and why corn prices are skyrocketing, is because corn is almost *the* worst way to make ethanol. Corn, however, is what the midwest does, and only what the midwest does. The earliest primaries are in...guess where...the midwest (well, not so much any more, thank god.) The government forks over billions to farmers and farm corporations because it buys votes. Corn is what livestock are fed, not grass. High fructose corn syrup, which is quite bad for you (compared to regular sugar) is in damn near everything because it's cheaper than sugar (which, incidentally, is price fixed. Sugar is *dirt* cheap on the world market, but to protect a fairly small contingent of sugar farmers in the US, the feds price-control it.)

    By the way, Bush's favorite line is "reducing our foreign dependency on oil." Guess what? We already get our oil from a rather diverse group [doe.gov], and half of our oil comes from domestic sources.

    Last fun fact. Think your Prius is helping with that pesky foreign oil "problem", or (laughs) that you're "fighting terrorism"? Think again. Transportation only accounts for less than one percent of US oil consumption. [doe.gov]

  • Genetic engineering (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anne_Nonymous (313852) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @06:42PM (#19736931) Homepage Journal
    >> life forms that are optimized for alcohol production

    My brother in law is optimized for alcohol consumption. Perhaps they could just reverse his genetic code.
  • Excellent... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ameline (771895) <iameline@NOsPaM.alias.com> on Tuesday July 03 2007, @07:11PM (#19737207) Homepage Journal
    >They intend to create new life forms that are optimized for alcohol production.

    That's perfect, seeing as how I'm optimized for alcohol consumption :-) Everything is falling into place.

  • Damn! (Score:3, Funny)

    by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @07:15PM (#19737227) Homepage
    They intend to create new life forms that are optimized for alcohol production. "Microbes that produce ethanol from sugar will be built for speed and efficiency."

    Damn! And here I am built for consuming ethanol with speed and efficiency! And not even a microbe, either.

    • Re:not a good long term option. (Score:4, Informative)

      by TheMeuge (645043) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @07:10PM (#19737199) Homepage
      Because grown ethanol is carbon-neutral. You burn the fuel, CO2 is emitted, plants fix CO2 into carbohydrates via photosynthesis... you make ethanol out of these plants, and burn it, emitting CO2. Rinse and repeat.

      Just like nearly every other system on the face of the Earth, it's just another way of using solar power.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      ...why pay out grants? We should take advantage of the natural benefits of competition; pay $X to the organization that reaches a specific milestone.

      Grants are already quite competitive but let's try some numbers.

      Let's say that it take $1 million to achie

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Ok, assuming the federal should be funding this sort of research*,...
      *I don't see why it should be. The energy market is so large, there seems like more than enough incentive for innovation.

      Well, in practice it can be quite difficult to reward innovation