jwz - Also it was a good X Files monster.

jwz - Also it was a good X Files monster.

jwz

			www.jwz.org
			userinfo
			archive
			rss

Links

[	»	\|	[DNA Lounge] [Blog] [iCal]	]
[	»	\|	[DNA Lounge Legal Defense Fund]	]
[	»	\|	[WebCollage] [LJ WebCollage]	]

Also it was a good X Files monster.

[Tue, 17-Jun-2008 2:44 PM]

[	Tags	\|	doomed, mutants, sprawl, the future	]
[	music	\|	The Death Set -- Peak Oil	]

Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol

They start out as industrial yeast or nonpathogenic strains of E. coli, but LS9 modifies them by custom-designing their DNA. Because crude oil is only a few molecular stages removed from the fatty acids normally excreted by yeast or E. coli during fermentation, it does not take much fiddling to get the desired result.
Using genetically modified bugs for fermentation is essentially the same as using natural bacteria to produce ethanol, although the energy-intensive final process of distillation is virtually eliminated because the bugs excrete a substance that is almost pump-ready.
"Our plan is to have a demonstration-scale plant operational by 2010 and, in parallel, we'll be working on the design and construction of a commercial-scale facility to open in 2011," says Mr Pal, adding that if LS9 used Brazilian sugar cane as its feedstock, its fuel would probably cost about $50 a barrel.

link

Comments:

From:

temp_revenge
Tue, 17-Jun-2008 9:51 PM (UTC)

(Link)

I prefer the Russian suckerfish man.

(Reply) (Thread)

From:

lindseykuper
Tue, 17-Jun-2008 10:08 PM (UTC)

(Link)

They couldn't get them to excrete chocolate? Or kittens?

(Reply) (Thread)

From:

xinit
Tue, 17-Jun-2008 10:10 PM (UTC)

(Link)

Well, they did manage to get kittens to excrete milk chocolate, but nobody wants to try it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

phoenixredux
Tue, 17-Jun-2008 10:09 PM (UTC)

(Link)

Sounds like what happens when I eat at Perkins.

(Reply) (Thread)

From:

xinit
Tue, 17-Jun-2008 10:09 PM (UTC)

(Link)

I wonder if cheap petrol-like-substance is really the best idea, but hey, anything that lets people justify driving an SUV...

(Reply) (Thread)

From:

jeremiahblatz
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 4:25 AM (UTC)

(Link)

Supposedly the process is carbon-negative. (I.e. it takes more carbon that is emitted from the burning oil.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

xinit
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 4:37 AM (UTC)

(Link)

I'm seeing the t-shirts now; "Fight Global Warming! Get a Hummer!"

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

waider
Fri, 20-Jun-2008 2:02 PM (UTC)

(Link)

I've seen it pointed out elsewhere that subsidising a destructive behaviour isn't exactly the best way to curb it. I am failing to capture the exact wording, but the general gist of it is that rather than trying to replace/replenish the oil, it'd be a bit smarter to work on figuring out how to do without it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

karlshea
Fri, 20-Jun-2008 5:10 PM (UTC)

(Link)

Actually, like someone pointed out above, this process is either carbon-neutral or carbon-negative.

The problem with burning fossil fuels isn't the fact that we're putting carbon in the atmosphere, the problem is that we're putting NEW carbon in the atmosphere. This bacteria has to get the carbon from somewhere, and it takes it from the surrounding environment, making this process a closed carbon system.

Plus, it's a perfect replacement for normal oil because it will work with everything that runs on oil right now, with no modifications.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

waider
Fri, 20-Jun-2008 5:28 PM (UTC)

(Link)

I think you missed the point I was making (or at least referring to), so I'll restate it: the problem isn't so much that we face increasing difficulty in maintaining the oil supply at current levels, the problem is that current levels of oil usage are needlessly high. This technology, while interesting, is treating the symptom (oil scarcity) instead of the cause (wasteful consumption).

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go sit in (or "drive", as the hip kids say) my single-occupancy-yet-five-seater car in rush-hour traffic for an hour or so in order to cover a distance of ten miles.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

jwz
Fri, 20-Jun-2008 5:29 PM (UTC)

(Link)

it'd be a bit smarter to work on figuring out how to do without it.

That's a fine idea, and I'm all for it, but the jury is still very much out on whether that's even possible without first purging the planet of five billion people or so.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

waider
Fri, 20-Jun-2008 5:34 PM (UTC)

(Link)

Ohyeah. And that talk that's floating around with the guy whose name I keep forgetting ... Aha, Googling for "mp3 club exponential" gets me a link to James Kunstler's talk at the Commonwealth Club: http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RM/2007/03/James_Kunstler_Talk_3-26.mp3 It's interesting listening, if a bit grim.

But as noted in my other reply, I'm doing a pretty good job with the whole cognitive dissonance thing right now.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

dossy
Tue, 17-Jun-2008 11:19 PM (UTC)

(Link)

Holy shit people, where's the foresight?

Sure, this might drive down the price of petrol, but how will it drive up the price of sugar? Supply and demand - if the demand for sugar goes up and the supply isn't increased proportionally ... well ...

And, I'm guessing we depend a lot more on sugar than we do petrol?

(Reply) (Thread)

From:

saveyoursanity
Tue, 17-Jun-2008 11:22 PM (UTC)

(Link)

Well, it's a lot easier to make more sugar than it is to make more gasoline.

But I agree. This is the same issue that has me, despite living in Iowa, not supporting ethanol.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

flipping_hades
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 5:03 AM (UTC)

(Link)

Well, that and that it takes more energy to make ethanol out of corn than you get out of the end product.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

saveyoursanity
Tue, 17-Jun-2008 11:26 PM (UTC)

(Link)

Although if you actually read the article, it says they're going to use agriculture waste.

Props for not bothering to inform yourself before commenting—1 point to me!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

baconmonkey
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 12:18 AM (UTC)

(Link)

They'll be using waste for now.
How long til we see police cracking down on protestors in poor countries? "no, you can't eat this food, rich people need it to power their cars."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

killbox
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 1:03 AM (UTC)

(Link)

most creatures survive just fine without the empty calories of sugar, Im pretty sure we would be less of fat blobs of fat (another untapped suv fuel) if we injested a few fewer tons of HFCS!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

jmtd
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 8:27 AM (UTC)

(Link)

It's not that the sugar would otherwise be eaten; it's that the sugar plantations would otherwise be producing edible crops.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

ladykalessia
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 7:30 AM (UTC)

(Link)

We've already had the tortilla riots. Not far off, I imagine.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

taffer
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 6:12 PM (UTC)

(Link)

I'm hoping you can also use Soylent Green to power this process.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

mackys
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 1:14 AM (UTC)

(Link)

Tell you what scares me...

What happens when (not if) a few of these bugs get accidentally poured down into the sewers, and thence out into the ocean? Yeah, I know, it's unlikely that they'll survive, but what if? The possibilities make the Exxon Valdez look like a spilled milk-shake. (Life imitates Stephenson's Zodiac?)

I don't know why we feel the need to genetic engineer oil-creating microbes anyway, since common pond scum (aka algae) already secrets oil anyway. And since algae is already in the environment, it's nowhere near the level of hazard of bioengineered stuff. I guess there just aren't any patent royalties to be made from something anyone can scoop out of a pond.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

darth_spacey
Tue, 17-Jun-2008 11:23 PM (UTC)

(Link)

How do LS9 define "agricultural waste"? This sounds an awful lot like grey goo waiting to happen.

(Reply) (Thread)

From:

cattycritic
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 12:14 AM (UTC)

Funny

(Link)

This is the opposite of the "bug" they've been trying to use for decades to eat oil spills and excrete, erm. . . I dunno. It has been a failure because they can't seem to convince the bacteria to multiply fast enough to make any difference.

Edited at 2008-06-18 12:14 am (UTC)

(Reply) (Thread)

From:

pyrop
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 1:13 AM (UTC)

(Link)

I'm still waiting for the bug that eats plastic.

Edited at 2008-06-18 01:14 am (UTC)

(Reply) (Thread)

From:

33mhz
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 1:50 AM (UTC)

(Link)

You rang?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

editer
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 3:20 AM (UTC)

As Utah Phillips said ...

(Link)

"Well, I guess the bad news is that the Martians have landed. The good news is that they eat Mormons and pee gasoline."

(Reply) (Thread)

From:

suppressingfire
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 8:12 AM (UTC)

(Link)

I'm waiting for the "bug" that uses photosynthesis and carbon dioxide in the air directly to make petrol and cut out the middleman (plants).

(Reply) (Thread)

From:

1eyedkunt
Wed, 18-Jun-2008 2:29 PM (UTC)

(Link)

every so often one of these miracle cures for the oil problem pops up and everyone gets all excited and invariably nothing happens. if it sounds too good to be true it probably is, and if it's really as productive as they claim it is, there'd be VC guys clamoring to make a demonstration plant happen a whole hell of a lot faster than 2010. I'd love it if this were for real, but I don't think it's news to get excited about till they're actually in production and selling the shit at the nearest gas station.

(Reply) (Thread)