Lab makes renewable diesel fuel from E. coli poop

Submitted by:
shelly
shelly



Subscribe to this Author

Paste this code into your site to promote this story!


http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/08/12/bug.diesel/index.html
Type of Content: 
Article

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, California -- Fossil fuels that keep our planet running -- oil, natural gas and coal -- were created from the decomposition of plants, plankton and other organic material over millions of years.

A California lab has developed genetically altered bacteria that eat sugars and excrete a form of diesel oil.

1 of 3 Today, scientists all over the globe are working to create fuels with the same properties but without that pesky 100 million-year wait. And "renewable petroleum" is now a reality, on a small scale, in some laboratories.

The biotech company LS9 Inc. is using single-celled bacteria to create an oil equivalent. These petroleum "production facilities" are so small, you can see them only under a microscope.

"We started in my garage two years ago, and we're producing barrels today, so things are moving pretty quickly," said biochemist Stephen del Cardayre, LS9 vice president of research and development.

How does it work? A special type of genetically altered bacteria are fed plant material: basically, any type of sugar. They digest it and excrete the equivalent of diesel fuel.

Humans have used bacteria and yeast for centuries to do similar work, creating beer, moonshine and, more recently, ethanol. But scientists' recent strides in genetic engineering now allow them to control the end product. Watch the fuel-making process at work »

"So these are bacteria that have been engineered to produce oil," del Cardayre said. "They started off like regular lab bacteria that didn't produce oil, but we took genes from nature, we engineered them a bit [and] put them into this organism so that we can convert sugar to oil."

Don't Miss
Cody's biofuel road trip across America
The company is focusing on diesel fuel, but the microbes can be "programmed" to make gasoline or jet fuel.

The bacteria used are a harmless form of E. coli. And the feedstock, or food for the microbes, can be any type of agricultural product, from sugar cane to waste such as wheat straw and wood chips. Choosing plants with no food value sidesteps one of the biggest criticisms of another synthetic fuel, corn ethanol, because critics say that corn should be used as food, not fuel.

It takes a lot of microbe poop to fill a gas tank, however. Biofuel experts say that processes like those used at LS9 are scientifically viable but that there's still a long way to go before they can address global energy needs.

"Scalability is really the critical issue," said Robert McCormick, principal engineer at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado. "If you've got something that you can make work in a test tube, that's good, but you've got to be able to make it work on a very large scale to have an impact on our petroleum imports."

But del Cardayre says his product has other benefits over traditional fossil fuels.

"What we've done is make the same molecules from renewable sources, so that it can go into the existing infrastructure, be made domestically and in an environmentally friendly way. That's the goal," he said.

The LS9 product does not have the cancer-causing benzene that is in other fossil fuels and has far less sulfur, he said.

LS9 President Bob Walsh says that using existing petroleum pipelines is crucial. Ethanol, for example, requires its own distribution system because it can corrode oil pipelines.

"You can't put ethanol in a pipeline, [and] even your car needs some adjustments to it; whereas the product we're making is going into the existing system, and that's a big difference," he said.

LS9 expects to be in large-scale commercial production in three or four years. But del Cardayre is the first to admit that microscopic oil fields are not a silver bullet for the world's energy woes.

"I doubt we're going to completely eliminate our dependence on oil, but we'll certainly be able to supplement the amount of oil we need in the short term," he said.

Although energy researchers are spending tens of millions of dollars in venture capital, McCormick believes that "just making more" is not enough.

"I think that the answer to reducing our petroleum-import problem and reducing the carbon emissions from transportation is really threefold," he said. "It involves replacement fuels like biofuels, it involves using much more efficient vehicles than we use today, and it involves driving less."

One thing that McCormick and del Cardayre agree on is that energy research is a great place to be these days if you are a scientist.

"The fun of the challenge from the science perspective is that you do have farmers and biologists and entomologists, and biochemists and chemical engineers, and process engineers and business people and investors all working to solve this, and it ranges anywhere from a political issue to a technical issue," del Cardayre said.

"Honestly, I couldn't think of a more exciting thing to work on as a scientist or technologist right now," said McCormick, a chemical engineer. "Part of the excitement comes from the fact that this is such a complex problem, it can't be solved by a farmer or an ag expert, and it can't be solved by a chemical engineer or a chemist.

"We all have to pool our various talents and training and try to come up with a whole new system of producing energy," he said. "And the current energy price environment has made literally everyone interested in replacements for petroleum."

Read »

Created 21 weeks 1 day ago
Made popular 21 weeks 1 day ago

Comments

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Food for fuel

Personally I've always been opposed to taking a "high end" product from plants or animals and using it for fuel or energy. I don't think the market would ever support this type of thing. But sometimes it helps to take a utilitarian point of view even if you're a free-market advocate like myself. Because when taxpayer money is involved it may be the best way to see through the fog. In this case the "happiness" might be increased at the gas pump but decreased by consumers of anything tied to the price of sugar. And of course when the Government spends our money the dollar continues it's downward spiral and everything costs more including gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Posted by Game Fan on Thu, 08/14/2008 - 8:06am
Shelly!

Wow! What an amazing article- thank you for sharing!

-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."

Miss Green Posted by Miss Green on Thu, 08/14/2008 - 1:06am
Any alternative to ethanol seems to me a good deal..

www.downsizedc.org had some information on just how bad an idea ethanol is-Using food for fuel isn't the only problem with ethanol.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone; and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.--John Quincy Adams

Posted by flhsmomma on Wed, 08/13/2008 - 8:23pm
Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.