New Bacteria Replaces Need For Gasoline

[crepesack]

Actually it will be the corn investors who will try to stamp this down. The oil companies won't mind as they can just mix this stuff with their gas and say they are doing their part for the environment. But right now there are people who love ethanol for all the money in subsidies it gives them.

I will applaud if there is one company that endorses and produces this without the need for government funds and sells it wholesale.

Umm...

Sounds like its still gonna produce CO2 when burnt, so its still no good for solving the more important greenhouse gas problem. This just means we're gonna be able to warm up the planet without oil.

CO2 is hardly unnatural, and easily dealt with by all the grass, trees and other vegetation we have around. What I would have to wonder is how much CO it produces. CO2's little brother is much more toxic, and though vegetation can still breathe it in to give us oxygen, it does a lot more damage than CO2.

Corn can be made to use the butanol anyways as well. If anything corn growers are going to make MORE money simply because the new fuel is 100% corn. Stalks and all. I also forsee a huge shift into cellulose rich plants like sawgrass and what not.

 

[crepesack]

This will end up like the rumour of the engine that runs on water... Apparently there is an engine that is fully functional that runs on water, but it was sold to the highest bidder (Who happened to be an oil/fuel company), and has since been put on a shelf for when we run out of oil... but its just a rumour, so im not sure how much truth in that one...

I will assume that you are being serious here, as it allows me to talk about scientific literacy; If you're joking or not please don't take this as a personal insult.

Disclaimer aside, who here has heard of the laws of thermodynamics? If it's been a while or you just plain did not learn them I will give you the condensed version:

If it sounds too good to be true it is

There. Perpetual motion machine? Water-fueled Car? Miracle biofuel? Not according to thermodynamics. You cannot break even in energy. Ever. You always must settle for a loss (often a very large one, see Carnot Cycle). As long as you remember this you will be surprisingly scientifically literate.

Addressing your topic of a water-fueled car, Hess' law states that chemical energy is released by going from a high-energy molecule to a low energy one, the net change in energy can then be harnessed to do work (eg move cars). Water is a "low energy", stable molecule; the only reason petrol-based engines work is that they make this stable molecule (and CO2, another stable molecule) from less-stable higher-energy hydrocarbons. There is no more-stable lower-energy place for water to go.

Returning to the news article, thermodynamics has a special case that we like to use in life science, the 10% rule:

Every time you go up a level in the food chain you only retain 10% of the previous energy

This rule of thumb suggests that the available energy for our microbes is only 1/10 that of the cellulose that we feed it therefore the MAXIMUM amount of fuel we could possibly get is 10% the energy content of the feedstock. In reality, this figure is much lower.

No matter. The energy we put in is simply from the sun. I'm pretty sure it'd be difficult to actually do the arithmetic to find out the net energy gain until it actually happens though since you have to account for the energy cost of making fertilizer, farm equipment, and transport. Then the cost of processing. The energy input is negligible. A alcohol fuel like this is just a way to store the sun's energy.

 

[GWarface]

Until every single drop of oil is gone there will be no replacement. There's too much money involved and those oil pricks don't give a shit about anything other than oil. There are already a lot of better and safer oil replacements. You can make fuel from marijuana. Henry Ford did it. And he said that it's so easy anyone can do it. It's probably why they banned that plant in the first place.

Humanity is stupid, and that's why I despise it. We still fight wars over oil, KNOWING that oil won't last forever. Smart people would embrace all of these oil replacements and push humanity into a new era of unlimited energy.

Then there is just one problem.. Many scientists have went out and said that oil is NOT finite, its abiotic and more or less a product of our earth..

So the Earth keeps producing oil, we are being told that the Earth never produced any oil on its own and thus the prices continue to rise.
False scarcity, just like with diamonds..

Yes, Earth produces oil. But do you have any idea how long it takes Earth to create that much oil? It takes hundreds of thousands of years. We have so many energy replacements that are better than oil in every way.

I totally agree on your last point, but new science suggests that the earth produces oil much faster than we thought.. I read somewhere that some oilfields in Russian and other places has shown signs of refilling..

Cant bother finding links right now, but its all just a google search away..

 

[Logic 0]

This is the power of science truly realized for the greater good.

 

[Ghengis John]

What happens if this bacteria comes into contact with living plant matter? Such as a crop field or a forest?

And even if it's safe how efficient is it? This story I think is being reported all wrong. The headline "replaces need for gasoline" reads like "hallelujah all our problems are solved!" But see, I have a hard time imagining that the conversion rate is such that we could ever grow enough fuel for our current over-sized, over-powered cars. And is this butanol any better in regards to carbon emissions? I know turning the conversion process for cellulose breakdown and fuel creation into a one-step procedure was supposed to skyrocket fiscal viability but how about the production cost for the bacteria itself? I'm not a microbiologist so unless one's handy and could tell me I'm wrong (which I'd appreciate so long as you don't hoist your nose too high into the air) I don't imagine you can just leave living organisms sitting in hydrocarbons and expect them to work endlessly like they would in a septic tank. And to avoid deviation I'd think they'd have to scrub bacterial stock regularly anyhow.

 

[Elementlmage]

Butanol, on the other hand, is amazingly similar to gasoline, giving it two major advantages over its better-known brother. Firstly, butanol can be used in your Bonneville (though it still won't get you any dates) and any other car currently on the road. Secondly, it's convenient to produce and easy to transport.

You have left out a HUUUUUGE caveat my friend. Alcohol based fuels are completely incompatible with engines not designed to run on alcohol. Yes, you car will start and run, but, the alcohol will damage your seals and wash away the oil from your piston rings resulting in (GREATLY) increased wear and reducing service life. IIRC BMW did a test with ethanol and found that it wore out the piston rings after 20k miles.

 

[Beertaster]

This isn't all that new, I heard about fuel creating bacteria years ago. the question is, how do you mass produce it. And don't go blaming the oil companies, yeah they're dammed fat cats. But to believe that a corporation can hide revolutions from the world is pure fantasy.

Now back to implementing a new energy source into mass production so that it may replace the old system. Well that takes a shit ton of money. 30 years ago the US was supposed to switch over to metric signs (like the rest of the world), and that still hasn't happened cause no one want to put money into it.

Creating mass produced oil from bacteria means setting up a new industry filled with new companies that must build new facilities. You see where this is going. Just because some guy in a laboratory made fuel from germ poop doesn't mean he can revolutionize the world. He needs to show how easily it can be made, and for what cost. I mean the ENTIRE PROCESS needs to be well illustrated before anyone will put in the money for it.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Okay, now we just have to ask... WHAT IF IT LIKES PEOPLE, TOO?!

 

[Strazdas]

for get bacteria, use biofuel. it is essentially cooking oil filtered for cars and it works on all existing diesel engines. infact diesel engines was intended for biofuel until oil companies took it over.

How much "trash" do you need to produce a gallon of fuel? How do you extract the fuel? How do you keep from contaminating the bacteria? Is it a good idea to make our forests our primary fuel source? How much will this cost? If paper is fuel, how can we afford to use it as printed material? Would we need to harvest trees faster than we can grow them? Renewable? Sustainable? Cheap?

those are all good questions, but what the scientist suggests is to use the actual paper and other stuff we already throw away as trash, so essentially we wouldn't be using our forests as fuel or not afford paper since it would be like recycling. as for the amounts i guess thats where it gets tricky.

This isn't all that new, I heard about fuel creating bacteria years ago. the question is, how do you mass produce it. And don't go blaming the oil companies, yeah they're dammed fat cats. But to believe that a corporation can hide revolutions from the world is pure fantasy.

one country can hide revolution. oil companies have higher budgets than most countries. thus logically they also have the power. and its not like they never abused it. so thus we live in land of fantasy! now wheres my talking lion?

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

There probably is some catch to it.
Like with Soylent Green.

There is a catch. It's called the oil companies buying the patent and burying it so deep that people will forget this existed in the first place.

 

[MetalMonkey74]

Unfortunately, as a lot of you mentioned above, we see a lot of these amazing fuel substitutes.

The problem is that the patents are then bought up by companies that have something to lose, and then shelved. In this case, oil companies are the devil. I'm sure that not news to anyone, but its just sickening to see how the gobble up the competition and overcharge us for something they control

capitalism at its best really.

 

[Mike Kayatta]

Butanol, on the other hand, is amazingly similar to gasoline, giving it two major advantages over its better-known brother. Firstly, butanol can be used in your Bonneville (though it still won't get you any dates) and any other car currently on the road. Secondly, it's convenient to produce and easy to transport.

You have left out a HUUUUUGE caveat my friend. Alcohol based fuels are completely incompatible with engines not designed to run on alcohol. Yes, you car will start and run, but, the alcohol will damage your seals and wash away the oil from your piston rings resulting in (GREATLY) increased wear and reducing service life. IIRC BMW did a test with ethanol and found that it wore out the piston rings after 20k miles.

Read what you quoted again. I was talking about butanol, not ethanol, which has indeed been tested to cause the exact problems you just described. Butanol has not been tested to cause these issues.

 

[Aptspire]

That<s pretty cool.
My cousin adapted his car so that it could be fueled with French fries' oil

 

[falcon1985]

Good idea, love it, do it. Problem is, as others before have said, the oil companies and by extension the government they pay off with their money. There are already viable alternatives for oil, the rights of which are being bought up by the oil companies so they can't be used.

Hell, just look at the Honda Clarity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity Hydrogen fuel cells baby. They work, you can fill em up and drive just as we can now, without having to charge the damn batteries for 20 hours. I saw that thing on Top Gear 4 YEARS ago. Nothing about it since then has been seen or heard. Makes me wanna cry...

 

[Phishfood]

There probably is some catch to it.
Like with Soylent Green.

Just what I was thinking. No mention is made of what ELSE this thing produces.

"Yes, we made a bacteria that digests waste into very useful butanol *cough*and a little VX gas*cough*"
"butanol and WHAT?"
"uh...nothing.."

 

[Ympulse]

Ah yes, another wonderful miracle creation of science that will never see common usage because the oil companies have far too much money and power, and plan to keep it.

Capitalism.

Read my mind. Although it's probably as good as it sounds, the people in charge of this little project will either get scattered to the winds or end up in a ditch. We won't hear about it ever again.

 

[Phishfood]

This will end up like the rumour of the engine that runs on water... Apparently there is an engine that is fully functional that runs on water, but it was sold to the highest bidder (Who happened to be an oil/fuel company), and has since been put on a shelf for when we run out of oil... but its just a rumour, so im not sure how much truth in that one...

There IS an engine that runs on water. Odds are you have seen one.

Spoiler

 

[Mortuorum]

[...]

Returning to the news article, thermodynamics has a special case that we like to use in life science, the 10% rule:

Every time you go up a level in the food chain you only retain 10% of the previous energy

This rule of thumb suggests that the available energy for our microbes is only 1/10 that of the cellulose that we feed it therefore the MAXIMUM amount of fuel we could possibly get is 10% the energy content of the feedstock. In reality, this figure is much lower.

Not a life scientist here, so please bear with me. If we're losing 90% of the feedstock energy in this type of process, that means we're going to need an extraordinary amount of cellulose to make this even a viable supplement to dino-gas. So, the purported 323 tons of waste material (even notwithstanding the issues of recycling and transportation) isn't going to put a huge dent in the 6.85 billion barrels of oil America uses each year (source: http://205.254.135.24/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6 ).

What if algae were cultivated as feedstock? Essentially, growing algae requires dirt and sunlight. Would that make this process more viable?

 

[hansari]

The one that concerns me the most is the toxic at 20g per liter. I do not know what that means exactly, but I know what toxic means, and it ain't good.

If you ever take organic chemistry, you'll learn that most chemicals are harmful to the body. Even the ones that science has made useful and manageable for common people to buy off store shelves is often "toxic".

For example, take Bleach. Useful and found in most homes. Those who put this product on your store shelves expect you to read the instructions and dilute any quantities you use. Spill a little on your skin, nothing to worry about, just wash the area. Ingesting any amount though is very dangerous. So Bleach is in that "toxic" category, but is still commonly used.

Basically, there is always a risk involved and some chemicals are more dangerous then others. Gasoline can be dangerous but is made publicly available. Anything deemed far too dangerous though won't be made easily accessible...

 

[similar.squirrel]

Well, Big Oil is going to buy this up in a jiffy.