Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

BoyBach

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 24, 2006
3,031
13
Silicon Valley is experimenting with bacteria that have been genetically altered to provide 'renewable petroleum'

DieselFuel385_352162a.jpg

"Ten years ago I could never have imagined I'd be doing this," says Greg Pal, 33, a former software executive, as he squints into the late afternoon Californian sun. "I mean, this is essentially agriculture, right? But the people I talk to – especially the ones coming out of business school – this is the one hot area everyone wants to get into."

He means bugs. To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs – very, very small ones – so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil.

Unbelievably, this is not science fiction. Mr Pal holds up a small beaker of bug excretion that could, theoretically, be poured into the tank of the giant Lexus SUV next to us. Not that Mr Pal is willing to risk it just yet. He gives it a month before the first vehicle is filled up on what he calls "renewable petroleum". After that, he grins, "it's a brave new world".

Mr Pal is a senior director of LS9, one of several companies in or near Silicon Valley that have spurned traditional high-tech activities such as software and networking and embarked instead on an extraordinary race to make $140-a-barrel oil (£70) from Saudi Arabia obsolete. "All of us here – everyone in this company and in this industry, are aware of the urgency," Mr Pal says.

What is most remarkable about what they are doing is that instead of trying to reengineer the global economy – as is required, for example, for the use of hydrogen fuel – they are trying to make a product that is interchangeable with oil. The company claims that this "Oil 2.0" will not only be renewable but also carbon negative – meaning that the carbon it emits will be less than that sucked from the atmosphere by the raw materials from which it is made.

LS9 has already convinced one oil industry veteran of its plan: Bob Walsh, 50, who now serves as the firm's president after a 26-year career at Shell, most recently running European supply operations in London. "How many times in your life do you get the opportunity to grow a multi-billion-dollar company?" he asks. It is a bold statement from a man who works in a glorified cubicle in a San Francisco industrial estate for a company that describes itself as being "prerevenue".

Inside LS9’s cluttered laboratory – funded by $20 million of start-up capital from investors including Vinod Khosla, the Indian-American entrepreneur who co-founded Sun Micro-systems – Mr Pal explains that LS9's bugs are single-cell organisms, each a fraction of a billionth the size of an ant. They start out as industrial yeast or nonpathogenic strains of E. coli, but LS9 modifies them by custom-de-signing their DNA. "Five to seven years ago, that process would have taken months and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars," he says. "Now it can take weeks and cost maybe $20,000."

Because crude oil (which can be refined into other products, such as petroleum or jet fuel) 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.

For fermentation to take place you need raw material, or feedstock, as it is known in the biofuels industry. Anything will do as long as it can be broken down into sugars, with the byproduct ideally burnt to produce electricity to run the plant.

The company is not interested in using corn as feedstock, given the much-publicised problems created by using food crops for fuel, such as the tortilla inflation that recently caused food riots in Mexico City. Instead, different types of agricultural waste will be used according to whatever makes sense for the local climate and economy: wheat straw in California, for example, or woodchips in the South.

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.

The closest that LS9 has come to mass production is a 1,000-litre fermenting machine, which looks like a large stainless-steel jar, next to a wardrobe-sized computer connected by a tangle of cables and tubes. It has not yet been plugged in. The machine produces the equivalent of one barrel a week and takes up 40 sq ft of floor space.

However, to substitute America’s weekly oil consumption of 143 million barrels, you would need a facility that covered about 205 square miles, an area roughly the size of Chicago.

That is the main problem: although LS9 can produce its bug fuel in laboratory beakers, it has no idea whether it will be able produce the same results on a nationwide or even global scale.

"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.

Are Americans ready to be putting genetically modified bug excretion in their cars? "It's not the same as with food," Mr Pal says. "We're putting these bacteria in a very isolated container: their entire universe is in that tank. When we're done with them, they're destroyed."

Besides, he says, there is greater good being served. "I have two children, and climate change is something that they are going to face. The energy crisis is something that they are going to face. We have a collective responsibility to do this."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece


My apologies for the length of the quote, but I found this to be an interesting article and wanted to share.
 
It's a great concept, and it could also have bioremediation implications as well. Crude oil is made from once alive organisms, so it's great to see biology come back into the equation. I hope it does become a useful technology on some scale.
 
It's a great concept, and it could also have bioremediation implications as well. Crude oil is made from once alive organisms, so it's great to see biology come back into the equation. I hope it does become a useful technology on some scale.

it could at least make an impact

im also excited about the algea to petroleum
 
The best solution is to make biodiesel from algae. Any power that needs to go into the process can come from wind and thermosolar (not solar panels). You can get over 100,000 gallons/acre/year with current technology, and I believe that 92 (?) square miles of the desert southwest would provide for all of our fuel needs. While the process is ramping up, the market could be shifting to clean diesel cars and diesel hybrids (instead of gas hybrids like the Prius, etc.)

This is completely carbon-neutral and environmentally-friendly. It uses *no* food crops or other biomass, therefore it does not compete with other biomass-to-fuel concepts. So, you can make diesel from algae and ethanol from switchgrass or other cellulose crops/waste, and they don't compete with each other for resources.
 
I was thinking this was from
the onion for a few paragraphs.

me too.

It's a great concept, and it could also have bioremediation implications as well. Crude oil is made from once alive organisms, so it's great to see biology come back into the equation. I hope it does become a useful technology on some scale.

yeah if it works, awesome. but certainly i don't see how it could be applied to large scale usage/consumption such as our current rate. but for smaller things that need oil this maybe a solution for an alternative.
 
But it's carbon NEGATIVE. You can all be certain that if we were to actually do this, we'd have the global cooling crisis back at the forefront of news again.

"A new ice age!"

Shame on us for sucking all that carbon out of the atmosphere.

The only solution that will keep them happy is for all humans to return to living in caves and eating gathered berries.
 
I don't get it. This new Oil 2.0 will let us run our cars with cheaper petrol, but does "Carbon negative" mean it doesn't pollute? Hell, I'd rather have oil prices stay high if it means pollution from car usage drops a bit.
 
I don't get it. This new Oil 2.0 will let us run our cars with cheaper petrol, but does "Carbon negative" mean it doesn't pollute? Hell, I'd rather have oil prices stay high if it means pollution from car usage drops a bit.

I'm going to theorize it means yes it does pollute, but it takes more carbon out of the system on the front than it puts back in at the rear.

The company claims that this “Oil 2.0” will not only be renewable but also carbon negative – meaning that the carbon it emits will be less than that sucked from the atmosphere by the raw materials from which it is made.

How about that.
 
I'm going to theorize it means yes it does pollute, but it takes more carbon out of the system on the front than it puts back in at the rear.

But I don't see how this decreases the amount of crap we pump into the air. It just keeps our current tech around for longer, and this current technology isn't exactly wonderful for the Earth. I just hope this doesn't discourage the development of alternative energy sources. I don't care if we can now make it without relying on the Middle East. I don't want to be burning oil forever.
 
me too.



yeah if it works, awesome. but certainly i don't see how it could be applied to large scale usage/consumption such as our current rate. but for smaller things that need oil this maybe a solution for an alternative.

It doesn't need to entirely replace usage - if it supplements usage, it effectively reduces consumption of Oil 1.0 (!) and would allow oil prices to fall significantly. That would be enough to buy us time to develop alternative fuels further. With a production cost of $50pb, its unlikely to drive oil prices much below $100 though - even if it works.

Does it remind anyone of Back to the Future II where the DeLorean was powered by household waste?

But I don't see how this decreases the amount of crap we pump into the air. It just keeps our current tech around for longer, and this current technology isn't exactly wonderful for the Earth. I just hope this doesn't discourage the development of alternative energy sources. I don't care if we can now make it without relying on the Middle East. I don't want to be burning oil forever.

The huge difference is we would be using carbon that was sucked out of the atmosphere last year rather than 10's of millions of years ago. The carbon issue would be significantly reduced.
 
Silicon Valley biotech start up issues press release regarding currently non-working experimental technology to raise venture capital.

I want to be the cynic in the thread.
 
It's dumb.
No, it's REALLY dumb.
One thing we DON'T need is more environmentally unfriendly hydrocarbons. Why not use the time and money and energy to come up with alternative energy sources? Forward thinking? Hardly. It's some guy who got a grant and has absolutely no forward thought. And the biotech start-up seeking capital comment? Brilliant, because that is the answer. And while I've always believed that ANY research is good research, in this case I'd rather see them work on something more legitimate.
 
It just keeps our current tech around for longer, and this current technology isn't exactly wonderful for the Earth.

(Anyway, I interpret their carbon statement as indicating that the process of making the biofuel does not pollute in net, but the cars that use it are on their own).

However, I don't think our current technology does all that badly. Have you looked at the specifications on what a PZEV automobile emits? It can get better yet, of course. But emissions technology has come a long way from the pre-LEV cars of the 90's to LEV in the early 2000s, LEV-II in the mid-2000's, and today's emissions offerings. If every car on the road were LEV-II or better (i.e. if the US had emissions laws like Japan that make it pretty unreasonable to drive anything more than six years old), and if commercial trucks were held to more stringent environmental regulations, the amount of emissions from cars would be reduced dramatically.

And don't forget that other fossil fuels besides gasoline (*cough* coal) contribute substantially to pollution. Hybrid electric cars, clean burning gasoline cars, and clean burning diesel cars all have the potential to address the pollution issue in part through continued emissions gains. But what if the cars were electric? If the cars were electric, then you would actually have to wake up and address the pollution that is coming from the power plants. Creating an electric car doesn't solve this issue -- it just makes it worse.
 
They have Vinod Khosla's support. It doesn't seem that they're doing altogether shabbily on that front. :p
No not at all but you can never have too much cash ;). I'd be more interested if they had it scaled or published in a peer-reviewed source. Until then they're a company attaining premature publicity (possibly for the right reasons but it's always worth remaining skeptical).

I'm especially reserved as Pal thinks organisms a fraction of a billionth the size of an ant exist. Or perhaps it's sloppy journalism.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.