Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Microbes Produce Fuels Directly from Biomass

By Lynn Yarris, Lawrence Berkley National Lab
January 28, 2010   |   8 Comments

Do you like this research & reports?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
8 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 8
January 29, 2010
I love this stuff.

It seems Solazyme (and one or two others, but memory fades) was working on a similar process using algae instead of E. coli.

But it doesn't seem to be possible in my lifetime. The standard quote in everything I read is, "There is still much more research to do before this process becomes commercially feasible."

Oh well.
Comment
2 of 8
January 29, 2010
This might be a big deal if they could do it from cellulose, not more expensive fatty acids.
Comment
3 of 8
January 29, 2010
I thot that's what this bit was about:
"After successfully diverting fatty acid metabolism toward the production of fuels and other chemicals from glucose, the JBEI researchers engineered their new strain of E. coli to produce hemicellulases — enzymes that are able to ferment hemicellulose, the complex sugars that are a major constituent of cellulosic biomass and a prime repository for the energy locked within plant cell walls."
Comment
4 of 8
January 29, 2010
Other than positive benefits of renewable energy production, are there potential negative impacts to our ecosystem? Genetically modified organisms offer great promise, but there are potential negative consequences that must also be considered. What are the biological impacts of this new strain of E. coli? Are there negative impacts to humans or animals if this new strain gets into our digestive system? How readily does this new strain of E. coli reproduce outside of the laboratory? If there happen to be unintended negative impacts, how will we be able to correct the problem? Adequate safeguards will not be put in place until a major problem occurs. Let's us hope that the first major problem created will not be catastrophic.
Comment
5 of 8
January 29, 2010
Of course there are "potential" negative impacts. There are negative impacts to every source of energy - every device must be built and transported (at a minimum).

The question should be, are the benefits worth the risk of "potential negative impacts"? That depends on how afraid you are of current energy producing methods.

If you are going to wait for the garden of Eden to be recreated you will never change anything.

We never have all the answers. We just push forward solving one problem at a time.
Comment
6 of 8
February 1, 2010
We have a history of introducing new species to solve one problem, only to find we created an invasive species that causes more problems than it solves. Introducing new species, particularly ones that can multiply rapidly on their own in the natural environment, requires careful forethought and consideration. I'm not saying that this strain of E. coli can multiply on its own in the natural world. I can only assume that LBL has thought through all the issues and has taken all of the necessary precautions. If they didn't and a seriously damaging bacteria spread into our environment, there would be no way to undo their mistake.
Comment
7 of 8
February 1, 2010
E Coli is a universal normal flora in the human digestive track. The presence of E Coli is proof of sewage contamination. What if even one of these genetically modified bacteria escape the lab or commercial facilities and takes up residence in your gut, happily reproducing away and churning out diesel fuel or other chemicals?

E Coli have been happily living in human guts since the species first evolved and probably even in our ancestors as well.

--------"Are there negative impacts to humans or animals if this new strain gets into our digestive system? "---------

I'd think so. Shall we all drink a few quarts of diesel fuel to see?

------"How readily does this new strain of E. coli reproduce outside of the laboratory?"-------------

More importantly---how readily does it evolve, mutate and adapt to changes in environment. Organisms that can not survive outside the lab this week, could be happily floating around the atmosphere and thriving next week.

----------"Adequate safeguards will not be put in place until a major problem occurs."--------

That seems to be the usual schedule ----- if it even gets done after a major problem.

--------"If there happen to be unintended negative impacts, how will we be able to correct the problem?"-------

We might not be able to correct them. We have a batting record of 0 at correcting the problem of human introduced invasive species worldwide.
Now make that a human genetically modified AND invasive species?

We already have many ways of converting biomass into biofuels, I don't think genetically modified organisms are needed or the risks justified.
Comment
8 of 8
February 11, 2010
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Schiller Solmetric Corporation National Hydropower Association Das Haus: Innovation in Renewables and Energy Efficiency Solar Network International American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) OTTI - Ostbayerisches Techn. Transfer Institute
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters