NationStates Jolt Archive

Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol

Silicon Valley is experimenting with bacteria that have been genetically altered to provide 'renewable petroleum'.

“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

50 dollars a barrel. 50 dollars a barrel !!!!



thats like 1.25 gas. Well guess I better buy the SUV after ALL.

I'd rather develop clean renewable energy. Something that won't make climate change worse than it's already going to be.

I'd rather develop clean renewable energy. Something that won't make climate change worse than it's already going to be.

*pokes repeatedly* Article said it was carbon negative. Took more carbon out by growing the stuff for the bugs to eat than the bugs pooed out into their oil.

Clean? Check.

Renewable? Check.

Well this is good news. I'd donate some money but I'm currently currency negative.

Well this is good news. I'd donate some money but I'm currently currency negative.

Try carbon copying some banknotes to get neutral again. :D

I'd rather develop clean renewable energy. Something that won't make climate change worse than it's already going to be.

it is carbon negative. The algae pulls more carbon out of the atmosphere then gets put back in from burning the petrol.

So from this moment forth No more Hippies bitching about my H1.
In fact people people should bitch about people having hybrids, because the more missions I have the more carbon negative I am.

*pokes repeatedly* Article said it was carbon negative. Took more carbon out by growing the stuff for the bugs to eat than the bugs pooed out into their oil.
But .. but... what if all CO2 is sucked from the atmosphere?:eek:

I'd like for them to tell explain just how the entire process is carbon neutral.

Also yes, please, pour that crude oil right into your gas tanks.

It even invokes 'THE CHILDREEN' at the end.

it is carbon negative. The algae pulls more carbon out of the atmosphere then gets put back in from burning the petrol.

So from this moment forth No more Hippies bitching about my H1.
In fact people people should bitch about people having hybrids, because the more missions I have the more carbon negative I am.

We can still laugh at you for driving an H1 :)

I'd like for them to tell explain just how the entire process is carbon neutral.

Also yes, please, pour that crude oil right into your gas tanks.

It even invokes 'THE CHILDREEN' at the end.
It has to do with what the bugs are consuming in order to produce the petrol. More carbon goes in than comes out.

It has to do with what the bugs are consuming in order to produce the petrol. More carbon goes in than comes out.

Well hot diggety, if they say it is it must be true.

they could build the facility in Montana. I heard that theres nothing up there xD

We can still laugh at you for driving an H1 :)

I would still be the most viromentally friendly person around.

I would still be the most viromentally friendly person around.

Dont know when I had the large gas 2500HD (vs my deisel) I was getting like 9 mpg on a good day doing any work ... And it was more usefull then an H1

The Deisel gets a bit better (quite a bit)

I'd like for them to tell explain just how the entire process is carbon neutral.

Also yes, please, pour that crude oil right into your gas tanks.

It even invokes 'THE CHILDREEN' at the end.

Do you hate the children?
If not get an SUV and fill it with this CO2 negative Gasoline.
If so drive a hybird car. you evil child hating Hippie.

well this is good I say even though it won't cut traffic :(

though I'm cautious about these miracle cures especially if the talking is being done by the guys advertising

however:

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.

I suppose you could convince the Saudis to do it :)

So from this moment forth No more Hippies bitching about my H1.

*sends your car to navigate an Italian city*

Dont know when I had the large gas 2500HD (vs my deisel) I was getting like 9 mpg on a good day doing any work ... And it was more usefull then an H1

The Deisel gets a bit better (quite a bit)

I have an old Deisell HmmVee too. old military surplus.

Anyways we are going to have to burn off as much of this Gas as we can to save the world from Global warming.

Do you hate the children?
If not get an SUV and fill it with this CO2 negative Gasoline.
If so drive a hybird car. you evil child hating Hippie.

I think I hate you.

You're assuming it is, the article's only claim is IT IS JUST TRUST US.

And for arguing against immediate acceptance of an alternative energy source which proclaims to be green makes me a hippie?

But I know you were just joking. :mp5:

*sends your car to navigate an Italian city*

been there done that police bitched about me driving around with two wheels on the side walks.

I have a lot of tickets I am never going to pay there.

on a serious note I will believe this is workable when I see engineers talking about.

The scary part, is that this procedure is patented, (its the guy who invented sun micro systems you know he patented it). This could very well make him and the US the sole world wide exporter of oil (coming at about 1/3 the market price of oil pumped from the ground).

I am a little scared how the Us would deal with a combined Saudi and American economy.

Come on people. There is only ONE way to become carbon NEGATIVE. That is removing it from circulation. Thus, when stuff died and decomposed in earth to make coal and oil. So.... Carbon neutral YES, carbon negative no. Think of it as the water cycle.

Come on people. There is only ONE way to become carbon NEGATIVE. That is removing it from circulation. Thus, when stuff died and decomposed in earth to make coal and oil. So.... Carbon neutral YES, carbon negative no. Think of it as the water cycle.Errrr?

Think of it. When cars, power stations, etc. burn their fossil fuels they release carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide doesn't magically form. It has been trapped in the earth from before. Thus, the only way to LESSEN the amount of carbon dioxide in circulation is to trap it again. I mean it changes forms over time. Sorry, I am tired and am not having a good way with explaining when tired.

been there done that police bitched about me driving around with two wheels on the side walks.

I have a lot of tickets I am never going to pay there.

please tell me you "accidentally" hit as many Italian mopedists as possible especially if they are wearing really tight trousers :)

Think of it. When cars, power stations, etc. burn their fossil fuels they release carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide doesn't magically form. It has been trapped in the earth from before. Thus, the only way to LESSEN the amount of carbon dioxide in circulation is to trap it again. I mean it changes forms over time. Sorry, I am tired and am not having a good way with explaining when tired.
You mean like those algae do? So they're carbon negative? Which you said they weren't?

Ten Bucks says there's complications and the project won't be finished for ten or so years/abandoned/a farce!

on a serious note I will believe this is workable when I see engineers talking about.

The scary part, is that this procedure is patented, (its the guy who invented sun micro systems you know he patented it). This could very well make him and the US the sole world wide exporter of oil (coming at about 1/3 the market price of oil pumped from the ground).

I am a little scared how the Us would deal with a combined Saudi and American economy.

I wouldnt lose any sleep over it, you can tell how well patents really protect intellectual property from spreading worldwide. Ask China. Hell we cant even prevent nuclear bomb plans from spreading worldwide let alone a processing method worth Trillions.

It has to do with what the bugs are consuming in order to produce the petrol. More carbon goes in than comes out.

yeah, we can be carbon negative even using the standard distilled beer-making process for ethanol, provided we don't use fucking corn. worst idea ever. presumably, if they used dense fast growing minimal maintenance native grasses for their feedstock they would actually be able to be carbon negative and improve soil quality and engage in restoration while doing it.

though, of course, none of this means that we should keep our road and air travel subsidies in place. bring on the fucking highspeed rail network already, and let the exurbs die.

Well goddamn!

Holy shit!

I wouldnt lose any sleep over it, you can tell how well patents really protect intellectual property from spreading worldwide. Ask China. Hell we cant even prevent nuclear bomb plans from spreading worldwide let alone a processing method worth Trillions.

there is a difference between coping movies/video games, and make a large noticeable factory with patented technology.

For instance China does not make fake BMW's Germany, The EU and most of the world would cut them off from trade for that.

Also I am willing to bet this guy keeps it a trade secret as long as possible then patents the procedure.

though, of course, none of this means that we should keep our road and air travel subsidies in place. bring on the fucking highspeed rail network already, and let the exurbs die.

thats not American. what we need to do after we perfect negative carbon emission gasoline is set up a road system able to support cars going 300 Mph using computers link cars into a navigation system.

This way we can over come the main factor keeping humans from driving fast namely human reflexes.

I'd like to see some numbers and some more details on just how this process works. Furthermore, I'd be interested in what sort of pollution is caused by this "renewable oil." The article claims it's carbon negative but made no mention of whether it was actually cleaner than ordinary fossil fuels. (Contrary to apparently recent popular belief, carbon neutral =/= clean.)

I'd also like to know how viable it truly is, because I find it hard to believe it could result in $50 barrels of oil. For that matter, how fast could it be produced? In what quantities? What sort of space would be needed to build the facilities?

Basically, I want more information. What we've got here is more of a "placate-the-stupid-populace" article, which pisses me off.

well this is good I say even though it won't cut traffic :(



yeah, we can be carbon negative even using the standard distilled beer-making process for ethanol, provided we don't use fucking corn. worst idea ever. presumably, if they used dense fast growing minimal maintenance native grasses for their feedstock they would actually be able to be carbon negative and improve soil quality and engage in restoration while doing it.

though, of course, none of this means that we should keep our road and air travel subsidies in place. bring on the fucking highspeed rail network already, and let the exurbs die.

These. The problem is that these new methods are always compared with oil full stop. That's just not going to be the case. Replacing oil alone is not going to be a solution. In fact, part of the problem of oil is its 'magic wand' status. Just like your investment portfolio it was unwise to put so much of our eggs in oil's basket. Things like algae and native grass will work, but not to the levels of consumption we have now. It has to be combined with reducing our demand by changing how we produce power, plastics, transportation needs, etc. We can't be looking for magic wands when magic wands were part of the problem.

HA! Soon they'll have these little bugs eating old tires and pooping gasoline. Science never fails to astonish me.

I would also like to add that this is not just for cars. It could potentially power the earth some day. The U.A.E already has power plants that run off of crude oil.

Most useful lifeforms ever? Well, at least until we find Babel fish.

I wouldnt lose any sleep over it, you can tell how well patents really protect intellectual property from spreading worldwide. Ask China. Hell we cant even prevent nuclear bomb plans from spreading worldwide let alone a processing method worth Trillions.

But there's no patent on nuclear bombs :p

Most useful lifeforms ever? Well, at least until we find Babel fish.

Wait, I'm confused. Did these scientists find these bacteria or did they invent them. I thought they were genetically modified E.coli strands.

Wait, I'm confused. Did these scientists find these bacteria or did they invent them. I thought they were genetically modified E.coli strands.

Everything so far has been modified. I believe they have barely scratched the surface on actually creating life.

Awesome, cheap gas and a big :upyours: to OPEC

If these bacteria have such oily stools, they need to lay off the Olestra. :p

so, if more Co2 comes in than out, where does the excess Carbon go?

Can't we put the genes to do this in cows?

so, if more Co2 comes in than out, where does the excess Carbon go?

My point exactly. When burning fossil fuels we are releasing ANCIENT carbon. There for we would have to get rid of all the excess carbon in the system.

so, if more Co2 comes in than out, where does the excess Carbon go?

Storage. They're living cells, after all.

Holy shit!

NOT SHIT!!! ENERGY!!! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089530/)

so, if more Co2 comes in than out, where does the excess Carbon go?

in the body of the bacteria. in waste not used as energy ETC.. same reason plants are carbon negative. yeah they release carbon when they drop their leaves and when they die and decompose but part of that ends up buried in the earth.

I hope this will work out ASAP. Not because I care so much about the climate, but because I want to see the reaction from all those self-righteous "I just bought a hybrid, you climate pig" people.

I hope this will work out ASAP. Not because I care so much about the climate, but because I want to see the reaction from all those self-righteous "I just bought a hybrid, you climate pig" people.

the reaction will be "haha, we still pay less than you do and are better for the environment". and they will still be right.

Clean? Check.

Renewable? Check.

Mass production capable? Unknown.

Also I am willing to bet this guy keeps it a trade secret as long as possible then patents the procedure.

Assuming this even works on a factory production level, who would be able to tell the difference?

Assuming this even works on a factory production level, who would be able to tell the difference?

tell the difference between this oil and oil out of the ground.


I think the 50 dollar a barrel price tag Versus the 150 dollar a barrel price tag would be the big hint.


Or you mean tell if the oil came from this process. satellite images show illegal oil production factory in China. threaten to cut off trade with china unless it is closed down. China complies. since it is something thats need to be constantly made shutting down the factories stops the oil production.

but likely they will keep the process and the genetic modifications a trade secret until it looks like someone is about to figure out the process on their own. look at Teflon frying pans for instance.

This was my reaction. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tim5nU3DwIE)

It's cool and all, but I want my electric car that goes 200 miles to the charge and charges the battery at my house using solar power from panels on my roof.

Not having to use petrol at all > using cheapish petrol.

I also wonder what the ramifications of having so many of those bugs would be(I can imagine the number needed for a reasonable amount of oil in a reasonable amount of time would be immense).. and I dread what would happen if they..escaped.. into the ecosystem. The whole world would be a massive oil spill!

My point exactly. When burning fossil fuels we are releasing ANCIENT carbon. There for we would have to get rid of all the excess carbon in the system.

technically this isn't a 'fossil' fuel
Modern Carbon garbage in -> Oil with less carbon out
Bacteria retain remainder carbon in non-gaseous form.
Result: less carbon in atmosphere

honestly do you have the slightest clue how the carbon cycle works


----

Agreeing with everyone who would prefer to drop petrol/gas altogether though. trains >>> cars

The title is incorrect, Bacteria are not bugs. They are plants (Of a sort).


Carbon neutral is good, now all we need is some sort of thing to lower the methane problem in livestock.

I think the 50 dollar a barrel price tag Versus the 150 dollar a barrel price tag would be the big hint.

i don't think supply and demand works like that...

The title is incorrect, Bacteria are not bugs. They are plants (Of a sort).

bacteria are bacteria. yeast are fungi. nothing is bugs.

I think the 50 dollar a barrel price tag Versus the 150 dollar a barrel price tag would be the big hint.

Markups, intermediaries and black market trade would certainly see to the difference. Besides, unless America was selling the oil it made as exports, no country would give a fig if they protested China's mass production of oil. If this actually works on the industrial scale, then once the secret is out, every country in the world with the knowhow and resources will start up their own production. You can't patent strategic resource production and expect it to stay patented.


Or you mean tell if the oil came from this process. satellite images show illegal oil production factory in China.


Like a patent holder would have access to unrestricted satellite imagery.


threaten to cut off trade with china unless it is closed down. China complies. since it is something thats need to be constantly made shutting down the factories stops the oil production.

Like threatening to cut off trade is stopping Irans nuclear fuel enrichment efforts. [/sarcasm]

Threats won't stop strategic resource production, they never have. They only make the scrabble for them all the more intense.

Markups, intermediaries and black market trade would certainly see to the difference. Besides, unless America was selling the oil it made as exports, no country would give a fig if they protested China's mass production of oil. If this actually works on the industrial scale, then once the secret is out, every country in the world with the knowhow and resources will start up their own production. You can't patent strategic resource production and expect it to stay patented.

Like a patent holder would have access to unrestricted satellite imagery.

Like threatening to cut off trade is stopping Irans nuclear fuel enrichment efforts. [/sarcasm]

Threats won't stop strategic resource production, they never have. They only make the scrabble for them all the more intense.

If it turns out this works and if our government has any sense, it'll offer the secrets of the microbial oil factories out free of charge for all who want them. This attacks climate change, poverty, and oil-based wars all in one blow, with the added effect of buffing up our foreign image (god knows we need it).

As you point out, there's no way in hell we would be able to keep something this strategically game-changing under wraps anyway, so why play the miser out of principle just to fail?

Markups, intermediaries and black market trade would certainly see to the difference. Besides, unless America was selling the oil it made as exports, no country would give a fig if they protested China's mass production of oil. If this actually works on the industrial scale, then once the secret is out, every country in the world with the knowhow and resources will start up their own production. You can't patent strategic resource production and expect it to stay patented.
You can patent the production method. different refining methods and different parts used in the refining process are in fact patented.
yes if another country figures out a different method (and they will) to get the same results thats a different matter. but they will likely keep it as a trade secret like the method to apply Teflon to cook ware, it could be 50 years before anyone comes close to figuring out.



Like a patent holder would have access to unrestricted satellite imagery.

was it the patent holders of the soft ware companies that complained to china or was it the US government??? The country has always been interested in making sure the corporations in America do well, and protecting their patent rights.



Like threatening to cut off trade is stopping Irans nuclear fuel enrichment efforts. [/sarcasm]
it doesnt work on Iran because China, India, and parts of Europe will still buy Iranian oil regardless about this talk about embargo.

Threats won't stop strategic resource production, they never have. They only make the scrabble for them all the more intense.[/QUOTE]

there is a difference between when a goverment that produces the stuff, for military use, and a large scale privately owned project.
A large scale privately owned project has these things called investors who get nervous when their assets are frozen. what good is a million dollars if you cant travel the world with it?

Me wants proof. Seems pretty epically Sci-Fi to me. If we could get some independent observers to do some good ol' mathematics yo truly find out if its CO2 neutral, then I'm all for it. Hell, I'd invest in it if it were. I guess I'm just skeptical.

On a side note, that doesn't mean you should be driving a ute. There are SO many other reasons why small cars are better.

If it turns out this works and if our government has any sense, it'll offer the secrets of the microbial oil factories out free of charge for all who want them. This attacks climate change, poverty, and oil-based wars all in one blow, with the added effect of buffing up our foreign image (god knows we need it).

As you point out, there's no way in hell we would be able to keep something this strategically game-changing under wraps anyway, so why play the miser out of principle just to fail?

Because the information is not property of the US goverment.
It is property of a US citizen. or more exactly property of a US corporation.
It is simply the US government's job to protect the intellectual property rights of its citizens and corporations.

This was my reaction. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tim5nU3DwIE)

It's cool and all, but I want my electric car that goes 200 miles to the charge and charges the battery at my house using solar power from panels on my roof.

Not having to use petrol at all > using cheapish petrol.

I also wonder what the ramifications of having so many of those bugs would be(I can imagine the number needed for a reasonable amount of oil in a reasonable amount of time would be immense).. and I dread what would happen if they..escaped.. into the ecosystem. The whole world would be a massive oil spill!

*smashes solar panels* Don't you know those leave a carbon foot print (albeit a small one). Man people like you are ruining the environment.
Only by driving around a big SUV and using gasoline 2.0 can you have a negative carbon foot print.

these are microscopic bugs. and my guess is the modifications that make them produce oil likely makes it hard for them to exist outside of certain conditions.

It is simply the US government's job to protect the intellectual property rights of its citizens and corporations.

no, it isn't

no, it isn't

what the US goverment is supposed to seize this property from the inventor and give it away to the world ??

that would be morally wrong.

Because the information is not property of the US goverment.
It is property of a US citizen. or more exactly property of a US corporation.
It is simply the US government's job to protect the intellectual property rights of its citizens and corporations.

So the fact that this may be crucial to solving the global climate change crisis and may also go a long way towards alleviating global poverty and increasing human mobility is immaterial? Oh, plus the fact that if we share it openly we'll pull off a foreign policy coup that will make the Marshall Plan look like pennies thrown to a beggar?
Not to mention completely negating the influence of Russia and every oil dealing despot out there?

There are exceptions to every rule, and we've just found one.

what the US goverment is supposed to seize this property from the inventor and give it away to the world ??

that would be morally wrong.

no, the inventor should be well compensated. However, the impact of this invention goes far beyond the free market into international diplomacy and global climate change, so the normal rules don't apply.

the reaction will be "haha, we still pay less than you do and are better for the environment". and they will still be right.
You know, hybrids take many, many years to actually make back the purchasing premium in savings on petrol. Most of the time, people would be better off buying a car with a small petrol or diesel engine. Or, indeed, wait four or five years and just use a Diesotto engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesotto).

Of course, none of this actually matters, since we can't stop climate change or even slow it down to any significant degree by changing our driving. Energy production is where it's really at, as well as getting cows to stop farting (broadly speaking). Transport in the developed world is changing all by itself, simply due to market pressures, and the emissions growth from road-based transport is gonna be in developing countries, where car technology is scarce and numbers are huge.

So there we go: by not driving a 600hp supercar for "green" reasons, I'm not doing jack for the environment. I'm only appeasing a bunch of hysterical idiots.

So the fact that this may be crucial to solving the global climate change crisis and may also go a long way towards alleviating global poverty and increasing human mobility is immaterial?
Modern farming methods?? Has John Deer allowed other countries to produce their design of tractors ??
there is no difference between this and any other major invention that changed the world. what happens when you rob the this invention from those who invested millions and put in loads of hard work to give away for free, you take away the incentive for further investment down the road.

Oh, plus the fact that if we share it openly we'll pull off a foreign policy coup that will make the Marshall Plan look like pennies thrown to a beggar?
Not to mention completely negating the influence of Russia and every oil dealing despot out there?
I think Selling oil at affordable prices would be Foreign policy coup enough. And I wouldn't mind replacing all the oil despots in the world, with the just and kind US (and if they say we aren't we cut off their oil)

There are exceptions to every rule, and we've just found one.

Stealing is never correct.


no, the inventor should be well compensated. However, the impact of this invention goes far beyond the free market into international diplomacy and global climate change, so the normal rules don't apply.

Let the investor deiced if he wants to give it away or sell it.
breaking international law because you feel it is important is still breaking the law.
people want to sue Gasoline 2.0 they should pay for it (at a cheaper price then they currently pay) like everyone else.

it doesnt work on Iran because China, India, and parts of Europe will still buy Iranian oil regardless about this talk about embargo.

And when other countries start making cheap oil for sale that isn't contingent to being friendly to US geo-political interests, the rest of the world wouldn't care one whit what decrepit money hoarders in the US have to say.


there is a difference between when a goverment that produces the stuff, for military use, and a large scale privately owned project.
A large scale privately owned project has these things called investors who get nervous when their assets are frozen. what good is a million dollars if you cant travel the world with it?

Oil is a strategic asset. If a proven method for its artificial production becomes viable, even if no private investor would sink a penny, no government would dare passing it up.

*pokes repeatedly* Article said it was carbon negative. Took more carbon out by growing the stuff for the bugs to eat than the bugs pooed out into their oil.

At the cost of food production area by the looks of it.

...adding that if LS9 used Brazilian sugar cane as its feedstock, its fuel would probably cost about $50 a barrel.

So...what's happening to food prices currently with all the hyped up biodiesel and whatnot biofuels running amok? What would happen if you could turn a loaf of bread into something worth 2-3 times more? For starters, would the end cost of the oil be any cheaper than today?

Stealing is never correct.


That's never stopped America from doing so with numerous world changing inventions and proclaiming that it was theirs all along.

Let the investor deiced if he wants to give it away or sell it.
breaking international law because you feel it is important is still breaking the law.
people want to sue Gasoline 2.0 they should pay for it (at a cheaper price then they currently pay) like everyone else.

Look, we'll give him gobs of money for compensation anyway, but to allow someone to patent something as critical to the ongoing survival of the human race as this and try to make money off of it is pure insanity. Oil has become so crucial to humanity that it'd be like patenting air or water and trying to squeeze profit out of it.

Or try this: think of the current climate change crisis as a time of war. When we were fighting WWII, many of the normal free market rules were temporarily suspended in the interests of beating the Nazis.

So...what's happening to food prices currently with all the hyped up biodiesel and whatnot biofuels running amok? What would happen if you could turn a loaf of bread into something worth 2-3 times more? For starters, would the end cost of the oil be any cheaper than today?
Sugar cane is pretty good when it comes to fuel production. They had that going long before anyone was talking about climate change and it's self-sustaining today.

The issue with biofuels and food prices today has to do with government intervention, particularly the subsidised use of corn for biofuels in the States.

Sugar cane is pretty good when it comes to fuel production.
That crop area is away from other crops which could be used for nutrition of humans or cattle.


Though, crops can be used as a fuel in another way too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5263384.stm

"Flex-fuel" vehicles, which run on any combination of ethanol and petrol, now make up 77% of the Brazilian market.

That's never stopped America from doing so with numerous world changing inventions and proclaiming that it was theirs all along.

Those were ares those people who used them before our scientist invented them were obviously in violation of the patent.

And when other countries start making cheap oil for sale that isn't contingent to being friendly to US geo-political interests, the rest of the world wouldn't care one whit what decrepit money hoarders in the US have to say.

its not about hoarding its about whats best for everyone.



Oil is a strategic asset. If a proven method for its artificial production becomes viable, even if no private investor would sink a penny, no government would dare passing it up.

Yes they will do what everyone else did, investors and governments when confronted with a invention protected by a patent. That is figure out their own way of reproducing crude oil from from yeast or bacteria.
this will lead a to a multitude of different ways to produce crude oil from microbes. the one that becomes the world wide standard will be the most efficient. if you just give it away you prevetn this process.

That crop area is away from other crops which could be used for nutrition of humans or cattle.
I'm just saying, sugar cane ethanol has paid for itself in Brazil for a long time now, and there seems to be an equilibrium in land usage (notwithstanding the disputes about people burning down the Amazon (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11496950)) that was enough to make a lot of fuel and feed enough people.

its not about hoarding its about whats best for everyone.


Yes they will do what everyone else did, investors and governments when confronted with a invention protected by a patent. That is figure out their own way of reproducing crude oil from from yeast or bacteria.
this will lead a to a multitude of different ways to produce crude oil from microbes. the one that becomes the world wide standard will be the most efficient. if you just give it away you prevetn this process.

Brilliant!

Those were ares those people who used them before our scientist invented them were obviously in violation of the patent.

This is either sarcasm, or the signs of someone chronologically challenged. I think it is the former.


the one that becomes the world wide standard will be the most efficient. if you just give it away you prevetn this process.

Linux is undeniable proof that your claim is bunk.

This is either sarcasm, or the signs of someone chronologically challenged. I think it is the former.



Linux is undeniable proof that your claim is bunk.
Linux is great, yes.

the problem with Linux is that the average consumer is too dumb/lazy to use it.

I'm just saying, sugar cane ethanol has paid for itself in Brazil for a long time now, and there seems to be an equilibrium in land usage (notwithstanding the disputes about people burning down the Amazon (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11496950)) that was enough to make a lot of fuel and feed enough people.

or we can use this method not need flex fuel vehicles, and use the wood chips no one was going to eat anyways.

It has to do with what the bugs are consuming in order to produce the petrol. More carbon goes in than comes out.

Arrrggghhh... All life on Earth is carbon-based, so of course the bugs are eating more carbon than the amount that comes out. As a former biology major I think it is cool, but as someone who is concerned with global warming I also want to squash the bugs. This advancement will only advance the statis quo. Meanwhile the atmosphere will suffer. Fields upon fields will be consumed leading to 'bread basket' decline, over farming, and possible new dust bowl. Which will cause starvation in U.S., and end or shift Petrol-bug production. Not to mention the cloned corn fields, Farmer land grabs, and air pollution will kill off the last of the Honey Bees. Then most of the corn crops will end making it a cycle of futility.

Its late, I need sleep. I would have expanded more and please forgive the grammar.

Linux is great, yes.

the problem with Linux is that the average consumer is too dumb/lazy to use it.

So? The average consumer isn't going to set up his personal oil refinery in his backyard. It will be those with the resources and knowhow who will set up their production facilities. And there are plenty of governments with both once this is proven to work. From there, they'll try to out compete each other in efficiency. Not quite a perfect competition, a monopolistic market, but good enough.

So? The average consumer isn't going to set up his personal oil refinery in his backyard. It will be those with the resources and knowhow who will set up their production facilities. And there are plenty of governments with both once this is proven to work. From there, they'll try to out compete each other in efficiency. Not quite a perfect competition, a monopolistic market, but good enough.

exactly the consumer will only care about cheapest gasoline so they cant screw up the process by going for the operating system that dumbs things down to their level.
It wont be governments competing it will be private corporations. Governments will at best produce a windows refinery system, where as your private corporations will be linux redhat all the way.

Arrrggghhh... All life on Earth is carbon-based, so of course the bugs are eating more carbon than the amount that comes out. As a former biology major I think it is cool, but as someone who is concerned with global warming I also want to squash the bugs. This advancement will only advance the statis quo. Meanwhile the atmosphere will suffer. Fields upon fields will be consumed leading to 'bread basket' decline, over farming, and possible new dust bowl. Which will cause starvation in U.S., and end or shift Petrol-bug production. Not to mention the cloned corn fields, Farmer land grabs, and air pollution will kill off the last of the Honey Bees. Then most of the corn crops will end making it a cycle of futility.

Its late, I need sleep. I would have expanded more and please forgive the grammar.

read the article they can use things which replenish the soil. Basically your farmer can use this when he would normally let his field go fallow.
+ for soil
+ for environment
and it is renewable.

you just want to force people like me out of driving my 2 mpg SUV.

Big deal, ive been eating waste and expelling gas my whole life.

You know, hybrids take many, many years to actually make back the purchasing premium in savings on petrol. Most of the time, people would be better off buying a car with a small petrol or diesel engine.

anybody using less fuel, even if that fuel is made by modified yeast and plant matter, is inherently better. we ain't talking price here, as price is not adequately capturing the externalities.

Of course, none of this actually matters, since we can't stop climate change or even slow it down to any significant degree by changing our driving. Energy production is where it's really at, as well as getting cows to stop farting (broadly speaking).

energy production and transportation are more or less equal, and both are an order of magnitude greater than cow methane, in terms of co2 equivalent emissions. if we cut transport emissions while just holding everything else steady (and nobody proposes just stopping with transport) we would most certainly be helping.

you just want to force people like me out of driving my 2 mpg SUV.

well, i intend to do that anyway, regardless of the price of gas.

on a serious note I will believe this is workable when I see engineers talking about.

The scary part, is that this procedure is patented, (its the guy who invented sun micro systems you know he patented it). This could very well make him and the US the sole world wide exporter of oil (coming at about 1/3 the market price of oil pumped from the ground).

I am a little scared how the Us would deal with a combined Saudi and American economy.I seem to remember there are a fair few countries that won't allow you to patent life (or DNA or something). Therefore no worldwide patent and no worldwide monopoly on the technology.

I seem to remember there are a fair few countries that won't allow you to patent life (or DNA or something). Therefore no worldwide patent and no worldwide monopoly on the technology.

patent the process to make the microbe???
Due to environmental concerns these will likely have a terminator gene in them.
basically would stop reproduction at a certain number of live cycles.

its not like these other businesses in these countries will ever have access to the microbe to begin with. So it is kinda hard to make a copy when you cant eve get a look at the original.

patent the process to make the microbe???
Due to environmental concerns these will likely have a terminator gene in them.
basically would stop reproduction at a certain number of live cycles.

Mutations. Evolutionary life cycles will always gear towards best possible survival adaptation.


its not like these other businesses in these countries will ever have access to the microbe to begin with. So it is kinda hard to make a copy when you cant eve get a look at the original.

Two words: Industrial espionage

we ain't talking price here, as price is not adequately capturing the externalities.
In some cases, it is (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9370620)...
Petrol taxes, in particular, are already eye-wateringly high at 50p per litre. Work by David Newbery, an economist at Cambridge University, suggests that existing levels of fuel tax more than cover the environmental damage that motoring does to local air quality or global carbon-dioxide levels. Forthcoming research from London's Imperial College argues that, on assumptions recommended by Sir Nicholas Stern, the author of a government study on climate change, the damage caused by carbon emissions amounts to less than 20p per litre.

energy production and transportation are more or less equal, and both are an order of magnitude greater than cow methane, in terms of co2 equivalent emissions. if we cut transport emissions while just holding everything else steady (and nobody proposes just stopping with transport) we would most certainly be helping.
Two things: transport includes a lot of stuff, of which cars form only a part. Secondly, it's a question of cost and benefit. Cutting transport emissions is not a good thing. It is a bad thing, it is a cost, it hurts people. The benefits happen to outweigh the costs, given certain conditions, but if those aren't met, all you're pushing for when you were to tell me to drive a hybrid is to see me less happy than I could have been.

The title is incorrect, Bacteria are not bugs. They are plants (Of a sort).

um...no. They aren't even in the same domain. Plants are in Eukaryota, bacteria are in Eubacteria. Bacteria are bacteria.

My point exactly. When burning fossil fuels we are releasing ANCIENT carbon. There for we would have to get rid of all the excess carbon in the system.

The plants grown as feedstock hold the carbon that is later converted into gas (mind you, these plants are releasing gasoline, not oil...hence the lack of a need for any major refining). The bacteria themselves also consume carbon which is then held in the cell, thus leaving the process carbon negative.

Mutations. Evolutionary life cycles will always gear towards best possible survival adaptation.

with out knowing how this particular microbe works the, the terminator gene is attached to the genes changed. aka the microbe over comes the terminator gene it ceases to be a special oil producing microbe. that is why terminator genes were designed. For instance with corn they have a system where the corn is regular corn and can reproduce on its own until an activator is sprayed on it. the activator turns on the traits such as insect resistance and the like but also turns on the terminator.

terminator genes are very useful for protecting market share and preventing those "you cant patent a life form" types from stealing the fruits of your labor.



Two words: Industrial espionage

might work, likely wont. Dupont has kept its industrial secret on how they apply teflon to cookware and industrial applications for decades. this is with the cookware being on the market for would be spies to buy.
A industrial spy might steal some of the microbes but the terminator gene would make that useless in the long run.

In some cases, it is (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9370620)...

yes, carbon emissions are the only externality of fuel consumption...


Cutting transport emissions is not a good thing.

this is just silly. a cost is not a bad, and cutting emissions doesn't even necessarily actually result in a cost, unless you view generating emissions itself to be the good to be maximized.

yes, carbon emissions are the only externality of fuel consumption...
Okay, fill in the numbers:

30p < p1*E1 + p2*E2 + ... + pn*En

Where pi is the probability of a litre of petrol causing this external cost, and Ei is the actual external cost.

this is just silly. a cost is not a bad, and cutting emissions doesn't even necessarily actually result in a cost, unless you view generating emissions itself to be the good to be maximized.
Of course cost is bad. Hence why we try to avoid it, and we contrast it with a benefit, which is good.

And the emissions are externalities, which are connected with a good, such as driving a petrol-powered car. Now, telling me not to drive my car results in a cost to me, there is no doubt about that. I'd have to stay home, walk, catch a bus or drive an experimental piece of crap, all of which leave me worse off than before. To a lesser extent, it is also a cost to society, not just because I am a part of it but also because, for example, I am now using my time and effort in a way that contributes less to others. You can argue that there is also a benefit associated with me not driving the car, to myself and to society as a whole.

In principle, I don't even disagree. The problem is if the benefit is so utterly miniscule, because my lack of emissions is cancelled out immediately and climate change doesn't slow down one bit, that there is no way it can be greater than the cost incurred.

In short: if no one else is doing it, there is no meaningful benefit created by me going through the pain of reducing my emissions. I realise there's the whole "but what if everyone did that" argument - but fact of the matter is that unless you make that one work for everyone, things don't change.

Mutations. Evolutionary life cycles will always gear towards best possible survival adaptation.


What if the scientists could set up a system where the most efficient bacteria survive. Could artificial selection work just like natural selection?

Am I the only one worried about the enormous amounts of biomass necessary to carry out full-scale production?

One has to wonder about the long-term impacts. I doubt we produce enough organic waste to sustain this at our current rates of fuel consumption. If our waste is not sufficient, then will we turn to using cultivable land or cut down forests in order to feed those bacteria?

Even if this works properly (and it would be good news if the carbon-negativity claimed is real) this is still not a free ticket to keep abusing and wasting our energy resources as we currently are.

Okay, fill in the numbers:

30p < p1*E1 + p2*E2 + ... + pn*En

Where pi is the probability of a litre of petrol causing this external cost, and Ei is the actual external cost.

i'm sure somebody could give actual numbers, but surely you aren't claiming that global warming is actually the only externality involved with driving, right? i mean, there are all sorts of obvious ones which actually are often associated with gas taxes already. like infrastructure building and maintenance. and providing safety and security on the roads, and health impacts, as well as various other social costs of a car-based culture. i'm not claiming to know exactly what number captures those costs (or even that we shouldn't taxes above such a number anyways). i am merely pointing out that your argument doesn't even begin to hold up.

Of course cost is bad. Hence why we try to avoid it, and we contrast it with a benefit, which is good.

equivocation. the fact that something isn't free doesn't make it bad.

And the emissions are externalities, which are connected with a good, such as driving a petrol-powered car.

that is not a good.

the fact that you like something is no more an argument that it is good then the fact that dictators love torture is an argument for the positive value of putting electrodes on people's genitals.

In short: if no one else is doing it, there is no meaningful benefit created by me going through the pain of reducing my emissions. I realise there's the whole "but what if everyone did that" argument - but fact of the matter is that unless you make that one work for everyone, things don't change.

yay collective action?

Neu Leonstein: would it be alright with you if I stole a dollar from everyone in this country?

i'm sure somebody could give actual numbers, but surely you aren't claiming that global warming is actually the only externality involved with driving, right?
No. What I'm claiming is that it seems rather unlikely that those externalities are large enough to justify an additional 30p in tax per litre. And if you were to claim the opposite, I was asking you to outline a few details.

i'm not claiming to know exactly what number captures those costs (or even that we shouldn't taxes above such a number anyways).
How interesting. Why do you pretend to care about externalities? What you're saying here is that you care about taxing and eradicating petrol-powered cars, and things like climate change and other externalities are simply a convenient rhetorical support rather than a reason.

equivocation. the fact that something isn't free doesn't make it bad.
No, but that is because the package as a whole includes both costs (which are bad) and benefits (which are good). If we decide to buy something, obviously the net effect is a benefit. If we didn't buy it, the net effect is likely negative, meaning buying it would make us less happy than we otherwise would have been. That seems to be as close to bad as we can get.

that is not a good.
How isn't it? I derive enjoyment from it, it allows me to allocate my resources in an effective way and contribute more to society, it creates jobs etc etc

I choose it voluntarily, as do most people. It is a package of materials and activities that yields a net benefit to me and most others. You can either argue that it doesn't, or you can get a bit abstract and try to invent moral reasons for why petrol-powered cars are wrong (or perhaps the more appropriate word would be "evil").

yay collective action?
Hey, when you see it start, be sure to tell me. At the moment all I'm seeing is legislation. Targeting cars, of course, not cows or Chinese power plants.

Neu Leonstein: would it be alright with you if I stole a dollar from everyone in this country?
Well, first of all when I drive I'm not stealing anything. The externalities are a problem because they are a dead-weight loss from which nobody gains. So I'm destroying a dollar rather than stealing it.

Secondly, nobody is denying that externalities are a bad thing, and that there are some that are associated with driving a car. What I'm saying is two-fold: firstly it is quite possible that the effect of my individual driving of a car is utterly miniscule, and should only be priced accordingly (such that the argument in Britain should be about cutting petrol taxes rather than increasing them) and on the other hand that my CO2 emissions are only a problem in so far as they're associated with the greenhouse effect. If I stop emitting but the effect continues unmitigated, it turns out that my action hasn't prevented this dollar from being destroyed at all. The only thing I'm sure of is that it made me worse off.

As such I wouldn't mind cars being part of a global, economically sound and properly-structured plan for capping global emissions. But no such plan exists: politicians are unable to produce it. Instead they resort to populist measures which will have zero positive net effect on anything but their credentials with baby boomers. A new tax regime for cars in Holland now makes a Ferrari 599 22,000 pounds more expensive. If you take the average life of the car, look at how many kilometres it will drive, take its (admittedly impressive) extra CO2 emissions and come up with a figure for the total CO2 emitted and its effect on climate change, you will not ever get close to 22,000 pounds. But that doesn't matter anymore than sense mattered to the people that decided that 2.5t SUVs can drive through London without paying congestion charges because they have a token battery weighing them down.

You'll know by now that if there's one thing that offends me more than anything else, it's policy that ignores economics. Economics is real, poll ratings are artificial, and the effects on resource allocations on the planet are bigger than any politician's career. They have no right to do this to our species.

As such I wouldn't mind cars being part of a global, economically sound and properly-structured plan for capping global emissions. But no such plan exists: politicians are unable to produce it. Instead they resort to populist measures which will have zero positive net effect on anything but their credentials with baby boomers. A new tax regime for cars in Holland now makes a Ferrari 599 22,000 pounds more expensive. If you take the average life of the car, look at how many kilometres it will drive, take its (admittedly impressive) extra CO2 emissions and come up with a figure for the total CO2 emitted and its effect on climate change, you will not ever get close to 22,000 pounds. But that doesn't matter anymore than sense mattered to the people that decided that 2.5t SUVs can drive through London without paying congestion charges because they have a token battery weighing them down.

You'll know by now that if there's one thing that offends me more than anything else, it's policy that ignores economics. Economics is real, poll ratings are artificial, and the effects on resource allocations on the planet are bigger than any politician's career. They have no right to do this to our species.

fucking dumbshit politicians *claps*

Holy shit!

Only if you worship oil.

Only if you worship oil.

isn't that the 6th pillar of Islam?

Am I the only one worried about the enormous amounts of biomass necessary to carry out full-scale production?

One has to wonder about the long-term impacts. I doubt we produce enough organic waste to sustain this at our current rates of fuel consumption. If our waste is not sufficient, then will we turn to using cultivable land or cut down forests in order to feed those bacteria?

Even if this works properly (and it would be good news if the carbon-negativity claimed is real) this is still not a free ticket to keep abusing and wasting our energy resources as we currently are.

I was just thinking that myself. I'm also wondering how the yield compares to processes converting agricultural waste into ethanol.

My guess is that, regardless, the world will have to learn to use multiple energy sources, and use them more efficiently than we have been over the last 50-60 years. These bugs aren't going to put anyone's H1 back on the road.

patent the process to make the microbe???
Due to environmental concerns these will likely have a terminator gene in them.
basically would stop reproduction at a certain number of live cycles.

its not like these other businesses in these countries will ever have access to the microbe to begin with. So it is kinda hard to make a copy when you cant eve get a look at the original.No a patent on the DNA itself. ie. Even if another company was able to produce the microbe then they wouldn't be allowed to use it if the important DNA sequence was the same or similar. However, there are a fair few countries who refuse to recognise such patent claims. More to do with the implications of such patents in human DNA than anything else.

And unless companies can patent certain DNA sequences then the huge advances in biotechnology that are being made then it is unlikely that such companies would be able to hold onto trade secrets for long. I think in the article it even said that such work would not have even been possible 5 years ago.

I doubt a terminator gene would stop industrial espionage, since it would be in a totally different part of the DNA sequence. And more effective than a terminator gene would be to make the microbe unable to survive outside of certain conditions, such as an acidic or alkaline environment.

i can already see a slight problem with this. What if these Bugs that eat farm waste decide that you look tasty? or if your homes look nice? or if they reproduce fast enough to basically blanket the earth and decide to turn all forestation into petrol?i know these things sound like something out a a SciFi movie and none of them are likely to happen but Sod's Law states that "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." im just worried that these Bugs wont be able to differentiate between plants and waste.
And these views have probably been stated beforehand but i couldn't be bothered to search though all pages and searching for any and every reference to my views.