What is Digg?63 Comments
- billmill, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Great scott!! This is perfect for feuling my flux capacitor!
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10What are you talking about? The carbon released by plants (and tiny bacteria or algae) is the same carbon they pull from the air. There is no "dumping" in that case. The problem with carbon emissions is generally that they are being released *as additions* to the current biological carbon back-and-forth cycle, having been stored underground for millions of years before they were burned.
- VeganG, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Making this will be illegal in 10... 9... 8...
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I think the best form of "bio-solar" (in the sense that we're using organisms to store solar energy) would be facilities with big glass tubes or tanks with algae or bacteria. Plants mean less efficiency because they are harder to process (plant, cut, water, and you can't put them in pipes) and because they use more of that energy in hard-to-break-down forms for structural purposes.
Any kind of macro-level plants should just be a transition means. - dark_helmet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It would probably be a carbon neutral fuel. The carbon that is part of the fuel has to come from somewhere, and that would probably be CO2 in the air.
- diggydougie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Sounds great. Only problem is the food chain
Corn -> sugar -> bacteria -> petroleum
There was some mention of switchgrass in the article, but it basically sounds like more corn "pork"
Let's figure out how to get clean energy without expensive process. - NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It not only makes you sick, but you eventually explode.
- BlakeEM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4BP is helping funding it, so I doubt it will be illegal.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This should be no less "carbon neutral" than other biofuels.
FTA
"LS9's current work uses sugar derived from corn kernels as the food source for the bacteria--the same source used by ethanol-producing yeast." - wiggles, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sugar. RTFA.
- JaYBrooks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I am wondering about the consequences of modifying organisms to do this. Wouldn't it be very bad if these get into the real world?
- BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4 Well, since oil and coal originates from prehistoric organic matter decomposition, why don't we just clone some dinosaurs and then compost them? (of course I'm kidding)
- parasitewasp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This company will probably go public with an IPO of say $1.00 to $10.00 lots of shares will be sold (100,000,000 to 400 mil) then for the next ten years just lose money every year with no end product. Nothing new lots of bio-fuel companies floating around with stock prices below ten cents. Way to many people who really wanted to support companies like this one, pissed off and broke.
I still hope this works but try to be realistic. - duddles, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The e coli used in the lab is not the same e coli that comes with your jack in the box burger.
- LetsGoHawks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There may be some glaring flaw in this math, but I don't think so.....
The US uses 400,000,000 gallons of gasoline per day
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm
This process can produce 2,000 gallons per acre. (It doesn't say how long it takes to grow the biomass, but let's assumer that's per year)
400,000,000 / 2,000 = 200,000 acers per day.
1 sq. mile = 640 acres
200,000 / 640 = 312.5 sq. miles per day.
312.5 * 365 = 114,062 sq. miles per year, or an area about twice the size of Iowa
The Unites States is 3,718,695 sq miles, so it would take about 3% of the total land area of the US to grow enough fuel to replace our current gasoline usage. - VeganG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I should clarify. It will be legal for OIL COMPANIES to make man-made gasoline. It will be illegal for YOU to do so no matter what.
- Proximus10, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They can engineer them to perish in real world situations.
- afruff23, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Umm, that's what they use all the time in genetic engineering. E. coli is nothing dangerous, just some indigestion and stomachaches. I am using it right now in a lab to produce large quantities of a protein.
- ikzeidegek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3found startup company -> quote famous universities, seek publicity -> get everyone excited -> get idiot investors excited -> take investor money -> declare startup bankruptcy -> buy Bahamas villa
- Dardaar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2yeast is fungus not bacteria
- theholycow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So, maybe if he douches the yeast out, it can be made into fuel by one of the companies making biofuels from non-bacteria sources, such as the company making it from turkey giblets or the one making it from algae...
- Godlike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sure why not.
- Kniggit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is the irony of high gas prices: people will be far more motivated to find alternatives and will eventually turn the oil industry on its ear.
- kittymeow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nah, you can grow bacteria in a bioreactor under carefully controlled conditions. Just imagine a plant with a bunch of 500L bioreactors churning out gasoline.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Still not environemntally friendly"
How so? Carbon-wise, it's friendly. Oil-extraction wise, it's friendly. About the only way it's not friendly is when it comes to car emissions like unburned fuel, monoxide, and nitrogen oxides.
However, it gives us a transitional step, and we can make another transitional step by burning this stuff in large-scale generators which can better control their emissions, and then use the electricity for the proportion of automobiles for which it is feasible. Ultimately, it IS a good idea to have a combustible fuel, because it's energy density is generally considerably higher than potentially-toxic batteries and is easier to sell and store. - smackywentz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Especially where it said they were using E. Coli.
- NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"we're trying to shape the world around us to feet our needs. "
You say that like it's a bad thing.
-jcr - ikzeidegek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
- mos6507, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bear in mind that any solution is going to have to be accompanied by reduction in demand.
- ManyAsOne, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1...how the hell did this reply end up over here when I was typing it in the comment box on an entirely separate article? Digg this down, please.
- Gymbo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1but at least they won't have to drill for oil or ship it over seas... that's a step in the right direction
- kittymeow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you think about it, bacteria is the only way that you will be able to convert sugar to gasoline in an energy efficient manner. There's no way any man made catalyst is going to approach the efficiency of an enzyme. And E.Coli is platform that everyone uses (in Biotech) to do stuff like this. It's basically bacteria or bust.
- heavyal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1oh c'mon, give the guy a break that WAS funny!
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2More investment scam spam.
- ManyAsOne, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@docbob84- I assume the science courses you took weren't in microbiology, then? They may be the same species, but the genetically neutered K12 strain used in labs bears about as much resemblence to pathogenic strains like O157:H7 as a chihuahua does to a pit bull.
- chipset, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Poor bacterias :(
- Godlike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Dugg only cause its funny
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, not unless our catalyst is a tweaked version of something in nature.
I prefer thinking of it this way: Nature has been creating (or rather, incubating?) self-sustaining solar-powered energy storage systems for a long time, and in many respects has reached efficiencies it will take us a long time to reach without adopting the same technology.
I'd just prefer the process cuts out corn as a middleman. Grow the solar-powered bacteria/algae in sunlight. - BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1All the methods for alternative fuels consume too much energy and end up being a mere conversion process. We're trying to replicate gasoline and keep existing cars on the road for as long as possible. Just like always, instead of adapting to change, we're trying to shape the world around us to feet our needs.
Then again, whatever gets those scientists their funding... we all have to make a living. - theholycow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What's amazing is that people dugg Tweaker for spewing that uneducated dung.
- SilverBlade2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I can just see the OPEC lawyers wanting to buy, and bury, the patent for this.
- ntatonetti, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2First off, you're a douche, secondly yeast is not a bacterium.
- hcaandersen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This sounds to me like a useful step towards a sustainable energy future. Oil is the fuel for nearly all existing transportation (cars, ships, aircraft), so being able to manufacture it provides a clear advantage.
It's good to maintain a degree of scepticism, but most of the comments here just seem plainly cynical. Where I come from we call pathological cynics "knockers" - the sort of people who stand around with their hands in their pockets trying to sound smart by insulting the people getting their hands dirty. - AON99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't worry. There are other folks out there trying the same thing with photosynthetic algae, so no corn/switchgrass is needed.
- ChineseRoom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Still not gonna save us from the coming peak oil crisis.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We can also assume a gradual improvement in gallons per acre per time.
- jaderobbins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'll gladly pay you 2 bucks a gallon for that yeast infection m'am!
- ManyAsOne, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Judging from the description in the article, it sounds like what the doctors observed as "minimally conscious" was actually "minimally communicative". Not being able to speak or move in ways as to indicate awareness of one's environment, it seems, is not neccessarily the same as not being able to think or be aware.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think if you have enough water in the system it'll serve as a decent buffer for temperature changes. You could also use double-layer glass over, say, the tops of outdoor reactor tanks, in order to keep temperatures stable.
- JasonCox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I must be going insane, I thought the title said 'Battlestar Galactica'...
I NEED MY BSG FIX DAMNIT!
:-P -
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is