Oil from genetically-modified organisms

[turbo]

A Silicon Valley startup "LS9" is genetically modifying E.coli and yeast to excrete a petroleum substitute instead of the fatty acids they would normally produce during fermentation. The great thing about this is that they can be fed practically any type of organic waste, and the process need have no impact on food supplies. It will be interesting to see if they can scale up the process so that it's commercially viable.

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

 

[Kurdt]

I wonder if it could be modified so you could feed your car all your organic waste with some system containing the bacteria that would cut down on transporting the fuel. That is of course probably looking too far ahead.

 

[WarPhalange]

You mean so I could take a crap right into my car?

 

[Kurdt]

I meant like vegetable peel and things like that Like I say I'm probably being over enthusiastic though.

 

[Astronuc]

Apparently gasoline is so expensive in Gaza (~$27/gal), that taxi drivers are fueling with just about anything organic, e.g. cooking oil + kerosene, pesticides, deoderizer, . . . . That has prompted an increase in the price of cooking oil.

 

[mgb_phys]

I'm sticking with crude oil. At least it's organic - it was definitely grown without any man made chemicals or pesticides. Coal is even better, it's vegan!

 

[turbo]

I wonder if it could be modified so you could feed your car all your organic waste with some system containing the bacteria that would cut down on transporting the fuel. That is of course probably looking too far ahead.

As with any fermentation process, there is a time factor to be considered, and you have to maintain optimal living conditions for the bugs, and then there's the separation, extraction, and refining of the oils. My license has lapsed, but while I was a process chemist, I was responsible for overseeing the operation of the mill's wastewater treatment plant. It was a juggling act keeping conditions right so that the bugs would do their work - pH, temperature, dissolved Oxygen levels, bug population density and type... I imagine that these fellows have to learn to control all these things, too.

 

[Kurdt]

Yeah, I was just thinking out loud as usual.

 

[turbo]

Yeah, I was just thinking out loud as usual.

It would be nice to have some kind of enzyme that would break down organic waste VERY quickly, but that's probably pie-in-the-sky, too. Anything that powerful would be dangerous for humans to come in contact with.

 

[Averagesupernova]

You mean so I could take a crap right into my car?

I've been in a few cars where it smelled like someone took a crap.

 

[mgb_phys]

It would be nice to have some kind of enzyme that would break down organic waste VERY quickly,

If you don't mind the smell there is a readily available multi-chamber production system that converts plant matter to methane at around 700 litres/day. At 900 KJ/mol that's only about about 26MJ/day, (less than a gallon of gasoline) but for short commuting trips my new system could work.

Converting your pickup to run on natural gas is already fairly easy ( there are many cars in europe converted to lpg) then all you need to do is put a bale of hay in the back, add the cow and insert the pipe (diagram provided).

 

[turbo]

If you don't mind the smell there is a readily available multi-chamber production system that converts plant matter to methane at around 700 litres/day. At 900 KJ/mol that's only about about 26MJ/day, (less than a gallon of gasoline) but for short commuting trips my new system could work.

Converting your pickup to run on natural gas is already fairly easy ( there are many cars in europe converted to lpg) then all you need to do is put a bale of hay in the back, add the cow and insert the pipe (diagram provided).

That system is noisy and emits corrosive liquid by-products that will rot the bed of your pickup in no time flat.

 

[mgb_phys]

Ok so it's not going to be very popular in convertibles, unless you like having a cows tongue wiped across the back of your neck. Compact cars would probably have trailers or need to use little baby calfs.

But picture it, a line of gently mooing Holstein's double parked outside the school in the morning instead of minivans.

 

[turbo]

But picture it, a line of gently mooing Holstein's double parked outside the school in the morning instead of minivans.

Mooing and farting...

 

[DaveC426913]

That system is noisy and emits corrosive liquid by-products that will rot the bed of your pickup in no time flat.

Actually, not to be too much of a buzz-kill, but IIRC the majority of methane comes from the prettier end of the cow.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is a similar result obtained using algae, and this is what seems to be the question: Is it more efficient to collect and process biomass, than it is to grow algae using sunlight? [I realize this isn't about algae, but the same question applies.]

Microalgae are likely far more efficient at converting Cs, Hs, and Os, to a fatty acid or sugar, using sunlight, than are any large plants. The conversion efficiency of algae is thought to range from 1%, to a theoretical limit of something like 10%, for fatty acid [vegetable oil] production, based on the incident solar flux. And, microalgae effectively use 100% of the land or water area required.

So how much land does it require to provide the needed biomass in terms of the gross gallons of fuel produced per acre-year of biomass? Do we have enough land?

Then we have the extra step of converting from biomass to food for the bacteria. So we spend energy here.

Next, algae can be recovered using water flow in closed systems, whereas biomass must be collected and transported with machines that need energy.

Then we would have to consider the processing efficiencies at the point of entry to the fuel processing plant. So, how much energy is spent collecting the biomass? How much efficiency is lost through the added step of convering biomass to something usable by the bacteria? And how do the process efficiencies compare beyond that point?

It seems to me that the viability of this approach needs to be considered first, in principle, rather than in practical terms.

Just shooting from the hip, the simpler direct conversion from sunlight, water, NPK, and algae, to fatty acids or sugars, would probably be more efficient. But, for algae, there is the NPK. The nitrogen supply is always an issue. And algae will require bioreactors, so there is a high start-up cost per square foot of sunlight [nothing like the cost of solar panels, however]. There are also materials used that require energy to make. And they have a finite lifespan.

Note: when considering efficiencies, plants select certain ranges of frequencies - the photosynthetically active radiation - so when we compare the efficiencies of plants or solar panels, the active flux has to be compared to the incident flux, in addition to the efficiency of the active radiation.

 

[turbo]

For sure, any new energy technology will get an early buzz, and I detect quite a bit of cheerleading in the original article, but I have hopes. All around the country, there are agricultural by-products, municipal wastes, and other streams of organics that can feed algae, bacteria, and yeasts. How can we tap these nutrient streams and end up with concentrated, portable energy sources. That's the big one. Who can get beyond theory, proof-of-concept, pilot plants, and manage scale-up headaches to get to commercial viability?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The trouble is the hidden energy costs, such as the coal power and diesel used to make ethanol. Due to the market structure, these costs remain hidden.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but it can be shown that that [for example] for every three gallons of gasoline that would be sold, we now buy 4.6 gallons of ethanol, and still use an additional two gallons worth of diesel, or energy from other sources, to make the ethanol. This is easy to show, and many argue that it takes at least 3 gallons of gas [in energy] to make 4.6 gallons of ethanol, but we are still buying ethanol.

Also, any approach must be shown to be capable of scale. That it would take more land for corn than we have land in the entire US, to replace gasoline with ethanol, is not apparent at the pump - we are still buying ethanol.

 

[turbo]

When I was a training consultant, I surveyed a project at Quantum Chemical in Iowa. They had a little plant located in the middle of farm country, and with my background in chemistry and engineering, I could see from the first visit that they were living on subsidies and could never produce ethanol and other hydrocarbons on a commercially-viable scale in a thousand years. Most alternative energy projects are boondoggles designed to separate money from taxpayers.

 

[Ouabache]

A Silicon Valley startup "LS9" is genetically modifying E.coli and yeast to excrete a petroleum substitute instead of the fatty acids they would normally produce during fermentation. The great thing about this is that they can be fed practically any type of organic waste, and the process need have no impact on food supplies. It will be interesting to see if they can scale up the process so that it's commercially viable.

Sounds a lot like trying to make tofu taste like meat (making an oil substitute). I sincerely feel time would be better spent generating energy from alternative sources (tidal, geothermal, solar, wind...), convert to electricity and use that to power our energy hungry global community.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When I was a training consultant, I surveyed a project at Quantum Chemical in Iowa. They had a little plant located in the middle of farm country, and with my background in chemistry and engineering, I could see from the first visit that they were living on subsidies and could never produce ethanol and other hydrocarbons on a commercially-viable scale in a thousand years. Most alternative energy projects are boondoggles designed to separate money from taxpayers.

Technologies like this can be exciting, but yes, one has to take a long hard look at the total process efficiency. This is always the achilles heal, and the "real number" may not be represented by the market price due to subsidies or other market factors. So, this, and the similar algae process worry me because I wonder about the gallons of fuel per acre-year of biomass. AFAIK, algae is the only option that can work; this is because as very simple microscopic organisms, they are extremely efficient at doing what they do - making fuel from carbon dioxide and water, by using sunlight.

The conversion goes directly from raw materials to a low grade fuel, which is easily converted to a high grade fuel once extracted. And the total land or water area requirement is quite reasonable as compared to other options. But then algae still has high energy costs in dewatering and extracting the oils, so it's not a done deal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sounds a lot like trying to make tofu taste like meat (making an oil substitute). I sincerely feel time would be better spent generating energy from alternative sources (tidal, geothermal, solar, wind...), convert to electricity and use that to power our energy hungry global community.

It is done every day.
http://nearbio.com/

You still can't drive your car on tidal, geothermal, solar, or wind power. Not in practical terms.

It appears to me that a better analogy would be that we still can't fit a square peg in a round hole. For example, in order to get the same power from an off-the-shelf fuel cell as we would get from a typical car engine, it would cost upwards of $1 million [actually, that price has dropped to something like a half-million or so]. And even the best battery options cannot compete with a tank of gasoline, or better yet, biodiesel, but they do cost $50K or $60K per car, and they weigh 900 pounds or so.

And then there are the matters of trucking, farming, construction, power and pumping stations, aviation, railroads, shipping, the military...

 

[rewebster]

Technologies like this can be exciting, but yes, one has to take a long hard look at the total process efficiency. This is always the achilles heal, and the "real number" may not be represented by the market price due to subsidies or other market factors. So, this, and the similar algae process worry me because I wonder about the gallons of fuel per acre-year of biomass. AFAIK, algae is the only option that can work; this is because as very simple microscopic organisms, they are extremely efficient at doing what they do - making fuel from carbon dioxide and water, by using sunlight.

The conversion goes directly from raw materials to a low grade fuel, which is easily converted to a high grade fuel once extracted. And the total land or water area requirement is quite reasonable as compared to other options. But then algae still has high energy costs in dewatering and extracting the oils, so it's not a done deal.

yeah, but, I wonder what the yield is for the algae-----would it take an acre (or five)of 'algae' to produce 1 gallon of 'oil' a day? If you compare even yeast making alcohol (beer...what's the output? 3-6%? with what input?)

I can see it in a way better than ethanol fuel as it wouldn't 'use up' corn, etc.

 

[G01]

I wonder if it could be modified so you could feed your car all your organic waste with some system containing the bacteria that would cut down on transporting the fuel. That is of course probably looking too far ahead.

Like in Back to the Future 2?

In all seriousness though, this seems like a really interesting option if they get it to work. The other question we must ask though is "How will this fuel compare to normal petroleum in terms of pollution and carbon emissions?"

 

[Ouabache]

You still can't drive your car on tidal, geothermal, solar, or wind power. Not in practical terms.

The technology already exists to enable us to drive on alternative energy converted to electrical storage. For example, the vehicles made by http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/how_it_works.php , utilize Li-Ion battery storage and yield up to 220miles/charge. They are finished with prototyping and into production. This kind of technology could be adapted to trucks, tractors, construction equipment, military vehicles, rail. It does not contribute to global warming, as there is no greenhouse gas emission. (Combustion of biofuels still generate greenhouse gas. We ought to be thinking of better ways to sequester CO2 to reduce global warming).
Power and pumping can already be accomplished, using wind and moving water energy. Aviation and ocean transport will require additional innovation..

Initially, not everyone will be able to afford a vehicle like the Tesla, however prices will come down as mass production and competition take place. In the meantime, there are Plug-In-Hybrids coming onboard, which will allow you up to 60mi/charge after which you can either plug it back into the grid for recharge or switch over to a conventional engine to recharge the batteries. Not a bad intermediary solution. So I don't feel it is worthwhile spending too much effort making alternative liquid combustible fuels.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The technology already exists to enable us to drive on alternative energy converted to electrical storage. For example, the vehicles made by http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/how_it_works.php , utilize Li-Ion battery storage and yield up to 220miles/charge. They are finished with prototyping and into production.

I was citing the numbers for the Tesla. $60K for batteries at 900 lbs.

I can get 500 miles from 120 lbs worth of fuel, using an engine that costs maybe $5K, today, using biodiesel, so who is trying to make tofu?

This kind of technology could be adapted to trucks, tractors, construction equipment, military vehicles, rail.

We are not even close.

It does not contribute to global warming, as there is no greenhouse gas emission. (Combustion of biofuels still generate greenhouse gas.

Biodiesel is carbon neutral. You release the carbon that was consumed in order to grow the fuel source.

Initially, not everyone will be able to afford a vehicle like the Tesla, however prices will come down as mass production and competition take place.

We could convert to biodiesel, today. In fact as you can see from the link nearbio.com, it is already a quickly growing industry.

In the meantime, there are Plug-In-Hybrids coming onboard,

The most efficient hybrids use diesel engines that can burn biodiesel.

So I don't feel it is worthwhile spending too much effort making alternative liquid combustible fuels.

Eventually you might be correct in that there will be better alternatives, but,in fact, I have been listening to these pie-in-the-sky promises for decades, and we are running out of time. The technology to make and run biodiesel exists and is used today. And unlike solar, wind, and geothermal, it is practical to grow algae at the scale needed to replace petroleum.

For example, if you wanted to replace the energy from fossil fuels using wind powered generators, you would have to build one state-of-the-art turbine, every two square miles, over the entire US.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

yeah, but, I wonder what the yield is for the algae-----would it take an acre (or five)of 'algae' to produce 1 gallon of 'oil' a day? If you compare even yeast making alcohol (beer...what's the output? 3-6%? with what input?)

I can see it in a way better than ethanol fuel as it wouldn't 'use up' corn, etc.

Algae can produce yields of 5000 gallons per acre-year, with claims as high as 10,000 gallons per acre-year and more. As you will see in the link below, it is practical to grow algae at the scale needed.

Corn can produce about 400 gallons of ethanol per acre-year, and we only get to keep 120 gallons of that at best.

Biodiesel also has about 40% more energy per gallon than does ethanol.

For more information, see
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211274

 

[rewebster]

Ivan--so, 30-35 gal. per acre per day--hmmm


has anyone actually had a acre devoted to this and produced that quantity, or is it extrapolated? what's the largest right now?---sounds good --I'll read those links in that other thread. So, that seems like a good possibility of how 'oil' was created in the first place maybe (or maybe a good part of it) in shallow water fields over millions of years with this organism (algae) growing and producing an 'oil'.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

More like 13-20 gallons per acre-day, which is far superior to all alternatives; quite manageable, and capable of the needed scale.

Yes, this was studied for twenty years in the DOE's Aquatic Species Program.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf

Yes, it is now believed that much of the crude that we pump today came from algae.

 

[winfotech]

Ivan said (previous page)
"It seems to me that the viability of this approach needs to be considered first, in principle, rather than in practical terms."

I disagree with that. For many decades "scientists" said it was aerodynamically impossible for a bee to fly, but not knowing the laws of aerodynamics, these "outlaw" bees just did it anyway. )

I'm fully in favor of some "shoot from the hip" attemtps to apply what we do understand (or think we do) and try to improve from there.

Algae have the effect of temporarily sequestering carbon dioxide as well as being a source of liquid fuel energy to produce mobile power (motive power). That doesn't mean you get full license to burn coal or natural gas just because you use algae to "eat" your smokestack carbon dioxide, but it does mean that once you start burning algae derived biomass and algae derived liquid fuels, you are simply recycling the same carbon over and over again.

I've mentioned in another thread, but might be worth repeating here that my company has created a "competitive" design to Vertigro's plastic air matress vertical algae cultivation system. But to correct (dispute?) Ivan's suggestion that only a fraction of an inch is actually photosynthetically active in an algae growth medium, it is entirely dependent on how dense the algae culture is, since the algae is itself is the main obstacle preventing greater penetration of the light. (see press release at http://energy.psyrk.us/press/ )

However, in general, 3 to 4 inches (or 7 to 10 cm.) is usually considered to be the active "growth" zone from the "surface", but as in Vertigro's system (and ours) the "surface" is not just the horizontal area at the "top" of the liquid growth medium. Our system provides "vertical surface area" as well as the top of the tank for exposing the algae to light. Algae can adjust their own buoyancy (somewhat like fish bladders, though nothing like the same physical structures or course) to seek out light and nutrients. They also tend to "cling" to surfaces (in many species) (just watch the tide go out some time), and we use that in our processes too. Other systems tend to "fight" against this as a "bad thing" that they must overcome. Some tubular photobioreactor systems (e.g. http://www.algaelink.com/tubular_photo_bioreactor_systems.htm though I can't find the specific reference to confirm that this particular brand uses this), use beads of synthetic materials with scouring edges to clean the interior walls of the transparent tubes and prevent algae from clinging there, blocking light to the rest of the volume of the tube. Tubular systems generally either use bubbling to keep the algae moving or pumps that force the liquid (and the cell cultures) to circulate in turbulent patterns that gradually expose all cells to the optimal lighting exposure at the interface (surface). We use this natural "sticky" tendency to aid in simplifying the mechanics of harvesting the algae. We use some bubbling of gases, and can help control temperatures by varying the temperature of those gases, but we do not pump the growth medium, except to clear the tank if we need to re-start the colony in that particular tank.


Stafford "Doc" Williamson
http://energy.psyrk.us

"You can't buy the truth for nickel." Mark Twain (referring to newspapers)