Producing Gasoline With Metabolically-Engineered Microorganisms 233
An anonymous reader writes "For many decades, we have been relying on fossil resources to produce liquid fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and many industrial and consumer chemicals for daily use. However, increasing strains on natural resources as well as environmental issues including global warming have triggered a strong interest in developing sustainable ways to obtain fuels and chemicals. A Korean research team led by Distinguished Professor Sang Yup Lee of the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) reported, for the first time, the development of a novel strategy for microbial gasoline production through metabolic engineering of E. coli."
Re:Sounds plausible (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't you find a good stout where you live?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1, Insightful)
At the moment, the economy, running on fossil carbon fuels, acts like any other carbon based life form. The more active the economy the more carbon dioxide is emitted. If you can do something that will cripple or destroy the economy, as planned by Agenda twenty-something, then the amount of carbon dioxide emissions will be cut drastically. People won't be driving cars to work. They won't be able to afford expensive heating or air conditioning systems. They won't be able to afford top buy things in the mass consumption patterns they're used to so factories will shut down. Everyone will just stay at home and starve, which stops them from exhaling carbon dioxide.
Re:Sounds plausible (Score:5, Insightful)
My poop already comes out black and tarry. Turning it into crude oil is the next logical step.
While your comment was humorous, it isn't what made me laugh. That honor went to the realization that there were Slashdot moderators who thought, "Wow, that's useful information; I'm going to mark that as informative!" What's even funnier than that is that there was more than one moderator who had the same thought.
The only thing I can say to those moderators is, "Here's your sign."
Re:Mixed Blessing (Score:5, Insightful)
If gasoline can be used in a carbon neutral way why get off it at all? It would be essentially rendered harmless.
What you want to use ecologically horrific batteries everywhere?
Re:This solves nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah, another ignorant green reaction.
First, Fossil Fuel is what comes from the ground after millions of years of biological decay. Nothing today will create "fossil" fuel.
Second, taking CO2 that we have released into the atmosphere and turning it back into hydrocarbon fuel will close the loop so that things will at least not get worse. It might not do a lot to remove 100+ years of excessive burning of fossil fuels, but at least will help to reach a balance where we might be able to remove as much CO2 as we put into the air from burning fuels moving forward. If we reach a balance like that, then nature can do the rest to remove the excessive CO2.
Abandoning hydrocarbons is not a solution. Hydrocarbons are a highly concentrated and relatively easy to transport and store form of energy and ALL other forms of energy production are a lot less efficient in the long run to create the energy we need. That isn't going to change, ever. I would even suggest that being able to hook in solar or wind energy and having them produce hydrocarbons using some process is better than simply abandoning burning "fuel" and relying solely on something that only makes energy when the sun shines or the wind blows.
A system to create a closed cycle where CO2 is released but then pulled back to create fuel is what our civilization needs, not an ignorant reactionary myopic solution like "fossil fuel is bad" so ride a bike bullshit.
Re:idiot (Score:2, Insightful)
Fine, then make it so you can only enter a hospital if you have RomneyCare insurance.
The basic idea is the same. It forces a little personal responsibility. Instead of the current situation where the uninsured go the the ER and skip on the bill.
We can both make stupid names for the ACA, don't do that it makes you look pathetic.
Re:idiot (Score:2, Insightful)
No it doesn't. It absolves people of personal responsibility because no matter what, someone else will be there to pick up the cost.
Smoker? No problem, keep sucking on those cancer sticks because someone else will pay for your medical care. Obese? Those Ho Hos sure do fill you up, don't they? Drug user? Here ya go, keep smoking, injecting and snorting to your heart's content.
This government mandate does absolutely nothing for personal responsibility because no one has to change their ways. You want personal responsibility? Double the cost for those mentioned above and I can guarantee you the medical costs will fall like a stone in a vacuum. As is, no one has to change because someone else gets the tab.
Re:idiot (Score:2, Insightful)
Fine, then make it so you can only enter a hospital if you have RomneyCare insurance.
I have Major Medical [thefreedictionary.com] you ignorant twat. Unfortunately PelosiCare is about to make my responsible plan where I completely cover my own ass illegal.
Meanwhile the insurance that you have apparently been carrying covers those "surprise" annual visits to the doctor. What a surprise that you get your yearly physical.. lets package that unexpected event into an insurance premiuym and give some fuckwad middle-man a cut...
You people are complete morons. Seriously. Insurance is not for fucking 100% predictable events like your years physical... but there you are... crying that other people arent in your stupid-assed "risk" pool... excuse me if I dont consider it a risk to get an annual checkup.... retard.
Re: This solves nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not so much that as soil viability. We already manage soil by round-up treating the field, tilling everything over, planting seeds, repeated round-up treatment from time to time if the crop is round-up ready, etc. We also till organic fertilizer (cow shit) into the soil at the first run, and later add chemical fertilizer as needed. We also apply pesticides by air spraying.
We do this for crop density, but it's not a great practice to keep the soil viable. Too much chemical herbicide treatment and soil depletion. The soil is kept viable by the addition of chemical fertilizers and a lesser addition of organic matter. My suggestion is merely that we could greatly improve soil viability by using more organic fertilizer (manure, compost, etc.) between crops and applying worms for continuous enrichment; this has the advantage of improving soil quality continuously in many ways beyond simple nutrient content, but the caveat that use of chemical herbicides and pesticides could harm the worms to a point that compromises their viability for this use. That means we would also need to grow food with worm-safe weed and pest control practice--either alternate practices or restriction to chemicals which do not harm worm viability.
It appears Round-Up may be toxic to red worms [usc.edu]. From this paper the author conjectures that it may only kill smaller red worms; I conjecture that it could be killing a random subset (variation in tolerance), sterilizing (breeding problems), killing eggs, or killing young worms. A random subset would be the best possible outcome here, as a 20% higher mortality rate at random would still retain viability. Propagation problems (breeding, egg destruction, or death of juveniles) would be the worst, as this would cause a steady population decline.
Pesticides will likely kill worms. Pyrethrin will, for example.