Bugs Could Be Key to Kicking Oil Addiction

[IronLionZion]

By PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer
Sun Feb 12, 1:42 PM ET



SAN FRANCISCO - The key to kicking what President Bush calls the nation's oil addiction could very well lie in termite guts, canvas-eating jungle bugs and other microbes genetically engineered to spew enzymes that turn waste into fuel.

It may seem hard to believe that microscopic bugs usually viewed as destructive pests can be so productive. But scientists and several companies are working with the creatures to convert wood, corn stalks and other plant waste into sugars that are easily brewed into ethanol — essentially 199-proof moonshine that can be used to power automobiles.

Thanks to biotechnology breakthroughs, supporters of alternative energy sources say that after decades of unfulfilled promise and billions in government corn subsidies, energy companies may be able to produce ethanol easily and inexpensively.

"The process is like making grain alcohol, or brewing beer, but on a much bigger scale," said Nathanael Greene, an analyst with the environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council. "The technologies are out there to do this, but we need to convince the public this is real and not just a science project."

http://tinyurl.com/bfwbz

What do you think about cellulose ethanol? On the plus side, you can make it from just about any plant stuff. On the down side, Bush likes it and you have to burn it. :shrug: Do you think it has a future? We may see it sold commercially in 2-3 years. The biggest hurdle is getting investors to fund it.

[aquart]

1. Side effects are.........?

[phantom power]

2. The biggest hurdle...

is manufacturing enough of it to make an actual difference. Without destroying the cropland, whereever we do it. And doing it without using fossil fuels as input energy. And keeping it affordable.

I'm more or less agnostic about whether that's all possible. But it's one thing to manufacture some ethanol, and show that you can run a car on it. It's quite another thing to manufacture a million barrels of ethanol a day. A million barrels, being about 1/9 of what we actually use each day for transportation.

[Coastie for Truth]

3. You don't need the bugs per se

You need the enzymes - and synthetic organic chemists are pretty good at synthesizing enzymes.

As an example, insulin is a hormone (therefore much more complex then an enzyme) - and it has been synthetically produced by a variety of synthesis pathways for years.

PS - Never say "To replace all of the gasoline completely with XYZ we would have to ..." -- flexible fuel has been around for two decades - at least.

[phantom power]

6. Replacing even 1/9 of the fuel we use would be quite a feat.

I don't doubt it's possible. In a sense, we simply "have" to find a way, or terrible things will happen. I just have an increasingly hard time being impressed by endless news claims about what we "could do." The shit is in flight, on it's way to the fan. What are we going to do?

Enzymes are proteins, and so are most hormones. One is not especially more complex than the other. If we want to manufacture the enzyme on an industrial scale, bacteria are probably a good way to do it, but not termite-farms :-)

[Coastie for Truth]

11. I took a "Continuing Professional Engineering Ed Course"

(only differed from the degree candidates in that I didn't have to do the homework, take the quizzes or exams, write the project) in "Biochemistry for Chemical Engineers. Came away from the course with an understanding that enzymes "of commerial significance" are generally simpler molecules then hormones.

I have played with Glucose Oxidase and also with enzymes to measure fructosamines in some instrumentation design work I did a couple of years ago. Fun.

I just look at enzymes as "catalysts." Makes the math models more understandable.

[phantom power]

12. Makes sense. An enzyme is just a protein catalyst.

[eppur_se_muova]

17. Not chemical synthesis, use biotech to produce enzymes from GM bacteria.

These enzymes are probably too complex for chemical synthesis to be practical. Insulin is still largely derived from pork pancreas. And you only need milligrams of insulin; it would take huge amounts to produce ethanol on a commodity basis.

[Coastie for Truth]

19. I m a chem e - not a biochemist

and if you mix saccharomyces cerevisiae with sugar fortified grape juice - by my old style chemical engineering way of talkning - that's "synthesizing" EtOH. But I see where you are coming from.

[IronLionZion]

8. hence the importance of research

how else will we know what's possible?

We already produce 4 billion gallons of ethanol each year mostly from corn. That process sucks ass. And we consume 140 billion gallons of gasoline each year.

A more efficient process will create a lot more ethanol. Using a crop like hemp or sugar would be much better than corn. Or at the very least, we can start throwing crops like hemp into the rotation just to see what happens. Not many places we can grow sugar though.

Cellulose ethanol is supposed to be more efficient to produce.

[phantom power]

9. Research is great, but it is for solving problems in the future.

Our problems are starting now. What do we do now, with the tools at hand? If we started now, how long would it take before we were producing a million barrels a day? Again, that's only 1/9 of the actual problem. But significant enough to make a real difference.

[IronLionZion]

15. Right now? Right this minute?

conserve

That's the best we can do with what we have right now. Carpool, ride a bike, etc. Anything else takes time to retool machinery and redistribute resources.

Carter began research in late 70's but Reagan dismantled it to help the oil companies. The Reagan effect will be felt by our grandchildren. Americans don't know how badly he fucked us over.

[rfkrfk]

10. the US is not the whole world...

there are lots of places for cellulostic ethanol,
if workable, to be useful.

[Strelnikov_]

30. ". . . Mostly From Corn. That Process Sucks Ass" Why? n/t

[On the Road]

4. Ethanol is a Safety Valve

Oil exploration has been down the last 20 years because of low prices. Now it's started again in earnest, and it's very possible there will major new discoveries in the near future. I suspect the end is not in sight yet.

But oil is a limited commodity. Once oil gets too expensive, ethanol can fuel cars and replace petroleum for a lot of new applications. Brazil has a major program, and most new cars sold can operate on ethanol.

I understand that in the US, it takes more than a gallon of petroleum to generate a gallon of ethanol. Don't know if it's true -- I hope it's an overstatement. There have to be cheaper ways -- either using farm waste or the thermal deploymerization process being piloted.

Eventually, the world will outgrow petroleum, but there will probably be some pain along the way.

[IronLionZion]

7. If that were true, then ethanol is burning more gas

combined with the fact that since engines are made for gas, they get worse mileage when run on an ethanol blend. Engines could be optimized to use blends instead of just pure gasoline.

The problem is the inefficiency of producing it. Cellulose ethanol is supposed to generate tons more energy output for the same input. The gallon of gas figure also includes the cost of growing the corn. If you use waste products instead, you reduce the energy input.

Also, corn is not the only way to get ethanol. Brazil gets it from sugar. Some countries have found hemp to be very promising. China is doing a lot of research on this.

[Dogmudgeon]

14. "Eventually" had better be A.S.A.P.

You're right about ethanol being a safety valve (I like your metaphor, too), but our economy needs to grow, as measured by energy consumption growth, at an overall rate of about 2.5-3% to avoid recession and eventual collapse. That's a doubling time of about 24 to 30 years. With Chinese industry coming on-line, that growth is likely to average near 5% soon, doubling in about 15 years. Ethanol won't be able to forestall our problems very long.

The real challenge isn't to find new sources of energy so we can continue the way we have, but the change our ways of doing things so they require less -- much less -- energy. One major change we need, IMO, is that every residential building should be as off-grid as possible. Although I have grave doubts about the utility of renewables to provide the energy needed by industry over the next 20 years or so, residential energy could be provided without much technological improvement, and provide a major base for economic growth that is accessable to small and community-based enterprises.

Ethanol production does have a number of problems -- in current practice. I assume that, for instance, John Wxy's advocacy involves improved industry and user practices. Biodiesel and thermal depolymerization of organic waste has similar solveable problems. But the prospects for heavy industry, transportation, agriculture, and long-term growth of the same are grim, indeed.

--p!

[IronLionZion]

22. I just heard on NPR that's not the case

We actually get more energy from corn ethanol now than we put into it. But corn still sucks. Switchgrass looks very promising and even made it into the state of the union thanks to Sen. Jeff Sessions. On the Dem side, Tom Harkin is a big promoter.

Supposedly for every gallon of gasoline, we'll produce 4 gallons of ethanol from switchgrass because the whole plant is used and it grows much better and quicker.

[rustydad]

5. Future??

The concept has merit. But it will only work if we have a huge change in the way we live. If we in the US would reduce our btu needs by a factor of say 10 (1/10 what we now use) per capita through conservation and life style changes ethanol might replace fossil fuels. But these changes in the way we live and consume will not come about. In fact could we make such drastic reductions oil might last another century. Instead we will have chaos and dieoff I fear. Bob

[skids]

13. Oh I thought he meant a big swarm of locusts.

We could catch them all in the net and burn them!

At least those we didn't cook up for a tasty snack in the post-apocolypse.

[IronLionZion]

16. Another optimistic cellulose article from 2 weeks ago

http://tinyurl.com/cvb9s

claims that ethanol can become a majority fuel for personal vehicles within the next 5 years without changing using more land or affecting the food supply.

And apparently Brazil is energy independent because of sugarcane ethanol. In fact, they export ethanol to us. It took decades for that to happen, with a major push from the 70's oil crisis.

[NickB79]

20. The problem with Brazil's model is that it is ecologically damaging

They destroy virgin forest to expand sugarcane production, and don't maintain the fields very well once they've been mildly depleted.

My worry about cellulosic ethanol is what effect removing billions of tons of additional organic matter every year will have on soil quality. If we have to use more fossil fuels to keep the fields productive, the fuel itself may not be carbon-neutral and not contribute as much to slowing global warming as many have hoped.

[poopfuel]

21. complete fabrication

Your evidence, please?

[4dsc]

24. Check it out

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3703704.stm

Murici is the largest remaining remnant of an ecosystem which once stretched for hundreds of kilometres along the coast of North-Eastern Brazil, and has very nearly been destroyed through five centuries of deforestation to make way for sugar planting and cattle production.

[poopfuel]

25. anecdotal incompetence

Not a trend or overall policy.

A recent U.S. Agriculture Department report estimated that Brazil can open up an additional 420 million acres of cropland "without any additional deforestation in the Amazon basin."

I'd blame the cattle before sugar. (and George Monbiot, but that's another story)

refer you also to a report
Department of Sugar and Ethanol. “Sugar and Ethanol in Brazil.” Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply Secretariat of Production and Commericalization. January 2005.

[poopfuel]

26. sorry didn't supply link

to uSDA report. Here it is.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/pecad2/highlights/2003/01/Ag_expansion/

[NickB79]

27. Your link basically contradicts you

From your link:

"During the past 7 years alone, cultivated soybean area increased roughly 5.0 million hectares or 114 percent in these states, while it increased 7.0 million hectares or 65 percent at the national level. This dramatic development was largely accomplished through wholesale clearing and conversion of virgin savannah land called “cerrado.”"

Their entire argument boils down to this statement:

"FAS agrees with this evaluation, and estimates that 70-90 million hectares of Brazil’s existing pasture acreage could be converted to cropping in the future. This represents about 40-50 percent of the nation’s total pasture. These lands could be converted owing to their advantageous proximity to existing crop production, their generally level topography, and favorable soil properties. In addition to this ample resource, Embrapa estimates that 65 million hectares of virgin Cerrado (savannah land) which is capable of supporting mechanized commercial grain and oilseed production remains undeveloped in 2002. There are also up to 10 million hectares of degraded pasture or deforested land that is available in the Amazonian states of Rondonia, Amazonas, Acre, Amapa, and Roraima. These lands are already being targeted by agricultural researchers for restoration, with the goal of developing viable grain and oilseed-based farming systems that are tailored to their unique conditions."

-the 70-90 million hectares of existing pasture was once mostly forest or native savanna, and was destroyed for pasture. Converting it to cropland reduces it's ability to sustain native plants and animals even more, as far fewer species can survive in cultivated fields than pasture. While it was horrible ecologically to convert it to pasture, it is even worse to convert to fields.

-they envision developing 65 million hectares of virgin land (Cerrado), EXACTLY like I stated in my original post.

[poopfuel]

28. not really

You can do things stupidly or do things well. Embrapa can "envision" all they want. That 70 -90 million hectares of pasture is pittance and don't need to be converted. (Although with proper NON MONOCULTURAL farming, it can be helpful ecologically. But I digress.)

The MAIN argument is this

"The existing scope for agricultural expansion in Brazil is equal to (if not greater than) the total cropland resource in the United States (NASS, 1997 Census of Agriculture), and this expansion is possible without any additional deforestation in the Amazon Basin." And that is what I said.

I believe the key word there is "additional." It's a crime what's been done so far, but as I said, blame cattle not sugar.

The POINT I was making was there is more than enough land to support additional sugar cane or whatever crops WITHOUT affecting the Amazon Basin. So my point is not contradicted. Sure, people are doing things stupidly down there. They do things stupidly up here. The idea is to get them to focus on the surplus of land that is not in the Amazonian basin.

Don't blame ethanol crops for this. Brazil has not done a good job in general saving its forests from people out to farm. BUT the option to grow outside of these regions and do extremely well and be extremely productive is there. Look at how much ethanol is being produced from LESS than a measly 5 percent of croplands. Proper energy design can improve yields, use waste products more efficiently and grow the economy without harming the planet. Also proper farming techniques, which they know well, growing sugar cane in swales as they already do. They just need to spread the word of safe practices and consider other crops for fuel to diversify the product and manage soil fertility.

In looking at ethanol, it will only result in frustration and negativity unless you can see beyond what is into what can be. That is how it will have to work in this country to be successful. Only increased growing of crops in this and any country can increase earth's absorption of co2 and decrease global warming. Alcohol fuel production provides us with this tool.

[NickB79]

29. How is 70-90 million hectares pittance?

The US has 176 million hectares of cropland resources. 70-90 million hectares is almost half the cropland of the US.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572257_3/Agriculture.html

If you don't use that land, as it is a "pittance", the remainder comes from the 65 million acres of virgin Cerrado savanna as they stated in your link.

The article is splitting hairs. I was wrong in stating that Brazilian ethanol production destroys virgin forests. Your article has shown me that you don't have to cut down any more rainforest to produce ethanol. You just have to plow under virgin savanna. Savannas are rich ecosystems, and will be destroyed by conversion to sugarcane fields. They are simply talking about trading one undisturbed ecosystem for another.

[poopfuel]

32. i misspoke

I meant the 65 million acres of Cerrado is not worth considering, given that there's 177 million hectares mainly of pasturelands spoken of, of which the 70-90 is part.

Fyi, According to the U.S.D.A., we in this country have 434,164,946 acres of cropland (translate to hectares?). This is a very conservative number, describing land that is able to be worked in an industrial fashion, primarily for annual crops. There are actually 939,279,056 acres of farmland, nearly double what the U.S.D.A. considers cropland, much of which could support perennial crops which don’t require that the soil be plowed every year or be plowed on contour.

The points I made beyond that are still valid. I would be totally against seeing monoculture and sugarcane fields be used to destroy savannas. I don't approve of GMO's. I think this section "Intensification and diversification of the Brazilian farming system" is worth looking at for its potential. That's the key.

Thanks for the correction

[Strelnikov_]

31. "Removing Billions Of Tons Of Additional Organic Matter Every Year "

This is one of my concerns also. Harvesting the fruit (corn kernel, cane, beet, etc.) is a far cry from cutting everything down to the ground and running it through the ethanol process. Maybe with proper management, such as return of the by-products to the fields, fertility can be maintained with a minimum of external inputs. Definitely a subject for more reading.

[poopfuel]

33. yes, you're right, it can indeed be done

book out this summer with details. All that gets removed in ethanol process is carbon dioxide, water and sunlight. Plenty left behind for fertilizer and feed.
Alcohol Can Be a Gas: Fuelling a Revolution
by David Blume
permaculture.com

Pre-order now.

[Strelnikov_]

34. 1 B Ton/yr Of Of Biomass Required To Replace 30% Of Current

petroleum consumption, per the following report. With relatively modest land use changes and forestry practices.

Since 42% of current petroleum consumption is for passenger vehicles, the article is technically correct. Problem is, what about the other 58% of consumption? What about the 2% annual growth in energy supply required?

Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply, April 2005:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf (.pdf)

. . .

The purpose of this report is to determine whether the land resources of the United States are capable of producing a sustainable supply of biomass sufficient to displace 30 percent or more of the country’s present petroleum consumption – the goal set by the Advisory Committee in their vision for biomass technologies. Accomplishing this goal would require approximately 1 billion dry tons of biomass feedstock per year.

The short answer to the question of whether that much biomass feedstock can be produced is yes. Looking at just forestland and agricultural land, the two largest potential biomass sources, this study found over 1.3 billion dry tons per year of biomass potential — enough to produce biofuels to meet more than one-third of the current demand for transportation fuels. The full resource potential could be available roughly around mid-21st century when large-scale bioenergy and biorefinery industries are likely to exist. This annual potential is based on a more than seven-fold increase in production from the amount of biomass currently consumed for bioenergy and biobased products. About 368 million dry tons of sustainably removable biomass could be produced on forestlands, and about 998 million dry tons could come from agricultural lands.

[poopfuel]

35. hi loindelrio

Sorry not to get back to you quickly. I don't read blogs much on weekends.
I find this report interesting but a reminder of the limitations of some energy experts. They just looked at forestland and agricultural land. Croplands- 400 million acres. Farmlands- over 900 million acres. I didn't see those numbers anywhere. I saw 369 million acres. Where are the farmlands? W ho says you can't grow in some of these regions? Note my previous comments on desert plants in another post.

The word "algae" does not come up once. So water based plants don't enter the picture. The desert plants and their harvest are not in this.
I'm not sure they chose prime yield crops for energy in their tests. No hypothesis, such as, what if there were more sorghum than corn? Yields go up.

They essentially asked the question,c an we get as high as 30 percent on biomass? They answered yes. Maybe they should ask themselves, how much higher can they go?

I can't say my friend the author and I really like the idea that it all h as to come from large-scale bioenergy and biorefinery industries. We think small scale can do least harm, provide more fuel, less dependence on big companies. But large ones can certainly help. The point is we are not tapping the potential o f our agricultural-based products, most of which we grow for feed or for export feed. We think organic farming is best, any mild decrease in yields is compensated by the additional planting and the end of mechanized polluting agriculture practices. Also, ddgs fed to animals increases their weight, which means you need less land for them and less OF them. Quality of meat improves too.

It all boils down to good energy system design. I can't stress it enough. Biological ingenuity will help us grow our way to energy independence and even take on global warming. And you don't have to use fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, etc either.

Best wishes.

[eppur_se_muova]

18. Blame Canada! Wouldn't you know the US is lagging behind.

"
Ottawa-based Iogen is already producing ethanol by exploiting the destructive nature of the fungus Trichoderma reesei, which caused the "jungle rot" of tents and uniforms in the Pacific theater during World
War II.

Through a genetic modification known as directed evolution, Iogen has souped up fungus microbes so they spew copious amounts of digestive enzymes to break down straw into sugars. From there, a simple fermentation ó which brewers have been doing for centuries ó turns sugar into alcohol.

Iogen opened a small, $40 million factory in 2004 to show it can produce cellulosic ethanol in commercial quantities. In the last two years, it has produced 65,000 gallons of ethanol that is blended with 85 percent gasoline to fuel about three dozen company and Canadian government vehicles. Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell PLC has invested $40 million for a 30 percent ownership stake in Iogen; Petro-Canada and the Canadian government are also investors.

Now the company is ready to build a $350 million, commercial-scale factory in Canada or Idaho Falls, Idaho, next year if it can secure financing ó long one of the biggest stumbling blocks to bringing the stuff to gas pumps.
"

[IronLionZion]

23. Switchgrass looks very promising

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html



Good stuff on NPR you can listen to here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5183608