Comments on: Can E. coli Save the World?

By: A Lot Of Things Happen While You’re Riding A Swan Boat | The Loom | Discover Magazine

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:20:43 +0000

[...] Synthetic Biology Meets Big Oil: In January I wrote an article for Yale Environment 360 about getting fuel from engineered microbes instead of the ground. [...]

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:19:24 +0000

Synthetic biology is not necessary for this goal. Evolution has already done better.

Botryococcus braunii is a pelagic algae that grows in the Indian Ocean. Its various strains make isoprene oligomers with different average molecular weights, mostly centered around n=6. What matters most is that the dry weight of the most prolific strain is OVER 70% HYDROCARBON. This is algae truly is a fuel plant.

Oil companies could feed these hydrocarbons directly into existing refineries. Electricity generators could directly replace coal with them. Because the hydrocarbons contain no sulfur, nitrogen, metals or ash, most existing pollution abatement and catalyst guard investment could be shut down as unnecessary. This is a really sweet feedstock.

For more details and some economic background see the website:

http://alum.mit.edu/news/WhatMatters/Archive/200111/

By: Ford

Ford — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:49:21 +0000

Malcolm’s idea is interesting. What about bacteria that crawl down into the tar sands, consume tar, and releases hydrogen gas, which is captured at the surface? Seems like that would be less destructive than digging it all up. One risk is that they would spread to places where the hydrogen-capture system wasn’t yet in place, so we’d lose all those hydrocarbons.

The energy content of one gallon of gasoline is 120 MJ (http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html) so a car that gets 30 miles per gallon consumes 4 MJ per mile. Driving 10 miles a day would consume 40 MJ/day. For comparison, humans need about 10 MJ of food energy per day. Even with 100% efficiency in converting crops to fuel, maintaining our current fuel consumption using biofuels would require a big increase in crop yields or in land devoted to agriculture. The car of the future is a bicycle.

By: Malcolm

Malcolm — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:54:54 +0000

You say: “What would happen, for example, if the United States got most of its gasoline from E. coli instead of a hole in the ground? Would that be good for the environment? Proponents of synthetic biology say yes, but what’s their evidence? After all, E. coli eats sugar, and sugar doesn’t come from thin air.”

This *particular strain* of E. coli eats sugar.

Would it be possible to create a strain that eats the stuff that’s in the ground at the Alberta tar sands and produces diesel or something similar? Could we then get past what I believe is a huge input of energy and a huge output of various pollutants from the production of “oil” from the tar?

Not as good for the carbon cycle as using a currently-grown crop, but perhaps an improvement on the environmental damage the planet presently suffers from the tar sands operations.

By: jim

jim — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:48:14 +0000

check out saphire energy and who are the venture capital companies backing them.

By: Julius B. Lucks

Julius B. Lucks — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:29:26 +0000

Thank you Mr. Zimmer for writing a serious piece about synthetic biology. Given all the mainstream press about the controversy surrounding ‘biohackers’ and how synthetic biology enables them, it is a welcome breath of fresh air to see that someone is taking the SCIENCE of synthetic biology serious. On behalf of a scientist trying to move synthetic biology forward, I sincerely thank you.