Bacteria making deisel fuel

[keen320]

Not sure if this belongs here or in the News section, I'm guessing here.
Article:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles ... water_co2/ Originally saw this on Yahoo.
!

I'm trying to remain skeptical, because I frankly want this to be true. Just thinking about it blows my mind.
If this turns out to work on a large scale... well, it could change the world. Probably will.

[Narkis]

I skimmed through the article, but see nothing that wasn't posted before. So, still nothing new. Awesome if it's true, but don't count on it.

[madd0ct0r]

it's not new.

bacteria producing ethanol and a 2nd converting to bio-diesel? not new

the key is if they can find a way of removing the hydrocarbons from the huge amount of water they'll have flowing through.

they need a way that doesn't consume so much energy as to make the idea pointless.

[Singular Intellect]

they need a way that doesn't consume so much energy as to make the idea pointless.

Skip the middle man shit and go straight to capturing, storing and utilizing solar energy. Other systems and proposals are just injecting greater complexity and inefficiencies to our primary energy source.

[Skgoa]

How did you manage to miss the whole CO2 angle?
edit: Also, do you even know how many internal combustion engines are in active use right now? Don't you think that providing fuel for them would be a good thing?

[someone_else]

The idea itself is kinda old. But so far wasn't practical to go that way.

Don't you think that providing fuel for them would be a good thing?

even assuming perfect efficiency in diesel extraction, you would need to fill gigantic amounts of planetary surface with algae vats and their support equipment.

[keen320]

Didn't realize this had been posted before. oops.

How did you manage to miss the whole CO2 angle?
edit: Also, do you even know how many internal combustion engines are in active use right now? Don't you think that providing fuel for them would be a good thing?

In order to make the fuel, the bacteria would have to pull as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as is released when the fuel is burned. So the resulting fuel would theoretically be carbon neutral.

[Skgoa]

Don't you think that providing fuel for them would be a good thing?

even assuming perfect efficiency in diesel extraction, you would need to fill gigantic amounts of planetary surface with algae vats and their support equipment.

Actually, I have two answers to that.
So here goes: Oh yeah, I forgot that...
1) when we find a new way to produce something, we immediatly abandon every other way and switch to this new way, so that its the only source of whatever we want to produce.
2) we don't already cover huge areas of land with biofuel generating organisms.

Before you retort, consider the context in which I wrote the quoted part. I don't claim this is a good replacement for petrolium-derived fuel, but that turning sunlight into biofuel (instead of electricity) is advantageous for now, due to the high number of machines that depend on it.

How did you manage to miss the whole CO2 angle?

In order to make the fuel, the bacteria would have to pull as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as is released when the fuel is burned. So the resulting fuel would theoretically be carbon neutral.

Thats kinda the point.

[someone_else]

I don't claim this is a good replacement for petrolium-derived fuel, but that turning sunlight into biofuel (instead of electricity) is advantageous for now, due to the high number of machines that depend on it.

And I just pointed out that the sheer amount of machinery needed to have any real biodiesel production on the scale needed to have any impact given the current consumption is significant even for small-scale use (like making an implant able to fuel the average joe's car for a full year), and that the benefits aren't so clear-cut as you make them appear.

As a general rule, drilling for oil is a trivial expenditure in comparison to the energy reserves you're untapping. Manufacturing your own fuel from scratch will make it much more expensive in comparison.

[Ariphaos]

even assuming perfect efficiency in diesel extraction, you would need to fill gigantic amounts of planetary surface with algae vats and their support equipment.

Says the one who refuses to do the math.

One square meter of Earth's surface receives about eight gigajoules of solar energy per year.

One barrel of oil is a bit over six gigajoules. About 2,300 square kilometers to supply the world's oil needs. I'm pretty sure that's less space than is currently taken up by oil prospecting.

To supply the world's oil needs at one percent efficiency would require about a quarter million square kilometers. The goal cited in these articles is roughly five percent efficiency.

[Sarevok]

^^

Fascinating !

And given the fact that bacteria grow themselves it should be cheap too.

[someone_else]

Says the one who refuses to do the math.

Better than grossly screwing up, don't you think?
Did you factor in that plants in general have around 11% or less energy conversion efficiency?
And added to that that you need to use energy to run the show and energy to refine the stuff to get the diesel? (specifically, the guys in the article have "engineering problems" in separating the diesel from huge amounts of water and algaes)

I don't know from where you take the figure of "the world's oil needs", can you link it?

[Ariphaos]

We are not talking about 'plants in general', we are talking about bacteria, algae, etc. And the target efficiency is of course far from 100%, nor is the target efficiency even necessary for biofuels to supplant world oil production. If the target efficiency is reachable, our oil problems are solvable. If 10% of the target efficiency is reachable, our oil problems are still solvable. It's one of the few potential solutions where the math actually does work.

I was using a figure of 3 billion barrels per year. Roughly 80 million barrels per day. Apparently it's a bit higher. Doesn't change the numbers much.

[Malagar]

We are not talking about 'plants in general', we are talking about bacteria, algae, etc. And the target efficiency is of course far from 100%, nor is the target efficiency even necessary for biofuels to supplant world oil production. If the target efficiency is reachable, our oil problems are solvable. If 10% of the target efficiency is reachable, our oil problems are still solvable. It's one of the few potential solutions where the math actually does work.

I was using a figure of 3 billion barrels per year. Roughly 80 million barrels per day. Apparently it's a bit higher. Doesn't change the numbers much.

I'm afraid that you have made a rounding error, the true figure is 30,54 billion barrels per year.

[Singular Intellect]

Here's a couple of links showing the comparison between solar power and biofuels:

Link 1, Link 2

Currently, the only tipping point in favour of biofuels would be energy density and weight of the fuel being carried around. Not a insignificant consideration by any means, but when one considers the innovations in energy storage technologies:

Self charging technologies
Ultracapacitors
Innovations in battery efficienies
Significant jumps in battery capacities

Couple that with other technologies like combining solar power generation with molten salt energy storage systems along with other energy storage methods, and my prediction is that solar power is going to be the very dominate source of energy in the future than caters to a primarily electricity based infrastructure (cars, homes, personal devices, etc).

[Ariphaos]

I'm afraid that you have made a rounding error, the true figure is 30,54 billion barrels per year.

Gah. Whoops.

Still, it says something that an order of magnitude error does not actually change the conclusion.

Nor do biofuels have to replace the entirety of our fuel supply, or even necessarily a majority. And they look a damned sight nicer than minced corn, for many reasons.

[someone_else]

We are not talking about 'plants in general', we are talking about bacteria, algae, etc

Ok, Now I can address you properly. I was talking of photosintetic efficiency.
But that is only the efficiency of the plant to convert light into food. Then it has to eat and reproduce, and that kills down its efficency even further.
They talk of around 5-6% efficiency in sunlight-to-biomass conversion.

Now, 6 GJ per barrel and around 85 million barrels per day from the source you linked. Sunlight actually reaching Earth's surface is around 342 W/m2. That means a bit less than 30 Mj per day per m2.

So, if we assume 100% efficiency we must cover:
(6000 Mj * 85 million)/30/1'000'000 = 17'000 km2

If the efficiency is around 5%, then we have to cover what, 340'000 km2 ?

And then we have that during night, this plant is shut down. So we have to double the above figure to produce enough fuel for 24 full hours of avrage world consumption in only 12 hours: 680'000 Km2.

Now, it isn't totally ridiculous like throwing a SPP in space, but it is still a significant amount of coverage. Especially when you think these Km2 will be covered by piping, pumps and vats of living stuff. All to be mantained and cleaned (both inside and outside), and kept reasonably sterile, in decently warm weather.
You need something like DoD levels of funding to do something like this (because you'll run into tecnical brick walls for sure) and 5-10 years.

Now, did you use the 1.3 kW/m2 figure? That's total solar radiation in space at the Earth's orbit. You plan to place them in orbit perhaps?

[keen320]

Well, land-wise the problem wouldn't be insurmountable. The great Wikipedia has proclaimed that the world has about 17 million acres of farmed land, but you wouldn't have to set it up on traditional farmland. Theoretically, you could probably use floating platforms at sea. But you definitely have a point about the possible expense, making it pretty hard.

Of course, it probably wouldn't be too hard to get farmers interested if this was remotely affordable. Selling oil makes more money than selling food, after all, although that raises ethical questions about less food production in a world where people are starving.

I suppose maybe you could get the aforementioned DOD interested in this if you pitched it as a strategic benefit. It would make the US (or any other country with access to the technology) less dependent on oil from other countries. Another plus (although a cynical person might consider this a minus for the DOD) would be a reduced chance of fighting a war about oil. And the world economy would be less affected by changes in the price of oil.

Also, this would give oil one plus over batteries: many advanced batteries depend on rare-earth type metals that may be in limited supply, at least at some point in the future.

Finally, you can't run jets on batteries.

Self charging technologies

How does that not break the law of conservation of energy?

But I'll admit that the figures look like we'll eventually have to switch over to battery technology. Still, that looks like it will be a long time in coming, since electric cars are still far more expensive than traditional ones, even in the 1st world.

[Ariphaos]

We are not talking about 'plants in general', we are talking about bacteria, algae, etc

Ok, Now I can address you properly. I was talking of photosintetic efficiency.

We aren't necessarily limited to only the photosynthetically active spectrum common to plants. There are ways to harvest energy from other portions of the spectrum (halobacteria, for example).

But that is only the efficiency of the plant to convert light into food. Then it has to eat and reproduce, and that kills down its efficency even further.
They talk of around 5-6% efficiency in sunlight-to-biomass conversion.

Now, 6 GJ per barrel and around 85 million barrels per day from the source you linked. Sunlight actually reaching Earth's surface is around 342 W/m2. That means a bit less than 30 Mj per day per m2.

So, if we assume 100% efficiency we must cover:
(6000 Mj * 85 million)/30/1'000'000 = 17'000 km2

If the efficiency is around 5%, then we have to cover what, 340'000 km2 ?

And then we have that during night, this plant is shut down. So we have to double the above figure to produce enough fuel for 24 full hours of avrage world consumption in only 12 hours: 680'000 Km2.

No, the 342 watts per meter squared is the average over the entire surface of the Earth, at all times. You don't need to double it for nighttime, because that is already accounted for in that average. You take the direct input (~1 kilowatt per square meter after atmospheric attenuation, although this means that sunlight also persists in some areas after sunset) and divide by four, for Earth's spherical nature. The number ends up being closer to half a million square kilometers.

Total solar power received by Earth is 174 petawatts. Divide by surface area of Earth of 5.1e14 square meters, you get ~342 watts, which includes the region that happens to be in darkness at any point.

Now, it isn't totally ridiculous like throwing a SPP in space, but it is still a significant amount of coverage. Especially when you think these Km2 will be covered by piping, pumps and vats of living stuff. All to be mantained and cleaned (both inside and outside), and kept reasonably sterile, in decently warm weather.
You need something like DoD levels of funding to do something like this (because you'll run into tecnical brick walls for sure) and 5-10 years.

Now, did you use the 1.3 kW/m2 figure? That's total solar radiation in space at the Earth's orbit. You plan to place them in orbit perhaps?

You could, alternately, divide eight billion by the number of seconds in a year to get the figure I was using.
8,000,000,000/31,536,000 = ~254 watts.

In order to have efficient growth, you need carbon sources. Power plants, sewage, farms, carbon recapture, etc. This has some potential in that it may reduce the need for distribution... but at least with current understanding, we're not going to see these fields all over deserts. They'll be dotted across the country where waste carbon can be pumped through them.

We do not need to replace 100% of our oil production. We're still going to be producing 60-70% of what we currently need twenty years from now, conventionally. It does not exactly stretch logic that a combination of solutions - liquefaction, waste biofuels, aquacultured biofuels, reduced consumption, etc. can make up the 30-40% difference.

[Singular Intellect]

Self charging technologies

How does that not break the law of conservation of energy?

Because they'd be constantly charging themselves by surrounding sources of energy. Solar powered phones already being released, radio wave sources, even sound waves can potentially charge your phone.

The more I keep submitting examples of this stuff, the more I realize how unprepared people are for how fast technology is improving and advancing. Some people keep talking about how the famed 'Singularity' is near, but increasingly it seems it's already underway. Most people seem oblivious to this stuff and even someone like me who actively tries to keep on top of it is having trouble keeping up.

[Sarevok]

Eh no. Smartphones easily consume several watts when merely in standby mode. They are gaining more and more features like massive displays, energy hungry high performance microprocessors, wifi, GPS receivers, camera flash etc. You will never power something like a Nokia N97 using only an onboard recharging power source while getting useful performance out of it.

[someone_else]

We aren't necessarily limited to only the photosynthetically active spectrum common to plants. There are ways to harvest energy from other portions of the spectrum (halobacteria, for example).

GM-ing stuff isn't as easy as it sounds, especially if you want to modify complex processes like photosinthesis. You cannot just add a gene or two like what the people did in the article to have diesel-producing bacteria.
If you make a mix of different algae then you end up with an efficiency difficult to calculate, but not particularly better.

You could, alternately, divide eight billion by the number of seconds in a year to get the figure I was using.
8,000,000,000/31,536,000 = ~254 watts.

I'm too lazy to check your math , but I'm pretty sure you made some mistake. There is a significant difference in our results.
I calculated that with 100% efficient conversion you would still need 17'000 km2 of surface when you said 2'300 km2 would suffice.

In order to have efficient growth, you need carbon sources.

Like carbon dioxide? It is also conveneintly mixed with oxygen (that the algae also need) in the atmosphere. Then you just have to throw chemical fertilizer at them. It does wonders for algae in running water.

We do not need to replace 100% of our oil production.

Of course. We are doing it only for kicks.
So far nothing is viable beyond fossil oil. So if this specific biodiesel-producing thing goes up it will still reamin vastly cheaper than any other way of biodiesel production. Thus won't be a particularly good choice to produce 30% or even more of the world's needs using inefficient methods. Unless you assume all other methods to be developed enough to become viable too.

We're still going to be producing 60-70% of what we currently need twenty years from now, conventionally.

Yup, but will it be sold at what price? Consider that the unrest in most countries producing oil and gas may end up with lots of Free Democracies (TM) that will not be so eager to keep the prices unreasonably low as the brutal assassins that ruled the same countries for personal gain before.

Also, by just increasing efficiency in ways we know already, we can get something like a 50% reduction of oil consumption, so we don't even need to waste time with algaes and crap if we are doing it just "to supplement oil production".

[Ariphaos]

GM-ing stuff isn't as easy as it sounds, especially if you want to modify complex processes like photosinthesis. You cannot just add a gene or two like what the people did in the article to have diesel-producing bacteria.

If you make a mix of different algae then you end up with an efficiency difficult to calculate, but not particularly better.

You simply through that out as a given that it 'won't be particularly better'. Or 'won't be easy'. ...so?

The energy is still there to be harvested in some manner.

I'm too lazy to check your math , but I'm pretty sure you made some mistake. There is a significant difference in our results.
I calculated that with 100% efficient conversion you would still need 17'000 km2 of surface when you said 2'300 km2 would suffice.

That was addressed above by Malagar. I dropped a zero in the amount of oil needed.

Like carbon dioxide? It is also conveneintly mixed with oxygen (that the algae also need) in the atmosphere. Then you just have to throw chemical fertilizer at them. It does wonders for algae in running water.

In order to harvest a reasonable amount of fuel from them, you need more CO2 than is typically available in the atmosphere. Which is why the idea is to pair them with carbon sources. CO2 is measured in parts per million in the atmosphere, and in a percentage basis when it comes to burning stuff straight from the source.

So far nothing is viable beyond fossil oil. So if this specific biodiesel-producing thing goes up it will still reamin vastly cheaper than any other way of biodiesel production. Thus won't be a particularly good choice to produce 30% or even more of the world's needs using inefficient methods. Unless you assume all other methods to be developed enough to become viable too.

What do you think the point of research and development is?

[someone_else]

You simply through that out as a given that it 'won't be particularly better'. Or 'won't be easy'. ...so?

So there may be better ways. That require less painful and expensive development.

Anything is doable if you throw enough money and time at it. The point is that resources and time are limited. And if you choose the wrong thing or disperse your funds in countless tiny projects, then others will find better solutions and you've wasted your time.

And that's without talking of global warming and oil price rise ready to bite your ass giving some more urgency.

What do you think the point of research and development is?

The same can be said about research and development in electrical vehicles (outside USA) and solar panels. So far I've seen faster development in the latter fields while in the former they keep running in circles and telling sensational crap to the press.

[someone_else]

By "won't be easy" above i meant "noone has any idea on how to do it without decades of trial and error". So the energy may be here, but meh.