[gokenin]

Joule claims, for instance, that its cyanobacterium can produce 15,000 gallons of diesel full per acre annually, over four times more than the most efficient algal process for making fuel. And they say they can do it at $30 a barrel.
A key for Joule is the cyanobacterium it chose, which is found everywhere and is less complex than algae, so it's easier to genetically manipulate, said biologist Dan Robertson, Joule's top scientist.
The organisms are engineered to take in sunlight and carbon dioxide, then produce and secrete ethanol or hydrocarbons — the basis of various fuels, such as diesel — as a byproduct of photosynthesis.

Mass. company making diesel with sun, water, CO2 - Yahoo! News

can you see massive farms in the southern states that get lots of sun.

[Wheatfield]

That's actually really exciting.

[twilhelm]

I'm all for it. I believe they have an experimental algae farm here in Florida somewhere. It is exciting!

[Ratmagiclady]

Very promising, as long as the little dearies don't get loose and uncontrolled or anything like that. Seems all you need is a little *more* alternative energy to separate the fuel out, or some mechanical process, and you're in business. Probably a lot of ways to do that.

[shooz]

There's a lot of that kind of stuff on the horizon.
What ever happened to that guy in Mass. that was making crude out of turkey guts?

[ihasa]

Remember Craig Venter's talk on this last year... Joule aren't the only ones working on it! Seems they can build in 'suicide genes' to ensure the bacteria can't survive away from controlled conditions.

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKZ-GjSaqgo[/YT]

[jolepp]

The world could certainly use that sort of thing. I'm a bit wary about GMing things and taking them outside the laboratory though (+1) ... eventually there might be an unintented consequence which we dearly hope could be reversed, but cannot in practice, as in, "Guys, we need to find all the bacteria like this out there and dispose of them. That's it. Be careful out there!"

---

Last edited by jolepp; 02-28-2011 at 08:27 AM. Reason: typo ...

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, Jolepp, at least they're algae, not bacteria. A sudden bloom of them can be problematic, but they're a lot easier to control than bacteria, and I don't have the impression they mutate so quickly. You still wouldn't want invasive species of hydrocarbon-spewing algae taking over your ponds, but they're less likely, there, and what they produce oughtn't to have the kinds of toxins you'd get from, say, an oil spill or a big dump of coal tailings.

Always good reason to be kind of wary about GMO's, though. In this case, as long as greed doesn't overwhelm someone's sense of perspective on 'low-incidence high-consequence' events, it'd probably be fairly viable.

[reeftool]

The world could certainly use that sort of thing. I'm a bit weary about GMing things and taking them outside the laboratory though (+1) ... eventually there might be an unintented consequence which we dearly hope could be reversed, but cannot in practice, as in, "Guys, we need to find all the bacteria like this out there and dispose of them. That's it. Be careful out there!"

Yeah, many of the products that solved a problem in the past turned out to be pretty nasty stuff. Still, you can't stop developing new things out of fear that some unknown danger lurks somewhere. One of the things that comes to mind is the "natural" practice of introducing other species to an area to eleminate pesticides. It was a great idea in the 70's and now we have invasive species doing far more damage. Still, the bio- fuels will likely be a good alternative in the short term as the world is still totally reliant on oil. That isn't likely to change until some sort of catastrophe forces us into a major lifestyle change.

[Tom S.]

The article seems to have trouble with it's own 'facts':

"at costs comparable to the cheapest fossil fuels."

"And they say they can do it at $30 a barrel."

The cheapest 'fossil' fuels are selling for a lot more than $30 a barrel!

Yes, I'm skeptic. Bio-fuel in nothing new and goes back at least 70 years (that I'm aware of). End cost to the consumer is what always hold it back. This process is not the first to claim it could compete or beat traditional fuel prices, yet none have yet.

Hopefully the article is right, but for now it's getting filed in my 'sounds too good to be true' file.

BTW: Many people also question whether fossil fuel really does come from fossils. That is what were all taught in school, but many scientists are now questioning this belief.

[Parallax]

How long do suppose it will be before one of the oil companies buys the patent and then scraps the research?

[reeftool]

How long do suppose it will be before one of the oil companies buys the patent and then scraps the research?

That's where my comment on major catastrophe comes in. There is a lot of money and a huge power base invested in oil. The oil companies still own the distribution network. If these guys can make a profit at $30 a barrel, what do you think it will sell for at the pump? The **** is going to hit the fan sooner or later. Count on it. The oil companies certainly have a backup plan.

[Ratmagiclady]

The article seems to have trouble with it's own 'facts':

"at costs comparable to the cheapest fossil fuels."

"And they say they can do it at $30 a barrel."

The cheapest 'fossil' fuels are selling for a lot more than $30 a barrel!

Startup costs and being conservative about promises there probably factor in, there. Still takes water and space and some equipment and some separation.

On the other hand, it's not trying to make food crops into biomass and then into usable fuel. That's where it's good.

Could fly: actually there's enough to be *owned* about it that the big money might not be so against it.

[redrockcoulee]

With both the need for more energy and the adverse effects from the energy we already use being real it is important that methods such as this are pursued. Oil companies regardless of what they say are looking at alternative fuels to replace the ever increasingly expensive crude, especially the non convenental stocks such as our oil sands. And even though most will agree that the cheapest additional energy is from conservation it is hard to drive from point A to Point B on it.

Tom, I think we then say cost comparible to the cheapest fossil fuels they are meaning the production costs as even though Saudi oil is only a small fraction of the cost to get to markert as is off shore, northern or oil sand energy the market value is the same. So yes $30 a barrel might be correct for some oil and so would 70 or 80 for others but the cost is the same for both to the consumer.Most of the oil and gas used in the western US for example would be cost more than that which is brought in from the Middle East.

RML Only where waste crops are used for biofuel is it a good solution such as in Brazil. Corn makes no sense from any other than a political point of view and even using straw takes away organics from the soil and that is a huge cost for the future.

Negatives have been brought up and that is a good thing as anyone living in energy producing areas or have family or friends working in the patch knows that there are prices ot pay to health and the environment. The new alternatives will to, it is a matter of minimizing them and perhaps sharing the risks among a greater number of regions.

[jolepp]

The idea of growing algae over deep sea would be nice in that those places are wet deserts because lack of nutrients which could be had by pumping up some sediment from the bottom. Plenty of space, few ecosystems to disturb, no competion with food production it would seem. Still maybe just another way of storing solar energy which might be done in other ways. The Sun, in turn, is a huge fusion furnace ... an alternative to oil would seem worth looking into at the scale of the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Program if only for the strategic advantage of not having to depend on the countries who have the most of the remaing oil ...