Subscription Center
Feb 9, 2009 01:00 PM | 9
If you follow biotechnology at all, you probably know that there is red biotech for medical applications (example: using bacteria to produce drugs); white biotech for industrial applications (example: using microbes instead of chemicals); and green biotech for agriculture (example: using genetically modified crops.)
So it was only a matter of time before someone came up with a term for using biotechnology to come up with new fuel sources. "Black biotech" is the phrase Richard Gallagher at The Scientist has coined to describe the rush going on in the life sciences to enlist microbes in a bid to prolong the age of oil in the latest issue. But it really comes down to figuring out what's up down in those subsurface oil formations.
After all, we barely know the mix of extremophiles thriving in the heat and pressure of the deep Earth. The sub-surface is likely oozing with microbial life, research has shown, and it's quite possible those critters can help us produce more energy—whether by converting unrecoverable oil to recoverable methane as they do naturally anyway or by becoming the oil feedstock of the future, like algae turned to jet fuel.
Some scientists are even trying to make entirely new microbes that will actually make gasoline or other fuels—synthetic biology for synthetic fuels. That may prove even more difficult than figuring out what's going on miles beneath the ground we walk on, but there's no question that microorganisms have a lot to teach us when it comes to using energy.
Credit: ©iStockphoto.com
Tags:
end of oil,
microbe power,
bacteria,
black biotech,
microbe,
oil,
biotechnology,
fossil fuel,
synthetic biology,
energy
More News Blog:
Next: Marijuana might lead to increased risk of testicular cancer
Previous: Death toll climbs in Aussie wildfires
See what we're tweeting about
BecCrew MT @jeanne_erdmann Great read - The Story Trumps Everything: an Interview with Deborah Blum http://t.co/ymsrDitDC1 BecCrew You call yourself a museum! http://t.co/EcLccYoD4y via @alexvitlin
DNLee5 I find my self wishing I had access to IV fluids often in life.
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
9 Comments
Add CommentGreat, let's invest in producing more oil and more co2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently we need to be taught how to sustain our very existence.
Black biotech gives me associations to bio weapons, evil and black stuff!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe total carbon content on our planet is almost constant. Microbes can take up CO2 and convert it to a more complex molecule using energy. When this molecule decomposes we get back part of the energy that went to create it. The time cycle is short, new CO2 converts to a macro molecule and then back to CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBurning coal on the other hand is very damaging, coal takes extremely long periods of time (based on our lifespan) to form, it is also surface active and holds on to gasses as well as metals like mercury and lead. When you burn coal you are releasing old CO2, you are also releasing toxic metals. Most of the mercury contamination of our oceans comes from burning coal.
Don't discriminate on colour, appearance or other physical factors - Think.
Yes, that's right. Think. Remember that our planet has finite resources and our environment has a finite ability to render our pollution and waste harmless (to ourselves and other species). It is pointless to "prolong the age of oil" unless the aim is to provide a bridge to a sustainable society that doesn't consume resources faster than they can be renewed (renewable or non-renewable). I don't think many people are thinking of such a bridge but rather are hoping for some magic elixir that can keep things going the way they'd like until it is some other generation's problem, or downfall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, on sustainability, let's be honest. Yes, our resources are finite. Which means we can't reproduce uncontrollably forever and expect to stay on this rock. But most people, yourself included, tend to confuse the finite resources with the idea that we're going to run out soon. This planet has been here for several billion years. Life has been on this planet "using" its resources for most of that time. Yet today, I would argue that there are more resources available on this planet than there have been at any point in its history. Now how could that be?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause when we talk about resources we are really talking about resources that are useful for us as we are today. A few billion years ago, CO2 was a very valuable resource for the life that was here. So were many other things that we see as being mostly useless. As we roll into the future, the types of resources will no doubt change, but the resources themselves will remain here as long as we don't eject them into space. The ultimate question is how to we use those resources to our benefit? How do we get at the vast resevoirs of energy that exist in every piece of trash and every bit of carbon we release?
There is no question of resources. It's really a question of "natural" resouces. I placed that in quotes because I have to wonder how protecting species from extinction is natural.... Anyways that's a different topic. What we need to do is find better unnatural ways to take advantage of our resources. For example, electricity is natural as lightning. But it is also virtually useless. Controlled in a way that is unnatural, look what can be done with it! Oil is another example. Naturally it's good for torches, that's about it. But refined amazing things can be done. We only recently learned to tap into that. Until a hundred years ago, oil was no more useful than it has been for thousands of years.
But here's the question.....can something better be made? Something more useful? Can we get into the processes that created this natural product and create something even more amazing? Renewable even? Imagine a genetically engineered plant that growsnextremely fast in sunlight with very little water, can thrive in a desert, removes LOTS of carbon from the atmosphere, and could be easily converted by a genetically engineered microbe to make a fuel that has more potential energy and produces less carbon than gasoline. THAT is what we should be working on. And this is a step in that direction....(more to follow. I am at the maximum number of characters)
OK... Continued...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheap abundant energy is the key to everything. With it, other things become more practical like converting garbage into energy and raw materials, recycling, and other such things where the energy cost is the main reason it is not done. Because of this, we need to find new and better ways to store and extract energy from our surroundings. There is PLENTY to be had. We just need to get to it. Once that is done, all things are possible.
One other point I wanted to address is this crap about atmospheric carbon and global warming.
Look, maybe we are warming the planet. Maybe we aren't. But no one bothers to ask..is this a bad thing? It is downright crazy to assume that this particular momoent in all of world history, contains the optimal world temperature for the survival of our species. In fact, human history shows otherwise. In every period of warming in the past - up to 4 degrees at times - our species has flourished. In every period if temperature decline we have suffered and perished. The amount of land and resources we can't touch because it is covered in ice is simply amazing. The amount of freshwater tied up in glaciers is just astounding. It may be bad for some animals, but it is a benefit to others....including us. Attempting to maintain the status quo simply for the fear of change is just silliness.
Lots of scientists did ask if global warming was bad, and they generally discovered that Yes, it is bad. In fact, it is so clearly bad that they don't bother asking any more. It is a settled fact. The only people who question it are shills for the petroleum industry, assorted kooks, or dupes of evangelical leaders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut more importantly, "prolonging the age of oil" might be a good thing if that oil isn't derived from fossil fuels. Petrofuels produced using bio-matter (like corn-based ethanol) are carbon neutral, and don't contribute (as much) to global warming. Oil created by bacteria would have the same benefits.
No, kfreels, I don't confuse limits with running out soon. But whenever we hit a limit (i.e. peak of production or scarcity relative to demand) in one critical resource we will hit problems. Running out may take decades or centuries but running out isn't when the problems start. Many people, including yourself, seem to thing that is exactly when the problems start.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou also confuse attempts at maintaining biodiversity (a good thing for all species) with interfering with nature (ignoring our other interferences with nature for the last few centuries). Add to that the assumption that any resource diverted for human use can only be good and we see why we are headed for certain catastrophe.
People do ask if global warming is a bad thing. The problem is that we act as though it isn't and thus are likely to accelerate it. Get your greatgrandkids to ask the question in 90 years. Do you not think it is better for us and future generations to live within our planetary means? And answer that we don't know what the future holds would be a cop out.
For less CO2, stop smoking...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this