Tech | March 10, 2011 | 10 comments

Researchers use bacteria to produce potential gasoline replacement directly from cellulose

Image
bundlebear
With the situation in Libya causing a spike in fuel prices worldwide there's some good biofuel-related news out of the U.S. Department of Energy's BioEnergy Science Center (BESC) that could help to reduce many countries' dependence on oil imports. For the first time, BESC researchers have succeeded in producing isobutanol directly from cellulosic plant matter using bacteria. Being a higher grade of alcohol than ethanol, isobutanol holds particular promise as a gasoline replacement as it can be burned in regular car engines with a heat value similar to gasoline.

Due in large part to its natural defenses to being chemically dismantled, cellulosic biomass like corn stover and switchgrass, which is abundant and cheap, has been much more difficult to utilize than corn or sugar cane. This means that producing biofuel from such biomass involves several steps, which is more costly than a process that combines biomass utilization and the fermentation of sugars to biofuel into a single process.

Building on earlier work at UCLA in creating a synthetic pathway for isobutanol production, the BESC researchers managed to achieve such a single-step process by developing a strain of Clostridium cellulolyticum, a native cellulose-degrading microbe that could synthesize isobutanol directly from cellulose.

"In nature, no microorganisms have been identified that possess all of the characteristics necessary for the ideal consolidated bioprocessing strain, so we knew we had to genetically engineer a strain for this purpose," said Yongchao Li of Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The research team chose Clostridium cellulolyticum, which was originally isolated from decayed grass, because it has been genetically engineered to improve ethanol production, which has led to additional more detailed research. While some Clostridium species produce butanol and others digest cellulose, none produce isobutanol, an isomer of butanol.

"Unlike ethanol, isobutanol can be blended at any ratio with gasoline and should eliminate the need for dedicated infrastructure in tanks or vehicles," said James Liao, chancellor's professor and vice chair of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science and leader of the research team. "Plus, it may be possible to use isobutanol directly in current engines without modification."

Earlier this week, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu visited the BESC to congratulate the research team, saying, "Today's announcement is yet another sign of the rapid progress we are making in developing the next generation of biofuels that can help reduce our oil dependence. This is a perfect example of the promising opportunity we have to create a major new industry – one based on bio-material such as wheat and rice straw, corn stover, lumber wastes, and plants specifically developed for bio-fuel production that require far less fertilizer and other energy inputs."

The team's work is published online in Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

http://www.gizmag.com/isobutanol-biofuel-cellulose-bacteria/18106/
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Earth and Science,   Science,   7 more
  2. tags:
    Renewable Energy Replacement Oil Crisis synthetic gasoline
  3.     
    |

10 comments // Researchers use bacteria to produce potential gasoline replacement directly from cellulose

  • EmileZ
    • 0
      EmileZ [removed]  
    • Hmmm... genetically engineered bacteria....

      Aren't those UCLA labs sponsored by oil companies???

      Who gets the patent???

      Smells funny to me.

      Solar & wind seem like the most practical renewable energy sources to me, but it would put the oil and coal industries out of business, and Steven Chu wasn't appointed with such an end in mind.

      We need to invest in public transportation.

      So it goes.

    • 1 year ago
  • MizPiz
  • Yam_Soup
  • postlapsaria
    • 0
      postlapsaria  
    • when this gets hammered out and it's effecient and creates useable fuel-- it's going to be great.

      we can replace all the useless cornfields that serve nothing but getting subsidies, and all the farms that have folded under Monsanto and under competition from big corporations-- they can now become enormous fields of switchgrass.

      free america up from foreign oil and create a new field that needs jobs, this is good for the world, great for the country.

    • 1 year ago
  • EmileZ
  • s_peak
    • 0
      s_peak  
    • postlapsaria:

      In theory... that makes sense... but it doesn't work. Mainly because the amount of field space needed to generate enough fuel to have any kind of impact has a global effect on food production, not to mention the fact that monoculture farming is, in essence, destroying biodiversity and breeding insect problems, or pesticide resistant insects.

      Also... Henry Ford was making fuel from hemp which is a lot more efficient than ethanol "biofuel" (especially because the plant itself sequesters tons of CO2 and the remaining biomass can be used to make just about anything).... WAYYYY before any of this bullshit. It's efficiency could rival fossil fuels if we wanted it to, with a relatively positive impact on the environment... since making oil requires mining, refining, trucking, etc... the energy input to output ratio of gasoline is so ridiculously inefficient it makes me sick, as it should do to the rest of us... and in a sense, you will soon be LITERALLY, PHYSICALLY sick as a result of oil spillages seeping slowly into environments all over the world. As evidenced by "gulf oil sickness" from deepwater horizon... the current energy conglomerates have no clue what the fuck they're messing with.

      The real solutions to our energy problems already exist, but they aren't profitable (or they lack efficiency... which is a RESULT of not being profitable). And that's the simple truth. This "energy solution" is the same shit they've been trying to sell us for years... when the REAL solutions are all around us, right above us, or discussed in great length by great scientists like T. Townsend Brown or Nikola Tesla... who dared to challenge conventional theory, but were dismissed as crackpots.

      I guess what I'm trying to say is... Fight the power! Or... The truth is out there! ...or something.

    • 1 year ago
  • postlapsaria
    • 0
      postlapsaria  
    • s_peak:

      I agree with you on all those fronts, but i'm still holding onto hope. I recently saw a thing about a scientist who figured out how to write genetic code for ecoli, which they used to make easy, inexpensive malaria vaccines.

      and now they're working on microbes that make fuel. He had a test tube with a liquid in it and he said "this is ready for your car" it seemed really promising and easy, so my fingers are crossed.

    • 1 year ago
  • H2O_4U
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • bundlebear
more from Tech:

top videos