bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol
Posted by Allychristine on Jul 03, 2008 · Member since Dec 2007 · 15438 posts
I dunno what to think about this....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece
The World's Largest Collection of Vegetarian Recipes
Oooookaaaay....
GM bacteria. Oh that sounds safe. Esspessshially longterm. Let's just start screwing with the planet at its most basic level. :P
Not vegan.
That's what I thought..
While in principle I approve of anything which encourages renewable and/or sustainable production, like yabbitgirl I'm a little wary about stuff that messes with the building blocks of organisms. I know that a good deal of soy is genetically modified but it seems like so much could go wrong with this. I like the concept of using whatever local agricultural waste makes sense - a very logical and environmentally-friendly idea.
I'm not sure how I feel about this on a vegan level. We employ bacteria for so many purposes, and I think it's pretty much understood that they have no cognitive process. ("... LS9’s bugs are single-cell organisms, each a fraction of a billionth the size of an ant. They start out as industrial yeast or nonpathogenic strains of E. coli, but LS9 modifies them by custom-de-signing their DNA.")
With enough testing, perhaps this idea could work. The idea seems sound, and it's clearly designed to reduce oil consumption and aid climate change... not sure though, I'd still want to see research that conclusively proved that it wasn't going to cause more harm than good before it was put into regular practice.
Yeah, I mean, my main problem with this isn't really whether or not it's vegan. I don't really have an issue with the GM either. I don't like to eat GMO's, but I honestly don't think there is harm in genetically modifying bugs and then allowing them to feed on waste. Though this could have effects on animals who ate the bugs. Who knows. My main problem with this is that this aims to produce another source of petroleum. We need to be moving away from petroleum as a fuel source--burning it has horrendous effects on the environment regardless of whether it comes from a renewable source. I kind of feel like a project like this misses the point. I'm all for recycling that waste in some other way, though.
I'm also confused why they are calling them bugs. Last time I checked, a one-celled animal was a protozoan, not an insect. Whatever.
Yeah, they go from 'bacteria' to 'bug'. Well, which is it?
KMK, I do agree on moving away from petroleum-based fuel to something more environmentally-friendly. I don't know where you're living but in the UK people have this great argument where they shout for cleaner, renewable energy sources and then scream bloody murder when wind farms spoil their views of the coastline!
Seriously, though, you do have a good point although this could definitely work as a transitional method, because renewable sources need time to be implemented and put into use. It would take some of the weight off natural oil deposits and lower petrol prices while wind farms, hydroelectric power and biofuels were introduced.
Also, as I understand nothing will be eating these bacteria because they're isolated in a lab: "“We’re putting these bacteria in a very isolated container: their entire universe is in that tank. When we’re done with them, they’re destroyed.”"
How is it carbon negative?
Say we erected a bubble around, well, the Earth (excluding the atmosphere), and we put these bugs into the picture. How would the carbon flow from the earth to the atmosphere change?
We still have net flow of carbon from the atmosphere to the plants (which become the plant waste) to the bugs to the petroleum. The petroleum is then burned and releases carbon into the atmosphere as CO2. The exact same amount of carbon is released whether or not we get the petroleum from the bugs or from an oil well. Now, how is this carbon sequestered from the atmosphere? By the next round of plants (plant-waste-to-be), who use it during photosynthesis. But these plants already exist in the current carbon cycle. Now we are just using their waste as well.
There is no change in the carbon flows whatsoever. The claim that this fuel is carbon negative is complete garbage (no pun intended). I can't believe they would compare it to hydrogen or other biofuels, which have a different chemical composition than crude oil and thus emit less CO2 during combustion. Perhaps I am missing something, but they refer to the fuel as "crude oil," which suggests it s exactly the same as the stuff we pump from the ground.
The only appeal here is that this fuel is renewable (i.e., gives us permission to keep on burning that oil) and that it would reduce some of the effects of the actual oil-drilling process on the environment. But it does nothing for fighting global warming, from what I can tell. I am not even sure I like this as an intermediate step. If our oil supplies are limited, it forces us to focus on conservation. Just like limited (i.e. expensive) gas focuses us on better driving habits and better cars. So long as we have oil, we'll keep burning it. Also, the time, money, and energy required to implement this on a significant scale seem enormous. Let's just get to the point. I can't see the benefit here.
Never mind, as a chemistry student I was clearly on the wrong side of this for this forum. Straw is going to decompose and release its carbon in any case--isn't it better to use it instead of digging up new oil and burning that? Especially drilling offshore, which will have other problems besides releasing carbon. The farming has already been done (using oil, another problem with using ethanol as fuel), so using a waste product isn't really so bad.
I mean, I could be wrong. Maybe "Oil 2.0" IS different in composition than crude oil and they are just holding out on us. But I'm skeptical. ???
Never mind, as a chemistry student I was clearly on the wrong side of this for this forum. Straw is going to decompose and release its carbon in any case--isn't it better to use it instead of digging up new oil and burning that? Especially drilling offshore, which will have other problems besides releasing carbon. The farming has already been done (using oil, another problem with using ethanol as fuel), so using a waste product isn't really so bad.
Agreed, but it's not doing anything for the carbon cycle. That's all I'm saying. And even though it won't be decaying on it's own (releasing CO2), bugs will be digesting it, which also releases CO2. I guess whose to say if this amount is less or more. But the fact that we have to nitpick over it says to me that it's not really the best option.
Sustainable from the standpoint that plants are renewable? Yes. But not sustainable from the standpoint that it does nothing to temper CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.
How is it carbon negative?
Um, did I accidentally say it would be carbon negative? If so, oops, because I really didn't intend to! I realise that it is in no way an ideal long-term solution, but I don't quite agree with your point that limited fuel supplies force people towards greener alternatives. I mean, we've got to a point where fuel prices are really rocketing but people are paying up rather than go towards other options. Humans are generally stubborn and selfish and I would hate to see nations grind to a halt because of fuel restrictions. I would love if everybody changed their minds tomorrow and started buying bicycles but it isn't a particularly likely event, and so we're going to need something in the interim.
Now, I'm no chemist but if waste decays on it's own, won't it produce just as much CO2 as this new bacterial consumption? I would have thought that the chemical composition of the waste would yield a finite amount of any one substance, regardless of how it was being broken down?
Also, as Aziz_esroh mentioned, there are other negative sides to oil drilling which make me think twice before slating this bacterial excretion idea.
To be honest, you say that they might be holding out details and I wasn't overly impressed with the article anyway - see our little confusion over the bugs/bacteria thing. My problem is that I don't understand the science of it and I think I'm losing out just reading the layman's version... all the same, I do think there might be something to it - why not use up agricultural waste for some kind of production?
How is it carbon negative?
Um, did I accidentally say it would be carbon negative?
No, you didn't. That was you, esroh, right? Esroh was quoting the article. But then she deleted her post. No biggie.
I totally agree, Cat. Crappy article for something that may or may not be worthwhile.
I think the article explains that when they were using "bug" is was the slang way of using the term, as in bacteria. They also say specifically that they use E. coli. How is this not vegan? I think this is quite creative, but really not practical and won't be able to be used to decrease oil consumption from other sources.
This sounded like a really freaking good idea to me. The big problem with biofuels is that more cropland would have to be converted to fuel production than exists in the entire United States. A piece of land the size of Chicago really isn't that much, and it would create thousands of jobs at home without signifigant altercations to the infrastructure. GM bacteria are really quite safe, humans have been messing with the DNA of single celled organisms ever since they knew they could, mainly because their genomes are simple and they reproduce quickly. Besides, the only problem with burning oil is that the carbon cycle is millions of years long. With this technology, the carbon cycle would be only months long. When they say this tech is carbon negative, they aren't talking about somehow magically obliterating C02 from the face of the planet, they taking gaseous carbon (the kind that floats into the atmosphere and warms the planet) and sequestering it away in solid form, where it can't do any harm. Here's how it works: C02 enters the tank and the bacteria turn some of it into hydrocarbons, while the rest goes towards building the cell wall and other structures the the bacteria need to survive. When these bacteria die, the carbon used to build their bodies will be taken out of the atmosphere while only part of it will be returned by burning the resulting fuel. The dead bacteria can be stored somewhere where they aren't allowed to decompose, keeping that carbon from returning in the long run.
When they say this tech is carbon negative, they aren't talking about somehow magically obliterating C02 from the face of the planet, they taking gaseous carbon (the kind that floats into the atmosphere and warms the planet) and sequestering it away in solid form, where it can't do any harm. Here's how it works: C02 enters the tank and the bacteria turn some of it into hydrocarbons, while the rest goes towards building the cell wall and other structures the the bacteria need to survive. When these bacteria die, the carbon used to build their bodies will be taken out of the atmosphere while only part of it will be returned by burning the resulting fuel. The dead bacteria can be stored somewhere where they aren't allowed to decompose, keeping that carbon from returning in the long run.
No one said they were talking about obliterating CO2 from the planet. What you just said is exactly how I understood it as well (see my previous post). My problem is that I am skeptical that the carbon uptake by the bacteria for their metabolism and growth is not a significant offset to CO2 flows overall.
To know for sure, we'd have to know the rate of biomass growth required to produce a quantity of fuel. Or, what volume of CO2 is taken up by a mass of bacteria, and how much CO2 results from burning the fuel produced by that same mass of bacteria. Does it take more CO2 to grow these bacteria than is produced during combustion? Who knows. I'm not convinced.
How is this not vegan?
It is definitely not vegan to use insects, which is what I assumed from the title. Bacteria are another story.
How is it carbon negative?
It is if you don't count the "burning of the fuel excrement" part. But you are right, as soon as you burn the fuel it is not carbon negative, I wouldn't think.
Oh, and another thing I wanted to know, what kind of impact would it have on the environment if these "bugs" got loose? That is definately bound to happen.
Not vegan.
lol'd at this.
Not vegan.
lol'd at this.
I'm glad! That was the idea! ;D