by Bas » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 09:41:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('katkinkate', 'C')an't see it happening. Sounds like an investment ripoff. To build up an oil molecule from CO2, the bacteria would have to put in as much or more energy than burning an oil molecule would release to become CO2.
The only way it could be feasible would be if the CO2 to Oil reaction was a by-product of respiration (living) or a way of storing excess energy by the bacterium as it fed on something else. Like plants use sunlight to build tissue and store the excess energy in sugars and starches and some oils. So there is another resource going into the process to make oil come out and there would have to be more of the feed stock going in than you get oil out. Bacteria need to eat something else, they can't photosythesise.
If they used algae instead, it could use sunlight as the primary energy source, which would be much cheaper, but as the algae will need to use some of the energy to live and reproduce, the oil yield probably won't be fantastic. If they gengineered it to pump more of its resources into making oil, they would probably have to artificially feed it with something else if they wanted it to have the energy to reproduce. And they would still need inputs of minerals and trace elements at least.
I think it would actually be cheaper to just grow olives or some other oil seed/nut (like sunflowers) and use the oil straight with a bit of biodiesel starter. Of course, then there's the problem of scaling up for world-wide use.
Uuum, sorry for the pessimistic lecture, but I see more problems than solutions with that scenario. Gengineering isn't a miracle worker. The laws of physics still apply.
well put. There is no energy in CO2 and the output is very energy rich; to me this sounds like a biofuel scam with a twist and unless he figures out a way to make those bacteria more efficient with sunlight than existing plants which would be the holy grail in genetic engineering, and next to impossible for the next hundred years.
Besides, dna/genes do not work as bits and bytes as we're always made to believe by the media; for instance a gene for blue eyes also affects the working of every other gene in an indirect way, and might result in a slightly different shape of big toe than you would have had with the brown eye gene; the whole of a species' genetic code doesn't equal the parts, and we've barely begun to start to understand these secundary effects of genes.
Also him building genes from scratch is BS, at least when it comes to something that's actually functional; every bioinformatics student can cut and paste a gene as to encode his own name, or for that matter the bible (though that would take ages).
My conclusion in this is that while this has a lot of potential, also in the growing food when it comes to being more efficient with sunlight (I believe plants are only about 7% efficient, while the most advanced solar panels are 20% or more efficient), actually making it work will, like fusion power, always be 50 years away.