Scientists create mutant bugs that produce crude oil, unleash swarm of merciless killers

Like the beginning of every great science fiction movie, experts claim that they've discovered a cure for our fuel-dependency woes that only requires an army of genetically modified bacteria... that eat wheat straw and excrete crude oil. You read that right: scientists have created bugs which are able to snack on woodchips or sugar cane and produce waste in the form of easily malleable oil. Not only are the buggers capable of creating a byproduct which can quickly be refined into fuel for vehicles, but scientists say the process is carbon-negative -- it outputs less carbon than is required to produce it. Director of the project -- dubbed LS9 -- Greg Pal says that barrel prices could run as low as $50, and that the company plans to have a commercial facility producing the crude in 2011. And as for the potential threat of world-destroying attack from the mutant feeders? Says Pal, "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." Sure buddy -- but we're going to re-watch Them! just in case.

[WiiFTW @ Jun 16th 2008 10:35AM]

I, for one, welcome our crude-producing bug overlords.

/obligatory

[bohsocks @ Jun 16th 2008 10:38AM]

What, oh what, will become of our precious woodchips and sugar cane!

[Andrew Jones @ Jun 16th 2008 11:16AM]

Wait - so their entire explanation to question re: world-destruction is "we're being REALLY careful"?!

Here's the thing - some bacteria WILL escape eventually if these are used industrially. It's gonna happen. Rather than take this stand, they should really be exploring the question "What WOULD happen if we released this bacterium into a nutrient-rich environment"?

[Will H. @ Jun 16th 2008 11:31AM]

Seriously though, there is some potential here.

Recently a 16 year old Canadian student found a bacteria that could eat plastic ( http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/WWSEF/08Awards/08BurdReport.pdf ). Just imagine if they could be modified to produce usable petroleum like these bacteria, you might be able to cheaply recycle the plastic back into petroleum. Cool possibilities I think.

[Dave @ Jun 16th 2008 11:35AM]

As long as they are produced in the EU, US, Canada, or Australia I am all for it. I'm tired of giving all my gas money to dictatorships and theocracies.

[bohsocks @ Jun 16th 2008 11:38AM]

Andrew Jones: I wish your entire universe was inside a tank.

[John @ Jun 16th 2008 11:45AM]

This seems like a major step backward in energy efficiency. First of all, this wouldn't work in the United States, since we don't produce our own sugar, and the protective tariff on sugar is ridiculously high. If we do end up using woodchips, then we have the problem of tree chopping all over again.

To all of you that panned Flashpoint for his views, I think the problem lies beyond the fact that this "solution" continues our oil usage. The problem is really that internal combustion engines are only 20% efficient. That's horribly low, considering electric cars generally get around 80%-90% efficiency. The basic combustion model has not changed drastically since the car's inception, yet car models and extras have evolved enormously.

I agree with Flashpoint in that this is the perfect time for the automobile industry to change. Most people are aware of global warming (whether human-caused or natural is irrelevant), people are generally becoming more aware of the environment by the day (example being the "go green" phenomenon), and, most importantly, fuel prices are at an all-time high. There is now a race to the top for automobile companies to be the first to change the industry with an alternative to fuel for the sake of minimizing the cost of gas to consumers, as they don't want to be the ones stuck behind the times and lose sales (much like what happened with Ford and GM in the '80s).

My fear is that all of this R&D and innovation right now will come to a screeching halt with a development that produces more crude oil. No, maybe we won't have fusion and hydrogen fuel power in our lifetime, but without any pressure to develop these technologies, progress will not continue. I have faith in the fact that ANY technology can continue to be developed further, and that includes hydrogen fuel. Sure, it's inefficient now, but money needs to be available for companies to continue to develop and refine the technology.

[melloncollie @ Jun 16th 2008 11:48AM]

@Dave
I see what you did there.

[johnzilla @ Jun 16th 2008 1:20PM]

@Dave:

The US isn't a dictatorship and theocracy? You haven't been paying attention the last 20 years or so.

Clinton and Bush have set the record for using presidential signing statements and executive orders to do whatever the heck they want regardless of what the public want or the Constitution mandates.

[Dave @ Jun 16th 2008 4:09PM]

Johnzilla, you can argue that all you want, but I love living in America, and would not (as a whole nation) feel safer anywhere else in the world. I'd much rather see US and NATO countries get money. Also, last time I checked the US is still the only place that truly allows free speech (at least in the purest form to any Eastern Countries).

[Barion @ Jun 17th 2008 8:16AM]

@John: We don't produce our own sugar in the United States? Have Hawaii, Florida, Texas and Louisiana seceded from the union?

[Ten @ Jun 24th 2008 3:12AM]

@Dave
Go shoot yourself in the face, the US is the worlds biggest propoganda machine, and the western media has been surpressing free speech for 20 years.
The fact that think otherwise is proof that the US government and media have succeeded in their quest

[Zal @ Jun 16th 2008 10:37AM]

..."claim that they've discovered a cure for our fuel-dependency woes that only requires an army of genetically modified insects..."

Bacteria are not insects.

[Flashpoint @ Jun 16th 2008 10:43AM]

Many animals have intestinal bacterias which can take raw products in the digestive tract and fix them to more useable products.

There is actually a civet cat that we feed coffee beans and then use the bacteria in his stomach to fix the material before he sh*ts it out...then we harvest the beans and use it to make cofee. KOPI LUWAK.

We use bacteria for cheese, yogurt and many foods you probably eat.

We also use bacteria to help us with waste management.

[Mike10010100 @ Jun 16th 2008 11:43AM]

Writer's license.

Did the mistake affect your ability to comprehend the article?

Carbon negative? Using live creatures (bacterium)? $50 a barrel? Sign me up!

[Flashpoint @ Jun 16th 2008 10:39AM]

THIS IS FANTASTIC.

Now we can use bugs to produce oil and continue to add pollutants to our atmosphere.

Oh sure, it puts out less carbon than is required to produce it, but, high oil prices are what keep a large percentage of people from being able to afford to drive. IF everyone could actually afford to drive, streets would be parking lots and the atosphere would resemble industrial England.

What we need is further development of nuclear power and more devvelopment of FUSION.

And before you say "NO WE CAN'T" keep in mind that back IN THE 90's technology was introduced that could seperate Hydrogen from WATER via electrolysis and use that as fuel...FROM WATER.

Now the JApense are reintroducing it (last week).

WE HAVE GOT TO CUT THESE OIL BARONS OUT OF OUR LIVES PERMANENTLY.

[Tarrence @ Jun 16th 2008 10:44AM]

Your and idiot

[Flashpoint @ Jun 16th 2008 10:44AM]

The oil suckers low ranked me... SO WHAT.

Your day is coming. The uprising will claim your very lives.

[IT-Accountant @ Jun 16th 2008 10:44AM]

I agree with your support of alternative energy sources, but the idea that high oil prices preventing consumers from being able to drive is a good thing is ludicrous. I suppose you've never had to watch the price of your daily commute double in a year.

You sir, with all due respect, FAIL.

[Flashpoint @ Jun 16th 2008 10:45AM]

Tarrence...


its spelled T E R R E N C E

[IT-Accountant @ Jun 16th 2008 10:46AM]

@Flashpoint: It's spelled "Flash Point." As in, two words.

[Greg @ Jun 16th 2008 10:55AM]

wow....I wish I could believe everything I hear without using reason....fight the man! Those evil barons are so evil....aside from giving jobs to people and keeping the economy going. Other than that they are evil.

I hate idiots.

[IT-Accountant @ Jun 16th 2008 10:55AM]

wow, this discussion became very infantile very fast.

note to all other engadgeters: never wrestle with a pig. You'll just get muddy and the pig will enjoy it.

I'm going to remove myself from this discussion.

[L:I:A:F @ Jun 16th 2008 10:57AM]

take it outside ladies


(and then film and post on intertubes)

[Josh L @ Jun 16th 2008 11:00AM]

Flashpoint, why you continue to comment on Engadget baffles me as you are wrong nearly all of the time. Usually fantastically so.

There are no "oil barons", just simple economics. High oil prices are not keeping people from driving. There are more cars on America's roads now than there were when oil was $70 per barrel. In fact, the number of cars on the roads has steadily increased since 1960. I notice that we are not living in the horrible dystopia you're dreaming of.

Hydrogen is not the answer, nor will it be within our lifetimes. Electrolysis is inefficient at best, at worst it's downright wasteful. Hydrogen is a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream; we should be focusing on new sources of energy that don't require a complete rebuilding of our entire energy distribution infrastructure from the ground up.

[Cal @ Jun 16th 2008 11:05AM]

Americans can hardly complain about oil prices, come over to England and paying nearly $9 per gallon of petrol (gas)..

[fanman @ Jun 16th 2008 11:24AM]

I live in "industrial England", and am happy to report that no one has caught cancer or started glowing in the dark as a result of car ownership.

[Josh @ Jun 16th 2008 11:25AM]

a good portion of global warming is caused by water vapor in the atmosphere, while carbon emissions are not helping, they aren't exactly the main cause

what happens if the bacteria get out and start producing crude oil in forests and wheat fields, etc....could be as bad as oil spills...

there better be a ton of safeguards to prevent these things from getting out

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 16th 2008 11:26AM]

Couple of interjections:
1. I'm pretty sure Oil prices are NOT set by Supply/Demand but a chair of people trying to anticipate demand.
2. Switching over to Water based energy would only reduce our naturally limited fresh water supply. (Salt water on the other hand...)

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 16th 2008 11:30AM]

3. The price of Oil BEFORE Bush was near $20/barrel, it's now up to $140

[Mike_NYC @ Jun 16th 2008 11:43AM]

Flashpoint wrote...
"And before you say "NO WE CAN'T" keep in mind that back IN THE 90's technology was introduced that could seperate Hydrogen from WATER via electrolysis and use that as fuel...FROM WATER."

I have a couple of things to point out here.
1. The process is called electrolysis.
2. Electrolysis requires electrical energy, which world-wide is mostly coal.
3. Electrolysis generated hydrogen burned in ICEs or converted back to electricity via Fuel Cells, is less efficient than simply using a battery. Converting energy from one format to another is inherently inefficient.
4. Electrolysis is much older than 20 years. Admittedly, it has been refined over time.
5. The Japenese care is simply a fuel cell with a lot of hype. Pretty much all the major car manufacturers have one.

Honestly, I figure you're just a troll, but hey it does get a lot of comments like mine here.
By the way, "They" are working on fusion. There are several reactors in the countries you'd expect to have them, US, Japan, etc. There is a huge one being built in France.

[teej @ Jun 16th 2008 2:35PM]

Flashpoint, you're the worst thing that's ever happened to Engadget.com. as Josh L said, you're always wrong on every topic, every post...please just stop trying.

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 16th 2008 5:31PM]

For whoever voted me down on interjection #3:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rclc4M.htm

You can clearly see the oil prices/barrel in this chart.

[Harrison @ Jun 17th 2008 2:07AM]

I don't get it. If we have water as a cheap fuel, won't the streets still turn into parking lots?

Everybody would drive and nothing would change.

[Brent @ Jun 17th 2008 11:10AM]

Gas is still cheap. Don't forget the cost to buy a vehicle and to maintain it.

Electrolysis is not revolutionary. Drop a 9 volt battery in a glass of water and you will produce hydrogen bubbles. The problem is that it takes more energy to produce the hydrogen than you can get back out of it.

[Deeznuts @ Jun 16th 2008 10:47AM]

Sounds too good to be true to me. It can't be that damn easy

[Flashpoint @ Jun 16th 2008 10:51AM]

IT Accountant


High oil prices have increased THE COST OF LIVING.
Food, apparel, heating oil,...the list goees on.

If people run out of speding money because they are using it all for transportation and food prices, then they end up cutting back elswhere...many opting for public transportation.

It is a good thing.

#1 The environment would be a MESS if we doubled the number of cars on the road. Global Warming whether you choose to believe it or not is REAL. Not evn 20 years ago, gasoline had LEAD in it, MERCURY and other cancerous additives (that we know off). You can't be a 100% sure you know what the health effects of oil are so don't pretend to.

#2 more cars on the road = more traffic. THAT'S SIMPLE MATH.
more traffic = more traffic accidents due o the law of averages...more people driving = more traffic related occurences.

[John @ Jun 16th 2008 11:00AM]

No, it's not a good thing you jackass. High prices help no one. If people can't drive in order to buy food, what happens when prices keep going up. Do they cut back on eating? Do they die, and help lower CO2 emissions? But I guess in your idiot mind that's a good thing too.

[Jason @ Jun 16th 2008 11:04AM]

So your saying that only wealthy people should be *allowed* to drive and that we should regulate the price of oil so only certain people can drive?

Also... how does having alternate forms of energy help this problem?? Doesn't that also make driving more affordable for poor people too?

Maybe we should start regulating how many kids people can have too... you know cause that could increase the number of drivers...

Didn't someone else have ideas like this... I can't quite put a "Marx" on his name though...

[Josh L @ Jun 16th 2008 11:09AM]

@ Jason:

You hit the nail on the head. Flashpoint here apparently subscribes to the Congressional Democrat line of telling 3rd-world countries to stay poor and not try to develop infrastructure or raise their standard of living in order to save the planet from a manufactured crisis based on junk science.

I'm sure he pats himself on the back for these bigoted, racist views too.

[Rynth @ Jun 16th 2008 11:15AM]

Flashpoint:

With your regards to global warming.

I've heard this theory, y'see that the earth heats up and cools down naturally (we get ice ages, stuff goes all firey, etc, etc), maybe this is causing your so called "Global warming"?

Pfft, Global Warming, I've still got my ice caps..

*walks outside, and falls through said ice cap*

Balls.

[fanman @ Jun 16th 2008 11:17AM]

I live in the outskirts and need to travel to the city centre to feed my children. The car gets me there in ten minutes. The bus takes 20 for the first half of the journey, until I have to change to another bus which takes a further half an hour to do a round tour of the suburbs before arriving at my work, either five minutes late (angry boss) or if I get up (much) earlier half an hour too early. Why on earth would I use public transport when I could make savings back by not buying luxuries like the Internet or clothing?

"Global warming" is indeed happening, but we do not know to what degree, if any, our emissions are responsible (them making up just 5% of the planets total CO2 emissions eg other species and volcanic activity) or whether this will be any more or less severe than any of the other examples of temperature shifts in earths history.

Crude oil simply consists of hydro-carbons of various sizes, with led having been added to petrol for awhile to improve engine performance until it's air pollutant side effects were discovered. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about when you complain about catching cancer from cars.

You strike me as one of those people who likes to think they are green because it is very much in vogue. I sincerely look forward to us running out of oil so that I can point and mock you when the power stations close and your electric car no longer works, and when the plastic bits of it need to be melted down to create more important products. Equally entertaining would be the possibility that we are entirely responsible for climate change, in which case you would have no means of powering your gee-wiz factories or doing... well anything at all, really, including breathing... without frying the planet and having to where an "I'm a self righteous hypercrite" badge.

[skun @ Jun 16th 2008 11:28AM]

I do agree that an increase in public transportation will be a good long term goal. I always thought that they could make connections between suburbs and the cities via some sort of drive-on device that is in constant motion (aka less stop and start) but building that kinda of infrastructure is many years in the future.

But I do disagree with this whole Global Warming thing. I enjoy alternative energy for its engineering posibilities (I am a mechanical engineer), but the fact that car emission are raising the heat of the earth is not true. There are tons of sources if you want the detail. But animals (sorry PETA) cause way more carbon monoxide than cars. If you really want to stop a supposed warming of the earth, lets eat more animals! Our solar system is cyclic. One of the reasons for possible temperature raises is do to the amount of sunspots that are on the sun. The sun has an cycle where it produces sunspots (kinda like seasons) which cause it to be hotter or colder (depending on the activity). There are reasons for the supposed 2nd ice ages and all that that has happened. We do have control over the amount of pollutents that we are breathing, but the sun has WAY more control over how the earth is "warmed" then our vehicles "destroying the ozone layer". If you want to know where I got my data from, I have attened many lectures from the STEREO group (Nasa solar observatory missions). I also work for a prominent Diesel Engine maker and have deal with emisions work.

[Josh @ Jun 16th 2008 11:37AM]

i think marx would want everyone to be alloted the same amount of oil producing bacteria

[Zach @ Jun 16th 2008 11:48AM]

@Flashpoint

I'm not sure if you have ever had an economics class, so I'll let you in on some small part of it. Gas is, more or less, an inelastic item(more or less because there aren't any perfectly inelastic items). Now when I say inelastic, I mean that Fred is going to drive to work, whether gas is $4 a gallon, or if it is $10 a gallon. Fred drives about 30 miles a day to work everyday, and on the weekends he might drive a total of 30 miles in those two days. If gas spikes, he may cut out a few miles on the weekend, but more or less 80% of his driving continues regardless of gasoline prices. So yes, it is causing prices of many other commodities to be driven up, but Fred will still drive to work and lose money, because the bus sucks. So high gas prices really help no one, not even tree huggers, because all thats happing is Fred doesn't get to eat at Olive Garden on Saturdays like he usually does(lol).

[simbiot @ Jun 16th 2008 12:20PM]

Actually, why don't they raise the driving age. That would help keep immature Ricers off the streets. :D

[Flashpoint @ Jun 16th 2008 12:24PM]

I lovee how people who didn't major in natural sciences can claim GLOBAL WARMING is a myth.

What's funny is, they only get their antii-GW views from TV.

[Zach @ Jun 16th 2008 12:42PM]

Now don't refute yourself here. I'm assuming that natural sciences must be/have been your major, yet you make claims about economic theory. By your line of thought, the only way to have anything relevant to say about a subject is to have majored in it, thus refuting your claims about economics (assuming your degree, of course). And I don't believe I have ever seen anything on T.V. that is anti-global warming. Ever.

[bjsguess @ Jun 16th 2008 1:30PM]

@ Flashpoint

I love how people who didn't major in natural sciences can claim GLOBAL WARMING is real and sit on the UN's IPCC panel.

What's funny is, they only get their GW views from watching morons who act in TV or movies, washed up singers, liberal politicians, and others who are imminently unqualified to discuss something as complex as climatology.

For those curious ... "The IPCC is not, as some believe, a group of scientists, but a panel set up by the United Nations comprising representatives from about 140 governments to consider what we currently know about climate change"

[mallthus @ Jun 16th 2008 2:20PM]

I hear the argument being made here as:

"High energy prices are good because people will stop using energy. If poor people can't afford transportation or food, well, that's just a byproduct of our wasteful, harmful society. Maybe they'll just die and decrease the surplus population. Oh, all that and there's an evil conspiracy keeping the little man down."

Did I get that right? No? Really? Because that's what I thought I heard. Sounds a lot like some 18th century thinkers I've read. Of course, I could be part of the evil, transnational, imperialistic cabals trying to fill my pockets on the backs of the common man.

Just my 2¢...