At 29, David Berry MD, a PhD, and now, title as Young Innovator of the Year in MIT's Tech Review magazine.
So what makes Berry so hot? He's the brains behind LS9, the California-based company working on "renewable petroleum."
Berry's goal was nothing less than "to develop a novel and far-reaching solution to the energy problem." In collaboration with genomics researcher George Church of Harvard Medical School and plant biologist Chris Somerville of Stanford University, Berry and his Flagship colleagues set out to do something that had never been attempted commercially: using the tools of synthetic biology to make microörganisms that produce something like petroleum. Berry assumed responsibility for proving that the infant company, dubbed LS9, could produce a biofuel that was renewable, better than corn-derived ethanol, and cost-competitive with fossil-based fuels.
I understand that Chris Somerville -- a leading figure in the plant biology field -- is also at work on plants that are genetically engineered to produce biodegradable plastics. Now if they could just integrate that idea with these petroleum-producing microbes, we'd really have something to celebrate.
Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Flat
coffeemuses Posted 9:27 pm
19 Aug 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:23 am
20 Aug 2007
The sooner we make it more apparent how linked making new petroleum is just subsidizing old petroleum companies, the sooner we can get over the epiphany that photosynthesis is the real bottleneck.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OriWEUW_TZI
http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:58 pm
20 Aug 2007
Your position will be much stronger once you tie up a few loose ends.
Regarding the biolimits link... you indicate relative levels of energy stored in fossil fuel extracted each year vs. biomass harvested each year, but you fail to indicate the potential for biomass harvest from current agricultural land and degraded land. Furthermor, it isn't clear how the energy was calculated... just the most accessible carbohydrates or all the the biomass (sugars, cellulose, and lignin)?
Regarding the sugarsolar link, you have to start including other carbohydrates in your calculations. We're going to use more than sucrose (other sugars, celllulose, lignin) extracted from plants. We will also include nitrogen-fixing perennials -- not rely on annuals -- so material will actually be left in the ground to build soil after the tops of the plants are harvested
Regarding the ethanol link, the figure does look frightening. Perhaps the situation is as terrifying as the different sized blocks suggest. But it would be helpful to see some blocks indicating how much land is devoted to other human activity... agriculture, forestry, urban sprawl.
As far as installing photovoltaic panels instead of growing biomass, you are likely making a good point if your numbers are correct and we are soley interested in energy extracted per acre. I've not been able to confirm the accuracy of photosynthetic efficiency.
But I would like to present the following potential disadvantage of your scenario. Carefully planned systems for growing biomass might provide other benefits, not provided by a field of solar panels: wildlife habitat, net carbon sequestration, protecting groundwater, the aesthetic value of green space around urban areas, less reliance on extracting minerals for constructing photovoltaic systems, less reliance on resources extracted from other countries and shipped around the world, building soil, removing pollutants from the atmosphere and water supply.
Furthermore, we are not likely to extract energy from the biomass and then use it to synthesize all the chemicals we want or need de novo (the solar hat scenario). But the plants will be selected to do as much of the works as possible as naturally as possible in the field, thereby reducing the need for chemical manufacturing facilities and all of the energy consumption, pollution, and hazards that accompany them. I beleive there is more to the interest in biomass than simply extracting calories from sugar, which seems to be the heart of your argument against the technology.
Forward!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:40 am
21 Aug 2007
With no genetic engineering. And wind machines can provide the energy for the most part, 95% of the grid.
Unecessary tampering with genes for more dangerous living. A good slogan for your company wisci!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:27 am
21 Aug 2007
GreyFlcn appears very fond of false dichotomies... as though the biofuels rule out other sources of energy.
It would be silly to not put photovoltaic panels on every roof top available where photovoltaics work. I wish I could afford to install such a system on my house.
I think it would be equally silly to cover sunny prairie landscapes with solar panels when we can harvest biomass and conserve habitat for endangered grassland fauna.
And FYI... no need to engineer plants grown for biomass! I DON"T THINK GMOS ARE SUITABLE FOR SOLVING EVERY PROBLEM! GEEEEEZ. I did not even mention it here.
Have a nice day!
Forward!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:02 pm
22 Aug 2007
Considering BioFuels get 20x more subsidy than solar, yes thats exactly whats happening.
Things like hydrogen and biofuels are getting all the monies, and attention, and they aren't ever going to work.
Whats worse, they could do far more damage than anything else we've ever dealth with. As is, deforestation causes more impact than all of China's emissions combined.
How many decades or centuries are we going to have to work just to pay back the damage done by these "first generation" biofuels?
http://greyfalcon.net/tropics3
(Especially considering, we ain't got Decades and Centuries to be fooling around)
Permalink