Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Better Bugs for Making Butanol

Engineered E. coli proves efficient at churning out the biofuel.

By Alexandra M. Goho

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
Butanol bugs: Through a series of genetic modifications, scientists programmed E. coli to make butanol efficiently, bringing the biofuel closer to commercialization.
Credit: Wilson Wong, UCLA

In a push to find better biofuels to reduce gasoline consumption and lower greenhouse-gas emissions, scientists have genetically engineered E. coli that is highly efficient in producing butanol, a promising new type of biofuel. The new technology could speed up the development of butanol biofuels into a cost-effective alternative to ethanol.

While ethanol is the main biofuel on the market today, energy firms are increasingly looking to alternatives such as butanol. "It has many attractive properties," says Jim McMillan, manager of biorefining process R&D at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's National Bioenergy Center, in Golden, CO. Because butanol packs more energy per gallon than ethanol does, cars running on butanol get better mileage. And, unlike ethanol, it doesn't mix with water, so it can be shipped in existing petroleum pipelines without causing problems.

A number of research groups are engineering microbes that can convert sugar from various feedstocks into butanol. Most of these groups rely on the bacterium Clostridium acetobutylicum, which naturally makes a form of butanol called 1-butanol. "But Clostridium is not easy to deal with," says James Liao, a chemical engineer at the University of California, Los Angeles. "It grows slowly, it's very fastidious, and it's not easy to genetically manipulate." Despite decades of tinkering by scientists, the microbe still can't produce enough butanol to make it economically viable as a transportation fuel, Liao says.

Instead, he and his colleagues turned to E. coli. Although the bacterium does not produce butanol naturally, it is easy to modify and grows fast. Instead of tweaking the pathway that the microbes employ for fermenting sugar into alcohol, Liao reasoned that he could program E. coli to produce butanol by diverting some of the microorganism's metabolites into alcohol production. These metabolites, called keto acids, are involved in the synthesis of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.

To make butanol from keto acids, the researchers inserted two different nonnative genes into E. coli. The first gene came from a microbe commonly used in the production of cheese. The gene codes for an enzyme that converts keto acids into aldehydes. The second gene, derived from yeast, codes for an enzyme that converts aldehydes into butanol.

Initially, when linked together in E. coli, the two genes allowed the microbe to produce small amounts of butanol. With further genetic modifications, Liao was able to dramatically increase the efficiency of the process. For instance, deleting certain genes and boosting the activity of others increased the amount of keto acids available for conversion into butanol. With all the combined manipulations, the engineered microbes achieved an efficiency high enough for industrial use, says Liao.

[1] 2 Next »

Comments

  • butanol
    rhansing on 01/16/2008 at 12:26 PM
    Posts:
    11
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    first, no fuel should be processed from corn and other food sources. the same with the cellulose from corn, since it is needed to be plowed under to keep the soil furtile.

    But a great use would be to use the tons of "fuel" trash, that we dump in the dumpyards.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Patents
    Biofuelsimon on 01/17/2008 at 9:10 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I wonder how this fits with the technology that BP and DuPont are using to make butanol.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • the problem is the feedstock
    killian on 01/18/2008 at 4:48 PM
    Posts:
    54
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    This is fairly neat work, since butanol is a better fuel than ethanol.  However, it shares ethanol's problem that photosynthesis is insufficiently efficient.  It would take too much land to replace gasoline with biobutanol, even if it could be made from high-per-acre feedstocks like switchgrass.

    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: the problem is the feedstock
      DJTal on 01/20/2008 at 5:54 AM
      Posts:
      114
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      The scale of photosynthesis more than makes up for the low efficiency ...... think we've been here before killian ....... in any case other renewables can be used to catalyse the biofuel production system , which seems to be the route down which lots of renewable energy start up companies are going .
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: the problem is the feedstock
        killian on 01/21/2008 at 11:16 AM
        Posts:
        54
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        When I do the calculations, it takes hundreds of thousands of square miles to produce enough cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass to make up for the poor efficiency of photosynthesis.  Is that what you mean by scale?  Are we going to turn 19% of the U.S. into ethanol production so we can drive?  That's scale alright.

        420M people in 2050, 9300 VMT per person gives 3.9 trillion miles.  35 MPG for gasoline gives 112 billion gallons gasoline, or 154 billion gallons of E85 (adjusting for the energy content), requiring 131 billion gallons of ethanol.  Schmer et. al in PNAS recently reported switchgrass yields of 7100kg/ha and cellulosic ethanol at 0.38 L/kg which gives 2700 L/ha, or 185,000 gallons/mi^2.  That gives 710,000 mi^2, or 19% of the U.S.  Scale.

        Oh, and then there's freight...
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: the problem is the feedstock
          DJTal on 01/25/2008 at 10:39 AM
          Posts:
          114
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          Interesting mathematics , but the equations don't take account of practical realites . Potentialy the entire growing area of the USA , including forestry , wetland and municiple land , can be used to produce biofuel since all crops produce residues and waste . All forestry produce can eventually be used to make biofuel when building timber and paper reaches the end of it's life . Plus your not taking into account the possibility of increasing productivity per acre , on the same sort of scale as food production was increased in the 20th centuary (seems such a long time ago) .
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: the problem is the feedstock
            killian on 01/30/2008 at 4:29 AM
            Posts:
            54
            Avg Rating:
            4/5
            NREL has estimated the U.S. biomass potential of everything you mention as well as several you missed.  It is in the single digit percent range of the fossil fuel energy the U.S. uses each year.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: the problem is the feedstock
              DJTal on 01/30/2008 at 11:16 AM
              Posts:
              114
              Avg Rating:
              3/5
              20% is a pretty resonable estimate of the potential .
              Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: the problem is the feedstock
                killian on 02/09/2008 at 2:14 PM
                Posts:
                54
                Avg Rating:
                4/5
                I will take NREL's estimates over unattributed numbers any day.

                However, more importantly, two articles in Science just did calculations for greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels due to land use change, and the data really looks bad for most biofuels, unless they are made from waste.  For example, Fargione's paper said, "Our results show that converting native ecosystems to biofuel production results in large carbon debts. ... The carbon debts attributed to biofuels would not be repaid by the annual carbon repayments from biofuel production for decades or centuries."

                As a specific example, Searchinger's paper said, "This analysis has implications for other biofuels. Cellulosic ethanol could use wastes that do not trigger land use change. But if American corn fields of average yield were converted to switchgrass for ethanol, replacing that corn would still trigger emissions from land use change that would take 52 years to pay back and increase emissions over 30 years by 50%."

                This suggests that we had better restrict our ethanol feedstocks to waste products rather than growing crops specifically to make into ethanol.
                Rate this comment: 12345
  • butanol
    quickerest on 05/12/2008 at 2:28 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Imagine the entire wasted wood product from any disaster. Imagine all the waste we do not use every day. Imagine all the restaurants waste, imagine all the waste product from packing houses that charge very little for the waste food left behind after processing. Then imagine that this is not a one off oil replacement solution. This is just one solution that will have to be a multi layered system including transportation reform along with many alternative solutions to other power needs. This is a Great addition to any multi layered solution. How many layers?? Well consider all the desert land we have that can take on solar power, wind power, wave power hydro power, you name it we can manipulate our environment to optimize our power returns. Bullet trains. Common it is the best way to reduce emissions and increase connectivity reducing loss and spreading gains as the markets fluctuate across America. We will continue to use and pump oil but to simply start with adding more ethanol or butanol to our resource will make large differences in price and make a real step in the right direction. The other very important factor many also forget about is the large number of jobs we can create and economy boost that is created by building the infrastructure required for the changes needed to switch to a multi layer system.

    I do agree that there has to be a very big barrier between our food and fuel production or we will end up being reliant on others again for one of our two greatest needs; food or power.
    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review September/October 2008
How Obama Really Did It
Social technology helped bring him to the brink of the presidency.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology