Scientists Engineer Extreme Microorganisms To Make Fuel From Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Yea, munch munch C02 chewed up.
Will these bacteria harm humans or the environment?
Will its byproducts, 3-hydroxypropionic acid and others byproducts cause harm to the environment or humans?

What could possibly go wrong? It's not like we need that CO2 in the air for something.

Here, let me quote that for you Anylcon - " After that, using hydrogen gas to form a chemical reaction in the microorganism, the researchers got the microorganism to produce 3-hydroxypropionic acid, a common chemical used in household products. That's been done before, but the researchers are looking into turning the process into one that could eventually produce fuel."

They could probably just use similar methods to produce fuel, instead of using hydrogen gas to make 3-hydroxypropionic acid.

And on another note- Pyrococcus furiosus is a species of Archaea, distinguishable from bacteria by being surrounded by a cellular envelope composed of glycoprotein.

Hopefully one day fuel can be made this way!

Scientist brainiacs make life forms to solv their hallucinated problems? What could possibly go wrong?

They complain that we are hurting nature so their solution is to frack with it instead? Brilliant.

paultherussian,
Yea I get where they say it is commonly used in house hold products. You do understand many house hold products can and are toxic? You can't drink everything that is under you sink ya know!

Have you looked up the harmful effects of 3-hydroxypropionic acid to humans?

Now consider the quantities of this stuff will be made as they try to effect the whole CO2 Earth environment. They are going to have a extreme lot of left of byproducts. HELLO?! They want to affect planet EARTH to reduce global warming!!!

So this bacterium is happy at 100c, and they the scientist wants to make the bacteria comfortable in cooler waters. Ok, so now this bacterium is comfortable at normal human temperatures, you breathe it, it enjoys the CO2 and spits out 3-hydroxypropionic acid into your body and perhaps just KILLS YOU!

Well, the scientists ARE solving the problem in two ways by doing this. One, CO2 levels are reduced. Two, the toxic byproducts of the microorganisms will kill off some humans, (sucessfully?) alleviating overpopulation.

Has everyone forgot about Joule Unlimited and ProNutria? Joule Unlimited already has its first commercial plant running in New Mexico and ProNutria is making some awesome progress on their designer proteins.

I normally don't comment but David Berry is kind of my hero and Bio Diesel and Bio Ethanol from Cyanobacteria using sunlight and waste CO2 is a little bit more efficient then having to produce one chemical to potentially and hopefully process into another one.

AnyIcon .. as you've posted on every article with the aura of a adolescent, i will assume you have read the quoted passage enough times now to sufficiently ensure that if you were going to understand it, that you would have by now.

the scientists aren't looking to produce 3 hydroxypropionic acid, they're lloking to ADAPT that process into one that could produce FUEL instead.

1. the end experiment would not produce 3 hydroxypropionic acid but use a similar process by the bacterium to produce FUEL

2. no 3-hydroxypropionic acid, no need to ask yourself WTF about it

3. the baterium require the same thing as the rest of the life on earth to live, in this case it's a). less than SUPER-HEATED water (guessing still hotter than naturally occuring water in places humans and wildlife can survive or even the labratory sample would ever come within 100km of) b). a crap ton of CO2 in a steady and artificially high concetrations to support a active & self sustaining colony c). environment free of predation, contamination, toxic or poisonous conditions & competition for resources

the more specialised the bacteria or virus is, the more remote the reality is that it could ever survive outside of the man made environment carefully designed and maintained specifically for it.

and finally yes, the final biproduct of FUEL would be harmful to the envirnment, just as any fuel is .. heck even water is harmful to the environment, of course fuel will be.

now please continue filling the comment sections of the popsci articles of hatred towards the man, self righteous and libertarian gargon .. it's comedy gold :)

i think we just saw the beginning of the next ice age. kinda funny really.

Guys it's Archaea.Not bacteria

AnyIcon, They sequenced it in such a way that it thrives in lower temperatures and consumes carbon dioxide, They THEN added hydrogen gas to invoke the chemical reaction to create the acid, what I mean is they could maybe use some other compound that reacts differently and does not form acid. Its just specifically the hydrogen gas that they found to form the acid. And now that this interaction is observed, they can find a way to take advantage of another chemical reaction of a different type.

and once again, Pyrococcus furiosus is a species of Archaea, distinguishable from bacteria by being surrounded by a cellular envelope composed of glycoprotein.

If this bacteria does get developed. Which living thing in the food chain is going to keep it in check?

AnyIcon,
I see your concern, but you forget that there are bunches of bugs that already have tolerances favorable to live in/on the human body. Under most conditions, ringworm and athletes' foot are not epidemic. People without diminished immune systems don't get yeast infections in their lungs. I think your worry comes from watching too many "B" movies.

Unkniwn,
I suppose we would cull the over-abundance and process that into other products.

redman.ca,
Why would fuel be inherently bad for the environment? Water can cause erosion and in vapor form is a greenhouse gas, but how do these make water bad for the environment? I use firewood as FUEL to heat my house, does that make trees bad for the environment? Though you are right on many points, you seem to approach this from a zero-sum standpoint - that if something is good for humans, it must be bad for the planet. Perhaps I misunderstood you?

These are indeed some tough critters, and far older than most anything else. While we might force some change on them to customize their intake and environment of preference, we will have little actual proof that the changes will continue to act as advertised, nor that these unknown scenarios in future adaptation that are sure to come will be to our benefit. They should be required to run at least a million generations in full containment. More would be better.