# (UPDATE April 24th) [GM] Joule Creates Renewable Fossil Fuels At Unlimited Quantity.



## frickfrock999

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/a-brave-new-world-of-fossil-fuels-on-demand/article1871149/
Quote:


> In September, a privately held and highly secretive U.S. biotech company named Joule Unlimited received a patent for "a proprietary organism" - a genetically adapted E. coli bacterium - that feeds solely on carbon dioxide and excretes liquid hydrocarbons: diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline. This breakthrough technology, the company says, *will deliver renewable supplies of liquid fossil fuel almost anywhere on Earth, in essentially unlimited quantity* and at an energy-cost equivalent of $30 (U.S.) a barrel of crude oil. It will deliver, the company says, "fossil fuels on demand."


At long last!

We are SAVED!









*EDIT 6/3/2011:*

A big update on this project, Joule just secured a few sites for production.

http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/2011/joule-secures-first-multiple-sites-host-solar-fuel-production
Quote:


> Cambridge, Mass. - May 5, 2011 - Marking another milestone in its advance towards commercialization, Joule Unlimited, Inc. today announced the signing of a *lease agreement providing access to 1,200 acres in Lea County, New Mexico, with the potential to scale the project up to 5,000 acres* for production of renewable diesel and ethanol directly from sunlight and waste CO2. The agreement with Lea County is the first to be completed as part of Joule's production facility siting program.


*Edit #2: 7/13/11*

They've crafted a board of strategy, including Ex-Monsanto members.

http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/2011/joule-introduces-strategic-advisory-board
Quote:


> Joule today announced the charter members of its strategic advisory board, encompassing wide-ranging expertise in oil & energy, biotech corporate strategy and international business leadership.
> 
> Joule's strategic advisory board is *chaired by Cheryl Morley, who spent 26 years in a number of leadership roles with Monsanto Company*, a global leader in the agricultural industry. As Senior Vice President of Corporate Strategy she oversaw mergers, acquisitions and Monsanto's venture fund.
> 
> *Armen Sarkissian is a former Prime Minister of Armenia and the founding President of Eurasia House International,* which fosters critical dialogue and cooperation among political and business leaders. A well-known civic leader, he holds honorary and executive positions in numerous international organizations, including the role of Chairman of the Global Council on Energy Security for the World Economic Forum.
> 
> *Peter Tertzakian is Chief Energy Economist and Managing Director at ARC Financial Corp*., where he is a member of the Executive, Investment and Strategy committees. His background in geophysics, economics and finance has established him as an internationally recognized expert in energy matters, as well as the best-selling author of A Thousand Barrels A Second and The End of Energy Obesity.


*Update 1/23/2012*

Source
Quote:


> *Joule today announced the appointment of two key executives to manage the company's roll-out of renewable fuel production facilities worldwide. .*Peter Erich has joined as Executive Vice President, General Manager Commercial Operations, and will lead the team responsible for site development and technology deployment. Paul Snaith has been appointed to build and manage the related partnerships as Head of Business Development & Strategy. Both are veterans of the energy industry with long, successful track records in global management, product development and sales at several relevant companies, including Shell. This growing, specialized team will help to enable commercialization of Joule's fuel products to begin as soon as 2013.


*Update 4/23/13*

I'm speechless.
I literally have no words.

http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/2013/joule-extends-solar-co2-conversion-platform-produce-renewable-gasoline-and-jet-fuel
Quote:


> *Joule today announced another industry first in renewable fuel production: the direct conversion of waste CO2 into the essential components of gasoline and jet fuel.* The breakthrough gives Joule the opportunity to expand its Sunflow™ product line and help address global demand for true hydrocarbon fuel replacements. In addition, the process uses waste CO2 as a feedstock, allowing industrial emitters to produce valuable fuels rather than discard emissions or employ costly measures for capture and sequestration.


----------



## Raul-7

Time to bring back V10 F1 cars.


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Raul-7*


Time to bring back V10 F1 cars.


I can finally host my famous Tupperware parties without guilt


----------



## AblueXKRS

Omg I heard about this listening to RadioLab LAST NIGHT. I thought it was something like 20 years away and/or the oil companies would burn the lab to the ground to hide the research.

IF it's real, then


----------



## lordikon

Wow, if this is as good as it sounds (it rarely is), then the middle east can kiss our ***. It'd be great to have no dependence on foreign oil whatsoever. However, global warming activists won't be happy about this.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *AdmiralThrawn*


Omg I heard about this listening to RadioLab LAST NIGHT. I thought it was something like 20 years away and/*or the oil companies would burn the lab to the ground to hide the research.*

IF it's real, then













































Good point, this will never see the light of day.


----------



## _02

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


Good point, this will never see the light of day.


I don't see how an oil company could keep this quiet. It seems like there would be an incredible amount of money to be made in reducing the cost of oil to the populous, and someone would be willing to run with it.

I'd burn my face off before I'd let an oil company stifle progress.


----------



## FairDoos

So will cars perform the same or will they perform better? e.g. performance and economy?


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_02*


I'd burn my face off before I'd let an oil company stifle progress.


Not to mention, these guys have been under wraps for a loooong time.

Trust me, they have safeguards in place to combat such obstacles.


----------



## ArmenianLegend

YES, Iâ€™ll be able to drive my 300zxTT a lot more often!!!


----------



## funky882

How far away is this? i'm talking about when the gas prices start to fall everywhere.


----------



## Skripka

Just because you patented it doesn't necessarily mean it works or you can do anything with it.


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


Just because you patented it doesn't necessarily mean it works or you can do anything with it.


Paragraph three:

Quote:



Joule says it now has â€œa libraryâ€ of fossil-fuel organisms at work in its Massachusetts labs, each engineered to produce a different fuel. It has â€œproven the process,â€ has produced ethanol (for example) at a rate equivalent to 10,000 U.S. gallons an acre a year. It anticipates that this yield could hit 25,000 gallons an acre a year when scaled for commercial production, equivalent to roughly 800 barrels of crude an acre a year.


Jesus christ. This may be the biggest breakthrough of the decade.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_02*


I don't see how an oil company could keep this quiet. It seems likethere would be an incredible amount of money to be made in reducing the cost of oil to the populous, and someone would be willing to run with it.

I'd burn my face off before I'd let an oil company stifle progress.


Don't underestimate hundreds of corrupt politicians.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*


Jesus christ. This may be the biggest breakthrough of the decade.


Lets not bring religion into this.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*


Jesus christ. This may be the biggest breakthrough of the decade.


And set non-fossil fuel efforts back decades.


----------



## Raul-7

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_02*


I don't see how an oil company could keep this quiet. It seems likethere would be an incredible amount of money to be made in reducing the cost of oil to the populous, and someone would be willing to run with it.

I'd burn my face off before I'd let an oil company stifle progress.


Why? We are forced to pay their prices regardless. Making oil cheaper only hurts their profits.

This discovery ultimately benefits them.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


*However, global warming activists won't be happy about this.*


The bacteria feeds exclusively on CO2. Global warming activists can't argue that this is a bad idea.


----------



## Cata1yst

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


And set non-fossil fuel efforts back decades.


While youre at it, why dont you complain that we dont have faster than light travel....

Progress is progress, this is nothing to sneeze at. We can pull out the middle east and spend less military resources in the area. Less money going out for oil means more money inside the states, which means our debt rate should decrease.


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:



Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*


Jesus christ. This may be the biggest breakthrough of the decade.


May?


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard*


The bacteria feeds on CO2. Global warming activists can't argue that this is a bad idea.


CO2 ain't the only greenhouse gas grasshopper. And besides, the process may use CO2, but I'll bet money the gases burned out the tailpipes in cars outweigh the gases used to make the fuel.


----------



## SHNS0

Bacteria, huh?
"Honey, could you give me the rest of the turkey you cooked last week? My car's almost dry!"


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*


May?










Decade's just begun, big guy.









Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


CO2 ain't the only greenhouse gas grasshopper. And besides, the process may use CO2, but I'll bet money the gases burned out the tailpipes in cars outweigh the gases used to make the fuel.


Paragraph 5:

Quote:



Joule says its "solar converter" technology makes the manufacture of liquid fossil fuels 50 times as efficient as conventional biofuel production - and eliminates as much as 90 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions.


How long are we going to play this game, buddy?


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cata1yst*


While youre at it, why dont you complain that we dont have faster than light travel....

Progress is progress, this is nothing to sneeze at. We can pull out the middle east and spend less military resources in the area. Less money going out for oil means more money inside the states, which means our debt rate should decrease.


"Progress", is that what you call this? Really?

We've had fuel-cell cars that burn NO gas and only put out H20 for 50 years now. Heck. Chrysler invented the prototype. Dirt cheap gas is one of several things that keep such things from being common.

Chevrolet just sank billions into an electric car program, that may well go belly-up after this.


----------



## Poseiden

Quote:



Originally Posted by *FairDoos*


So will cars perform the same or will they perform better? e.g. performance and economy?


They will perform the same since the oil won't make that much of a difference in performance in your car. And higher grade fuels only help so much. Cars still perform to what the engine is built to go at.

But this sounds like a great breakthrough and hopefully gas will go below $3/gallon here in idaho.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


CO2 ain't the only greenhouse gas grasshopper. And besides, the process may use CO2, but I'll bet money the gases burned out the tailpipes in cars outweigh the gases used to make the fuel.


I don't think it's possible to produce more gases than you use to create the oil... But I'm not that far in my education


----------



## assaulth3ro911

Quote:



a genetically adapted E. coli bacterium â€" that feeds solely on carbon dioxide and excretes liquid hydrocarbons: diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline.


This renews things that is already there (the carbon dioxide that is already there) and re-using it, therefore halting global warming, while we get more solar power out there.


----------



## ez12a

If this is true then yay. Been looking into some Acura TL 6MTs. I was not looking forward to the prospect of running out of combustible fuel.


----------



## FuNkDrSpOt

If this works, it could help keep CO2 in check while providing us fuel AND we won't have to deal with middle eastern countries anymore.

Although personally I'd rather that we still look for alternatives and IMPROVEMENTS.


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


"Progress", is that what you call this? Really?

We've had fuel-cell cars that burn NO gas and only put out H20 for 50 years now. Heck. Chrysler invented the prototype. Dirt cheap gas is one of several things that keep such things from being common.

Chevrolet just sank billions into an electric car program, that may well go belly-up after this.


How about instead of sinking billions into something that doesn't even work well, we start making billions with technology that is pragmatic not only economically but from an environmental perspective too?


----------



## FuNkDrSpOt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard*


I don't think it's possible to produce more gases than you use to create the oil... But I'm not that far in my education










The energy required to take CO2 to oil will be immense AND it has to feed on SOMETHING while giving off waste.

Its similar to when we eat. We might consume 500 calories but the body can only convert around 30% of it to energy.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


"Progress", is that what you call this? Really?

We've had fuel-cell cars that burn NO gas and only put out H20 for 50 years now. Heck. Chrysler invented the prototype. Dirt cheap gas is one of several things that keep such things from being common.

Chevrolet just sank billions into an electric car program, that may well go belly-up after this.


Eh, it's kinda like sideways-progress but I do agree with you. And forget fuel-cells, we've had the ability to have our cars run on hydrogen fuel a LONG time ago. The conversion process is simple AND still uses the combustion engine.

http://www.newsreview.com/chico/content?oid=25753


----------



## Chunkylad

Great so when do fuel prices start to drop?


----------



## Snowblind

Judging from the article, the company's pilot project succeeded, which goes a way towards proving this technology's commercial viability. If this technology can actually work as claimed on a megabarrel scale, sign me up. I'll wait until the company goes public, then load up on shares; again, depending on how viable the tech is on a significantly upscaled production level.

Regardless, it's going to be _years_ before we see any affect on the consumer market, no matter how viable the technology is. Oil remains the pre-eminent energy investment, for now.


----------



## BlackVenom

Please happen... I can't afford these gas prices.. lol.


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Chunkylad*


Great so when do fuel prices start to drop?


A few years.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:



Originally Posted by *FuNkDrSpOt*


The energy required to take CO2 to oil will be immense AND it has to feed on SOMETHING while giving off waste.

Its similar to when we eat. We might consume 500 calories but the body can only convert around 30% of it to energy.


Seems logical. I was imagining that it just magically became oil when consumed, but it makes sense that they have to convert it. Thx for explaining.


----------



## Setzer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*


I can finally host my famous *Tupperware* parties without guilt










The power of Christ compels you!
J/k









It's good to see a solution has finally been found


----------



## nathris

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*


I can finally host my famous Tupperware parties without guilt










And I can finally afford to drive across the continent to be there









Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


"Progress", is that what you call this? Really?

We've had fuel-cell cars that burn NO gas and only put out H20 for 50 years now. Heck. Chrysler invented the prototype. Dirt cheap gas is one of several things that keep such things from being common.

Chevrolet just sank billions into an electric car program, that may well go belly-up after this.


Where do you think the US gets most of it's electricity? By burning fossil fuels. Electric isn't as green as you think.

I wonder how efficient this really is... because we might live to see an age where if you run out of gas you can just exhale into your tank and let the bacteria do the rest.

Also, depending on how pure the hydrocarbons are, this could potentially be very green. Burning fossil fuels only creates CO2 and water, the harmful gasses like CO come from impurities. If this stuff is pure we could burn it for fuel, and then take the leftover CO2 and convert it back into fuel and burn it again, which means the only by product is water.


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *FuNkDrSpOt*


The energy required to take CO2 to oil will be immense AND it has to feed on SOMETHING while giving off waste.

Its similar to when we eat. We might consume 500 calories but the body can only convert around 30% of it to energy.

Eh, it's kinda like sideways-progress but I do agree with you. And forget fuel-cells, we've had the ability to have our cars run on hydrogen fuel a LONG time ago. The conversion process is simple AND still uses the combustion engine.

http://www.newsreview.com/chico/content?oid=25753


Except...

Quote:



Currently most of the hydrogen we produce comes from fossil fuels. 48% comes from natural gas, 30% from oil, 18% from coal, and just 4% from electrolysis. When extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels, it negates much of the potential environmental benefit of using hydrogen as a fuel.


Source

Solve that problem and hydrogen fuel becomes viable...

What part of the fact that Joule's process has "zero dependence on raw materials, agricultural land, crops or fresh water" does not seem like the greenest thing to ever come out of alternative sources of energy?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *nathris*


...

I wonder how efficient this really is... because we might live to see an age where if you run out of gas you can just exhale into your tank and let the bacteria do the rest.

Also, depending on how pure the hydrocarbons are, this could potentially be very green. Burning fossil fuels only creates CO2 and water, the harmful gasses like CO come from impurities. If this stuff is pure we could burn it for fuel, and then take the leftover CO2 and convert it back into fuel and burn it again, which means the only by product is water.


It's supposed to be twice as efficient as corn ethanol production -- so around 800 barrels per acre per year. So even if it's very efficient, the process obviously isn't fast enough to allow you to reasonably breathe into your tank to refill on gas lol...

But yes, all signs point to this being incredibly green.


----------



## Maxxa

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


And set non-fossil fuel efforts back decades.


You obviously don't have oil heating and have to drive very much... The way I see it, we're using the fuel anyway why not at least make it more accessible and cost effective for everyone not just people who can afford the high premiums and taxes.
I also think this will create a demand for a waste product which is one of the best ways to combat it.


----------



## ilam3d

Looks like "Unlimited" Pollution to me.

Anyways nothing is unlimited in a finite planet.

And for those of you bashing alternative energies... How about considering Geothermal or Solar? They're out there, in uncounted quantities, for free.


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ilam3d*


Looks like "Unlimited" Pollution to me.

Anyways nothing is unlimited in a finite planet.

And for those of you bashing alternative energies... How about considering Geothermal or Solar? They're out there, in uncounted quantities, for free.


The only energy required for this fuel comes from water (it doesn't have to be fresh water), CO2 and sunlight. Seems like unlimited to me.

And you think solar is free? It's so expensive and inefficient compared to other energy sources that some countries (I'm looking at you, Czech Republic) force their citizens to buy solar power when accessible because otherwise the companies that produce the solar energy would go bankrupt because of how much more expensive their product is compared to other services.


----------



## Maxxa

Nevermind the oil, they can make WATER!

Quote:



it requires only carbon dioxide and sunshine to manufacture crude. And water: whether fresh, brackish or salt.


----------



## EvanPitts

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


However, global warming activists won't be happy about this.


This would certainly hurt Al Gore and the Global Warming Industry...


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *EvanPitts*


This would certainly hurt Al Gore and the Global Warming Industry...










Right, but not the true global warming activists. Anyone with half a brain can see why this is only going to help green efforts.


----------



## X-Nine

Can't wait to see all the green activists start shouting "OMG IT MAKES MROE FOSSIL FUELS THAT WILL KILL US ALL!!!!"

Sad to say, that the electricity that they think will make cars more efficient still takes fossil fuels to generate.

This actually takes the polluttion made by fossil fuels, and re-uses them. To hell with electric cars.


----------



## Shadowclock

This is absolutely amazing....too good to be true...this would go as the most important "invention" of the century for sure.


----------



## ilam3d

Quote: 
   Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*   The only energy required for this fuel comes from water (it doesn't have to be fresh water), CO2 and sunlight. Seems like unlimited to me.

And you think solar is free? It's so expensive and inefficient compared to other energy sources that some countries (I'm looking at you, Czech Republic) force their citizens to buy solar power when accessible because otherwise the companies that produce the solar energy would go bankrupt because of how much more expensive their product is compared to other services.  
Have you researched why solar energy is "expensive"? Solar energy is the most efficient energy source out there, in fact there's more energy in 1 hour of sunlight than the whole planet consumes in a year.

Quote: 
   Originally Posted by *XNine*   Sad to say, that the electricity that they think will make cars more efficient still takes fossil fuels to generate.

This actually takes the polluttion made by fossil fuels, and re-uses them. To hell with electric cars.  
Not necessarily, you don't need any fossil fuels to make electricity (in the current paradigm, we do, yes. but that's because we generate electricity using inefficient methods like oil, coal or Canadian tar sands.), there are many energy sources that can generate energy that require no fossil fuels. Like geothermal, wave, tidal or solar.

Also one thing you haven't considered about electric cars is that they don't need a combustion engine, therefore they can accelerate as fast as the energy input allows them. So they're actually pretty cool.

Check this out:

  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DfHyGD7_pM


----------



## Licht

It still doesn't solve every other problem with fossil fuels. But it'll drop the cost for sure. Which is nice at $45 to fill my tank.


----------



## X-Nine

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ilam3d*


Have you researched why solar energy is "expensive"? Solar energy is the most efficient energy source out there, in fact there's more energy in 1 hour of sunlight than the whole planet consumes in a year.


Yeah, that's nice and all, but we have no way to harness OR use that kind of energy. Solar Enegery is still extremely expensive until we can use that 1 hour of solar energy to power the entire world for a year, which, at this rate in solar energy progress, will never happen.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*


Anyone with half a brain can see why this is only going to help green efforts.


Looking at the last 50 years or so of oil-driven economy it is easy to see how wrong you are with this comment.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ilam3d*


Have you researched why solar energy is "expensive"? Solar energy is the most efficient energy source out there, in fact there's more energy in 1 hour of sunlight than the whole planet consumes in a year.


Dude. Even a high-end expensive solar panel is only about 15-20% efficient...At high-noon on the equator that means a 1 m^2 of solar panels pulls in around 100-200W of energy. To power my computer would take most of the roof of my house....and I don't live on the equator-and high noon only happens once per day. See the problem?


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


Looking at the last 50 years or so of oil-driven economy it is easy to see how wrong you are with this comment.


Looking at your comments in this thread it's easy to see how ignorant you are. Don't you understand that this would move us away from an oil-driven economy?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


Dude. Even a high-end expensive solar panel is only about 15-20% efficient...At high-noon on the equator that means a 1 m^2 of solar panels pulls in around 100-200W of energy. To power my computer would take most of the roof of my house....and I don't live on the equator-and high noon only happens once per day. See the problem?


You're right about that, though.


----------



## willis888

I wonder if the publicity this find is getting has to do with the volume of crude being traded in currencies other than the US dollar . . .

Now that the monopoly is broken, who knows what tech will be allowed to (re)emerge.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


I'll bet money the gases burned out the tailpipes in cars outweigh the gases used to make the fuel.



I'd take that bet.

2CO^2 + 2H^2O + these bacteria + sunlight ---> Ethene + 3O^2

Ethene + 3O^2 + combustion engine ---> 2CO^2 + 2H^2O

Like all reactions, you're just changing the arrangement of atoms. The same atoms are still there - you are not creating more atoms in the exhaust of a car than what you put into the gas tank and air intake.

It like cellular respiration and photosynthesis. Human waste is plant food, and plant waste is human food. Car waste is this bacteria's food, and this bacteria's waste is car fuel. Its a game of trading the same stuff back and forth, and changing the traded goods a little bit each time using solar energy.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*


Looking at your comments in this thread it's easy to see how ignorant you are. Don't you understand that this would move us away from an oil-driven economy?

You're right about that, though.


No it drives us into being more of an oil-driven economy.

50 years of history show us that whenever gas prices spike in the US is when serious effort is put in to alternative fuels/engines. A la Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf etc...when gas prices plummet to "reasonable", investors/inventors shelve their efforts. Chrysler and the fuel-cell engine for example.

The local airport in NowHere is a monument to the oil-driven economy. It is on the top-20 space-shuttle landing sites. It was constructed during the BOOM cycle of the aviation industry in the US Midwest. Then a few years later the gas crisis hit. And like LOTS of places in the midwest went from being a hub of activity to an industrial ghost site and has been so ever since.


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


No it drives us into being more of an oil-driven economy.

50 years of history show us that whenever gas prices spike in the US is when serious effort is put in to alternative fuels/engines. A la Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf etc...when gas prices plummet to "reasonable", investors/inventors shelve their efforts. Chrysler and the fuel-cell engine for example.

The local airport in NowHere is a monument to the oil-driven economy. It is on the top-20 space-shuttle landing sites. It was constructed during the BOOM cycle of the aviation industry in the US Midwest. Then a few years later the gas crisis hit. And like LOTS of places in the midwest went from being a hub of activity to an industrial ghost site and has been so ever since.


This energy doesn't rely on oil at all. At $30 a barrel, it's going to be much cheaper than oil, too. Cheaper, more energy efficient, much cleaner, requires no hazardous harvesting of materials...did I mention it's cheaper? There's literally no reason to not switch to this technology. I guarantee you it will, WILL, be ramped up in the next few years to large scale production.

Honestly, it kind of seems like your anecdotal evidence is biasing your view of this technology.


----------



## killnine

Quote:



Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*


This energy doesn't rely on oil at all.


Then explain, exactly, what we would be using to drive the cars?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*


At $30 a barrel, it's going to be much cheaper than oil, too.


What is $30 a barrel? Gas? A petroleum product? How is that not oil?

Sure, you are bypassing having to get crude from the ground, but at the end of the day the effect is the same...


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*


How long are we going to play this game, buddy?


That's CO2 created during the process of making the fuel, he was talking about greenhouse gasses emitted from vehicles.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard*


I don't think it's possible to produce more gases than you use to create the oil... But I'm not that far in my education










More than gas is used to create the fossil fuels in this process, things like sunlight and possibly more may also be required.


----------



## ilam3d

Something some people are ignoring here is that most patents to other energy sources, electricity conversion, and batteries are owned by oil companies to stop those energy sources from flourishing.

What would be the worst thing to the scarcity-driven oil industry? Obviously an alternative energy source that's not scarce at all.


----------



## xenophobe

So many gullible people willing to readily believe whatever they're told.

If this is truly the case... invest every penny you can afford into them. In 5-10 years you'll be a billionaire.

We've already hit peak oil production... if you know anything about this, you'll know it's not a laughing matter.

I'd really like to see this work, but sounds too good to be true. There has to be a catch.

The world uses 80-100 million barrels of oil a day. To think this patented process can come anywhere close to this in the short time it needs to?

Does anyone here realize how screwed the world will be in 5-15 years from now?


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *killnine*


What is $30 a barrel? Gas? A petroleum product? How is that not oil?


Because it ain't "crude" oil. With crude, you separate it into oil, natural-gas, diesel, gasoline etc..and lots of other stuff. ANYthing you own that is made of plastic for example is a product of crude oil. i.e. a petroleum byproduct.


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *killnine*


Then explain, exactly, what we would be using to drive the cars?

What is $30 a barrel? Gas? A petroleum product? How is that not oil?

Sure, you are bypassing having to get crude from the ground, but at the end of the day the effect is the same...


We don't drive our cars on oil. That's why green efforts in biofuels assert themselves as edging away from our reliance on oil. This does the same thing in that sense...we're getting fuel (diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline, as mentioned in the article) but not from oil.

Do you understand the significance of this? Oil is a limited resource that is quickly running out. If we can make fuel through methods other than conventional crude oil, then our reliance on oil is completely mitigated.


----------



## BenC

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willis888*


I wonder if the publicity this find is getting has to do with the volume of crude being traded in currencies other than the US dollar . . .

Now that the monopoly is broken, who knows what tech will be allowed to (re)emerge.

I'd take that bet.

2CO^2 + 2H^2O + these bacteria + sunlight ---> Ethene + 3O^2

Ethene + 3O^2 + combustion engine ---> 2CO^2 + 2H^2O

Like all reactions, you're just changing the arrangement of atoms. The same atoms are still there - you are not creating more atoms in the exhaust of a car than what you put into the gas tank and air intake.

It like cellular respiration and photosynthesis. Human waste is plant food, and plant waste is human food. Car waste is this bacteria's food, and this bacteria's waste is car fuel. Its a game of trading the same stuff back and forth, and changing the traded goods a little bit each time using solar energy.


That assumes the atmosphere is 100% O2.

Hopefully these microbes do not escape into the environment, regardless of how useful they are.


----------



## Shadowclock

Just did the calculations...

800 barrels of oil per acre per year.
US uses 7 billion barrels of oil per year.
640 acres in a square mile.
That gives us *7 billion / 800 / 640 = 13,671 square miles of needed land* to match what we currently use. (About the size of Maryland)....That actually isn't too terrible...about the size of Maryland but there is still a massive amount of unused space in the US.

There may be a way to "stack" the "farms" but that is a huge amount of space needed to produce what we currently use.


----------



## geoxile

Uh, how about we just keep moving towards solar energy...

Guys?

Guys...

NOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUU


----------



## willis888

Quote:



Originally Posted by *killnine*


Then explain, exactly, what we would be using to drive the cars?


Gasoline. Diesel for some.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *killnine*


What is $30 a barrel? Gas? A petroleum product? How is that not oil?


The energy released by $30 of bacterialy produced hydrocarbons is equal to the energy produced by one barrel of crude.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *killnine*


Sure, you are bypassing having to get crude from the ground, but at the end of the day the effect is the same...


The effect is not the same. With crude, you take carbon that is sequestered deep underground and release it into the atmosphere. With these bacteria, you take carbon that is in the atmosphere and sequester it into a liquid stored in your car, then release it back into the atmosphere, then use more bacteria to take it back out of the atmosphere . . . repeat.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


That's CO2 created during the process of making the fuel, he was talking about greenhouse gasses emitted from vehicles.


CO2 is not created during the process of making the fuel (electrical generation for the tanks filled with bacteria aside, but that should come from a nuclear plant anyway). In fact, the opposite is true - CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. The bacteria eat CO2 and poop gasoline.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


More than gas is used to create the fossil fuels in this process, things like sunlight and possibly more may also be required.


Sunlight, water, and whatever factory equipment is needed to maintain the right conditions in the tanks of bacteria.

So it takes sunlight, water, polluted air, a relatively small does of electricity, and some human attention. It turns water and pollution into fuel, using sunlight to power the reaction.

They have created a solar panel that stores energy in chemical form rather than in a battery. It is more environmentally friendly than putting solar panels on your roof that charge batteries because battery factories are nasty.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *geoxile*


Uh, how about we just keep moving towards solar energy...


This IS solar energy. In fact, it produces less waste than solar power systems that use batteries.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Shadowclock*


Just did the calculations...

*7 billion / 800 / 64 = 136,718.75 square miles of needed land* to match what we currently use...that is a huge amount of space needed to produce what we currently use.


And that is why we need more nuclear plants to meet the electrical needs of our homes and factories, thus reducing the quantity of hydrocarbons being burned to generate voltage. Automobiles and backup generators still need energy in a condensed liquid form, and this tech allows us to produce energy-dense liquids using a solar energy process that is far more efficient than growing corn and fermenting it.


----------



## ilhe4e12345

i like hearing about stuff like this, its good to know taht one day we can finally get away from the middle east and hopefully depend on ourselves for fuel. This hopefully will bring down gas prices, in a failed economy with the price of gas going up its starting to hurt....i hate to admit it lol.

on the up side as well, my 350z is going to love eharing that one day it might cheaper to drive her, currently at 3.50 a gallon average for 93/94 oct i dont drive it as much, but man if this goes full swing, looks like a lot more long winding road trips in the summer









im going to kiss my car on lunch break becuase of this...THANK YOU


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Shadowclock*


Just did the calculations...

800 barrels of oil per acre per year.
US uses 7 billion barrels of oil per year.
64 acres in a square mile.
That gives us *7 billion / 800 / 64 = 136,718.75 square miles of needed land* to match what we currently use.....this is slightly larger then the *size of New Mexico* our 5th biggest state....NOW I see the issue with this.

There may be a way to "stack" the "farms" but that is a huge amount of space needed to produce what we currently use.


OTOH, the US currently pays farmers LOTS to grow crops as there is no money in it for them otherwise...those calculations are for the entire US gas need. And most of the US landmass is unpopulated (desert or farmland).


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Shadowclock*


Just did the calculations...

800 barrels of oil per acre per year.
US uses 7 billion barrels of oil per year.
64 acres in a square mile.
That gives us *7 billion / 800 / 64 = 136,718.75 square miles of needed land* to match what we currently use.....this is slightly larger then the *size of New Mexico* our 5th biggest state....NOW I see the issue with this.

There may be a way to "stack" the "farms" but that is a huge amount of space needed to produce what we currently use.


Actually, there are 640 acres per mile so we're looking at 13,000 square miles or roughly the size of Maryland. In comparison, there are over a million square miles of farmland in the US.


----------



## Martkilu

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


Dude. Even a high-end expensive solar panel is only about 15-20% efficient...At high-noon on the equator that means a 1 m^2 of solar panels pulls in around 100-200W of energy. To power my computer would take most of the roof of my house....and I don't live on the equator-and high noon only happens once per day. See the problem?


39.2% efficient.

The most exciting part is that it can make water.
And you thought you had google to fear taking over the world.


----------



## slipstream808

I'd guess a decade before this impacts oil prices overall. There are a lot of thigns to consider here. And still you wonder at what cost this stuff will sell for? I mean if the prices of crude are $200 a barrel when this hits the market well we could see them do $175. Huge profits for them but still it'll cost us a LOT all the while being cheaper than an oil company. So we could theoretically never see 3 bucks a gallon or cheaper ever again!


----------



## Shadowclock

Quote:



Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*


Actually, there are 640 acres per mile so we're looking at 13,000 square miles or roughly the size of Maryland. In comparison, there are over a million square miles of farmland in the US.


DOH! That is huge...will correct! +rep


----------



## geoxile

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willis888*


This IS solar energy. In fact, it produces less waste than solar power systems that use batteries.


So how does this burn clean enough that it produces such little excess? I didn't see anything in the article mentioning the emissions, just the production of this material.


----------



## Shadowclock

Quote:



Originally Posted by *geoxile*


So how does this burn clean enough that it produces such little excess? I didn't see anything in the article mentioning the emissions, just the production of this material.


Only "emmissions" I can think of are a moderate amount of heat and dead ecoli.


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *geoxile*


So how does this burn clean enough that it produces such little excess? I didn't see anything in the article mentioning the emissions, just the production of this material.


The CO2 consumed to create the fuel will offset the CO2 exhausted from the cars. Since the only things used to create the fuel are water and CO2, ostensibly if all fuel were created through this method, the net addition of CO2 to the environment would be...close to zero?

Time for class, will be checking this thread compulsively later on.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Martkilu*


39.2% efficient.

The most exciting part is that it can make water.
And you thought you had google to fear taking over the world.


About damn time. Only catch is how expensive they'll be. High-efficiency panels are mucho bucks right now.


----------



## willis888

Quote:



Originally Posted by *geoxile*


So how does this burn clean enough that it produces such little excess? I didn't see anything in the article mentioning the emissions, just the production of this material.



The outputs are the same as the inputs.

When you burn the gas it creates, the 'waste' released by your car gets used to make your next tank of gas. Its like recycling.

The emissions are the same as oil from Iraq, but those emissions are cleaned up when the next generation of bacteria go to work making more gas.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*


The CO2 consumed to create the fuel will offset the CO2 exhausted from the cars. Since the only things used to create the fuel are water and CO2, ostensibly if all fuel were created through this method, the net addition of CO2 to the environment would be...close to zero?

Time for class, will be checking this thread compulsively later on.



That's how I understand it, yes. The net result would be exactly zero, but the facility where the stuff gets made will be hooked into the grid, so their lights, temperature control, and other stuff will be partially dependent on coal burning power plants. Same as the factories where solar PV panels are made, or wind turbines, or wave generators, or anything else that is made from precisely constructed pieces.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willis888*


The outputs are the same as the inputs.

When you burn the gas it creates, the 'waste' released by your car gets used to make your next tank of gas. Its like recycling.


You burn gas, CO2 is only one of the products that come out of the tailpipe. Due to incomplete combustion you get CO and lots of other unhealthy junk. Ideally all you'd get out the tailpipe would be water and CO2, but that is ideally.


----------



## Mygaffer

This is good on one level, in that if this ends up actually being a viable product we might stop getting raped at the pump.

On another level gas guzzlers will be back in and we'll only exacerbate any kind of climate change that is happening.


----------



## Kirmie

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Shadowclock*


DOH! That is huge...will correct! +rep


To add to your corrections we were using over 7.5B barrels in 2007. So its more like 14,650 square miles. Maryland is only 12,407 square miles including water.

This would still be a huge boon to the world, just using more space then you listed for a 100% conversion. We could easily take a huge drop in oil drilling with this stuff if it works as described.


----------



## willis888

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


You burn gas, CO2 is only one of the products that come out of the tailpipe. Due to incomplete combustion you get CO and lots of other unhealthy junk. Ideally all you'd get out the tailpipe would be water and CO2, but that is ideally.



That's true. It is an oversimplification to only talk about CO2.

Whatever atoms go into making a gasoline molecule needed to enter the bacteria somehow. Ideally that "other unhealthy junk" could be fed straight back into the bacteria tanks. In practice, the bacteria may or may not be able to use every byproduct, and might need to get certain atoms from a source other than car exhaust.


----------



## Lampen

Wow amazing!


----------



## xenophobe

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Shadowclock*


Just did the calculations...

800 barrels of oil per acre per year.
US uses 7 billion barrels of oil per year.
640 acres in a square mile.
That gives us *7 billion / 800 / 640 = 13,671 square miles of needed land* to match what we currently use. (About the size of Maryland)....That actually isn't too terrible...about the size of Maryland but there is still a massive amount of unused space in the US.

There may be a way to "stack" the "farms" but that is a huge amount of space needed to produce what we currently use.



Thanks for updating that. And amazing numbers indeed.

Also figure, 100% of the plants will not produce 100% of their capability 100% of the time. So... without knowing what kind of up/down time you need to prepare, start and achieve maximum yield you'd probably need to add anywhere from 5-15% to the total (perhaps even more) to keep yield above maximum consumption.

I'm skeptical that this could be accomplished in the amount of time we have left... another decade or two perhaps?

The age of the great energy surplus is drawing to an end...


----------



## dkim1359

It seems like they're claiming proof of concept in a lab setting, but often the most difficult part is scaling up a lab experiment to a level where it's commercially viable.

It sounds good on paper, but it could be a long while before we reap any benefits from this.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willis888*


That's true. It is an oversimplification to only talk about CO2.

Whatever atoms go into making a gasoline molecule needed to enter the bacteria somehow. Ideally that "other unhealthy junk" could be fed straight back into the bacteria tanks. In practice, the bacteria may or may not be able to use every byproduct, and might need to get certain atoms from a source other than car exhaust.


The problem arises in that gasoline combustion only needs O2 and gasoline to put out heat+water+CO2. Dry air is mostly Nitrogen (~78%) laced with some Oxygen (21%), and assorted other stuff-then there's all the additional impurities from humidity etc. on top of whatever metals get burned off of the engine train in combustion...the result being that you get lots of unhealthy crap generated on your way to CO2+H20...say benzene (cancer causing) and NO compounds as well as sulfur oxides (your acid rain).


----------



## Kirmie

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


The problem arises in that gasoline combustion only needs O2 and gasoline to put out heat+water+CO2. Dry air is mostly Nitrogen (~78%) laced with some Oxygen (21%), and assorted other stuff-then there's all the additional impurities from humidity etc. on top of whatever metals get burned off of the engine train in combustion...the result being that you get lots of unhealthy crap generated on your way to CO2+H20...say benzene (cancer causing) and NO compounds as well as sulfur oxides (your acid rain).


Catalytic Converter

Read it for the info on how we deal with a lot of those issues and what some of those issues are.


----------



## GingerJohn

The main problem that we have been having with fossil fuels to date is that we are dragging vast amounts of CO2 up from under the ground and releasing it into the atmosphere. If we can stop doing this and just recycle the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere then it will solve some problems. Hell, we can even pipe some of the low grade stuff back down the wells to reduce the CO2 level. This is a good thing.

A combination of this tech and a reduction in our usage (changes in society and culture, increase in engine efficiencies etc) would be ideal in the short - medium term. You are still left with the problem of local pollution though; cities will still smell of exhaust fumes no matter where the oil comes from. That is something to work on in the long term, perhaps an oil - H2 conversion and fuel cell cars? Who knows.

As a side note, I love listening to all you Americans complaining about how much you pay for gas. I saw unleaded at Â£1.31 / L yesterday, or about US$7.92 / Gallon... Bet you wouldn't drive so many SUV's with those prices!


----------



## BlackVenom

I'll finally have the money to burn the tire stack in my backyard... all i needed was gas.


----------



## FuNkDrSpOt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


Dude. Even a high-end expensive solar panel is only about 15-20% efficient...At high-noon on the equator that means a 1 m^2 of solar panels pulls in around 100-200W of energy. To power my computer would take most of the roof of my house....and I don't live on the equator-and high noon only happens once per day. See the problem?


Solar has already been proven ( via a source/thread on OCN ) to be cheaper than nuclear. Solar has a high UP FRONT cost that you more than earn back throughout the years.

People keep repeating that old stuff about solar being expensive. Solar is about $30k for a 2000kw/h system and that's not just the panels, that's the installation and electrical wiring upgrades needed.

2001kw/hrs cost me $300 exactly and I'm covered by SMUD, which is one of the CHEAPEST utility companies in the NATION. They're so cheap that the city of Davis almost incorporated itself into Sacramento county JUST so it could use SMUD instead of PG&E.

My Tier 1 usage is up to 700kw/hr and costs $.09, Tier 2 is 701 kw/h - 1000 kw/h and costs $.157, Tier 3 is 1001 kw/h and up and costs $.175. My average bill is around $200 and I have a relatively modest 1200sq ft, 3 bd 2 bth home with no pool.

So 12 months x $200 = $2,400 per year. $30k/$2.4k = 12.5 yrs paid off

12.5 yrs of payments to have a system that will last you +30 yrs AND will be much cheaper to load new panels on......

So can we stop saying solar is expensive now?


----------



## FuNkDrSpOt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Kirmie*


Catalytic Converter

Read it for the info on how we deal with a lot of those issues and what some of those issues are.


A cat still isn't perfect though. Take a smog test and you'll see that those gases still pass the cat.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *FuNkDrSpOt*


2001kw/hrs cost me $300 exactly and I'm covered by SMUD, which is one of the CHEAPEST utility companies in the NATION.


What?

My last electric bill was 2,583kWhr last month (11/22/10-12/22/10). And cost me $136.52+taxes/fees=154.01. This is for electric heat-pump heating, in addition to normal household.

What was that about cheapest in the nation?

BTW-my post you quoted said NOTHING about cost. It was about inefficiency and land usage.


----------



## KusH

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


Wow, if this is as good as it sounds (it rarely is), then the middle east can kiss our ***. It'd be great to have no dependence on foreign oil whatsoever. However, global warming activists won't be happy about this.

Good point, this will never see the light of day.


We can already be independent when it comes to oil. Alaska is full of it.

And you're right, big oil companies will not let this get into consumers hands.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_02*


I don't see how an oil company could keep this quiet. It seems likethere would be an incredible amount of money to be made in reducing the cost of oil to the populous, and someone would be willing to run with it.

*I'd burn my face off before I'd let an oil company stifle progress.*


Do you have a face right now? They have been stifling progress for generations.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *FairDoos*


So will cars perform the same or will they perform better? e.g. performance and economy?


Curious in this as well.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *funky882*


How far away is this? i'm talking about when the gas prices start to fall everywhere.


You won't see gas prices go down ANY time soon. And if it does go down 10-50c a gallon a month later it will go up $0.50-$1 negating the small drop in price.

Gas prices will be over 4-5$ a gallon this summer, get ready.

Also, did anyone notice how this is a modified E. Coli? Last time I checked that's not something you want to come in contact with. Also, it eats carbon? Again last time I checked plants *NEED* carbon dioxide to live as it's part of photosynthesis. And without plants, there is no oxygen to survive for us.

Also, I'm not against this technology, but I do think it will never see the light of day other then a few news articles.


----------



## BlackVenom

Anyone else bout to bust a nut? I want to know when this will be here and when gas will be sub 2$/g. I remember when they had coverage of truckers complaining when diesel was approaching $2 and 87 was 1.70ish.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


What?

My last electric bill was 2,583kWhr last month (11/22/10-12/22/10). And cost me $136.52+taxes/fees=154.01. This is for electric heat-pump heating, in addition to normal household.

What was that about cheapest in the nation?


YOU LIVE IN NOWHERE! NOT THE US!!!


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BlackVenom*


YOU LIVE IN NOWHERE! NOT THE US!!!


NoWhere is in the US FYI. ~5 hours away from any MicroCenter or ~8 hours away from any FiOS neighborhood by Interstate, since you brought it up. We have cheap kWhr fortunately thx local public utility.


----------



## FuNkDrSpOt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


What?

My last electric bill was 2,583kWhr last month (11/22/10-12/22/10). And cost me $136.52+taxes/fees=154.01. This is for electric heat-pump heating, in addition to normal household.

What was that about cheapest in the nation?

BTW-my post you quoted said NOTHING about cost. It was about inefficiency and land usage.


Mine is ALL electric though. Yours seems to be a mix and it's cheaper for your water heater, range and heating to be gas because that means you don't usually fall into Tier 3 electrical use. Those are the big electrical suckers.


----------



## KusH

My electric bill is ~320$ a month.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *FuNkDrSpOt*


Mine is ALL electric though. Yours seems to be a mix and it's cheaper for your your water heater, range and heating to be gas because that means you don't usually fall into Tier 3 electrical use.


All my appliances are electric. No gas bill of any form at Casa Skripka. Only utility bills are water, electric, and garbage.

Fact of the matter is that per kWhr my utility is half the cost of the one you cited. I did the math once laster year and in the winter it came out to $0.07USD per kWhr and hits $0.11USD per kWhr in the summer IIRC-after taxes/fees.


----------



## FuNkDrSpOt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *KusH*


My electric bill is ~320$ a month.










Lately mine has been $150, but that's only because I freeze my family and keep the heat off. With the heat ON, it's around $250.


----------



## BKsMassive

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Raul-7*


Time to bring back V10 F1 cars.


YES!

1000BHP+ Formula One Cars


----------



## FuNkDrSpOt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


All my appliances are electric. No gas bill of any form at Casa Skripka. Only utility bills are water, electric, and garbage.


Well I'd have to assume they get their electricity from some renewable source fairly cheaply and there aren't many residents being covered by them OR you guys are getting subsidized somehow OR your state laws are just lax as hell and they're pumping tons of pollutants into the air/water without you knowing it.

And I said ONE of the cheapest, not THE cheapest. I'd be seriously surprised if you could find a major metro area with prices like yours.


----------



## nckid4u

hmmmm... if these bacteria take in much more CO2 than the fuel they produce gives off, won't the CO2 levels in the atmosphere start to go down. If the global warming theorists are correct, we should expect that global cooling I was taught in school during the 80s? Ice age, end of days, etc...

also. it would suck to get this version of E coli posioning. Crapping your pants while your exhaled breath is harvested by the bacteria....


----------



## BKsMassive

you don't understand how good this is!!

it means CONCORDE will be back








V10 F1 cars.

Also mean's i can go cruising more in my car with my mates.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *FuNkDrSpOt*


Well I'd have to assume they get their electricity from some renewable source fairly cheaply and there aren't many residents being covered by them OR you guys are getting subsidized somehow OR your state laws are just lax as hell and they're pumping tons of pollutants into the air/water without you knowing it.

And I said ONE of the cheapest, not THE cheapest. I'd be seriously surprised if you could find a major metro area with prices like yours.


Quick look, ~400MW of capacity is from nat-gas, ~350MW is coal, 70MW is hydro, and 10MW is wind.

It is nice that we have cheap electricity, as public transit is utterly non-existent in NoWhere...and if you don't have a car, you can't have a job due to sprawl.


----------



## BlackVenom

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


NoWhere is in the US FYI. ~5 hours away from any MicroCenter or ~8 hours away from any FiOS neighborhood by Interstate, since you brought it up. We have cheap kWhr fortunately thx local public utility.


Lol, I know what you mean. I didn't even know what a microcenter was until I joined this site.... I live in nowhere too. I have a better name for the location but i think it's against the rules to say it.


----------



## laboitenoire

The problem is that it only addresses carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas... Does nothing for sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, all of which are significant contributors to smog and air pollution. And as said, a catalytic converter can only do so much, and the best catalysts are only getting rarer and more expensive.

If this is only used for fuels for transportation methods, that would be fine! For power generation, we really need to move away from using hydrocarbons--it'll be much better for the environment if we invest in solar and wind.


----------



## Onions

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon;12054130*
> However, global warming activists won't be happy about this.


Quote:


> adapted E. coli bacterium - that feeds solely on carbon dioxide and excretes liquid hydrocarbons: diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline.


win


----------



## Corrupted

So...why isn't this the main story on every website in the world? Seems it may be premature to be getting excited.


----------



## savagebunny

inb4 Oil comapany's shell out money too keep this technology silent.

But this is epic win.


----------



## angrysasquatch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon;12054130*
> However, global warming activists won't be happy about this.


Nope, they'd be fine with it. It takes CO2 from the atmosphere and solar energy, then makes gasoline/whatever out of it. When you burn it, the carbon goes back into the atmosphere. It's the exact same as electrical solar energy in the end, just the storage for the energy is in the form of fossil fuels, which we have infrastructure for, instead of batteries or hydrogen fuel cells, which we don't have infrastructure for.


----------



## Babel

This is actually a setback rather than a breakthrough. I was hoping to rid us of our still dependence of fossil fuels..









We've been using it for about 150 years now. It's time to for some new technology.


----------



## _02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Babel;12056781*
> This is actually a setback rather than a breakthrough. I was hoping to rid us of our still dependence of fossil fuels..


How is it a setback?

I mean, even if they discovered alternative energy tonight, they would probably still burn coal for another 10 years.


----------



## urgrandpasdog

Hopefully this will drop gas prices, bring the big V8s back into common use.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ilam3d;12054596*
> Have you researched why solar energy is "expensive"? Solar energy is the most efficient energy source out there, in fact there's more energy in 1 hour of sunlight than the whole planet consumes in a year.


If only we could cover the entire earth in 100% efficient solar panels


----------



## JacobKay97

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KusH;12055810*
> We can already be independent when it comes to oil. Alaska is full of it.
> 
> And you're right, big oil companies will not let this get into consumers hands.
> 
> Do you have a face right now? They have been stifling progress for generations.
> 
> Curious in this as well.
> 
> You won't see gas prices go down ANY time soon. And if it does go down 10-50c a gallon a month later it will go up $0.50-$1 negating the small drop in price.
> 
> Gas prices will be over 4-5$ a gallon this summer, get ready.
> 
> Also, did anyone notice how this is a modified E. Coli? Last time I checked that's not something you want to come in contact with. Also, it eats carbon? Again last time I checked plants *NEED* carbon dioxide to live as it's part of photosynthesis. And without plants, there is no oxygen to survive for us.
> 
> Also, I'm not against this technology, but I do think it will never see the light of day other then a few news articles.


@ underlined bit only a few strains of E.Coli are dangerous to humans.


----------



## Babel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_02;12056816*
> How is it a setback?
> 
> I mean, even if they discovered alternative energy tonight, they would probably still burn coal for another 10 years.


Another ten years is better than another 100 wouldn't you think?

Only reason we still use fossil fuels as much as we do is because of greed. Well mostly that reason and it's the easy route.


----------



## bucdan

Ya!

Carbon, don't we have that problem already, so isn't this good?

Then again, us humans release some C also if I remember correctly, so I don't see the issue much


----------



## _02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Babel;12056842*
> Another ten years is better than another 100 wouldn't you think?


Yes, my point is that just because something doesn't achieve the ultimate success, does not mean it is a setback.

If it reduces dependency on foreign oil, scrubs CO2 and doesn't require expensive resources, it is a gigantic improvement.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_02;12056816*
> How is it a setback?
> 
> I mean, even if they discovered alternative energy tonight, they would probably still burn coal for another 10 years.


Cheap gas cuts the incentive and the market for vehicles like the Leaf or Volt...granted Chevy were I-dots for pricing the Volt like they did. Without expensive gas as an incentive there will likely be les development in non-internal combustion engine vehicles....and we'll see a return of the Hummer days of the auto industry, and Leaf and Volt be relegated to the history books. IMHO.


----------



## _02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;12056864*
> Without expensive gas as an incentive there will likely be les development in non-internal combustion engine vehicles....and we'll see a return of the Hummer days of the auto industry, and Leaf and Volt be relegated to the history books. IMHO.


I can see that.

Something tells me that there has been more of a change than automobile habits that would drive the need for alternative energy. If the only motivation to develop the technology is civil unrest, then someone needs to be fired.


----------



## MrDeodorant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;12054250*
> And set non-fossil fuel efforts back decades.


It's only fossil fuel if you're taking carbon that has been stored in the ground and releasing it into the atmosphere. It is no longer fossil fuel if you've taken CO2 out of the atmosphere to produce it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XNine;12054574*
> Can't wait to see all the green activists start shouting "OMG IT MAKES MROE FOSSIL FUELS THAT WILL KILL US ALL!!!!"


Then you don't understand the green perspective. Not only would this not be fossil fuel, it is carbon neutral.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nckid4u;12055963*
> hmmmm... if these bacteria take in much more CO2 than the fuel they produce gives off, won't the CO2 levels in the atmosphere start to go down. If the global warming theorists are correct, we should expect that global cooling I was taught in school during the 80s? Ice age, end of days, etc...


Let's think this through for a second. If the bacteria were taking in CO2 and not doing anything with it, then where is it going? Clearly some of that carbon would go to produce new bacteria, but eventually the tanks (or ponds or whatever) will be full. What, then do you suppose would happen if the bacteria were still taking in an excess of CO2? *Again: it has to go somewhere.*

What happens in a typical photosynthesis cycle is that CO2 is taken in during the day, converted into sugar, and then is burned for energy. This means that at night, a plant is actually releasing CO2. I can only assume that the so-called 'extra' CO2 you refer to (which, by the way, I didn't see in the article) is actually for the use of the bacteria.

On an unrelated note, you are actually correct when you wonder about global cooling; if someone operated one of these facilities and stored the hydrocarbons away (and did it on a really large scale), the sequestered carbon would result in lowering the global levels, which could go some way to addressing the slight rise in temperatures that has [allegedly, if you wish] been observed over the last century or so. However, given that CO2 is not a particularly powerful greenhouse gas, and that the process would do nothing to reduce the levels of the more dangerous ones, you'd just be mucking about even further with a world that is already sort of fragile.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *laboitenoire;12056194*
> The problem is that it only addresses carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas... Does nothing for sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, all of which are significant contributors to smog and air pollution. And as said, a catalytic converter can only do so much, and the best catalysts are only getting rarer and more expensive.


The thing about sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides is that sulphur and nitrogen have to actually be present to be oxidated. Some nitrogen is inevitable, given that it's the majority of our atmosphere, but there's no reason to suppose sulphur will find its way into synthetic hydrocarbons.


----------



## Hephasteus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrDeodorant;12057009*
> 
> Let's think this through for a second. If the bacteria were taking in CO2 and not doing anything with it, then where is it going? Clearly some of that carbon would go to produce new bacteria, but eventually the tanks (or ponds or whatever) will be full. What, then do you suppose would happen if the bacteria were still taking in an excess of CO2? *Again: it has to go somewhere.*
> 
> What happens in a typical photosynthesis cycle is that CO2 is taken in during the day, converted into sugar, and then is burned for energy. This means that at night, a plant is actually releasing CO2. I can only assume that the so-called 'extra' CO2 you refer to (which, by the way, I didn't see in the article) is actually for the use of the bacteria.
> 
> On an unrelated note, you are actually correct when you wonder about global cooling; if someone operated one of these facilities and stored the hydrocarbons away (and did it on a really large scale), the sequestered carbon would result in lowering the global levels, which could go some way to addressing the slight rise in temperatures that has [allegedly, if you wish] been observed over the last century or so. However, given that CO2 is not a particularly powerful greenhouse gas, and that the process would do nothing to reduce the levels of the more dangerous ones, you'd just be mucking about even further with a world that is already sort of fragile.
> 
> The thing about sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides is that sulphur and nitrogen have to actually be present to be oxidated. Some nitrogen is inevitable, given that it's the majority of our atmosphere, but there's no reason to suppose sulphur will find its way into synthetic hydrocarbons.


Well sulpher is present in oil. There's a bunch of oil that has huge amounts of sulpher that is used but has to be scrubbed first before using. The lack of large amounts of sulphur in crude oil give it the designation of "sweet". Light sweet crude. Indicates there are some light volatile molecules. Sweet indicates it's not chocked full of sulpher.

And this story is a joke. Unlimited and on demand are perpetual motion machine jargon.


----------



## Kirby1

I feel like the human race just got a little more awesome. One step closer to space zombies.


----------



## SgtSpike

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon;12054130*
> Wow, if this is as good as it sounds (it rarely is), then the middle east can kiss our ***. It'd be great to have no dependence on foreign oil whatsoever. However, global warming activists won't be happy about this.
> 
> Good point, this will never see the light of day.


If they use CO2 to produce fuel, there's no reason for global warming activists to not be overjoyed about this discovery.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;12056864*
> Cheap gas cuts the incentive and the market for vehicles like the Leaf or Volt...granted Chevy were I-dots for pricing the Volt like they did. Without expensive gas as an incentive there will likely be les development in non-internal combustion engine vehicles....and we'll see a return of the Hummer days of the auto industry, and Leaf and Volt be relegated to the history books. IMHO.


And what would be wrong with that?


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SgtSpike;12057457*
> If they use CO2 to produce fuel, there's no reason for global warming activists to not be overjoyed about this discovery.
> 
> And what would be wrong with that?


I'd rather we move willingly or no to ceasing burning crap to move from point A to point B. In the US we have a stupid number of cars on the road relative to the population. With electric vehicles we at least are lessening the # of cars in the US burning crap and putting chemicals in the air. As I said many times in this thread CO2 is not the only thing coming out of your tailpipe.

Cheap gas is good in the short term for our wallets, but in the long term causes automakers and inventors to post-pone or cease efforts to getting off gas. We've had non-ICE vehicles for over half a decade now-one of the many reasons no one has put serious effort into R&Ding the tech until really now (a la Volt/Leaf) is because with cheap gas no one cares about mileage/efficiency that much.

Detroit was fat and happy making Hummer-type vehicles and folks were fine buying them. Didn't care about R&Ding electric vehicles...until gas prices spiked, and now the Hummer brand itself is retired I believe.


----------



## Kirmie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FuNkDrSpOt;12055767*
> Solar has already been proven ( via a source/thread on OCN ) to be cheaper than nuclear. Solar has a high UP FRONT cost that you more than earn back throughout the years.
> 
> People keep repeating that old stuff about solar being expensive. Solar is about $30k for a 2000kw/h system and that's not just the panels, that's the installation and electrical wiring upgrades needed.
> 
> 2001kw/hrs cost me $300 exactly and I'm covered by SMUD, which is one of the CHEAPEST utility companies in the NATION. They're so cheap that the city of Davis almost incorporated itself into Sacramento county JUST so it could use SMUD instead of PG&E.
> 
> My Tier 1 usage is up to 700kw/hr and costs $.09, Tier 2 is 701 kw/h - 1000 kw/h and costs $.157, Tier 3 is 1001 kw/h and up and costs $.175. My average bill is around $200 and I have a relatively modest 1200sq ft, 3 bd 2 bth home with no pool.
> 
> So 12 months x $200 = $2,400 per year. $30k/$2.4k = 12.5 yrs paid off
> 
> 12.5 yrs of payments to have a system that will last you +30 yrs AND will be much cheaper to load new panels on......
> 
> So can we stop saying solar is expensive now?


I'm going to save people a lot of reading and condense this. Solar is awesome, in the right place. Where I live (look left) solar is close to useless and a system that would fit my low electrical usage would cost me around $25k since where I live has way less usable sunlight (half or less) than Sacramento. It would take me about 25.5 years to break even if I paid for the system straight up with no interest. At that point the money is better invested in a CD, MMA, or your 401k.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;12055792*
> What?
> 
> My last electric bill was 2,583kWhr last month (11/22/10-12/22/10). And cost me $136.52+taxes/fees=154.01. This is for electric heat-pump heating, in addition to normal household.
> 
> What was that about cheapest in the nation?
> 
> BTW-my post you quoted said NOTHING about cost. It was about inefficiency and land usage.


Heat pumps are useless where I live too (I realize this has nothing to do with the point of the post). Stupid weather extremes. Great for places like Washington though. My area sucks for just about everything "green" but wind and nuclear.

Edit:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;12057546*
> I'd rather we move willingly or no to ceasing burning crap to move from point A to point B. In the US we have a stupid number of cars on the road relative to the population. With electric vehicles we at least are lessening the # of cars in the US burning crap and putting chemicals in the air. As I said many times in this thread CO2 is not the only thing coming out of your tailpipe.
> 
> Cheap gas is good in the short term for our wallets, but in the long term causes automakers and inventors to post-pone or cease efforts to getting off gas. We've had non-ICE vehicles for over half a decade now-one of the many reasons no one has put serious effort into R&Ding the tech until really now (a la Volt/Leaf) is because with cheap gas no one cares about mileage/efficiency that much.
> 
> Detroit was fat and happy making Hummer-type vehicles and folks were fine buying them. Didn't care about R&Ding electric vehicles...until gas prices spiked, and now the Hummer brand itself is retired I believe.


For the record the Hummer was made in and by a company in Indiana and lasted only 17 years (the civilian model at least). It wasn't bought by a Detroit company until 1999 and wasn't a big (relative term) seller until they made smaller, less gas using versions. AKA nobody bought "Hummer-type" vehicles because they are bigger than almost everything on the road outside of semi's and buses. That and because it cost over $100k.


----------



## MrDeodorant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hephasteus;12057139*
> Well sulpher is present in oil. There's a bunch of oil that has huge amounts of sulpher that is used but has to be scrubbed first before using. The lack of large amounts of sulphur in crude oil give it the designation of "sweet". Light sweet crude. Indicates there are some light volatile molecules. Sweet indicates it's not chocked full of sulpher.


But that's my point. Sulphur emissions occur because you don't get pure oil, you get oil with stuff in it. But you wouldn't get sulphur in synthetic oil (quite aside from the fact that each strain of bacteria only produces one hydrocarbon, not a mix like crude oil), so it won't be present in the emissions.


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flamingoyster;12054992*
> green efforts in biofuels


Massive contradiction tbh. Look up how much land is needed to produce biofuel and then come back. Greenies ignore that.


----------



## dontpwnmebro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ilam3d;12054512*
> Looks like "Unlimited" Pollution to me.
> 
> Anyways nothing is unlimited in a finite planet.
> 
> And for those of you bashing alternative energies... How about considering Geothermal or Solar? They're out there, in uncounted quantities, for free.


they are not widespread for a reason. you can argue that the oil people are holding back progress but there are some real legitimate reasons that they are not widespread.

geothermal energy is only available in certain places around the world. solar energy does not provide a lot of energy when most expensive and commercially available panels are only around 11% efficient. but you can look forward to the good news in this article or maybe nuclear fusion. the only things that are comparable or better than oil in the energy they provide is coal, which accounts for most of america's electrical needs, and nuclear energy.


----------



## stargate125645

This seems too good to be true. An organism that sucks up CO2 to make fuel that we use which makes CO2? I wonder if this would make me move away from fuel efficienct cars, though...I love being able to travel over 500 miles on a tank of gas!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AdmiralThrawn;12054111*
> Omg I heard about this listening to RadioLab LAST NIGHT. I thought it was something like 20 years away and/or the oil companies would burn the lab to the ground to hide the research.
> 
> IF it's real, then


Yeah, they had better have some bad ass security, and their research stored many times over throughout the country.


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stargate125645;12057969*
> Yeah, they had better have some bad ass security, and their research stored many times over throughout the country.


I would imagine they have something like Fort Knox security.


----------



## dontpwnmebro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FuNkDrSpOt;12055767*
> Solar has already been proven ( via a source/thread on OCN ) to be cheaper than nuclear. Solar has a high UP FRONT cost that you more than earn back throughout the years.
> 
> People keep repeating that old stuff about solar being expensive. Solar is about $30k for a 2000kw/h system and that's not just the panels, that's the installation and electrical wiring upgrades needed.
> 
> 2001kw/hrs cost me $300 exactly and I'm covered by SMUD, which is one of the CHEAPEST utility companies in the NATION. They're so cheap that the city of Davis almost incorporated itself into Sacramento county JUST so it could use SMUD instead of PG&E.
> 
> My Tier 1 usage is up to 700kw/hr and costs $.09, Tier 2 is 701 kw/h - 1000 kw/h and costs $.157, Tier 3 is 1001 kw/h and up and costs $.175. My average bill is around $200 and I have a relatively modest 1200sq ft, 3 bd 2 bth home with no pool.
> 
> So 12 months x $200 = $2,400 per year. $30k/$2.4k = 12.5 yrs paid off
> 
> 12.5 yrs of payments to have a system that will last you +30 yrs AND will be much cheaper to load new panels on......
> 
> So can we stop saying solar is expensive now?


no LOL!
its $30K for everything. i can afford that like, right now.its CHEEP!

but its ok. im getting paid by the energy companies $200/month so in about 12.5yr. the companies will pay all of that $30k back to me.


----------



## MrDeodorant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stargate125645;12057969*
> This seems too good to be true. An organism that sucks up CO2 to make fuel that we use which makes CO2?


A plant is an organism that sucks up CO2 to make sugar that the metabolic process uses as fuel, releasing CO2 as exhaust. Just swap ethane for sucrose.


----------



## stargate125645

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FuNkDrSpOt;12055767*
> Solar has already been proven ( via a source/thread on OCN ) to be cheaper than nuclear. Solar has a high UP FRONT cost that you more than earn back throughout the years.
> 
> People keep repeating that old stuff about solar being expensive. Solar is about $30k for a 2000kw/h system and that's not just the panels, that's the installation and electrical wiring upgrades needed.
> 
> 2001kw/hrs cost me $300 exactly and I'm covered by SMUD, which is one of the CHEAPEST utility companies in the NATION. They're so cheap that the city of Davis almost incorporated itself into Sacramento county JUST so it could use SMUD instead of PG&E.
> 
> My Tier 1 usage is up to 700kw/hr and costs $.09, Tier 2 is 701 kw/h - 1000 kw/h and costs $.157, Tier 3 is 1001 kw/h and up and costs $.175. My average bill is around $200 and I have a relatively modest 1200sq ft, 3 bd 2 bth home with no pool.
> 
> So 12 months x $200 = $2,400 per year. $30k/$2.4k = 12.5 yrs paid off
> 
> 12.5 yrs of payments to have a system that will last you +30 yrs AND will be much cheaper to load new panels on......
> 
> So can we stop saying solar is expensive now?


I think you have your units screwed up. A watt is already a measure of energy per time interval. Energy usage is per kW*hr. I don't understand what you are saying because of this.


----------



## SinX7

Yes! When will this start tho?


----------



## Shadowclock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dontpwnmebro;12058181*
> no LOL!
> its $30K for everything. i can afford that like, right now.its CHEEP!
> 
> but its ok. im getting paid by the energy companies $200/month so in about 12.5yr. the companies will pay all of that $30k back to me.


I know you're being sarcastic but most if not all electric companies will not "pay" you for the electricity your producing beyond what your using but they will credit your account. Therefore it would be smart to not get more solar panels then what you need.


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesekiwi;12057645*
> Massive contradiction tbh. Look up how much land is needed to produce biofuel and then come back. Greenies ignore that.


It's not a contradiction at all...just because, up to this point, biofuels have failed to be green doesn't change the fact that the end goal of biofuels is, in fact, to be green.

Your logic says that if I attempt to do A, but end up with B instead, then my goal must have been to do B since the beginning. The key word is effort. This is a breakthrough in biofuel that supplies a green solution.

Note that I never said I supported any of the previous "solutions," such as corn ethanol. I understand quite clearly the amount of land it would take for those kinds of solutions. And has been stated, this ecoli bacteria would need a land mass approximately the size of Maryland to supply the entire country with fuel. There is more than enough unused land for that kind of pursuit.


----------



## PsycoCarrot

I wonder what kind of metabolism these E.coli are using. My best guess would be a modified form of the Reductive-TCA cycle.

This is a pretty big breakthrough IMO. However, I doubt we'll be seeing this on a large enough scale to make much difference, for an extended period of time.


----------



## AblueXKRS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_02;12054153*
> I don't see how an oil company could keep this quiet. It seems likethere would be an incredible amount of money to be made in reducing the cost of oil to the populous, and someone would be willing to run with it.
> 
> I'd burn my face off before I'd let an oil company stifle progress.


I doubt it. It would certainly bring production costs down, but selling it at $30 a barrel would cut revenue by about 70%, which no company would EVER greenlight, regardless of benefits.

I think this tech being made mainstream for fuel manufacture relies entirely on one thing: will the oil companies have the foresight to see that selling oil at 25% of current cost for the _rest of time_ would be more profitable than selling it at current prices for the next ten decades until it runs out?

Though I'll be honest, I'm kinda torn about this. If we can, essentially, manufacture oil overnight, the incentive to develop alternate fuels for reasons other than snob value go straight out the window.


----------



## pr0bie

Yuss!!! Just organising a Supercharged 1uz-fe for my Hilux


----------



## prava

Sorry to be the bad voice you don't want to hear but...
Quote:


> Joule says it now has "a library" of fossil-fuel organisms at work in its Massachusetts labs, each engineered to produce a different fuel. It has "proven the process," has produced ethanol (for example) at a rate equivalent to 10,000 U.S. gallons an acre a year. It anticipates that this yield could hit 25,000 gallons an acre a year when scaled for commercial production, equivalent to roughly 800 barrels of crude an acre a year.


Lets see. The US alone needs around 6.900.000.000 barrels of oil a year. Now, if take in ind that we can extract something like 20 gallons per barrel, our acre is giving us 500 barrels a year...but lets accept the most optimistic rate, which is 2.5 times higher, aka 1250 barrels/acre/year.

Ok. So, using this technique, we would *only* require 5.520.000 acres which translate to 22.356km2. That would be more or less the size of Israel, so go figure.

Now, how many people would be needed in order to take care of such a huge extension of terrain? What kind of weather can it sustain?

As you see, its just pointless. Yes, in small scales it could work, but in order to stop drilling holes into the earth we need something practical, and something that can be upscaled to need...and I don't think this is the case. Ah! Take in mind that our fuel requeriments can only go up with time, specially now that some countries are starting to see a heavy development and that means a spike in energy needs.

I'm sorry, but the only reliable energy source its going to be fusion. Until then... I would only trust fision, but we are too stupid to understand how rational would be to heavily use nuclear energy.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_02;12056816*
> How is it a setback?
> 
> I mean, even if they discovered alternative energy tonight, they would probably still burn coal for another 10 years.


Thanks to this, it'd be more likely to keep us on fossil fuels indefinitely because companies are cheap, in a perfect world it'd be just there to give us time to redo the infrastructure, but pobodys nerfect.

Remember that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas and cars, etc produce more than just CO2, CO2 may stay at equal levels but the others will just increase.


----------



## SgtSpike

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;12057546*
> I'd rather we move willingly or no to ceasing burning crap to move from point A to point B. In the US we have a stupid number of cars on the road relative to the population. With electric vehicles we at least are lessening the # of cars in the US burning crap and putting chemicals in the air. As I said many times in this thread CO2 is not the only thing coming out of your tailpipe.
> 
> Cheap gas is good in the short term for our wallets, but in the long term causes automakers and inventors to post-pone or cease efforts to getting off gas. We've had non-ICE vehicles for over half a decade now-one of the many reasons no one has put serious effort into R&Ding the tech until really now (a la Volt/Leaf) is because with cheap gas no one cares about mileage/efficiency that much.
> 
> Detroit was fat and happy making Hummer-type vehicles and folks were fine buying them. Didn't care about R&Ding electric vehicles...until gas prices spiked, and now the Hummer brand itself is retired I believe.


Problem is, we all still have to travel the same distances. If gas prices go up, and we move to electric vehicles, which are more costly to run than current efficient ICE-based cars, then the monthly expenses will still be higher than they are now.

If we want this economy to get back into shape, we need to be spending LESS money on transportation, not more. I firmly believe that high gas prices kick-started the recession in the summer of '08. This is one reason I am not an advocate of electric vehicles - they're expensive to purchase and maintain, even with the taxpayer subsidies







.

As far as pollution, well, plenty of people have lived through the industrial ages and survived to 100+. I'm fine with the current amounts of pollutants in the air. If you REALLY believe that we need cleaner air, then show me some proof that dirty air, *caused by consumer vehicles*, is causing deaths or illness. Last I checked, people-moving vehicles were the source of a very very small portion of overall pollution in the US.

Oh, and what makes you think that batteries are any cleaner/safer than gasoline engines in the first place? Have you actually looked at the entire process for creating the batteries placed in electric vehicles? And the disposal? It's ridden with pollution far more toxic than anything produced from internal combustion. But of course, the environmentalists don't ever mention that part of it (or just hold blindly to the falsity that electric cars will somehow save our planet, and don't bother to even look into it).

We've had electric vehicles for a century now, not just 5 years. They've failed every time in the past, and they'll probably fail again. Time will tell... and I can only hope the efficient and proven methods of the ICE will prevail.


----------



## stargate125645

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prava;12058896*
> Sorry to be the bad voice you don't want to hear but...
> 
> Lets see. The US alone needs around 6.900.000.000 barrels of oil a year. Now, if take in ind that we can extract something like 20 gallons per barrel, our acre is giving us 500 barrels a year...but lets accept the most optimistic rate, which is 2.5 times higher, aka 1250 barrels/acre/year.
> 
> Ok. So, using this technique, we would *only* require 5.520.000 acres which translate to 22.356km2. That would be more or less the size of Israel, so go figure.
> 
> Now, how many people would be needed in order to take care of such a huge extension of terrain? What kind of weather can it sustain?
> 
> As you see, its just pointless. Yes, in small scales it could work, but in order to stop drilling holes into the earth we need something practical, and something that can be upscaled to need...and I don't think this is the case. Ah! Take in mind that our fuel requeriments can only go up with time, specially now that some countries are starting to see a heavy development and that means a spike in energy needs.
> 
> I'm sorry, but the only reliable energy source its going to be fusion. Until then... I would only trust fision, but we are too stupid to understand how rational would be to heavily use nuclear energy.


You must have stopped reading once and quoted the second you reached that part of the article. Other than that, your point that this shouldn't prevent us from achieving even better energy sources is definitely worthy.


----------



## slipstream808

This could at least supplement oil production. It wouldn't affect crude oil prices that much I figure as the rest of the world still needs oil.


----------



## codejunki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;12054195*
> Just because you patented it doesn't necessarily mean it works or you can do anything with it.


They have proved this works, did you read the article?


----------



## SgtSpike

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AdmiralThrawn;12058820*
> I doubt it. It would certainly bring production costs down, but selling it at $30 a barrel would cut revenue by about 70%, which no company would EVER greenlight, regardless of benefits.
> 
> I think this tech being made mainstream for fuel manufacture relies entirely on one thing: will the oil companies have the foresight to see that selling oil at 25% of current cost for the _rest of time_ would be more profitable than selling it at current prices for the next ten decades until it runs out?
> 
> Though I'll be honest, I'm kinda torn about this. If we can, essentially, manufacture oil overnight, the incentive to develop alternate fuels for reasons other than snob value go straight out the window.


It wouldn't be the oil companies who would be selling it, it would be new startups. Something like this:

Company is started.
Company realizes fuel can be produced for $20/barrel
Company prices fuel at $30/barrel
Company sells 100% of their fuel because it is so cheap - oil companies lose this chunk of their market.
Oil companies reduce price of oil to try to compete.
Company expands, because of success of undercutting sales of oil companies.
Company can now provide for 50% of US oil needs.
Oil companies continue to reduce price of oil to compete.
Oil companies eventually have to match Company prices in order to compete.
$30/barrel oil for everyone all around.

Sure, the oil companies don't WANT to lose that extra profit, but when there's someone else selling it for less, there's not much you can do, except try to lower your own prices to remain competitive.


----------



## codejunki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prava;12058896*
> Sorry to be the bad voice you don't want to hear but...
> 
> Lets see. The US alone needs around 6.900.000.000 barrels of oil a year. Now, if take in ind that we can extract something like 20 gallons per barrel, our acre is giving us 500 barrels a year...but lets accept the most optimistic rate, which is 2.5 times higher, aka 1250 barrels/acre/year.
> 
> Ok. So, using this technique, we would *only* require 5.520.000 acres which translate to 22.356km2. That would be more or less the size of Israel, so go figure.
> 
> Now, how many people would be needed in order to take care of such a huge extension of terrain? What kind of weather can it sustain?
> 
> As you see, its just pointless. Yes, in small scales it could work, but in order to stop drilling holes into the earth we need something practical, and something that can be upscaled to need...and I don't think this is the case. Ah! Take in mind that our fuel requeriments can only go up with time, specially now that some countries are starting to see a heavy development and that means a spike in energy needs.
> 
> I'm sorry, but the only reliable energy source its going to be fusion. Until then... I would only trust fision, but we are too stupid to understand how rational would be to heavily use nuclear energy.


Give it time, everything just takes time, they just found this technology, let alone to refine it..


----------



## MrDeodorant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prava;12058896*
> Ok. So, using this technique, we would *only* require 5.520.000 acres which translate to 22.356km2. That would be more or less the size of Israel, so go figure.
> 
> Now, how many people would be needed in order to take care of such a huge extension of terrain? What kind of weather can it sustain?


Because it would be *absolutely unthinkable* to break that area up into smaller, more easily managed units, separated enough to vary the weather.


----------



## urgrandpasdog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;12056864*
> Cheap gas cuts the incentive and the market for vehicles like the Leaf or Volt...granted Chevy were I-dots for pricing the Volt like they did. Without expensive gas as an incentive there will likely be les development in non-internal combustion engine vehicles....and we'll see a return of the Hummer days of the auto industry, and Leaf and Volt be relegated to the history books. IMHO.


Good. I've ridden in a Leaf and its a miserable pile of garbage.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SgtSpike;12059171*
> It wouldn't be the oil companies who would be selling it, it would be new startups. Something like this:
> 
> Company is started.
> Company realizes fuel can be produced for $20/barrel
> Company prices fuel at $30/barrel
> Company sells 100% of their fuel because it is so cheap - oil companies lose this chunk of their market.
> Oil companies reduce price of oil to try to compete.
> Company expands, because of success of undercutting sales of oil companies.
> Company can now provide for 50% of US oil needs.
> Oil companies continue to reduce price of oil to compete.
> Oil companies eventually have to match Company prices in order to compete.
> $30/barrel oil for everyone all around.
> 
> Sure, the oil companies don't WANT to lose that extra profit, but when there's someone else selling it for less, there's not much you can do, except try to lower your own prices to remain competitive.


I'd like to say this for everyone who thinks oil companies dictate fuel prices.

Follow me now:
open new tab
google
search OPEC
win

Oil companies make like $0.002 per gallon of gas sold, do you really think they are the ones who set the prices? OPEC is supreme commander to whom all our base belong.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting;12059378*
> I'd like to say this for everyone who thinks oil companies dictate fuel prices.
> 
> Follow me now:
> open new tab
> google
> search OPEC
> win
> 
> Oil companies make like $0.002 per gallon of gas sold, do you really think they are the ones who set the prices? OPEC is supreme commander to whom all our base belong.


OPEC controls the supply. So in answer to your rhetorical question-yes they do albeit indirectly....with only 40% of the world's supply of oil, they obviously have very little impact on the supply and cost of gasoline.


----------



## curly haired boy

this is awesome news. i love the sound and feel of gas-powered vehicles....don't think i could ever give them up for the whine of an electric.


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

So we're going to be fueling our cars with bacteria crap?


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;12059412*
> OPEC controls the supply. So in answer to your rhetorical question-yes they do albeit indirectly....with only 40% of the world's supply of oil, they obviously have very little impact on the supply and cost of gasoline.


Uh 40% is controlled by ONE organization and your post is totally parallel to mine not perpendicular. Supply may be one component, but the price for a barrel of oil coming out of an OPEC nation is nearly congruent with all other sources if not mathematically identical. Combine that with taxes, and oil companies turn a very small margin per gallon sold for mainstream transportation. Furthermore, products such as jet fuel- due to the vast quantities needed- turn even smaller margins.

Its no the oil companies, sure they make a killing though. But if they only broke even gas prices wouldn't drop at all per gallon. It would be like filling up for 75.68 versus 76.08. Thats nothing.


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

nvm...got the answer, pretty cool, would like to see how it turns out when it goes for commercial use.


----------



## gildadan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon;12054130*
> Wow, if this is as good as it sounds (it rarely is), then the middle east can kiss our ***. It'd be great to have no dependence on foreign oil whatsoever. However, global warming activists won't be happy about this.
> 
> Good point, this will never see the light of day.


How could they not it is essentially carbon neutral right







It feeds on carbon dioxide from the air. It would be better for the environment than corn ethanol which is supposedly super stupendous. But yet costs more fuel to make it than you receive. Or the new emission systems on heavy trucks that actually reduce fuel mileage yet is supposed to be better for the environment. How can burning more fuel be better?

So yes I could see how they would hate it. Yup it makes sense it must be wrong.


----------



## Stealth2o

I can't wait until I can fill up my tank for $30. Science FTW!


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gildadan;12059542*
> How could they not it is essentially carbon neutral right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It feeds on carbon dioxide from the air. It would be better for the environment than corn ethanol which is supposedly super stupendous. But yet costs more fuel to make it than you receive. Or the new emission systems on heavy trucks that actually reduce fuel mileage yet is supposed to be better for the environment. How can burning more fuel be better?
> 
> So yes I could see how they would hate it. Yup it makes sense it must be wrong.


They won't be happy because they spent BILLIONS marketing some circumstantial evidence as a conclusive scientific truth to the masses and if this technology succeeds then it means they lost the war and investors surely won't like to see those organizations disappear.

Look, politics aside, if you really think "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" organizations (or any political affiliation for the matter) are out for your best interest, then you are naive at best.

Why do I love the emergence of this technology? It focuses on a fundamental supply change rather than a conclusive system change while maintaining positives from both. This is truly an amazing development for our society in its current state. Sure one day everyone will have a nuclear reactor under their house and be totally independent, but for now having synthetic organic petrol is a huge step to say the least.


----------



## prava

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stargate125645;12059106*
> You must have stopped reading once and quoted the second you reached that part of the article. Other than that, your point that this shouldn't prevent us from achieving even better energy sources is definitely worthy.


I read it entirely. Still, one has to be pragmatic: we need resources that can be upscaled without trouble. We don't use petrol because we love its darkness: its easy to transport, doesn't lose value on time, packs a huge amount of power per gallon, etc. Its PERFECT...except for the little fact that its not endless.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *codejunki;12059200*
> Give it time, everything just takes time, they just found this technology, let alone to refine it..


Actually, I still don't understand how it can work thermodynamics-wise. Seriously, nothing is free. The more efficient transition matter-energy is done by a fusion reaction...reaction that cant be controlled in a lab, yet (well, yeah it can, but it eats more power than it creates...for the moment).

Now, to artificially create petrol...unless the cost of the petrol rises incredibly in the next years due to petrol being more rare and thus having to drill in more expensive locations, it doesn't get us anywhere. We need to accept that fossil technologies will die when its fuel ends...and so will our economies along its way (due to its price raising)...unless capitalism ends first, that is









Anyway, its nice to see companies stepping in and trying to find solutions. That said, it doesn't mean that the solution they find is of any use, but the harder they try, the luckier they will get








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrDeodorant;12059262*
> Because it would be *absolutely unthinkable* to break that area up into smaller, more easily managed units, separated enough to vary the weather.


Those areas would still be too big, and lets not talk about what kind of investment one would have to make in order to acomplish this, to mantain it, etc. We are not talking about a few dimes and pennies here. Of course, if they can raise the efficiency exponentially then we are talking about something totally different.

As it is, though, its gonna be a hell better idea to start dropping our thermal plants and start building nuclear plants all over the globe. At least we will be able to stall a little the fuel consumption until we find a useful solution.


----------



## hollowtek

screw the v10 f1 cars. Bring back the twin turbo charged f1 cars pushing over 71 psi of boost.


----------



## RiiiE

seems like i would be hearing more about this if it was actually something.


----------



## Stealth2o

Quote:



Originally Posted by *prava*


I read it entirely. Still, one has to be pragmatic: we need resources that can be upscaled without trouble. We don't use petrol because we love its darkness: its easy to transport, doesn't lose value on time, packs a huge amount of power per gallon, etc. Its PERFECT...except for the little fact that its not endless.

Actually, I still don't understand how it can work thermodynamics-wise. *Seriously, nothing is free*. The more efficient transition matter-energy is done by a fusion reaction...reaction that cant be controlled in a lab, yet (well, yeah it can, but it eats more power than it creates...for the moment).

Now, to artificially create petrol...unless the cost of the petrol rises incredibly in the next years due to petrol being more rare and thus having to drill in more expensive locations, it doesn't get us anywhere. We need to accept that fossil technologies will die when its fuel ends...and so will our economies along its way (due to its price raising)...unless capitalism ends first, that is









Anyway, its nice to see companies stepping in and trying to find solutions. That said, it doesn't mean that the solution they find is of any use, but the harder they try, the luckier they will get









Those areas would still be too big, and lets not talk about what kind of investment one would have to make in order to acomplish this, to mantain it, etc. We are not talking about a few dimes and pennies here. Of course, if they can raise the efficiency exponentially then we are talking about something totally different.

As it is, though, its gonna be a hell better idea to start dropping our thermal plants and start building nuclear plants all over the globe. At least we will be able to stall a little the fuel consumption until we find a useful solution.


@bold - That's where you are wrong my friend. The best things in life ARE free


----------



## A Russian :D

Gas is $3.09 a gallon here... please lets this come soon I need $.99 gallon.

Thanks.


----------



## Stealth2o

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *A Russian ;12060043*
> Gas is $3.09 a gallon here... please lets this come soon I need $.99 gallon.
> 
> Thanks.


$3.49 is the cheapest here in Brooklyn, NY. In Manhattan, some stations charge over $4 a gallon. The way I see it, IF this is true, and they do refine this and perfect it with little to no serious side effects; gas prices must plummet, for the sake of our economy, and our environment. Can't wait. I want a Hummer.


----------



## bluebunny

this is awesome... shove it up your's al gore


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:



Originally Posted by *bluebunny*


this is awesome... shove it up your's al gore *democrat pawns*










fixed for you


----------



## willis888

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;12055585*
> As a side note, I love listening to all you Americans complaining about how much you pay for gas. I saw unleaded at £1.31 / L yesterday, or about US$7.92 / Gallon... Bet you wouldn't drive so many SUV's with those prices!


Google says that's about US$2.09. That's less than what we pay in Virginia.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan;12056851*
> Then again, us humans release some C also if I remember correctly, so I don't see the issue much


We release exactly as much C as we take in.

Glucose is C^6 H^12 O^6. Six units of C in basic sugar, aka human fuel.

We take in 1 glucose and 6 oxygen and release 6 carbon-dioxide and 6 water.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 ---> 6CO2 + 6H2O

What is important is the source of what we take in. For example, eating food that has been grown with petroleum based fertilizers means that you will release carbon into the atmosphere that was previously locked away underground.


----------



## Epitope

Quote:



Originally Posted by *RiiiE*


seems like i would be hearing more about this if it was actually something.


They were issued the patent. Upscaling this technology and getting it to a point where it can deliver volumes of fuel able to support thousands, if not millions of people is still a long ways away.

It's also a privately held company so investors aren't raving about it.


----------



## Epitope

I'm actually mildly disappointed about this. Why? Because I'm earning my PhD in microbiology with a focus on protein design and modification. I specifically wanted to engineer photosynthetic bacteria capable of producing fuels... They beat me to the punch! Oh well, perhaps I can get a job with them once I get my PhD...


----------



## gildadan

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*


They won't be happy because they spent BILLIONS marketing some circumstantial evidence as a conclusive scientific truth to the masses and if this technology succeeds then it means they lost the war and investors surely won't like to see those organizations disappear.

Look, politics aside, if you really think "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" organizations (or any political affiliation for the matter) are out for your best interest, then you are naive at best.

Why do I love the emergence of this technology? It focuses on a fundamental supply change rather than a conclusive system change while maintaining positives from both. This is truly an amazing development for our society in its current state. Sure one day everyone will have a nuclear reactor under their house and be totally independent, but for now having synthetic organic petrol is a huge step to say the least.



/agree 100%. Don't misunderstand me on that. I think the whole global warming hype is just that. It is a way for some people to make money and nothing more. Like I said they push for these new standards on cars and heavy trucks and whatnot and in the end we spend more fossil fuels to produce them. Ethanol takes approx 1.9 gallons to make 1.2 gallons ethanol. The new emissions standards on heavy diesels have caused fuel mileage to drop off approx 10-15% in real world driving. That makes no sense to me. There is no possible way that burning more fossil fuels is better for the environment than using less.

I love this tech if it proves viable. Could really be a good thing. It makes me sit back and analyze the current theory of it taking millions of years to produce. I don't think we have been here that long anyways but that is another discussion. I am for doing things that help conserve the environment but not at the expense of progress which is what the environmentalists espouse. I think well made hybrid cars like the camry or the lexus hybrid are a good thing. Hybrids like the prius=dumb imo. I want a car that looks acts and feels like a car not one that makes me feel idiotic and unsafe.


----------



## Celeras

These guys need a stock asap, so I can buy boatloads.


----------



## Maian

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willis888*


Google says that's about US$2.09. That's less than what we pay in Virginia.


No. Â£1.31/Liter = $2.09*/Liter*. Multiply that by another 3.78541178 (liters in a gallon according to Google) to find out price/gallon and you now have $7.94/gallon.


----------



## Cr4zYH3aD

Muscle Car time again


----------



## KG363

Quote:



Originally Posted by *prava*


*Those areas would still be too big*, and lets not talk about what kind of investment one would have to make in order to acomplish this, to mantain it, etc. We are not talking about a few dimes and pennies here. Of course, if they can raise the efficiency exponentially then we are talking about something totally different.

.


The article said we already use millions of acres for ethanol production in the US. Most of world is unoccupied and can be used for this artificial oil production. Land is certainly not an obstacle


----------



## cubanresourceful

Quote:



Originally Posted by *A Russian *


Gas is $3.09 a gallon here... please lets this come soon I need $.99 gallon.

Thanks.


My parents told me of a beautiful time when people were *****ing at the fact that gas went up to .99$ and everybody was paying in pennies.


----------



## FuNkDrSpOt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willis888*


Google says that's about US$2.09.  That's less than what we pay in Virginia.

*We release exactly as much C as we take in.

Glucose is C^6 H^12 O^6. Six units of C in basic sugar, aka human fuel.

We take in 1 glucose and 6 oxygen and release 6 carbon-dioxide and 6 water.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 ---> 6CO2 + 6H2O

What is important is the source of what we take in. For example, eating food that has been grown with petroleum based fertilizers means that you will release carbon into the atmosphere that was previously locked away underground.*


Use some simple critical thinking.

We release LESS Carbon than we take in. How the hell do you think we GROW?!

You're just accounting for glucose going through the Kreb cycle. We absorb and use FAR more than just glucose.


----------



## willis888

Quote:



Originally Posted by *FuNkDrSpOt*


Use some simple critical thinking.

We release LESS Carbon than we take in. How the hell do you think we GROW?!

You're just accounting for glucose going through the Kreb cycle. We absorb and use FAR more than just glucose.



We also shed flakes of skin and hairs, excrete pieces of destroyed cells, leak lipids through our pores, and eventually every part of our body will return to dust.

C in = C out

When you look at it through the lens of greenhouse gases being evil, you can say that we take C from the soil and put it into the atmosphere. But then we cultivate plants that put it right back into the soil.


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *prava*


...

...

...unless capitalism ends first, that is










Stopped reading there.


----------



## Epitope

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Celeras*


These guys need a stock asap, so I can buy boatloads.


Why would they need to sell stock when they can get filthy rich on their own? A board of directors populated by a bunch of idiotic bean counters and businessmen who don't understand how everything actually works is what destroys originality in a company.


----------



## RonindeBeatrice

Anybody else think that, even while taking genetic engineering into account, billions of e coli virii consuming and undoubtedly reproducing like mad in tiny dense populations might turn out to be less than awesome?


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:



Originally Posted by *RonindeBeatrice*


Anybody else think that, even while taking genetic engineering into account, billions of e coli virii consuming and undoubtedly reproducing like mad in tiny dense populations might turn out to be less than awesome?


I'd love to have my own army.

For my own means and motivation


----------



## wcdolphin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willis888*


We also shed flakes of skin and hairs, excrete pieces of destroyed cells, leak lipids through our pores, and eventually every part of our body will return to dust.

C in = C out

When you look at it through the lens of greenhouse gases being evil, you can say that we take C from the soil and put it into the atmosphere. But then we cultivate plants that put it right back into the soil.


However, these two are not equal.

You seem to be missing the point:
carbon output > carbon absorbed.
Net increase in carbon in the atmosphere, causing a positive feedback loop.

Not to be derailed by a petty dispute,

Can't wait to hear more.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/ne...ule-board.html

With regards to e-coli, not worried, the stuff already breeds en mass. Are you worried that humans are growing at a nearly exponential rate? No? Why not? What of various algae? >.< What of the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere? Or even the number of heavy metal molecules.


----------



## dzalias

Quote:



Originally Posted by *cdolphin*


However, these two are not equal.

You seem to be missing the point:
carbon output > carbon absorbed.
Net increase in carbon in the atmosphere, causing a positive feedback loop.

Not to be derailed by a petty dispute,

Can't wait to hear more.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/ne...ule-board.html


Law of conservation of matter and energy. Who cares if we make the Earth uninhabitable for current life forms?


----------



## Marc-Olivier Beaudoin

we have to kill the guy and destroy his research . because if we don't earth is doomed .


----------



## Epitope

Quote:



Originally Posted by *RonindeBeatrice*


Anybody else think that, even while taking genetic engineering into account, billions of e coli virii consuming and undoubtedly reproducing like mad in tiny dense populations might turn out to be less than awesome?


I mutate E.coli on a daily basis in my lab. I'm actually sitting in a laboratory typing this. I'm working with several mutant strains right now.

There is nothing to worry about. The lab strains of E.coli are literally harmless. You actually have 4 to 7 pounds of bacteria (mostly E.coli) living in your intestines at any giving moment.

I have accidentally splashed drops of concentrated E.coli into my mouth and eyes in more than one occasion. I didn't even feel ill or feel any irritation in my eye.

Also what is "virii"? E.coli is a bacterium, not a virus. There is a huge difference. A bacterium is a self sufficient living organism capable of feeding itself, growing, reproducing etc.

An average virus is literally not even 1% the size of an average bacterium and is a completely parasitic entity. A virus cannot do anything outside of an infected cell. A virus is nothing more than a RNA or DNA genome wrapped in a protein shell. It only has one goal, to infect a new cell and make more viruses. It can't even really be considered a life form. It toes the line between life and pure chemical reaction.


----------



## Epitope

Quote:



Originally Posted by *cubanresourceful*


My parents told me of a beautiful time when people were *****ing at the fact that gas went up to .99$ and everybody was paying in pennies.










Gas was always just under $1 in my city when I was in high school (late 90's). I remember complaining about $1.25 gas when I was about 18. I just googled national averages in the 90's and they were over $1 but Kansas always seems to have below average fuel prices.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Epitope*


Gas was always just under $1 in my city when I was in high school (late 90's). I remember complaining about $1.25 gas when I was about 18. I just googled national averages in the 90's and they were over $1 but Kansas always seems to have below average fuel prices.


I remember those good old days.


----------



## Dream Killer

this just means that the funding for fusion research is going to get cut again.


----------



## Epitope

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Dream Killer*


this just means that the funding for fusion research is going to get cut again.


Fusion is a long long way off (if it ever will work). It has never even turned a profit as far as energy input/output. This bacterial technology is already working and almost ready for expansion and production.

I don't think researchers have even been able to run a fusion reaction for over 10 minutes yet. The things literally melt themselves and must be shut down.

But I do agree that fusion is the holy grail of energy production.


----------



## Jzkillzone23

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


CO2 ain't the only greenhouse gas grasshopper. And besides, the process may use CO2, but I'll bet money the gases burned out the tailpipes in cars outweigh the gases used to make the fuel.


No , the CO2 released is eqiuvalent to the Amount stored by the organism/Substance. For instance if it absorbs 12 Tons of co2 the gas produced can only release 12 tons. At least i think so.


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Epitope*


Fusion is a long long way off (if it ever will work). It has never even turned a profit as far as energy input/output. This bacterial technology is already working and almost ready for expansion and production.

I don't think researchers have even been able to run a fusion reaction for over 10 minutes yet. The things literally melt themselves and must be shut down.

But I do agree that fusion is the holy grail of energy production.


You're wrong. Create a manhattan project for fusion and we'll have it in a few years. and BTW, ITER will have a positive energy output; and you're ignoring inertial confinement techniques.


----------



## neobloodline

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1871149/

At long last!

We are SAVED!











Yea we are saved.. instead of developing a new resource that burns clean we will just keep on poisoning the earth and cooking ourselves with the greenhouse effect.








Anybody look at China skies lately? I can't believe they don't have 3 heads yet.


----------



## Jzkillzone23

Quote:



Originally Posted by *neobloodline*


Yea we are saved.. instead of developing a new resource that burns clean we will just keep on poisoning the earth and cooking ourselves with the greenhouse effect.








Anybody look at China skies lately? I can't believe they don't have 3 heads yet.


Same In tehran People are dying from the Air pollution and almost all of it is from cars.


----------



## Stormtalons

Quote:



Originally Posted by *neobloodline*


Yea we are saved.. instead of developing a new resource that burns clean we will just keep on poisoning the earth and cooking ourselves with the greenhouse effect.








Anybody look at China skies lately? I can't believe they don't have 3 heads yet.


It's almost like you didn't read the article at all, let alone any of the responses already refuting your obviously misinformed and inane opinion.


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:



Originally Posted by *neobloodline*


Yea we are saved.. instead of developing a new resource that burns clean we will just keep on poisoning the earth and cooking ourselves with the greenhouse effect.








Anybody look at China skies lately? I can't believe they don't have 3 heads yet.


You do know 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to Dihydrogen Monoxide, right?


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *neobloodline*


Yea we are saved.. instead of developing a new resource that burns clean we will just keep on poisoning the earth and cooking ourselves with the greenhouse effect.








Anybody look at China skies lately? I can't believe they don't have 3 heads yet.


----------



## Cubeman

Family was pressing me to buy a hybrid or electric, Haha get out. I should go buy a hummer h1 once the effects of this start showing


----------



## GanjaSMK

This. 
Is. 
AMAZING. 
News.

Long live science. Death to....


----------



## Hbliss23

That is really awesome. Is this something that is going to be put to use immediately? And is it really feasible to do this commercially? It sure sounds like a good idea, but I'm just wondering.


----------



## SIMPSONATOR

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Hbliss23*


That is really awesome. Is this something that is going to be put to use immediately? And is it really feasible to do this commercially? It sure sounds like a good idea, but I'm just wondering.


Why not? Greener way to make Gas can only be a good thing.


----------



## ColdTriton

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


You do know 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to Dihydrogen Monoxide, right?

















Dihydrogen Monoxide; Its everywhere. It can seep through cracks, become airborne, or even be absorbed through your skin. Your children even play in it. Bad stuff


----------



## Epitope

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Hbliss23*


That is really awesome. Is this something that is going to be put to use immediately? And is it really feasible to do this commercially? It sure sounds like a good idea, but I'm just wondering.


The higher the price of oil gets the more feasible it becomes. As long as this can compete with oil in price it is feasible.


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ColdTriton*


Dihydrogen Monoxide; Its everywhere. It can seep through cracks, become airborne, or even be absorbed through your skin. Your children even play in it. Bad stuff










Cool fact: every person who has ever come into contact with dihydrogen monoxide has or will die.

Dihydrogen Monoxide. How does it work?


----------



## SadSoul

Pretty sure the big oil companies will take a hit out on all them Joule guys, soon.


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SadSoul*


Pretty sure the big oil companies will take a hit out on all them Joule guys, soon.


Maybe they'll order one on you too.

One can dream...


----------



## SadSoul

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


Maybe they'll order one on you too.

One can dream...


----------



## prava

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Stealth2o*


@bold - That's where you are wrong my friend. The best things in life ARE free


mate, I was talking about energy







Free energy is non existant, aka you can't create it from nothing.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *A Russian *


Gas is $3.09 a gallon here... please lets this come soon I need $.99 gallon.

Thanks.


Jeeez, at the moment we are paying for the gallon something like 5-5.5â‚¬ (depending if its 95 or 98). So, around $7 per gallon. And you complain about fuel being expensive









Quote:



Originally Posted by *KG363*


The article said we already use millions of acres for ethanol production in the US. Most of world is unoccupied and can be used for this artificial oil production. Land is certainly not an obstacle


I don't think its as easy to grow plants than bacteria, isn't it?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*


Stopped reading there.


Where? In the part that mentions the end of capitalism? Its actually true, who do you think is buying US and plenty other western countries debt? What will happen when those countries start to be developed and spend their own money on their own? Crah, boom mate. Capitalism works when not all countries are capitalist....and China is starting to have a medium class citizen that spends money. Baaaaad for us, baaaaad.

But still, way off-topic...and you didn't answer any of my points









Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


You're wrong. Create a manhattan project for fusion and we'll have it in a few years. and BTW, ITER will have a positive energy output; and you're ignoring inertial confinement techniques.


Wow, hold your horses there! We *hope* ITER will have positive energy output. If we were sure we wouldn't have created only one, don't you think?

As it is, the biggest problem is to use that heat to create some electricity. Not easy, and efficiency is quite low, as far as I now. But hey, I expect big things from it, as its a hell of a civil project (because there are plenty of other fusion-based projects in the world...but many are military-issued, and as such they are highly secret. I believe there are a few that use laser to create fusion).


----------



## Zawarudo

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Kirby1*


I feel like the human race just got a little more awesome. One step closer to space zombies.


hell yeah, *high five*


----------



## Dronac

My Jeep is rejoicing!


----------



## willis888

Quote:



Originally Posted by *cdolphin*


However, these two are not equal.

You seem to be missing the point:
carbon output > carbon absorbed.


That is only true for Population III stars. You need three helium to collide while their temperature is greater than 100 megakelvin to create carbon.

You can only release what you have created or absorbed, so if you can't create C, you have to absorb it. Every bit of C you release had to have been absorbed at some previous time (unless you are a star and can transmute C from He).

Furthermore, every bit of C (along with everything else) that you absorb will someday be released.


----------



## _02

Quote:



Originally Posted by *prava*


Jeeez, at the moment we are paying for the gallon something like 5-5.5€ (depending if its 95 or 98). So, around $7 per gallon. And you complain about fuel being expensive










But how far do you drive to work?

I drive an hour to an hour and a half each way and pay about $200 in gas each month. The price difference in European gas and North American gas seems dubious.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_02*


But how far do you drive to work?

I drive an hour to an hour and a half each way and pay about $200 in gas each month.


Yup...My degree advisor in one day commutes a distance larger than many EU states are across. In one day.


----------



## TehStone

Do you smell that smell? That's the stench of bull-(you know what).


----------



## GingerJohn

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_02*


The price difference in European gas and North American gas seems dubious.


It is mostly tax. I think the UK pays some of the highest fuel duties in the world.


----------



## KusH

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GingerJohn*


It is mostly tax. I think the UK pays some of the highest fuel duties in the world.


Because your rulers don't want you to travel. Same goes here. The higher the gas prices the less travel will become. Or the more impoverished the population becomes, either way they win.


----------



## Stealth2o

Quote:



Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*












I lol'd.









Quote:



mate, I was talking about energy Free energy is non existant, aka you can't create it from nothing.


=O


----------



## dantoddd

this looks like a dud to me.


----------



## BlackMoth.Ver1

great news


----------



## BlackVenom

Great news is great. However, alt fuel for vehicles still needs to be developed, but I'm sure it will be.


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BlackVenom;12066271*
> Great news is great. However, alt fuel for vehicles still needs to be developed, but I'm sure it will be.


In due time my brother.


----------



## Ding Chavez

What about global warming. It's the end of the world man.
A lot of science guys are working on this type of thing around the world. Using microbes to make fuels. This one sounds too good to be true but if it is could be a nail in the coffin for global warming. It says they use CO2 to make fuel which makes CO2 when used. To reduce global warming we're supposed to be reducing emissions not releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere.


----------



## KusH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ding Chavez;12066549*
> What about global warming. It's the end of the world man.
> A lot of science guys are working on this type of thing around the world. Using microbes to make fuels. This one sounds too good to be true but if it is could be a nail in the coffin for global warming. It says they use CO2 to make fuel which makes CO2 when used.


Man made global warming does not exist, period.


----------



## _02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ding Chavez;12066549*
> It says they use CO2 to make fuel which makes CO2 when used.


That would only matter if the burning of the fuel produced more CO2 than is used to produce the fuel.


----------



## SIMPSONATOR

LOL, global warming... Makes me laugh


----------



## toddcut

Quote:


> Genetically adapted E. coli bacterium!!


Why do I have movie names like Resident Evil, 28 Days Later, I am Legend running through my head??


----------



## BlackVenom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *toddcut;12068488*
> Why do I have movie names like Resident Evil, 28 Days Later, I am Legend running through my head??


Oh shucks... nothing happens like that....


----------



## _02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *toddcut;12068488*
> Why do I have movie names like Resident Evil, 28 Days Later, I am Legend running through my head??


Because you take movies too seriously









Someone at work made the reference to the Andromeda Strain and I just shook my head.


----------



## prava

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ding Chavez;12066549*
> What about global warming. It's the end of the world man.
> A lot of science guys are working on this type of thing around the world. Using microbes to make fuels. This one sounds too good to be true but if it is could be a nail in the coffin for global warming. *It says they use CO2 to make fuel which makes CO2 when used*. To reduce global warming we're supposed to be reducing emissions not releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere.


If this process could be used to supply fuel for the entire population, the problem about global warming (the man created one, if there is any) would be deleted in one movement.

You see, the problem is that we release emissions...at a higher rate than the environment can remove. But, if we use those emissions to create emissions, and so on, we will be incredibly reducing those emissions.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KusH;12066556*
> Man made global warming does not exist, period.


It does exist, because those emissions are real..but we do not know how big of an effect we are artificially creating. It could be nothing or it could be something. We just don't know.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_02;12065761*
> But how far do you drive to work?
> 
> I drive an hour to an hour and a half each way and pay about $200 in gas each month. The price difference in European gas and North American gas seems dubious.


How are they relevant? Even more, the more you drive the more fuel tax you should pay as you are using more the roads...and those have to be publicly funded (do you have private high-roads in the States? I always wondered







).

About the direct question itself: it depends. In big cities you just can't use your car whatsoever...and in not so big ones plenty of people have to drive 100km just to get to work.

The biggest difference I see is that Europe politics encourage the use of public transportation...by investing huse sums into it. We have very good train services all around Europe, which are fast and reliable..and I don't think you have those options in the US. So, fuel needs to be cheaper.


----------



## srsdude

As much as I would love this to be true, I call BS for one simple reason:

If it was REAL, then it would be *ALL OVER THE NEWS, WORLDWIDE*


----------



## _02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prava;12068950*
> How are they relevant? Even more, the more you drive the more fuel tax you should pay as you are using more the roads...and those have to be publicly funded (do you have private high-roads in the States? I always wondered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).


It is relevant when discussing complaints of gas cost.

If I pay $30 for a gallon of gas, but only drive enough to use that one gallon in a month, I can't complain that I pay $30 a gallon to someone that pays $1 a gallon but drives 3,000 miles a month. It is about the cost to drive where I need to, not the cost of a gallon.

Exaggerated, obviously.
Quote:


> The biggest difference I see is that Europe politics encourage the use of public transportation...by investing huse sums into it. We have very good train services all around Europe, which are fast and reliable..and I don't think you have those options in the US. So, fuel needs to be cheaper.


Most of the major cities in the USA I've been to have mass transit, but not to the extent that many European places I've been have. I think the distances are too great and the population density too low to warrant a rail or other transit in many cases.

There are entire stretches of the USA the size of many European nations that have less population than a single European city.


----------



## foslock

Say hello to the future super-company of the world.


----------



## Epitope

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SIMPSONATOR;12067251*
> LOL, global warming... Makes me laugh


2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

Regardless of your opinion the Earth is warming. You can debate if humans are the cause or not. That is at least reasonable. But trying to deny the solid fact that the climate is indeed warming is just plain idiotic.


----------



## Epitope

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *srsdude;12069122*
> As much as I would love this to be true, I call BS for one simple reason:
> 
> If it was REAL, then it would be *ALL OVER THE NEWS, WORLDWIDE*


It is real. It's not on the news because most people don't comprehend the impact this will have.


----------



## Epitope

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ding Chavez;12066549*
> What about global warming. It's the end of the world man.
> A lot of science guys are working on this type of thing around the world. Using microbes to make fuels. This one sounds too good to be true but if it is could be a nail in the coffin for global warming. It says they use CO2 to make fuel which makes CO2 when used. To reduce global warming we're supposed to be reducing emissions not releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere.


It is carbon neutral. It does not increase or decrease the carbon content of the atmosphere. Every molecule of C02 given off as emissions when you burn the fuel was originally C02 before the fuel was made.

How is zero net emissions not lowering emissions?


----------



## _02

You can stick all those quotes in one post you know ;p


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_02;12069142*
> It is relevant when discussing complaints of gas cost.
> 
> If I pay $30 for a gallon of gas, but only drive enough to use that one gallon in a month, I can't complain that I pay $30 a gallon to someone that pays $1 a gallon but drives 3,000 miles a month. It is about the cost to drive where I need to, not the cost of a gallon.
> 
> Exaggerated, obviously.
> 
> Most of the major cities in the USA I've been to have mass transit, but not to the extent that many European places I've been have. I think the distances are too great and the population density too low to warrant a rail or other transit in many cases.
> 
> There are entire stretches of the USA the size of many European nations that have less population than a single European city.


It should also be noted that once you're outside the largest 10-15 cities in the US, public transit does not exist for intents and purposes.

The only way for me to commute the 4 miles into school and back is by car. And I am in the state capital attending a major public university. The bus service is anemic in routes and coverage to the point of being useless.


----------



## BKsMassive

they better hurry up and start shipping this out.

it just got me £8 ($13) for a gallon of petrol


----------



## Mach 5

Where can I buy stock? QUICK PEOPLE!


----------



## guyladouche

I call pre-going-public shenanigans. Read this thread yesterday but forgot to put in my $0.02.

But if these results are true (I'm skeptical), I wouldn't be surprised at all if the government purchased them along with all of their IP to be used at a later date when crude oil is less abundant. Conspiracy theorist coming out...


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Mach 5*


Where can I buy stock? QUICK PEOPLE!


It's not a public company


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mach 5;12069898*
> Where can I buy stock? QUICK PEOPLE!


The haven't gone public. To be honest, it's more likely that they'll get purchased vs. going public if they haven't gone public already--though there's a chance. But guaranteed that if everything that has been said is true, I imagine that stocks for the company will be prohibitively expensive.

Regarding going public, I highly doubt their claims to their abilities (I know I said this already). Very few companies divulge specifics of their capabilities while private, beyond a "general scope" view. This is probably just to generate a lot of buzz.


----------



## fabrizziop

lol in my country gas is at 0.10$ a gallon!

Anyway, that's a great discovery if it don't falls into a patent troll's hand.


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ding Chavez*


What about global warming. It's the end of the world man.
A lot of science guys are working on this type of thing around the world. Using microbes to make fuels. This one sounds too good to be true but if it is could be a nail in the coffin for global warming. It says they use CO2 to make fuel which makes CO2 when used. To reduce global warming we're supposed to be reducing emissions not releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere.



Quote:



Originally Posted by *KusH*


Man made global warming does not exist, period.


This, but Ding completely missed the point of this. It's taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, not creating it from nothing









News flash: all the CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere today was already at one or many points in the earth's history in the atmosphere.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *prava*


It does exist, because those emissions are real..but we do not know how big of an effect we are artificially creating. It could be nothing or it could be something. We just don't know.


There's no proof CO2 causes a warming or cooling effect. In fact, a mini ice age corresponded with the huge CO2 impact of WWII - the Thames even froze over. Just because it works in a greenhouse doesn't mean it works in the entire earth









I mean seriously, we can't even predict next week's weather accurately. How the hell do these people think they can predict the weather in 50 years? We don't understand how the weather works.

There have been and always will be warm periods, cold periods, wet periods and dry periods. It's natural.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Epitope*


2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

Regardless of your opinion the Earth is warming. You can debate if humans are the cause or not. That is at least reasonable. But trying to deny the solid fact that the climate is indeed warming is just plain idiotic.


No it's not. I am highly skeptical of temperature data since those leaked emails. Plus the fact that for the past 8 weeks our air conditioner has been on 4 or 5 times. For the past 10 ish years it's been on every day more or less for the current 8 week holiday. Additionally, winter was not as cold as it usually is. Anecdotal evidence i know, but the trend appears to be a smoothing of the extremes to me.

ed: oh, and correlation doesn't mean causation:


----------



## awesomator

I feel everyone can agree with me when I say for the first time in a quite awhile...

*USA! USA! USA!*


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:



Originally Posted by *awesomator*


I feel everyone can agree with me when I say for the first time in a quite awhile...

*USA! USA! USA!*


Yeah, because the only thing this thread was missing was patriotic BS.


----------



## gill

Wow really hope this kicks off! would love to see 50c/l petrol prices again!!!!!!!!!


----------



## awesomator

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


Yeah, because the only thing this thread was missing was patriotic BS.


Hey I rarely get to say *USA! USA! USA!* This has been especially true these past 10 years or so. I get the right to say it at the Olympics and when we actually do something good for the world.


----------



## Vegetables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


ed: oh, and correlation doesn't mean causation:










OH...

MY...

GOD...


----------



## SupaSupra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


Yeah, because the only thing this thread was missing was patriotic BS.


What's wrong with patriotism?


----------



## Ding Chavez

Quote:



This, but Ding completely missed the point of this. It's taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, not creating it from nothing









News flash: all the CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere today was already at one or many points in the earth's history in the atmosphere.


That's right I said that wrong. I was trying to say it wouldn't take CO2 out of the atmosphere because when you burn the fuel it's released again, but if works could be carbon neutral (depending on how CO2 and C are used in the process). The science type guys say even if we stopped all greenhouse emissions tomorrow the planet would still continue to heat.

I've just had another look at the article.

Quote:



"a proprietary organism - a genetically adapted E. coli bacterium - that feeds solely on carbon dioxide and excretes liquid hydrocarbons: diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline."


That's a direct quote from the article.

This seems impossible because you need hydrogen to make hydrocarbon molecules. In organic chemistry, a hydrocarbon is an organic compound consisting entirely of hydrogen and carbon. Unless these microbes are producing a nuclear fission reaction and turning oxygen into hydrogen the above statement from the article is in fact impossible.

Sounds way too good to be true anyway.


----------



## dantoddd

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


ed: oh, and correlation doesn't mean causation:










that's why people test for the null hypothesis. learn some science before mouthing off.


----------



## SkillzKillz

YES!! I get to drive my bicycle more often!!

-oh wait...


----------



## nub

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ding Chavez*


Sounds way too good to be true anyway.


this. If something sounds too good to be true it probably is too good to be true. Not that long ago a company named Changing World Technologies claimed to have a process to turn just about anything into oil. Tires, slaughterhouse 'leftovers', trash, sewage, etc. And they claimed they could produce oil for about 18 a barrel. Their process did not live up to the hype. I doubt this one will either.


----------



## BlackOmega

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*











http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1871149/

At long last!

We are SAVED!










Neato-keen man!


----------



## Stealth2o

Have another look at the article sir.

Quote:



I've just had another look at the article.

That's a direct quote from the article.

*This seems impossible because you need hydrogen to make hydrocarbon molecules. In organic chemistry, a hydrocarbon is an organic compound consisting entirely of hydrogen and carbon. Unless these microbes are producing a nuclear fission reaction and turning oxygen into hydrogen the above statement from the article is in fact impossible.*

Sounds way too good to be true anyway.



Quote:



The Joule technology requires no â€œfeedstock,â€ no corn, no wood, no garbage, no algae. Aside from hungry, gene-altered micro-organisms,* it requires only carbon dioxide and sunshine to manufacture crude. And water: whether fresh, brackish or salt.*


----------



## Ding Chavez

That sentence I quoted from the article said solely CO2. Now if it said H as well it might be a bit more believable but that sentence is totally impossible. Then later it says water too. So the article contradicts itself which means it's not very good.

Anyway I'll believe it when it happens.


----------



## Stealth2o

Only time will tell...


----------



## HE4T

The laws of thermodynamics tell me this is to good to be true. My BS alarm is going off.

Even if it is true the scale this would have to be reproduced on would be immense and take years to build up. You realize we consume millions of barrels of oil a day? it would take acres and acres of this stuff to make a dent in the market.


----------



## Orn

Do it do it do it!!!!!


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:



Originally Posted by *HE4T*


The laws of thermodynamics tell me this is to good to be true. My BS alarm is going off.

Even if it is true the scale this would have to be reproduced on would be immense and take years to build up. You realize we consume millions of barrels of oil a day? it would take acres and acres of this stuff to make a dent in the market.


This doesn't break any of the laws of thermodynamics that i'm aware of...


----------



## Ploppytheman

Quote:



Originally Posted by *funky882*


How far away is this? i'm talking about when the gas prices start to fall everywhere.


Gas prices fall? Why would they do that? They are going to make as much money as possible and keep prices as high as possible, or pull a rockefeller if possible.

The oil companies and such ARE NOT STUPID. They want to control and maintain control. They want money and to continue to make money. Even if this is a farce they probably have something similar.

However this will be awesome to FINALLY end dependence on foreign oil, tell OPEC/Middle East to **** off.

However it might destabilize the ME and the best we can hope for is tribal infighting instead of international war or Israel getting nuked/seiged. Although we could handle the siege easily.


----------



## Mach 5

So has anyone seen this news anywhere else? Im finding it hard to believe that this isnt on every news channel and newspaper, unless its complete BS.


----------



## corpse fan

there is no way our government (USA) will let the general public get this.


----------



## willis888

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SupaSupra;12073290*
> What's wrong with patriotism?


About 10,000 years of brutality and barbarism.

Also, it's a dirty word. Racist, sexist, classist, nationalist, it's all symptoms of the same disease.


----------



## KusH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *willis888;12076850*
> About 10,000 years of brutality and barbarism.
> 
> Also, it's a dirty word. Racist, sexist, classist, nationalist, it's all symptoms of the same disease.












Being a patriot has nothing to do with being racist, sexist, or even "classist" whatever that may mean.
Quote:


> As a group, Patriots represented an array of social, economic, ethnic and racial backgrounds. They included college students like Alexander Hamilton; planters like Thomas Jefferson; merchants like Alexander McDougall; lawyers like John Adams; and plain farmers like Daniel Shays and Joseph Plumb Martin.


Source

It really angers me when I see such asinine comments like that. I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not I surely would hope so.

If not then it's people like that, that are destroying this country with the vial socialistic point of views. Now I can't say that I think the overall idea of socialism is bad per say, I just know that it would never work in this country any time soon.

So please, stop demonizing the people that made this great country what it is to this day.


----------



## godofdeath

alright the earth will finally die due to pollution


----------



## KusH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *godofdeath;12077139*
> alright the earth will finally die due to pollution












No the Earth will be plenty fine. It will get rid of us before we can kill it.


----------



## jck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KusH;12077153*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the Earth will be plenty fine. It will get rid of us before we can kill it.


Exactly.

Too bad that Earth can't just take out the people who abuse it.


----------



## slytown

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nathris;12054446*
> And I can finally afford to drive across the continent to be there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think the US gets most of it's electricity? By burning fossil fuels. Electric isn't as green as you think.
> 
> I wonder how efficient this really is... because we might live to see an age where if you run out of gas you can just exhale into your tank and let the bacteria do the rest.
> 
> Also, depending on how pure the hydrocarbons are, this could potentially be very green. Burning fossil fuels only creates CO2 and water, the harmful gasses like CO come from impurities. If this stuff is pure we could burn it for fuel, and then take the leftover CO2 and convert it back into fuel and burn it again, which means the only by product is water.


I think converting to electric vehicles though in the aggregate is much more efficient and green because electric power doesn't create heat (or as much.) If all cars suddenly went electric, there would be much less CO2 in the air because only a few sources in a city would be burning things.


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jck;12077284*
> Exactly.
> 
> Too bad that Earth can't just take out the people who abuse it.


Volcanoes man.

One hit kill right there.


----------



## Kirmie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ding Chavez;12075331*
> That sentence I quoted from the article said solely CO2. Now if it said H as well it might be a bit more believable but that sentence is totally impossible. Then later it says water too. So the article contradicts itself which means it's not very good.
> 
> Anyway I'll believe it when it happens.


The article says it FEEDS solely on CO2. I don't know about you but nobody I know or have ever meet has ever referred to something feeding on H2O.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *willis888;12076850*
> About 10,000 years of brutality and barbarism.
> 
> Also, it's a dirty word. Racist, sexist, classist, nationalist, it's all symptoms of the same disease.


I bet you're an elitist pacifist.

Abolitionist, pianist, violinist, orthodontist, alienist (not what you probably think it is), altruist, it's all symptom's of the same illogical spelling association.


----------



## rmp459

but solar energy and space towers would be so much cooler...

The more we rely on fossil fuels the slower our technological progression is going to be.


----------



## DarkRyder

its about time. i need to dust off my suped up mustang and get her ready to roll.


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:



Originally Posted by *corpse fan*


there is no way our government (USA) will let the general public get this.


the US isn't the only country on earth.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *KusH*











Being a patriot has nothing to do with being racist, sexist, or even "classist" whatever that may mean.

Source

It really angers me when I see such asinine comments like that. I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not I surely would hope so.

If not then it's people like that, that are destroying this country with the vial socialistic point of views. Now I can't say that I think the overall idea of socialism is bad per say, I just know that it would never work in this country any time soon.

So please, stop demonizing the people that made this great country what it is to this day.


He didn't say being a patriot = being a racist. They're both symptoms of the same root problem though. What exactly are you trying to do by being nationalist? Separating yourself from someone else. Having a certain passport doesn't make you different from anyone else. I would have thought with the internet borders like that would have been crossed by now, but alas.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *KusH*











No the Earth will be plenty fine. It will get rid of us before we can kill it.


Not if we let off enough nukes to turn it into a radioactive wasteland.


----------



## KG363

I hate when people think that we get all of our oil from the Middle East. Sure, we get plenty of oil from the Middle East but our biggest supplier is Canada. And we have more oil than they do, we just don't use it for environmental and strategical purposes.


----------



## Epitope

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Kirmie*


The article says it FEEDS solely on CO2. I don't know about you but nobody I know or have ever meet has ever referred to something feeding on H2O.


CO2 is the carbon source. It still needs other nutrients like phosphorus, nitrogen, calcium, sodium etc.

CO2 is just how it acquires its carbon.


----------



## SupaSupra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willis888*


About 10,000 years of brutality and barbarism.

Also, it's a dirty word. Racist, sexist, classist, nationalist, it's all symptoms of the same disease.


Below.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *KusH*











Being a patriot has nothing to do with being racist, sexist, or even "classist" whatever that may mean.

Source

It really angers me when I see such asinine comments like that. I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not I surely would hope so.

If not then it's people like that, that are destroying this country with the vial socialistic point of views. Now I can't say that I think the overall idea of socialism is bad per say, I just know that it would never work in this country any time soon.

So please, stop demonizing the people that made this great country what it is to this day.


Thank you sir.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *DarkRyder*


its about time. i need to dust off my suped up mustang and get her ready to roll.


This, but I have a Camaro.


----------



## captain_clayman

this is EPIC

but then how are all of the middle eastern countries gonna make money?


----------



## captain_clayman

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


the US isn't the only country on earth.

He didn't say being a patriot = being a racist. They're both symptoms of the same root problem though. What exactly are you trying to do by being nationalist? Separating yourself from someone else. Having a certain passport doesn't make you different from anyone else. I would have thought with the internet borders like that would have been crossed by now, but alas.

Not if we let off enough nukes to turn it into a radioactive wasteland.


the earth has been plenty messed up tons of times (remember the dinosaurs?) but it can hold its own and over time it will be just fine. the human race is pretty likely to eradicate itself before we kill the earth.


----------



## urgrandpasdog

Quote:



Originally Posted by *slytown*


I think converting to electric vehicles though in the aggregate is much more efficient and green because electric power doesn't create heat (or as much.) If all cars suddenly went electric, there would be much less CO2 in the air because only a few sources in a city would be burning things.


Too bad almost all of our power comes from burning hydrocarbons. It will be a long, long time before the general public accepts nuclear, and the upfront monetary cost of solar along with its huge use of land puts it out of the running for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Squirrel

Quote:



Originally Posted by *srsdude*


As much as I would love this to be true, I call BS for one simple reason:

If it was REAL, then it would be* ALL OVER THE NEWS, WORLDWIDE*


Do you actually believe that important news makes it on the news? Ha.


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:



Originally Posted by *captain_clayman*


the earth has been plenty messed up tons of times (remember the dinosaurs?) but it can hold its own and over time it will be just fine. the human race is pretty likely to eradicate itself before we kill the earth.


Yes, after millions of years the earth would cope, but a nuclear winter would mutate pretty much everything beyond all repair.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:



Originally Posted by *KG363*


I hate when people think that we get all of our oil from the Middle East. Sure, we get plenty of oil from the Middle East but our biggest supplier is Canada. And we have more oil than they do, we just don't use it for environmental and strategical purposes.


This.

Long term strategy people, as was hinted at in the recent meeting between Chinese officials and the white house.

When everyone is totally depleted, America will still be rich.







Here's to nationalism


----------



## FuNkDrSpOt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willis888*


We also shed flakes of skin and hairs, excrete pieces of destroyed cells, leak lipids through our pores, and *eventually *every part of our body will return to dust.

C in = C out


Key note? EVENTUALLY.

Your body is not a 100% efficient machine. Not everything you eat gets absorbed. Not everything you absorb gets converted. Not everything you convert gets used for Krebs cycle. The Krebs cycle itself involves quite a few molecules. Even if you're a full grown adult that never gains muscle or fat, you have a constant rebuilding effort going on and tons of chemical messengers that need to be made.

Balanced chemical equations are Chem 101. You can't balance an equation until you have all the variables. Anything less is just a huge guess. Take Organic Chem and Anatomy & Physiology and then you can talk about chemical equations in the body.


----------



## Ding Chavez

Personally I think this sounds like some kind of investor scam. Patent filed, Joule Unlimited raises funds from investors with fantastic claims, Joule Unlimited goes bankrupt, investors lose all their money, Joule Unlimited directors move to Bahamas.


----------



## HE4T

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


This doesn't break any of the laws of thermodynamics that i'm aware of...


Im talking about the scale of it. To get enough CO2 and energy to grow the organisms would be immense. Its the same concept as others here stated with the human body example. The effeciency of converting co2 and sunlight isnt going to be that great thus requiring a massive scale of operations which I'm guessing would cost billions if not trillions to set up. By the time you do all that suddenly you just raised the unit cost of the energy produced to not much better than oil we currently get. Its the same story over and over. I'm not buying it until I see it with my own eyes.


----------



## _02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha;12082724*
> They're both symptoms of the same root problem though. What exactly are you trying to do by being nationalist? Separating yourself from someone else. Having a certain passport doesn't make you different from anyone else.


I don't think that the separation is the issue, we will always be separate from each other just based on the diversity of interests and taste. The problem is intolerance of differences.

There is nothing wrong with being responsibly patriotic. Patriotism, to me, is a love of ones country, not a hate of whatever isn't. I get what you guys are saying, but I don't think patriotism is inherently linked to barbarism or hatred of others, whether it facilitates it or not.


----------



## SwishaMane

Why dont we just crank up those free energy magnetic generators and get that going. No need to burn anything and pollute the air anymore. Global Warming is fake (proven fact, Climate Gate), but the pollution and dirty air isn't.


----------



## Contagion

OMG YES!!!
This is sooo awesome.
I feel like going out and smashing an electric car.

Long live ICEs.


----------



## Vegetables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_02*


I don't think that the separation is the issue, we will always be separate from each other just based on the diversity of interests and taste. The problem is intolerance of differences.

There is nothing wrong with being responsibly patriotic. Patriotism, to me, is a love of ones country, not a hate of whatever isn't. I get what you guys are saying, but I don't think patriotism is inherently linked to barbarism or hatred of others, whether it facilitates it or not.


Patriotism is inherently linked to statism which is inherently linked to violence, unless you are patriotic in the sense that you are proud of the geographic area in which you are born and not the state which monopolized that area, which seems kind of strange. As the late George Carlin once said "being Irish isn't a skill, so why would you be proud of it?".


----------



## LudaMan

Dont get too excited....there are always strings attached.


----------



## Xinoxide

if this is done solely with photosynthesis and CO2, then the fuels produced are basically that organisms poop. I like this.


----------



## urgrandpasdog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SwishaMane;12089961*
> Why dont we just crank up those free energy magnetic generators and get that going.


The fact that they don't exist may have something to do with it.


----------



## r3v3r3nd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha;12083372*
> Yes, after millions of years the earth would cope, but a nuclear winter would mutate pretty much everything beyond all repair.


Haha, nuclear winter is comparable to the K-T impact event. And we rebounded pretty well from that after some time.


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *r3v3r3nd;12106940*
> Haha, nuclear winter is comparable to the K-T impact event. And we rebounded pretty well from that after some time.


The K-T impact event didn't involve ridiculous levels of radiation.


----------



## Zarchon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *willis888;12076850*
> About 10,000 years of brutality and barbarism.
> 
> Also, it's a dirty word. Racist, sexist, classist, nationalist, it's all symptoms of the same disease.


Sorry you blame all of that on Patriotism. Mankind is made up of animals, and in the past we acted like animals. Today many of us still act like animals. It is a growing process. Realize you are alive during the infancy of our race and not the pinnacle. Allow us to be what we are and to grow to become what we will be. I always find it annoying that some people blame the present population, or mankind as a whole, for the things we did wrong in the past.


----------



## FuNkDrSpOt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zarchon;12107737*
> Sorry you blame all of that on Patriotism. Mankind is made up of animals, and in the past we acted like animals. Today many of us still act like animals. It is a growing process. Realize you are alive during the infancy of our race and not the pinnacle. Allow us to be what we are and to grow to become what we will be. I always find it annoying that some people blame the present population, or mankind as a whole, for the things we did wrong in the past.


Well I have to agree with willis888 on this one. A bit of nationalism/patriotism can be a good thing but people overdo it just like they do with religion. Just take a look at the McCarthyism in the 40's and 50's or how we JUST went overboard with invading Iraq.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FuNkDrSpOt;12108142*
> or how we JUST went overboard with invading Iraq.


political statement fail is fail

if u post about iraq be educated, or else u just seem like another lapdog


----------



## .:hybrid:.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KusH;12077153*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the Earth will be plenty fine. It will get rid of us before we can kill it.


Scenario 1: We use all fuel, can't live without it, die, earth restores.
Scenario 2: We burn unlimited new fuel, we suffocate/hell freezes over/global warming, die, earth restores.

I don't see the problem







What goes round comes round, I agree earth can take care of itself, we shouldn't worry to much about it, a firm believe that time heals all ^^ It ends with us all dying, we can only try to delay the inevitable.


----------



## BKsMassive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting;12109055*
> political statement fail is fail
> 
> if u post about iraq be educated, or else u just seem like another lapdog


This.

are government don't just invade countries randomly.
Take the forlkland island for instance.


----------



## Artikbot

Bad, VERY bad news. TERRIBLE news for us people who actually care for our environment.


----------



## weidass

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BKsMassive*


This.

*Our* government *doesn't* just invade countries randomly.
Take the *Falkland* *Islands* for instance.










Seriously... English?


----------



## Smoblikat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BKsMassive*


This.

are government don't just invade countries randomly.
Take the forlkland island for instance.










thats right our country DOESNT invade countries randomly







, (except in the late 1800's when we attacked mexico to steal its territory for no reason).
BTW
O.peration
I.raqui
L.ibertaion
ring any bells? It was the origonal codename for our invasion.


----------



## EvanPitts

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Artikbot*











Bad, VERY bad news. TERRIBLE news for us people who actually care for our environment.


And how is that? I think it is a far smarter move than "sequestering carbon" or having fake "carbon trading markets" - since this technology, if it comes to fruition, would entirely take care of the carbon cycle. And emissions would be cleaner, since we wouldn't have big petrochemical companies dumping their waste products into the fuels, garbage like sulphur (which hasn't been needed in the past 80 years).

If people cared about the environment, they would get rid of their inefficiencies, like working closer to home so they could walk, or getting rid of the four SUVs in the driveway...


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


The K-T impact event didn't involve ridiculous levels of radiation.


Dude, it'd just make a bunch of superheroes..get it right.


----------



## EvanPitts

Quote:



Originally Posted by *slytown*


I think converting to electric vehicles though in the aggregate is much more efficient and green because electric power doesn't create heat (or as much.) If all cars suddenly went electric, there would be much less CO2 in the air because only a few sources in a city would be burning things.


Gasoline engines are much less efficient than a highly regulated power plant - so a power plant is capable of producing far more power per unit of CO2 produced. A power plant can also use the most advanced technologies to attain efficient conversion as well as to maximize clean emissions. However, most power plants do not operate that way, as they look at maximizing short term profits, and will only "invest" when the law or cost-benefit shows they can score fast profits.

Electric cars are not an ideal solution. The problem we have is that cities have grown inefficient, with onerous zoning that removes business and industry from the areas where people live. Thus, people are forced to commute to and from work. Not only does this drive energy use, it also creates the culture of obesity and bad health that are driving us to bankruptcy. All of our "problems" are interlinked, and are all derived from destroying the "old ways" which centered on us living within walking range of our homes - and instead, migrating to suburbia, with people driving for an hour, or even two or three hours, back and forth to work.

I live in a city which suffers from that exact malady. Local jobs are so rare that to have one makes one an elite, while everyone else has to schlep their way on overcrowded highways to distant work places, with a million cars idling for hours at a time, with road rage and bad health all around. Electric cars would help with pollution, to an extent, but to actually bring work places closer to where people actually live, where people could take buses or simply walk, and to have infrastructure where people could work from home, these would yield very real benefits.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:



Originally Posted by *EvanPitts*


If people cared about the environment, they would get rid of their inefficiencies, like working closer to home so they could walk, or getting rid of the four SUVs in the driveway...


I do get rid of em. My car barely uses 6L/100km, I mostly use train as main transport, I use inverter-based heating instead of petrol-based, and there isn't a single incandescent lamp in my whole house (apart from the two halogens on the dining room, but that's aesthetics).

And take for granted that when I own a house of mine (not shared) it will be green powered. And in the States (take that, consumism).

I think petrol is necessary, but just for the chemical industry. If we think twice about what do we need, we won't need to use petrol to generate electricity, move cars, heat houses, and so on.


----------



## r3skyline

i like how there are people in here making a big deal when they fail to realize that this was sponsered by the U.S. Government. since when, in our history, has the government EVER succeeded in ANYTHING and shared it with the general public?

the common people will never see this.


----------



## gamervivek

Quote:



has the government EVER succeeded in ANYTHING and shared it with the general public?


internet?


----------



## p-saurus

Quote:



Originally Posted by *r3skyline*


i like how there are people in here making a big deal when they fail to realize that this was sponsered by the U.S. Government. since when, in our history, has the government EVER succeeded in ANYTHING and shared it with the general public?

the common people will never see this.


What an ignorant statement. I could write a list longer than your would care to read, I'll just point out a few more well known examples.

The Internet
Microelectronics
The freeway system
Trauma medicine
Nuclear energy
e-mail
cellular telephones
gps
wireless networking

etc., etc., etc.


----------



## r3skyline

Quote:



Originally Posted by *p-saurus*


What an ignorant statement. I could write a list longer than your would care to read, I'll just point out a few more well known examples.

The Internet
Microelectronics
The freeway system
Trauma medicine
Nuclear energy
etc., etc., etc.


not an ignorant statement when its true that the government do not share when it comes to break through technology that will actually help the world.

oh, and trauma medicine has been around for a VERY long time.









anything resulting from the internet, falls under the internet slot. including your email one. youre now stating things NOT entirely done by the U.S. government itself.

trust me...there are things in huachuca (sure you know of it) that most people do not see...


----------



## p-saurus

There are things in Huachuca that many people do not see YET. There are also things in Huachuca that many people will never see but that contain technology that will make it into mainstream consumer products shortly.


----------



## r3skyline

Quote:



Originally Posted by *p-saurus*


There are things in Huachuca that many people do not see YET. There are also things in Huachuca that many people will never see but that contain technology that will make it into mainstream consumer products shortly.


no, huachuca is not a "yet". its a never.

you guys hear about it in the news and such, but very RARELY seen.


----------



## Kevlo

So who is gonna loan the devil Snow shoes?


----------



## Ding Chavez

So what's in Huachuca? A new kind of microwave? Aliens?


----------



## r3skyline

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ding Chavez*


So what's in Huachuca? A new kind of microwave? Aliens?


to the public, its the military center for intelligence training.

kinda convenient how were located VERY close to the america-mexico border dontcha think


----------



## Ding Chavez

Sigint?


----------



## slytown

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *urgrandpasdog;12083239*
> Too bad almost all of our power comes from burning hydrocarbons. It will be a long, long time before the general public accepts nuclear, and the upfront monetary cost of solar along with its huge use of land puts it out of the running for the foreseeable future.


Nuclear power is still un-sustainable. You are still relying on man-made energy and not utilizing natural energy, and you are increasing the amount of nuclear material/knowledge available to the black market. Nuclear is simply a reactionary solution to a society steeped in excessive consumption. CO2 isn't just produced by cars and factories. It's also produced by huge industrial farms, a direct result of mass consumption.

I agree nuclear power is better than coal, but I wouldn't support a nuclear lobby. We'd be much better off de-centralizing our energy supplies. I guess you didn't really say nuclear power was the bee's knees, but I just wanted to make this point.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EvanPitts;12111295*
> Electric cars would help with pollution, to an extent, but to actually bring work places closer to where people actually live, where people could take buses or simply walk, and to have infrastructure where people could work from home, these would yield very real benefits.


Agreed. Urbansprawl needs to be part of the solution. Degredation is way too complicated for one solution. With manufacturing jobs continuing to leave the country and the internet's takeover, we may well become more rural, or at least less suburbanized. Urbansprawl has such deep cultural and social basies though, it would be hard to make living on less land popular.

I see future consumption pushing two ways: the bulk of the popultion lives in jut a few cities and one ore two corporations run the bulk of the distribution of products. The other is we became way more rural through technology that local consumption is sparked and we rely less on large-scale industry and more on local/self production of necessities. The rural scenario may result in a few major cities as well, but their size will be trumped, I think, by rural pop. size.


----------



## luckypunk

the question is will it still smell as good as gasoline?


----------



## Epitope

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EvanPitts;12111190*
> If people cared about the environment, they would get rid of their inefficiencies, like working closer to home so they could walk, or getting rid of the four SUVs in the driveway...


Like their socket 1366 processors?


----------



## wcdolphin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slytown;12116473*
> Nuclear power is still un-sustainable.
> 
> *You are still relying on man-made energy and not utilizing natural energy, and you are increasing the amount of nuclear material/knowledge available to the black market.*


Elaborate, make a point here if you have one. More nuclear material available on the black market? Sure, on the offshoot chance that depleted uranium is somehow stolen from the containment centers (where it is very well documented and well stored), the uranium must be enriched, requiring MASSIVE centrifuges. But, if they have centrifuges, they can just go find some yellow cake and do the same, anyways. You seem to be spewing poorly formulated incendiary sentences around here, my friend.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slytown;12116473*
> Nuclear power is still un-sustainable.
> *Nuclear is simply a reactionary solution to a society steeped in excessive consumption.*


Please explain how Nuclear power is reactionary?! I would love to hear this!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slytown;12116473*
> Nuclear power is still un-sustainable.
> *CO2 isn't just produced by cars and factories. It's also produced by huge industrial farms, a direct result of mass consumption.*
> This is correct and unrelated.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slytown;12116473*
> *I agree nuclear power is better than coal, but I wouldn't support a nuclear lobby. We'd be much better off de-centralizing our energy supplies.*


Why? Smaller power plants are more expensive to produce, less efficient, and rarely compensate for the transmission losses they were intended to correct for. If on the other hand, you are referring to solar panels, wind turbines, on a domestic level, it is very clear that this is a poor allocation of resources, as they will be in non optimal locations, by the very definition! Both in terms of acoustics and aesthetics, but more importantly, in terms of environmental conditions-- there is a reason why wind turbines are almost along the coast line (due to wind patterns caused by some very interesting thermal interactions).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slytown;12116473*
> Degredation is way too complicated for one solution.


You have some points that are to be made, but make them, my friend! Nuclear fission, is never going to be _*THE*_ answer, as there is, at this stage, no single answer, but it is through the balancing of the benefits of many different methods and energy sources, according to their pros and cons, that we make the best decisions about where to place our energy budget. At this point in time, nuclear power is the answer that is most economical and environmentally sound, and simply, viable.
We get approximately 20% of our energy from nuclear currently.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html


----------



## slytown

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdolphin;12117034*
> Elaborate, make a point here if you have one. More nuclear material available on the black market? Sure, on the offshoot chance that depleted uranium is somehow stolen from the containment centers (where it is very well documented and well stored), the uranium must be enriched, requiring MASSIVE centrifuges. But, if they have centrifuges, they can just go find some yellow cake and do the same, anyways. You seem to be spewing poorly formulated incendiary sentences around here, my friend.
> 
> Please explain how Nuclear power is reactionary?! I would love to hear this!
> 
> Why? Smaller power plants are more expensive to produce, less efficient, and rarely compensate for the transmission losses they were intended to correct for. If on the other hand, you are referring to solar panels, wind turbines, on a domestic level, it is very clear that this is a poor allocation of resources, as they will be in non optimal locations, by the very definition! Both in terms of acoustics and aesthetics, but more importantly, in terms of environmental conditions-- there is a reason why wind turbines are almost along the coast line (due to wind patterns caused by some very interesting thermal interactions).
> 
> You have some points that are to be made, but make them, my friend! Nuclear fission, is never going to be _*THE*_ answer, as there is, at this stage, no single answer, but it is through the balancing of the benefits of many different methods and energy sources, according to their pros and cons, that we make the best decisions about where to place our energy budget. At this point in time, nuclear power is the answer that is most economical and environmentally sound, and simply, viable.
> We get approximately 20% of our energy from nuclear currently.
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html


Just because nuclear energy is regulated and exists already doesn't make it ok.

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/9/24/is_nuclear_power_the_solution_to

The problem is nuclear energy companies have a vested interest to expand, which means greater amounts of consumption. By focusing on nuclear energy, say we converted all our power plants to nuclear tommorow, it increases geometrically the risks and waste associated with nuclear power. You can say how well safe-guarded the waste and fuel will be in the short term, but you have to understand the increased long term threat. The USA is very very young. Electrical power has only beeen around for less than 200 years. Is it really feasible to neglect the life of nuclear waste and expect the protection of these plants to last as long as the US has existed? What about when competition forces plants to shut-down. How do those closed sites become monitored?

My point is that we are supplementing our cultural need for me stuff by neglecting the long-term effects of that need. In addition to a focus on circular and renewable energy, we need to simply get away from this Jacksonian idea of progress; the world isn't for the taking.


----------



## Blazing_Javelin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99;12054092*
> I can finally host my famous Tupperware parties without guilt


----------



## Caz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99;12054048*
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/a-brave-new-world-of-fossil-fuels-on-demand/article1871149/


Two things. First, don't expect to be running your car on this type of thing for about 10 years....5 if you are lucky. It won't it WIDESPREAD markets for quite a while. Which is more than enough time for the Arabs to get the word and ramp up the prices until then.

Next is......ITS

Quote:


> genetically adapted E. coli bacterium


I don't really feel like using this stuff for AT LEAST 5 years of SMALL case testing.

Like really?

There are already other options like, hydrogen, Electric, Solar, Ethanol, Bio-Diesel, Vegetable Oil, Recycled Auto Parts (that can be broken down into Petro!). And like 10 other much smaller forms of fuel.


----------



## Stealth2o

I say they'll start mass production after 2012. Wishful thinking I know... but you just gotta believe and hope for the best.


----------



## Deadguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *r3skyline;12112065*
> i like how there are people in here making a big deal when they fail to realize that this was sponsered by the U.S. Government. since when, in our history, has the government EVER succeeded in ANYTHING and shared it with the general public?
> 
> the common people will never see this.


GoreTex, Kevlar, Nightvision, batteries, robotics, and countless other things.


----------



## Deadguy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Caz*


Two things. First, don't expect to be running your car on this type of thing for about 10 years....5 if you are lucky. It won't it WIDESPREAD markets for quite a while. Which is more than enough time for the Arabs to get the word and ramp up the prices until then.

Next is......ITS

I don't really feel like using this stuff for AT LEAST 5 years of SMALL case testing.

Like really?

There are already other options like, hydrogen, Electric, Solar, Ethanol, Bio-Diesel, Vegetable Oil, Recycled Auto Parts (that can be broken down into Petro!). And like 10 other much smaller forms of fuel.


This E coli isnt the same as the stuff from Jackn theBox, and youed by using the processed by product.


----------



## Caz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deadguy;12120092*
> This E coli isnt the same as the stuff from Jackn theBox, and youed by using the processed by product.


I fully understand that. But still, someone above posted about...wait....can't find it.

But, like when I think of this, all I think about is I am Legend and 28 Days/Weeks later.


----------



## _02

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Caz*


But, like when I think of this, all I think about is I am Legend and 28 Days/Weeks later.


Think harder!

Biological warfare research is highly more likely to cause the scenario you are talking about, and has been happening for decades. These types of bacteria are mutated, handled and studied day in and day out by 20 something year old grad students all over the country.


----------



## Nautilus

Do these "tweaked" E-colis process urine as well?

It would be awesome if they can. Just pee in the tank can go.


----------



## xenophobe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KG363;12061175*
> The article said we already use millions of acres for ethanol production in the US. Most of world is unoccupied and can be used for this artificial oil production. Land is certainly not an obstacle


I guess you don't realize how much fossil fuels are used in agriculture, do you? Vehicles to plow and sew, in fertilizer and pesticides, as well as the reaping and conversion...

In all the best case scenarios you're looking at a net gain of a bit more than 1:1 ratio. In the worst, you're looking at a net loss. In any case, the reason we have cheap ethanol is because we use fossil fuels to produce it. There is no sustainable replacement for fossil fuels.

Everyone here who is under 30 will definitely see crisis-level energy shortages in your lifetimes.

At some point in the not so distant future, cell phones, ipods, your computers... will be luxury items only the insanely rich will be able to use regularly.


----------



## KusH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenophobe;12126705*
> I guess you don't realize how much fossil fuels are used in agriculture, do you? Vehicles to plow and sew, in fertilizer and pesticides, as well as the reaping and conversion...
> 
> In all the best case scenarios you're looking at a net gain of a bit more than 1:1 ratio. In the worst, you're looking at a net loss. In any case, the reason we have cheap ethanol is because we use fossil fuels to produce it. There is no sustainable replacement for fossil fuels.
> 
> Everyone here who is under 30 will definitely see crisis-level energy shortages in your lifetimes.
> 
> At some point in the not so distant future, cell phones, ipods, your computers... will be luxury items only the insanely rich will be able to use regularly.


Thanks to power hungry globalists. And there forever task of trying to rule the world, one way or another.


----------



## slytown

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KusH;12127007*
> Thanks to power hungry globalists. And there forever task of trying to rule the world, one way or another.


We're the globalists; We fuel our own exploitation. I certainly love my corporate masters.


----------



## Epitope

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenophobe;12126705*
> I guess you don't realize how much fossil fuels are used in agriculture, do you? Vehicles to plow and sew, in fertilizer and pesticides, as well as the reaping and conversion...
> 
> In all the best case scenarios you're looking at a net gain of a bit more than 1:1 ratio. In the worst, you're looking at a net loss. In any case, the reason we have cheap ethanol is because we use fossil fuels to produce it. There is no sustainable replacement for fossil fuels.
> 
> Everyone here who is under 30 will definitely see crisis-level energy shortages in your lifetimes.
> 
> At some point in the not so distant future, cell phones, ipods, your computers... will be luxury items only the insanely rich will be able to use regularly.


Don't be ridiculous. According to Biodiesel experts at the University of New Hampshire only 15,000 square miles (122 x 122 miles) of algae in open ponds could produce enough biofuel to provide 100% of America's fuel for transportation. Transportation is about 67% of America's fuel consumption.

This is if we are talking about un-genetically engineered algae growing in ponds, not engineered photosynthetic E.coli grown in a bioreactor.

E.coli is the fastest growing organism known to man.

Biofuels are easily capable of providing 100% of our fuel needs.


----------



## coelacanth

This sounds like hype to me. Seems like Joule is looking for some venture money because they want a payday or something.

I talked to a chemical engineering PhD student over at MIT about this and here's what he said:

"A huge population of people are working on converting CO2 to fuels. I was working on this at Berkeley. From what they say about needing solar panels, their process can't be much more efficient than anyone else's.

Unfortunately the majority of this sounds like pure hype, but we'll find out in 2012."

It would be great if this ended our oil dependence though.


----------



## Stealth2o

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenophobe;12126705*
> I guess you don't realize how much fossil fuels are used in agriculture, do you? Vehicles to plow and sew, in fertilizer and pesticides, as well as the reaping and conversion...
> 
> In all the best case scenarios you're looking at a net gain of a bit more than 1:1 ratio. In the worst, you're looking at a net loss. In any case, the reason we have cheap ethanol is because we use fossil fuels to produce it. There is no sustainable replacement for fossil fuels.
> 
> Everyone here who is under 30 will definitely see crisis-level energy shortages in your lifetimes.
> 
> At some point in the not so distant future, cell phones, ipods, your computers... will be luxury items only the insanely rich will be able to use regularly.


We, humans, are a clever species. I am 100% sure that if no natural disaster (or man-made in this case) wipes us off the face of the Earth, we will not allow an energy crisis to occur. We WILL invent a perpetual motion machine. It's just a matter of time.


----------



## bigvaL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon;12054130*
> Wow, if this is as good as it sounds (it rarely is), then the middle east can kiss our ***. It'd be great to have no dependence on foreign oil whatsoever. However, global warming activists won't be happy about this.
> 
> Good point, this will never see the light of day.


If you think the US will ever "break free" from the middle east OR that the USA is only buying it because they need it, you couldn't be more wrong.


----------



## Caz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_02;12122971*
> Think harder!
> 
> Biological warfare research is highly more likely to cause the scenario you are talking about, and has been happening for decades. These types of bacteria are mutated, handled and studied day in and day out by 20 something year old grad students all over the country.


I understand. I just feel that adequate testing needs to be done before I will ever get near the stuff.


----------



## Ding Chavez

Our whole modern civilization runs on fossil fuels. Oil and coal. Before the global financial crisis oil was at about $150US a barrel. Black gold, oil is power. As the Saudis say 'the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones'. We will reach peak oil production soon if we haven't already. Oil prices can only go one way, up. China and India's growing demand for oil will increase rapidly putting further upward pressure on prices.
Then there's global warming which at this stage is unavoidable as none of the major emitters are capable of reducing anything. Science certainly has a lot to do to try to address these major problems of our time.

The Earth is going to start getting vaporized by the sun in about 1 to 2 billion years anyway so I wouldn't worry too much.
Then there's the zombie threat which is even more serious...

Edit: Former US vice president Dick Cheney started a top secret program with the objective of combating the zombie threat. Codenamed operation dropkick it's aim to use mind control on the zombie population and use them as weapons in the war on terror.


----------



## KG363

I agree.

Can this bio oil help us with the looming threat of zombies?


----------



## Stealth2o

Quote:



Originally Posted by *KG363*


I agree.

Can this bio oil help us with the looming threat of zombies?


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*


Long live science. Death to....


all kittens?


----------



## Singular1ty

The oil companies would want this, they would fight to the death over this tech, a way to gain a neigh impenetrable monopoly on the industry


----------



## Mach 5

So has this been confirmed or proven to be total BS yet? Im getting quite bored of all this speculation.


----------



## _02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Caz;12129793*
> I understand. I just feel that adequate testing needs to be done before I will ever get near the stuff.


That's fair enough, I didn't mean to sound rude.

I would probably be with you if I didn't have a girlfriend in a lab that handles bacteria and viruses 10 hours a day 7 days a week.

Its safe to be wary of things like that, but it is dangerous to speculate on the dangers, because it really just stirs up fear in other people that really have no idea how dangerous it is.

Then you get people screaming about black holes and 2012


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_02;12136371*
> 
> Then you get people screaming about black holes and 2012


But...but... the Mayans!


----------



## Epitope

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_02;12136371*
> That's fair enough, I didn't mean to sound rude.
> 
> I would probably be with you if I didn't have a girlfriend in a lab that handles bacteria and viruses 10 hours a day 7 days a week.
> 
> Its safe to be wary of things like that, but it is dangerous to speculate on the dangers, because it really just stirs up fear in other people that really have no idea how dangerous it is.
> 
> Then you get people screaming about black holes and 2012


I work with bacteria and viruses in a lab as well. I have a degree in microbiology and am earning my PhD in microbiology as well.

There is nothing to fear here. E.coli strains used in laboratory settings are literally harmless. I don't even wear gloves when I work with my mutant strains. I spilled some on my bare hands yesterday. I'm still breathing...


----------



## PhelanJKell

To be honest, though this may seem to be great, I don't think its a step in the right direction. Yeah its awesome, but we need to find clean burning alternatives, cause it isn't that we are running out of those types of fuels, its what they are doing to our atmosphere.

So again if they can do something to where they excrete another material, no science wizz here sorry, but then I'd be jumping for joy. I could only see this leading to a slowing of finding cleaner alternatives. Just my 2 cents of course...


----------



## willis888

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigvaL;12129441*
> If you think the US will ever "break free" from the middle east OR that the USA is only buying it because they need it, you couldn't be more wrong.


That's a good point. There is a strategic advantage to be gained by sucking dry the buffer area between China and Europe. An orderly retreat across the desert, from one hardpoint to the next, dealing as much damage as possible along the way, would be less painful if there is no energy prize to surrender that will then be turned against you. Also, economic might drives military might and an energy monopoly creates economic might. If the US becomes the only empire with available oil reserves because they bought everyone else's and burned it, they'll be able to manipulate markets and attain an even greater level of economic dominance.

Even if this new biotech becomes the global standard, it will still be easier to bomb a factory than a deep oil well.


----------



## willis888

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99;12136388*
> But...but... the Mayans!


... Fired the priests who made that calendar, decentralized their society, and moved back into the jungle a long time ago.

Then the priests told them the world is gonna end, and only the priests can save you.

And here we are believing the charlatans.


----------



## coelacanth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *willis888;12137074*
> Even if this new biotech becomes the global standard, it will still be easier to bomb a factory than a deep oil well.


You don't bomb the wells, you bomb the refineries.


----------



## Deed




----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willis888*


... Fired the priests who made that calendar, decentralized their society, and moved back into the jungle a long time ago.

Then the priests told them the world is gonna end, and only the priests can save you.

And here we are believing the charlatans.


The Mayans created chocolate.

Therefore, they can do no wrong in my eyes.


----------



## rusky1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PhelanJKell;12137068*
> To be honest, though this may seem to be great, I don't think its a step in the right direction. Yeah its awesome, but we need to find clean burning alternatives, cause it isn't that we are running out of those types of fuels, its what they are doing to our atmosphere.
> 
> So again if they can do something to where they excrete another material, no science wizz here sorry, but then I'd be jumping for joy. I could only see this leading to a slowing of finding cleaner alternatives. Just my 2 cents of course...


We have to find a "cleaner" solution before we find the "clean" one. There are a bunch of stops on the way from point A to point B.


----------



## _02

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*


The Mayans created chocolate.

Therefore, they can do no wrong in my eyes.










Chocolate with chilies no less!

My personal chili recipe will never be the same. Now if I could only power a car...


----------



## frickfrock999

A big update on this project, Joule just secured a few sites for production!









http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/2011/joule-secures-first-multiple-sites-host-solar-fuel-production
Quote:


> Cambridge, Mass. - May 5, 2011 - Marking another milestone in its advance towards commercialization, Joule Unlimited, Inc. today announced the signing of a lease agreement providing access to 1,200 acres in Lea County, New Mexico, with the potential to scale the project up to 5,000 acres for production of renewable diesel and ethanol directly from sunlight and waste CO2. The agreement with Lea County is the first to be completed as part of Joule's production facility siting program.


----------



## Bikkit

Well, that's good.


----------



## Xinoxide

This will help greatly for the duration the human race remains grounded. however, come time for us to leave our mother star-system, it wont be ideal to take this with us.

I think RnD on the Sandia material will take us much farther. However, this move made by Joule will help to ween us off the black stuff.


----------



## r34p3rex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99;13748916*
> A big update on this project, Joule just secured a few sites for production!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/2011/joule-secures-first-multiple-sites-host-solar-fuel-production


WOOT! Middle eastern companies are already panicking









This thing solves 2 problems... it eats away at CO2 AND produces fossil fuels!


----------



## Scorpion87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *r34p3rex;13749051*
> This thing solves 2 problems... it eats away at CO2 AND produces *renewable* fuels!


Fixed that for ya


----------



## 8ight

Good news for a man like me, my work truck eats gas for breakfast. (OK I didn't _need_ the cat-back exhaust and supercharger for work but...)


----------



## Junkboy

Thanks for update frickfrock99


----------



## KG363

I can't wait to see the results


----------



## Firebeard

i gas we should be expecting this sooner than we think...


----------



## Satsukeshi

Sweet, now I don't feel so bad about restoring old trucks that pull 8 mpg


----------



## KingGreasy

Ooh this is exiting news.


----------



## nub

I wish they were a public company. Would love to buy some stock in them.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99;12054048*
> We are SCREWED[/QUOTE]
> 
> Fixed.


----------



## zouk52




----------



## coupe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99;12054048*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/a-brave-new-world-of-fossil-fuels-on-demand/article1871149/
> 
> At long last!
> 
> We are SAVED!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EDIT 6/3/2011:*
> 
> A big update on this project, Joule just secured a few sites for production!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/2011/joule-secures-first-multiple-sites-host-solar-fuel-production


*Breaking news:*: In an incredible change in corporate strategy, Taco Bell now becomes the biggest player in Fossil Fuel!


----------



## Dillmiester

Its cool for any other applications besides fuel and energy.

There are so many advanced technologies availible that are hidden from the public its sick. There is much more potential with HHO as an alternative then this.

The real deal is Casimir Overunity and magnetics but it aint ever gonna get to the public because theres too much money to be made in the consumption of energy, their entire control system is based off of energy supply and demand.


----------



## urgrandpasdog

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Dillmiester*


The real deal is Casimir Overunity and magnetics but it aint ever gonna get to the public because theres too much money to be made in the consumption of energy, their entire control system is based off of energy supply and demand.


Oh good lord not this again. Learn some basic physics then come back.


----------



## Dillmiester

Quote:



Originally Posted by *urgrandpasdog*


Oh good lord not this again. Learn some basic physics then come back.


Im not sure what physics your reffering to, the one where energy is created nor destroyed. Im sorry but that isnt the case. Nothing is finite in this universe. Even matter itself is not actually physical unless there is an observer.


----------



## Elite GunnerX

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Firebeard*


i gas we should be expecting this sooner than we think...


----------



## BlankThis

Oil companies are going to kill this off. Sorry to be a Debby Downer but I think they're just way too greedy to let something like this happen.


----------



## mobius9

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BlankThis*


Oil companies are going to kill this off. Sorry to be a Debby Downer but I think they're just way too greedy to let something like this happen.


Kill this or license it? I'd think oil companies would much rather produce locally than import, and be able to produce the same product for less cost.


----------



## stu.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BlankThis*


Oil companies are going to kill this off. Sorry to be a Debby Downer but I think they're just way too greedy to let something like this happen.


It's been known for months though. How long do you propose it would honestly take to bury a company like this? Surely long before they signed an agreement for land?


----------



## noak

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BlankThis*


Oil companies are going to kill this off. Sorry to be a Debby Downer but I think they're just way too greedy to let something like this happen.


Oil companies might not approve, but this would solve a HUGE amount of problems for the USA, the biggest corporation out there, will defiantly like this idea, it will give us a reason to finally stop the wars in the middle east.


----------



## noak

Also, I want mid engined v12 ferrari


----------



## BlankThis

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mobius9*


Kill this or license it? I'd think oil companies would much rather produce locally than import, and be able to produce the same product for less cost.


Good point. I didn't consider that.


----------



## Ironcobra

There is no way that opec who is backed by all western military powers are going to allow this to happen it disrupts the military industrial complex which is a big nono, ask the guys who invented the cars that run on water


----------



## Jplaz

How long till they find the CEO floating in a lake?


----------



## r34p3rex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jplaz;13750559*
> How long till they find the CEO floating in a lake?


Sadly, I can actually see something like this happening.. this discovery would upset some of the most powerful people in the world..


----------



## Ironcobra

ask the cold fusion scientists if this is a safe field of work


----------



## SI51

I'm not sure if this has been stated, I have not read the entire thread. Some simple math and statistics puts this into perspective as to the effect this will have on the world's crude oil supply. Here's the math:

800 barrels per acre per year
43,560 square feet per acre
1 barrel per 54.45 square feet each year
960,000 barrels per year at 1200 acres
4,000,000 barrels per year at 5000 acres

In 2009, the US consumed 18,810,010 barrels per day. If they wanted to match this, they'd need 8,582,067.0625 acres at full production annually.

Clearly, this is a long way off from having a real impact on our oil price, simply because, in comparison, it is not producing nearly enough in order to have a noticeable impact. However, this also depends on how quickly 1 barrel can be produced. The frequency of which a barrel can be produced has a larger impact than amount per year. This is because, when compared to extracted crude oil, it will matter more if one of these barrels can be produced faster and cheaper than 1 barrel can be extracted from the earth.

If they want to compete, that is what they have to focus on.


----------



## Sovietskikih

THIS IS NOT A SOLUTION. This is to give time to find alternatives. This doesn't eliminate any problems except for oil independence.


----------



## Sabis

Imagine this scenario: Joule makes a profit off this. Joule turns said profit into R&D towards better energy and slowly releasing the grip of the middle east on the west's energy supplies. Relaxed grip means more profit means more R&D. R&D eventually finds a way to make one of the other big possible energy sources a reality, and then commercializes it. I think this discovery is only going to be used by Joule to be sure they're first on the scene with the next huge energy industry.


----------



## bumsoil

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ArmenianLegend*


YES, Iâ€™ll be able to drive my 300zxTT a lot more often!!!


ill be able to drive my 73' torino more often!


----------



## urgrandpasdog

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Dillmiester*


Im not sure what physics your reffering to, the one where energy is created nor destroyed. Im sorry but that isnt the case. Nothing is finite in this universe. Even matter itself is not actually physical unless there is an observer.


How about the physics that says you can't make energy for free?

I don't care how many fancy magnets you put into something, ultimately any energy you get out has to be accounted for in the energy put in.


----------



## quadx

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SI51*


I'm not sure if this has been stated, I have not read the entire thread. Some simple math and statistics puts this into perspective as to the effect this will have on the world's crude oil supply. Here's the math:

800 barrels per acre per year
43,560 square feet per acre
1 barrel per 54.45 square feet each year
960,000 barrels per year at 1200 acres
4,000,000 barrels per year at 5000 acres

In 2009, the US consumed 18,810,010 barrels per day. If they wanted to match this, they'd need 8,582,067.0625 acres at full production annually.

Clearly, this is a long way off from having a real impact on our oil price, simply because, in comparison, it is not producing nearly enough in order to have a noticeable impact. However, this also depends on how quickly 1 barrel can be produced. The frequency of which a barrel can be produced has a larger impact than amount per year. This is because, when compared to extracted crude oil, it will matter more if one of these barrels can be produced faster and cheaper than 1 barrel can be extracted from the earth.

If they want to compete, that is what they have to focus on.


Very good point!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *urgrandpasdog*


How about the physics that says you can't make energy for free?

I don't care how many fancy magnets you put into something, ultimately any energy you get out has to be accounted for in the energy put in.


the physics.... there is a law that says you can't many energy for free? free as in freedom?


----------



## serothis

Conservation of energy

energy in must equal energy out.

Conservation of mass

mass in must equal mass out.


----------



## quadx

LOL, i feel stupid, thanks for clarification


----------



## TehStone

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SI51*


I'm not sure if this has been stated, I have not read the entire thread. Some simple math and statistics puts this into perspective as to the effect this will have on the world's crude oil supply. Here's the math:

800 barrels per acre per year
43,560 square feet per acre
1 barrel per 54.45 square feet each year
960,000 barrels per year at 1200 acres
4,000,000 barrels per year at 5000 acres

In 2009, the US consumed 18,810,010 barrels per day. If they wanted to match this, they'd need 8,582,067.0625 acres at full production annually.


*It is perfectly feasible to dedicate 8.58 million acres of farm land to this sort of energy production.* Let's call it an even 10 million acres needed, accounting for waste & buffer. The US has 922,095,840 acres of total farmland and 406,424,909 of that are dedicated to crops. That means a dedication of about 2.5% of us cropland to US oil consumption. Assuming your numbers are correct, that's an ok trade-off. Of course that's 2.5% of US cropland to meet _one day_ of consumption. If I'm getting this right, that's pretty intimidating.

*Now consider this:* About 49 million acres of US farmland are dedicated to making ethanol from corn for the purpose of blending with gasoline (this is a very conservative estimate, other estimates peg it at nearly double this figure, or 78 million acres). That doesn't even come close to meeting our consumption of gasoline, and further, many studies believe that this process actually increases our annual oil consumption. So compare this 50-80 million acres to the 10 million or so acres needed by this new fuel making process and we can see that we're already dedicating a much larger amount of cropland to fuel here in the US. This doesn't account for other crops and waste material used to make ethanol for fuel, nor does it take into consideration that less arable land may be used for fuel production.

Ethanol from corn has seen advances over the past several decades increasing economic and yield efficiencies. It is not a new process. We can expect this new process to evolve and become more efficient over time and gain in importance. *Now if I understand the new process, it in fact doesn't require the use of cropland at all!* They plan on using this in the MIDDLE OF THE DESERT! It's an area quite inhospitable to cattle or corn production. Certainly we could spare a little wasteland for the production of fuel... already we create wasteland in the production of fuel so it shouldn't be in short supply.

http://151.121.68.30/StateFacts/US.htm
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publica...ajor_Crops.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7308
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/...49215820070611


----------



## Kaldari

Assuming that figure is correct where 8.5m acres is needed to accommodate the US's fuel consumption, that's only a little over 13,000 square miles. Something tells me we can find the space if we really wanted to. If these organisms could be made to survive in cold or hot climates, there's plenty of room for this in Alaska or southwest desert regions. Perhaps greenhouses could make this happen?


----------



## chadamir

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Kaldari*


Assuming that figure is correct where 8.5m acres is needed to accommodate the US's fuel consumption, that's only a little over 13,000 square miles. Something tells me we can find the space if we really wanted to. If these organisms could be made to survive in cold or hot climates, there's plenty of room for this in Alaska or southwest desert regions. Perhaps greenhouses could make this happen?


The us is 2.3 billion acres so it would be about .3 percent of our land


----------



## Kaldari

Quote:



Originally Posted by *chadamir*


The us is 2.3 billion acres so it would be about .3 percent of our land


That was pretty much my point.


----------



## Ironcobra

no such thing as free energy...huh...its this type of thinking that keeps man on fossil fuels, what is cold fusion or rodin coil for example? am i missing something?


----------



## KingofKings

Too bad oil companies will destroy it


----------



## SamuelL421

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SI51*


I'm not sure if this has been stated, I have not read the entire thread. Some simple math and statistics puts this into perspective as to the effect this will have on the world's crude oil supply. Here's the math:

800 barrels per acre per year
43,560 square feet per acre
1 barrel per 54.45 square feet each year
960,000 barrels per year at 1200 acres
4,000,000 barrels per year at 5000 acres

In 2009, the US consumed 18,810,010 barrels per day. If they wanted to match this, they'd need 8,582,067.0625 acres at full production annually.

Clearly, this is a long way off from having a real impact on our oil price, simply because, in comparison, it is not producing nearly enough in order to have a noticeable impact. However, this also depends on how quickly 1 barrel can be produced. The frequency of which a barrel can be produced has a larger impact than amount per year. This is because, when compared to extracted crude oil, it will matter more if one of these barrels can be produced faster and cheaper than 1 barrel can be extracted from the earth.

If they want to compete, that is what they have to focus on.


Obviously not a solution, but 8,582,067.0625 acres isn't completely unfeasible. That's less than 13,500 sq miles which, granted, is a lot. But divided throughout the states, and on undeveloped tracts of land I could foresee us one day getting 1/3 to half our oil from a source like this.

In any case it all sounds good on paper at least. In all honesty, it would probably just serve to prolong our dependence on oil and cause prices to stay reasonable as we continue to suck the planet dry.

On the upside, creation and usage of massive Joule plants would equate to jobs and some degree of energy independence (something that obviously cripples the US currently)...

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*


no such thing as free energy...huh...its this type of thinking that keeps man on fossil fuels, what is cold fusion or rodin coil for example? am i missing something?


Completely agree, but sadly our whole infrastructure - as dilapidated as it is - happens to be based on fossil fuels for transportation/energy. There's really no decent solution at this point.


----------



## TehStone

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SamuelL421*


In any case it all sounds good on paper at least. In all honesty, it would probably just serve to prolong our dependence on oil and cause prices to stay reasonable as we continue to suck the planet dry.


Well if the process works by processing Co2 from the atmosphere, it mitigates a lot of the climate problems associated with burning fossil fuels. It certainly reduces the need to traipse through war-zones all over the world to pump it out of the ground.









All that's really left is the health impact of burning fossil fuels. This new process solves the oil problem by reducing the downsides of using it.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SamuelL421*


Completely agree, but sadly our whole infrastructure - as dilapidated as it is - happens to be based on fossil fuels for transportation/energy. There's really no decent solution at this point.


Yep anytime someone comes up with a viable alternative to fossil fuels they end up dead or in jail, Rodin coils are looking very promising but something like that will never get funding or reconigtion, I mean look at tesla's career, if he was allowed to have his way we would be living a jetsons sytle life right now but he was absolutely destroyed professionally and personally by jp morgan, how long did it take for his inventions to finally get put into use(tesla coil, wireless rf) problem isnt technology its the people that are in charge


----------



## pale_neon

i'll believe it when i see it.


----------



## TestECull

So much for finite fossil fuels.

I await the return of enormous big blocks in passenger cars


----------



## _GTech

Come on guys, they would have to destroy every shred of evidence to the idea, that's probably not possible at this point, and covert operations against a company like this would draw the attention of foreign aid (e.g. other countries say hay, come make it over here!), not something any of us wants!


----------



## TestECull

Big Oil will actually be very interested in this tech. If they bury it, they sign their death certificate. This tech is their key to staying in business past the next fifty or so years.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TestECull*


So much for finite fossil fuels.

I await the return of enormous big blocks in passenger cars










Dodge still gets it done finite or infinite!!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TestECull*


Big Oil will actually be very interested in this tech. If they bury it, they sign their death certificate. This tech is their key to staying in business past the next fifty or so years.


Dont believe that bs that we are running out of oil that just allows them to drive the cost up by creating fake supply and demand, speculators are why we are paying 4+ a gal for gas not shortages

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_GTech*


Come on guys, they would have to destroy every shred of evidence to the idea, that's probably not possible at this point, and covert operations against a company like this would draw the attention of foreign aid (e.g. other countries say hay, come make it over here!), not something any of us wants!


See cold fusion or read about nicolas tesla, Energy has nothing to do with borders as the people in charge do not wave a flag other then the green one and they have very lonnggg arms


----------



## TehStone

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*


Dont believe that bs that we are running out of oil that just allows them to drive the cost up by creating fake supply and demand, speculators are why we are paying 4+ a gal for gas not shortages


lol that's a very canned response that fails to address a lot of commonly accepted science. Do you have a link for that?


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TehStone*


lol that's a very canned response that fails to address a lot of commonly accepted science. Do you have a link for that?











not gonna get into in depth but heres a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html
the abiotic vs fossil fuel argument is an intresting one and after i spent some time on it im leaning towards abiotic as are many more scientists lately


----------



## frickfrock999

Antarctica/Alaska is said to have plenty of oil if the need arises.


----------



## Kaldari

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*


Antarctica/Alaska is said to have plenty of oil if the need arises.


Right under wildlife preserves. Good luck getting past the hippies.


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Kaldari*


Right under wildlife preserves.


Polar bears aren't cuddly anyway.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Kaldari*


Right under wildlife preserves. Good luck getting past the hippies.


----------



## urgrandpasdog

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*


no such thing as free energy...huh...its this type of thinking that keeps man on fossil fuels, what is cold fusion or rodin coil for example? am i missing something?



Last I checked cold fusion doesn't work at all.


----------



## FuNkDrSpOt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Kaldari*


Right under wildlife preserves. Good luck getting past the hippies.


'Hippies' are the ones who spill billions of gallons? No. 'Hippies', like the Govt, usually don't start making a fuss until AFTER a corpoation royally F's up.

People like you who say 'drill baby, drill' are the first ones to cry when a massive spill happens and toxifies the local area


----------



## Kaldari

Quote:



Originally Posted by *FuNkDrSpOt*


'Hippies' are the ones who spill billions of gallons? No. 'Hippies', like the Govt, usually don't start making a fuss until AFTER a corpoation royally F's up.

People like you who say 'drill baby, drill' are the first ones to cry when a massive spill happens and toxifies the local area


And people like you who make broad, useless, trolling assumptions are the people who turn news threads sour.

You know nothing about me, so don't act like you do. Be gone troll.


----------



## Fullmetalaj0

If this works well we dont have to be so dependent on the middle east so much.


----------



## dzalias

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ArmenianLegend*


YES, Iâ€™ll be able to drive my 300zxTT a lot more often!!!


I have a stock 240. WANNA RACE?

To be honest, I forgot completely about this. I wish we'd just move to electric cars.


----------



## MrDeodorant

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*


not gonna get into in depth but heres a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html
the abiotic vs fossil fuel argument is an intresting one and after i spent some time on it im leaning towards abiotic as are many more scientists lately










You've got to love an article that begins "X is a discredited hypothesis". Oil is limited, and the gas companies are gouging us; the two can be true at the same time.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *dzalias*


I have a stock 240. WANNA RACE?

To be honest, I forgot completely about this. I wish we'd just move to electric cars.


Unfortunately it costs a ridiculous amount of money/resources to make an electric car and the batteries might be worse for the enviroment then fossil fuels, top gear did a special on electric toyota prius and showed how many resources it took to make the electric car it was ridiculous the amount of pollution created making these

Quote:



Originally Posted by *urgrandpasdog*


Last I checked cold fusion doesn't work at all.


hence the discussion about suppressed tech never making it to the mainstream if u read a little bit about the history of cold fusion u will see the massive effort to derail and discredit those involved with it

article from earlier this year claiming a cold fusion reactor was made:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...-breakthrough/

Found it funny in that article that fox is asking for help to translate the press conference...lol if it was a royal wedding they would have 40 translators ready to go


----------



## crashovride02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fullmetalaj0;13753303*
> If this works well we dont have to be so dependent on the middle east so much.


Please do a little research. We get the majority of out oil from the western hemisphere of the world and the 2 top providers of US oil is Canada and Mexico. We are not the dependent on middle east oil at all.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crashovride02;13754330*
> Please do a little research. We get the majority of out oil from the western hemisphere of the world and the 2 top providers of US oil is Canada and Mexico. We are not the dependent on middle east oil at all.


+1 great point they really just want everyone to think we have to be in the middle east at all times!! securing the future:devil-smi


----------



## Behemoth777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fullmetalaj0;13753303*
> If this works well we dont have to be so dependent on the middle east so much.


Countries in the middle east are already dropping the price of oil substantially, by $30 per barrel I believe.

This is amazing news for everyone, I can't wait until we are able to use this technology.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Behemoth777;13754686*
> Countries in the middle east are already dropping the price of oil substantially, by $30 per barrel I believe.
> 
> This is amazing news for everyone, I can't wait until we are able to use this technology.


heres to hopin this reflects at the pumps soon we need some shortterm relief from this mess


----------



## Reflux

Fantastic


----------



## Shredicus

So is this legit...like actually producing?


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shredicus;13754937*
> So is this legit...like actually producing?


Thats a big if, we all hope it would be a nice short term energy solution, we need to stop polluting our oceans and land drilling for black gold


----------



## SI51

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TehStone;13751832*
> *It is perfectly feasible to dedicate 8.58 million acres of farm land to this sort of energy production.* Let's call it an even 10 million acres needed, accounting for waste & buffer. The US has 922,095,840 acres of total farmland and 406,424,909 of that are dedicated to crops. That means a dedication of about 2.5% of us cropland to US oil consumption. Assuming your numbers are correct, that's an ok trade-off. Of course that's 2.5% of US cropland to meet _one day_ of consumption. If I'm getting this right, that's pretty intimidating.
> 
> *Now consider this:* About 49 million acres of US farmland are dedicated to making ethanol from corn for the purpose of blending with gasoline (this is a very conservative estimate, other estimates peg it at nearly double this figure, or 78 million acres). That doesn't even come close to meeting our consumption of gasoline, and further, many studies believe that this process actually increases our annual oil consumption. So compare this 50-80 million acres to the 10 million or so acres needed by this new fuel making process and we can see that we're already dedicating a much larger amount of cropland to fuel here in the US. This doesn't account for other crops and waste material used to make ethanol for fuel, nor does it take into consideration that less arable land may be used for fuel production.
> 
> Ethanol from corn has seen advances over the past several decades increasing economic and yield efficiencies. It is not a new process. We can expect this new process to evolve and become more efficient over time and gain in importance. *Now if I understand the new process, it in fact doesn't require the use of cropland at all!* They plan on using this in the MIDDLE OF THE DESERT! It's an area quite inhospitable to cattle or corn production. Certainly we could spare a little wasteland for the production of fuel... already we create wasteland in the production of fuel so it shouldn't be in short supply.
> 
> http://151.121.68.30/StateFacts/US.htm
> http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/
> http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Custom_Summaries/Data_Comparison_Major_Crops.pdf
> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7308
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/11/us-usa-ethanol-corn-idUSN1149215820070611


The 2.5% figure is to meet annual crude oil consumption of the US, (23,512.5125 acres if they want to reach an annual production of daily consumption) which is A LOT less intimidating when you put in those terms, and for that I thank you. I thank you as well for you added information to my post, I think them both combined add a lot of knowledge to what is actually going on with this company, and their possibilities.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SamuelL421;13751948*
> Obviously not a solution, but 8,582,067.0625 acres isn't completely unfeasible. That's less than 13,500 sq miles which, granted, is a lot. But divided throughout the states, and on undeveloped tracts of land I could foresee us one day getting 1/3 to half our oil from a source like this.
> 
> In any case it all sounds good on paper at least. In all honesty, it would probably just serve to prolong our dependence on oil and cause prices to stay reasonable as we continue to suck the planet dry.
> 
> On the upside, creation and usage of massive Joule plants would equate to jobs and some degree of energy independence (something that obviously cripples the US currently)...[/url]


If you see the other post I quoted, he makes a good point to it actually being feasible. And yes, the economic impact, apart from crude oil dependency minimalization, jobs will be created, which is HUGELY beneficial.


----------



## KingofKings

I'm sure oil companies dispatched the assassins on a little search and destoy cover up mission


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KingofKings;13755189*
> I'm sure oil companies dispatched the assassins on a little search and destoy cover up mission


----------



## UrbanSmooth

No more oil wars!


----------



## urgrandpasdog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13753484*
> hence the discussion about suppressed tech never making it to the mainstream if u read a little bit about the history of cold fusion u will see the massive effort to derail and discredit those involved with it


It's not "suppressed tech" it just doesn't work.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13753484*
> article from earlier this year claiming a cold fusion reactor was made:
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/24/italian-scientists-claim-cold-fusion-breakthrough/


If that article had any truth to it, that means the things would be commercially available this month. Which isn't happening.

Those guys haven't provided any real information about how the thing works, their papers were rejected by multiple credible organizations, and one of them has a history of fraud.

No reason to believe their device works any better than the hundreds of other idiot dreamers who claim to have harnessed cold fusion.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *urgrandpasdog;13755531*
> *idiot dreamers*


wow ignorance knows no bounds, u mad? , if we didnt have "idiot dreamers" would the great inventors of our times get anything done? Great inventions, science and ideas start with a dream and if u had any education on the history of cold fusion u wouldnt make a asinine comment such as that


----------



## Flying Donkey

No such thing as idiot dreamers, the more absurd their dreams, the higher probability they will succeed, and this is coming from a 13 year old


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flying Donkey;13755729*
> No such thing as idiot dreamers, the more absurd their dreams, the higher probability they will succeed, and this is coming from a 13 year old


+1000 wow great post coming from someone your age:applaud:


----------



## Tridacnid

Can someone explain to me why cold fusion isn't so far fetched? I was under the impression that the idea was spawned by the mis-analysis of hydrogen escaping from the platinum crystal structure.


----------



## xPrestonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flying Donkey;13755729*
> No such thing as idiot dreamers, the more absurd their dreams, the higher probability they will succeed, and this is coming from a 13 year old


I get what you're saying, but this is demonstrably untrue.. if something is more absurd than something else, the probability that it will happen is lower than the less absurd thing, not higher.

For instance: saying I will create a car that runs on chocolate milk and gets 400000MPG is absurd.

Saying I will invent a car that runs on hydrogen and gets 100mpg is still pretty far fetched, but much less so.

Which one has a higher probability of happening? If I were to graph the correlation between absurdity and probability it'd be clear that they're oppositely related..

then again, "absurdity" is subjective but you get what I mean.


----------



## Stealth2o

Time to get a TDI Jetta









Investing some $ in Joule Unlimited Inc is probably a good idea too


----------



## FuNkDrSpOt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kaldari;13753150*
> And people like you who make broad, useless, trolling assumptions are the people who turn news threads sour.


Isn't that what you just did with the 'hippies'?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kaldari;13753150*
> You know nothing about me, so don't act like you do. Be gone troll.


I don't need to know you to respond to what you wrote. There was nothing broad, useless, trolling or assuming about me comprehending your disdain for people who hold nature in high regard when you made the broad, useless, trolling comment that they were all hippies. I don't need to be your friend or therapist to do that much.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xPrestonn;13755887*
> I get what you're saying, but this is demonstrably untrue.. if something is more absurd than something else, the probability that it will happen is lower than the less absurd thing, not higher.
> 
> For instance: saying I will create a car that runs on chocolate milk and gets 400000MPG is absurd.
> 
> Saying I will invent a car that runs on hydrogen and gets 100mpg is still pretty far fetched, but much less so.
> 
> Which one has a higher probability of happening? If I were to graph the correlation between absurdity and probability it'd be clear that they're oppositely related..
> 
> then again, "absurdity" is subjective but you get what I mean.


Agreed, but saying cold fusion is from idiot dreamers is just a ridiculous statement, if it was an idiots dream why have govt and many scientists poored alot of money into it only to be ridiculed and harassed shut down completely when breakthroughs are made, this is a pattern in most alternative/free energy movements, big oil has the world by the balls including govt and anytime someone does quality research or claims to have a hypothesis on how to create free energy they are ridiculed by mainstream science foundations with ties to said oil tycoons and told its impossible, somethings got to change and whether its cold fusion or scotty's warp drive we need to get away from fossilized fuels


----------



## AtomicFrost

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xPrestonn;13755887*
> I get what you're saying, but this is demonstrably untrue.. if something is more absurd than something else, the probability that it will happen is lower than the less absurd thing, not higher.
> 
> For instance: saying I will create a car that runs on chocolate milk and gets 400000MPG is absurd.
> 
> *Saying I will invent a car that runs on hydrogen and gets 100mpg is still pretty far fetched, but much less so.
> *
> Which one has a higher probability of happening? If I were to graph the correlation between absurdity and probability it'd be clear that they're oppositely related..
> 
> then again, "absurdity" is subjective but you get what I mean.










http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

Gets 61 mpg equivalent so a hydrogen powered car getting 100MPG looks pretty feasible.









I really hope that this fuel producing bacteria actually works on a commercial scale.

I have a quick question though. Can this e.coli still reproduce on its own, or do the researchers need to do something to make more?

My 1 worry is that if it can reproduce on its own, what would happen if it got lose into a standing body or water or river? Wouldn't it start secreting the hydrocarbons all over the place?


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AtomicFrost;13756010*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
> 
> Gets 61 mpg equivalent so a hydrogen powered car getting 100MPG looks pretty feasible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really hope that this fuel producing bacteria actually works on a commercial scale.
> 
> I have a quick question though. Can this *e.coli* still reproduce on its own, or do the researchers need to do something to make more?
> 
> My 1 worry is that if it can reproduce on its own, what would happen if it got lose into a standing body or water or river? Wouldn't it start secreting the hydrocarbons all over the place?


ecoli was an typo in the article, the op states they can do it with only carbon dioxide, sunlight and cyanobacterium and will start minor production next year


----------



## dzalias

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kaldari;13753150*
> And people like you who make broad, useless, trolling assumptions are the people who turn news threads sour.
> 
> You know nothing about me, so don't act like you do. Be gone troll.


Nearly god-mode troll. Well done.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tridacnid;13755836*
> Can someone explain to me why cold fusion isn't so far fetched? I was under the impression that the idea was spawned by the mis-analysis of hydrogen escaping from the platinum crystal structure.


http://www.youtube.com/user/AllgoodAutomation#p/a/f/1/htgV7fNO-2k
cool little docu with the quantum leap guy so its got to be real, might help it shows arguments from both sides


----------



## Fr0sty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FairDoos;12054164*
> So will cars perform the same or will they perform better? e.g. performance and economy?


same fuels but now we can have them in unlimited supply

wich is the win part of that announcement

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;12054250*
> And set non-fossil fuel efforts back decades.


the whole reason we needed non fossil fuel sources was because of how we drill for oil .. but with this its rendered pointless to research for other sources ....

and btw cars each year get cleaner emissions out of their tailpipes ....

so i dont see why its a bad thing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;12054282*
> CO2 ain't the only greenhouse gas grasshopper. And besides, the process may use CO2, but I'll bet money the gases burned out the tailpipes in cars outweigh the gases used to make the fuel.


research anti pollution laws and you should see where we are heading ....

stricter anti pollution laws wich is good for the world

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nathris;12054446*
> Also, depending on how pure the hydrocarbons are, this could potentially be very green. Burning fossil fuels only creates CO2 and water, the harmful gasses like CO come from impurities. If this stuff is pure we could burn it for fuel, and then take the leftover CO2 and convert it back into fuel and burn it again, which means the only by product is water.


but you have to remember that the fuel in your tank is a blend ... a mix of fuel ... detergants ... other hydrocarbon to modify the burn rate etc.... so all of those chemicals interact into the final chemical equation ... so with mixed solution you would need a perfect catalyc converter to filter perfectly ... and not only that you would need a perfect burn to also help in that .. so no ... fuels dont turn into co2 and water .....

they form a very toxic mix that is transformed into something less toxic .... and that is the layer that can be processed .... the other toxic gasses that exit couldnt be transformed ... this is why diesels have multiple converter ... like DPF to filter out the soot ... oxidation catalyser and another one in the end that i dont remember its exact role ...


----------



## kyle7412

if it's too good to be true, most likely is >.>


----------



## UrbanSmooth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kyle7412;13756300*
> good, it's about time the oil companies pay for jacking up the prices of gas.....


See Kuwait prior to Operation Desert Storm.


----------



## Slinkman

oil company's wont let this work, it'll cut into their profits.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> the whole reason we needed non fossil fuel sources was because of how we drill for oil .. but with this its rendered pointless to research for other sources


I cant agree with this, do u really think fossil fuels will power rockets to leave the solar system what about stoping the massive amounts of pollution from burning of fossil fuels. If we can create a free energy device our level of technology will go from caveman to star trek overnight, without smaller more efficient energy devices our technology will plateau very soon or we will continue world wars until theres no 1 left


----------



## DrDarkTempler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slinkman;13756336*
> oil company's wont let this work, it'll cut into their profits.


This..

Oil company will buy the invention from the inventor for large sums of money then put that tech away so no one can use it ever except the oil company which they own that tech (like patenting).


----------



## Kaldari

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FuNkDrSpOt;13755977*
> Isn't that what you just did with the 'hippies'?
> 
> I don't need to know you to respond to what you wrote. There was nothing broad, useless, trolling or assuming about me comprehending your disdain for people who hold nature in high regard when you made the broad, useless, trolling comment that they were all hippies. I don't need to be your friend or therapist to do that much.


See, there you go again assuming you know me or what I think. So the phrase "good luck getting past the hippies" implies I have "*disdain* for people who hold nature in high regard"? Not even in the slightest. Comprehending and assuming are two entirely different things, and you're drawing wild *assumptions* from very little information.

Someone mentioned the oil reserves under Alaska, and I mentioned that they are under wildlife preserves. What I said actually added at least a little something. All you did was jump down my throat for calling environmental activist extremists who want absolutely zero drilling in Alaska hippies. So yes, what you said was broad, useless, and trolling.

You then clumped me into some stereotypical, made up (I say made up because there's positively no way you can substantiate this stereotype) group "who say 'drill baby, drill' (and) are the first ones to cry when a massive spill happens" which is, again, another wild assumption.

You're obviously just trying to stir **** up. You do it constantly. Obvious troll is obvious.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dzalias;13756068*
> Nearly god-mode troll. Well done.


Ty. Maybe now he'll stop, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## hollowtek

Am I the only one who thinks they'll be the target of a massive petrol funded assassination?


----------



## Scrappy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hollowtek;13756616*
> Am I the only one who thinks they'll be the target of a massive petrol funded assassination?










They're all dead.


----------



## Fr0sty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XNine;12054574*
> Can't wait to see all the green activists start shouting "OMG IT MAKES MROE FOSSIL FUELS THAT WILL KILL US ALL!!!!"
> 
> Sad to say, that the electricity that they think will make cars more efficient still takes fossil fuels to generate.
> 
> This actually takes the polluttion made by fossil fuels, and re-uses them. To hell with electric cars.


in quebec 97% of our electric grid is powered by hydro-electricity ... clean power baby









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ilam3d;12054596*
> Have you researched why solar energy is "expensive"? Solar energy is the most efficient energy source out there, in fact there's more energy in 1 hour of sunlight than the whole planet consumes in a year.


but the thing is how much energy can a single solar panel or a small solar panel array get you and wich price is it ...

solar energy isnt worth it yet .... think about it .... it might be one of the most aboundant form of energy but its not the most practicle solution out there today

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;12054661*
> Looking at the last 50 years or so of oil-driven economy it is easy to see how wrong you are with this comment.


using the past to form your argument on something that is supose to change the way we get our oil .... hummm why do i think it sounds stupid ...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kirmie;12055637*
> Catalytic Converter
> 
> Read it for the info on how we deal with a lot of those issues and what some of those issues are.


even so ... those converter can only transform a specific gas mixture at a certain heat level ....

so again .... lots of toxic gasses still go through intreated .... think about it ... the air isnt pure o2 and one pure specific hydrocarbon .. its a blend of lots of stuff ... detergent ... burn rate modifier and other stuff ... so in short everything people say about chemistry is wrong because they didnt take those variable into the equation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FuNkDrSpOt;12055785*
> A cat still isn't perfect though. Take a smog test and you'll see that those gases still pass the cat.


because the mix entering the engine isnt pure .....

pure o2 and say a pure hydrocarbon sample with nothing else would create a specific gas and that specific gas can be turned into something else via a catalyc converter ... but since we blend our fuels and the air contains oxygen,argon,nitrogen, and other stuff it makes it complicated to monitor all the time so they make these catalyc converter for a certain specific gas and be done with it and try to limit the amount of air entering the engine to help the converter work better ...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hollowtek;12059796*
> screw the v10 f1 cars. Bring back the twin turbo charged f1 cars pushing over 71 psi of boost.


link of such an amazing spec car running ... i mean twin turbo 70psi engine how did they made it not knock is an amazement

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smoblikat;12110945*
> thats right our country DOESNT invade countries randomly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , (except in the late 1800's when we attacked mexico to steal its territory for no reason).
> BTW
> O.peration
> I.raqui
> L.ibertaion
> ring any bells? It was the origonal codename for our invasion.


you sir have the best evidence ever posted on such debate .... wow i cant believe i didnt see that ....

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigvaL;12129441*
> If you think the US will ever "break free" from the middle east OR that the USA is only buying it because they need it, you couldn't be more wrong.


eee you are so wrong .. they have deals with the royal families in saudi arabia so they get their fuel at a certain price ....

and in exchange they provide personal protection in the form of their army ... read up on it ... an american explorer found oil a while ago but since it wasnt his soil he couldnt claim it but instead the government made a deal with the other governement ... makes sense right???

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KG363;12129861*
> I agree.
> 
> Can this bio oil help us with the looming threat of zombies?


bio oil + flamethrower = bbq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13751910*
> no such thing as free energy...huh...its this type of thinking that keeps man on fossil fuels, what is cold fusion or rodin coil for example? am i missing something?


fusion is still using energy to extract energy out of something ...

dunno about that coil thing ... but im sure it obeys the laws of physic like everything in our planet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UrbanSmooth;13756331*
> See Kuwait prior to Operation Desert Storm.


saudi arabia had a deal with the us ... petrol for protection ... and this is why they went there in the first place


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DrDarkTempler;13756481*
> This..
> 
> Oil company will buy the invention from the inventor for large sums of money then put that tech away so no one can use it ever except the oil company which they own that tech (like patenting).


Agreed.
The oil company won't use the technology until natural oil supplies run dry either.


----------



## Fr0sty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Heavy MG;13757100*
> Agreed.
> The oil company won't use the technology until natural oil supplies run dry either.


why wouldnt they use it with their drilled oil .... its fuel after all


----------



## hollowtek

Quote:


> link of such an amazing spec car running ... i mean twin turbo 70psi engine how did they made it not knock is an amazement


Just google turbo f1 cars of the 80s... how's 1550 bhp on a 1.6l sound?


----------



## DeadMau5

Sweet, at first I didn't think this would see the light of day but now they are actually moving forward


----------



## Lampen

Good in terms of being able to have access to petroleum byproducts for pharmaceuticals and other important industries but this should be used to as a replacement to traditional energy supplies. We need to move away from them immediately and start using renewable technology. So we don't already make global temperatures even worse:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHaS_eRRBFY&feature=related[/ame]

Obligatory Futurama Reference!


----------



## SonicJoe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Heavy MG;13757100*
> Agreed.
> The oil company won't use the technology until natural oil supplies run dry either.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fr0sty;13757118*
> why wouldnt they use it with their drilled oil .... its fuel after all


I agree with Frosty here. A matter of fact, I think the oil companies would use this tech and stop drilling. Conspiracy theories are nice, but oil companies are out to make money. Do you have any idea how expensive drilling for oil is? First there are site surveys to find the most probable spots for oil, then you have to drill, then you have to maintain the derrick until the well runs dry, not to mention the EPA regulations requiring the containment and sealing, etc. Then, on top of that, you have the PR nightmares that result from the occasional accidents.

Being able to contain the production in a factory would cut costs and increase profits. The only conspiracy we might face is that OPEC would probably cap production to maintain the current price of fuel so they can reap even bigger profits.


----------



## AtomicFrost

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13756038*
> ecoli was an typo in the article, the op states they can do it with only carbon dioxide, sunlight and cyanobacterium and will start minor production next year










My mistake. Does anyone know the exact cyanobacteria that they are going to use? I still wonder what would happen if the cyanobacteria they are using was to accidentally be released into the environment. Do the carbon dioxide levels need to be higher then found in our atmosphere in order to have the cyanobacteria produce hydrocarbons?

EX. A small tanker full of the cyanobacteria is released into a lake. Would the cyanobacteria start replicating / produce a larger amount of hydrocarbons in the lake?


----------



## lattyware

Everyone saying this will create more CO2 and hence global warming (something I still havn't seen as much proof for as I'd like), needs to think about it a bit more.

You don't get something from nothing.

The reason why pollution from fossil fuels we dig up is bad is a) there are impurities in the fuels which get released when burnt and b) we are digging up/drilling/whatever carbon that was taken out of our atmosphere millions of years ago and putting it back.

If we are using bacteria to take CO2 from the atmosphere to create the fuel, the fuel will be pure, so it won't contain impurities that are released, and the CO2 being released when they are burnt will be CO2 taken from the atmosphere in the first place. It'd be a zero-sum game, just like with biofuels.


----------



## gregory121295

lattyware has a good point. If this is true, we could easily forget about fossil fuels and jump ship to this very easily, without having to worry about global warming.


----------



## morphus1

It's funny I remember reading this post ages ago and thinking I'll believe it when i see it and still the only place I'm hearing about it is here on OCN. You'd think the world would go mad over something as gargantuan as this???? America could stop going to war with everyone, the middle-east would die due to their oil becoming worthless. Chinese could go crazy on infrastructure and technology, I mean the world would/should have changed over night at this development but no. I heard it hear on OCN???


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *morphus1;13758769*
> It's funny I remember reading this post ages ago and thinking I'll believe it when i see it and still the only place I'm hearing about it is here on OCN. You'd think the world would go mad over something as gargantuan as this???? America could stop going to war with everyone, the middle-east would die due to their oil becoming worthless. Chinese could go crazy on infrastructure and technology, I mean the world would/should have changed over night at this development but no. I heard it hear on OCN???


Publicity will skyrocket soon, now that they have land.
Only a matter of time.


----------



## noshibby

While this would be great and all. I'll be out of a job if they stop drilling.


----------



## Tridacnid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13756206*
> http://www.youtube.com/user/AllgoodAutomation#p/a/f/1/htgV7fNO-2k
> cool little docu with the quantum leap guy so its got to be real, might help it shows arguments from both sides


Ah, it was Palladium. I'm still a little skeptical.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tridacnid;13759029*
> Ah, it was Palladium. I'm still a little skeptical.


whether cold fusion works or not isnt the point tho, its when a alternative/free energy is presented its shot down by mainstream scientists who are more interested in there titles and pockets being lined, the op is a short term solution to our problem it still sets back any progress to be made on free energy


----------



## MrDeodorant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13759247*
> whether cold fusion works or not isnt the point tho, its when a alternative/free energy is presented its shot down by mainstream scientists who are more interested in there titles and pockets being lined, the op is a short term solution to our problem it still sets back any progress to be made on free energy


Yeah. There's a conspiracy of 'mainstream scientists' who are presenting a unified front to suppress free energy technology. That's so much more likely than the technology simply not working but being constantly propped up by crackpots who wish it were true. Yes, you've certainly looked at both sides with a clear understanding of the scientific principles involved and come to the best answer.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrDeodorant;13759276*
> Yeah. There's a conspiracy of 'mainstream scientists' who are presenting a unified front to suppress free energy technology. That's so much more likely than the technology simply not working but being constantly propped up by crackpots who wish it were true. Yes, you've certainly looked at both sides with a clear understanding of the scientific principles involved and come to the best answer.


O please is your head in the sand?, yea big oil has no influence on advancement of alternative energy:applaud: tesla was crazy afterall and didnt know what he was talking about, he should of listened to jp morgan and canned his ac power systems they said was impossible and wouldnt work, and he was stupid thinking u could transfer power without wires, it had nothing to do with his career being destroyed, no such thing as influence of money Scientists are harmless people who are always looking out for the people right?


----------



## SomeDooD

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13759326*
> O please is your head in the sand?, yea big oil has no influence on advancement of alternative energy:applaud: tesla was crazy afterall and didnt know what he was talking about, he should of listened to jp morgan and canned his ac power systems they said was impossible and wouldnt work, and he was stupid thinking u could transfer power without wires, it had nothing to do with his career being destroyed, no such thing as influence of money Scientists are harmless people who are always looking out for the people right?


Cool story bro, real cool story.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SomeDooD;13759460*
> Cool story bro, real cool story.


ignorance is coming out of the cracks now, ok i guess opec is just gonna give up there monopoly on the worlds energy like they always have, nothing to see here lets move on


----------



## MrDeodorant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13759326*
> O please is your head in the sand?, yea big oil has no influence on advancement of alternative energy:applaud: tesla was crazy afterall and didnt know what he was talking about, he should of listened to jp morgan and canned his ac power systems they said was impossible and wouldnt work, and he was stupid thinking u could transfer power without wires, it had nothing to do with his career being destroyed, no such thing as influence of money Scientists are harmless people who are always looking out for the people right?


Okay look, I'm just going to revisit your previous post for a second.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13759247*
> whether cold fusion works or not isnt the point tho, its when a alternative/free energy is presented its shot down by mainstream scientists


Do you not actually listen to yourself? "Whether it works or not isn't the point, it's that there's no peer-reviewed and repeatable experiment that gives an objective scientist a reason to suspect that free energy could work, so they say that it doesn't work and list a number of verifiable scientific principles as a basis for that opinion".
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13759326*
> O please is your head in the sand?, yea big oil has no influence on advancement of alternative energy


See, this is where you're making wrong assumptions and confusing things: alternative energy isn't free energy. Big Oil has had influence on alternative energies. That's entirely true. It's a huge lobby. *I didn't say otherwise.* If you had read my post correctly, you would see that I was talking about free energy, which doesn't actually work. You can't suppress something that doesn't work.

I believe that there are plentiful alternative energy sources out there. Thorium and solar energy come to mind. Free energy? No. There's no scientific basis to any free energy claim out there.


----------



## Singular1ty

Hummer time









jk


----------



## dodger.blue

Having grown up in Los Angeles, this makes me weep for our air. We need to shed ourselves of oil dependency.


----------



## tomasro

I'm sure it's been said before but regardless if these are renewable biofuels or current-day fossil fuels, the internal combustion engine is very inefficient and it's waste product is CO2 which is destroying our atmosphere.

Yes, getting off of foreign oil is good for all the wars and politics, but it is not the global solution. The ice caps are still melting. Temperatures are still rising. THE RATE IN WHICH OUR SPECIES WILL END IS ACCELERATING!

Anything short of a revolution in how we commute and produce energy is a waste of breath. Sure, this technology will work for us to reduce gas prices, but that's only passing the problem onto the next generation...if that.

***Also, the USA uses 18 MILLION barrels of oil PER DAY. A 5000 acre farm of biofuels with infant-like infrastructure isn't going make a dent in our dependence on foreign oil or our pocketbooks. (just my opinion though)


----------



## MR KROGOTH

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tomasro*


I'm sure it's been said before but regardless if these are renewable biofuels or current-day fossil fuels, the internal combustion engine is very inefficient and it's waste product is CO2 which is destroying our atmosphere.

Yes, getting off of foreign oil is good for all the wars and politics, but it is not the global solution. The ice caps are still melting. Temperatures are still rising. *THE RATE IN WHICH OUR SPECIES WILL END IS ACCELERATING*!

Anything short of a revolution in how we commute and produce energy is a waste of breath. Sure, this technology will work for us to reduce gas prices, but that's only passing the problem onto the next generation...if that.

***Also, the USA uses 18 MILLION barrels of oil PER DAY. A 5000 acre farm of biofuels with infant-like infrastructure isn't going make a dent in our dependence on foreign oil or our pocketbooks. (just my opinion though)


Good.


----------



## Vegetables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*


O please is your head in the sand?, yea big oil has no influence on advancement of alternative energy







tesla was crazy afterall and didnt know what he was talking about, he should of listened to jp morgan and canned his ac power systems they said was impossible and wouldnt work, and he was stupid thinking u could transfer power without wires, it had nothing to do with his career being destroyed, no such thing as influence of money







Scientists are harmless people who are always looking out for the people right?


Looks like somebody needs to study logic a bit.


----------



## pursuinginsanity

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tomasro*


I'm sure it's been said before but regardless if these are renewable biofuels or current-day fossil fuels, the internal combustion engine is very inefficient and it's waste product is CO2 which is destroying our atmosphere.

Yes, getting off of foreign oil is good for all the wars and politics, but it is not the global solution. The ice caps are still melting. Temperatures are still rising. THE RATE IN WHICH OUR SPECIES WILL END IS ACCELERATING!

Anything short of a revolution in how we commute and produce energy is a waste of breath. Sure, this technology will work for us to reduce gas prices, but that's only passing the problem onto the next generation...if that.

***Also, the USA uses 18 MILLION barrels of oil PER DAY. A 5000 acre farm of biofuels with infant-like infrastructure isn't going make a dent in our dependence on foreign oil or our pocketbooks. (just my opinion though)


..You realize the ice on earth has been melting since the end of the last ice age, correct?

Of course this technology isn't going to end our need for oil imports over night. I don't think anyone expected it would. However, we have to start somewhere.

Also. Here's an interesting story. A WW2 aircraft, nicknamed "Glacier Girl" was forced to land on an ice sheet in Greenland on 15 July 1942. The aircraft was rediscovered over 50 years later, found buried beneath 270 feet of ice. (it has since been restored to working condition) If the ice sheets on Greenland are truly evaporating, why was this aircraft buried 270 feet beneath the ice? Wouldn't that mean it's increasing, at a rate of approximately 5 feet per year? Now, granted, there may be a logical explanation, but it's interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_02*


I don't see how an oil company could keep this quiet. It seems like there would be an incredible amount of money to be made in reducing the cost of oil to the populous, and someone would be willing to run with it.

I'd burn my face off before I'd let an oil company stifle progress.


The oil companies won't be looking to stifle this new technology, they'll be looking to buy in...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Oh god not the global warming brigade. Why does everybody think that the climate we have today is the only climate this planet is ever going to have? The polar ice caps are going to melt and then they're going to come back just like they have for the last 4,000,000,000 years. The arrogance to think that mankind could keep the climate the way it is now for ever....


----------



## MrDeodorant

Quote:



Originally Posted by *pursuinginsanity*


Also. Here's an interesting story. A WW2 aircraft, nicknamed "Glacier Girl" was forced to land on an ice sheet in Greenland on 15 July 1942. The aircraft was rediscovered over 50 years later, found buried beneath 270 feet of ice. (it has since been restored to working condition) If the ice sheets on Greenland are truly evaporating, why was this aircraft buried 270 feet beneath the ice? Wouldn't that mean it's increasing, at a rate of approximately 5 feet per year? Now, granted, there may be a logical explanation, but it's interesting nonetheless.


There are places where the glaciers are growing, and places where they are melting, just the same as there are trees in a forest that are growing, and trees that are dead. If you find more and more dead trees, and the trees that are growing aren't growing as quickly as they were before, then you need to worry about your forest disappearing.

Also, global warming is properly known as global climate change for a reason. there are some consequences that take effect as increased cold. I am not a meteorologist, so I don't know why, but I believe it, because the opposing voices argue against the greenhouse effect, which anyone can verify with some relatively easy experiments.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*


Oh god not the global warming brigade. Why does everybody think that the climate we have today is the only climate this planet is ever going to have? The polar ice caps are going to melt and then they're going to come back just like they have for the last 4,000,000,000 years. The arrogance to think that mankind could keep the climate the way it is now for ever....


I had written this paragraph on general principles, and it wasn't addressed to anyone, and then your post came in as I was writing it, proving me oh so right. I don't know how anyone can argue that humans aren't destroying our planet when it's been known as a fact for decades that we put holes in our ozone layer. It's like, hey, you know that thing where we're afraid to go out into natural light without sunscreen, and how in Europe SPF15 was recognized as insufficient some time last week or so? Yeah. *That's not supposed to be like that.*


----------



## Exostenza

So.... no one cares about making less polluting energy and thinks that keeping the ability to drive our cars in ever increasing numbers is a good thing? We are going kill our atmosphere people... finding unlimited fossil fuel is NOT a good thing as it will just keep the pollution on the rise. Everyone here is just saying I will be able to drive my crazy car more... think about the pollution - think about generations to come.

This is so short sighted.


----------



## Nitrik

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*


O please is your head in the sand?, yea big oil has no influence on advancement of alternative energy







tesla was crazy afterall and didnt know what he was talking about, he should of listened to jp morgan and canned his ac power systems they said was impossible and wouldnt work,* and he was stupid thinking u could transfer power without wires*, it had nothing to do with his career being destroyed, no such thing as influence of money







Scientists are harmless people who are always looking out for the people right?


although not on a large scale but didn't Tesla actually achieve this?


----------



## kromar

so this e.coli bacterium turns humans into fuel? or is it a different strand thats lose in europe?


----------



## MrDeodorant

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kromar*


so this e.coli bacterium turns humans into fuel? or is it a different strand thats lose in europe? 


It's the same strand, which is what's so terrifying. The cities of Europe are being filled with pure gasoline as people who ate contaminated cucumbers dissolve into hydrocarbons. A single spark could set Europe ablaze.

No, they're completely unrelated. E. coli is a rather generic bacteria that is very easy to manipulate in a lab and has well-understood behaviour. The strain in Europe is genetically different. It's like the difference between honey bees and killer bees.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Exostenza*


So.... no one cares about making less polluting energy and thinks that keeping the ability to drive our cars in ever increasing numbers is a good thing? We are going kill our atmosphere people... finding unlimited fossil fuel is NOT a good thing as it will just keep the pollution on the rise. Everyone here is just saying I will be able to drive my crazy car more... think about the pollution - think about generations to come.

This is so short sighted.


First of all, your entire premise is wrong. We're not destroying the atmosphere. Do you even know what the number 1 greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is? Its water vapor. But you feel free to walk back and forth to work everyday. I'll stick to my infiniti, thanks.


----------



## dodger.blue

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*


Oh god not the global warming brigade. Why does everybody think that the climate we have today is the only climate this planet is ever going to have? The polar ice caps are going to melt and then they're going to come back just like they have for the last 4,000,000,000 years. The arrogance to think that mankind could keep the climate the way it is now for ever....


Your misunderstanding of climate science aside, you can't possibly tell me that breathing smog is a good thing.


----------



## Superjit94

Ben-Gay burns when you put it on and it helps...so teh smogz in muh lungs buring must be gud foar dem...

Edit: Sorry im bored..and high..


----------



## pale_neon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*


Antarctica/Alaska is said to have plenty of oil if the need arises.


it's said by politicians who use it as an issue. in actuality it could replace 1% of our daily fuel needs for about 15 years.

not even close to a solution.

the only real viable source for extra oil which we aren't exploiting is shale oil & canada's oil pits. but the problem is separating it from the rock/sand which takes more energy than you would get from the oil.

the only positive thing i can see from a new oil source is all the cars people have now keep running. thats all anyone really cares about. if their cars could run on something else which costs less i doubt anyone would bat an eye.

i honestly think that the real future of energy is hydrogen generated by solar. if we could absorb most of the suns energy spectrum it could easily produce more energy than we use for everything on this planet right now.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:



Originally Posted by *dodger.blue*


Your misunderstanding of climate science aside, you can't possibly tell me that breathing smog is a good thing.


Give me a break! Smog hasn't been a serious issue for the past 20 years. Most cars on the road today are low emissions vehicles. Like I said, all you guys in the global warming crowd are free to walk everyday if you want to but don't tell me I can't drive my car.

Oh, and by the way, there is about as much "science" in climate change theory as there is in most other religions...


----------



## pale_neon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*


Give me a break! Smog hasn't been a serious issue for the past 20 years. Most cars on the road today are low emissions vehicles. Like I said, all you guys in the global warming crowd are free to walk everyday if you want to but don't tell me I can't drive my car.

Oh, and by the way, there is about as much "science" in climate change theory as there is in most other religions...


Do most religions do peer review by the most recognized colleges & universities in the world?









Seriously, it's a simple idea anyone who's taken high school level earth science should understand, 'The Greenhouse Effect'.

Look at Venus, that's what happens when the greenhouse effect gets out of control.

& don't say "we don't know for 100% sure blahblahblah".  We don't know 99.999% of things 100%. It's like you're the captain of the titanic and you think you see an iceberg in the fog ahead. Hey, it might not be an iceberg and turning course is a slight inconvenience; so f*ck it lets keep going straight.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Yes, "recognized" universities like East Anglia and their cooked numbers?


----------



## MrDeodorant

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*


First of all, your entire premise is wrong. We're not destroying the atmosphere. Do you even know what the number 1 greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is? Its water vapor. But you feel free to walk back and forth to work everyday. I'll stick to my infiniti, thanks.


Sure, but the second highest (by mole fraction) greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has increased 35% since the 1900s, with half of that increase occurring since the seventies. Your entire premise is wrong. There is no science behind it.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Sorry guys, I'm at work right now and typing long paragraphs on my phone is kinda tedious so I will have to leave the discussion for later. I'll just close by saying that if the discovery in the OP pans out it will be one of the most important and beneficial discoveries to humanity in our short history here on earth. Cheap and renewable energy for the entire globe would radically improve the lives of billions of people worldwide. I can't imagine anybody being against that...


----------



## MrDeodorant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric;13763734*
> Sorry guys, I'm at work right now and typing long paragraphs on my phone is kinda tedious so I will have to leave the discussion for later. I'll just close by saying that if the discovery in the OP pans out it will be one of the most important and beneficial discoveries to humanity in our short history here on earth. Cheap and renewable energy for the entire globe would radically improve the lives of billions of people worldwide. I can't imagine anybody being against that...


You're quite right, and if you wouldn't mind, I'd be very interested to know which part of the scientific basis to the global climate change theory you disagree with; for example, perhaps you believe in the greenhouse effect but don't believe that our greenhouse emissions have been sufficient to enact a change, or perhaps you believe that the world has some sort of coping mechanism that would counteract any increase in temperatures. It's easier to have a rational conversation when you know what the other person believes.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I'll come back when I get off of work tonight. Have a nice discussion...


----------



## pale_neon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric;13763534*
> Yes, "recognized" universities like East Anglia and their cooked numbers?


http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/56466/title/Climate_science_Credibility_at_risk,_scientists_say

*They included Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences; James McCarthy, a Harvard climate scientist and chairman of the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Nobel Prize winner Phillip Sharp of MIT, who co-chaired the NAS report last year: "Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age;" and Astronomer Royal Martin Rees, President of Britain's Royal Society.*

They spoke as part of a "late-breaking" session at the AAAS annual meeting - one that was co-sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. Its stated theme: ensuring the transparency and integrity of science. However, its organizers conceded that what prompted them to shoehorn the session into the meeting were a series of back-to-back climate controversies that played out daily in news accounts over the past several months.

The "Climate-gate emails" and concerns over Himalayan glacial-melt data in a 2007 IPCC report together served as "sort of a wake-up call," McCarthy said. But a wake-up call that he and others initially all but ignored.

*The climate-science community, of which he is a part (he was a co-chair of an IPCC working group) largely dismissed the news revelations as accounts of bumbling behavior by well-meaning if overworked scientists.* *It didn't appear "that this would be a very big deal for anyone," McCarthy explained, because none of these revelations altered the weight of the evidence indicating that climate has been changing rapidly and that human activities appear to be fueling much of that change.*

But in retrospect, he now says, complacency over those revelations "was wrong." *For many people not grounded in science, or at least not in climate science, "the question arose as to whether the validity - the robustness - of the underlying science relating to climate should now be called into question," McCarthy acknowledges.*


----------



## Wabbits

If you think about it, this new E. coli bacterium will be pulling CO2 out of the air. So in effect the fuel made this way will have a neutral impact on the environment.
In fact this fuel will be cleaner then current fuels it will lack the poisonous compounds, and heavy metals used to boost the octane in gasoline. Also the bio-diesel will have no sulfur in it.
This can only be a good thing its not like humans will discover a more effective way of storing energy any time soon.


----------



## urgrandpasdog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13755653*
> wow ignorance knows no bounds, u mad? , if we didnt have "idiot dreamers" would the great inventors of our times get anything done? Great inventions, science and ideas start with a dream and if u had any education on the history of cold fusion u wouldnt make a asinine comment such as that


Nothing wrong with aspiring to something, I was talking about these people who continually say they have solved something when they clearly haven't.


----------



## MrDeodorant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wabbits;13764772*
> If you think about it, this new E. coli bacterium will be pulling CO2 out of the air. So in effect the fuel made this way will have a neutral impact on the environment.
> In fact this fuel will be cleaner then current fuels it will lack the poisonous compounds, and heavy metals used to boost the octane in gasoline. Also the bio-diesel will have no sulfur in it.
> This can only be a good thing its not like humans will discover a more effective way of storing energy any time soon.


Well, it does raise the question of where the hydrogen comes from. If it takes a crapload of water to produce the hydrocarbons, and we're already in a bit of a water crunch, then that's a bit of a problem. I wonder if it could be tweaked to be compatible with seawater instead of freshwater.


----------



## gregory121295

Salt water is still h2o, so it may not require any modification at all. They could also pull the hydrogen from the air we breath, where they get the carbon.


----------



## MrDeodorant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gregory121295;13765112*
> Salt water is still h2o, so it may not require any modification at all. They could also pull the hydrogen from the air we breath, where they get the carbon.


Not all organisms can tolerate the salt. If you drank nothing but salt water, you'd die pretty quickly. Also, I think the water content of our atmosphere is too variable for reliable fuel production, even if you were able to condense enough moisture out of it. I think if that were a feasible way to get enough water to combine with CO2 to produce hydrocarbons, then that would be how plants get the water they use to produce sugars, rather than root systems.


----------



## PsycoCarrot

E.coli is weakly salt tolerant, but has been shown to be able to increase its salt tolerance by use of glycine betaine. This allows it to better retain water, combating saline dehydration.

However, the activation of this system may sequester molecules away from other metabolic pathways, or certain molecules within the glycine betaine system could inhibit the fuel biosynthesis pathway.


----------



## assaulth3ro911

This is amazing! THIS BETTER HAPPEN! One step into my dream of the future!


----------



## Wabbits

I believe the article says It can produce the bio-fuel with "no dependence on arable land or fresh water."
My gamble of getting a TDI would so pay off if they can ramp up production.


----------



## HarbingerOfLive

Now we got fossil fuels down, now it is time to patch up that whole in the ozone layer and start taking better overall care of our planet XP.

Good fine however, even for a old ass thread.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *urgrandpasdog;13764990*
> Nothing wrong with aspiring to something, I was talking about these people who continually say they have solved something when they clearly haven't.


No doubt, but when they get absolutely get thrown down after making great breakthru's its a lil suspicious, they were able to create heat without the side effects of nuclear fission, they dont know how they did it but it deserved more research, it just so happened that MIT at the time was soaking up millions in grants to develop hot fusion and they were leading the charge against cold fusion even accused of doctoring test results to show that it doesnt work, i posted a vid a couple pages back that quickly covers the struggle cold fusion scientists have had trying to get this off the ground, im not saying its gonna happen today or tomorrow but cold fusion is not impossible and to say definitively that it doesnt work makes people in this thread sound like the many skeptics great inventors and scientists had to constantly deal with when working on there projects.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nitrik;13763019*
> although not on a large scale but didn't Tesla actually achieve this?


yes but trying to achieve this was his ultimate demise as jp morgan at the time just purchased the majority of copper mines in the world so dont need to explain that one, without his work on wireless power transfer we would not be using wifi right now and look how long it took to utlilize wifi after his death, like i said if we didnt have people in the world suppressing all of these great clean energies people like nicolas tesla would be considered the greatest mind of our time, but instead he gets a small mention in school books while people like edison are considered national heroes if u dont believe clean energy is being suppressed take a look at his life in these great docus:

http://www.esoterictube.com/tesla-master-of-lightning.html
http://www.esoterictube.com/lost-lightning-the-missing-secrets-of-nikola-tesla.html

we wouldnt even be having this discussion if the big bankers would have supported him


----------



## urgrandpasdog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13766836*
> No doubt, but when they get absolutely get thrown down after making great breakthru's its a lil suspicious


They are getting thrown down because they are making outrageous claims without anything resembling proof of the accomplishment.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *urgrandpasdog;13767032*
> They are getting thrown down because they are making outrageous claims without anything resembling proof of the accomplishment.


They have many papers showing cold fusion works yes they didnt follow normal scientific ways of publishing there papers but they should not be chastised for this where are u getting this info, they just dont know how they are doing it please watch the vid i posted, they are getting heat and energy output without radiation its still in its infancy, but please stop saying it doesnt work and watch the video i posted its a good start there are many people still working on this

It took 200 years before microbiology was reconized and all those guys where labeled crazy, but now look where its at, mainstream scientists told the wright bros human flight was impossible see where im going with this


----------



## Kaldari

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PsycoCarrot;13765384*
> E.coli is weakly salt tolerant, but has been shown to be able to increase its salt tolerance by use of glycine betaine. This allows it to better retain water, combating saline dehydration.
> 
> However, the activation of this system may sequester molecules away from other metabolic pathways, or certain molecules within the glycine betaine system could inhibit the fuel biosynthesis pathway.


Yeah, that's what I was thinking too.


----------



## xPrestonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13767101*
> They have many papers showing cold fusion works yes they didnt follow normal scientific ways of publishing there papers but they should not be chastised for this where are u getting this info, they just dont know how they are doing it please watch the vid i posted, they are getting heat and energy output without radiation its still in its infancy, but please stop saying it doesnt work and watch the video i posted its a good start there are many people still working on this
> 
> It took 200 years before microbiology was reconized and all those guys where labeled crazy, but now look where its at, mainstream scientists told the wright bros human flight was impossible see where im going with this


Cold fusion was/is disregarded because the scientists who claimed to have accomplished it couldn't recreate their own results nor could any other scientist who tried to recreate their results.

in short, they were BSing it. if you don't follow "normal scientific ways" of reporting your results, your results are not scientific.


----------



## OwnedINC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xPrestonn;13767353*
> Cold fusion was/is disregarded because the scientists who claimed to have accomplished it couldn't recreate their own results nor could any other scientist who tried to recreate their results.
> 
> in short, they were BSing it. if you don't follow "normal scientific ways" of reporting your results, your results are not scientific.


And yet throughout 98% of our history we didn't follow scientific method, yet here we are.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OwnedINC;13767608*
> And yet throughout 98% of our history we didn't follow scientific method, yet here we are.


lol, u would think at this point in our history people would see this but i guess we are still at the burn them at the stake phase


----------



## urgrandpasdog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13767101*
> They have many papers showing cold fusion works yes they didnt follow normal scientific ways of publishing there papers but they should not be chastised for this where are u getting this info, they just dont know how they are doing it please watch the vid i posted, they are getting heat and energy output without radiation its still in its infancy, but please stop saying it doesnt work and watch the video i posted its a good start there are many people still working on this


Apart from being one of the cheesiest things I've ever seen ("Heavy Watergate," really?) I like how that video completely ignores the fact that most of the groups that attempted to reproduce their results said they were unsuccessful, and many of the ones that initially said they did later retracted their statements having found error in their testing methodology.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13767101*
> It took 200 years before microbiology was reconized and all those guys where labeled crazy, but now look where its at, mainstream scientists told the wright bros human flight was impossible see where im going with this


Down a slippery slope is where you are going.


----------



## Sanders54

Finally we might see some less expensive gasoline.

Gas costs 3 bucks here per liter... and 1 liter = 0,26 gallons


----------



## Norlig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sanders54;13768050*
> Finally we might see some less expensive gasoline.
> 
> Gas costs 3 bucks here per liter... and 1 liter = 0,26 gallons


$2,36 per liter here ^^. Still feels expensive though


----------



## bennmann

Quote:


> At full-scale production, Joule expects to deliver diesel and ethanol for as little as $20/bble and $0.60/gallon respectively, including current subsidies.


This. THIS.

Now where's the bacteria that makes drop-in butanol/gasoline/petrol? Maybe a few kinks with it still? Still being developed a bit?


----------



## DarkRyder

hell's yes! It been a long time coming. Cant wait!


----------



## Siigari

Where can I buy stock in this company?


----------



## rick19011

Sorry but this will never get released, the oil company's will just buy them out for millions of dollars.


----------



## Masked

Quote:



Originally Posted by *rick19011*


Sorry but this will never get released, the oil company's will just buy them out for millions of dollars.


Your opinion is welcome but, you're not looking at reality.

4 billion pissed off, underpaid, overworked people > millions of dollars the oil companies have.


----------



## Tweex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Masked*


Your opinion is welcome but, you're not looking at reality.

4 billion pissed off, underpaid, overworked people > millions of dollars the oil companies have.


I agree. If they were going to buy them out they would have done it long before they got into the production phase and released this news about a "highly secretive" U.S. biotech company.


----------



## SoulThief

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Tweex*


I agree. If they were going to buy them out they would have done it long before they got into the production phase and released this news about a "highly secretive" U.S. biotech company.


It's still possible, however.
This article was posted a few months ago, and we haven't received much of it since, not even a "breaking news" in media outlet.

Which might lead to the conclusion that this technology is years, maybe even decades away from being anywhere near production-state or commercially.

This is perhaps why oil companies haven't acted upon it, they will silently wait this out, after this technology will start to take shape and might endanger the oil market, that's when you strike, not when a bunch of scientists say they developed a new way.

The oil market, is a blueprint for many product, since oil is used in nearly everything we have, much of the purchase price is dependant on the oil price. If somebody were to introduce a new way to create a fossil fuel or the perfect alternative for it, the market would crash, it would be the worst recession ever.


----------



## Tweex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SoulThief*


It's still possible, however.
This article was posted a few months ago, and we haven't received much of it since, not even a "breaking news" in media outlet.

Which might lead to the conclusion that this technology is years, maybe even decades away from being anywhere near production-state or commercially.

This is perhaps why oil companies haven't acted upon it, they will silently wait this out, after this technology will start to take shape and might endanger the oil market, that's when you strike, not when a bunch of scientists say they developed a new way.

The oil market, is a blueprint for many product, since oil is used in nearly everything we have, much of the purchase price is dependant on the oil price. If somebody were to introduce a new way to create a fossil fuel or the perfect alternative for it, the market would crash, it would be the worst recession ever.


Umm did you read the update. They are in production-state. They just purchased a huge site in New Mexico.

Quote:



Cambridge, Mass. â€" May 5, 2011 â€" Marking another milestone in its advance towards commercialization, Joule Unlimited, Inc. today announced the signing of a lease agreement providing access to 1,200 acres in Lea County, New Mexico, with the potential to scale the project up to 5,000 acres for production of renewable diesel and ethanol directly from sunlight and waste CO2. The agreement with Lea County is the first to be completed as part of Joule's production facility siting program.


----------



## TehStone

It's truly amazing, to be able to produce renewable petroleum fuels in the middle of a desert wasteland like this. If this is true it's better than hypothetical cold fusion "coming in only 8 years."

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Siigari;13770026*
> *Where can I buy stock in this company?*


You can't. The company is privately held. You would need to find out who are the owners of the company and if some of the owners are publicly traded corporations you could buy their stock. If the owner is a nation state you could buy bonds or invest in that country's currency.
Quote:


> Joule was founded by David Berry and Noubar Afeyan of Flagship Ventures. In addition to its founders, Joule's Board of Directors includes Graham Allison, Stelios Papadopoulos, Ruben Vardanian, and CEO, Bill Sims. [8]. Joule's Scientific Advisory Board includes synthetic biologists George Church and Jim Collins.


http://www.jouleunlimited.com/about/overview

This is a link for the board of directors of Flagship Ventures: http://www.flagshipventures.com/venture-capital/team This is the company that directly funds Joule Unlimited. One idea is to google these individuals and find out what other cookie jars they have their hands in and try to use that info to your advantage. You don't get cash like this by keeping a low profile.

Here's *the CEO*, a very busy boy - a mad scientist if you will: http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=119859&ticker=HLCS:US&previousCapId=31498&previousTitle=IRONWOOD%20PHARMACEUTICALS%20INC
"This person is connected to 167 board members in 15 different organizations across 21 different industries."


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoulThief;13771616*
> It's still possible, however.
> This article was posted a few months ago, and we haven't received much of it since, not even a "breaking news" in media outlet.
> 
> Which might lead to the conclusion that this technology is years, maybe even decades away from being anywhere near production-state or commercially.
> 
> This is perhaps why oil companies haven't acted upon it, they will silently wait this out, after this technology will start to take shape and might endanger the oil market, that's when you strike, not when a bunch of scientists say they developed a new way.
> 
> The oil market, is a blueprint for many product, since oil is used in nearly everything we have, much of the purchase price is dependant on the oil price. If somebody were to introduce a new way to create a fossil fuel or the perfect alternative for it, the market would crash, it would be the worst recession ever.


Read the edit.


----------



## frickfrock999

*Update #2, 7/13/11*

http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/2011/joule-introduces-strategic-advisory-board
Quote:


> Joule today announced the charter members of its strategic advisory board, encompassing wide-ranging expertise in oil & energy, biotech corporate strategy and international business leadership.
> 
> Joule's strategic advisory board is *chaired by Cheryl Morley, who spent 26 years in a number of leadership roles with Monsanto Company*, a global leader in the agricultural industry. As Senior Vice President of Corporate Strategy she oversaw mergers, acquisitions and Monsanto's venture fund.
> 
> *Armen Sarkissian is a former Prime Minister of Armenia and the founding President of Eurasia House International,* which fosters critical dialogue and cooperation among political and business leaders. A well-known civic leader, he holds honorary and executive positions in numerous international organizations, including the role of Chairman of the Global Council on Energy Security for the World Economic Forum.
> 
> *Peter Tertzakian is Chief Energy Economist and Managing Director at ARC Financial Corp*., where he is a member of the Executive, Investment and Strategy committees. His background in geophysics, economics and finance has established him as an internationally recognized expert in energy matters, as well as the best-selling author of A Thousand Barrels A Second and The End of Energy Obesity.


----------



## slipstream808

That's a pretty hefty team right there. Good to hear they are still moving forward. And good luck to them in finding partners and means of production.


----------



## KusH

Oh god no!!! Not Monsanto!!!! They are the scum of the earth, tainting our foods and putting our farmers out of business. As for the other 2 they don't sound like good folk either.


----------



## Shadowclock

Quote:



Originally Posted by *KusH*


Oh god no!!! Not Monsanto!!!! They are the scum of the earth, tainting our foods and putting our farmers out of business. As for the other 2 they don't sound like good folk either.


They may be bad people but their good for the business and the business is good for the world. Just let me know when the business goes public so I can make money with them









EDIT: POST 4000!


----------



## SectorNine50

YES YES YES!

The Corvette I buy the second I turn 25 is going to LOVE THIS.

...I'll probably enjoy this as well.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Please get this rolling soon...I am surprised the current government isn't trying to dump as many tax dollar into this as possible to get rolling. I would have figured Obama would be shouting the news of it from the roof of the white house. If cheaper gas isn't a vote getter in this day and age I don't know what is. Well...besides jobs, but cheaper fuel will help with that.


----------



## ryboto

Still we have the issue of how inefficient ICE's are...Carbon neutral is nice, but having a more efficient automotive industry would be even better.


----------



## KusH

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Shadowclock*


They may be bad people but their good for the business and the business is good for the world. Just let me know when the business goes public so I can make money with them









EDIT: POST 4000!


They are only "good" at businesses because they lie, cheat, and steal.

That is no "good" business. They are a parasite.


----------



## t00sl0w

this is awesome


----------



## rpgman1

Only companies are partnering up in this while the gov't still lags behind on everything.


----------



## test tube

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


Good point, this will never see the light of day.


The oil companies will be the first ones in on this... The price of oil has only been going up for the past 50 years, if you can make it from a cyanobacteria cheaper than anyone else while you have a patent you will steamroll the competition. No more high cost operations like deep sea rigging and digging into sand dunes in Canada.

Quote:



They are only "good" at businesses because they lie, cheat, and steal.

That is no "good" business. They are a parasite.


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ryboto*


Still we have the issue of how inefficient ICE's are...Carbon neutral is nice, but having a more efficient automotive industry would be even better.


Inefficient compared to...?
ICE's are not really _that_ inefficient this day in age.

Plus, who cares? We have unlimited fuel!

AMERICAN MUSCLE! COME BACK TO MEEEE!

Oil companies have the most to gain from this! This will absoLUTELY see the light of day! And I'M SO EXCITED! I JUST CAN'T HIDE IT!


----------



## Cryptedvick

Nice, however, we wont be seeing any revolutionary fuel out on the streets until the current supplies of fossil fuels are consumed. (which won't be any time too soon). 
The oil billionaires will make sure of this, just like how they made sure every revolutionary energy advancement (with potential to replace oil) so far was suppressed and kept "in the dark".

And no, this is not a conspiracy theory. Its how its always been.

These oil billionaires don't want to lose any money and they most certainly have the power to make sure of it (they basically run the world)







.

Also, don't quote me expecting a reply. This is as far as I'm going with this







.


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cryptedvick*


Nice, however, we wont be seeing any revolutionary fuel out on the streets until the current supplies of fossil fuels are consumed. (which won't be any time too soon). 
The oil billionaires will make sure of this, just like how they made sure every revolutionary energy advancement (with potential to replace oil) so far was suppressed and kept "in the dark".

And no, this is not a conspiracy theory. Its how its always been.

These oil billionaires don't want to lose any money and they most certainly have the power to make sure of it (they basically run the world)







.

Also, don't quote me expecting a reply. This is as far as I'm going with this







.


Oil companies will not buy from a more expensive source, that doesn't make business sense. Gas prices are going to plummet (or at least stop rising), no matter how you look at it.

There is no longer a Middle-Eastern monopoly on fuel production... This is good for everyone.

The reason other fuel sources were suppressed by the oil companies, was because they would require a massive restructuring of the oil companies (and/or would push the oil companies under). This changes nothing, the infrastructure stays mostly the same. This is really an awesome achievement for the consumer.


----------



## guyladouche

I was excited and on board until I saw this part:

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*


*Edit #2: 7/13/11*

They've crafted a board of strategy, *including Ex-Monsanto members. *

http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/2...advisory-board


Thanks, but no thanks. I view Monstanto as one of the worst companies in the history of the world of modern science. Don't expect whatever source of energy coming from this company to be affordable or without some sort of grand catch like, "now that you breathed in the fumes from an engine that combusted our product, you must pay us royalties since you've integrated our product into your biological framework. kthxbye."

I'm hopeful, but very skeptical now... Yes, I know I sound very biased.


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:



Originally Posted by *guyladouche*


I was excited and on board until I saw this part:

Thanks, but no thanks. I view Monstanto as one of the worst companies in the history of the world of modern science. Don't expect whatever source of energy coming from this company to be affordable or without some sort of grand catch like, "now that you breathed in the fumes from an engine that combusted our product, you must pay us royalties since you've integrated our product into your biological framework. kthxbye."

I'm hopeful, but very skeptical now... Yes, I know I sound very biased.


I haven't been keeping up with the Monsanto stuff, anybody mind filling me in?


----------



## KusH

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*


I haven't been keeping up with the Monsanto stuff, anybody mind filling me in?



http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/

Check out that documentary.


----------



## ryboto

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SectorNine50*


Inefficient compared to...?
ICE's are not really _that_ inefficient this day in age.

Plus, who cares? We have unlimited fuel!

AMERICAN MUSCLE! COME BACK TO MEEEE!

Oil companies have the most to gain from this! This will absoLUTELY see the light of day! And I'M SO EXCITED! I JUST CAN'T HIDE IT!


It'd be nice to actually use all of the energy stored in the fuel, rather than waste over 70% of it as heat. Just sayin..


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*


I haven't been keeping up with the Monsanto stuff, anybody mind filling me in?


People have pushed back a little against Monsanto, requiring Monsanto to re-evaluate cases where they claim that a farmer has illegally obtained their product where the cause for the contamination of crops was wind carrying pollen and not because of a physical theft by the farmer/farm. But because of the long and drawn-out litigation process on the relatively poor farmers, it's still more financially viable for the farm/farmer to pay out a settlement to Monsanto and get on with their lives than to try to wait it out and fight them with huge legal costs.

The most recent thing I've read is about 2 months old, where a case against one farmer was dropped because the "theft" of product was clearly due to pollen contamination, and not because of physical theft of seeds--and therefore not the responsibility of the farmer. Not really much progress, but I guess it's precedent in the right direction.

Regardless of the monsanto situation, I'm still very very wary of the decisions of a person that worked for them. I'm not saying that this person is evil, but you can't ignore what happened in the past and the mindset and decisions that were chosen.


----------



## PackaBowl09

This is shameful. Sure those guys are gonna make a butt load of money; but what about the environment? We shouls focus on alternative energy sources instead of polluting hydrocarbons


----------



## Eolas

Quote:



Originally Posted by *PackaBowl09*


This is shameful. Sure those guys are gonna make a butt load of money; but what about the environment? We shouls focus on alternative energy sources instead of polluting hydrocarbons


First we must rid ourselves of our symbiotic relationship with the middle east, then we can think alternative energy.


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ryboto*


It'd be nice to actually use all of the energy stored in the fuel, rather than waste over 70% of it as heat. Just sayin..


Sure, but inefficient is a relative term. What petrol engine is the ICE compared to that makes it inefficient? Not the rotary engine, that's for sure.

Most engines waste a ton of heat. Look at jet engines...

Hell, even electric motors churn out a lot of heat!

Quote:



This is shameful. Sure those guys are gonna make a butt load of money; but what about the environment? We shouls focus on alternative energy sources instead of polluting hydrocarbons


What alternative fuel source do we have that doesn't require the use of a pollution generating power plant?

The only real efficient and "pollution free" solution is nuclear power at this point.


----------



## Epitope

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SectorNine50*


What alternative fuel source do we have that doesn't require the use of a pollution generating power plant?

The only real efficient and "pollution free" solution is nuclear power at this point.


As long as you don't consider radioactive nuclear waste pollution...


----------



## Madman340

Why aren't they publicly traded...


----------



## FenrirXIII

Thanks for the update!!!


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Madman340*


Why aren't they publicly traded...










Because they have yet to yield any product-generated revenue at a pilot or commercialization scale. Be sure that if/when they do go public, their stock with be soooooo inflated it's not even funny. That is assuming that they don't run into any issues once they start operating at-scale.


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Epitope*


As long as you don't consider radioactive nuclear waste pollution...


Note the quotes...









If we allowed nuclear reprocessing here in the states, and finally get over the cold war scare, it is actually a VERY efficient and clean fuel source.

You can reprocess waste rods several times. The remaining material is much smaller and less radioactive.


----------



## dave12

Quote:



Originally Posted by *guyladouche*


Because they have yet to yield any product-generated revenue at a pilot or commercialization scale. Be sure that if/when they do go public, their stock with be soooooo inflated it's not even funny. That is assuming that they don't run into any issues once they start operating at-scale.


When I was looking at there stuffs I assumed that it was because their projection of producing at 20.00 usd/barrel AFTER subsidies, but they don't bother getting into (at least as far as I can see) what subsidies they require and whether or not they would be required indefinitely and if there is any scale issue. If that 20.00 usd is actually 65.00 or 75.00 after everything is taken into consideration this mess wouldn't even be competitive with corn ethanol. I would think they would need public offering funds to really start building infrastructure, but aren't quite ready for the scrutiny that comes with it. If this technology does pan out they would have no problem generating the need funds for deployment, but if they were to go public when things a still a smidge dodgy the tech would be out in the wild and company could collapse on some setback news tidbit.

It's interesting to watch.


----------



## prava

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Madman340*


Why aren't they publicly traded...










Yes, lets make a company that is worth probably nothing public so, if the idea works, we would have lost a fortune.

No. You want to go public when you need money to keep growing, not when you are about to start. For start, you go find somebody that funds you in the short therm and then you can recover your assets.


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:



Originally Posted by *dave12*


When I was looking at there stuffs I assumed that it was because their projection of producing at 20.00 usd/barrel AFTER subsidies, but they don't bother getting into (at least as far as I can see) what subsidies they require and whether or not they would be required indefinitely and if there is any scale issue. If that 20.00 usd is actually 65.00 or 75.00 after everything is taken into consideration this mess wouldn't even be competitive with corn ethanol. I would think they would need public offering funds to really start building infrastructure, but aren't quite ready for the scrutiny that comes with it. If this technology does pan out they would have no problem generating the need funds for deployment, but if they were to go public when things a still a smidge dodgy the tech would be out in the wild and company could collapse on some setback news tidbit.

It's interesting to watch.


Yeah, totally.

One thing to keep in mind is that the federal government initiated a program back in 2009 (or sometime around then) that detailed a certain percentage of overall consumed liquid fuel per year that had to come from "bio" sources, with that amount increasing each year until the year 2020 (or sometime around then). There was significant funding for this initiative (practically more money than there were ideas and companies to fund). It wouldn't surprise me if this company got public funding that it's so heavily subsidized that the current projected cost (including subsidies and non-subsidies) could amount to significantly more than the cost for a barrel of crude oil.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see. Interesting regardless.


----------



## BlankThis

Can I buy shares of these guys yet?


----------



## willis888

Quote:



Originally Posted by *KusH*


Oh god no!!! Not Monsanto!!!! They are the scum of the earth, tainting our foods and putting our farmers out of business. As for the other 2 they don't sound like good folk either.


That was my response as well.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *guyladouche*


People have pushed back a little against Monsanto...


You're welcome. The worker-owned company I am a co-owner/co-manager of has taken the offensive and filed a lawsuit against Monsanto.









Quote:



Originally Posted by *My Website*

Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), et. al., vs. Monsanto

[My company] has joined 9 other members of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and over 60 total plaintiffs in taking a stand for the protection of organic seed. Plaintiffs include agricultural organizations, seed companies and farmers. This landmark lawsuit, filed on March 29th by the Public Patent Foundation in US District Court in New York, asks the courts to declare that plaintiffs will not be held liable if they become contaminated by Monsantoâ€™s GMO genes and to declare Monsantoâ€™s GMO patents invalid due to a lack of usefulness to society.

The amended complaint, filed on June 1st, including brief descriptions of each plaintiff.

The Public Patent Foundationâ€™s original press releases â€" upon first filing the case and upon filing the amended complaint.

The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), lead plaintiff in the case, posts news about the lawsuit.


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:



Originally Posted by *willis888*


You're welcome. The worker-owned company I am a co-owner/co-manager of has taken the offensive and filed a lawsuit against Monsanto.










That's really good to hear. I'm reading up more about this and your company. Not that there aren't similarly evil companies like Monsanto in existence, but I'd be so happy if they got taken apart piece by piece, their technology removed completely from agriculture, and fined heavily for what they have done to countless farmers.

I wish you and your hippie commune luck with your efforts against Monsanto!


----------



## Mr_Torch

Sheesh, it will be the same as oil is with all the money grubbing/stealing oil company leach people we have now.

This is a wonderful product they have come up with, but leave it to the leach people to ruin it for everybody.

Hmmm maybe Jobs is a big Monsanto investor, crap they do that is bad for/to people is just his style...


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guyladouche;14202690*
> People have pushed back a little against Monsanto, requiring Monsanto to re-evaluate cases where they claim that a farmer has illegally obtained their product where the cause for the contamination of crops was wind carrying pollen and not because of a physical theft by the farmer/farm. But because of the long and drawn-out litigation process on the relatively poor farmers, it's still more financially viable for the farm/farmer to pay out a settlement to Monsanto and get on with their lives than to try to wait it out and fight them with huge legal costs.


So the major concern right now is the farmers being sued? I read up a bit on some kidney and liver failure cases and how they're still using GMOs, is that still a concern?

I'm completely clueless when it comes to GMO/Agriculture news.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KusH;14202513*
> 
> http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/
> 
> Check out that documentary.


Right on brother, about to watch it now.


----------



## rivaldog

In my honest opinion, I strongly dislike how you bold and under line certain parts of quotes >_> Why not just quote what you want to quote instead of getting quality chunks like you do and then emphasizing one part of it and making it distracting while reading the rest of the quote? >_>


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rivaldog;14206360*
> In my honest opinion, I strongly dislike how you bold and under line certain parts of quotes >_> Why not just quote what you want to quote instead of getting quality chunks like you do and then emphasizing one part of it and making it distracting while reading the rest of the quote? >_>


Because it's 2011 and attention spans are non-existent.


----------



## rivaldog

Mine exists, I just watched your skittles unboxing and taste test review and found it pretty funny, but also I am


----------



## Joephis19

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KusH;14202513*
> 
> http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/
> 
> Check out that documentary.


Make sure you only look at one side of the story, from a source that is 100% biased against GMO's.


----------



## BigPharma

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guyladouche;14202690*
> 
> Regardless of the monsanto situation, I'm still very very wary of the decisions of a person that worked for them. I'm not saying that this person is evil, but you can't ignore what happened in the past and the mindset and decisions that were chosen.


Came in to post this when I read that a Monsanto member was on the panel. Not something to be taken lightly.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Joephis19*


Make sure you only look at one side of the story, from a source that is 100% biased against GMO's.


Can u find one positive story from monsanto? I mean come on really starving countries like India and Haiti burn there seeds and commit suicide when monstanto crops take over there native ones, Haitians aren't the smartest people on the block and if they reject gmo after that crippling earthquake doesn't that tell u something? In time we will learn that gmo is whats behind bee colonies dying off(and no bees no mankind), you have much to learn about the extent of there evils and that docu is just the start! You sound like you need to hit the books a little more on gmo.


----------



## CyberDruid

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*


Can u find one positive story from monsanto? I mean come on really starving countries like India and Haiti burn there seeds and commit suicide when monstanto crops take over there native ones, Haitians aren't the smartest people on the block and if they reject gmo after that crippling earthquake doesn't that tell u something? In time we will learn that gmo is whats behind bee colonies dying off(and no bees no mankind), you have much to learn about the extent of there evils and that docu is just the start!


Reality Check: the latest science indicates that cel phones and cel phone towers microwave transmissions are what is killing my beloved bees...not GMOs. GMOs are not something I like to eat...but if one of those buggers will make fuel for my gas guzzling truck I am all for it. If a GMO will prevent us from making a really stupid decision (going back to Nuclear Power) I am all for it. EM pollution is still not on most people's radar...but I take the matter seriously. The invisible nearly undetectable pollution of our electromagnetic environment is increasing exponentially.

And before I believe any claims about Evil Monsanto and their NWO agenda I'd like to see some citations, links, corroborating evidence. There is no black and white to the issue. All corporations do good things and bad things for the human population. It's a matter of weighing the good against the bad and deciding if they can continue their course of action.


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Joephis19*


Make sure you only look at one side of the story, from a source that is 100% biased against GMO's.


I think it's a very short-sighted to think about this only in terms of the debate between GMO's and whatever we do and do not know about their effects. The bigger picture is not that a company is putting out GMO's that might (and might not) have detrimental effects on biological systems. It's how a company was able to get to the point they were, with so many unethical decisions that went un-checked (and even supported by members in government). You can find arguments on either side of the GMO debate that might all be backed by some study or another. It doesn't change the terrible ways that the company conducted business, treated people, both directly and indirectly, to all but corner an entire industry. That's a much more major concern--if we do or don't decide/understand how GMO's effect us is one thing, but if the same series of events are allowed to unfold that yield similar consequences time and time again, that's a much bigger problem.


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CyberDruid*


Reality Check: the latest science indicates that cel phones and cel phone towers microwave transmissions are what is killing my beloved bees...not GMOs. GMOs are not something I like to eat...but if one of those buggers will make fuel for my gas guzzling truck I am all for it. *If a GMO will prevent us from making a really stupid decision (going back to Nuclear Power)* I am all for it. EM pollution is still not on most people's radar...but I take the matter seriously. The invisible nearly undetectable pollution of our electromagnetic environment is increasing exponentially.

And before I believe any claims about Evil Monsanto and their NWO agenda I'd like to see some citations, links, corroborating evidence. There is no black and white to the issue. All corporations do good things and bad things for the human population. It's a matter of weighing the good against the bad and deciding if they can continue their course of action.


I'm curious why you think "going back" to nuclear power is a stupid idea?


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CyberDruid*


And before I believe any claims about Evil Monsanto and their NWO agenda I'd like to see some citations, links, corroborating evidence. There is no black and white to the issue. All corporations do good things and bad things for the human population. It's a matter of weighing the good against the bad and deciding if they can continue their course of action.


You are not looking very hard if you cannot find any of that and im not going to hold your hand and find them for you. You have already made your mind up, f the little man i need gas cheaper in my truck, that is the attitude of Americans and Im certain cell phone towers are to blame as well for the bees it doenst explain it in regions that have none. But i do agree EM pollution is an alarming topic, google the cell towers in london frying the trees around them.

OT: but funny http://www.salem-news.com/articles/j...-beaten-tk.php


----------



## Joephis19

There is plenty of evidence that GMO's are safe. Problem is finding it. Econazi's and self-proclaimed experts with 0 scientific background, along with the mainstream ultra-liberal media have made it so that even when trying to google for information, you are bombarded with the likes of "The World According to Monsanto" and "Food, Inc.", before you get to any actual scientific proof. Both of which are extremely biased.

It's akin to seeking all your news information about 9/11 from Michael Moore.

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/2-g...abelling.htm#0 <---Independant information as far as I can tell.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote: 
   Originally Posted by *Joephis19*   There is plenty of evidence that GMO's are safe. Problem is finding it. Econazi's and self-proclaimed experts with 0 scientific background, along with the mainstream ultra-liberal media have made it so that even when trying to google for information, you are bombarded with the likes of "The World According to Monsanto" and "Food, Inc.", before you get to any actual scientific proof. Both of which are extremely biased.

It's akin to seeking all your news information about 9/11 from Michael Moore.

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/2-g...abelling.htm#0 <---Independant information as far as I can tell.  
No i get my evidence from the hundreds of of farmers committing suicide in 
India or the responsible countries banning monsanto from there soil and the reports they release as to why, nice attempt trying to make it a conspiracy theory it is not you do not mess with mother nature and thats fact. Are u aware that the good evidence is bought and payed for by monsanto, just like the pharma companies doing research on there own products and calling it independent research. A human being would no support or defend monsanto if they had any education on the subject. 
Tell these people monsanto does good:
  
 You Tube


----------



## BigPharma

When the addition of a single OH group to a molecule can turn a benign molecule into an alkylating agent (cancer), I think some trepidation would be beneficial in dealing with companies that are more concerned with produce yields than the lingering effects of exogenous genetic material in the human body.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BigPharma*


When the addition of a single OH group to a molecule can turn a benign molecule into an alkylating agent (cancer), I think some trepidation would be beneficial in dealing with companies that are more concerned with produce yields than the lingering effects of exogenous genetic material in the human body.


well said +rep


----------



## Joephis19

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*


Are u aware that the good evidence is bought and payed for by *both sides*,.[/url]


Fixed it for you.

Post evidence from a group without an agenda, like i did.

Thanks.


----------



## Phaedrus2129

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BigPharma*


When the addition of a single OH group to a molecule can turn a benign molecule into an alkylating agent (cancer), I think some trepidation would be beneficial in dealing with companies that are more concerned with produce yields than the lingering effects of exogenous genetic material in the human body.


Um... No. I don't think you know what you're talking about. Alkylating agents are used to treat cancer, though yes they can be toxic. But the chemistry here is complex, and only a few molecules become alkylating agents from the addition of just an OH group. I think you may be confusing "alkylating agents" with other types of molecules, such as alkanes, alkaloids, alcohols, etc. which sound similar but are in fact completely different.

The username "BigPharma" also raises alarm bells.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Joephis19*


Fixed it for you.

Post evidence from a group without an agenda, like i did.

Thanks.


What a blog post that states 50 authoritative independent scientific assessments, where are the links to these reports im just supposed to believe them? I will take my info from those people on the ground in those videos who have no education and were suckered out of there land by monsanto and there dirty tatics, u really have to try hard to not see the dirty game monsanto plays on unsuspecting third would countries and i include America in that.


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CyberDruid*


Reality Check: the latest science indicates that cel phones and cel phone towers microwave transmissions are what is killing my beloved bees...not GMOs. GMOs are not something I like to eat...but if one of those buggers will make fuel for my gas guzzling truck I am all for it. If a GMO will prevent us from making a really stupid decision (going back to Nuclear Power) I am all for it. EM pollution is still not on most people's radar...but I take the matter seriously. The invisible nearly undetectable pollution of our electromagnetic environment is increasing exponentially.

And before I believe any claims about Evil Monsanto and their NWO agenda I'd like to see some citations, links, corroborating evidence. There is no black and white to the issue. All corporations do good things and bad things for the human population. It's a matter of weighing the good against the bad and deciding if they can continue their course of action.


There were one or two studies that monitored the effects of cell phone radiation on bee colononies--hardly in a scientific method that allowed for logical conclusions to be made about "normal" RF levels and their effect (they strapped high-powered RF antennas TO a colony and generated RF frequencies in the cell-phone range for long periods of time).

Are there effects of RF radiation on bees (and other biological systems)? Perhaps. Is that what is causing their decline? We don't know (I say no, but that's my opinion). What the studies don't address, however, is the wide-spread decline in bee populations all over the world, specifically in areas that don't have cell phone towers for hundreds (if not thousands) of miles, with negligible ambient RF radiation levels.

I am not in a position to conclude that all of our RF radiation is NOT having a negative effect on biological systems. But there are much more obvious and logical reasons for why certain biological systems are displaying changes in populations and behaviors--the most obvious is change in the solar cycle, for example, with the whole idea of the butterfly effect.

I'm also NOT saying that "gmo's" are to blame--we don't know that either. But there is far more damning evidence for them. Did you hear about the study that was done where rats were fed monsanto genetically-modified soy with their regular food? In the third generation of offspring (of non-inbred offspring), the rats had hair-growing pustules inside of their mouths, had numerous neurological disorders, and were practically sterile (as if they could breed properly with their neurological disorders). It was the most ordinary amount of GMO food too--not like they were fed 100% GMO products either. And the control group was normal. This was repeated many times, and after reading the study, I don't think it had bias. That's far more terrifying and convincing to me than the one or two studies involving RF radiation effects on bee colonies.

Then again, if eating GMO foods causes sterility then perhaps we should welcome it with open arms.


----------



## BigPharma

Yes, an alkylating agent can be given to treat cancer, but guess what one of the side effects of this medication is, cancer! Alkylating agents bind non-specifically to cellular molecules, including DNA. This is why they are given as anti-cancer therapy. However, they do not only bind to the tumor DNA, they also bind to normal tissue, which in turn could lead to cancer. I was simply making a point that minute changes in chemical structure can cause massive changes in the real world.


----------



## Joephis19

You must have tried really hard not to click on the "sources" tab. Nice try.

And once again, I can narrate a video of a bunch of poor people and say Monsanto or any other big corporation did it too. Whare are YOUR sources. YouTube videos =/= not a source.

One truly sad thing about people like you on the internet is you listen to other people on the internet. The "if its a rich corporation it must be bad for everyone" is so played out, tired, and unbased in any type of fact that its sickening.

The fact that people were all about this renewable fossile fuels idea until they heard that somone from a big corporation invested in it boggles my mind. Why would someone with money and means NOT put money into this?! Have you stopped and thought that maybe the only agenda he has is to become MORE rich? Despite what the masses on tinfoil hat wearing, anti-business sheep on the internet think and say....there's nothing wrong with getting rich.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BigPharma*


Yes, an alkylating agent can be given to treat cancer, but guess what one of the side effects of this medication is, cancer! Alkylating agents bind non-specifically to cellular molecules, including DNA. This is why they are given as anti-cancer therapy. However, they do not only bind to the tumor DNA, they also bind to normal tissue, which in turn could lead to cancer. I was simply making a point that minute changes in chemical structure can cause massive changes in the real world.


There are also focusing on human effects too much, there is no telling what gmo do to the ecosystem. Gmo crops are cross pollinating genuine crops which in turn destroys them and the land they grow on, ask the organic farmers in the states growing near gmo farms if there crops are ok and not affected by this frankenfood.

Quote:



You must have tried really hard not to click on the "sources" tab. Nice try.


O i did and it listed most of the article being written by an inhouse scientific board of members from alot of pharma companies and sun systems, im still looking for the links to these "50 authoritative independent scientific assessments"(sounds like the use of big words to make them sound official) as there is none heres the source page on the article http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/about-gmo.htm where do you see the 50 sources? Are u really trying to ignore those indigenous people in those videos giving there lives to protest so people like you will see what they went through? And stop assuming i hate corporation as i do not, but monsanto is a evil company period and really weak on your part to bring up tin foil hats nice distraction keep ignoring the facts and reading your company sponsored newspaper. And if u cant see that getting rich on the deaths of poor people is bad then i cant help you with that u need more then i can help you with.


----------



## Phaedrus2129

Quote:



Originally Posted by *guyladouche*


There were one or two studies that monitored the effects of cell phone radiation on bee colononies--hardly in a scientific method that allowed for logical conclusions to be made about "normal" RF levels and their effect (they strapped high-powered RF antennas TO a colony and generated RF frequencies in the cell-phone range for long periods of time).

Are there effects of RF radiation on bees (and other biological systems)? Perhaps. Is that what is causing their decline? We don't know (I say no, but that's my opinion). What the studies don't address, however, is the wide-spread decline in bee populations all over the world, specifically in areas that don't have cell phone towers for hundreds (if not thousands) of miles, with negligible ambient RF radiation levels.

I am not in a position to conclude that all of our RF radiation is NOT having a negative effect on biological systems. But there are much more obvious and logical reasons for why certain biological systems are displaying changes in populations and behaviors--the most obvious is change in the solar cycle, for example, with the whole idea of the butterfly effect.

I'm also NOT saying that "gmo's" are to blame--we don't know that either. But there is far more damning evidence for them. Did you hear about the study that was done where rats were fed monsanto genetically-modified soy with their regular food? In the third generation of offspring (of non-inbred offspring), the rats had hair-growing pustules inside of their mouths, had numerous neurological disorders, and were practically sterile (as if they could breed properly with their neurological disorders). It was the most ordinary amount of GMO food too--not like they were fed 100% GMO products either. And the control group was normal. This was repeated many times, and after reading the study, I don't think it had bias. That's far more terrifying and convincing to me than the one or two studies involving RF radiation effects on bee colonies.

Then again, if eating GMO foods causes sterility then perhaps we should welcome it with open arms.


The bee decline thing was pretty much solved a year or so ago. Bees were bred and interbred too much and genetic diversity dropped too low; they were fed on crop monocultures that didn't provide all the nutrients they needed; also a new strain of parasitic mite evolved. All this combined to result in bees with weakened immune systems becoming infected with the new mite, and dying. In the short term bee keepers are medicating their colonies, and over the long term they and farmers will be changing practices to make sure the bees get the nutrition they need by always giving them access to a variety of crops, not just one or two.


----------



## Joephis19

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*


There are also focusing on human effects too much, there is no telling what gmo do to the ecosystem. Gmo crops are cross pollinating genuine crops which in turn destroys them and the land they grow on, ask the organic farmers in the states growing near gmo farms if there crops are ok and not affected by this frankenfood.

O i did and it listed most of the article being written by an inhouse scientific board of members from alot of pharma companies and sun systems, im still looking for the links to these "50 authoritative independent scientific assessments"(sounds like the use of big words to make them sound official) as there is none heres the source page on the article http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/about-gmo.htm where do you see the 50 sources? Are u really trying to ignore those indigenous people in those videos giving there lives to protest so people like you will see what they went through? And stop assuming i hate corporation as i do not, but monsanto is a evil company period and really weak on your part to bring up tin foil hats nice distraction keep ignoring the facts and reading your company sponsored newspaper.


The source document for this Digest states:

The scientific evidence concerning the environmental and health impacts of genetic engineering is still emerging. This chapter briefly summarizes the current state of scientific knowledge on the potential health and environmental risks (Box 17) associated with genetic engineering in food and agriculture, followed by a discussion of the role of international standard-setting bodies in harmonizing risk analysis procedures for these products (Box 18). The scientific evidence presented in this chapter relies largely on a recent report from the International Council for Science (ICSU, 2003 - referred to hereafter as ICSU). The ICSU report draws on 50 independent scientific assessments carried out by authoritative groups in different parts of the world, including the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission, the European Commission, the OECD and the national science academies of many countries such as Australia, Brazil, China, France, India, the United Kingdom and the United States. In addition, this chapter draws on recent scientific evaluations from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2003 - referred to hereafter as Nuffield Council), the United Kingdom GM Science Review Panel (2003 - referred to hereafter as GM Science Review Panel) and the Royal Society (2003 - referred to hereafter as Royal Society) that were not available when the ICSU report was prepared. There is a substantial degree of consensus within the scientific community on many of the major safety questions concerning transgenic products, but scientists disagree on some issues, and gaps in knowledge remain.

The sources are all listed there. I wouldn't say that any of those are "in-house"


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



There is a substantial degree of consensus within the scientific community on many of the major safety questions concerning transgenic products, but scientists disagree on some issues, and gaps in knowledge remain.


So what is your interpretation of that line from your article claiming gmo is safe, can *you *say that gmo is 100 percent safe and we know all there is to it?This paper definetly doesnt. It says nothing except scientists cant agree, what else is new. But also in the conclusion it states "Thus far, in those countries where transgenic crops have been grown, there have been no verifiable reports of them causing any significant health or environmental harm" are you kidding me i am supposed to take that seriously? A couple of gmo products might be safe but when a company like monsanto dominates the field there is going to be no benefit to mankind, it troubles me that people on this above average IQ forum are still blind to monsantos terrible ethics.


----------



## dave12

Why do these threads always devolve like this?









edit- I don't care about any of the GMO debate and I'm not jumping in but... you don't like Monsanto go buy them and shut them down and sit on their tech. 40 billion it's yours.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:MON


----------



## Joephis19

LOL...so true...I'm done with the GMO tangent.

That being said, I hope more peeople that are able to dump money in this. It has a lot of potential, and based on the preliminary information that is available, I don't see a major downside yet.


----------



## videoman5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*


They've crafted a board of strategy, *including Ex-Monsanto members. *


I'd rather work with Satan than ex-Monsanto executives. At least Satan is more honest.


----------



## CyberDruid

There will be risks to any new endeavor. Unless we make informed decisions endeavors that could possibly put lives in jeopardy or ecosystems out of balance will be attempted all in the name of making some money. When the only question is "will it make money" we've got a problem. Yet our entire global economic structure supports this reckless behavior. Corporate law protects this reckless behavior. And a select few people with large assets benefit.

Yes I want fuel that does not require drilling into the Earth. But I also see the risk of using a GMO to accomplish this. Until there is more transparency to the process no one will be in a position to make an informed decision...and that is exactly why such research is done out of the public eye.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Joephis19;14213427*
> LOL...so true...I'm done with the GMO tangent.


You should be you aren't getting anywhere

On-topic- There is no way this will trickle down to the consumer, with executives like this picking it up that you can be sure of.


----------



## mushroomboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CyberDruid;14216962*
> There will be risks to any new endeavor. Unless we make informed decisions endeavors that could possibly put lives in jeopardy or ecosystems out of balance will be attempted all in the name of making some money. When the only question is "will it make money" we've got a problem. Yet our entire global economic structure supports this reckless behavior. Corporate law protects this reckless behavior. And a select few people with large assets benefit.
> 
> Yes I want fuel that does not require drilling into the Earth. But I also see the risk of using a GMO to accomplish this. Until there is more transparency to the process no one will be in a position to make an informed decision...and that is exactly why such research is done out of the public eye.


Yup! Same stuff happens with drug testing. Very few drugs are said to be 100% safe. Even some of the most common ones that are thought to be... well, they are generally as safe as a GMO (to our knowledge at this time).

The problem is a lot of our current drugs have only been in testing for less than 50 years. Or lets set that aside and put a better example into play. We know how bad radiation poisoning can be. We knew most of the dangers, though we NEVER could have told you how bad it wouldn't have been until we dropped a deuce on Japan. We are STILL gathering scientific data over 50 years later about this that we never even imagined.

Short version, it takes generations to fully understand the health risks of any product on a species. For all we know there could be a common used chemical that has been causing the rise of birth defects (made up, I don't even know if there is a rise). That is the problem, we advance this crap so fast we can't test it before the next big advancement comes that needs to be tested.


----------



## Kirmie

People are complaining about an *EX*-Monsanto employee who was in charge of funds and competitor acquirement when they will be competing with oil companies?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PackaBowl09;14202922*
> This is shameful. Sure those guys are gonna make a butt load of money; but what about the environment? We shouls focus on alternative energy sources instead of polluting hydrocarbons


Yes! Lets keep going after alternative energy and totally ignore the renewable version of fossil fuels, that extracts the waste burning fossil fuels puts in the air to generate the new fossil fuels no less, that we already have the technology for! Lets complain about this one start up company and their tiny piece of land that will help alleviate foreign oil dependance and the need for off shore drilling! The end is nigh!


----------



## Desidero

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99;12054048*
> Edit #2: 7/13/11
> They've crafted a board of strategy, including Ex-Monsanto members.
> 
> http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/2011/joule-introduces-strategic-advisory-board


That's the worst thing that could happen to this technology. Monsanto is a horrible company, and anyone who was involved in their behavior for that long can't be a good influence.


----------



## BlackVenom

From what I know about Monsanto is it's a greedy monstrosity of a company.... sooooooo... ****.


----------



## hazarada

bacteria that eat greenhouse gas and crap out oil

take that religion! wait that didnt make sense


----------



## CattleCorn

I, for one, welcome our new oil-pooping overlords.


----------



## Nemesis158

Not sure about former Monsato people (monsato owns the patents for almost all the worlds genetically modified seeds, and have sued farmers that use natural seeds) but if this is real it may help ease the transition to other energy sources (i'm just hoping it will drop oil prices since it wont be limited anymore)


----------



## GanjaSMK

I wanted to update this, bring it back into discussion and so here you are:

Source

*Joule Prepares for Global Deployment with Appointment of Proven Industry Experts to Lead Commercial Operations*
Quote:


> Bedford, Mass. - January 23, 2012 - Joule today announced the appointment of two key executives to manage the company's roll-out of renewable fuel production facilities worldwide. Peter Erich has joined as Executive Vice President, General Manager Commercial Operations, and will lead the team responsible for site development and technology deployment. Paul Snaith has been appointed to build and manage the related partnerships as Head of Business Development & Strategy. Both are veterans of the energy industry with long, successful track records in global management, product development and sales at several relevant companies, including Shell. This growing, specialized team will help to enable commercialization of Joule's fuel products to begin as soon as 2013.


I believe this is definitely coming to fruition.

( *edit* ) Fixed source to direct (article?) link.


----------



## iscariot

Interesting to see it pan out. I dont believe it will translate to cheaper petrol pricing though. The likes of Shell etc will find excuses to keep costs up.


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iscariot*
> 
> Interesting to see it pan out. I dont believe it will translate to cheaper petrol pricing though. The likes of Shell etc will find excuses to keep costs up.


I was thinking too - wouldn't this just become stifled in a way similar to how diamonds are kept at prices that demand premiums?


----------



## manolith

well i happy that my 5.0 will still have water to drink for years to come.


----------



## firestorm1

it would be nice if i can get a tank of gas for under $120.


----------



## Somenamehere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *firestorm1*
> 
> it would be nice if i can get a tank of gas for under $120.


Do you drive a semi or something ?


----------



## BlackVenom

Yay! I just linked a Prof to this the other day.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iscariot*
> 
> Interesting to see it pan out. I dont believe it will translate to cheaper petrol pricing though. The likes of Shell etc will find excuses to keep costs up.


How? This should increase supply greatly. They'll have no option but to drop and roll... or die. Hopefully they die.


----------



## firestorm1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Somenamehere*
> 
> Do you drive a semi or something ?


nah. its a 1977 f-250 with a 30gal main tank and a 12gal reserve. which probably gets like 4mpg.


----------



## Timlander

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Somenamehere*
> 
> Do you drive a semi or something ?


Yea its not that hard to spend over $100 on a tank of gas with these prices....


----------



## firestorm1

and thats why i only drive it on the weekends.


----------



## felipeanon

wouldn't it be easier for oil companies to buy this technology and use it instead of mining/transporting crude oil?


----------



## Maian

Gas in Lubbock is $2.98 right now... and my Honda doesn't take more than $50 to fill. It can only get better with this technology.


----------



## LUNAR

in such a state of global economy crysis they patent such stuffs ? are you friggin kidding me ? seriously americans and their ideas are top notch !! i hope this joule company survives till we reach our 2nd Civilization and then they could trade with our immortal beings !


----------



## halocog

Thanks for the update, Mr. Frock. I hope this pans out.

Also, earlier in the year (april maybe) I took a chartered bus to Orlando, and we stopped at a truckstop outside Atlanta to refuel. I'm not sure how empty it was, but by the time it was done pumping it was over $600.


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *halocog*
> 
> Thanks for the update, Mr. Frock. I hope this pans out.


Thank Ganja, he brought it to my attention.


----------



## mobius9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *firestorm1*
> 
> nah. its a 1977 f-250 with a 30gal main tank and a 12gal reserve. which probably gets like 4mpg.


----------



## PoopaScoopa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flamingoyster*
> 
> Actually, there are 640 acres per mile so we're looking at 13,000 square miles or roughly the size of Maryland. In comparison, there are over a million square miles of farmland in the US.


13K miles? The barren California/Nevada desert could easily handle that.


----------



## SpankyMcFlych

overhyped bull. I havn't seen anything that leads me to believe the promised land of biologically produced fuel can come anywhere near to competing with fossil fuels. They always seem to ignore the reality of the resource cost to feed the bacteria, and how much fuel the bacteria produces per sq foot of land the plant takes up. When I see cheaper fuel at the pumps I'll pay attention to crap like this.

... not to mention... "feeds solely on carbon dioxide" ... where is it getting the hydrogen for the fuels it's producing then? no, they're leaving out the fact that the bacteria will need some sort of energy input to produce hydrocarbons from co2 and h2o. The same way plants need it, imagine that. So I see two choices, photosynthesizing bacteria that produce hydrocarbons... which would be slow and inefficient, or bacteria that consumes organic matter to produce hydrocarbons... which would be slow and inefficient and require oodles of organic matter to feed.

so biofuel. What a pipedream. Is it even fuel positive in it's cycle? Counting the oil required to produce the organics (corn) to feed the system to produce the fuel.


----------



## GanjaSMK

I would think that **** technology would follow normal economic simplicity. If the supply is increased it lowers demand and thus lowers price. The real question for this technology is, *can it be used to fuel the oil industry outside of transportation*?

What a lot of people neglect to identify the oil situation with, is that oil is a huge part of industry in many facets. Think of everything in the modern world and you find that at the heart of manufacturing it is deeply embedded with oil-derivative products. Nearly everything made today interacts with oil in some fashion or another, be it energy, transportation, or manufacturing.

_You'd be surprised the amount of items in your home that were derived from and oil-based manufacturing process._


----------



## Ghooble

Hmmmm I'm not sure it will make it to full production, as most things like this don't


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ghooble*
> 
> Hmmmm I'm not sure it will make it to full production, as most things like this don't


Did you happen to read the article? They're currently building these centers to develop the product! They've got good people coming into the business to make sure it gets off the ground smoothly too and enter the market with some steam.


----------



## BlackVenom

Seeing how we have progress and more than a "oh look at this" and then nothing else... I'd bet this comes to fruitation. Hopefully they can do the price quoted, but even half of what it is now would be nice.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LUNAR*
> 
> in such a state of global economy crysis they patent such stuffs ? are you friggin kidding me ? seriously americans and their ideas are top notch !! i hope this joule company survives till we reach our 2nd Civilization and then they could trade with our immortal beings !


What?


----------



## jspeedracer

If I remember correctly they plan on using the same tech to power the super city structure they are building in Japan.


----------



## Mad Pistol

This is quite the breakthrough. This is a truly renewable source of energy, and it sounds like they're gearing up for mass-market production.

This is possibly the next step in energy usage.


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpankyMcFlych*
> 
> overhyped bull. I havn't seen anything that leads me to believe the promised land of biologically produced fuel can come anywhere near to competing with fossil fuels. They always seem to ignore the reality of the resource cost to feed the bacteria, and how much fuel the bacteria produces per sq foot of land the plant takes up. When I see cheaper fuel at the pumps I'll pay attention to crap like this.
> ... not to mention... "feeds solely on carbon dioxide" ... where is it getting the hydrogen for the fuels it's producing then? no, they're leaving out the fact that the bacteria will need some sort of energy input to produce hydrocarbons from co2 and h2o. The same way plants need it, imagine that. So I see two choices, photosynthesizing bacteria that produce hydrocarbons... which would be slow and inefficient, or bacteria that consumes organic matter to produce hydrocarbons... which would be slow and inefficient and require oodles of organic matter to feed.
> so biofuel. What a pipedream. Is it even fuel positive in it's cycle? Counting the oil required to produce the organics (corn) to feed the system to produce the fuel.


You really should read up on the technology before you bash it. There's also this other thing called *sunlight*, that the technology uses. Here, in case you were curious:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204524604576610703305792650.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_News_JOURNALREPORTS7_2*
> Joule took a different path. It uses genetically modified strains of cyanobacteria, which are water-based organisms that make their food through photosynthesis. The organisms, created by a scientific team led by Joule co-founder Noubar Afeyan, can be tweaked to produce different fuels-one form can produce simple ethanol, while another generates more-complex diesel molecules.
> 
> While regular algae has to be harvested and processed to squeeze out hydrocarbons, Joule's cyanobacteria release fuels continuously.
> 
> Joule's other innovation is its SolarConverter bioreactor, a system of closed tanks that look like solar panels, where the organisms grow and release their fuels. Designed to maximize the amount of sunlight that reaches each organism, the tanks mix the cyanobacteria colonies with water laced with micronutrients and piped-in carbon dioxide. Liquid fuels are separated from the water and piped to nearby tanks for storage.


Photosynthesis isn't hocus-pocus. It's an established method and the company's research is quite reputable. This isn't the dirty idea of "biodiesel." This is not a situation where you have to take a cellulose/starch form and convert it to fuel. You let the bacteria do what they naturally do--use photosynthesis to live--and then also tweak their DNA such that the by-products they make are ethanol (or some other hydrocarbon that you can use instead of fossil fuels), or some other hydrocarbon. The advantage of joule is that they have demonstrated that they can generate adequate quantities of pre-fule materials on a large scale.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LUNAR*
> 
> in such a state of global economy crysis they patent such stuffs ? are you friggin kidding me ? seriously americans and their ideas are top notch !! i hope this joule company survives till we reach our 2nd Civilization and then they could trade with our immortal beings !


It's not free or even cheap to develop new technologies. They should have some sort of protection to recoup their investments for a period of time.


----------



## Strat79

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpankyMcFlych*
> 
> overhyped bull. I havn't seen anything that leads me to believe the promised land of biologically produced fuel can come anywhere near to competing with fossil fuels. They always seem to ignore the reality of the resource cost to feed the bacteria, and how much fuel the bacteria produces per sq foot of land the plant takes up. When I see cheaper fuel at the pumps I'll pay attention to crap like this.
> 
> ... not to mention... "feeds solely on carbon dioxide" ... where is it getting the hydrogen for the fuels it's producing then? no, they're leaving out the fact that the bacteria will need some sort of energy input to produce hydrocarbons from co2 and h2o. The same way plants need it, imagine that. So I see two choices, photosynthesizing bacteria that produce hydrocarbons... which would be slow and inefficient, or bacteria that consumes organic matter to produce hydrocarbons... which would be slow and inefficient and require oodles of organic matter to feed.
> 
> so biofuel. What a pipedream. Is it even fuel positive in it's cycle? Counting the oil required to produce the organics (corn) to feed the system to produce the fuel.


If it is a pipe dream, why are they in the process of planning the build sites in several locations. I would hope they have a proven method that can be "fuel positive" if they are already building the facilities. If it was still in the testing phase, with no plans to mass produce, I would think more like you as well. We have had news articles about other methods by the dozen that have came and gone, never to be heard from again. I can see why you are skeptical, but this is the first one that I know about that are building facilities and planning mass production. That alone tells me they have something more than all those past "miracle" breakthrough's.


----------



## SpankyMcFlych

So it is a photosynthesizing version instead of one of the ones that use corn to produce fuel. Big whoop, again slow and inefficient. Pipe dream. Crock. Over-hyped. All the biofuel production of this type I've read of (they act like they invented this sort of thing) can't compete with fossil fuels any more then the corn using ones can.

Sounds to me like another startup over-hyping their crap in a desperate bid to solicit funds. It's been a year now since this article was first posted and I still don't see cheaper fuel at the pumps. Call me when it happens. Call me when it drives the oil companies out of business. Call me when more then a single test facility is built. Call me when it can even compete dollar to dollar with fossil fuel. Until then meh on this and all the other fairytales like it.


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpankyMcFlych*
> 
> So it is a photosynthesizing version instead of one of the ones that use corn to produce fuel. Big whoop, again slow and inefficient. Pipe dream. Crock. Over-hyped. All the biofuel production of this type I've read of (they act like they invented this sort of thing) can't compete with fossil fuels any more then the corn using ones can.
> Sounds to me like another startup over-hyping their crap in a desperate bid to solicit funds. It's been a year now since this article was first posted and I still don't see cheaper fuel at the pumps. Call me when it happens. Call me when it drives the oil companies out of business. Call me when more then a single test facility is built. Call me when it can even compete dollar to dollar with fossil fuel. Until then meh on this and all the other fairytales like it.


Seriously, why do you doubt this so much? Just because they've proven to be successful in their pilot and scale productions? Do you think they're lying about the bacteria producing fuels? What makes you think that their method is "slow"? They've demonstrated the ability to make the equivalent of 800 barrels of crude oil per acre per year of their production area. Do you just *not* want to believe this is possible? If so, do you have any indication? Because all of the reports, and all of the studies about their business and chemistry methods have proven that they're operating properly and at the scale they claim...


----------



## GrizzleBoy

This is the kind of thing where I'll do my rejoicing once the thing is actually working and actively making a difference to our lives.

Until then, I'll remain hopeful, but sceptical so as to avoid future disappointment.


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> This is the kind of thing where I'll do my rejoicing once the thing is actually working and actively making a difference to our lives.
> Until then, I'll remain hopeful, but sceptical so as to avoid future disappointment.


Oh that's rich right there.


----------



## bioniccrackmonk

I find interesting that the day this announcement was made, gas prices in my area, Jacksonville Beach, FL, went up 10 cents a gallon. Looks like they are trying to bleed us dry before this company takes off.

Their website shows they can can do this at a "cost that meets or beats fossil fuels", I don't like the meets part.


----------



## KusH

Gas prices are artificially inflated/deflated all the time. It has nothing to do with this company, just "how much can we milk the public without them raising a stink"

For example gas prices have went back up again and I'm paying 3.75$ again for premium!!!


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PoopaScoopa*
> 
> 13K miles? The barren California/Nevada desert could easily handle that.










it's fun being quoted from a year ago heh...but yeah I concur, that was my original point.13k miles squared is NOTHING.


----------



## Nautilus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Wow, if this is as good as it sounds (it rarely is), then the middle east can kiss our ***.


They've been forced to kiss your ass for decades and yeah I agree, it's time to leave them alone.


----------



## Bloitz

A bit sad that everyone only looks at the financial aspect. If everyone starts driving V8 - V12's ... Goodbye ozon layer, nice knowing you.


----------



## Sir Amik Vase

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bloitz*
> 
> A bit sad that everyone only looks at the financial aspect. If everyone starts driving V8 - V12's ... Goodbye ozon layer, nice knowing you.


This.
It's better for us to run out of oil and die out as a species so that all the countless other species can live in peace.


----------



## b3machi7ke

you guys are really the dumb ones aren't you? Did you even bother reading any of the articles linked in the OP??







typical "read title and make uninformed comment"


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bioniccrackmonk*
> 
> I find interesting that the day this announcement was made, gas prices in my area, Jacksonville Beach, FL, went up 10 cents a gallon. Looks like they are trying to bleed us dry before this company takes off.
> Their website shows they can can do this at a "cost that meets or beats fossil fuels", I don't like the meets part.


I don't think this tech. will have a huge financial impact (if at all) on the everyday motorist. And more than likely, if there is any sort of real reason why your gas prices have gone up, it's probably because of the announcement of the US and Europe sanctioning Iran for probable nuclear weapons research by reducing the amount of oil the countries buy from them.


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sir Amik Vase*
> 
> This.
> It's better for us to run out of oil and die out as a species so that all the countless other species can live in peace.


Lol...

Okay, so... You first?

And I'll see if I can find the article, but they are starting to realize that CO2 from cars isn't actually the leading cause of ozone depletion; it's beginning to look more like methane.

EDIT:
Here is one article, this isn't the one I was looking for, but it'll do for now:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122638800


----------



## bigkahuna360

Maybe if the prices of gas go down, then I might be able to start caring to drive a car.


----------



## Vegetables

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sir Amik Vase*
> 
> This.
> It's better for us to run out of oil and die out as a species so that all the countless other species can live in peace.


What is this I don't even....wow....


----------



## PappaSmurfsHarem

I think I read somewhere that the US alone uses 20 Million-ish barrels a day. So this does 800 Barrels Acre/Year

20,000,000 x 365 = 7,300,000,000 barrels a year

7.3 Billion / 800 Barrels per acre = 9,125,000 acres = 14257 Sq/Miles

14257 sq/miles is a little larger than the state of Maryland which is 12,406 Sq Mi

I would imagine we have enough unused land to accommodate the US' oil needs

Does anyone see any math errors here? Depending on COST this could be fantastic.


----------



## Cobolt005

Bad thing is the US Population keeps on growing which in turn every year more motorists. Which in turn needing more and more acres. Funny if it turned into acre/barrel more so then price.


----------



## Z32

Forget Solar, I'm putting THIS on my roof!!


----------



## subliminally incorrect

good bye dubai.

the great ghost town of a city that was never meant to be.


----------



## timma100

They are marketing this fuel to preexisting oil companies, "Shell, Exon, ect" It will be another fuel type, like diesel fuel, but marketed as a renewable energy resource and it WILL be priced higher then standard fuel. If they can make it for a tenth of the cost, and sell it for twice the going rate. Why not?


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *timma100*
> 
> They are marketing this fuel to preexisting oil companies, "Shell, Exon, ect" It will be another fuel type, like diesel fuel, but marketed as a renewable energy resource and it WILL be priced higher then standard fuel. If they can make it for a tenth of the cost, and sell it for twice the going rate. Why not?


Yeah, I am worried it will get the "Green" label. Anything Green or Organic and it gets a price premium regardless of manufacturing expense. My father still farms and back in 1994 he made a contract with a feedlot to produce organic cattle...which means we didn't give them any growth hormones though most medicines and dewormers are OK yet. We would always get a price premium over what the market was getting and we had less operating costs...the only thing we had to do was at about 8 months of age all the bulls got a date with a squeeze chute, a utility knife, and spray bottle of iodine. Heh, the people buying this organic beef probably don't want to know that. There was slightly more work...though banding the bull calves wasn't all that much less work. Maybe even more.

Their weight wasn't all that much different than when we used the hormones...some years even higher

My father still is doing this to this day...the organic beef company is doing really well.


----------



## Frosty288

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *timma100*
> 
> They are marketing this fuel to preexisting oil companies, "Shell, Exon, ect" It will be another fuel type, like diesel fuel, but marketed as a renewable energy resource and it WILL be priced higher then standard fuel. If they can make it for a tenth of the cost, and sell it for twice the going rate. Why not?


I see this being the biggest opponent to this. You or me, why would we buy fuel that costs more? First we'll buy it (if we feel we can afford the expense), yeah it's better for the environment. And then the rumor mill starts, it's not as clean as you think it is, etc etc. Soon nobody buys it, it's too expensive, you can't find it at most gas stations, and even the people who want to do better for the environment are doubting it. (E85 anyone?)

The best chance of this trumping natural oil, is if they start their own chain of gas stations. Which could totally happen. How much money do you think cheap, unlimited fuel is worth? More than all of the oil companies combined and whatever is left in the ground. If it's priced %30-50 less than regular fuel, no one in their right mind would buy fossil fuel from the gas station anymore. I sure as hell wouldn't, and I'd feel a whole lot better about doing it, and i'd be saving a ton more money. It's guaranteed profit, there is no more solid business model. People have apps, word of mouth and newspapers to find gas that's even just 5 cents cheaper in the whole town.

what if, in the headlines of your local town newspaper it said Gas at so-and-so gas station, %50 off! How soon would that gas station run out of gas?

If Joule doesn't do it now, someone else will do it later.


----------



## SgtSpike

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Frosty288*
> 
> I see this being the biggest opponent to this. You or me, why would we buy fuel that costs more? First we'll buy it (if we feel we can afford the expense), yeah it's better for the environment. And then the rumor mill starts, it's not as clean as you think it is, etc etc. Soon nobody buys it, it's too expensive, you can't find it at most gas stations, and even the people who want to do better for the environment are doubting it. (E85 anyone?)
> The best chance of this trumping natural oil, is if they start their own chain of gas stations. Which could totally happen. How much money do you think cheap, unlimited fuel is worth? More than all of the oil companies combined and whatever is left in the ground. If it's priced %30-50 less than regular fuel, no one in their right mind would buy fossil fuel from the gas station anymore. I sure as hell wouldn't, and I'd feel a whole lot better about doing it, and i'd be saving a ton more money. It's guaranteed profit, there is no more solid business model. People have apps, word of mouth and newspapers to find gas that's even just 5 cents cheaper in the whole town.
> what if, in the headlines of your local town newspaper it said Gas at so-and-so gas station, %50 off! How soon would that gas station run out of gas?
> If Joule doesn't do it now, someone else will do it later.


E85 failed for a lot of reasons that are not common with this renewable fuel.

For one, it raises food prices, both directly (higher prices on corn) and indirectly (higher prices on beef products, because of higher prices on feed).
Another, is that E85 is actually much more expensive to produce than traditional fossil fuels.
Ethanol is subsidized by the government (AKA taxpayers) in order to bring the price in line with other traditional fuels.
There is a relatively low yield of fuel from an acre of corn. It would take an unattainable amount of land to be able to produce enough ethanol to power all of the vehicles in the world.
You can't just plant corn in the same field over and over again. It has to be swapped with other crops at regular intervals in order to prevent a complete deplenishment of certain nutrients from the soil.
Ethanol still produces CO2, just like regular gasoline would.
Ethanol collects moisture, corrodes fuel lines, and generally ruins smaller 2-cycle engines if they are run with it. If we were to start running solely on ethanol, all older machinery would have to be converted to use it, and all newer machinery would require special fuel tanks and lines and other features to guard against rotting/corrosion.

Basically, the only good thing about ethanol is it prevents us from using some of the oil in the ground (it's renewable, whereas oil in the ground is not). Everything else is downside after downside. THAT'S why ethanol is failing. Ethanol should have never been implemented in the first place. It's a completely failed proposition. People latched on to it at first because of the "green" label, but as soon as the truth came out, they came to realize that it wasn't so great after all. Now, everyone just wants to be rid of it completely. At least, everyone I've talked to with at least half a brain.

Assuming everything in the article is true, this new renewable solves pretty much all of the problems that ethanol had.


----------



## Frosty288

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SgtSpike*
> 
> E85 failed for a lot of reasons that are not common with this renewable fuel.
> For one, it raises food prices, both directly (higher prices on corn) and indirectly (higher prices on beef products, because of higher prices on feed).
> Another, is that E85 is actually much more expensive to produce than traditional fossil fuels.
> Ethanol is subsidized by the government (AKA taxpayers) in order to bring the price in line with other traditional fuels.
> There is a relatively low yield of fuel from an acre of corn. It would take an unattainable amount of land to be able to produce enough ethanol to power all of the vehicles in the world.
> You can't just plant corn in the same field over and over again. It has to be swapped with other crops at regular intervals in order to prevent a complete deplenishment of certain nutrients from the soil.
> Ethanol still produces CO2, just like regular gasoline would.
> Ethanol collects moisture, corrodes fuel lines, and generally ruins smaller 2-cycle engines if they are run with it. If we were to start running solely on ethanol, all older machinery would have to be converted to use it, and all newer machinery would require special fuel tanks and lines and other features to guard against rotting/corrosion.
> Basically, the only good thing about ethanol is it prevents us from using some of the oil in the ground (it's renewable, whereas oil in the ground is not). Everything else is downside after downside. THAT'S why ethanol is failing. Ethanol should have never been implemented in the first place. It's a completely failed proposition. People latched on to it at first because of the "green" label, but as soon as the truth came out, they came to realize that it wasn't so great after all. Now, everyone just wants to be rid of it completely. At least, everyone I've talked to with at least half a brain.
> Assuming everything in the article is true, this new renewable solves pretty much all of the problems that ethanol had.


These are excellent points about Ethanol and what you stated is the reason it is a dead fuel.

However, if it will be marketed in much the same way, select gas stations, more expensive than traditional fuel, with the green tag on it, then I see it sharing a similar fate.


----------



## SgtSpike

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Frosty288*
> 
> These are excellent points about Ethanol and what you stated is the reason it is a dead fuel.
> However, if it will be marketed in much the same way, select gas stations, more expensive than traditional fuel, with the green tag on it, then I see it sharing a similar fate.


If it is truly cheaper to produce than gasoline, and can replace gasoline entirely without any modifications to the engines that use it, then I don't see why it would fail. How could it?

If it was 20% cheaper than traditional gasoline to produce, then they could sell it for 20% less. People would drive from all over just to get a chance at those sorts of savings.


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SgtSpike*
> 
> If it is truly cheaper to produce than gasoline, and can replace gasoline entirely without any modifications to the engines that use it, then I don't see why it would fail. How could it?
> If it was 20% cheaper than traditional gasoline to produce, then they could sell it for 20% less. People would drive from all over just to get a chance at those sorts of savings.


I agree with this.

Competition will naturally keep these prices in check. To the consumer, if you put it in your car, and the car runs, it's all the same.

I don't see how this will have a "green" label. You're still burning fuel, you just aren't pulling it out of the ground.

Remember that prices are as high as they are now due to the scare that we will run out of oil "soon." Now that is not so much the case (assuming this technology can produce as much as is projected).


----------



## jtom320

Ethanol has a net energy output of zero. Ethanol is a joke. Not only that but even if there were some worth to it, it would be impossible to grow enough to even sustain a tiny part of the US's motor fleet.

I'm not sure if I buy what this article is selling honestly. It would be world changing news if true and this is the first I've heard of it. To me this is the type of news that makes it into the State of the Union.

Anyhow in my opinion these sort of issues will see a lot more attention in the coming years. I totally buy into the peak oil stuff and I think a big reason why we haven't seen even bigger increases in the price of gas is our depressed economy here and in Europe. We'll see though there are good arguments on both sides on when it's going to happen and how severe a drop off in production actually would be.


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SectorNine50*
> 
> I don't see how this will have a "green" label. You're still burning fuel, you just aren't pulling it out of the ground.


Making oil the old fashioned way is a sloppy process. These bacteria are probably producing pure hydrocarbons. If that assumption is correct, for every barrel of octane (since I don't know the specifics of what they produce, I'm just going with octane for now) they produce, 345 kg of carbon dioxide is removed from the air. That'll add up as production increases.


----------



## Zulli85

If this is such a big deal why haven't I heard about it in the news or what have you? I watch the news everyday and I haven't heard of this until now.


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aroc91*
> 
> Making oil the old fashioned way is a sloppy process. These bacteria are probably producing pure hydrocarbons. If that assumption is correct, for every barrel of octane (since I don't know the specifics of what they produce, I'm just going with octane for now) they produce, 345 kg of carbon dioxide is removed from the air. That'll add up as production increases.


As a heads up, octane is a chemical in fuel that adjusts the resistance of a fuel to burning depending on the concentration.

If I recall the article correctly, what is produced from this process will still need to be refined, just like crude oil. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as it allows a breadth of uses for the process (a lot of things in our daily lives are oil based).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zulli85*
> If this is such a big deal why haven't I heard about it in the news or what have you? I watch the news everyday and I haven't heard of this until now.


You'll notice that 99% of news stories in today's media are negative, as it draws more attention than positives.

That said, it's really not being advertised... maybe in the hopes of keeping gas prices high for it's introduction?


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zulli85*
> 
> If this is such a big deal why haven't I heard about it in the news or what have you? I watch the news everyday and I haven't heard of this until now.


In the OP (original):
Quote:


> In September, a privately held and highly secretive U.S. biotech company named Joule Unlimited received a patent for "a proprietary organism"


And I may ask, did you know about Google in 1998 or 1999? (nothing political on this mods, just posing a question) What about the NDAA until Obama actually mentioned it in the signing? (which then got substantial 'main stream' media coverage) - It was known in non-mainstream circles well before it was 'signed'.









*** *For the sake of purity and clarity* - I don't want to discuss the NDAA or Obama or anything related to it except for strictly using it as a point of reference about how quickly it came to mainstream media. ***


----------



## Zulli85

Quote:


> You'll notice that 99% of news stories in today's media are negative, as it draws more attention than positives.
> That said, it's really not being advertised... maybe in the hopes of keeping gas prices high for it's introduction?


True but if this is groundbreaking new technology that is going to save the United States from its dependency on foreign oil, or at least reduce our dependency what seems to be drastically based on what I have read, then its hard to believe it wouldn't be reported in the media anywhere. It sounds like a pretty big deal.


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zulli85*
> 
> True but if this is groundbreaking new technology that is going to save the United States from its dependency on foreign oil, or at least reduce our dependency what seems to be drastically based on what I have read, then its hard to believe it wouldn't be reported in the media anywhere. It sounds like a pretty big deal.


I guarantee you, if one of the plants related to this project has a grand explosion, it will get press coverage immediately.

You hardly ever see science in popular news, as it is today, which is actually kind of sad.


----------



## Zulli85

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SectorNine50*
> 
> I guarantee you, if one of the plants related to this project has a grand explosion, it will get press coverage immediately.
> You hardly ever see science in popular news, as it is today, which is actually kind of sad.


That isn't really true as I hear about new treatments for diseases, new gas-efficient vehicles, and new technology-related products pretty frequently. Its not like I watch CNN Headline News or read The National Inquirer. You can find unbiased and also positive stories if you look for them.

The United States' dependency on foreign oil has been covered a lot on the news over the years and for this not to be anywhere confuses me.


----------



## Nocturin

CONSPIRACY!

No, really.

There is too much money in the right(wrong?) people's hands give this traction in mainstream media. The creators of this fuel have reason to be incredibly secretive.


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zulli85*
> 
> That isn't really true as I hear about new treatments for diseases, new gas-efficient vehicles, and new technology-related products pretty frequently. Its not like I watch CNN Headline News or read The National Inquirer. You can find unbiased and also positive stories if you look for them.
> The United States' dependency on foreign oil has been covered a lot on the news over the years and for this not to be anywhere confuses me.


On T.V. news channels? Or on websites like BBC News? If the latter, I agree with you, however headlines seem to be dominated by explosions, wars, scandals, and court cases.

I'm not really sure, all we can do is speculate. I'm assuming it's because it hasn't been very well advertised though. It's not quite what I would call a "mature" project.


----------



## Zulli85

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SectorNine50*
> 
> On T.V. news channels? Or on websites like BBC News? If the latter, I agree with you, however headlines seem to be dominated by explosions, wars, scandals, and court cases.
> I'm not really sure, all we can do is speculate. I'm assuming it's because it hasn't been very well advertised though. It's not quite what I would call a "mature" project.


I frequent news websites and TV stations both quite a bit. Good point that it isn't a mature project though. I suppose they wouldn't want to make a big deal out of something that is a long ways off yet without knowing the actual impact it will have.


----------



## triarii3

i don't know man i still want CLEANER energy.


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *triarii3*
> 
> i don't know man i still want CLEANER energy.


Actually, energy is everywhere, _I want a way to tap into it_. Beyond nuclear that is.


----------



## gildadan

Glad to see some progress on this. I remember seeing the original article some months ago and wondering would it actually make it to commercial production. This is a good step forward and a much more practical alternative than coal powered cars. AKA electric cars Oil is in nearly every product we have in modern society. Gasoline is not actually even the number one use for oil although you would think so the way it is covered. Being able to sequester co2 to reuse again is a great idea and much closer to the answer than saying ok everyone stop breathing or doing anything to produce co2 becasue you are killing the planet. I don't think it is hurting anything anyways but reclaiming it to use again can't hurt. I do wonder if it outgases O2 though because that could cause an issue if not. Just sequestering co2 and not offgassing o2 like normal plants do will cause big problems down the road for the rest of us.

Being that this product is basically crude oil it would require refining to be usable for anything. This leaves the company at the mercy of the oil companies at least in the near term given that no new refineries have been allowed in the states for nearly three decades. So they would sell their crude to the oil companies just like any other oil producer which would in turn refine it into usable products. Gas price would remain unchanged as a result unless the price they sold it to the oil company for was really cheap. Which would be a stupid idea for a business to sell their product way under the going rate. Especially when they are going toi want to expand.

What will happen is this. They will start producing oil. They will contract with one of the major oil companies who will buy and refine the crude just like any other crude. The oil company will make a ruckous about how they are so amazing for using a fraction of oil produced from renewable resources and wave that banner all over creation like an idiot in hopes we will praise them.

Sadly the reality of cheap gas is not and would never be a reality because of the limitations in this country and probably of the company itself. Building a refinery is no small task. It is a very complicated and expensive undertaking. Right now they would not have the capital to do both even if they could do it in this country.


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gildadan*
> 
> Being that this product is basically crude oil it would require refining to be usable for anything. This leaves the company at the mercy of the oil companies at least in the near term given that no new refineries have been allowed in the states for nearly three decades. So they would sell their crude to the oil companies just like any other oil producer which would in turn refine it into usable products. Gas price would remain unchanged as a result unless the price they sold it to the oil company for was really cheap. Which would be a stupid idea for a business to sell their product way under the going rate. Especially when they are going toi want to expand.
> What will happen is this. They will start producing oil. They will contract with one of the major oil companies who will buy and refine the crude just like any other crude. The oil company will make a ruckous about how they are so amazing for using a fraction of oil produced from renewable resources and wave that banner all over creation like an idiot in hopes we will praise them.
> Sadly the reality of cheap gas is not and would never be a reality because of the limitations in this country and probably of the company itself. Building a refinery is no small task. It is a very complicated and expensive undertaking. Right now they would not have the capital to do both even if they could do it in this country.


My understanding is that they are generating by-products like ethanol and other more-simple hydrocarbons that can be used for fuels--not crude oil.


----------



## nmdehaan

Does anybody know about the water requirements of this process? I have worked on a fuel from algae project before, and by far the highest cost was removing the water from the process. Fresh water is expensive and limited, I hope they have a way to concentrate the hydrocarbons without boiling the water off. Another thought is that this is obviously in the development stage, I would expect at least a 100% increase in efficiency as the process matures. Probably reduce the cost of production by 20 to 30 percent over the next 5-7 years. That is ~ $20/bbl oil, can you imagine what this will do to international trade if transportation costs drop to a sustainable and predictable level such as this? Global economic boom here we come!


----------



## Maian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nmdehaan*
> 
> Does anybody know about the water requirements of this process? I have worked on a fuel from algae project before, and by far the highest cost was removing the water from the process. Fresh water is expensive and limited, I hope they have a way to concentrate the hydrocarbons without boiling the water off. Another thought is that this is obviously in the development stage, I would expect at least a 100% increase in efficiency as the process matures. Probably reduce the cost of production by 20 to 30 percent over the next 5-7 years. That is ~ $20/bbl oil, can you imagine what this will do to international trade if transportation costs drop to a sustainable and predictable level such as this? Global economic boom here we come!


You mean they'll be able to produce it at ~$20/bbl once it becomes more efficient? Because they already do... The last thing we need, also, is for this company to be in the national news to be honest. They already have everything they need, nothing but bad news can result from this being covered in the national media.


----------



## brucethemoose

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nmdehaan*
> 
> Does anybody know about the water requirements of this process? I have worked on a fuel from algae project before, and by far the highest cost was removing the water from the process. Fresh water is expensive and limited, I hope they have a way to concentrate the hydrocarbons without boiling the water off. Another thought is that this is obviously in the development stage, I would expect at least a 100% increase in efficiency as the process matures. Probably reduce the cost of production by 20 to 30 percent over the next 5-7 years. That is ~ $20/bbl oil, can you imagine what this will do to international trade if transportation costs drop to a sustainable and predictable level such as this? Global economic boom here we come!


If this takes off, the next wars really will be over fresh water.


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brucethemoose*
> 
> If this takes off, the next wars really will be over fresh water.


The next wars are already being quietly fought over fresh water dude.


----------



## nub

Research into improving desalination technology will probably increase once freshwater supply becomes an issue for developed nations.


----------



## IrishV8

i see it now cars with a little bacteria farm in them to produce fuel no more trips to the gas station airliners that can be in motion almost forever air travel is faster, more pollution as a by product but alot less drilling for oil millions loosing their jobs millions gaining jobs selling this goop. the question is where do the levels till more on the positive or on the negative side wait ten years and Pm me with the answer.


----------



## intelfan

You'll be decreasing the amount of CO2 in the air at the expense of higher levels of SO2 and NOx.


----------



## redsunx

Well, I'm ready to buy some stocks.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *intelfan*
> 
> You'll be decreasing the amount of CO2 in the air at the expense of higher levels of *SO2 and NOx*.


At a comparable or lower rate than current diesel engines?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *redsunx*
> 
> Well, I'm ready to buy some stocks.


sign me up.


----------



## SkillzKillz

Joule has more funding now.
http://www.truckinginfo.com/fuel-smarts/news-detail.asp?news_id=75810&news_category_id=63

Good read.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/01/whiskey-from-soda-joule-raises-70-million-heads-for-commercialization


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *intelfan*
> 
> You'll be decreasing the amount of CO2 in the air at the expense of higher levels of SO2 and NOx.


Come again?


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *intelfan*
> 
> You'll be decreasing the amount of CO2 in the air at the expense of higher levels of SO2 and NOx.


SO2 is a result of impurities and NOx is a result of combustion, regardless of the source. This should eliminate SO2.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nub*
> 
> Research into improving desalination technology will probably increase once freshwater supply becomes an issue for developed nations.


Question what are the problems with desalination technology? I ask because I have a 50 foot ketch with a 20 year old desalinator in it that works fine. Is this process just ahrd to do on a large scale?


----------



## Onex

Well anytime it's time to ditch the exxon and other oil stocks.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Question what are the problems with desalination technology? I ask because I have a 50 foot ketch with a 20 year old desalinator in it that works fine. Is this process just ahrd to do on a large scale?


and very expensive from what I've read.


----------



## ivesceneenough

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> and very expensive from what I've read.


I imagine its expensive due to energy costs.....


----------



## SectorNine50

For some reason, I'm under the impression that desalination can also be done using bio-organisms... I'm not certain why, I'll have to do some research.


----------



## Nocturin

I got it!

Use this process to generate fire, use the fire to make steam, use the steam to power a generator, use the power to desalinate water, and use the heat from the fire to purify the bio-mixture(sludge), rinse and repeat and BAM! magic...


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> I got it!
> Use this process to generate fire, use the fire to make steam, use the steam to power a generator, use the power to desalinate water, and use the heat from the fire to purify the bio-mixture(sludge), rinse and repeat and BAM! magic...


Actually, I believe turning water to steam in it's self is a way of desalinating... So even one less step!









Could do geothermal desalination as well, I suppose...


----------



## Nocturin

By George!

I think we might be on to something!


----------



## nmdehaan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SectorNine50*
> 
> For some reason, I'm under the impression that desalination can also be done using bio-organisms... I'm not certain why, I'll have to do some research.


Actually look up microbial fuel cells and this paper regarding microbial desalination cells:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es901950j

They already have working prototypes, but not efficient yet. Desalination is expensive due to energy costs and membrane production problems. A lot of research going into that field right now, some solar powered portable purification systems are considered billion dollar industries. Hope they can get this problem whipped, coupled with LFTR technology and we can start worrying about space travel instead of feeding/clothing us all :-D Pipe dreams I know but a man can dream right?


----------



## _REAPER_

I hope they get this worked out so I can get out of the middle east...


----------



## Celeras

WHEN CAN I BUY STOCK AND BECOME RICH?


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_REAPER_*
> 
> I hope they get this worked out so I can get out of the middle east...


You and the rest of the people who support your service. Keep your eyes peeled and your bullets close, we want you home in one piece just like your family and those who love you. Goes without saying.....


----------



## Warmonger

This is nice to hear, but the extinction of fossil fueled automobiles is inevitable.


----------



## b3machi7ke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_REAPER_*
> 
> I hope they get this worked out so I can get out of the middle east...


I don't think where you're at oil is the main reason you guys are over there...








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*
> 
> You and the rest of the people who support your service. Keep your eyes peeled and your bullets close, we want you home in one piece just like your family and those who love you. Goes without saying.....


this this this, a thousand times over
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warmonger*
> 
> This is nice to hear, but the extinction of fossil fueled automobiles is inevitable.


That would be great if technology like this didn't develop. But isn't the point of this stuff they're creating better efficiency and virtually zero-impact on the environment? From my limited understanding of how all this works, it would basically be just like running a hybrid or electric car almost, any by-products of combustion are the fuel that creates more fuel, so to speak. Not quite perpetual energy but close?


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Celeras*
> 
> WHEN CAN I BUY STOCK AND BECOME RICH?


Private company for now...I am trying to look into any companies they might use as suppliers though.


----------



## Warmonger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *b3machi7ke*
> 
> I don't think where you're at oil is the main reason you guys are over there...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this this this, a thousand times over
> That would be great if technology like this didn't develop. But isn't the point of this stuff they're creating better efficiency and virtually zero-impact on the environment? From my limited understanding of how all this works, it would basically be just like running a hybrid or electric car almost, any by-products of combustion are the fuel that creates more fuel, so to speak. Not quite perpetual energy but close?


It would have to be a drop and go replacement for gasoline in today's vehicles else it would be of no use. If it ever becomes a replacement for gasoline, regardless to it being a renewable resource, the government is still going to tax the hell out of it. The way oil prices are right now, the government already has a firm foundation to make a killing off this.







(or on the off chance the prices could drop back down to $0.99 a gallon)


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warmonger*
> 
> It would have to be a drop and go replacement for gasoline in today's vehicles else it would be of no use. If it ever becomes a replacement for gasoline, regardless to it being a renewable resource, the government is still going to tax the hell out of it. The way oil prices are right now, the government already has a firm foundation to make a killing off this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (or on the off chance the prices could drop back down to $0.99 a gallon)


I'm not sure I the oil centric opinions of a man named "Warmonger".


----------



## b3machi7ke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warmonger*
> 
> This is nice to hear, but the extinction of fossil fueled automobiles is inevitable.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*
> 
> I'm not sure I the oil centric opinions of a man named "Warmonger".


----------



## B3anbag

when are they taking the company public, i want stock options!


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm*
> 
> Private company for now...I am trying to look into any companies they might use as suppliers though.


Heh, if you can dig really deep and find out who/what lent the original capital investment and see what else is in the works would be sweet too.


----------



## Abs.exe

We have working "water motors" scheme for 100 years already and yet you worry about BURNING ALL THE FUELLLL

Seriously, everyone on this planet think it's cool to burn petrolium or what ?

Money will kill every single of us and bring down our planet with us.

Grats for contributing to the end of the world.


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> We have working "water motors" scheme for 100 years already and yet you worry about BURNING ALL THE FUELLLL
> Seriously, everyone on this planet think it's cool to burn petrolium or what ?
> Money will kill every single of us and bring down our planet with us.
> Grats for contributing to the end of the world.












Can you very kindly provide some links to this water motor?

What's wrong with burning petroleum?

Money can be evil, but no life requires money to live.

How do you know it's the end of the world because we have used fossil fuels as a component in everyday life and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future?


----------



## Abs.exe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you very kindly provide some links to this water motor?
> What's wrong with burning petroleum?
> Money can be evil, but no life requires money to live.
> How do you know it's the end of the world because we have used fossil fuels as a component in everyday life and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future?


1- GM and Hyaundai have bought several prototype of Water motor just to let the Petrolium cars go forward. That was a century ago.
2- Burning petrolium == heat. Heat == ice melt. Ice melt = GIGANTIC, UBER HUGE patches of freezeland that will release their FATAL dose of Methane. Methane is 10x worse for our planet than C02.
3- Instead of swapping into a clean energy, we prefer to get those arabic BILLIONs of $$$ every single days. What is the point of being rich like CRÉSUS but everyone around you is hungry and can barely breath.
4- That's why we have to change our habbit, otherwise we'd rather have a nuke war to hard reset our mentality, as of right now we are on a time bomb every single day and politic in general is doing everything it can just to make it look like it's not a problem.

WE HAVE TO REDUCE C02 EMISSION, yeah right, what about that 4 million miles square of freezeland that contain ridiculous amount of methane that is currently melting ? They don't give a damn they are getting money.

Right now, the freezeland I'm speaking about has started to melt, once the methane loose it's frozen liquid form, light a match and it's a boom.
Governments are well aware of that, why aren't you ? Goverments doesn't want you to panic and at the same time they are making idiotic amount of $ with petrolium sales.

Now, what's the problem burning petrolium my friend ?

EDIT: Saddest truth, even if those billionnaires would understand that, they would never go : Okay fine, planet is in danger, we'll change to clean energy. They will milk every single $$$ out of their petrolium first, even if it kills our planet.
They will have enough money to construct 100's of space ship, while those who paid them will be here breathing what we bought for centuries.


----------



## SectorNine50

What on earth is a "water motor?"

Are you talking about hydrogen fuel cells?

Keep in mind that all forms of energy, no matter what the source, will generate heat in one form or another unless they are 100% efficient.


----------



## Abs.exe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SectorNine50*
> 
> What on earth is a "water motor?"
> Are you talking about hydrogen fuel cells?


There are thousands of prototype that works with water, water motor is just a fast forward translation from french to my poor english.
Hydrogen would have been a better term I guess, but yeah water can propulse a car that's known for a while now.


----------



## b3machi7ke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> *1- GM and Hyaundai have bought several prototype of Water motor just to let the Petrolium cars go forward. That was a century ago.*
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 2- Burning petrolium == heat. Heat == ice melt. Ice melt = GIGANTIC, UBER HUGE patches of freezeland that will release their FATAL dose of Methane. Methane is 10x worse for our planet than C02.
> 3- Instead of swapping into a clean energy, we prefer to get those arabic BILLIONs of $$$ every single days. What is the point of being rich like CRÉSUS but everyone around you is hungry and can barely breath.
> 4- That's why we have to change our habbit, otherwise we'd rather have a nuke war to hard reset our mentality, as of right now we are on a time bomb every single day and politic in general is doing everything it can just to make it look like it's not a problem.
> WE HAVE TO REDUCE C02 EMISSION, yeah right, what about that 4 million miles square of freezeland that contain ridiculous amount of methane that is currently melting ? They don't give a damn they are getting money.
> Right now, the freezeland I'm speaking about has started to melt, once the methane loose it's frozen liquid form, light a match and it's a boom.
> Governments are well aware of that, why aren't you ? Goverments doesn't want you to panic and at the same time they are making idiotic amount of $ with petrolium sales.
> Now, what's the problem burning petrolium my friend ?
> EDIT: Saddest truth, even if those billionnaires would understand that, they would never go : Okay fine, planet is in danger, we'll change to clean energy. They will milk every single $$$ out of their petrolium first, even if it kills our planet.
> They will have enough money to construct 100's of space ship, while those who paid them will be here breathing what we bought for centuries
> 
> 
> .


Pretty sure GM wasn't around 100 years ago (not sure) but I am 100% sure Hyaundai was not around a century ago. You sound like a conspiracy nut, you need a


----------



## Abs.exe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *b3machi7ke*
> 
> Pretty sure GM wasn't around 100 years ago (not sure) but I am 100% sure Hyaundai was not around a century ago. You sound like a conspiracy nut, you need a


Those are just names to name a few, they did buy over last century a lot of prototype.
I'm pretty sure FORD did buy prototypes too even if it was 50 years ago the meaning is still there, PETROLIUM is what rule the world right now.

I'm not talking about conspiracy at all, I'm just telling you that they did favor Petrolium instead of water.
Why ?
Petrolium can be sold, water is everywhere.

And about the freezeland part, I'd be scared if I was you because there are proofs of that.
Scientist have discovered a huge freezeland under siberia(I'm not sure which exact country it is) and methane start to unfreeze at around -4*C.
The article I was reading said the freezeland was near -2*C in 2010.

That's our fault, that was frozen since thousand's of years, but petrolium fiends as we are, we are causing that kind of stuff to happen.


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> 1- GM and Hyaundai have bought several prototype of Water motor just to let the Petrolium cars go forward. That was a century ago.
> 2- Burning petrolium == heat. Heat == ice melt. Ice melt = GIGANTIC, UBER HUGE patches of freezeland that will release their FATAL dose of Methane. Methane is 10x worse for our planet than C02.
> 3- Instead of swapping into a clean energy, we prefer to get those arabic BILLIONs of $$$ every single days. What is the point of being rich like CRÉSUS but everyone around you is hungry and can barely breath.
> 4- That's why we have to change our habbit, otherwise we'd rather have a nuke war to hard reset our mentality, as of right now we are on a time bomb every single day and politic in general is doing everything it can just to make it look like it's not a problem.
> WE HAVE TO REDUCE C02 EMISSION, yeah right, what about that 4 million miles square of freezeland that contain ridiculous amount of methane that is currently melting ? They don't give a damn they are getting money.
> Right now, the freezeland I'm speaking about has started to melt, once the methane loose it's frozen liquid form, light a match and it's a boom.
> Governments are well aware of that, why aren't you ? Goverments doesn't want you to panic and at the same time they are making idiotic amount of $ with petrolium sales.
> Now, what's the problem burning petrolium my friend ?
> EDIT: Saddest truth, even if those billionnaires would understand that, they would never go : Okay fine, planet is in danger, we'll change to clean energy. They will milk every single $$$ out of their petrolium first, even if it kills our planet.
> They will have enough money to construct 100's of space ship, while those who paid them will be here breathing what we bought for centuries.


*1!:* Links, prototypes, and really Hyundai? Hyundai wasn't even established until the 40's and as a motor company in the 60's. You still haven't shown me these magical water motors that produce no harmful emissions and work without breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

*2!:* I could make a very easy argument without going into large details and say, Co2 emissions on the rise? Plant more plants!

*3!:* Can you show me some air quality reports from oil based economies in the Middle East?

*4!:* Who's going to nuclear war? What time bomb? Daily time bomb? What world are you living in?









You're essentially defining our world as being polluted solely by Co2 emissions when there are far greater pollutants entering the environment than Co2. Tell plastics companies to stop production. Tell drilling companies (oil or otherwise) to stop drilling. Tell chemical companies and bio engineering companies to stop what they're doing.

Oh and considering we have little to no data to guesstimate the reality of life on this planet give/take ten to twenty thousand years past in history, you just keep summing up all of today's problems by blaming the inhabitants of this world.


----------



## SectorNine50

If you are talking about hydrogen fuel cells, a _lot_ of the car companies (GM, Honda, BMW, etc) were bragging about their progress on the technology, up until the market crash.

Now days, those companies are just trying to stay afloat. The R&D that used to be put into alternate fuel sources just isn't as available as it once was.


----------



## Abs.exe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*
> 
> *1!:* Links, prototypes, and really Hyundai? Hyundai wasn't even established until the 40's and as a motor company in the 60's. You still haven't shown me these magical water motors that produce no harmful emissions and work without breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
> *2!:* I could make a very easy argument without going into large details and say, Co2 emissions on the rise? Plant more plants!
> *3!:* Can you show me some air quality reports from oil based economies in the Middle East?
> *4!:* Who's going to nuclear war? What time bomb? Daily time bomb? What world are you living in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're essentially defining our world as being polluted solely by Co2 emissions when there are far greater pollutants entering the environment than Co2. Tell plastics companies to stop production. Tell drilling companies (oil or otherwise) to stop drilling. Tell chemical companies and bio engineering companies to stop what they're doing.
> Oh and considering we have little to no data to guesstimate the reality of life on this planet give/take ten to twenty thousand years past in history, you just keep summing up all of today's problems by blaming the inhabitants of this world.


I'll answer as if I was you :

1- Water cannot propulse car. No company ever bought any water prototye. What a silly idea.
2- There is no heat problem on earth.
3- Petrolium doesn't reduce the quality of air.
4- Time bomb : click here and have fun reading

Now, there is no nuke war, I said we should HARD RESET OUR HABBIT because right now we are not on the good track.

EDIT: Even if they did put away water concept 1-100 years ago, a lot of companies bought several prototypes and burried them. Not claiming there is a conspiracy on this, but you tell me you believe that all the big petrolium producer never ever gave them any sort of $$$ to produce car that uses this kind of fuel ?


----------



## SgtSpike

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> I'll answer as if I was you :
> 1- Water cannot propulse car. No company ever bought any water prototye. What a silly idea.
> 2- There is no heat problem on earth.
> 3- Petrolium doesn't reduce the quality of air.
> 4- Time bomb : click here and have fun reading
> Now, there is no nuke war, I said we should HARD RESET OUR HABBIT because right now we are not on the good track.
> EDIT: Even if they did put away water concept 1-100 years ago, a lot of companies bought several prototypes and burried them. Not claiming there is a conspiracy on this, but you tell me you believe that all the big petrolium producer never ever gave them any sort of $$$ to produce car that uses this kind of fuel ?


Glad you're seeing the light!


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Water its self can't but you can split the water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burn that...if there were no impurities (impossible out side of a laboratory) the product would be heat and water again.

However, there hasn't really been a really efficient way to do this. All it takes is electricity running the water, but so far i believe it takes more energy to generate the electric current needed then what you get out.

I believe there have been a lot of hoaxes over the years with water powered cars though. Many of them very believable


----------



## Abs.exe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SectorNine50*
> 
> If you are talking about hydrogen fuel cells, a _lot_ of the car companies (GM, Honda, BMW, etc) were bragging about their progress on the technology, up until the market crash.
> Now days, those companies are just trying to stay afloat. The R&D that used to be put into alternate fuel sources just isn't as available as it once was.


Water is the only reason why we are alive.
Water is the solution for most problem in the world but money get's in his path.
Water is free.
Capitalism have made it that even a free liquid would not be viable in the car industry... You believe that BS ?
There must be a way to create cars that works with water, and if all the companies would agree to create a better world for our children instead of crapping on it because they are getting richer and richer (and notice you'll never be rich enough ?), we would have affordable water fuelled cars. Sure the first few one out would cost a lot, but the next 10 years after you'd have a lot of models and such.
Justl ike electric cars, first 1 was expensive as hell, now we can get one for $40k, in 5 years I expect them to be around $20k depending on the brands and the equipment.

EDIT: We have 22nm processor, I'm pretty sure 1/7 000 000 000 person will find a way to propulse cars with water. have a batterie heat the water, use the steam or whatever. I myself could probably find a way, imagine huge companies with billions of R&D's.


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> I'll answer as if I was you :
> 1- Water cannot propulse car. No company ever bought any water prototye. What a silly idea.
> 2- There is no heat problem on earth.
> 3- Petrolium doesn't reduce the quality of air.
> 4- Time bomb : click here and have fun reading
> Now, there is no nuke war, I said we should HARD RESET OUR HABBIT because right now we are not on the good track.
> EDIT: Even if they did put away water concept 1-100 years ago, a lot of companies bought several prototypes and burried them. Not claiming there is a conspiracy on this, but you tell me you believe that all the big petrolium producer never ever gave them any sort of $$$ to produce car that uses this kind of fuel ?


Ah, the infamous 'turn the argument on your opponent by repeating his points to him' move. Brilliant!









Also distort point #4 with methane when the original point was directed at nuclear war, what?









Again can you please show me a working water-engine/motor that does not break the laws of thermodynamics? I'm not saying the future will never hold a current fact false, but you're implying the tech is already viable.







Proof?

And lastly, upon your added (edited) comment, you are claiming there is a conspiracy. You don't realize that?


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> Those are just names to name a few, they did buy over last century a lot of prototype.
> I'm pretty sure FORD did buy prototypes too even if it was 50 years ago the meaning is still there, PETROLIUM is what rule the world right now.
> I'm not talking about conspiracy at all, I'm just telling you that they did favor Petrolium instead of water.
> Why ?
> Petrolium can be sold, water is everywhere.
> And about the freezeland part, I'd be scared if I was you because there are proofs of that.
> Scientist have discovered a huge freezeland under siberia(I'm not sure which exact country it is) and methane start to unfreeze at around -4*C.
> The article I was reading said the freezeland was near -2*C in 2010.
> That's our fault, that was frozen since thousand's of years, but petrolium fiends as we are, we are causing that kind of stuff to happen.


Links to back u your arguments?

If your talking about H2O, then that's water. If your talking about hydrogen(H), that's a chemical component of water. Water is too stable to be a fuel, on the other hand hydrogen is a legitimate fuel source in the future. Use the right translation if you want to keep your audience in the right place.

The thing about hydrogen fuel cells is they use a lot of rare earth metals. Those will run out someday, too, unless we learn to recycle. This isn't considering how expensive it it to harvest hydrogen. The byproduct is water, but it doesn't run on water. First fuel cell was in 1893, interesting stuff you learn on the internets.

edit:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*
> 
> Ah, the infamous 'turn the argument on your opponent by repeating his points to him' move. Brilliant!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also distort point #4 with methane when the original point was directed at nuclear war, what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again can you please show me a working water-engine/motor that does not break the laws of thermodynamics? I'm not saying the future will never hold a current fact false, but you're implying the tech is already viable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?
> And lastly, upon your added (edited) comment, you are claiming there is a conspiracy. You don't realize that?


Ah, but science's laws are merely theories that have been validated multiplude of times over. The laws of thermodynamics, can still be techinically broken, it's just extremely improbable.


----------



## CBZ323

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard*
> 
> The bacteria feeds exclusively on CO2. Global warming activists can't argue that this is a bad idea.


you are burning that oil again and putting it out, instead of using non fossil fuels. DUUUUUH

it doesnt mean its absorbing all the CO2 in the world.


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> Water is the only reason why we are alive.
> Water is the solution for most problem in the world but money get's in his path.
> Water is free.
> Capitalism have made it that even a free liquid would not be viable in the car industry... You believe that BS ?
> There must be a way to create cars that works with water, and if all the companies would agree to create a better world for our children instead of crapping on it because they are getting richer and richer (and notice you'll never be rich enough ?), we would have affordable water fuelled cars. Sure the first few one out would cost a lot, but the next 10 years after you'd have a lot of models and such.
> Justl ike electric cars, first 1 was expensive as hell, now we can get one for $40k, in 5 years I expect them to be around $20k depending on the brands and the equipment.
> EDIT: We have 22nm processor, I'm pretty sure 1/7 000 000 000 person will find a way to propulse cars with water. have a batterie heat the water, use the steam or whatever. I myself could probably find a way, imagine huge companies with billions of R&D's.


You have to do some more research on this topic, as there are several issues with hydrogen power that are inhibiting it's widespread use. The primary reason that electric cars are starting to take off now, is because battery technology has allowed them to have an acceptable range with a reasonable amount of weight.

However, if you think electric cars are helping our environment, you are sorely mistaken. They by-products of lithium ion are devastating to the ecosystem, and is part of the reason I find myself worked up when people have Prius' with license plates and bumper stickers about saving the environment. How ill-informed are these people to think that their hybrid vehicle is doing anything beneficial to the environment. All it is doing for anything is saving them money on gas.

I do not look forward to the time when all these Prius' and electric cars are getting their worn out batteries replaced.


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Ah, but science's laws are merely theories that have been validated multiplude of times over. *The laws of thermodynamics, can still be techinically broken*, it's just extremely improbable.


Can you show me where these laws have been broken?


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*
> 
> Can you show me where these laws have been broken?


When I do it I'll let you know.







. Working of making a flying cinder-block now, you should see this prototype!


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> When I do it I'll let you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Working of making a flying cinder-block now, you should see this prototype!


----------



## Abs.exe

Okay you guys are right, I was wrong.

Let's burn our planet








That's a much better idea.

Althought I recommend you to read on methane time bomb. This might enlight you a little.
I find it fun that all I said everone jumped on me saying not true, false. not true. false.

As if I was lying. What would be the point to lose my time here saying nothing.

Freezeland melting is a big problem and I didn't invent it.
What cause the freezeland to melt ?
Heat and heat is produced mainly by us, humans. Those who love money and shinny things.

I'll stop posting seeing how responses are, I'm not trying to fight anyone at all.
It just doesn't make sense to me to promote using fuel.
We should push toward electric cars and hydrolic cars, not about creating fake renewable fossil fuels that will eventually end up killing us all.
I know it won't happen anytime soon, that's what scares me the most. We are about to leave a broken planet to our childrens and we once again, do not care at all.


----------



## SectorNine50

...Did I just get completely ignored?

Man... I did a paper on the viability of hydrogen power in college. There are still significant issues that need to be overcome before it will be able to be used on a massive scale. No many people want hydrogen power to succeed more than I do.

And I've already posted about electric cars and their batteries...

:::Sigh:::


----------



## Vagrant Storm

When it came out a while back about the Methane plumes in the South Pole the small piece of me that cared about Global Warming kind of gave up. Regardless if the cause of the warming was started by nature or humans...that methane is going to finish it. No point in worrying about it now

Humans could shut off every source of green house gasses we make and it would not matter at this point. It's too late. Those methane plumes are doing more for global warming in a day than what humans do in a year. Seeing as how I live in Minnesota, USA, I have started driving the long way home in hopes to help kick start this global warming bit. It's damn cold here

I still want an electric car(or otherwise non-fosil fuel burning) in my garage, but not for the environment...electricity is much cheaper that gas for me. I just want to laugh at the pumps.


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> Okay you guys are right, I was wrong.
> Let's burn our planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a much better idea.
> Althought I recommend you to read on methane time bomb. This might enlight you a little.
> I find it fun that all I said everone jumped on me saying not true, false. not true. false.
> As if I was lying. What would be the point to lose my time here saying nothing.
> Freezeland melting is a big problem and I didn't invent it.
> What cause the freezeland to melt ?
> Heat and heat is produced mainly by us, humans. Those who love money and shinny things.
> I'll stop posting seeing how responses are, I'm not trying to fight anyone at all.
> It just doesn't make sense to me to promote using fuel.
> We should push toward electric cars and hydrolic cars, not about creating fake renewable fossil fuels that will eventually end up killing us all.
> I know it won't happen anytime soon, that's what scares me the most. We are about to leave a broken planet to our childrens and we once again, do not care at all.


Okay a couple of things here to clear up.

* Submission by even the tiniest amount of sarcasm doesn't do anything for anyone.
* No one is calling you a liar except yourself, you're just *incredibly* misinformed.
* Heat isn't only produced by humans. The entire solar system has shown a raise in temperatures, including Venus and Mars for starters, and that's only in the small amount of time (roughly 60 or less years) that we've had the 'ability' to detect, record, and substantiate these findings. Could it be the sun helping? I'm no scientist but micro and macro scale changes happen in and around us all the time.
* We're promoting progress not fuel itself. You can't deny that fossil fuels have helped the world progress to where it is today.
* You don't know if the planet is broken or not and neither do scientists. We know very little in the large amount of knowledge that we already have.


----------



## Abs.exe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SectorNine50*
> 
> ...Did I just get completely ignored?
> Man... I did a paper on the viability of hydrogen power in college. There are still significant issues that need to be overcome before it will be able to be used on a massive scale. No many people want hydrogen power to succeed more than I do.
> And I've already posted about electric cars and their batteries...
> :::Sigh:::


Issues can be resolved with time and money.
Thing is, there is more money to milk from fuel at the current time.
There could be a huge bomb that would go off once we sip the last drop of petrolium out of the earth and still we'd still suck it all so we can make more money.
This kind of thinking makes me sad, water is 100x cleaner if not more than fuel.

They are just are blinded by money. As an atheist, I'm hoping there is someone out there that will punish them for their selffishness.


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> Okay you guys are right, I was wrong.
> Let's burn our planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a much better idea.
> Althought I recommend you to read on methane time bomb. This might enlight you a little.
> I find it fun that all I said everone jumped on me saying not true, false. not true. false.
> As if I was lying. What would be the point to lose my time here saying nothing.
> Freezeland melting is a big problem and I didn't invent it.
> What cause the freezeland to melt ?
> Heat and heat is produced mainly by us, humans. Those who love money and shinny things.
> I'll stop posting seeing how responses are, I'm not trying to fight anyone at all.
> It just doesn't make sense to me to promote using fuel.
> We should push toward electric cars and hydrolic cars, not about creating fake renewable fossil fuels that will eventually end up killing us all.
> I know it won't happen anytime soon, that's what scares me the most. We are about to leave a broken planet to our childrens and we once again, do not care at all.


You're suggesting we all switch over to electric and hydrogen fuel cell cars. You're clearly not thinking broadly enough. Electric car batteries are appallingly bad for the environment. The whole "more oil is used to make a Prius than a Hummer uses in its entire lifetime" thing still stands. Besides that, the extra strain on the grid for recharging all of those has to come from somewhere (mostly coal). Hydrogen vehicles are a whole 'nother animal. An unbelievable amount of infrastructure would need to be built. Range would be abysmal with current hydrogen storage methods and the catalysts for the fuel cells themselves are very expensive. Electrolysis on a scale large enough to provide hydrogen for enough cars to replace internal combustion completely is impossible for the time being. You're oversimplifying this way too much. We simply don't have the R&D for those to be feasible at the moment.


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> Issues can be resolved with time and money.
> Thing is, there is more money to milk from fuel at the current time.
> There could be a huge bomb that would go off once we sip the last drop of petrolium out of the earth and still we'd still suck it all so we can make more money.
> This kind of thinking makes me sad, water is 100x cleaner if not more than fuel.
> They are just are blinded by money. As an atheist, I'm hoping there is someone out there that will punish them for their selffishness.


What does atheism have to do with anything?!


----------



## Abs.exe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*
> 
> Okay a couple of things here to clear up.
> * Submission by even the tiniest amount of sarcasm doesn't do anything for anyone.
> * No one is calling you a liar except yourself, you're just *incredibly* misinformed.
> * Heat isn't only produced by humans. The entire solar system has shown a raise in temperatures, including Venus and Mars for starters, and that's only in the small amount of time (roughly 60 or less years) that we've had the 'ability' to detect, record, and substantiate these findings. Could it be the sun helping? I'm no scientist but micro and macro scale changes happen in and around us all the time.
> * We're promoting progress not fuel itself. You can't deny that fossil fuels have helped the world progress to where it is today.
> * You don't know if the planet is broken or not and neither do scientists. We know very little in the large amount of knowledge that we already have.


I understand your point, I'm afraid I cannot express myself the same way I would in my native language but still, I think you can still understand the basic I'm pointing out at least.

We might have evolved from petrolium, but moving to a next energy is the way to go.

Sun might be heating our planet, but we are helping too, and that's not good for anyone.

There was a big convention bragging about what are we suposed to do with the newly found methane deposit in the freezeland. We have no clue what to do with this and yet, it could literally blow a few country within seconds. As I said, do some research on google you will find a lot of articles about this. I didn't invent it. I don't say it's going to blow up tomorrow, I'm just saying methane is a very hazardeous gas, and there is tons and tons of miles square of solid methane in europe. That sir, is a problem.

Fuel is want it or not part of the melting. That's why we need solutions, either filter the emanations from our car better or swap energy but somethign has to be done.
That's my thinking, I might not be right on everything, but we must change our habbit for sure.


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> I understand your point, I'm afraid I cannot express myself the same way I would in my native language but still, I think you can still understand the basic I'm pointing out at least.
> *We might have evolved from petrolium, but moving to a next energy is the way to go.*
> Sun might be heating our planet, but we are helping too, and that's not good for anyone.
> *There was a big convention bragging about what are we suposed to do with the newly found methane deposit in the freezeland. We have no clue what to do with this and yet, it could literally blow a few country within seconds. As I said, do some research on google you will find a lot of articles about this. I didn't invent it. I don't say it's going to blow up tomorrow, I'm just saying methane is a very hazardeous gas, and there is tons and tons of miles square of solid methane in europe. That sir, is a problem.*
> Fuel is want it or not part of the melting. That's why we need solutions, either filter the emanations from our car better or swap energy but somethign has to be done.
> That's my thinking, I might not be right on everything, but we must change our habbit for sure.


No one is arguing against new energy solutions. No one. Are you against nuclear solutions? Because nuclear is much safer today than it was when the first plants were built (in terms of producing energy and the plants, not considering and infrastructure or safeguards in place to protect the plants).

All current and recent scientific studies regarding the cycles we know that contribute to the order of the planet be they terrestrial or inter-solar, are showing that the trends we are watching and evaluating now, may in fact lead to another small ice age; in retrospect to a warming path. I suggest you do some reading on that particular as well.


----------



## Abs.exe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*
> 
> No one is arguing against new energy solutions. No one. Are you against nuclear solutions? Because nuclear is much safer today than it was when the first plants were built (in terms of producing energy and the plants, not considering and infrastructure or safeguards in place to protect the plants).
> All current and recent scientific studies regarding the cycles we know that contribute to the order of the planet be they terrestrial or inter-solar, are showing that the trends we are watching and evaluating now, may in fact lead to another small ice age; in retrospect to a warming path. I suggest you do some reading on that particular as well.


I will definitely read on that !
I'm just sad reading that we will probably go for an other century of petrolium cars ...
That won't help our small and as of now unique planet


----------



## SectorNine50

Oil-based fuels will be around for a _long_ time simply because most of our power plants are burning oil-based fuels. No matter if you are producing hydrogen, batteries, or pedal cars, pollution will still be generated.

Unless we pick up nuclear power on a large scale, of course...

EDIT:
WHOA. Lots of posts since I opened this reply...

Dang, I walk away for five minutes and the whole conversation changes, and everyone already said what I wanted to say...


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> I will definitely read on that !
> I'm just sad reading that we will probably go for an other century of petrolium cars ...
> That won't help our *small* and as of now unique *planet*


See this is my irritation with conventional wisdom in some cases.

This planet is _huge_. I think the population 'problem' is a false one. The problem is most people are living in close proximity to others in 9/10 places in the world. Outside of short _fresh-water_ supplies and new technologies bracing to easy the process of desalinating salt water (some 95-96% of the world's supply in total), I think this planet has more than enough room to support three or four times as many people as there are now.

Of course, this is contrary to popular belief.


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> Okay you guys are right, I was wrong.
> Let's burn our planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a much better idea.
> Althought I recommend you to read on methane time bomb. This might enlight you a little.
> I find it fun that all I said everone jumped on me saying not true, false. not true. false.
> As if I was lying. What would be the point to lose my time here saying nothing.
> Freezeland melting is a big problem and I didn't invent it.
> What cause the freezeland to melt ?
> Heat and heat is produced mainly by us, humans. Those who love money and shinny things.
> I'll stop posting seeing how responses are, I'm not trying to fight anyone at all.
> It just doesn't make sense to me to promote using fuel.
> We should push toward electric cars and hydrolic cars, not about creating fake renewable fossil fuels that will eventually end up killing us all.
> I know it won't happen anytime soon, that's what scares me the most. We are about to leave a broken planet to our childrens and we once again, do not care at all.


Wow dude. Did you know that the only thing that the observed increase in global temperatures has ever been causated with is the coincidental increase in solar output from our sun? Lots of other things have been observed to increase as well--like CO2 levels for example (I'll use CO2 as the example and infer it's meant as the "human" heat produced on the planet). But there has yet to be a single CO2 mechanism that results in increased heat retention by the plant that wouldn't require 80% of the overall atmosphere to be composed of CO2.

And what's all this nonsense about breaking thermodynamic laws? Sure, no one can say that our fundamental laws of thermodynamics applies to all situations universally (mainly because we cannot measure all situations), but they have been valid for...well, let's just say hundreds of years, and have never been invalidated--on the contrary, the more advanced scientific research gets, the more they are reinforced.

And hydrogen cars--well, there's a huge amount of work that needs to be done before they become mainstream. If an economical way can't be made to produce hydrogen on the fly (like a simple and cheap way of splitting water, for example), and since storage of hydrogen is a problem (on many levels--not just the issue of explosions, which really isn't a big deal, but because hydrogen makes a lot of the typical metals used in car manufacturing very, very brittle and can close integrity very quickly), hydrogen cars really can't gain much ground.


----------



## Abs.exe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*
> 
> See this is my irritation with conventional wisdom in some cases.
> This planet is _huge_. I think the population 'problem' is a false one. The problem is most people are living in close proximity to others in 9/10 places in the world. Outside of short _fresh-water_ supplies and new technologies bracing to easy the process of desalinating salt water (some 95-96% of the world's supply in total), I think this planet has more than enough room to support three or four times as many people as there are now.
> Of course, this is contrary to popular belief.


Concidering the fact that there is about 1 000 000 000 000 000 other stars and planets, I concider myself and my planet very little.
We are atoms in a giant puzzle.
I understand we are not causing 100% of total heat, sun is and has always been heating our planet.
The only fact I'm sure of it's that there were many changes over last thousands of years, creating ice ages and such, we are not helping our planet.
May be not causing absurd damage but still we are not doing everything we could to prevent the worse.
As of freezeland, there is enough methane in there to desintegrate our ozone. That's something we have to keep in mind.


----------



## jtom320

Hydrogen fuel is probabally fifty years away. (Hint: There is not enough platinum in the ground to even begin to make the way the technology exists currently feasible)

If you guys want to learn about energy issues.

http://peakoil.com/

Is a good place to start.

Also people need to realize that fossil fuels are more important to your current way of life then anything else. Your PC, the desk it's on, the cloths your wearing, your toothbrush, your cologne, your shampoo, almost everything use is either a product of fossil fuels (oil mainly in the form of plastic) or uses a tremendous amount of fossil fuels (10 calories of hydrocarbons are burned for every one calorie of food you eat. Every plastic is from oil. It's almost possible to say that everything you use in your daily life is either an oil product or could not be here without oil.

Oil is literally the most important thing to everyone on this forum whether they believe/know it. It's not just changing the engine in your car. Your car takes a huge amount of oil to even be built. There are 7 gallons of oil in every tire.

People saying oh we have this other technology we can just switch are being completely naive.


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> Concidering the fact that there is about 1 000 000 000 000 000 other stars and planets, I concider myself and my planet very little.
> We are atoms in a giant puzzle.
> I understand we are not causing 100% of total heat, sun is and has always been heating our planet.
> The only fact I'm sure of it's that there were many changes over last thousands of years, creating ice ages and such, we are not helping our planet.
> May be not causing absurd damage but still we are not doing everything we could to prevent the worse.
> As of freezeland, there is enough methane in there to desintegrate our ozone. That's something we have to keep in mind.


Again here, oversimplifying things and bringing philosophy into the equation!









When you mention the universe and the possibilities of planets, galaxies, solar systems, stars, and other wise potential for rending our vision of the universe in regards to where we fit in the equation as being but an particle of sand in the beaches of the universe, you're talking about philosophical views on perspective. I was talking about this planet, it's size, form, and ability to entertain the prospect of life. Including life's evolving expansion and growth.

What we are doing to the planet is hard to calculate, measure, and form intrinsic values upon; for various reasons including limited scope of history, limited scope of cause and action, and limited science on the cycles that generate the system as a whole.


----------



## KusH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> Concidering the fact that there is about 1 000 000 000 000 000 other stars and planets, I concider myself and my planet very little.
> We are atoms in a giant puzzle.
> I understand we are not causing 100% of total heat, sun is and has always been heating our planet.
> The only fact I'm sure of it's that there were many changes over last thousands of years, creating ice ages and such, we are not helping our planet.
> May be not causing absurd damage but still we are not doing everything we could to prevent the worse.
> As of freezeland, there is enough methane in there to desintegrate our ozone. That's something we have to keep in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Again here, oversimplifying things and bringing philosophy into the equation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention the universe and the possibilities of planets, galaxies, solar systems, stars, and other wise potential for rending our vision of the universe in regards to where we fit in the equation as being but an particle of sand in the beaches of the universe, you're talking about philosophical views on perspective. I was talking about this planet, it's size, form, and ability to entertain the prospect of life. Including life's evolving expansion and growth.
> 
> *What we are doing to the planet is hard to calculate, measure, and form intrinsic values upon; for various reasons including limited scope of history, limited scope of cause and action, and limited science on the cycles that generate the system as a whole.*
Click to expand...

Sooooo, basically you mean, they don't know


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KusH*
> 
> Sooooo, basically you mean, they don't know


It sounds so simple when you say it!


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> Concidering the fact that there is about *1 000 000 000 000 000* other stars and planets, I concider myself and my planet very little.
> We are atoms in a giant puzzle.
> I understand we are not causing 100% of total heat, sun is and has always been heating our planet.
> The only fact I'm sure of it's that there were many changes over last thousands of years, creating ice ages and such, we are not helping our planet.
> May be not causing absurd damage but still we are not doing everything we could to prevent the worse.
> As of freezeland, there is enough methane in there to desintegrate our ozone. That's something we have to keep in mind.


not enough zeros, add about 12^8 more, then you can begin to feel small







. 3 more zeros and you just have the milky way.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KusH*
> 
> Sooooo, basically you mean, they don't know


Science is as science does. Sometimes it's a double edged sword







.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*
> 
> It sounds so simple when you say it!


you are on point today!


----------



## frickfrock999

*Update 4/23/13*

I'm speechless.
I literally have no words.

http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/2013/joule-extends-solar-co2-conversion-platform-produce-renewable-gasoline-and-jet-fuel
Quote:


> *Joule today announced another industry first in renewable fuel production: the direct conversion of waste CO2 into the essential components of gasoline and jet fuel.* The breakthrough gives Joule the opportunity to expand its Sunflow™ product line and help address global demand for true hydrocarbon fuel replacements. In addition, the process uses waste CO2 as a feedstock, allowing industrial emitters to produce valuable fuels rather than discard emissions or employ costly measures for capture and sequestration.


----------



## SectorNine50

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*
> 
> *Update 4/23/13*
> 
> http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/2013/joule-extends-solar-co2-conversion-platform-produce-renewable-gasoline-and-jet-fuel


Niiiiiiiice...!


----------



## poizone

I really hope this actually takes off. I'm tired of paying out the wazoo to fill my tank, and while I love the idea of electric and all those benefits, there's just something about hearing my engine tear through it's powerband.


----------



## rapidtransit

When I saw this, I expected to see a paid news story with the associated pink slip ticker symbol... mind = blown (That it's not a pump and dump)


----------



## dmanstasiu

What's the associated cost to this technology? Possible and affordable are two different things


----------



## fogran

so when do they go public....i want in on the stock early


----------



## ejb222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmanstasiu*
> 
> What's the associated cost to this technology? Possible and affordable are two different things


I'm curious too. But I imagine the initial investment could be huge, but in the long run, sounds way cheaper than drilling and refinement. The real question is who will get a hold of it in order to jack up the price 300-400 times what it should be. Also, when are they going to remove ethanol from the gasoline since it's been proven to make gas more inefficient, damage engines, and raise the prices of all our food???(amoungst other issues)


----------



## Avonosac

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejb222*
> 
> I'm curious too. But I imagine the initial investment could be huge, but in the long run, sounds way cheaper than drilling and refinement. The real question is who will get a hold of it in order to jack up the price 300-400 times what it should be. Also, when are they going to remove ethanol from the gasoline since it's been proven to make gas more inefficient, damage engines, and raise the prices of all our food???(amoungst other issues)


Monsanto. They already said who is going to get their hands on it, cause they already have their hands on it.


----------



## TheSprunk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard*
> 
> The bacteria feeds exclusively on CO2. Global warming activists can't argue that this is a bad idea.


CO2 isn't the only "bad gas" people are worried about. NOx emissions are actually much more poisonous and detrimental to the environment than C02. CO2 just happens to compose a rather large share of the emissions. So by reducing or "Converting" CO2 into "Greener" gases, that's a start, but it still doesn't solve the NOx problem. Just to be clear, standard gasoline, propane, methane, and even hydrogen gas all produce some NOx emissions when combusted in a "natural" environment. This is due to the abundance of Nitrogen in the atmosphere.

And this is to say nothing of potential side effects and challenges of actually farming this material itself.

I'm not hating on the technology, this is great. But if it surpresses the price of gas it just reduces the economic viability of clearner, alternative, and frankly much cooler technologies.


----------



## ejb222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheSprunk*
> 
> CO2 isn't the only "bad gas" people are worried about. NOx emissions are actually much more poisonous and detrimental to the environment than C02. CO2 just happens to compose a rather large share of the emissions. So by reducing or "Converting" CO2 into "Greener" gases, that's a start, but it still doesn't solve the NOx problem. Just to be clear, standard gasoline, propane, methane, and even hydrogen gas all produce some NOx emissions when combusted in a "natural" environment. This is due to the abundance of Nitrogen in the atmosphere.
> 
> And this is to say nothing of potential side effects and challenges of actually farming this material itself.
> 
> I'm not hating on the technology, this is great. But if it surpresses the price of gas it just reduces the economic viability of clearner, alternative, and frankly much cooler technologies.


How does the price of gas reduce the viability of cleaner alternatives. I don't see the relation? I think the lack viability of alternative fuels at this point(even if gas was $6/gal) is purely based on the cost of the alternative fuel itself and the cost of implementation. If alternative fuel is going to catch on, it needs to be readily available(it is not) cheap(it is not) and the vehicle needs to be cheap(they are not). I wasn't around in the early part of the 20th century, but I imagine the same was true in the conversion to cars from horses. In fact, if you are local enough, trade in your car for a horse. Trade in your $300+ a month lease and the $50/month insurance and raise a horse...should live 15-20years and be cheaper on the whole. Or even cut down from 2 cars to one in trade of a horse. Didn't we all want to be cowboys when we were young anyway?


----------



## Tsumi

NOx emissions has been mostly eliminated due to advances in catalytic converter technology. Car technology has come an extremely long way, there's a lot of R&D that goes into cars since so many people use them.

This process, as long as the energy used to raise the bacteria comes from a renewable source (which it does), is a net zero carbon emission technology, and can legitimately be called green technology. It does not raise the overall CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Only burning fossil fuels, which is carbon trapped underground, and by burning forests can you increase CO2 concentrations.


----------



## xentrox

Heck Yeah! I just bought a V6, now I can think of my next V8 upgrade =)


----------



## SpankyMcFlych

How viable is this though? From an economic viewpoint. If the cost of producing a litre of fuel using this bacteria exceeds the cost of 1 litre sourced from crude oil then it's really just another green "miracle" that won't see the light of day. There's no conspiracy in that.

It's great to have options though, and even if it isn't financially viable now it could be in the future as scarcity drives oil prices up.


----------



## 47 Knucklehead

So how many more years until this will actually have any impact what so ever? I mean the thread started 28 months ago.


----------



## Acefire

Time to buy some stocks.


----------



## Aparition

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*
> 
> *Update 4/23/13*
> 
> I'm speechless.
> I literally have no words.
> 
> http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/2013/joule-extends-solar-co2-conversion-platform-produce-renewable-gasoline-and-jet-fuel


Can we please replace the silly %10 Ethanol in US gasoline with this for %100 pure gas. My engine would like this very much, as well as my gas mileage. Unless you have an Ethanol burning car all it does is lower efficiency and wear out the engine faster.


----------



## ejb222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aparition*
> 
> Can we please replace the silly %10 Ethanol in US gasoline with this for %100 pure gas. My engine would like this very much, as well as my gas mileage. Unless you have an Ethanol burning car all it does is lower efficiency and wear out the engine faster.


This^


----------



## sdhsbaseball

Meh give me some E98 and my car and my turbo's will be happy!


----------



## GanjaSMK

Such good news and well worth seeing the update. Thanks frickfrock!

Let's see now how quickly we can achieve reduced prices ... what'd'yall think? 5 years, 10?


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*
> 
> Such good news and well worth seeing the update. Thanks frickfrock!
> 
> Let's see now how quickly we can achieve reduced prices ... what'd'yall think? 5 years, 10?


This process is expensive, fuel obtained from it is more expensive than fuel obtained from crude oil. That's why it hasn't made it to mass market yet, and won't until the costs of producing fuel from this method is less than the costs of producing fuel from crude oil.


----------



## d-block

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*
> 
> Such good news and well worth seeing the update. Thanks frickfrock!
> 
> Let's see now how quickly we can achieve reduced prices ... what'd'yall think? 5 years, 10?


Not in our lifetime. Unless we drill into Alaska and the Rockies gas will probably be outrageously expensive forever.


----------



## nvidiaftw12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ArmenianLegend*
> 
> YES, I'll be able to drive my 300zxTT a lot more often!!!


We had one of those, but it was bit too mcuh for my dad to fix so we sold it. 

This is great news if it's actually put into place.


----------



## Eduardv

Finally,we should celebrate the inevitable destruction of the Ozone layer and our Atmosphere! yayyyyyyyyyy


----------



## MPLE

SO I CAN PUT THE BACTERIA IN MY CAR AND HAVE UNLIMITED FUELZZZZZ


----------



## Aparition

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MPLE*
> 
> SO I CAN PUT THE BACTERIA IN MY CAR AND HAVE UNLIMITED FUELZZZZZ


You'd be required to drive X miles every X hours, otherwise your gas tank would explode.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aparition*
> 
> Can we please replace the silly %10 Ethanol in US gasoline with this for %100 pure gas. My engine would like this very much, as well as my gas mileage. Unless you have an Ethanol burning car all it does is lower efficiency and wear out the engine faster.


Well even the "E85" cars get lower performance and millage when you use the E85. I did the math and for my truck the E85 has to be at least 54 cents a gallon cheaper to make it worth while to use from a millage perspective and it typically is only about 30 cents cheaper in my area...and the ethanol plant is like 20 miles away.


----------



## JadedPrimate

I really wish I could believe this, even though it has been noted here that they have reported successful tests. But it just sounds too good to be true, and until I actually see the process for myself I'm afraid I can't believe it.

Call me Thomas, if you wish.


----------



## pokerapar88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka*
> 
> And set non-fossil fuel efforts back decades.


Yeah, not to mention this is formed by "ex-monsanto" guys, do you think that they will reduce prices?? hell no. All countries of the world will want to buy 'em their fuel when natural fossil fuel is depleted. Theyknow this and will set prices to fit their benefit.
heck... we could have developed a free and sustainable energy source by now and we are just going back all over again. In brasil there is alcohol-fuel and it even gives more BHP to any engine than regular fuel. Imagine something newer... and more sustainable !
Hell this reminds me of the plot against Nikola Tesla's discoveries... he wanted free wireless energy for the world and companies stopped funding his project to sell energy through cables. Damn....
Profit over evolution. It sucks.


----------



## sdhsbaseball

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Aparition*
> 
> Can we please replace the silly %10 Ethanol in US gasoline with this for %100 pure gas. My engine would like this very much, as well as my gas mileage. Unless you have an Ethanol burning car all it does is lower efficiency and wear out the engine faster.
> 
> 
> 
> Well even the "E85" cars get lower performance and millage when you use the E85. I did the math and for my truck the E85 has to be at least 54 cents a gallon cheaper to make it worth while to use from a millage perspective and it typically is only about 30 cents cheaper in my area...and the ethanol plant is like 20 miles away.
Click to expand...

Lower milage yes performance no, there is a reason a lot of forced induction cars run this, its basiclly race gas out of the pump


----------



## Aparition

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdhsbaseball*
> 
> Lower milage yes performance no, there is a reason a lot of forced induction cars run this, its basiclly race gas out of the pump


Are you talking about Ethanol? I think 85 octane gas will never compare to 98+ octane no matter if it is gasoline or ethanol.
I also thought Ethanol burns hotter than Gasoline so you would need a better cooling system then you might find on a Ford Focus to really take advantage of the performance properties of Ethanol.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdhsbaseball*
> 
> Lower milage yes performance no, there is a reason a lot of forced induction cars run this, its basically race gas out of the pump


But race fuel is only good for race cars. Even the E85 cars aren't designed to solely run on E85...so you loose performance. I personally haven't researched it, but my guess is that the compression isn't set right and there is unburnt fuel going out your exhaust...or else is firing early due to compression


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pokerapar88*
> 
> Yeah, not to mention this is formed by "ex-monsanto" guys, do you think that they will reduce prices?? hell no. All countries of the world will want to buy 'em their fuel when natural fossil fuel is depleted. Theyknow this and will set prices to fit their benefit.
> heck... we could have developed a free and sustainable energy source by now and we are just going back all over again. In brasil there is alcohol-fuel and it even gives more BHP to any engine than regular fuel. Imagine something newer... and more sustainable !
> Hell this reminds me of the plot against Nikola Tesla's discoveries... he wanted free wireless energy for the world and companies stopped funding his project to sell energy through cables. Damn....
> Profit over evolution. It sucks.


Posts like this make me facepalm








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdhsbaseball*
> 
> Lower milage yes performance no, there is a reason a lot of forced induction cars run this, its basiclly race gas out of the pump


Ethanol by nature of ethanol has a ~20% lower energy content per gallon as compared to pure gasoline. Mileage suffers as a result.


----------



## Radeon915

So this method produces the equivalent about 800 barrels per year per acre.

So, if my math is right, that's about 2,2 barrels per acre per day. The world usage of oil is almost 90 million barrels per day. So we'd need 40.909.092 acres = 165.553,22 square KM's to fill our current daily need? Spread across the globe that should be doable (depending on resources and time to build it all).

Point is though, that with this solution, you're still going to have the same level of pollution (especially in crowded areas), but I guess it will stay at a stable level at least. I also hope that this won't cause research into alternative energies to be ceased or dwindled. It's certainly a nice solution for now, but for the long term we should really move on to something else as a primary energy source.


----------



## Buris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard*
> 
> The bacteria feeds exclusively on CO2. Global warming activists can't argue that this is a bad idea.


if this bacteria can get into the atmosphere, it will still be catastrophic. They really need to be careful with this. if all the CO2 in the world were to slowly be eaten away by this, creating oil everywhere, it will literally **** on the planet.

Hopefully there is a multitude of safeguards to prevent the bacteria from evolving in any way to eat any other substance... and hopefully the bacteria is genetically programmed to be unable to move/reproduce.

if ONE of these bacterias were to get out of their containers and into, say anything, then it has the potential to destroy all life on earth.


----------



## serp777

Folks this wont stop current drilling or oil production. It's obviously still cheaper to get oil thats already in the ground than to generate oil by providing bacterium with nutrients and huge swaths of land. It might increase the supply of oil, which would lower the price, but that's about it.


----------



## Maelthras

Well I have a perfect place for site development, we only have tens of thousands of square miles that are comprised of arid desert. Build the plant and you can scrub carbnn dioxide and turn it into fuel. This is incredible. How much do they forecast production to be?

Looks like they took my idea already, looking at their website they have a plant and it's in a arid desert. I want royaltys for that idea!


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Will this bacteria be able to survive out in the wild? If it can could it possibly take over a large body of water and slowly turn it into hydrocarbons?

Sorry if that sounds stupid, but I couldn't find anything on what it needs to survive, other than water, C02 and sunlight.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxpenguinxx*
> 
> Will this bacteria be able to survive out in the wild? If it can could it possibly take over a large body of water and slowly turn it into hydrocarbons?
> 
> Sorry if that sounds stupid, but I couldn't find anything on what it needs to survive, other than water, C02 and sunlight.


Its been a long time since I've read the rather limited info on this process, but I am pretty sure that the oils and hydrocarbons were poison to the bacteria so they had to be flushed frequently.

So they couldn't turn a whole lake into hydrocarbons...perhaps a small concentration though.

Plus these bacteria are able to take whatever the environment gives them and turn them into what they need. By changing what they have access too you can control the intermediate products and get hydrocarbons. So if they were not in the controlled environment they probably wouldn't make the hydrocarbons at all. So as of right now I don't think there is much concern. However, the one bad thing about bacteria is that they reproduce quickly and thus mutations appear sooner. So yeah, it is dangerous. However, so is drilling for oil or running a coal plant...some one will need to decide if the energy is worth the risk.


----------



## Kirmie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxpenguinxx*
> 
> Will this bacteria be able to survive out in the wild? If it can could it possibly take over a large body of water and slowly turn it into hydrocarbons?
> 
> Sorry if that sounds stupid, but I couldn't find anything on what it needs to survive, other than water, C02 and sunlight.


Well, that would explain what happened to the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio.


----------



## Aparition

We have this fairly useless location here in the US, I think they call it Utah.


----------



## DMills

Get pauly shore and a biodome together to start farming this stuff dude!


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DMills*
> 
> Get pauly shore and a biodome together to start farming this stuff dude!


I say sell it...let me grow some gas in my back yard. Even it was just a few gallons a week...it would be a start.


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aparition*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *sdhsbaseball*
> 
> Lower milage yes performance no, there is a reason a lot of forced induction cars run this, its basiclly race gas out of the pump
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Ethanol? I think 85 octane gas will never compare to 98+ octane no matter if it is gasoline or ethanol.
> I also thought Ethanol burns hotter than Gasoline so you would need a better cooling system then you might find on a Ford Focus to really take advantage of the performance properties of Ethanol.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *sdhsbaseball*
> 
> Lower milage yes performance no, there is a reason a lot of forced induction cars run this, its basically race gas out of the pump
> 
> 
> 
> But race fuel is only good for race cars. Even the E85 cars aren't designed to solely run on E85...so you loose performance. I personally haven't researched it, but my guess is that the compression isn't set right and there is unburnt fuel going out your exhaust...or else is firing early due to compression
Click to expand...

'
E85 is NOT 85 octane. It's 85% ethanol 15% gasoline (approximate, it varies, but I won't go into that) It has an equivalent octane rating of around 105-110 octane gasoline.
Ethanol also burns COLDER than gasoline, meaning the car will actually run cooler, which also means higher intake air density. More air density=more power. Turbo cars LOVE the stuff because of these two properties.

Cars that are "flex fuel" actually will make basically the same power, if not slightly more on ethanol. It richens up the mixture, and adjust the timing. You can run a lot more timing advance on E85 because of it's higher octane equivalency. More timing advance=more power.

E85 burns faster. A faster burn leads to a more complete burn, so compared to gasoline, E85 leaves fewer unburnt hydrocarbons behind.

E85 isn't good to use 100% because it lacks the fuel additives that help protect against engine wear. It has nothing to do with performance or any of that stuff.

Anyways, this new bacteria or what not is friggen awesome. They need to start seeding all the land around gross polluting factories and such to feed them and produce more fuel. I vote for high octane 100% gasoline. E85 is good, but 110 octane pure gasoline is better!


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> '
> E85 is NOT 85 octane. It's 85% ethanol 15% gasoline (approximate, it varies, but I won't go into that) It has an equivalent octane rating of around 105-110 octane gasoline.
> Ethanol also burns COLDER than gasoline, meaning the car will actually run cooler, which also means higher intake air density. More air density=more power. Turbo cars LOVE the stuff because of these two properties.
> 
> Cars that are "flex fuel" actually will make basically the same power, if not slightly more on ethanol. It richens up the mixture, and adjust the timing. You can run a lot more timing advance on E85 because of it's higher octane equivalency. More timing advance=more power.
> 
> E85 burns faster. A faster burn leads to a more complete burn, so compared to gasoline, E85 leaves fewer unburnt hydrocarbons behind.
> 
> E85 isn't good to use 100% because it lacks the fuel additives that help protect against engine wear. It has nothing to do with performance or any of that stuff.
> 
> Anyways, this new bacteria or what not is friggen awesome. They need to start seeding all the land around gross polluting factories and such to feed them and produce more fuel. I vote for high octane 100% gasoline. E85 is good, but 110 octane pure gasoline is better!


I think every one is clear on the 85% ethanol bit.

I can confirm I don't notice any power loss in my truck with E85...but I know the mileage drops pretty fast. I also know that an engine that isn't designed to run on E85 can loose large amounts of power. My crazy father runs E85 in literally everything on the farm that doesn't need diesel fuel. A lot of things are fine actually...but for example he has this little grocery getter S-10 pickup with a four cylinder engine that can barely keep going 55mph up a low grade hill with E85...you fill up with regular gas in town and it runs fine.


----------



## Ithanul

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> '
> E85 is NOT 85 octane. It's *85% ethanol* 15% gasoline (approximate, it varies, but I won't go into that) It has an equivalent octane rating of around 105-110 octane gasoline.
> Ethanol also burns COLDER than gasoline, meaning the car will actually run cooler, which also means higher intake air density. More air density=more power. Turbo cars LOVE the stuff because of these two properties.


Crap, I can't use that in my motorcycle.......only allowed 10% maximum of ethanol mixed into gasoline.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm*
> 
> I think every one is clear on the 85% ethanol bit.
> 
> I can confirm I don't notice any power loss in my truck with E85...but I know the mileage drops pretty fast. I also know that an engine that isn't designed to run on E85 can loose large amounts of power. My crazy father runs E85 in literally everything on the farm that doesn't need diesel fuel. A lot of things are fine actually...but for example he has this little grocery getter S-10 pickup with a four cylinder engine that can barely keep going 55mph up a low grade hill with E85...you fill up with regular gas in town and it runs fine.


Hmmmm, sounds like my truck. Little Sonoma that hates hills, and very picky with different gas mixtures.


----------



## Aparition

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> E85 is NOT 85 octane. It's 85% ethanol 15% gasoline (approximate, it varies, but I won't go into that) It has an equivalent octane rating of around 105-110 octane gasoline.
> Ethanol also burns COLDER than gasoline, meaning the car will actually run cooler, which also means higher intake air density. More air density=more power. Turbo cars LOVE the stuff because of these two properties.
> Anyways, this new bacteria or what not is friggen awesome. They need to start seeding all the land around gross polluting factories and such to feed them and produce more fuel. I vote for high octane 100% gasoline. E85 is good, but 110 octane pure gasoline is better!


Thanks for the info








I wonder if my car can use E85 it loves high octane, Honda K20 V-Tec.
I was always worried about seeing higher than %10 ethanol because I was told it will wear out seals and such that are not designed for ethanol primary use.


----------



## Nenkitsune

Everyone above talking about using E85 in a car designed to use gasoline. Here's a tip for you.

Gasoline's happy afr is 14.7:1. meaning 14.7 parts air, 1 part fuel.

E85 however, is 9.76:1. 9.76 parts air, 1 part fuel

Your dad's S10 runs like crap because the computer is calculating for 14.7:1 AFR, not the proper 9.7:1 It can actually destroy the car by running excessively lean.

In a honda, you mentioned K20 Vtec. No, you actually won't make any more power. Honda is great at designing engines, The K20 in particular is a great 4 cylinder engine. Though to actually make use of E85 in it, and see a difference (more than 15 horsepower with a dyno tune, stock ECU won't be happy with you if you use E85 in it) you need to either A) Run really high compression, or B) Turbo that mother effer to the sky.

I have a 1990 integra that I'm building a Non-Vtec B20 for eventually, that will see close to 500HP and over 20psi of boost on E85. On pump I believe I will at a maximum only be able to push about 17-18lbs of boost and maybe about 450hp (91 octane) though I'm shooting more for mid to high 300's and about 14lbs of boost.

Also, the bit about fuel having 10% ethanol in it. I hate the stuff, but it's the only thing they sell now.

It does wear out components, but at 10% it's generally regarded as safe. Old 60's vw have a little issue with them that require richening the mixture.

that 10% ethanol does eat up rubber over time, but the content is low enough to where I don't believe it'll hurt anything within the useable life of the components. Anything above 10% though can mess stuff up. Ethanol absorbs water. Water in your fuel lines=horrible times.

TL;DR

If it wasn't made or custom tuned for E85 DO NOT USE IT. you can destroy your car/truck/motorcycle/mower/anything gasoline powered.


----------



## Aparition

Cool, well I know what I'll run now if I ever get a Supercharger







(not likely) would be fun though.


----------



## Mr.Eiht

Because it is already friday and my shift ends I am in a strange mood so dont flame me to hard but:

I dont get the hype: In the end the engery company (name does not matter) will make big bucks that we (consumer) will have to pay.
The only good thing is that we/they dont polute the nature.

...like I already wrote: Strange weekend mood so forgive me.


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr.Eiht*
> 
> Because it is already friday and my shift ends I am in a strange mood so dont flame me to hard but:
> 
> I dont get the hype: In the end the engery company (name does not matter) will make big bucks that we (consumer) will have to pay.
> The only good thing is that we/they dont polute the nature.
> 
> ...like I already wrote: Strange weekend mood so forgive me.


Well, the idea is in the long run it'll lead to a renewable source of fuel, and help with not having to import fuel from other countries, overall leading to lower fuel prices, and pollution that more or less stays the same, or drops, rather than shooting up (as the carbon our cars emit, are then turned into food to make more fuel)


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> ...
> 
> I have a 1990 integra that I'm building a Non-Vtec B20 for eventually, that will see close to 500HP and over 20psi of boost on E85. On pump I believe I will at a maximum only be able to push about 17-18lbs of boost and maybe about 450hp (91 octane) though I'm shooting more for mid to high 300's and about 14lbs of boost.


I would not recommend using a B20 to make over 300HP. It has weak cylinders compared to all other B-series motors. I would use a B18b just for a piece of mind.

But either way hopefully they keep advancing this method of making hydrocarbons, because I smell quite a lot of burnt gasoline in your future.


----------



## TheBlindDeafMute

The middle east wont like this. Actually, I'm not sure we do anything the middle east likes.


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxpenguinxx*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> ...
> 
> I have a 1990 integra that I'm building a Non-Vtec B20 for eventually, that will see close to 500HP and over 20psi of boost on E85. On pump I believe I will at a maximum only be able to push about 17-18lbs of boost and maybe about 450hp (91 octane) though I'm shooting more for mid to high 300's and about 14lbs of boost.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not recommend using a B20 to make over 300HP. It has weak cylinders compared to all other B-series motors. I would use a B18b just for a piece of mind.
> 
> But either way hopefully they keep advancing this method of making hydrocarbons, because I smell quite a lot of burnt gasoline in your future.
Click to expand...

B18B is going to be sent to ERL to install 84mm Superdeck I Sleeves and a 5 point main girdle.

Currently I'm building a B18A1 with 10.7:1 compression and a GSR girdle/mains, eagle rods, srp pistons. Head is an LS head with JG 303 cams, rocket motorsports dual springs, and a PnP job. (head will support flow over 8000rpm, and made 457 hp on a B18B running 23lbs of boost on E85. Was only limited by injector size)

And agreed, B20's have horrible cylinders. Even the B18's start cracking over 400-500hp

Been planning this turbo engine for near 2 years now. My current engine spun a rod bearing (something tells me the guy who rebuilt it had one of them a bit on the tight side) so I'm building up a high rev engine so I can slap my built head on it. Should make about 155-165 though I've seen engines with similar cams make 175+ with the same compression.

and before anyone asks, why no vtec. Simple. Who needs vtec when I'll have an engine that'll reliably put down 350hp, with up to 500hp on tap, and gobs of torque?


----------



## Aparition

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> and before anyone asks, why no vtec. Simple. Who needs vtec when I'll have an engine that'll reliably put down 350hp, with up to 500hp on tap, and *gobs of torque*?


My only complaint for my car is the zero low end torque







Otherwise my Acura TSX is a fun car to drive. Eventually I will flash the ECU and lower the Vtec from 6k to 4.8k and even out the torque curve... but has not been a week that I don't need my car.


----------



## xxpenguinxx

I was going to say install 84mm sleeves, didn't want to go too off topic. And I completely agree with you on vtec. Good luck with the build. Currently I have 94 Integra LS and I cannot see myself driving anything else, It's the only car I've ever felt at home in.


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aparition*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> and before anyone asks, why no vtec. Simple. Who needs vtec when I'll have an engine that'll reliably put down 350hp, with up to 500hp on tap, and *gobs of torque*?
> 
> 
> 
> My only complaint for my car is the zero low end torque
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise my Acura TSX is a fun car to drive. Eventually I will flash the ECU and lower the Vtec from 6k to 4.8k and even out the torque curve... but has not been a week that I don't need my car.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my car as is has a good bit at around 4000rpm. My cams really start to breath around 4500 rpm and pull up to around 8500rpm. So everything in this build is to optimize that power band and punch it up as high as possible. Even the turbo I'm getting spools ridiculously quick, but is large enough to not run out of breath at the top end. Though I don't think anyone has put the specific one I want to use on a honda yet (it's price tag is somewhere around 1600 dollars...ouch, but that's nothing compared to the BLOCK (yes just the block, no crank pistons or rods) which will set me back 2300 bucks.

Regardless, we NEED this technology to succeed. Gas prices will only keep getting higher, and if this stuff is as successful as they're hoping, it may put a much needed dent in the overall supply of gasoline.

I think factories/power companies should be REQUIRED to have enough of this stuff planted around to help offset the pollution caused in the immediate area (or something like that)


----------



## ryboto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aparition*
> 
> My only complaint for my car is the zero low end torque
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise my Acura TSX is a fun car to drive. Eventually I will flash the ECU and lower the Vtec from 6k to 4.8k and even out the torque curve... but has not been a week that I don't need my car.


I just swapped your cars engine into my EP3 and the tuner set the VTEC transition to 4k rpm. MMM.


----------



## Kirmie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> Everyone above talking about using E85 in a car designed to use gasoline. Here's a tip for you.
> 
> Gasoline's happy afr is 14.7:1. meaning 14.7 parts air, 1 part fuel.
> 
> E85 however, is 9.76:1. 9.76 parts air, 1 part fuel
> 
> Your dad's S10 runs like crap because the computer is calculating for 14.7:1 AFR, not the proper 9.7:1 It can actually destroy the car by running excessively lean.
> 
> In a honda, you mentioned K20 Vtec. No, you actually won't make any more power. Honda is great at designing engines, The K20 in particular is a great 4 cylinder engine. Though to actually make use of E85 in it, and see a difference (more than 15 horsepower with a dyno tune, stock ECU won't be happy with you if you use E85 in it) you need to either A) Run really high compression, or B) Turbo that mother effer to the sky.
> 
> I have a 1990 integra that I'm building a Non-Vtec B20 for eventually, that will see close to 500HP and over 20psi of boost on E85. On pump I believe I will at a maximum only be able to push about 17-18lbs of boost and maybe about 450hp (91 octane) though I'm shooting more for mid to high 300's and about 14lbs of boost.
> 
> Also, the bit about fuel having 10% ethanol in it. I hate the stuff, but it's the only thing they sell now.
> 
> It does wear out components, but at 10% it's generally regarded as safe. Old 60's vw have a little issue with them that require richening the mixture.
> 
> that 10% ethanol does eat up rubber over time, but the content is low enough to where I don't believe it'll hurt anything within the useable life of the components. Anything above 10% though can mess stuff up. Ethanol absorbs water. Water in your fuel lines=horrible times.
> 
> TL;DR
> 
> If it wasn't made or custom tuned for E85 DO NOT USE IT. you can destroy your car/truck/motorcycle/mower/anything gasoline powered.


I just wanted to quote this. Sounds like somebody actually knows there stuff on this. Hooray for science!


----------



## Nenkitsune

I don't know everything, just a little bit about everything hah!

in all honesty I'm an absolute gear head at heart, so I did a lot of researching on E85 to see if it was a viable option for me to run in my car once it's turbo charged. There's only one or two pumps near me with it though, so it'll probably be an idea that'll sit on the back burner for a while (even though the car will be set up to be able to run it)

No money and a lot of time is a good thing when it comes to building cars. Lots of money and no time is horrible though. Rush builds with miss matched parts that kind of work, but don't really excel in anything.

I pretty much just scope out every bit of info I want to learn about and dig into it till I realize i'm not supposed to be awake.


----------



## sdhsbaseball

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> E85 is NOT 85 octane. It's 85% ethanol 15% gasoline (approximate, it varies, but I won't go into that) It has an equivalent octane rating of around 105-110 octane gasoline.
> Ethanol also burns COLDER than gasoline, meaning the car will actually run cooler, which also means higher intake air density. More air density=more power. Turbo cars LOVE the stuff because of these two properties.
> 
> Cars that are "flex fuel" actually will make basically the same power, if not slightly more on ethanol. It richens up the mixture, and adjust the timing. You can run a lot more timing advance on E85 because of it's higher octane equivalency. More timing advance=more power.
> 
> E85 burns faster. A faster burn leads to a more complete burn, so compared to gasoline, E85 leaves fewer unburnt hydrocarbons behind.
> 
> E85 isn't good to use 100% because it lacks the fuel additives that help protect against engine wear. It has nothing to do with performance or any of that stuff.
> 
> Anyways, this new bacteria or what not is friggen awesome. They need to start seeding all the land around gross polluting factories and such to feed them and produce more fuel. I vote for high octane 100% gasoline. E85 is good, but 110 octane pure gasoline is better!


Yay! someone knows cars lol I was just about to post this too but you beat me to it!!


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *47 Knucklehead*
> 
> So how many more years until this will actually have any impact what so ever? I mean the thread started 28 months ago.


C'mon man, I don't need to be reminded of how long ago this was and how little I've done since then.


----------



## mrscott

I smell an incredibly rich group of people in the near future. And some people touching cloth right about now.


----------



## AngeloG.

I'm hoping for the best. It's a step for the best.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AngeloG.*
> 
> I'm hoping for the best. It's a step for the best.


I don't know if I'd say that....the "best step" would be towards a solution that is more efficient, cheaper and with less pollution.


----------



## AngeloG.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm*
> 
> I don't know if I'd say that....the "best step" would be towards a solution that is more efficient, cheaper and with less pollution.


Nowhere did I say the "best step". I said a step for the best. Different things. Knowing how society works, I would prefer we stopped wars for oil and have that technology, if fossil fuel is the way they decide to go. If I had to make a choice, I would look for something else. People are trying to find alternative choices. Anyhow, I can't say this news is a bad step.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm*
> 
> I don't know if I'd say that....the "best step" would be towards a solution that is more efficient, cheaper and with less pollution.


This process doesn't pollute... I don't know how you can get any cleaner than a carbon neutral process that doesn't use heavy metals or rare earth metals.


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buris*
> 
> if this bacteria can get into the atmosphere, it will still be catastrophic. They really need to be careful with this. if all the CO2 in the world were to slowly be eaten away by this, creating oil everywhere, it will literally **** on the planet.
> 
> Hopefully there is a multitude of safeguards to prevent the bacteria from evolving in any way to eat any other substance... and hopefully the bacteria is genetically programmed to be unable to move/reproduce.
> 
> if ONE of these bacterias were to get out of their containers and into, say anything, then it has the potential to destroy all life on earth.


Better kill all the other photosynthetic bacteria and plants then. We wouldn't want them eating all the CO2 and turning it into sugar, would we?









This bacteria is no different than any other. It has the same limitations. Why aren't you worried about common ones like E. coli evolving to eat other substances? How does it have the potential to "destroy all life on earth"?


----------



## dzalias

I wish I had access to E85. I only get E10 here in Florida.


----------



## MoGTy

I've been using LPG for years, waiting for stations to get an LPG pump has been a real annoyance. Now, still only 1 in 10 have it.

So yeah... E85

Call me when it's at least as common as LPG.


----------

