New Bacteria Replaces Need For Gasoline
- Thread starter Mike Kayatta
- Start date
Actually it will be the corn investors who will try to stamp this down. The oil companies won't mind as they can just mix this stuff with their gas and say they are doing their part for the environment. But right now there are people who love ethanol for all the money in subsidies it gives them.
I will applaud if there is one company that endorses and produces this without the need for government funds and sells it wholesale.
I will applaud if there is one company that endorses and produces this without the need for government funds and sells it wholesale.
CO2 is hardly unnatural, and easily dealt with by all the grass, trees and other vegetation we have around. What I would have to wonder is how much CO it produces. CO2's little brother is much more toxic, and though vegetation can still breathe it in to give us oxygen, it does a lot more damage than CO2.noobface said:
We won't be able to replace oil until those money grabbing a-holes at the top of the oil and gas companies are long gone and their companies dissolved.
So who wants to do that now instead of waiting till we have World War 3 for the last amount of gas and oil in the world.
So who wants to do that now instead of waiting till we have World War 3 for the last amount of gas and oil in the world.
Hasn't this been solved before, or was hydrogen power just another environmentalist fad?
Exactly. As long as there's oil, none of this will go into mass-production, and as long as this stuff doesn't go into mass production , it will only be a viable option for the extremely rich and well-off.The Plunk said:
Not really. You only increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere if you burn fuels that have been previously stored underground. Biofuels are made from plants that have absorbed all their CO2 from the atmosphere, so the balance will remain the same.noobface said:
On the other hand, this particular fuel requires cattle, and they can produce far worse greenhouse gasses than CO2, like methane (cow farts). Still, if this is only made from by-products that would normally be discarded and the amount of cattle won't increase this will contribute to greenhouse emission reduction.
Absolutely. A chemical that does not exist in nature on earth and can only be created by pouring more energy in it than you will ever get out of it isn't particularly useful. Hydrogen is nothing more than a very explosive battery.The-Epicly-Named-Man said:
I'm sure the republicans will think/make something up.Exterminas said:
They make way too much money off oil lobbyists. Democrats too, but they seem to have less denial about alternative fuel.
I think they just like holding hands with those bearded guys in the dresses. I think it's some sort of weird freemason fetish.
Well, I've thought up a way to convince America to use this method over oil:GonzoGamer said:
Middle East has Oil -> Massive amounts of money are made -> Partially funds terrorism
Oil dependancy is lessened -> less funding for terrorism -> 'MERICA WON DA WAR, JIMBO!
Also, I've never seen the problem with Soylent Green, since it can solve a lot of problems related to starvation.
Of course, killing people specifically to produce it is a bit too much, but otherwise, why waste a body? I'll volunteer to feed the hungry once I die a natural death.
Sounds brilliant! There has to be some catch though, nothing works that perfectly. Even if it is infinitely better than petrol I bet that governments and oil companies will take their sweet precious time before they even consider looking in to this. They always do with stuff like this.
One thing that always annoys me is how no-one is paying any attention to so called "second generation biofuels". Now I'm no expert on them but I hear they have all the benefits of normal biofuels, in that they are readily available, don't require any new technology to work and are carbon neutral, but unlike other biofuels they are made from waste products so do not need land to grow plants on, therefore not taking up land needed for food growing. Why the hell aren't we jumping on that?
One thing that always annoys me is how no-one is paying any attention to so called "second generation biofuels". Now I'm no expert on them but I hear they have all the benefits of normal biofuels, in that they are readily available, don't require any new technology to work and are carbon neutral, but unlike other biofuels they are made from waste products so do not need land to grow plants on, therefore not taking up land needed for food growing. Why the hell aren't we jumping on that?
The problem with hydrogen is the amount of electricity needed for electrolysis. Basically every available shore line on earth would have to have a line of windmills just to power cars. We could always just use coal plants but that is self defeating. Electricity is a better option those wind mill could power every car and have some power left over. thermo 101The-Epicly-Named-Man said:
Possible drawbacks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel#Potential_problems_with_the_use_of_butanol_fuel
The one that concerns me the most is the toxic at 20g per liter. I do not know what that means exactly, but I know what toxic means, and it ain't good.
Wiki also mentions the horrible smell that someone else mentioned above. Seems hard to find something that smells worse than diesel, but then I seem to hate the smell of diesel more than most people.
Have not found any word on how much it costs to produce, or how much mass production is expected to cost. Fingers crossed this works out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel#Potential_problems_with_the_use_of_butanol_fuel
The one that concerns me the most is the toxic at 20g per liter. I do not know what that means exactly, but I know what toxic means, and it ain't good.
Wiki also mentions the horrible smell that someone else mentioned above. Seems hard to find something that smells worse than diesel, but then I seem to hate the smell of diesel more than most people.
Have not found any word on how much it costs to produce, or how much mass production is expected to cost. Fingers crossed this works out.
How much "trash" do you need to produce a gallon of fuel? How do you extract the fuel? How do you keep from contaminating the bacteria? Is it a good idea to make our forests our primary fuel source? How much will this cost? If paper is fuel, how can we afford to use it as printed material? Would we need to harvest trees faster than we can grow them? Renewable? Sustainable? Cheap?
Algae, people. Photosynthetic, carbon-binding algae. That's the future. All we need is for the cost to go down or oil prices to go way up. That bacteria has virtually no chance of contributing to future energy needs in any meaningful way.
Algae, people. Photosynthetic, carbon-binding algae. That's the future. All we need is for the cost to go down or oil prices to go way up. That bacteria has virtually no chance of contributing to future energy needs in any meaningful way.
But if we use your body for food, we wont be able to stuff you in the gas tank of our new Ford Mausoleum.jurnag12 said:
Hell why wait, I wonder if I could just put whatever nail/hair clippings, scabs, dandruff, verruca, or anything else that falls off me in the tank. That would be awesome. Shit, I'm a mess aren't I.
I'm pretty sure that even starving Africans don't want to eat my nail clippings.
The problem is that oil companies understand economics.
Price of gas goes up. Research starts for alternate fuel sources. Once they're found, the oil companies buy them and stuff them in a cabinet. Then they lower gas prices so that there aren't too many alternate fuel sources. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Monopoly, bitches.
Price of gas goes up. Research starts for alternate fuel sources. Once they're found, the oil companies buy them and stuff them in a cabinet. Then they lower gas prices so that there aren't too many alternate fuel sources. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Monopoly, bitches.