Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Synthetic Bacteria to Excrete Crude in 18 Months?
In his presentation at the annual TED meeting, redoubtable gene-meister Craig Venter predicted that his team would soon produce synthetic bacteria which would consume carbon dioxide to produce a "fourth generation fuel" and help solve man-made global warming as well. As AFP reports:
"We have modest goals of replacing the whole petrochemical industry and becoming a major source of energy," Venter told an audience that included global warming fighter Al Gore and Google co-founder Larry Page.
"We think we will have fourth-generation fuels in about 18 months, with CO2 as the fuel stock." ...
His team is using synthetic chromosomes to modify organisms that already exist, not making new life, he said. Organisms already exist that produce octane, but not in amounts needed to be a fuel supply.
"If they could produce things on the scale we need, this would be a methane planet," Venter said. "The scale is what is critical; which is why we need to genetically design them."
The genetics of octane-producing organisms can be tinkered with to increase the amount of CO2 they eat and octane they excrete, according to Venter.
Sounds great, though Venter does note a not inconsiderable problem:
The limiting part of the equation isn't designing an organism, it's the difficulty of extracting high concentrations of CO2 from the air to feed the organisms, the scientist said in answer to a question from Page.
Venter's bonus line?
"We are a ways away from designing people. Our goal is just to make sure they survive long enough to do that."
Whole AFP story here.
x,y|2.29.08 @ 9:48AM|#
I'll have to comment on this fascinating news later. Circuit City is having a hell of a sale.
|2.29.08 @ 9:52AM|#
I don't get it. Combining water and carbon dioxide to produce
octane consumes, not produces, energy, right?
That's why burning octane into CO2 and water releases energy.
|2.29.08 @ 9:54AM|#
What about the poor little bacterium? Maybe it doesn't want to
be forced to eat CO2?
Who is going to stand up for the little guy.
Alert PETA!
stuartl|2.29.08 @ 10:02AM|#
I wonder if the device could be made small enough to attach to
the tailpipe of a car? Would that give us perpetual motion
machines?
Or what if it is too effective? Then we will need to deal with AGC.
The next ice age is coming! We need to stop this technology
now!
kinnath|2.29.08 @ 10:05AM|#
I don't get it. Combining water and carbon dioxide to
produce octane consumes, not produces, energy, right?
Right. The organism extracts engery from the environment (it eats
something). Most of the energy goes towards supporting life. The
organism produces octane as waste. Humans come along at a later
time and harvest the waste.
No different conceptually from planting wheat and letting the plant
capture solar energy and store it in chemical bonds in sugar.
|2.29.08 @ 10:08AM|#
That makes sense, kinnath. The writer makes it sound as if the
CO2 WAS the food source the organisms would eat.
I'm sure Venter explained this, but it just didn't come through in
that article.
|2.29.08 @ 10:10AM|#
I would think that there is a photosynthesis process involved. I don't know how carbon dioxide by itself is a source of energy for these bacterium. On a side note, is it completely unreasonable that the solution to global warming would come from technological advances rather than government restrictions?
|2.29.08 @ 10:12AM|#
This sounds like a fancified version of ethanol. The energy to
drive the whole process has to come from somewhere.
Does this mean we can all relax now?
DENIER DENIER DENIER DENIER DENIER DENIER DENIER
kinnath|2.29.08 @ 10:15AM|#
The writer makes it sound as if the CO2 WAS the food source
the organisms would eat.
Given CO2 is an input not an output, I am assuming this involves
photosynthesis. A big tub of nutrients, a CO2 source, a batch of
bacteria, and some sunlight. Instead of producing cellulose or
sugars, the bacteria produces octane.
Unfortunately, there is no link to any detailed information.
|2.29.08 @ 10:19AM|#
The energy to drive the whole process has to come from
somewhere.
Like most carbon-fixing organisms, this bacterium probably derives
its energy from an incandescent nuclear reactor some 93 million
miles from here.
kinnath|2.29.08 @ 10:19AM|#
This sounds like a fancified version of ethanol.
Not at all.
The ethanol path would be photosynthesis to produce starch/sugar,
fermenation to convert starch/sugar to alcohol, then distillation
to concentrate the alcohol. Not a very efficient process if the
goal is to run an internal combustion engine instead of generating
a hangover.
The innovation implied is a custom-made bacteria that produces
octane directly, skipping the starch/sugar energy store in the
middle.
|2.29.08 @ 10:23AM|#
On a side note, is it completely unreasonable that the
solution to global warming would come from technological advances
rather than government restrictions?
You think it coincidental that all of this research into
carbon-free energy sources is coming about now?
|2.29.08 @ 10:24AM|#
this is what i'm talking about.. if this is even moderately successful, maybe there will be more investment in biotech solutions to stubborn pollution problems.
|2.29.08 @ 10:24AM|#
The organism extracts engery from the environment (it eats
something).
I guess the big question is, what does it eat? If it needs an
energy-intensive feedstock (and what a joke it would be if it
needed corn).
His team is using synthetic chromosomes to modify organisms
that already exist, not making new life, he said.
Since this is a GM bacteria, aren't all its works per se evil?
|2.29.08 @ 10:28AM|#
That makes sense, kinnath. The writer makes it sound as if
the CO2 WAS the food source the organisms would eat.
I'm sure Venter explained this, but it just didn't come through in
that article.
Newflash: Science reporters know nothing about science. Film at
11.
robc|2.29.08 @ 10:29AM|#
joe,
You think it coincidental that all of this research into
carbon-free energy sources is coming about now?
Not at all, but there are 3 factors (at least) to explain why
now:
1. Government subsidies
2. Greenness
3. High fuel prices
2 & 3 are sufficient (3 would be sufficient, but if people want
to be green, that helps). 1 is probably "helping" but is
unnecessary and comes with a very high opportunity cost.
I go back to my Manhattan Project/Moon Landing argument. Government
concentration of resources can cause specific great things to
happen. But, the other lost advances is very high. For the
Manhattan Project the trade offs were probably worth while, the
Japanese needed to be defeated. I refuse to grant the same to the
Moon Landing, no matter how cool it was.
|2.29.08 @ 10:32AM|#
Like most carbon-fixing organisms, this bacterium probably
derives its energy from an incandescent nuclear reactor some 93
million miles from here.
I was about to call you a dumbass, because everyone knows that
bacteria don't do photosynthesis. Then I went and edumucated myself.
Good thing I did that before I looked stupid.
So if this runs on sunlight, then there will be huge bacteria-oil
plants in the sunniest places on Earth, right? And here I was
hoping that the Middle East could go back to being the most
worthless region on the planet after all the oil is gone.
kinnath|2.29.08 @ 10:34AM|#
As long as enterprising inventers can become filthy rich from their inventions, there will be a solution to AGW. Direct government intervention is more likely to impede progress than accelerate it.
|2.29.08 @ 10:34AM|#
robc,
Changes in culture, such as the decline of segregationist
sentiment, are often driven by government action in a feedback
loop. This is especially true of technological changes. The
government built a whole lotta highways through nonwhere before the
exurb was invented.
I don't think the distinction between "government action" and
"greenness" is as sharp as some would claim. Unless we're willing
to posit some pretter astounding coincidences.
kinnath|2.29.08 @ 10:37AM|#
The linked article does state that concentrating CO2 is the limitig factor. It would take energy to run whatever equipment is required to provide the CO2 to the bacteria that create octane. It is not clear yet whether the total system is a net energy gain or energy loss.
|2.29.08 @ 10:37AM|#
If this is a solar-driven process, it would need to be a great deal more energy-efficient than solar-electric or solar-hydrogen plants in order for the continued burning of octane in non-point sources like cars better from an environmental perspective.
robc|2.29.08 @ 10:42AM|#
joe,
I would say the green movement started well before government
subsidies of this kind of stuff.
The only government action that I think led to increased greenness
is via the public school system.
I dont think there are any astounding coincidences involved. People
have been investigating oil-less energy sources for a long, long
time. How long has solar panel research been going on? Nuclear
(although it got a nice governent kick start and lots of funding,
but how come all that government assistance into fusion hasnt led
to any astounding coincidences [Note: this is an area I know a lot
about, before a mid-90s career/life shift, I was pursuing a PhD in
plasma physics]?)
There have been a long series of advances in the field. Solar has
some slight advance every year. Solar panels of today are not the
same as those from 20 years ago. Increased fuel costs have led to
more emphasis and more attention from the news media. If this story
had occurred while fuel was at 80 cents per gallon, would it have
made Reason?
|2.29.08 @ 10:43AM|#
While I would like nothing more for this to be true, it just sounds to rosey to be real. Not quite cold fusion too-good-to-be-true, but at the very least electric car level. Can this actually be done on a scale that is meaningful?
Sean Healy|2.29.08 @ 10:43AM|#
So if this runs on sunlight, then there will be huge
bacteria-oil plants in the sunniest places on Earth, right? And
here I was hoping that the Middle East could go back to being the
most worthless region on the planet after all the oil is
gone.
Get ready for Israeli oil! Awesome.
kinnath|2.29.08 @ 10:49AM|#
While I would like nothing more for this to be true, it just
sounds to rosey to be real.
Fossil fuels are just the products of photosynthesis from millions
of years ago that have been concentratd by really, really slow
geological processes.
The only viable replacement that I can see is some efficient means
of harnessing photosynthesis now. Growing grains and making ethanol
is way to inefficient. But bacteria or plankton or some other
cellular-level organism that can be grown is mass quantities seems
to be quite viable. I think the answer is going to be growing and
harvesting something-or-other in the oceans.
|2.29.08 @ 10:50AM|#
robc,
I would say the green movement started well before government
subsidies of this kind of stuff. Well, obviously. In a
democratic republic, there needs to be a constituency for something
before the government starts responding. But then, I'm not the one
positing a one-way flow, but a feedback loop.
The only government action that I think led to increased
greenness is via the public school system.
Depends on how you define "greenness." The oil companies are going
into alternative energy sourcs because of something they read in
the Sierra Club's newsletter, but because actions like government
commitments to buy X% of its energy from renewable sources has
created a demand, leading to a supply. And look at the relationship
between the Japanese government and the R&D on the Prius.
People have been investigating oil-less energy sources for a
long, long time. Sure, but let's not pretend we've never read
a story about the intersection between public policy, expected
public policy, and research in the past 20 years.
|2.29.08 @ 10:51AM|#
Wait, so, honest question here: we're still creating octane
which, when burned for fuel, will release harmful substances into
the environment, right? I got a C in college chemistry, so I'm not
sure if I'm missing something here.
Also, could you get the CO2 from all of those factories that are
currently scrubbing it out of their exhaust? (Coal, steel,
etc.)
Kolohe|2.29.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Theoretically, CO2 fixing bacteria don't necessarily need
sunlight,
but those that don't are a rare breed:
The other group, the autotrophs, fix carbon dioxide to make their own food source; this may be fueled by light energy (photoautotrophic), or by oxidation of nitrogen, sulfur, or other elements (chemoautotrophic). While chemoautotrophs are uncommon, photoautotrophs are common and quite diverse. They include the cyanobacteria, green sulfur bacteria, purple sulfur bacteria, and purple nonsulfur bacteria. The sulfur bacteria are particularly interesting, since they use hydrogen sulfide as hydrogen donor, instead of water like most other photosynthetic organisms, including cyanobacteria.
robc|2.29.08 @ 11:01AM|#
joe,
You did see my #1 point above didnt you, that government action
helped? Im not even disagreeing with feedback, in fact that
accentuates my point. If the government hadnt been involved, that
money would have been used for something else, and the feedback it
drove would have increased something. I have no clue what. My point
is that while government action may have shortened the time to
discover this bacteria, it greatly increased the time to something
something. And, that something something is obviously of more value
because that is where the money would have naturally flowed.
Completely uncheckable wild ass claim of mine: Without the Apollo
program, DVD players would have been ubiquitous by 1985 and the
soviet union would have crashed earlier.
|2.29.08 @ 11:02AM|#
Some of my cousin's colleagues from the state hospital are at
the TED conference along with some MIT geeks. They invented
something that allows quadroplegics and other severely disabled
people to compose and perform their own music.
Which is wonderful in and of itself, but also means that similar
technology could allow them to do all sorts of other things using
their brains only, which means in turn that it could become common
to the point of normality for such people to be working in cubicles
like everyone else. Actual, fully-integrated, independent members
of society.
Episiarch|2.29.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Wouldn't this just be anaerobic respiration that produces an alkane hydrocarbon instead of an an alcohol? It has to use photosynthesis or this is no different from making beer.
Mike Laursen|2.29.08 @ 11:05AM|#
Does this mean we can all relax now?
I hope Venter pulls it off. As a native Californian, I relish the
thought of some laid-back surfer dude simultaneously solving the
greenhouse gas problem and the energy crisis. Maybe he can get us
out of the Middle East, too. Politicians would have to find some
new thing to keep the population in a panic.
|2.29.08 @ 11:06AM|#
You did see my #1 point above didnt you, that government
action helped?
Yes, and if it wasn't clear, I'm saying you 1) give it short shrift
and 2) make an error if you think "subsidy" is the only, or the
most important, action government can take.
the government hadnt been involved, that money would have been
used for something else Boner drugs! Boner drugs!
And, that something something is obviously of more value
because that is where the money would have naturally flowed.
When we're talking about solving the problems associated with
externalized costs like pollution, global warming, and oil wars,
this statement is painfully inadequate.
robc|2.29.08 @ 11:10AM|#
joe,
Some of us (not myself, **I** have no problem in that department),
may consider boner drugs to be more important than pollution,
global warming or oil wars.
Are you saying those people are wrong?
As Ive said before, when global warming becomes a Pearl Harbor
level problem, I will be in favor of a Manhattan Project to prevent
it. Until then, I would prefer my research dollars be spent on what
I want researched.
New World Dan|2.29.08 @ 11:18AM|#
This sounds like a fancified version of ethanol.
Following up on what Kinnath had to say earlier... One of the
biggest problems with Ethanol is that after you've made your
feedstock (corn), the first step in the process is to burn off 38%
of your available energy. That's the raw energy difference between
the feedstock (starch) and ethanol. After that, you're left with a
product that is very difficult to refine. Now, I'm not saying that
corn is a bad fuel. Quite the contrary, it's easy to grow and it
works great as a heat source in a pellet stove, where it can be
burned at nearly 70% efficiency (probably higher if someone went to
the effort to make a really efficient pellet furnace).
But back to the main story here... This is in line with what I've
been saying for several years now... automobile bio-fuels won't
really take off until the genetic engineers develop a more useful
plant for the purpose. And I'd be willing to bet that it'll
probably end up being a plant that just drips of vegetable oil.
|2.29.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Yes, I'm saying those people are wrong.
Global warming is already a Pearl Harbor-level problem. The spread
of disease vectors and desertification has already killed more
people than Pearl Harbor.
Russ 2000|2.29.08 @ 11:31AM|#
What we need is people who grow leaves instead of hair.
This would also be supported by Methodists as I would be growing
fig leaves where my pubes would otherwise be.
robc|2.29.08 @ 11:35AM|#
joe,
Pearl Harbor wasnt about the number of people who died. It proved
the Japanese were a threat to America.
You may be the "Billy Mitchell" in this scenario, but that doesnt
mean the Pearl Harbor level proof that you are right has happened
yet.
|2.29.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Global Warming isn't about the number of people who have died
already, either.
And I'm not having this argument again.
robc|2.29.08 @ 11:39AM|#
joe,
And I'm not having this argument again.
Thats fine. I was trying to restart it. The fact of a need for an
argument proves my "Pearl Harbor" point.
threadkiller|2.29.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Nothing kills an interesting thread faster than joe getting into
a pissing match with one of a handful of regulars here at
H&R.
Keep up the good work boys.
|2.29.08 @ 12:02PM|#
joe | February 29, 2008, 11:37am | #
Global Warming isn't about the number of people who have died already, either.
And I'm not having this argument again.
Hey joe... if global warming (no need for caps here, really) ain't
about the number of people who have died... how come you brought it
up at 11:18?
joe | February 29, 2008, 11:18am | #
Yes, I'm saying those people are wrong.
Global warming is already a Pearl Harbor-level problem. The spread of disease vectors and desertification has already killed more people than Pearl Harbor.
|2.29.08 @ 12:09PM|#
There is no "need" for an argument, robc, outside your own
head.
I could say there is a "need" to argue whether evolution happened.
That doesn't make so; it would just make me uninformed or purposely
deluded about evolution.
The "need" you talk about is psychological.
|2.29.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Since this is a GM bacteria, aren't all its works per se
evil?
Put your raincoat on, R C- the heads will begin exploding
momentarily.
|2.29.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Hey joe... if global warming (no need for caps here, really)
ain't about the number of people who have died... how come you
brought it up at 11:18?
Does mommy know you're using the computer?
Jennifer|2.29.08 @ 12:11PM|#
it could become common to the point of normality for such
people to be working in cubicles like everyone else
Everybody gets to be a cubicle drone! Woo hoo! O brave new world
that has such people in it.
|2.29.08 @ 12:16PM|#
Look, I'll grant you this: if you don't believe there is any global warming problem, then it doesn't make sense to invest in solving it.
|2.29.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Yes, Jennifer, people with advanced MS are LUCKY they don't have to live the trite, dull lives of the ordinary bourgeoisie.
Episiarch|2.29.08 @ 12:23PM|#
joe is operating at his normal Friday level of incoherence and aggressiveness. I swear he must start drinking early on Fridays.
nameless joe baiter|2.29.08 @ 12:29PM|#
joe | February 29, 2008, 12:10pm | #
Does mommy know you're using the computer?
Yup, she knows. Mine told me to play nice. Didn't yours?
|2.29.08 @ 12:31PM|#
I haven't been this excited since tabletop cold
fusion.
The unintended, positive consequence of that whole fiasco was the
increase in skepticism in society. Skeptics make fewer poor
decisions than optimists.
|2.29.08 @ 12:33PM|#
joe stabbed your kitten with a salad fork.
joe feeds Tums to seagulls.
joe keeps turning down the heat in the office.
joe farts in elevators.
Are we done here?
Jennifer|2.29.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Yes, Jennifer, people with advanced MS are LUCKY they don't
have to live the trite, dull lives of the ordinary
bourgeoisie.
Chill thyself, Joe. I just think it's funny that, out of all the
wonderful vistas which new technology might hopefully grant
paralyzed people, "work in a cubicle" is the one you chose to
highlight as an ideal. Hee hee.
Jennifer|2.29.08 @ 12:36PM|#
"Someday, God willing, the Armless Boy of Baghdad will find gainful employment as a Wal-mart greeter."
fed up|2.29.08 @ 12:36PM|#
over the line joe
leave the mother/sister comments in your festering head
|2.29.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Jennifer, if I had responded to a statement about how school
vouchers were going to allow poor people from bad school districts
to become professionals working in offices with "Everybody gets to
be a cubicle drone! Woo hoo! O brave new world that has such people
in it," you would have torn me a new one. And you would have been
right.
That was pretty insensitive. I suggests that you don't appreciate
just how liberating it would be for such people to be able to have
ordinary, boring jobs and support themselves.
|2.29.08 @ 12:41PM|#
fed up | February 29, 2008, 12:36pm | #
over the line joe
leave the mother/sister comments in your festering head
Yawn.
|2.29.08 @ 12:44PM|#
joe turned me into a newt. Then he said something smug and put everyone in a babbling rage.
Jennifer|2.29.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Jennifer, if I had responded to a statement about how school
vouchers were going to allow poor people from bad school districts
to become professionals working in offices with "Everybody gets to
be a cubicle drone! Woo hoo! O brave new world that has such people
in it," you would have torn me a new one. And you would have been
right.
Now now, m'love, considering how fond you are of semantics you of
all people should know that "professional with an office
job" has an entirely different connotation from "cubicle
dweller."
Remember, alwasy remember, the differences twixt intonation and
connotation. No self-respecting troll can be taken seriously
without it.
ed|2.29.08 @ 1:15PM|#
The 5 Stages of H&R Threads:
1) Denial: Global warming is a fraud.
2) Anger: Denier! Asshole! Denier!
3) Bargaining: How about carbon credits?
4) Depression: Joe's right. We're doomed!
5) Acceptance: Oh well. I'll be long dead before the
Apocalypse
Jennifer|2.29.08 @ 1:20PM|#
What a fucking dick.
As a woman, I get more use out of a fucking dick than a celibate
one.
|2.29.08 @ 1:32PM|#
OH. FOR. FUCKS. SAKE!
Can we not turn every thread remotely related to global warming
into a goddamn thread about joe?!
|2.29.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Jennifer | February 29, 2008, 1:35pm | #
But then, what would Joe do with the rest of his life?
Discuss ideas? Never occured to you, did it?
leave the mother/sister comments in your festering
head
Speaking of sisters, do you find life in the convent
satisfying?
|2.29.08 @ 1:56PM|#
Yes, Jennifer, people with advanced MS are LUCKY they don't have to live the trite, dull lives of the ordinary bourgeoisie.
As an MS sufferer, I just want to point out that I got Jennifer's
joke, and found it funny. All of my spinal cord lesions were amused
by it as well, I think.
kinnath|2.29.08 @ 1:58PM|#
Speaking of sisters, do you find life in the convent
satisfying?
joe, what are you trying to accomplish when you veer off and start
smearing peoples mothers and sisters with sexual innuendo?
You're clearly the smartest guy to come here to promote the liberal
point of view. Do you really think this helps to promote your
cause?
|2.29.08 @ 2:06PM|#
People, people, people.
joe is obviously a well-informed, intelligent and critical thinker
who has nothing better to do all day than be a total prick.
Show the fuckstain some respect.
nameless joe baiter|2.29.08 @ 2:10PM|#
joe | February 29, 2008, 12:33pm | #
joe stabbed your kitten with a salad fork.
joe feeds Tums to seagulls.
joe keeps turning down the heat in the office.
joe farts in elevators.
Are we done here?
joe, everybody farts in elevators - and I expected you'd turn town
the heat (global warming and all ..except I think it is now
offically called "climate change isn't it?) - but I didn't think
you'd stoop to all that other stuff stuff too... I guess I have
been giving you too much credit after all
kinnath | February 29, 2008, 1:58pm | #
Speaking of sisters, do you find life in the convent satisfying?
joe, what are you trying to accomplish when you veer off and start smearing peoples mothers and sisters with sexual innuendo?
You're clearly the smartest guy to come here to promote the liberal point of view. Do you really think this helps to promote your cause?
Perfect question here joe... you are often a clear and
erudite promoter of the liberal pov, but when you descend into
smears, or insist on being right at all costs just because there is
a chance (threat?) that there may be validity in another
(differing) position ... poof - most of what you may have gained
evaporates.
And in case you are not sure how to answer the last question:
"Do you really think this helps to promote your cause?"
you might consider that it is "no".
|2.29.08 @ 2:39PM|#
kinnath,
joe, what are you trying to accomplish when you veer off and
start smearing peoples mothers and sisters with sexual
innuendo? Basically, to irritate people who write pointless
posts that contribute nothing to thread except to attack me
personally.
I'm not here to promote a cause. I'm here to debate ideas with
smart people who disagree with me.
kinnath|2.29.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Basically, to irritate people who write pointless posts that
contribute nothing to thread except to attack me personally.
...because I think that's fun
I did too when I was in Junior High School.
|2.29.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Uh, no, kinnath.
I'm not here to promote a cause. I'm here to debate ideas with
smart people who disagree with me...because I think that's
fun.
K?
kinnath|2.29.08 @ 2:58PM|#
I'm not here to promote a cause. I'm here to debate ideas
with smart people who disagree with me.
You've said that before, but I'm not convinced.
the innominate one|2.29.08 @ 3:11PM|#
Marcvs | February 29, 2008, 10:51am | #
Wait, so, honest question here: we're still creating octane which,
when burned for fuel, will release harmful substances into the
environment, right? I got a C in college chemistry, so I'm not sure
if I'm missing something here.
In this process, somewhat similar to bioethanol, the octane is
produced from CO2 in the atmosphere, then burned back to CO2 and
released into the atmosphere. Therefore, it's a closed loop, no new
net inputs of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Also, could you get the CO2 from all of those factories that
are currently scrubbing it out of their exhaust? (Coal, steel,
etc.)
possibly, even probably
nameless joe baiter|2.29.08 @ 3:18PM|#
Gosh joe, thanks for clarifying - It is slightly possible I
might even develop some respect for you now that you are being
truthful - and surprise, we are here for practically the same
reason i.e. (I'm here) basically, to irritate people
joe... because I think that's fun ... Woo Hooo!
I was a good boy in high-school and didn't think this kind of stuff
was fun then ... but I've changed a lot of other
high-school beliefs over the years (like socialism is the way to
go)sooo... I think I'll change my handle to "joe irritator" or
maybe "fun with joe". Lemme think on it awhile.
joe | February 29, 2008, 2:54pm | #
Uh, no, kinnath.
I'm not here to promote a cause. I'm here to debate ideas with smart people who disagree with me...
Ya know joe, I don't really buy that one - if it was true you
wouldn't have responded to a bunch of posters (robc, Jennifer, fed
up, me/njb) with snark and insults. You would have debated.
And you might have responded to kinnath's 1:58 "joe, what are
you trying to accomplish when you veer off and start smearing
peoples mothers and sisters with sexual innuendo?" with an
actual response, rather than just more snark.
|3.1.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Therefore, it's a closed loop, no new net inputs of CO2 into
the atmosphere.
Sure, but wouldn't the burning of octane (which probably won't be
in a 100% pure state by the time it gets into gas tanks) still
produce other emissions, such as smog- and acid-rain
precursors?
|3.2.08 @ 12:29AM|#
You guys are all missing the evil sub-plot here: Vinter is
creating a GM bacteria that will suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere
thereby causing GLOBAL COOLING. Al Gore will soon be peddling "coal
deficits", and feeding pinto beans to cows to promote their
carbon-rich farts.
The bright-side to all of this is that farting in elevators will be
considered a social good, hence joe will no longer be a pariah. So,
in the final analysis, it really was just all about joe.
As a woman, I get more use out of a fucking dick than a celibate one.
Jennifer, if only I were younger, better looking, richer and not
married... you still would not be interested in me, but I can
dream.
|3.2.08 @ 9:53AM|#
The quote says he will use "CO2 as the fuel stock."
I only did undergrad chemistry, but I know that CO2 is not and
cannot be "fuel." This guy is either (a) very relaxed about
language, (b) not a chemist, or (c) a complete idiot.
Could be all three.
|3.2.08 @ 10:38AM|#
Sure, but wouldn't the burning of octane (which probably
won't be in a 100% pure state by the time it gets into gas tanks)
still produce other emissions, such as smog- and acid-rain
precursors?
depends on a lot of different factors, including what additives are
included, purity, etc.
smog precursors: IIRC, the main ones are SO(X), the various oxides
of sulfur. pure octane doesn't contain sulfur.
acid rain precursors: oxides of sulfur, SO(X), and nitrogen, NO(X).
pure octane doesn't contain nitrogen.
heat of combusion plays a major role. some carbon monoxide might
still be emitted. some form of catalytic converter might still be
useful in mitigating the products, but there should be minimal
addition to greenhouse gas atmospheric levels.
|3.3.08 @ 9:01AM|#
PiperTom,
CO2 most certainly can be a fuel. It is the primary fuel stock in
photosynthesis.
Vinter is not an idiot. Whether he can GM a bacteria to make Octane
from CO2 in economical amounts remains to be seen. You have to
admit, this is a very intriguing idea.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245