GE Microbes Make Ersatz Crude Oil From Many Sources 525
polymath69 writes "According to The Times Online, genetically modified microbes have been developed capable of turning surplus material such as wood chips, sugarcane, or others, not into ethanol, but into a substance which could substitute directly for crude oil. They claim it could be sold for about $50/bbl, and the production process would be carbon negative."
Why talk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why talk (Score:5, Interesting)
The process is likely to work, though scaling up may be a problem, but they're very unlikely to have the field to themselves.
There are a lot of companies looking at similar ways of producing fuels. Sapphire Energy [sapphireenergy.com] claims to be able to make 91 octane gasoline directly from sunlight, CO2 and algae.
Many fringe energy sources have become cost competitive with geological oil since it more than quadrupled in price. What will be interesting is how the oil giants respond to this competition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Buy it, of course. (Pick the right small company and buy some of their stock, now. :) )
Re:Why talk (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? If they can make oil using an alternate technology for cheaper than they can get oil out of the ground then there is every benefit. They could _bury_ the competition!
1. Discover alternate technology
2. Sell off existing oil assets while the alternate technology is unknown
3. Pay politicians (using funds from step 2) to outlaw the use of crude oil extracted from the ground.
4. Profit!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why talk (Score:5, Funny)
And, if a billion years or so, we might find yet another use for them...as oil.
Re:Why talk (Score:5, Interesting)
So tell me again what the formula is for buried dinos/plants turning into crude?
Lastly, the companies selling refined oil set the prices and determine the amount left? Obviously, no room for price fixing there then.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most companies are wary about trying to commercialize technologies like this because they were burned in th
Re:Why talk (Score:5, Interesting)
demand -- meaning what the folks with oil think they can get)
supply -- meaning (in this situation, and this isn't the usual meaning) how much oil they've got underneath their country -- when it's gone they're destitute, so they price accordingly
And then there's speculation, which is pushing prices up. But honestly, I don't know where that is in the process.
My point is not "crude actually costs $32 per barrel to get out of the ground" it's "it is certainly possible that crude costs $0.27 per barrel to get out of the ground, though it might be $49.95 to get out of the ground." Most of us don't know what the margins are on oil after extraction.
A process like this MIGHT be cheaper than extraction. It certainly can be cheaper than our purchase price for extracted barrels from the sources we have today. That will drive such prices down.
I LOVE your #3 idea -- if we come up with a system which is carbon neutral and costs only a little more to acquire than drilling, hell yeah, let's make it illegal to drill for oil! If we could force than down the world's throat everyone would win except the people who currently have oil. They would lose big time. I'm ambivalent about that. (Canada's a big producer -- they'd probably go into the manufactured crude business in a big way and it'd be a wash for them. That is, unless it really does cost $0.27 to pump a barrel of crude out of a well.)
NB. I suspect that it DOES cost very little (a few bucks) to pull a barrel of oil out of the ground. It FINDING that oil that cost so much money.
With a new process, oil becomes a SURE THING. That would make the oil companies' profits PREDICTABLE FOREVER. Part of the financial world would love that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only way they'd bury the competition is if they sold it below the current price, and could meet demand. But why do that when they're selling every drop they drill at current prices?
Oil companies are not interested in competition.
Re:Why talk (Score:4, Funny)
While yes, they may be able to develop a new tech to synthesize oil cheaper than it costs to pump, but the problem isn't one of simply pushing their own costs down; their profitability is dependent upon the total domination of the entire global operation.
A new technology could be held onto for a while. Once variants are developed (no tech monopoly lasts long, patent protection is a whack a mole game that patent holders can never win) they lose the position of total global domination that they enjoy now. Thus, they know that their best long term proposition is to hold onto the monopoly that they hold now, as it can and is physically enforced by a) insurmountable barriers to entry and b) a myopic US government willing to protect Big Oil's interests politically and if necessary, militarily.
In other words, I see your tinfoil hat, and raise you a tinfoil codpiece.
Re:Why talk (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes and no. It is in the best interests of any one oil company to be the first to switch over to an alternative energy source. But it is also in the best interests of all the oil companies (individually and collectively) for the status quo to continue as long as possible--they control a finite resource, which is destroyed by use and demand for which is increasing.
Essentially, they have two conflicting motives:
- Be the first mover.
- Don't move until absolutely necessary
To balance those two factors, the oil companies are playing chicken with each other. I suspect all the major players are in fact doing major R&D on renewable energy. When the price of oil increases to the point (I'm guessing $10-15/gallon) that the masses actually consider changing their habits--when the luxury SUV market is the entire SUV market, when the median distance from people's homes to their workplaces is three miles, when mass transit gets enough passengers to become financially self-sufficient--you'll see the big oil producers all roll out their replacement technologies at once.Re:Why talk (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why talk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong, its so valuable because it is scarce (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong, its so valuable because it is scarce (Score:5, Insightful)
*I know, it wouldn't be exact, but most of the artificialy generated stuff I've heard about is actually easier to refine into stuff. Heck, as I understand it the oil resulting from thermal depolymerization can pretty much be poured straight into a diesel engine.
Perform your research! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's currently getting a $1/gallon subsidy, which works out to $42/barrel, 500 barrels a day oil production. $7.7 million a year.
In '06, that allowed them $4 profit per barrel. In '06 oil hadn't broken $70/barrel yet. Reportably they sell their oil for somewhat under market(probably a penalty for the type of oil or the fact that it's a small source). Regardless, they should be able to sell their oil for almost double now - $60/barrel more.
So, as long as the price of turkey guts and such doesn't go up again($20-30/ton), they should be able to make a profit even without subsidies.
Note-I'm mostly libertarian and therefor against subsidies, but I don't mind subsidizing test plants a bit. I say this because advancing technology is a very good thing. Right now I wouldn't be subsidizing traditional corn type ethanol plants, but I'd consider subsidizing a cellulostic plant, or one looking to commercialize this one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why talk (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes there is. Some refineries can only refine high-quality crude ("lighter" in the parlance). It would be very expensive to upgrade such refineries. Heavier crude is cheaper and more readily available. This technology would allow a refiner to buy heavy(er) crude nad mix it with algae-produced light sweet crude, resulting in a cheaper costs while also not having to spend hundreds of millions (even billions) in refinery upgrades.
Note that this is unusual in alternative energy technologies, in that oil companies really could see short-term benefit from the technology and the technology could be easily incorporated into the existing energy infrastructure.
Re:Why talk (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why talk (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not scared. They just want to keep the oil price at a level where it doesn't negatively impact their investments (which, by now, probably exceed the income they have from selling oil by an order of magnitude). They've probably invested quite a bit of their money into alternative energy, too. It's not like they're lacking spending money.
And, heck
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Being devout muslims I doubt they are that keen on it regardless of the whole sect differences etc.
Not really. Contrary to the traditional versions of Islam, the branch followed by the Saudi princes, called Wahhabism, is one that appeared in the 18th century claiming that it's the only correct version of Islam, that all the others have been corrupted by human traditions (that's why they regularly destroy ancient Islamic shrines, such as Muhammad's house, old mosques etc.), that the only path for a true believer is a "return" (they believe it's a return, others obviously disagree) to a fundamentalist, li
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why talk (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, I know it's too late to get any mod points so people will read this, but for those who do drill down into replies:
The Saudi's aren't scared, as another poster pointed out. They are merely trying to poke a bit of a hole into the rampant commodity speculation (and likely price manipulation) that has driven the price of oil (and other commodities) to the point where 60% (according to some estimates) of the price is purely due to speculation.
Just like the
Normally prices are driven by the economics of supply and demand. The Saudi's are effectively calling "bullshit" on the current prices (and unprecedented oil reserves held by the US), by showing they can easily up the supply. Yes, they are looking out for their interests, but if the poke a hole in the price speculation and price manipulation that is going on, the average consumer is going to benefit greatly (at the expense of big oil). They want to sell oil to us, and they know the current price isn't reasonable nor good for business. More power to them. Hopefully the current prices will scare us into more research of alternative fuels. But the reality is that the consumers, businesses, and general economy relies upon oil today, and is being seriously hurt by the oil companies' price manipulation.
And the run-up of world food prices is supposedly due to a similar speculation in food futures (where greedy North American and European investors' commodity speculation is leading to starvation in some countries).
Good article on it, here [rediff.com]. I think I originally came across that via Digg, which seems to be more useful lately than
Will the oil bubble burst soon? Hard to believe the OTC loophole and other issues will be addressed as long as a man with oil interests, and from a Texan oil family is in the Whitehouse. Talk about a conflict of interest.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
if the process really worked they would be commercializing it and completely destabilizing OPEC.
The process is likely to work, though scaling up may be a problem....
I seem to remember that when Yahoo was looking for capital investment, VCs started throwing money at a company that had no product and no sales. Same happened when they went public. So, here's a company that has a product that can replace fossil fuels at a time when fuel prices are sky-high and they're having problems scaling up?
Maybe they should start sending spam to generate funds.
Re:Why talk (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason he failed to get funding. In his case despite having a customer lined up the possible investors saw a greater potential return from other means. A single dotcom success would far outweigh the return they would get from this physical process.
The point I'm trying to make is that until they've been able to prove the process on an industrial scale they are going to find it difficult to attract investment. Especially when speculation on the oil price is reaping such rich rewards at the moment.
Re:Why talk (Score:5, Funny)
What will be interesting is how the oil giants respond to this competition.
Re:Why talk (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on they'll pull a TimeWarner-AOL merger that actually makes sense for their industry. The Oil/Energy companies aren't going anywhere. Those that have only oil from a single source or subset of politically liable sources as their main energy source of product may die off. Those "energy" companies that were oil, but have invested in other forms of energy production will make the natural shift to what is more profitable, less political liable, and better for their company's long term bottom line.
It's sort of like how none of the major car companies went all out for either electric or hybrid cars until some one else figured out how to profitable sell them. Then all the sudden all sorts of car makers have or are looking into hybrids. The same mindset is behind those in the "energy" companies. The really funny part is as far as the big boys in that field are concerned about, it may not affect them too much. Look it up, there is tons of companies competing in that field and as long as these types of companies can say we need X input to produce Y grade of oil, they'll likely fit right into the entire over all oil/energy industry. (Expect the big boys to buy ten percent of any given handful of these companies right before that really hit it big.)
Re:Why talk (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why talk (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why talk (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why talk (Score:4, Interesting)
Great! Let's chip the Amazon!
Insightful?
Instead, different types of agricultural waste will be used according to whatever makes sense for the local climate and economy: wheat straw in California, for example, or woodchips in the South.
Right. Because it's cheaper to burn a rainforest and ship it back to the United States than it is to take what farmers are throwing out for free. And, if the point is to turn the woodchips to oil, I doubt you'll make more fuel from your Amazonian rain forest than you consumed shipping it.
Nice try, though. Way to hate Western Civilization.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As with all these kind of technologies it will take time (either 4-10 years or forever). But at 50$ per barrel it wouldn't exactly destabelize OPEC (production cost of most middle east crude is around 2-6 $).
Re:Why talk (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why talk (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(829,000,000 ft^2) / (5280 ft/mi)^2 = 29,74 mi^2
You forgot another factor of 1/5280 in your calculations.
Public perception (Score:5, Funny)
<science scare story hat>
Two quotes FTA:
E.Coli, usually harmless etc, commonly found in the gut and able to survive brief periods outside it's normal (animal intestine) environment. So if this escaped into the wild, and you accidentally consumed a small amount, would it turn you into crude oil?
</science scare story hat>
No seriously, I can see tabloid newspapers having a field day with this: "Genetic Frankenstein Bugs Ate My Grandmother!"
Re:Public perception (Score:5, Funny)
Not likely. But it'd probably give you flatulence of unprecedented proportions.
Re:Public perception (Score:4, Informative)
True, but since when has rational debate [guardian.co.uk] held sway in the realm of reporting science stories [badscience.net]?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Public perception (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You will only shit pure gold ... (Score:5, Informative)
{...} each time you go to the "throne", you will be literally sitting on a gold mine !
{...} some
{...} you will be the living final proof that a turd, given enough polishing, could indeed be a golden turd !
{...} some people pee on their car to unfreeze the keylock on cold morning, you would do it to fill the tank !
etc, ad nauseam.
-----
Ok. Scatological jokes aside : as E. Coli is a comensal bacteria, our body have evolved and got used to have it inside. We naturally have lots of means to control the important and diverse population of bacteria living in our guts - including having an immune system that keeps the bacteria on the "outside" side of the gut and not entering inside the body itself and including already having an amazing amount of bacteria already living there and leaving less free place for new comers.
The only exception if one of the newcomer specie that comes into the gut is producing some toxin (food poisoning is actually due to the toxin, not the bacteria themselves. Often the bacteria don't survive digestion or are already dead to begin with - that's why charcoal and yeast are more efficient than antibiotics to handle them).
This GE bacteria is simply fermenting garbage into something that looks like oil. You may develop a mild diarrhoea, but there aren't horrible self-digesting-into-a-small-pile-of-gunk short-term risks of having oil in your guts, and the usual defences will take care that it all stays in the gut.
Re:Public perception (Score:4, Informative)
I work w/ lab E. coli every day and have never gotten sick from it and I'm sure I've ingested a few of them in my lifetime.
Re:Public perception (Score:5, Funny)
He's wronged so many of his last books that it would be a good idea regardless.
Re:Public perception (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Public perception (Score:5, Interesting)
that's the ideal (Score:5, Insightful)
the ideal though is not to store or transmit that eletrically, but chemically (storage density, thermodynamic efficiency, etc)
i'm looking for the guy who turns poor fishermen in the philippines and indonesia (or anywhere access to shallow seas is easy) into the next sultans of brunei:
1. give them a bunch of specailly shaped clear plastic jugs, mini floating stills
2. they put a little gm algae inside the jugs
3. they throw the jugs in the ocean with anchors
4. they come back a month later, pick up the jugs
5. they are processed dockside directly into octane, in a low-tech facility
the guy, or gal, who figures out how to get algae to directly produce octane saves the world from itself geopolitically, environmentally, developmentally. then we have enough breathing room to master fusion
right now, the world is in an energy crunch. we will have more wars, the environment will suffer, there will be more poverty, until we get our act together on a truly large scale renewable energy source. too much renewable energy sources look at so far have been boutique, things that can never scale up
the cheap dig-it-out-of-the-ground era is over. oh of course, there's still more of it to dig out. its just too damn deep, and getting deeper every day, to call it cheap anymore
Re:that's the ideal (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, there's already a way to turn solar energy into crude oil : grow plants, bury dead plants deep underground, wait several millions years, extract oil.
You do realize oil *is* solar energy right?
Re:that's the ideal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:OMFG (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the temperature. Water isn't really very wet at, say, 0 degrees Kelvin.
do the math (Score:4, Interesting)
now look at a map of the philippines and indonesia
golly thats a lot of shallow seas
Re:do the math (Score:4, Insightful)
I think your estimates for production are low - I doubt it would take 3 months for 100 gallons of bugs to excrete a gallon of oil. Even using your figures, my wife and I could easily put in a reactor large enough to generate that much fuel. Toss in the odd orange peel, and voila! Fuel for the family.
Doing the math:
1.3 gal/person/day = 2.6 gal/day for us. Using your figures that's approximately 9000 gal of bugs per gallon-day of fuel. That's 23400 gallons (or 3128 ft^3) of bugs. A pit 20x20x8 would comfortably hold them.
My concern with that many critters would be the disposal of the dead ones. That in itself is a lot of biomass - wait, maybe they can 'eat' their own dead! Soylent oil for real!
Re:that's the ideal (Score:4, Funny)
Re:that's the ideal (Score:4, Funny)
Looks interesting, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's another problem I see though. More crude. The real problem behind high gas prices isn't a lack of crude, but the lack of refineries. Global production of crude excedes demand by about 2 million barrels per day, but refineries are unable to keep up with demand for gasoline and other by-products. Besides which, we aren't running out of crude anytime soon anyway. By the time we get more refineries online, gas prices will drop, and demand for this kind of alternative "fuel" will drop as well. Until then, they have to figure out a way to refine it using infrastructure that's already maxed out.
Peak oil... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Peak oil... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Peak oil... (Score:5, Informative)
Starting in 1974, oil output from Texas oil fields began declining 4-ish percent per year. Despite the deployment of every available technology and minimal to almost no drilling restrictions, the decline continues. The same thing happened in the North Sea in 2000: Production peaked, and now production there has been falling about 4 to 5 percent per year for 8 years.
At this time, there is virtually no spare capacity in the middle east to pump more oil. Any that they can bring online will go more to covering rapid declines in North Sea output than increasing supply. The Saudis were hoping to increase production by about 1.2 million barrels/day this year, and it looks as if they'll be doing damn well to get another 500 thousand; We're looking at a loss next year.
The peak is real and most likely imminent.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no, or very little, spare capacity in SA and around the world because of the just-in-time business model from Japan. This made sense when oil prices were low, but now it's helping to drive prices up. And SA has been neglecting thir oil infracture for years since nationalizing it
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Kern River field in California was discovered in 1899. In 1942, its "remaining" reserves were 54 million barrels. By 1986, it had produced a total of 736 million barrels and still had 970 million barrels in reserves.
Our estimates today, though better, are
Re:Peak oil... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Peak oil... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Peak oil... (Score:4, Insightful)
Refineries (Score:3, Informative)
While not many new refineries have been built in recent years, the capacity of existing refineries has been increased quite a bit. Refinery capacity is fine.
What's not fine is oil field capacity. It turns out the Saudis have been lying about how much more oil they can pump. [cnbc.com]
Re:Looks interesting, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Cell walls tend to make up between 15 and 30% of the dry mass of an organism.
The composition of it depends on what type of organism they use. Plant cells would result in cellulose waste, yeast cells, protein and chitinous material, bacteria would most likely be polysaccharides or lipids.
Re:Looks interesting, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Solution to the current bubble: When the contract becomes due, pull up to the trader's office with a tanker truck and flood the building with the crude. That'll teach'em not to speculate.
Re:Looks interesting, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Erm.... That's what happens.
Most of the time, the speculator closes out his contract before delivery, i.e. he finds someone else who wants delivery (or who is contracted to deliver but doesn't have any oil).
But occasionally the speculator gets caught with his pants down. On the third of October 2006, the spot price for Natural Gas in the UK went negative. There were people contracted to take delivery of the gas and they had to pay someone else to take it off their hands.
Tim.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By the time the contract is due the oil has already been sold to someone who does intend to use it. The trader has no incentive to retain the contract through fulfillment, even if the price has
If? (Score:5, Interesting)
This technology has been around for awhile although biofuels usually produce ethanol. Just a molecular side chain away from what these guys came up with. They get 1 barrel from 40sq feet of space. At our current rate of 143 million barrels a week it would take 205 sq miles of manufacturing plants to satisfy our current needs. About the size of Chicago. Probably about the same square footage it you total up all the Walmarts. Very doable.
They got us here in spite of all the government roadblocks. IMHO we would have got here a lot sooner if we hadn't laughed Gore off the stage and I suspect progress will increase exponentially when Obama takes over.
-[d]-
Re:If? (Score:4, Interesting)
So it actually takes eight times the square footage of all Wal-Mart stores in the USA.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart [wikipedia.org]
And using Google calculator for the conversion.
Now go ahead, mod me anal-retentive (using the colloquial meaning of the term of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_retentive [wikipedia.org]).
Re:If? (Score:4, Informative)
That's an appeal to magic. Replace "Gore" with "God" and you're a fundamentalist.
Sounds like OILIX (Score:4, Funny)
Snake? Snake?! SNAAAAAAAAKE?
Could be $50/bbl... (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt we'd see this at $50 for a good while, not until it drags the price of real oil down to similar levels anyway.
What if it's released into the ocean? (Score:4, Interesting)
I didn't see anything in the article about whether or not this bacteria is capable of reproducing on its own. Hopefully it can be controlled in some way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then a bacteria that consumes that something else and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Woodchips! Brilliant! (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are many reasons for why the Amazon is being cleared today. Ethanol is not one of them.
Article dangerously unclear (Score:4, Interesting)
Do the bacteria excrete asphalt (although this is less an issue with the heavy crude they're getting now being full of the stuff)? Or the lightweight components of crude? Or kerosene?
Now I'm not saying this wouldn't be an impressive move, and if it can help take up some of the vehicle fuel slack long enough to move to alternatives then great, but we have to be realistic. Take away crude oil and you have to slip another synthesis step in before almost every industrial process to replace the molecules that were nearly ready-made in oil. And since a lot of it will be synthesizing molecules from scratch, it'll suck a
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of meanings to $50 (Score:3, Interesting)
Does the $50 include the land and equipment to build a commercial facility?
Does the $50 include the amortization of the start-up costs in developing an industrial scale process?
Does the $50 include the cost of gathering and delivering huge quantities of raw materials?
Does the $50 include the cost of environmentally safe disposal of waste materials?
The price of crude oil includes all of these costs.
The latest in a long line... (Score:5, Interesting)
Changing World Technologies (http://www.changingworldtech.com/) -- high-pressure non-catalytic conversion of biomass to Diesel fuel -- prototype online in Missouri
Range Fuels (http://www.rangefuels.com/) -- cellulose -> syngas -> blended alcohol -- proven, 20-million-gallon/year plant under construction in Soperton, GA
AlphaKat (http://www.alphakat.de/) -- biomass/plastics -> Diesel fuel via metal-catalyzed high-temp, high-pressure reaction. Plants under construction across Europe
MagneGas (http://www.magnegas.com/) -- sewage(!) -> natural gas + surplus heat via electrolytic conversion -- you can buy or rent a working production unit from their web site
I note that all of the above use a high-temperature, high-pressure reaction process to produce fuel. The GE process has the advantage over the first three in that it can handle water better than the first three processes above (IIRC, most Fischer-Tropsch type plants have a low tolerance for water in the reaction vessel, which is bad for biomass conversion unless you spend energy to dry it first. E.g. AlphaKat says their process doesn't work with more than 12% water by weight). The other major advantage is that fermentation typically occurs under more gentle and manageable conditions, i.e. near room temperature, near atmospheric pressure and aqueous rather than solvent/metal-catalyst based. However, the down side of their process is that it's not self-contained and not truly carbon-negative unless you use plant biomass as a feedstock, though if you grew algae in an adjacent tank you could probably use that as your feedstock and harvest CO2 from the air. Actually that would be an ideal solution because you could genetically tune your algae to have a specific composition and tune your fermenter bacteria/yeast to efficiently break down your algae. Hopefully that will be in the next phase of this project. Though we'll probably have to make do with catalyst- and pressure-converted biomass until these guys can perfect their process.
A word of caution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
CARBON NEGATIVE?!? (Score:4, Funny)
The company claims that this "Oil 2.0" will not only be renewable but also carbon negative - meaning that the carbon it emits will be less than that sucked from the atmosphere by the raw materials from which it is made.
OMG! Isn't anyone thinking about the ramifications? I'm talking about Global Cooling!
Won't someone please think of the children?!?
Seriously, though, I nearly spit out my coffee from reading the phrase "Oil 2.0". What a creative name. *rolls eyes*
It is not a matter of ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to be a nay-sayer, but someone has to do it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)
Erm ... holy false dichotomy, once again.
There's no law that says if we start this process, we need to feed 100% of our agricultural waste into it, thereby depriving out soil of nutrients. We can figure out how much we need to feed back into the soil, and how much we can turn into fuel.
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Everlasting Lightbulb? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So genetically modified has stopped being evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter how good the safe guards. There is always human error to watch out for. And human stupidity, and malice. Then there are supposedly failsafe devices that aren't.
As for the waste, well, that hot radioactive rock has to be stored somewhere. American mid-west? Under NY? Outback Australia? Arctic/Antarctic? Even safe tr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"weeds" of one type or another will always grow. one uses up one kind of nutrient, another will use another and replace the one used by the previous species.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, really, Why would an oil company do that? Why would an oil company only produce oil by having someone suck it out of the ground? What possible benefit would sitting on it have, if this is cheaper? They would still sell their products.
Maybe you think they're just pissed off at the Earth?
The vast majority of oil companies aren't in the oil business and realize that. They're in the energy business and act accordingly. its just that, until recently, oil was pretty much the only way to get it.