Podesta joins biotech firm with patent promising liquid fuels from solar energy

An upstart firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts said Tuesday that a high-ranking official from both the Clinton and Obama administrations would be joining their board of directors, helping them further a project that may hold the key to saving industrialized society from a long-predicted energy crunch.

Click to expand...

You know, I posted on a similar technology 2 years ago - A bacteria that eats garbage and craps out oil, but this one is even better. Just put the bacteria in a tank and leave it alone. No feeding required, as this genetically engineered bacteria takes its nourishment directly out of the air, to manufacture the oil that it craps out. To those who say that this is not feasible or that it is something out of science fiction, let me reply that former Clinton staffer, John Podesta, just joined the company. Podesta is not a dumb guy, and he believes it can be done. I also believe that it can be done. Imagine an area the size of Chicago giving us all the oil that we would ever need. Imagine not having to pay money to nations that harbor terrorists. But best of all, imagine oil at 30 dollars a barrel, and also imagine the end of OPEC.

Many politicians have stressed the need for some kind of an economic Manhattan Project, in order to put the US back on a solid financial footing. Of course, such a project would drive up the deficit to levels never before imagined. But what we have here is a project that will eventually pay for itself. I'm sold. Let's do this.

So, what will the media have to say in 10 years?

December 4, 2021, (AP) - Today, the price for shares of Chevron-Texaco skyrocketed, after the company completed it's buyout of Joule Unlimited. Asked what the plans were for their recent aquisition, reporters were met with "no comment".

In other news, Chevron-Texaco announced that exploratory drilling was finally underway in Washington DC, where engineers had announced weeks ago that a major oil deposit may exist. The last hurdle for the Washington oil derricks was cleared when Congress, after a lenghty debate of more than 3 minutes, approved the measure, which was then rapidly sent to the President, who immediately signed it. Oil derricks will decorate the White House and Senate lawns within the next two weeks, just in time for the Christmas tree lighting ceremony, in which the derricks will be used in lieu of trees. Merry Christmas, and prosperity to all.

Click to expand...

:mrgreen:

All kidding aside, though, what technologies are in place today?

1) Traditional oil - Sweet crude is almost gone, and it is very expensive to get to the crude that is left. Yes, they are still finding deposits - Underneath the north pole, at the bottom of the oceans, and in other places where the energy returned is only marginally better than energy invested.

2) Alberta oil sands - Yes, there is oil there too. After digging up the sands, transporting the sands to a processing plant, processing the oil out of the sands, returning the sands to it's original place, and then transporting the oil to the consumer, the energy gained is BARELY more than the energy invested.

3) And here is the whopper - Biofuels. First, the fuel must be grown. Then it must be harvested, and then transported to a processing plant, where the oils from the product are captured. From there, the captured goes to a distillery, where the final product, ethanol is made. Ethanol is then transported to conventional refineries, where it becomes an additive to gasoline. The energy yielded from this process is lower than the energy it took to make it. What kind of an idiot could even conceieve of such a harebrained scheme? A politician, of course. And what makes this technology even worse can be summed up in a single question - How many people could the corn used in making biofuel feed?

4) Finally, we come to bacteria crap - Nope, not in place yet, but I am hoping it will be, and very soon. There are costs, but the energy yielded compared to the energy invested, while not quite on a par with sweet crude, is close, and is much more than all other technologies. All this technology needs is a kick start, just like the kind of kick start that created the atom bomb, and sent men to the moon. Want gas at less than a buck a gallon again? This is the opportunity for it. While I am normally against government spending, I am in favor of this, because the eventual outcome will be such that the investment will be paid back many times over. An area the size of Chicago can end our energy dependence for all time.

This one is a no-brainer, folks. Let's do it, so that there may eventually come a day when we can turn the tables on OPEC, and hold food over their heads, as they held oil over ours for so many years.

Article is here.

That's awesome, just have a fish tank full of that bacteria on top of your car, and you can drive forever.

danarhea said:

So, what will the media have to say in 10 years?

Click to expand...

They'll say "Looking back over the last decade, it's amazing how quickly solar power supplanted oil and coal as soon as it became cost-competitive. There were some unorthodox ideas to prolong the era of dirty fossil fuels, such as making bacteria that pooped out oil, but ultimately these efforts were dwarfed by the massive impact of solar energy." :mrgreen:

So, what's going to happen when a virus comes through and wipes out the oil producing bacteria? What then?

I remember the story from some years back, and was also big on it. I think looking at this realistically, investing in alternative means of creating essentially synthetic crude is the far more intelligent option to spend resources on if the concern is truly about:

1. Cost
2. National Security
3. Sustainability

Conversions to Electric powered items rather than gasoline powered would not only hinge on the amount of time it takes to make such a technology viable, but then the time it takes to make the infastructure for it. The issue is infastructure, by and large, isn't going to be begun on a wide scale until said infastructure actually has a viable use. Additionally, as long as there is a significant amount of people using the old infastructure then that will retard the process as well since those old methods will need to be maintained for a portion of the time.

The Nissan Leaf right now, for an all electric, is looking at over 30k for the basic package. And that's for a small compact car. Mass adoption is not going to occur until such a point that realistically you could purchase some for as low as half of that and that multiple styles...from sedans to trucks...are available. Major infastructure upgrading won't even begin to occur substantially till that time.

In contrast, if we can find other means of producing oil in large quantities, then the infastructure is already there. New tech can continue to focus on making it "cleaner" or making a gallon last longer rather than trying to radically change the fuel method. All while still allowing the older technology to still function.

And this is just pointing at a small sample of what needs crude. Oil is used in millions of products every day. Oil powers not just cars but numerous types of machinery and other vehicles. The chances we're going to see a 747 powered by plugging it up for a few hours in the next 10 to 20 years are likely smaller than the notion of creating synthetic crude.

Even if we wanted to retool our entire automotive system to something other than gasoline, investing in this kind of technology would still be beneficial due to the large amount of products which use oil in the creation or powering process that would still not be or can't be moved over to some alternative.

To be quite honest, I actually prefer the trash eating bacteria over those that produce it in a photosynthesis type of fashion, as it solves two problems at once by breaking down waste and providing oil.

Zyphlin said:

I remember the story from some years back, and was also big on it. I think looking at this realistically, investing in alternative means of creating essentially synthetic crude is the far more intelligent option to spend resources on if the concern is truly about:

1. Cost
2. National Security
3. Sustainability

Conversions to Electric powered items rather than gasoline powered would not only hinge on the amount of time it takes to make such a technology viable, but then the time it takes to make the infastructure for it. The issue is infastructure, by and large, isn't going to be begun on a wide scale until said infastructure actually has a viable use. Additionally, as long as there is a significant amount of people using the old infastructure then that will retard the process as well since those old methods will need to be maintained for a portion of the time.

The Nissan Leaf right now, for an all electric, is looking at over 30k for the basic package. And that's for a small compact car. Mass adoption is not going to occur until such a point that realistically you could purchase some for as low as half of that and that multiple styles...from sedans to trucks...are available. Major infastructure upgrading won't even begin to occur substantially till that time.

In contrast, if we can find other means of producing oil in large quantities, then the infastructure is already there. New tech can continue to focus on making it "cleaner" or making a gallon last longer rather than trying to radically change the fuel method. All while still allowing the older technology to still function.

And this is just pointing at a small sample of what needs crude. Oil is used in millions of products every day. Oil powers not just cars but numerous types of machinery and other vehicles. The chances we're going to see a 747 powered by plugging it up for a few hours in the next 10 to 20 years are likely smaller than the notion of creating synthetic crude.

Even if we wanted to retool our entire automotive system to something other than gasoline, investing in this kind of technology would still be beneficial due to the large amount of products which use oil in the creation or powering process that would still not be or can't be moved over to some alternative.

To be quite honest, I actually prefer the trash eating bacteria over those that produce it in a photosynthesis type of fashion, as it solves two problems at once by breaking down waste and providing oil.

Click to expand...

The market is going to have to set the pace. The government forcing this on the people just isn't going to work.

apdst said:

The market is going to have to set the pace. The government forcing this on the people just isn't going to work.

Click to expand...

Where is suggesting that this is good technology, and if we're going to have money budgeted to scientific research this would be a good avenue for it, is "forcing this on the people"?

We have been hearing from many on the right for years that Oil is a national security issue. We deal with terrorist nations, we become beholden to them for it. We need to drill our own oil for our national security. Etc. If its a national security issue then, its reasonable to suggest investing in scientific research to push for domestic means of oil is no less "forcing this on people" then investing in drilling of oil.

You seem to be just grabbing onto stock talking point answers without giving any thought to how they work.

This would...force new kinds of cars on them? Force new kinds of infastructure on them? Force a change in lifestyle for them? How exactly is this "forcing" it on people? And if its just "its spending money on it", then how is that any more "forcing" then pushing for drilling explorations?

Zyphlin said:

Where is suggesting that this is good technology, and if we're going to have money budgeted to scientific research this would be a good avenue for it, is "forcing this on the people"?

We have been hearing from many on the right for years that Oil is a national security issue. We deal with terrorist nations, we become beholden to them for it. We need to drill our own oil for our national security. Etc. If its a national security issue then, its reasonable to suggest investing in scientific research to push for domestic means of oil is no less "forcing this on people" then investing in drilling of oil.

You seem to be just grabbing onto stock talking point answers without giving any thought to how they work.

This would...force new kinds of cars on them? Force new kinds of infastructure on them? Force a change in lifestyle for them? How exactly is this "forcing" it on people? And if its just "its spending money on it", then how is that any more "forcing" then pushing for drilling explorations?

Click to expand...

If it's such a great idea, the government shouldn't have to get involved.

The government didn't subsidize oil drilling at the turn of the century. They didn't budget money to build the first gas stations. It was all market driven, as it should be; as this should be.

apdst said:

If it's such a great idea, the government shouldn't have to get involved.

The government didn't subsidize oil drilling at the turn of the century. They didn't budget money to build the first gas stations. It was all market driven, as it should be; as this should be.

Click to expand...

NASA and the A-Bomb both fly in the face of that notion to an extent.

Now, to a point, I agree with your general notion. If this was such a great idea the free market would push it. However, the market ISN'T free. The government IS giving resources and incentives to groups investing in various forms of alternative energy other than oil. This causes a manipulated market which drives down the economic incentive for investing in something like this.

Now, in a perfectly free market hypothetical situation, I agree with you. Unfortunantly, part of this has to deal with the actual real world reality. Real world reality is that the government budgets a certain amount of dollars every year for scientific research and incentives for doing such and while that type of thing can, and should, be cut its unreasonable nor realistic to imagine that its going to go from current levels to 0 instantly.

So with that said, I would be much happier shifting some of that money, be it through giving them money or not taking as much from them, into a technology such as this where the benefits with regards to national security and economic impact are of a significantly high level.

Ultimately, even if we had no money available in the budget for grants or incentives for companies to enter into this kind of research, I would still hope it was something greatly followed through on.

To ask you a simple question though...yes or no, is oil production and availability a matter of national security?

Zyphlin said:

NASA and the A-Bomb both fly in the face of that notion to an extent.

Now, to a point, I agree with your general notion. If this was such a great idea the free market would push it. However, the market ISN'T free. The government IS giving resources and incentives to groups investing in various forms of alternative energy other than oil. This causes a manipulated market which drives down the economic incentive for investing in something like this.

Now, in a perfectly free market hypothetical situation, I agree with you. Unfortunantly, part of this has to deal with the actual real world reality. Real world reality is that the government budgets a certain amount of dollars every year for scientific research and incentives for doing such and while that type of thing can, and should, be cut its unreasonable nor realistic to imagine that its going to go from current levels to 0 instantly.

So with that said, I would be much happier shifting some of that money, be it through giving them money or not taking as much from them, into a technology such as this where the benefits with regards to national security and economic impact are of a significantly high level.

Ultimately, even if we had no money available in the budget for grants or incentives for companies to enter into this kind of research, I would still hope it was something greatly followed through on.

Click to expand...

Well, there isn't much of a private market for nuclear weapons.

To ask you a simple question though...yes or no, is oil production and availability a matter of national security?

Click to expand...

I can agree with that, which is why shutting down domestic production and spending billions of tax payer dollars on something that might work, is a bad idea.

apdst said:

I can agree with that, which is why shutting down domestic production and spending billions of tax payer dollars on something that might work, is a bad idea.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't support shutting down the domestic production until such point that said technology would be a vialbe alternative not just to domestic production but foreign purchasing as well. If all it does is keep us from drilling domestically that does nothing with regards to cost, nor national security, as we're still over a barrel (pun intended) of the foriegn entities that sale the stuff. It would only be till some point after that in which I'd supporting the shut down of domestic production. And even then, frankly, I wouldn't fully support shutting down domestic production but rather lessening it in more high risk locations and having the government buy the production as essentially reserves as emergency backup in case of some kind of significant issue in the new line of production occurs.

Zyphlin said:

I wouldn't support shutting down the domestic production until such point that said technology would be a vialbe alternative not just to domestic production but foreign purchasing as well. If all it does is keep us from drilling domestically that does nothing with regards to cost, nor national security, as we're still over a barrel (pun intended) of the foriegn entities that sale the stuff. It would only be till some point after that in which I'd supporting the shut down of domestic production. And even then, frankly, I wouldn't fully support shutting down domestic production but rather lessening it in more high risk locations and having the government buy the production as essentially reserves as emergency backup in case of some kind of significant issue in the new line of production occurs.

Click to expand...

I say we let good 'ol free market competition make the call.

If these alternative energy ideas are so wonderful, it shouldn't be hard to find investors, get it working, prove that it's better and sell it to the American people.

Halting domestic oil production and using a substandard energy source isn't the answer, IMO. In the long run, I think that would be self defeating.

apdst said:

I say we let good 'ol free market competition make the call.

Click to expand...

Since you didn't address it before, I'll refer you back to my previous comment where reality is we don't have a free market currently when it comes to energy research.

If these alternative energy ideas are so wonderful, it shouldn't be hard to find investors, get it working, prove that it's better and sell it to the American people.

Click to expand...

You still haven't answered if yes or no, the reliance on foreign entities for our main source of power is a national security issue or not.

Second, see above regarding investors.

Halting domestic oil production and using a substandard energy source isn't the answer, IMO. In the long run, I think that would be self defeating.

Click to expand...

Wait...so oil is a substandard energy source? So because of that we must stick to Oil?

That makes no sense.

Zyphlin said:

Since you didn't address it before, I'll refer you back to my previous comment where reality is we don't have a free market currently when it comes to energy research.

Click to expand...

I agree with that and that's why I oppose government sticking it's finger into that pie.

You still haven't answered if yes or no, the reliance on foreign entities for our main source of power is a national security issue or not.

Second, see above regarding investors.

Click to expand...

I already said that I agree that it is. Do I have to specifically say, "yes"?

Wait...so oil is a substandard energy source? So because of that we must stick to Oil?

That makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Of course it makes no sense, because it's not what I said.

apdst said:

I agree with that and that's why I oppose government sticking it's finger into that pie.

Click to expand...

And I agree with your premise, but if my memory serves you don't go into the Jindal threads some time ago or other similar threads where...once money is budgeted...republicans get earmarks and projects for their states and act all upset.

That's essentially what I'm saying here. If we're already going to have money allocated to research in energy, why not steer it towards energy research that will utilize the current infastructure?

I already said that I agree that it is. Do I have to specifically say, "yes"?

Click to expand...

Sorry, must've missed that.

Then if you agree, would spending money towards national security not be a legitimate function?

Of course it makes no sense, because it's not what I said.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking we're having issue's understanding what the other is saying here...

Do you think I'm arguing for spending significant money in research to push solar/wind/other "alternative" energy sources?

My comments is inregards to research in creating essentiall artificial or synthetic crude oil, essentially finding an alternative means of production. Unless you mean source as the MEANS of getting the energy not the type of energy. And if that's the case, you're suggest that alternative means of crude oil are "substandard" methods...in which case, by supporting things like deep water drilling you'd be being somewhat counter-intuitive because deep water drilling is a "substandard" procedure compared to standard drilling endevours.

My suggestion is to remain on the path of using our current infastructure that utilizes crude oils as its base energy source, but simply finding alternative means of production in such a way that it is safer, renewable, and can account for all of our domestic oil needs for the foreseeable future rather than a small percentage. Even if you don't believe we're at "peak" oil, pure science says there is a finite amount available within the earth and eventually we will reach that finite amount. Add to that fact the situation we're in where we only can access the oil reserves in our portion of the world which is a fraction of the total land available. Eventually, in some fashion, we are going to need to look for alternative means of energy production and potentially finding one that can make energy 100% domestic would be significantly beneficial to national security and the economy.

Zyphlin said:

And I agree with your premise, but if my memory serves you don't go into the Jindal threads some time ago or other similar threads where...once money is budgeted...republicans get earmarks and projects for their states and act all upset.

That's essentially what I'm saying here. If we're already going to have money allocated to research in energy, why not steer it towards energy research that will utilize the current infastructure?

Click to expand...

The funds should be redirected, IMO. And, the government get out of a business that is best served by the private sector.

Sorry, must've missed that.

Then if you agree, would spending money towards national security not be a legitimate function?

Click to expand...

I better--and cheaper--solution would to stop stifling domestic oil production.

I'm thinking we're having issue's understanding what the other is saying here...

Do you think I'm arguing for spending significant money in research to push solar/wind/other "alternative" energy sources?

Click to expand...

I don't think you're proposing it, but I'm not sure that you're opposing, it either.

My comments is inregards to research in creating essentiall artificial or synthetic crude oil, essentially finding an alternative means of production. Unless you mean source as the MEANS of getting the energy not the type of energy. And if that's the case, you're suggest that alternative means of crude oil are "substandard" methods...in which case, by supporting things like deep water drilling you'd be being somewhat counter-intuitive because deep water drilling is a "substandard" procedure compared to standard drilling endevours.

Click to expand...

When I say, "substandard", sources, I'm talking about the actual energy efficiency of the fuel material, itself. For instance, it takes 1.5 gallons of ethonal to produce the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline. Ethonal also costs more. Two things that make it a substandard fuel, IMO.

My suggestion is to remain on the path of using our current infastructure that utilizes crude oils as its base energy source, but simply finding alternative means of production in such a way that it is safer, renewable, and can account for all of our domestic oil needs for the foreseeable future rather than a small percentage. Even if you don't believe we're at "peak" oil, pure science says there is a finite amount available within the earth and eventually we will reach that finite amount. Add to that fact the situation we're in where we only can access the oil reserves in our portion of the world which is a fraction of the total land available. Eventually, in some fashion, we are going to need to look for alternative means of energy production and potentially finding one that can make energy 100% domestic would be significantly beneficial to national security and the economy.

Click to expand...

That's great. Let's take the politicians out of the equation and leave it up to market to decide what works.

What we have now, is a political agenda that is pressuring the market in a direction that 1) it doesn't want to go in and 2) producing a product that may not work. And, if the whole alternative energy idea flops, then what? Let's go forward, when we're sure we're ready to go forward, so we can insure that we don't have to go backwards, just to keep people from starving to death.

apdst said:

The funds should be redirected, IMO. And, the government get out of a business that is best served by the private sector.

Click to expand...

Wonderful in theory. However, as I said, I'm speaking in realistic not idealistic terms in this thread. Its unreasonable to assume that we will go from however much we spend in incentives or grants for energy research to zero immedietely. That's as unrealistic as the plan often attributed to Ron Paul that's "Lets get rid of the Dept. of Education" as some kind of immediete action.

I better--and cheaper--solution would to stop stifling domestic oil production.

Click to expand...

A better, cheaper, short term solution. I'm not arguing the whole "peak oil" thing or anything like that, its indisputable that oil is a finite resource taking significant amount of time to create itself within the earth and as such is not "renewable" in a sense that once its gone its going to be back in a year. Additionally, our reserves are not enough that we could remove ourselves from all international imports for the next 50 years.

I don't think you're proposing it, but I'm not sure that you're opposing, it either.

Click to expand...

Well, no...I'm not. Because its not the topic of this thread so I'm actually trying to stick to what its speaking about. Going on a tangent ranting against subsidizing of alternative energy sources with no draw back to how it applies to this topic would be derailing.

When I say, "substandard", sources, I'm talking about the actual energy efficiency of the fuel material, itself. For instance, it takes 1.5 gallons of ethonal to produce the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline. Ethonal also costs more. Two things that make it a substandard fuel, IMO.

Click to expand...

However, the technology being talked about in this thread isn't creating ethanol. Its talking about standard crude oil, simply produced in an alternative method.

That's great. Let's take the politicians out of the equation and leave it up to market to decide what works.

Click to expand...

Wonderful, I get you completely in ideological land.

As I've said, repeatedly, I'm dealing with reality. Its as unreasonable to assume that we're just going to up and immedietely withdraw every penny the government has budgeted towards scientific research into alternative energy as to suggest we'd pull out of Afghanistan immedietely, shut down the department of education as a whole immedietely, or end social security immedietely. **** doesn't happen that way in the real world.

What we have now, is a political agenda that is pressuring the market in a direction that 1) it doesn't want to go in and 2) producing a product that may not work. And, if the whole alternative energy idea flops, then what? Let's go forward, when we're sure we're ready to go forward, so we can insure that we don't have to go backwards, just to keep people from starving to death.

Click to expand...

Right now, the American public and the government is set upon the notion of the government persuing alternative means of energy. If you have an ideological magic wand you can wave, be my guest. If you want to talk about this in an ideological sense revolving around all alternative bits of energy, I'd be happy to talk to you about it in another thread.

In this thread however I'm dealing with the topic, which is not an "alternative" energy source but rather an "alternative" means of producing our CURRENT energy source. I'm also going to be dealing with reality of the government in this current political climate. If we're going to be spending money on such research...a practice that is long standing in the country and one that, realistically, is not going to completely and utterly VANISH immedietely...then my suggestion is we spend it in focusing on technology that best utilizes our current infastructure, would therefore have a positive effect on our economy in a quicker time, and would provide a means of energy independence giving us better national security.

Continuing our CURRENT method continues to force us to be stuck at the hands of countries who do not have our best interest in mind. I would much rather attempt to spur technology that would allow us in say, 10 years time, to become dependent on no other country for energy for the next 50 years or longer than than simply "going forward" with what we have, which is an unstable, unsecure situation where even with reduced regulations on drilling internally our problems won't significantly change in a long term scale.

Zyphlin said:

Wonderful in theory. However, as I said, I'm speaking in realistic not idealistic terms in this thread. Its unreasonable to assume that we will go from however much we spend in incentives or grants for energy research to zero immedietely. That's as unrealistic as the plan often attributed to Ron Paul that's "Lets get rid of the Dept. of Education" as some kind of immediete action.

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with minor incentives and grants, but I do oppose massive government investment in these projects. I certainly oppose government manipulation of energy comodities, so as to promote alternat energy projects. That's creating a false market and will have dire consequences when the bubble bursts.

A better, cheaper, short term solution. I'm not arguing the whole "peak oil" thing or anything like that, its indisputable that oil is a finite resource taking significant amount of time to create itself within the earth and as such is not "renewable" in a sense that once its gone its going to be back in a year. Additionally, our reserves are not enough that we could remove ourselves from all international imports for the next 50 years.

Click to expand...

Finite, yes, but we're not going to run out oil next week. If the alternate fuel proponents really wanted to promote their agenda, they would be pushing to deplete oil reserves even faster.

Also, I think there's a significant amount of hypocrisy in the alternative energy crowd. The United States has some of the largest natural gas reserves in the world, but no one is pushing a transition to natural gas. It's far more viable than oil crappin' bacteria.

However, the technology being talked about in this thread isn't creating ethanol. Its talking about standard crude oil, simply produced in an alternative method.

Click to expand...

But, is it proven? How realistic is it, that the oil crappers can produce enough oil to justify the cost? Is it proven? What's going to happen when a blight kills all the bacteria, since bacteria is a living organism, afterall.

Wonderful, I get you completely in ideological land.

As I've said, repeatedly, I'm dealing with reality. Its as unreasonable to assume that we're just going to up and immedietely withdraw every penny the government has budgeted towards scientific research into alternative energy as to suggest we'd pull out of Afghanistan immedietely, shut down the department of education as a whole immedietely, or end social security immedietely. **** doesn't happen that way in the real world.

Click to expand...

Every penny? No, nor should we. However, I think we need to close the cash spigget quite a bit.

Right now, the American public and the government is set upon the notion of the government persuing alternative means of energy. If you have an ideological magic wand you can wave, be my guest. If you want to talk about this in an ideological sense revolving around all alternative bits of energy, I'd be happy to talk to you about it in another thread.

In this thread however I'm dealing with the topic, which is not an "alternative" energy source but rather an "alternative" means of producing our CURRENT energy source. I'm also going to be dealing with reality of the government in this current political climate. If we're going to be spending money on such research...a practice that is long standing in the country and one that, realistically, is not going to completely and utterly VANISH immedietely...then my suggestion is we spend it in focusing on technology that best utilizes our current infastructure, would therefore have a positive effect on our economy in a quicker time, and would provide a means of energy independence giving us better national security.

Continuing our CURRENT method continues to force us to be stuck at the hands of countries who do not have our best interest in mind. I would much rather attempt to spur technology that would allow us in say, 10 years time, to become dependent on no other country for energy for the next 50 years or longer than than simply "going forward" with what we have, which is an unstable, unsecure situation where even with reduced regulations on drilling internally our problems won't significantly change in a long term scale.

Click to expand...

You can play semantics all you want, but at the end of the day, what's being proposed is a new energy idea that's yet to be proven.

apdst said:

I don't have a problem with minor incentives and grants, but I do oppose massive government investment in these projects. I certainly oppose government manipulation of energy comodities, so as to promote alternat energy projects. That's creating a false market and will have dire consequences when the bubble bursts.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to the same length as Dan with suggesting we need a new "Manhattan project". I am simply saying that if we're going to be giving minor incentives and grants to researches of alternative energy, I would rather the majority of that go into technologies creating new ways to produce energy that uses our current infastructure rather than ones that would need a radical change.

Finite, yes, but we're not going to run out oil next week. If the alternate fuel proponents really wanted to promote their agenda, they would be pushing to deplete oil reserves even faster.

Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting we're going to run out next week. I am suggesting that if we used enough of our resources to make 100% of our oil in house that it would not last at a reasonable price for the next 50 years.

Also, I think there's a significant amount of hypocrisy in the alternative energy crowd. The United States has some of the largest natural gas reserves in the world, but no one is pushing a transition to natural gas. It's far more viable than oil crappin' bacteria.

Click to expand...

Wonderful, you think they're hypocrites. I don't rightly care. Natural gas is wonderful, it would still take a significant change in our current infastructure to harness it on a level equal to gasoline...and even then we'd STILL need oil. Which is why I'm suggesting "oil crappin' bacteria" and other alternative ways to produce gasoline is a far more intelligent use of the governments money IF its going to be spending it.

But, is it proven? How realistic is it, that the oil crappers can produce enough oil to justify the cost? Is it proven? What's going to happen when a blight kills all the bacteria, since bacteria is a living organism, afterall.

Click to expand...

Its new technology, so proven in the sense you're talking about? No. If it was, there'd be no reason to spur and push for research to occur.

As far as your hypothetical blight, something that "can" happen doesn't equal will happen. Additionally its why I'd suggest not necessarily stopping production of oil in other ways, nor even continuing with private sector research into other alternatives for it. But this "blight" scenario is as likely and legitiamte as me suggesting that the peak oil believers are true and we find out there's only a fraction of the oil out there as possible.

Every penny? No, nor should we. However, I think we need to close the cash spigget quite a bit.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

You can play semantics all you want, but at the end of the day, what's being proposed is a new energy idea that's yet to be proven.

Click to expand...

No, its a new means of production of the same old energy.

Zyphlin said:

I'm not going to the same length as Dan with suggesting we need a new "Manhattan project". I am simply saying that if we're going to be giving minor incentives and grants to researches of alternative energy, I would rather the majority of that go into technologies creating new ways to produce energy that uses our current infastructure rather than ones that would need a radical change.

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with that, either. But, after someone has developed what he thinks is a viable replacement for petroleum, or a viable replacement for the current petroleum producing systems, he should take his idea, sell it to some investors and take their chances in the market, just like everyone else. I think that an industry, that has to suck from the government tit to survive is good for the country. If it can't stand on it's own, then it should fail.

I'm not suggesting we're going to run out next week. I am suggesting that if we used enough of our resources to make 100% of our oil in house that it would not last at a reasonable price for the next 50 years.

Click to expand...

That's why we need to look at natural gas, oil, wind, solar and the bug crap thing, all at the same time and use them simultaneously. Get away from the school of thought that says we need to stop using oil, all together.

Wonderful, you think they're hypocrites. I don't rightly care. Natural gas is wonderful, it would still take a significant change in our current infastructure to harness it on a level equal to gasoline...and even then we'd STILL need oil. Which is why I'm suggesting "oil crappin' bacteria" and other alternative ways to produce gasoline is a far more intelligent use of the governments money IF its going to be spending it.

Click to expand...

It's another one of those market things. If there is a demand, the infrastructure transition would pay for itself.

Its new technology, so proven in the sense you're talking about? No. If it was, there'd be no reason to spur and push for research to occur.

Click to expand...

If it were such a great idea, it wouldn't need to be spurred. If it needs that much spurring, then it might be a viable source.

As far as your hypothetical blight, something that "can" happen doesn't equal will happen. Additionally its why I'd suggest not necessarily stopping production of oil in other ways, nor even continuing with private sector research into other alternatives for it. But this "blight" scenario is as likely and legitiamte as me suggesting that the peak oil believers are true and we find out there's only a fraction of the oil out there as possible.

Click to expand...

But, if it's possible, it must be taken into consideration. It would be foolish not to, IMO.

Kandahar said:

They'll say "Looking back over the last decade, it's amazing how quickly solar power supplanted oil and coal as soon as it became cost-competitive. There were some unorthodox ideas to prolong the era of dirty fossil fuels, such as making bacteria that pooped out oil, but ultimately these efforts were dwarfed by the massive impact of solar energy." :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Now that we have black silicon, you could be right.

danarhea said:

No feeding required, as this genetically engineered bacteria takes its nourishment directly out of the air, to manufacture the oil that it craps out.

Click to expand...

Just out of curiousity, what does it consume from air, and is that substance replenished in some way?

??? said:

Just out of curiousity, what does it consume from air, and is that substance replenished in some way?

Click to expand...

From what I've read, it eats carbon out of the air, and burning the fuel it poops out will make more carbon.