Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

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

  1. #1
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,763

    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.
    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.


    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.
    Last edited by danarhea; 01-19-11 at 06:16 AM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #2
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,888
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    That's awesome, just have a fish tank full of that bacteria on top of your car, and you can drive forever.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  3. #3
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    So, what will the media have to say in 10 years?
    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."
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #4
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,545

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

    So, what's going to happen when a virus comes through and wipes out the oil producing bacteria? What then?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #5
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

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

    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.

  6. #6
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,545

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    The market is going to have to set the pace. The government forcing this on the people just isn't going to work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #7
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The market is going to have to set the pace. The government forcing this on the people just isn't going to work.
    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?

  8. #8
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,545

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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?
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #9
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    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.
    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?

  10. #10
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,545

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    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?
    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.
    Last edited by apdst; 01-19-11 at 01:06 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •