Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

    Originally posted by flintlock View Post
    ...But hey, its a start towards getting off the foreign oil.

    Not to worry, we're just going to "grow" our way out of that :-)

    Everybody can put away those fat extension cords you bought to plug in your electric cars each night...and don't be too quick to trade in that F150 for a Prius just yet.

    A brave new world of fossil fuels on demand

    NEIL REYNOLDS
    From Monday's Globe and Mail

    In September, a privately held and highly secretive U.S. biotech company named Joule Unlimited received a patent for “a proprietary organism” – a genetically adapted E. coli bacterium – that feeds solely on carbon dioxide and excretes liquid hydrocarbons: diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline. This breakthrough technology, the company says, will deliver renewable supplies of liquid fossil fuel almost anywhere on Earth, in essentially unlimited quantity and at an energy-cost equivalent of $30 (U.S.) a barrel of crude oil. It will deliver, the company says, “fossil fuels on demand.”

    We’re not talking “biofuels” – not, at any rate, in the usual sense of the word. The Joule technology requires no “feedstock,” no corn, no wood, no garbage, no algae. Aside from hungry, gene-altered micro-organisms, it requires only carbon dioxide and sunshine to manufacture crude. And water: whether fresh, brackish or salt. With these “inputs,” it mimics photosynthesis, the process by which green leaves use solar energy to convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds. Indeed, the company describes its manufacture of fossil fuels as “artificial photosynthesis.”

    Joule says it now has “a library” of fossil-fuel organisms at work in its Massachusetts labs, each engineered to produce a different fuel. It has “proven the process,” has produced ethanol (for example) at a rate equivalent to 10,000 U.S. gallons an acre a year. It anticipates that this yield could hit 25,000 gallons an acre a year when scaled for commercial production, equivalent to roughly 800 barrels of crude an acre a year...

    ...Joule says its “solar converter” technology makes the manufacture of liquid fossil fuels 50 times as efficient as conventional biofuel production – and eliminates as much as 90 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. “Requiring only sunlight and waste C0{-2},” it says, “[this] technology can produce virtually unlimited quantities of fossil fuels with zero dependence on raw materials, agricultural land, crops or fresh water. It ends the hazards of oil exploration and oil production. It takes us to the unthinkable: liquid hydrocarbons on demand.”...

    ...Joule acknowledges its reluctance to fully explain its “solar converter.” CEO Bill Sims told Biofuels Digest, an online biofuels news service, that secrecy has been essential for competitive reasons. “Some time soon,” he said, “what we are doing will become clear.” Although astonishing in its assertions, Joule gains credibility from its co-founder: George Church, the Harvard Medical School geneticist who helped initiate the Human Genome Project in 1984...



    Comment


    • #32
      Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

      Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
      I think we have found the challenge for our upcoming "Best Salesman of the Year Award" -- sell Starving Steve a VW bus!
      Easy - just include one hydroelectric dam with each purchase!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

        Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
        Some expense for driving around Winnipeg in winter in a VW bug: a.) automatic-torque converter rubber cracked; b.) brake shoes every 12,000 miles; c.) broken linkage-cables in the interior of the bug; d.) electrical system problems; e.) automatic stick-shift electrical failures; f.) a mouse blowing-thru a straw for a heater; g.) no defrost; h.) frozen turn-signal lights; i.)ripping in the seats; j.) broken speedometre cables; k.) torn wiper-blade rubber; l.) no generation of power in the generator due to frost; m.) rust and salted-everything; n.) valve-clearance adjustments; o.) really POOR fuel-efficiency and even in summer; drips of fluids coming from your car; p.) battery failure; q.) alignment problems; r.) "square wheels"; s.) squeel in the radio; t.) frozen brake-fluid; u.) water in the oil; v.) special torque-wrench required for an oil change; w.) cracking in the front windshield; x.) steering-problems (skiing) in snow; y.) muffler problems; z.) a motor transplant in 70,000 miles or LESS in a bug; aa.) no trade-in value; bb.) oil consumption, etc.

        The VW-bus was far worse; they required engine-transplants every 20,000 miles or LESS. Happily, I never bought one of them.
        I never said it was a GREAT car, I said it was a SIMPLE car. You have to keep in mind it was designed in the 30s as affordable transportation for the Volk. Not to compete against modern (and luxury by comparison) American cars. It was cutting edge circa 1938 I suppose.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

          Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
          I think we have found the challenge for our upcoming "Best Salesman of the Year Award" -- sell Starving Steve a VW bus!
          Nope. Convince him to move to the South and grow pot while driving a VW bus with a "No Nukes" bumper sticker.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

            Church has made a few intriguing comments about this technology over the years, and the company makes the occasional breathtaking announcement of what's happening in their labs. It could be a transformational development.

            I noticed in my most recent perusing of their web site that they are announcing commercial production will begin in 2012 -- the same year so many automakers are bringing electric vehicles and electric hybrids to market . . . I won't trade the SUV in just yet.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

              Projected oil usage 10 years out = ~160,000,000,000 gallons/year. Joule claims 40,000 gallons per year per acre as a target. 40,000,000 acres would be required for global output - which is surprisingly little (about 1/56 of the surface area of the US).

              Now that 40,000 gallons is 25k ethanol and 15k diesel. It won't be as efficient as refined hydrocarbons. Still, it's rare one reads one of these start up sites and is presented with math that is relatively sensible on a macro scale.

              Now the question is whether the technology, costs, and targets are indeed sensible...of that I cannot be sure.

              Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
              Not to worry, we're just going to "grow" our way out of that :-)

              Everybody can put away those fat extension cords you bought to plug in your electric cars each night...and don't be too quick to trade in that F150 for a Prius just yet.
              A brave new world of fossil fuels on demand

              NEIL REYNOLDS
              From Monday's Globe and Mail

              In September, a privately held and highly secretive U.S. biotech company named Joule Unlimited received a patent for “a proprietary organism” – a genetically adapted E. coli bacterium – that feeds solely on carbon dioxide and excretes liquid hydrocarbons: diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline. This breakthrough technology, the company says, will deliver renewable supplies of liquid fossil fuel almost anywhere on Earth, in essentially unlimited quantity and at an energy-cost equivalent of $30 (U.S.) a barrel of crude oil. It will deliver, the company says, “fossil fuels on demand.”

              We’re not talking “biofuels” – not, at any rate, in the usual sense of the word. The Joule technology requires no “feedstock,” no corn, no wood, no garbage, no algae. Aside from hungry, gene-altered micro-organisms, it requires only carbon dioxide and sunshine to manufacture crude. And water: whether fresh, brackish or salt. With these “inputs,” it mimics photosynthesis, the process by which green leaves use solar energy to convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds. Indeed, the company describes its manufacture of fossil fuels as “artificial photosynthesis.”

              Joule says it now has “a library” of fossil-fuel organisms at work in its Massachusetts labs, each engineered to produce a different fuel. It has “proven the process,” has produced ethanol (for example) at a rate equivalent to 10,000 U.S. gallons an acre a year. It anticipates that this yield could hit 25,000 gallons an acre a year when scaled for commercial production, equivalent to roughly 800 barrels of crude an acre a year...

              ...Joule says its “solar converter” technology makes the manufacture of liquid fossil fuels 50 times as efficient as conventional biofuel production – and eliminates as much as 90 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. “Requiring only sunlight and waste C0{-2},” it says, “[this] technology can produce virtually unlimited quantities of fossil fuels with zero dependence on raw materials, agricultural land, crops or fresh water. It ends the hazards of oil exploration and oil production. It takes us to the unthinkable: liquid hydrocarbons on demand.”...

              ...Joule acknowledges its reluctance to fully explain its “solar converter.” CEO Bill Sims told Biofuels Digest, an online biofuels news service, that secrecy has been essential for competitive reasons. “Some time soon,” he said, “what we are doing will become clear.” Although astonishing in its assertions, Joule gains credibility from its co-founder: George Church, the Harvard Medical School geneticist who helped initiate the Human Genome Project in 1984...



              Comment


              • #37
                Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

                Originally posted by Prazak View Post
                the same year so many automakers are bringing electric vehicles and electric hybrids to market . .
                That’s right, will produce electric cars.
                I just spent a day rubbing shoulders with plenty of lab guys/gals and came away with some future ideas.
                http://tedxcaltech.com/
                Unfortunately nothing I can put my capital to work on today.


                As I said above graphite is in every lithium battery. Today lithium batteries are in production and governments are supportive. Lithium batteries will be enhanced with the use of graphene, see link below.
                Now that’s something my capital can invest in today.

                http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/Artic...R00639D/Unauth
                Nanocrystalline Li4Ti5O12 grown on conducting graphene nanosheets (GNS) with good crystallinity was investigated as an advanced lithium-ion battery anode material for potential large-scale applications. This hybrid anode nanostructure material showed ultrahigh rate capability and good cycling properties at high rates.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

                  Originally posted by flintlock View Post
                  Nope. Convince him to move to the South and grow pot while driving a VW bus with a "No Nukes" bumper sticker.
                  That sounds more like a challenge for MK-Ultra (CIA mind control).
                  Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

                    Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                    Not to worry, we're just going to "grow" our way out of that :-)

                    Everybody can put away those fat extension cords you bought to plug in your electric cars each night...and don't be too quick to trade in that F150 for a Prius just yet.

                    [INDENT][INDENT]A brave new world of fossil fuels on demand

                    NEIL REYNOLDS
                    From Monday's Globe and Mail

                    [I]In September, a privately held and highly secretive U.S. biotech company named Joule Unlimited received a patent for “a proprietary organism” – a genetically adapted E. coli bacterium – that feeds solely on carbon dioxide ....
                    ...won't this just lead to global cooling...?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

                      Originally posted by GRG55
                      I'm assuming you are being sarcastic - the notion of a version of E. Coli that feeds on CO2 is utterly nonsensical.

                      Plants use the sun to break up CO2; what is this 'magical' E. Coli's energy source?

                      The company should really be called Fool Unlimited, instead of Joule Unlimited.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

                        Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                        I'm assuming you are being sarcastic - the notion of a version of E. Coli that feeds on CO2 is utterly nonsensical.

                        Plants use the sun to break up CO2; what is this 'magical' E. Coli's energy source?

                        The company should really be called Fool Unlimited, instead of Joule Unlimited.
                        I'm not saying that the process works - but wouldn't you want the E. Coli to be fermenting rather than using O2 to make ATP in this case? If that were true - one would have to be feeding it glucose (or something it can break down to glucose).

                        They do purport to make ethanol out of the process. There's a problem there though too, c1ue. If that's the case, CO2 is an output of the glucose->ethanol fermentation process, not an input. Of course, this is less of an issue if one has achieved photosynthesis in E. Coli. MIT/Berkeley have been on this since 2007: http://parts.mit.edu/igem07/index.ph...ey_LBL/Project.

                        Photosynthesis:
                        6CO2 + 12H2O --> C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O
                        Ethanol Fermentation:
                        C6H12O6 → 2 C2H5OH + 2 CO2

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

                          Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                          I'm assuming you are being sarcastic - the notion of a version of E. Coli that feeds on CO2 is utterly nonsensical.

                          Plants use the sun to break up CO2; what is this 'magical' E. Coli's energy source?

                          ...
                          It would appear to be that same sun:

                          "...It has “proven the process,” has produced ethanol (for example) at a rate equivalent to 10,000 U.S. gallons an acre a year. It anticipates that this yield could hit 25,000 gallons an acre a year when scaled for commercial production...

                          ...Joule says its “solar converter” technology...“Requiring only sunlight and waste C0{-2},”..."

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

                            Aside from hungry, gene-altered micro-organisms, it requires only carbon dioxide and sunshine to manufacture crude. And water: whether fresh, brackish or salt. With these “inputs,” it mimics photosynthesis, the process by which green leaves use solar energy to convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds. Indeed, the company describes its manufacture of fossil fuels as “artificial photosynthesis.”
                            It sounds like they've put plant genes in a bacteria to accomplish photosynthesis, but only producing medium chain hydrocarbons. Plants make sugar, oils and cellulose. For our purposes both the sugar and cellulose are waste. If the bacteria can produce only oils it makes the process much more efficient.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

                              Originally posted by dcarrigg
                              I'm not saying that the process works - but wouldn't you want the E. Coli to be fermenting rather than using O2 to make ATP in this case? If that were true - one would have to be feeding it glucose (or something it can break down to glucose).

                              They do purport to make ethanol out of the process. There's a problem there though too, c1ue. If that's the case, CO2 is an output of the glucose->ethanol fermentation process, not an input. Of course, this is less of an issue if one has achieved photosynthesis in E. Coli. MIT/Berkeley have been on this since 2007: http://parts.mit.edu/igem07/index.ph...ey_LBL/Project.

                              Photosynthesis:
                              6CO2 + 12H2O --> C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O
                              Ethanol Fermentation:
                              C6H12O6 → 2 C2H5OH + 2 CO2
                              Yes, that's another problem. Even assuming photosynthesis was achieved - i.e. the energy input - the use of said energy to create hydrocarbons is equally problematic.

                              As far as I know, there are no creatures/genes at the single cell level in nature which can create complex molecules like a gasoline level hydrocarbon. Plants do, and while I don't understand how specifically they do it, I do know it isn't all in a single cell.

                              We're now talking about shoving not just photosynthesis capability, but a sunflower or rapeseed plant's oil creation capability into a single celled animal.

                              Plausible, but not clearly achievable.

                              Originally posted by GRG55
                              It would appear to be that same sun:

                              "...It has “proven the process,” has produced ethanol (for example) at a rate equivalent to 10,000 U.S. gallons an acre a year. It anticipates that this yield could hit 25,000 gallons an acre a year when scaled for commercial production...

                              ...Joule says its “solar converter” technology...“Requiring only sunlight and waste C0{-2},”..."
                              Originally posted by LorenS
                              It sounds like they've put plant genes in a bacteria to accomplish photosynthesis, but only producing medium chain hydrocarbons. Plants make sugar, oils and cellulose. For our purposes both the sugar and cellulose are waste. If the bacteria can produce only oils it makes the process much more efficient.
                              While this sounds nice, a plant has a whole lot of structural apparatus for performing photosynthesis.

                              The question I would ask is: why E Coli and not a blue green algae? E Coli to my understanding doesn't go anywhere near the photosynthetic process in nature whereas blue green algae does directly employ it.

                              Admittedly E Coli probably is better understood and more capable of creating more complex molecules, but nonetheless the entire procedure seems very odd.

                              Shoving blue green algae genes into an E Coli presumably could create the photosynthetic structures, but then there are the behavioral issues: blue green algae organize themselves to efficiently use what sunlight is available whereas E Coli equally has no such motivation.

                              My point is: this entire exercise sounds very much like the combustion engine that runs on water. It sounds plausible, but it in reality isn't doable.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: You've come a long way, baby: the electric car vs. the horse

                                We're now talking about shoving not just photosynthesis capability, but a sunflower or rapeseed plant's oil creation capability into a single celled animal.

                                Plausible, but not clearly achievable.
                                I understand your skepticism. Similar claims were made for algae not too long ago. When it came time to build large scale facilities I'm pretty sure that getting the sunlight to the organism was one of the key problems.

                                Is it possible that they have created several variants of eColi with each performing part of the process in such a manner that the output of one variety of cells feeds another variety. It's possible that they organize somewhat automatically based on the fact that a certain orientation produces the most favorable environment for all of them (ie. only green ones survive on top where the light is, others below catch the simple sugars and turn them into oils.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X