Petrol Bugs
By Nicole Belle Sunday Jun 15, 2008 4:50pm(Guest blogged by Nonny Mouse)
There’s good news and bad news. The good news is that scientists in Silicon Valley have bred genetically modified bacteria that consumes agricultural waste and secrete crude petroleum oil.
That’s the good news. The bad news is…
I’m not quite sure. What about this pulling research and development away from cleaner renewable energy sources just to make more of the old stuff? Well, except… instead of pumping out more carbon into the atmosphere, this “Oil 2.0” is not only renewable but also carbon negative – it emits less carbon than is sucked from the atmosphere by the raw materials from which it is made. Oh, and the raw materials? Not going to be corn (so no more tortilla riots in Mexico City) nor palm oil (no more deforestation in the Amazon) – it eats wheat straw from California and woodchips from the timber industry in the South.
Well, how about everyone’s car having to be modified to burn the new stuff? Y’know, like hybrid and electric cars? Gee, um, nope. It’s completely interchangeable with fossil fuel oils we now suck out of the ground and refine. You wouldn’t even notice a change-over at the pumps… except for maybe the price once decoupled from OPEC.
How about cost? Hmm.
“Five to seven years ago, that process would have taken months and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Greg Pal, senior director of LS9, the company making this stuff, says. “Now it can take weeks and cost maybe $20,000.”
What about… what about…? Genetic modification? Right, let’s not forget, GM is BAAAAD. Isn’t it? Hell, there’s gotta be something Big Oil can use to scare us into rejecting Oil 2.0…
We have the technology. We have the opportunities. We have the skills and the inventiveness. All we need is the will. And the politicians to listen to us instead of entrenched corporate interests…
Login or Register to post comments.
Yea, sorry - not buying into this. We need to treat the addiction to oil, not the oil and focus on alternative energy sources, like solar and wind. The prospect and likelihood of things going wrong w/ gm'd bacteria is slim though, right?
"Newsflash: bacteria that were genetically modified to shit oil are working out great, except for their hunger for human flesh... more at 11."
That crunching sound will not be of cheez doodles and taco chips consumed on the sofas of America.
ever read neal stephenson's zodiac?
beware gmo wunder-solutions!
Did anyone catch the story in this month's Atlantic about Chevy's development of the Volt? It says GM is struggling to build an electric car that goes more than 40 miles on a charge. But GM's EV1, built 15 years ago, went over twice that far. Something doesn't add up. Could it be that the car makers are dragging their feet on developing alternative modes of transportation?
Good luck in a society driven by fear and instant gratification.
I'm with ebone - the solution isn't another source of petroleum, but a complete change in fuel - one that creates no waste or harmful byproducts, and requires little or no raw materials to produce - that should be moving us towards solar, electro-magnetic, and fluid energies (wind-power, ocean energy, etc.)
The big catch I see here is how much of an input do these little bugs need? I mean sure, it can eat wheat straw. Well how much wheat straw do you need to make a barrel of oil? They say it can be made for $50/barrel, but what does that assume about the cost of the inputs that would, of course, be affected by the same supply and demand forces as everything else.
This looks promising, but I'm curious to see what the real economics of such an endeavor are.
Heraldblog @ 4:
The Clinton Gore promoted Chrysler Super Car 60 MPG+ was the right step back in 95.
Unfortunately Clinton caved to the pressure put on him by the Oil and Auto Industry.
A real shame.
Sorry, but why are politicians needed at all? Did I miss the memo?
Could not agree w/ you more - it was such an impressive highlight and why they caved to the auto industry, I will never understand.
it's not "the" solution, but as part of the mix it's excellent for those of us who can simply not *afford* the total transition.
and now transform these buggers one step more so they can clean up the sh1t ... erm ... *pig* lagoons.
Mike @ 9:
Politicians need to make a living to. You want them to starve?! :)
This is amazing. In conjunction with energy conservation and alternative sources, this might actually do the trick. It'll take time to work the bugs out (so to speak...), but this gives me hope that we might not be doomed after all.
the fear about GM is really over blown. anyone that has taken a college level intro. biology course should know better. bacteria and other organisms naturally swap genetic material.
did you realize that all our agricultural products (before biotechnology) are GM??? people 5-10K years ago choice traits of plants there they deemed beneficial. try and find corn in the wild, or carrots or onion, you cant!!!. it was GM done in a clumsy way. now we can do it better and more precise. any liberal that is against GM food should go and hangout with the creation christians.
I'm not real big on the idea of releasing genetically modified bacteria into the environment. Need to be real careful here. Especially if it's a Silicon Valley creation. Silicon Valley can't even deal with the toxic wastes created by their own industry.
Gore endorses Obama http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_el_pr/obama_gore
What happens if this stuff gets out of the lab? If it's somehow accidentally released, does it have airborne properties? I could see this bacteria devastating world food supplies. Even if this stuff is not some godforsaken Andromeda Strain waiting to happen, it's still only a stop-gap measure. We need to be investing in technologies with a smaller environmental footprints. Solar, geothermal, hydrodynamic, etc. Not in something that allows us to perpetuate our old bad habits.
At least it has the potential to reduce our dependency on foreign oil....I wouldn't exactly get all weepy if OPEC wa economically kneecapped.
nweppins @ 6:
I hate to tell this to you but Solar, Electro-magnetic, and fluid energies all require raw materials to produce, and all create waste and harmful byproducts. Just think of all the horrible chemicals that go into producing batteries or into refining silicon.
Furthermore creating a product that can be instantly integrated into the current consumption model will lead to a product that can actually change things. Think about it, all we would need to change is where we get the oil. The refineries, gas-station, and internal combustion engines would all stay the same, no need for the economic investment there. If we were to use electric or hydrogen transportation systems we would need to create whole new transportation networks and vehicle power systems.
ebone @ 1:
My wind powered car didn't work out so well. I could only travel with the prevailing winds and tacking around corners was a bitch.
this still doesnt seem better than solar wind or even electric. just bring that on and i will be happy
scientist @ 14:
There are no long term studies proving man made GM is safe. In fact evidence is coming out now that it is NOT. And Monsanto can still go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
Uh, climate change, anyone? The internal combustion engine, whether driven by oil, ethanol, or microbial oil-poop, is at the heart of our troubles. I'm just back from a visit to Iowa, spent avoiding flood waters rather than eating picnic food. Fuhgeddaboutit. We don't need another form of oil.
Sorry, but this would be the wet dream of the Oil business and other corporate entities.
1) The sales and distribution of the current oil industry will still be used
2) The "lack" of refineries will still allow them to price gas high.
3) The continued use of the combustion engine will allow american automakers to continue to make inferior products to make money on spare parts and maintenance.
4) Carbon neutral? I genuinely think not. There is no way that gasoline will be carbon nutral unless it is used in a different engine than the one we now have in cars.
5) The last thing is what do we do when just a few of these bacteria escape into the environment and start turning forrests into fields of tar
scientist @ 14:
Yep. Broccoli, bananas, and others have all entailed a kind of genetic modification. Cultivation by human beings to get them to look, taste, grow the way we wanted.
Cheney's already laying the ground work to invade the country that has these bugs to "liberate" them from whoever is their current leader.
Yes, it sounds wonderful... as a supplemental, not an outright alternative. While it is 'carbon-negative' - a very misleading term - there is no guarantee that the bacteria would be able to produce enough oil 2.0 to get us off of OPEC oil... and if we're still using oil, and some OPEC, Big Oil wins in the fight for greener technologies... Cars will not be converted to cleaner systems.
As for the term carbon negative? That is pure bullshit. Again, if we use the oil, I doubt we would have enough wheat shaft to feed the cultures so as to keep a continuous supply. that means we are still hooked on oil, both 2.0 and regular. I doubt there is so much a 'negative carbon' effect as to make up for other countries' use of standard oil, and make significant reductions in carbon emissions to have any immediate positive effect on the environment.
And what happens, pray tell, when that culture is accidentally let loose in the world? Can we say 'NEW CROP PLAGUES?!' that's great, the American wheat industry would die a miserable death, leaving CRUDE OIL on the TOP SOIL... hmm, that sounds like fun for all the farmers to clear out... At least the last major genetic experiment loosed upon the world was the useless lovebug. This one has potential to be actually bad. What would kill this bacteria? is there a safeguard backup plan that we know of, that won't kill the bees and every other form of life in the process of stopping the bacteria?
scientist @ 14:
My bullshit meter is running an overload on this one.
it will be owned by exxon soon enough.
The real war on terror is vs. the oil companies.These guys reek of greed and filth.Always have; always will.Let`s do something like stop these creeps.
Fact is if we are going to demand life goes on as we are used to it (more more more I want it all I want it now) we're going to have to accept the U.S. Government is going to be bombing, pillaging, and plummeting across the planet to provide the stuff we'll need to remain the biggest gluttons on earth.
ebone @ 1:
The alternatives you prefer are not mutually exclusive to the one discussed here. In fact, with the amount of energy we need to keep our global economy going, we might end up needing all of the possible alternatives to replace fossil fuels.
And indeed, there are plenty of innovations out there, from new kinds of gasoline to cars that run on air to electric cars faster and safer than professional race cars.
Not to mention that our country is allergic to anything hemp-related. Indeed, we just need everyone to scream about it, and for more powerful people to listen.
GM has been around for ever. Poodles and chihuahuas both descended from wolves, but only with a "guiding hand" from man. How do you think oil got to the state it is now? Bacteria decomposed organic material.
Ruthless People @ 25:
Cheney always did want to invade California.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1463312805?bclid=1317868368&bctid=1320144363
^ really good documentary on solar power, narrated by the fantastic john cleese.
As far as GM foods, products and specimens being ok for human use, and i speak as a scientist, nature has a way of compensating for human intervention. That compensation has no malice aforethought, no ulterior motives, it just is. What is to say that nature will not compensate a genetically modified bacterium with, lets say a defense mechanism that is deadly to pollinating butterflies- like gm'd star corn? or a defense mechanism that is deadly to any other creature, like humans? Cross pollination or grafting in agriculture is NOT fabricating some DNA strands in a dish and then injecting those into a tomato. Period.
L.A. Confidential @ 30:
And the poor or middle classes who can't afford to be gluttons will end up cannon fodder for the endless wars.
Sounds good but it is derived by science and science is evil!
What kind of oil derived from bugs would Jesus approve of?
There IS a difference between Mendelson's peas and going into the DNA structure and adding "bits of information". The first is witnessing and reacting to Darwinism, the other is "forcing the issue". Agri-business have altered foods for their profit not our bodies.
ebone @ 34:
Exactly! Thank you.
Jo @ 27:
LOL, srsly. But metaphorically speaking, he has a slim point... that isn't genetic modification though, it's selective breeding. and 10,000 yrs ago they weren't so good at selection of crops that they significantly altered these species. it's not at all like buying miracle-gro... hence why when it didn't rain, most of the townsmen died... way to go history buffs!
And yes, you can find carrots and onions in the wild... contrary to popular opinion, the world does not need humans to survive. If we weren't polluting so much and we had more natural areas instead of homogenized landscapes that suit human purposes more, you might see more vegetable growing indigenously.
yeah, heard about this on NPR the other day. really excited to see how it all works out. if i recall, the main concern was still cost - despite the progress that's been made i believe it still is quite expensive to make say 12 gallons of this stuff - which is about the capacity of my little '95 chevy cavalier.
Sounds perfect. Sounds too good to be true.
Even if it is true, it will certainly have costs and drawbacks (environmental, technical, financial) that must be taken into account. Every single form of energy does, without exception.
Questions:
- How much wheat grass and/or woodchips have to be processed for each barrel of oil? I bet it's a lot. Where I come from (Canadian pacific coast), grinding up forests for pulp is big business. It's also a very dirty business. And you just aren't going to create a new oil source based on waste wood chips. There is no surplus supply of wood waste. It's already being used as fuel to power lumber mills, pulp mills and new 'green' co-generation electric plants. Any oil production from wood fiber will draw on forests that are already being depleted at a scary rate, especially in the third world. And growing wheat grass (straw, in other words) for oil will displace food production just like corn-based ethanol has.
- What are the byproducts of this bacteria? It produces synthetic crude - what else? What effect does the waste have on the environment? How is it disposed of?
- How much water and heat are used in this process? What happens to the water, and how dirty is it at the end of the cycle? I ask this because the pulp industry has been using bacterial production processes for years. It's not new. Toxic waste is produced and is pumped into the air and water.
- What effect does this synthetic GMO bug have on fish? If it damages chromosomes and causes mutations, how the hell do you fix that?
- Synthetic oil adds to global warming just like geological hydrocarbons do. How is this new process better than hybrid/electrical vehicle technology? If bacterial oil drives down the price of crude, and makes fossil fuels affordable again, how does that help the environment?
Yes, this is the key. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the technologies discussed here, only how they are applied. With capitalism at the core of our belief system, producing more, cheaper and faster is rewarded. That is what needs to change.
Science will march forward and deliver products that business will market. In general, that is a very wonderful thing.
These people are not bad people for wanting to earn a prosperous living by solving our problems, most especially these little start-up ventures.
To make them into villains is very easy, isn't it.
Peter G @ 19:
Don't you hate it when a minivan comes up on your bumper and steals your wind?
L.A. Confidential @ 21:
Don't confuse the potential of GM with the ethics of certain bad actors in the field. In other words, because GM has produced some unsafe results, is all GM inherently unsafe? I would defy you to prove it.
Flash @ 42:
I <3 U. I especially like how you put it, that 'capitalism is the core of our BELIEF system." That sent a religious chill down my spine, lmao. Kewlest quote of the day so far!
made me lol.
Annoyed Canuck @ 41:
No it doesn't. Geological hydrocarbons release carbon that has spent the last hundred million years trapped in the ground. Synthetic hydrocarbons release carbon that was recently sucked out of the atmosphere.
This process is apparently carbon negative, meaning that more carbon gets sequestered in the process (waste? where to dump/bury?) than gets rereleased when the fuel is burned.
Of course, this says nothing about the LOCAL effects of the fuel (smog, etc) or the global impact of other parts of the process.
L.A. Confidential @ 21:
No different than electricity. When used for tasers it is an evil thing. When used for a blender to make margaritas, a true modern miracle.
Annoyed Canuck @ 41:
It is great to see people thinking critically like this! It's not necessarily to find all human intent very horrible; it's just a good practice of not believing everything you're sold as being angelic either. All of your questions kick serious ass. I woulda left them in the quote if I didn't feel so bad about taking up so much space when I post, ;P
We wouldn't need fossil fuels or such is people would pay attention to the car that will be manufactured in India that runs on compressed air. Business Week ran a story on it:
An excerpt:
"...it is incredibly cost-efficient to run – according to the designers, it costs less than one Euro per 100Km (about a tenth that of a petrol car). Its mileage is about double that of the most advanced electric car (200 to 300 km or 10 hours of driving), a factor which makes a perfect choice in cities where the 80% of motorists drive at less than 60Km. The car has a top speed of 68 mph."
It will also be cheap to buy - around $3000.
Why this hasn't generated more interest is a mystery to me.
Full story: http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/mar2007/bw20070319_949435.htm?...
Heraldblog @ 4:
The Aptera goes 120 miles per charge. The hybrid: 200mpg.
http://aptera.com/
Depending on the government to solve the energy crisis is a monumental waste of time. Obama doesn't even want to let me cool my home to a comfy 72 degrees!! Do you really think he'll let me have a choice of fuel??
Jason at 48:
The goal of these technologies is to reduce the amount of carbons in the air, not simply recycle them from the air, and then put back 90% of it (or however much it uses). I would love to see the very technical specs on where they come up with this shiny little CARBON NEGATIVE term. And like the question you posed, where does the rest of the carbon go? What kind of waste does this produce?
And how much wheat will we have to grow? and again with my question about safety... what if the bacterium gets loose, and starts plaguing wheat fields, leaving their oily shit on the ground??? what wuld kill it? and what else would the poison kill in the process? I say stick to water cars and green technology and forget the use of fossil fuels for consumer purposes.
mjULTRA @ 53:
and there, I think is the crux of the problem. Don't ask what you have done for your government, what has your government done for you?
Wait a minute... a microbe that eats our useless crap and poops out valuable resources?
Like George Bush in reverse...
Another link to info about the car that runs on compressed air (NO POLLUTION)
Includes videos.
We can only hope.
http://zeropollutionmotors.us/?page_id=46
This product is a very exciting one, for several reasons, although the issues raised by other's comments still stand.
The important point is this: any change in infrastructure requires time. Going to a Hydrogen economy, for instance, requires putting Hydrogen production facilities and refueling stations, to say nothing of the trucks and transportation required to create all of that new infrastructure. When people talk about ending our addiction to oil, they always seem to be of the opinion that we could all just purchase bicycles and that would be the end of it.
Our economy, and the nation itself, would grind to halt immediately. Any measure that reduces our reliance on oil that has to be shipped across the world is a good thing, and serves as at least a temporary measure while we rebuild or create infrastructure decimated by recent governmental policies and the corporate activity those policies have been made slave to.
The implementation of tidal power, wind power, or solar power on any large scale will require a gradual shift, along with the implementation of different technologies, such as electric trains replacing the massive truck fleets we currently employ to ship anything.
As for GM bacteria being used, they are using a strain of E.coli, which in my work I regularly genetically modify to produce certain proteins we wish to study. These types of cells would most likely be kept in a sealed environment... in fact, reading the article:
"Are Americans ready to be putting genetically modified bug excretion in their cars? 'It’s not the same as with food,' Mr Pal says. 'We’re putting these bacteria in a very isolated container: their entire universe is in that tank. When we’re done with them, they’re destroyed.' "
Even if some of the cells managed to survive the decanting process, they would be going to an oil refinery, which is a little slice of Hell.
As I stated before, I still wonder about the ability for the process to scale properly, and about the costs of feeding the bacteria. But even with those issues aside, these cell modifications show a great deal of promise.
Isawthelight @ 57:
that looks badass! of course, America will hate it, because it won't do 150 mph and make a 'manly sound' when you're being pulled over for reckless endangerment. ~_^
Purchasing a cellphone and pressing it to my head for 24 hours, causing damage to cells equivalent that from 1600 chest x-rays? It's cool with the US government regulatory agencies. I'm sure I can rely on them to consider the effects of this new oil technology and put my best interest ahead of industry.
Brad, you just made me snarf in my coffee... lmao.
Flash @ 42:
Yes we need to evolve a system that is inefficient and doesn't reward production or do enough for anybody. I say we model the economic system on Congress.
And what would the wheat straw and wood chips be used for otherwise? If they are used to make particle board, IKEA furniture, paper products, etc., which keep the carbon fixed (as cellulose, mostly), then the net conversion from cellulose to bio-oil which is eventually converted to CO2 in internal combustion engines to be released to the atmosphere would be carbon positive.
In fact, the net effect would be about as carbon positive as if you had burnt the wheat straw and wood chips directly.
I heard it only runs in old VW "bugs".
Wise_Fool @ 59:
At the risk of offending people I would like to point out that there is no such thing as a vehicle that doesn't produce pollution. Most of the ideas people dream of , such as electric or compressed air powered cars merely relocate pollution and usually result in more pollution. They also carry significant health risks and public danger should they be involved in an accident.
inwit @ 63:
Wheat straw and wood chips vs brown people
JasonS @ 48:
I don't buy your argument. Yes, strictly speaking, CO2 from biological sources gets cycled back into plant matter after it is emitted into the air. Theoretically, that means there is no net addition to atmospheric CO2.
But it doesn't really work that way, for two reasons. Energy from intensive agriculture could cycle enormous amounts of greenhouse gasses into the air in addition to the historical load from fossil fuels that has been increasing since the industrial revolution. Some of the incremental CO2 from biological sources will be absorbed by the oceans, which are becoming more acidic and higher in temperature. The oceanic CO2 cycle is much slower than annual cycles of agriculture and decades-long cycles in the atmosphere. These natural processes don't run in synch with each other. Accumulated CO2 doesn't get released from sea water at the same rate as plants absorb it from the air.
The second reason is hinted at in your last sentence. Farming is extremely energy-intensive. Planting, cultivating, harvesting all use up huge amounts of fuel per acre. Mining and processing of nitrogen fertilizer uses large amounts of electricity and natural gas. However your slice is, diverting farmland to grow energy crops means burning fuel to get fuel.
inwit @ 63:
Yeah, that's a very good point... that isn't very clear. when they say 'sucked from the atmosphere' are they implying the bio-oil emits less carbon than the wheat and wood sucks out of the atmosphere? Cuz that is a double negative, of a sense. You're taking a CO2 eater and turning it into something that adds to the CO2. or do they mean the bio-oil emits less carbon than what is taken out of the air in the process of making the oil? even still, that's not a very negating effect...
Wise_Fool @ 54:
All well and good, but the statement was this technology releases carbon JUST LIKE GEOLOGICAL HYDROCARBONS DO which is not the case.
Carbon negative means that after you're done with your product life cycle, from manufacture to use, there is less carbon in the atmosphere than when you started. I'm not sure what they base their claim on, but if it's true, then the manufacture and use of this fuel will have a net REDUCTIVE effect on global carbon emissions and that's without factoring in the offset to fossil fuel usage.
In other words, from a carbon-in-the-atmosphere perspective, creating this fuel and then burning it is better than doing nothing. Digging for oil and burning it is much, much worse than doing nothing.
This all assumes, of course, that the claims made here can be backed up. I have no such information.
L.A. Confidential @ 21:
This is just so misguided and ignorant about technology -- sorry but it is. It's true that in discussing agriculture, scientist @14 was talking about selective breeding, rather than splicing of DNA. But you don't have to go much further to find beneficial examples of the latter (gene splicing) too.
For example, nearly all insulin used by diabetics is currently made by genetically modified bacteria. Ditto penicillin. Ditto many vitamins. The huge fermentation industry (think coffee, chocolate, beer, cheese, wine...) relies on bacteria that were relatively recently bred, and sometimes engineered.
Are you concerned about cheese-fermenting bacteria becoming airborne and curdling the nation's milk supply? I'd submit that concerns about hydrocarbon-fermenting bacteria somehow becoming airborne are about as real (I'm looking at you, Hard Justice @17).
How many of you expressing fears of engineered bacteria are also adamantly refusing to be vaccinated? (OK I know there are a few of you.) My point is that vaccines are engineered beneficial viruses, just like bacteria can be beneficially engineered.
We on the left risk getting caricatured as out-of-touch technophobic Luddites if we dogmatically resist all biotechnology. We WILL lose ground on this if we are unable to persuade our base of the facts. Yes there are ethical and safety concerns. But we need to embrace these issues, not hide from them! There *is* an emerging field of the ethics of synthetic biology; it's not like this stuff is happening in a vacuum. See, for example, the NPR segment linked from here:
http://futurismic.com/2008/03/04/ethics-of-synthetic-biology/
Annoyed Canuck @ 67:
Sigh. Again, I wasn't defending this as being an overall environmentally friendly happy thing. I'm was correcting the statement that this fuel will add to global warming, now please try to follow this, THE SAME WAY THAT GEOLOGICAL HYDROCARBONS DO.
If someone argued that nuclear power increased global warming by emitting carbon, I'd have to say "um, actually, no it doesn't." You could then not "buy" my argument by pointing out that nuclear waste is dangerous and long lived and that the nuclear fuel industry requires a lot of energy and is geopolitically unstable, all of which might be true and all of which might be an argument against nuclear power, but it does not change the fact that a nuclear power plant emits little to no carbon.
HOLY CRAP, look at the actual article. this is just sad... check the quote.
"Mr Pal holds up a small beaker of bug excretion that could, theoretically, be poured into the tank of the giant Lexus SUV next to us. Not that Mr Pal is willing to risk it just yet. He gives it a month before the first vehicle is filled up on what he calls “renewable petroleum”. After that, he grins, “it’s a brave new world”."
He actually sold people the term 'Brave New World,' as if it's not the ideal of a very BAD PLACE..! omg, this is just really starting to become horrific. And look at the sentence before, talking about how this wonderfuel would fill up 'the giant lexus SUV next to us'.. WTF is wrong with American culture?!?!?!
(of course, the ethics of Monsanto trying to replace the natural seed-passing traditions of developing countries with patented GM technologies is another thing entirely.... to my mind GM crops do have some issues, but that doesn't mean we should never consider them. Many of these issues are really about corporatism and agribusiness, not about the technology itself. Regulation needs to be a finely-tuned instrument here.....)
Wise_Fool @ 72:
Freedom?
This can not be true. The Times Online is the only outlet covering this story and everybody is referencing them. If this was true everybody would be all over it.
Please prove me wrong, I want this to be true but I think high gas prices are a good thing because Americans will stop driving SUVs and conserve.
And how would the price be decoupled from OPEC if the bio-oil and petroleum are "completely interchangeable"? When the price of crude oil goes up, so does the cost/value of waste cooking-oils and grease from restaurants and fast-food outlets. See, for instance, "As Oil Prices Soar, Restaurant Grease Thefts Rise" (New York Times; May 30, 2008).
Brad @ 74:
Wow. That was just... wow.
I would think idiocy first.
Why would big oil move to suppress something they can easily buy the patents to and tightly control themselves? Big Oil is still Big Oil because people still demand oil based products. If something else becomes a more highly demanded commodity and it can generate more profits than Oil, you can bet the current energy barons are going to have their hands in it.
For example, wind is rapidly gaining popularity and becoming quite viable in the energy markets. Care to guess who the largest investors into the wind energy market are? If this technology proves viable on a large scale, you can bet that it will be known as a Shell, BP or Exxon product before you can say IPO.
One thing is for sure: If this technology is economically viable, the Big Oil companies will buy the techonology and keep it in their back pocket until the geologic petroleum is too expensive to extract. They will start buying the companies that produce the raw material to be transformed into synthetic oil and wil keep the prices high. They will remain masters of the energy production.
Wise_Fool @ 54:
If something is carbon negative, it means that the plants from which it came actually have soaked up more carbon from the atmosphere than the oil will spew back in. Let's say a plant eats up one ton of carbon before it is harvested, and (by your 90% rule) the processing and burning puts back 0.9 tons. The entire process is still resulting in a 10% reduction of the amount of carbon per unit for every cycle that you take it through (it would result in a steady reduction in the amount of total carbon in the atmosphere (of course, assuming we don't ramp up carbon emissions through other means)).
As far as the danger of the GM bacteria are concerned, there are very easy fixes to solve any problem of release. (first, I work in a lab with things much more dangerous than an oil-pooping bug) You could easily engineer in a site so that the bugs can only grow under specific conditions, ie. certain additives have to be present in the broth which do not occur in nature. Or, more simply yet, you filter the oil or heat it or irradiate it or or or..... I'm not an advocate of GM foods, strictly organic here, but controlling a bug which exists in a closed vat is simple.
Wise_Fool @ 72:
Yeah, not a brilliant co-option of Huxley's title, but you skimmed right over the really witless writing:
"Mr Pal holds up a small beaker of bug excretion that could, theoretically, be poured into the tank of the giant Lexus SUV next to us."
Uhm...it's crude oil. Pump some crude oil into your gas tank and see what happens.
I'll try to post this again. The biggest issue would be who refines it, and who owns the refineries? It won't lower the price of gasoline under our fascist corporate system.
Ian Holmes @ 70:
The Luddites only fought to preserve their way of life before the automatic looms destroyed their cottage industry and their environment. Please do not use the term Luddite in a derogatory way. What morality does one espouse to if they think it it a good thing to let a few profit from the labor of others?
Wise_Fool @ 77:
Unenlightened short-term self interest. It's hard to compete with it.
This is completely freaking cool.
To the negative envirowhiners who say that this is not the solution, let me say this: consider the energy used to get one barrel of oil from the ground in some war-torn hellhole and into an American car. I can't concieve that it would possibly take more energy to get a barrel of bacteria shit if both they, and the agracultural waste they feed on, are both in the same country.
And there is no such thing as a completely clean form of energy. This sounds about as good as we should hope for. What we shouldn't be looking for is some magical zero-emission power source which is better than oil. Our goal should be to pump out few enough greenhouse gases globally such that the planet's natural healing process can counter it. This sounds like a good means.
And even if we do have entirely clean energy, that is not a replacement for oil. Nothing in the world can replace oil. Where do you think plastic comes from? Or fertalizers? How do you think we're going to sustain a global population of seven billion with nothing but cow shit? What about gas (as in gas cookers, not petrol)? What about the huge number of oil-derived chemicals used in medicine? If this stuff is that close to real oil, we've got a better chance of overcoming out impending resource crises than we ever will with some hippy windfarms.
Jo @ 83:
Of course those more efficient looms made clothing cheaper and more affordable for everyone. What was once a luxury became a commonplace. The Luddites were wrong as they are today.
Wise_Fool @ 72
I know! How dare he quote Shakespeare like that! After Aldous Huxley did it, no one else should be allowed to do it ever again!
Bandit from 80:
Groovy, that's a good point. if the bacteria were engineered to die without human intervention, fine... however, bacteria are used precisely because their genetics are so mutable. I just don't trust bacteria and viruses NOT to mutate. who knows, y'know?
As far as the carbon negative thing, I still don't buy it. You are adding a lot of common sense assumptions into your synthesis; whereas these people are, bottom line, trying to sell you something. Check out how statistics are crafted such that, carefully worded, they can become very deceptive. Again, which part of the process is sucking up the carbon? is it the wheat, while its still alive, or is it the process of of feeding the cabteria somehow eats airborne CO2? those are two VERY different scenarios, with polar opposite effects, mathematically. And even then, if we are using oil 2.0, then low-grade markets would still be using standard oil... and given the rate of china's grow, they are soon to VASTLY overtake the US in oil usage and carbon emissions. so unless the carbon negative effect is strictly true in the sense they are trying to sell it - and what's more, unless it has an insanely negating effect - that's not doing nearly enough to combat global crises in the now, let alone leaving room for the growth of china's pollution (and our lack of decline in oil usage in that respect).
Not that your point isn't valid, I just still think it is a monumental waste of time to be sold another magick poison pill instead of learning new habits and developing technology that isn't based upon survival of only the human species.
Peter G @ 86:
We wnt from rags to riches! Competitive value production vs non-competitive value-destruction.
JasonS @ 71:
We may be talking semantics here. When I said bio-sourced carbons act the same way as geological carbons do, I simply meant that CO2 is CO2. Whatever the source, it has the same effect of raising atmospheric temperature.
Whatever amount of CO2 that gets cycled back into plant matter and soil mitigates the greenhouse effect. But the climate is an incredibly complicated mechanism. This process may or may not be 'carbon neutral' or even 'carbon negative' - personally, I'll believe it when I see it. I think skepticism is warranted. Every 'new' form of energy, including ethanol from corn, was touted as a new standard in energy efficiency. But typically, waste and pollution issues, the true scale of energy inputs, subsidies, tecnological problems and other economic/environmental costs are treated as 'externalities', that wonderful economic term that attempts to define negative effects as irrelevant. In the end, the externalities define whether man-made processes are viable.
Let's create huge Vats of Spirulina algae (these are already used to make vitamin supplements), which would syphon off large quantities of carbon dioxide using photosynthesis. A ton of this algae would equal about a ton of carbon dioxide. Then mix this raw bacterial food source in with these hydrocarbon producing bacteria into giant tanks which could be climate controlled. We could use either naturally fastidious, UV sensitive, or anaerobic bacteria as our base organism to modify that way there is minimal chance that these organisms could survive and spread outside of the well-controlled niche provided by the tanks. The hydrocarbons produced in the tank would naturally rise to the top like oil on a puddle where it could be suctioned off, filtered, and have the residual water removed and put back into the tanks. Every ton of fuel produced will have directly come from the atmoshpere during the short life-cycle of the Spirulina.
Or we could just eat the algae ourselves, let our colonic bacteria transform the oligosaccharides and cellulose into methane and suction it out of our butt every few minutes...
Mattastic @ 85:
Wow, dude -- you need an intervention. Addicted much, you think?
Um, yes, there are forms of non-toxic energy.. they might not fuel a a huge heavy car that does 150mph for shits and giggles; they might not be as efficient as a soul-less corporation would have them be; they may not be as appealing to you because the businesses that could support them do not WANT to make them useful, because it requires that they change many things that are not supported in the idiotic notion of every increasing profits in an undying system; but power without waste (perhaps the smallest percentage, which is damned near perfect compared to fossil fuel usage).
And being a a tree-hugger myself, call people like me hippies all you want. It's a lot better than sucking on the teat of big oil. It's not that this isn't useful at all; it's that people with your mindset would inevtiably screw it up and turn it into a newer faster way to suck oil into another facet of their lives and ignore the impending problems with the planet.
Peter G @ 86:
This is the "Walmart" argument. Products cheaper and more affordable for everyone - no mention of the slave wages and working conditions in China. No mention of the cost of human misery and environmental destruction.
This is a piece of the puzzle. It adds more options to what we can do, how we can do it and what we affect. There's nothing wrong with researching it and how we could use it. As bandit pointed out, the idea behind GM bacteria isn't new and isn't rare - Labs all across the world have been doing so for quite some time. If we don't look into it and see how we could benefit, why research at all? I'm pretty sure research and innovation are a hallmark of liberal philosophies -
Do you ever notice that when "scientists" announce something that someone has a financial interest in, that it never turns out to be what everybody thought it was or the science was badly spun to con somebody out of something if only for a short time.
I never take these announcements at face value or presume legitimacy.
Wise_Fool @ 88:
As to your first point, they use either Yeast or E. coli, no mention (or practical application) of viruses....... You should be just as scared of your local brewery or bakery or yoghurt shop or cheese parlor. The yeast that ferments your beer and causes your bread to rise uses sugar as food and excretes CO2, but no-one ever worries about plants being devastated by these critters and us having huge ponds of alcohol take over our corn fields. And literally millions of gallons of E. coli are used for the production of numerous biotechnology products every day, yet no one worries about our pretty green lawns being covered in a sludge of insulin..... The engineering is targeted to how the yeast/bacteria process their food and not to their ability to escape, or learn how to fly or build teleportation devices.
I agree with you about the carbon negative thing, I'm taking them for their word from the quick cursory glance I took at their article... I would be against them if this turned out not to be the case, but there's no evidence to support their claim or yours in the article and it would take some deeper burying into the details to find out exactly what that means. What I do like about the technology (if it proves to be carbon negative and feasible vis-a-vis manufacturing) is that it is something that could be universally adopted in very short order. Not everybody is going to buy a hybrid, an electric car or a compressed-air car tomorrow, but if everyone's current car could run on this stuff and it is better for the environment and it is cheaper everyone would demand that their gas station carry the stuff immediately. Of course, I'm with you that solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/etc. power is the best solution but sometimes I feel that too many people are willing to throw out a step in the right direction because it hasn't gone ALL the way. It's like turning down a good job when you get out of college because they won't make you CEO
Here's another inteesting quote from the article...
"However, to substitute America’s weekly oil consumption of 143 million barrels, you would need a facility that covered about 205 square miles, an area roughly the size of Chicago.
That is the main problem: although LS9 can produce its bug fuel in laboratory beakers, it has no idea whether it will be able produce the same results on a nationwide or even global scale."
================
Well, there you go. If we just turn all of Chicago into a bacterial crap factory, we'd be set! I would love to see this used in small doses to make things like plastics and whatnot. And if more research and development is put into this technology, perhaps we can make the bugs crap something to make more easily degradable plastics... as long as this stuff is approached ethically and not left to the uncontrolled vices of big business.
bandit @ 96:
I'm not scared so much about local bakeries and things, I'm quite well versed in the art of bread-making. as a matter of fact, it highlights my point. The yeast mutates from place to place, dependent on the conditions in different areas... that makes the different tastes of varying breads to a LARGE degree. there are some bakeries that have the same living culture of yeast that they have maintained for more than 100 years! why? because change in yeast makes a change in their bread's taste and texture. I'm not afraid of bakeries or natural tendency.. I'm afraid that no one even CONSIDERS that unnatural tampering could possibly produce unforseen results. don't take that as a doomsday scenario, just saying don't rule out the possibility-- because our vainglory is always undone by what we arrogantly ignore.
side note, I know it doesn't mention viruses, I was just being inclusive of the whole spectrum of that research. I simply mean more care is needed in these fields.
Jo @ 93:
You argue as if the negative aspects of capitalism were inevitable and, as many countries have shown, this is not true. I'd be interested in knowing which level of technology you think was optimal. Was it the industrial age, the pre-industrial age or ,perhaps the stone age. What alternative economic system do you prefer? A planned economy? Show me one that worked. Show me one that wasn't oppressive.
Heraldblog @ 4:
You bet your buttocks they are!
As for the Oil 2.0. It sounds very possible. But what happens if it gets 'into the wild' so to speak?
Still, it sounds very promising.
Now wait for the oil companies to put a halt to it.
The catch in this process has always been the cost of making the sugar that is the starting point. Once you have the sugar, you could make ethanol. Either way, you are using more energy than you are producing.
For comment 99:
Well, when you look at how wal-mart is growing and placing their stores on the sacred land of indigenous cultures like the old aboriginals of mexico's "Birthplace of the Gods", one could see how without a large paradigm shift, the negative aspects of Capitalism, exemplified by wal-mart, ARE inevitable. Wal-Mart just has't learned how to market to these poor heathens you speak of, who prefer not to consume everything on the planet. But between marketing and unethical 'predatory' competition, I'd say you will be hard pressed to show me how right you are in 10 years, Peter
Numinous @ 100:
It is much more likely that environmentalists will put a stop to it than oil companies.
Wise_Fool @ 97:
I'm not so comfortable with the ethical aspects of technologies used for determining ethical standards for emerging technologies. Perhaps a committee could be formed to study this dubious ethics-tech before it is unleashed.
Heraldblog @ 4:
If so, they may as well go out of business. GM just announced it was shuttering a bunch of SUV plants, so if they can't make this car, they will be SOL.
Drive a car and cure cancer with saltwater!
http://youtube.com/watch? v=Tf4gO...feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lRh4vwLJAiU
Brad @ 104:
rofl, I know... easier said than done. I just don't want to doomsay the whole project. it has potential; just not in the current trend, nor will it be if this is simply bought at face-value of the article.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tf4gOS8aoFk&feature=related
*correction, #107*
[...] nor will it be ^anything new6 if this [...]
Some ethicists are concerned that if technology for life-extension youth-restoration emerges, it will be harmful to society. Existence as an anti-social act.
Tim @ 78:
I have no problem with these companies employing people and making money if they produce clean products - AND, of course, if they don't form quasi-cartells that have our government in their back pocket and encourage wars. If they're finally made to play fair, their divesting into clean energy is a good thing.
I'm in!
cmac @ 22:
The key here is that (they claim) it is Carbon Negative.
That means that the amount of CO2 which spews from your cars tailpipe as a result of burning bug-oil (I like that term - anyone care to second that? Bug Oil has a nice ring to it) is LESS THEN the amount of CO2 which is consumed by the bugs in producing the oil.
By producing this oil and substituting it for fossil fuel we will reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
No?
That's great.
Of course it could be bad if they get on to farms and cover the plains in flammable, inedible oil.
Well...it's going to take awhile to transition people to the "new" technology. As of today, that technology, mass-produced, consists of hybrid cars, of which there are very few. As well, I'd say that many Americans keep their cars for at least 10 years before trading, and even then they may not go for a brand-new car. Not everyone can afford to run out and trade a 3 or 4 year old car for a hybrid. Finally, there are still way too many people addicted to size and speed, even as gas approached and passed the $4/gal. mark. On the interstate I'm driving 5 to 10 mph slower than the posted speed limit to try and conserve a little, yet all other cars are passing me up, running 5 to 10 mph OVER the posted limit.
This transition from oil to pure ethanol, or hydrogen, or electric, or whatever, is going to take time. We've also got a few more tricks left in the internal combustion engine, namely direct injection and compression-ignition gasoline engines, which GM is working on as we speak. Do we look for a viable replacement to aid in the transition (E85 or E100, or the crude oil produced as described at the top of this thread)? Do we allow the oil companies to drill off our coasts and in ANWR, which will take a few years to actually start pumping anything out, and hope that the oil companies keep all of it here in America (or sell it on the world market, where they will surely get a hell of a lot more money for it)?
Many questions...not much time to answer.
bandit @ 96:
So, yeast exists in the atmosphere even. That is why bread baked in one place is never the same as bread baked in another place. Because even if you add the same little paper packet of yeast to the mix, the dough also absorbs through the air or coming into contact with the table, other yeasts(s) which exist where you are.
Now, these "wild" yeasts which roam freely are not dangerous. The waste products they produce are not harmful.
What I want to know is what happens if these modified yeasts are released into the wild. Will my front lawn turn into a puddle of Bug Oil once the critters digest my lawn? Or, less dramatically, will we find little drips of oil here and there randomly (which could be a bitch if you track it in the house).
I don't know. Could be an issue? WOuld like to hear more!
scientist @ 14:
How much does Monsantos pay you to go into message boards and say these kinds of things. The first thing I am going to tell you is that entry level Biology classes don't go into genetics. You need to take an intro to Zoology class to learn about genetics. The second thing I will tell you is that the manipulation of plants and animals that took place 5-10k years ago is called domestication not genetic engineering. They are 2 distinctly different things. You can learn all about that in an introduction to Anthropology class. Before you start commenting about college, perhaps you should actually go.
Wise_Fool @ 77:
Do you mean Native American Culture? Or Italian American? African American? Cuban American? Chinese American or Indian American? Do you mean Lesbian or Christian American? Mexican American and Japanese American and Iranian American or Jewish American? Perhaps you wonder what is wrong with White American Culture? Or Yankee American? Or Southern American? Conservative American? Female or Male American?
Gay Straight or Irish American?
Which American Culture do you mean?
The compromise, or price, or blessing, that comes with this fact that we are a nation of immigrants, is that we share laws, yes, and we all take part in the same economics (consumers to the last, I am afraid, if at horribly imbalanced levels); but Culture, that capital-C phenomenon by which the masses of a people look upon one another as kin, is as mixed a bag here as the range of skins and accents and beliefs and backgrounds on a New York subway at 6pm fridays.
American Culture, per se, does not exist. We can look at hot dogs and sweat lodges and 57 Chevies; we can look at Jazz and Rock and Roll and Salsa; we can look at the Klan and at Dr. King. A million touchstones, each pointing in a different direction at any one of the 'cultures' that dwell together and influence one another here.
At risk of being perceived as lovey dovey for America, rather than sincerely happy to assert this, I think that this lack of, or absence of, one 'unifying Culture' is what makes this country great. After all, at least in the last 50 or so years, anytime one group seeks to exploit others for its own benefit, the tendency has been for those 'others' to call their asses out! That is because all those subcultures struggled long and hard enough to begin (at least begin) to be HEARD! They rejected the myth of one American Culture because it had only served to hurt and undermine them for so long.
Now, do you mean consumer culture? Because yeah, there, I, uh, yeah, me too, I buy crap too. wtf is wrong with us?
I'll tell you what's wrong. They patented life. The documentary, "The Corporation" explained the legal implications of this.
Jo @ 27:
Then you need to get your bullshit meter checked. He's right on this one. People have been doing GM for thousands of years. What gets people scared the degree of control that we now have. All previous GM done before modern biotech was done without any thought to the repercussions. Do any of you own a dog? That breed of yours does not exist in the wild most likely. You know where it came from? GM. This country really needs to start looking at the educational infrastructure because the world is only going to get more complicated and from my experience Americans just seem to be getting more and more ignorant of things we should've learned in middle school.
Wise_Fool @ 97:
Apparently they have a setup that can produce about a BO per week that takes up about 40 sq feet. So you need about 2800 sq to produce about 10 BO per day. You could spend from as little as $80,000 to as much as $2,000,000 to find a well that stabilized for years at 10 BOPD. Often at a loss. Even if profitable ia well will eventually quit producing. If you could net say $50 after operating costs and the cost of a 2800 sq ft set up was say 1 million or less the 10 BOPD project would pay back in less than six years. Kind of a long payout but considering the risk of not finding much or any oil at all is eliminated its not bad. Investors should be attracted to put money in these things. They could be financed over say 20 or 30 years to be income producing almost from the start. If LS9 sets these deals up like fast food franchises tens of thousands of 2800 sq foot production units could be set up all over the place. Independent oil and gas operators, farmers, ranchers and investors could be putting deals together left and right to build these plants. There is plenty of room as most oil wells in the nation require at least 10 acre spacing for shallow stuff to 40 acre spacing or more for deeper wells. The question is how much does it cost to set up and what are the operating expenses and will LS9 try to keep all production plants company owned. All the transport infrastructure is already in place. The tank batteries are in place right now. If LS9 can produce a barrel a week with a 40 sq ft plant and the cost and operating expense are acceptable and if they can use a business model that offers opportunity to others we could see domestic production grow quickly. But those are big questions that might not have the kind of answers we want to hear.
What a crazy thread...NOBODY can definatively state whether something as simple as coffee consumption is an added health risk or benefit and yet some speculative bit of news is treated as true.
Wouldn't be the first time would it?
Gee...wonder what could go wrong...let's see...genetically modified pests multiply and run rampant...food supply destroyed and soil poisoned by what appears to be...CRUDE OIL!! Oh, the irony!
Didn't read the 120+ posts, but I'd be very surprised if the subject of what these bugs on the loose in the grain belt or redwood forests would do. And carbon negative? Re-read that section, please. This stuff puts back less carbon than the plants suck out of the atmosphere? hhhmmmmmm....? That prompts quite a list of questions; and, has echos of an Iraq invasion that will pay for itself. No doubt it has, but not in the way Jean Q. Publique imagined, much as these vermin, too, will not produce the outcome those wearing money coloured glasses might imagine.
The thing about the size it would take to make the oil is a bit overblown at this point I would think. Considering it's brand new, you would have to imagine it will be streamlined quite a bit as it progresses. Not to mention the amount of oil America consumes is ridiculously large and the oil infrastructure already in place is more than likely larger than that number when you consider the pipes, refineries, shipping from overseas, and actual drilling areas.
Peter G @ 62:
No, a system that uses all its resources too quickly and stalls in the middle of the road is an inefficient system. Nowhere in there did I say be inefficient. I guess the only way to succeed is to consume everything in sight and screw everyone else cause I gots mine.
The problem with capitalism is that it forced you to make things cheaper in order to survive, and quite frankly, I am not a big fan of cheap.
Cheaper oil is what we need. If waste can be turned into oil, this could be an amazing breakthrough.
For an abatement of the oil speculation that is currently inflating the cost of oil, we should announce that we are increasing drilling in Alaska. The potential of a flood of new oil would dampen and could even reverse the increased speculation.
oil bad electricity good
Thankfully all you "tank is half empty of fuel" people are making comments to shoot this news down. Lets wait, and wait, and wait for solar and wind power, and Oh Yeah, all those hydrogen fuel stations for our fuel cell cars that auto companies will never build. We can't even get a plug in hybrid that was already built and "leased" years ago in California. In the mean time, lets just continue to send our oil money to the Middle East so we can support terrorist countries and have more of our children die fighting for people who hate us. How about some damn priorities here people !!!!!!!!!
Capitalism doesn't always necessarily mean things are made cheaply or lesser quality. Without capitalism if you wanted to send a package to a relative living 2,000 miles away and get it there tomorrow, you would be stuck with the US Post Office and probably get it there next week. Through capitalism you have a choice and can send it through Fedex or UPS and get it there in a much shorter period of time than the USPS, and at a higher cost. Not cheap.
tuddies @ 128:
We currently do not drill in Alaska, so we cannot increase it.
We have enough oil in our own country. Alaska, the Badlands, plus many other locations. How come we are not allowed to drill off our shores as much as 50 to 200 miles, while China can drill 50 miles off the coast of the keys? My theory is there are no environmental lobbyists in China.
We could always copy from several European countries like France and Germany with the use of nuclear energy and coal to oil technologies. Coal to oil sounds like a great idea, especially the way it could be done with current technology.
sully18 @ 33:
Don't put it past him. Do you have WMD's? No? Doesn't matter, you do now as far as the Dick is concerned! He will have to liberate California from Nancy Pelosi!
Read this
http://www.greens.org/s-r/18/18-14.html
and tread carefully around GMO bacteria. They almost destroyed life on earth as we know it once.
(Mind you, had they succeeded, we would have drowned in an equivalent of free beer. That can't be all bad.)
Ah, what could be the harm? Only widdle bugs ... you know, like locusts, bubonic plague virus, anthrax ... only without natural enemies to control them. Think of kudzu in the South, rabbits in Australia, mosquitos in Hawaii.
Sorry, just viewed "I Am Legend," and frankly find the news terrifying. If some large corporation can make loads of money on it, what's a little environmental risk compared to the bottom line?
What? Are YOU PEOPLE HIGH??? This is a PHENOMENALLY stupid idea. Bacteria evolve. Quickly. All you need is for some of it to escape one of the GIGANTIC oil farms these critturs would work in, and bingo: the entire biosphere DIES being eaten away by bacteria that shit it all into oil.
Good move butch. Lemme know how that works out for ya. Moron.
Well, you just did a fine job of discrediting your entire point by including this bit of misinformed crap. Even Cheney finally admitted that it was total BS.
Twoo @ 136: Thanks for the link.
sharkcellar @ 120:
If you care to take the advice of someone clueless enough to claim that corn, carrots and onions can't be found in the wild, go ahead and swallow that bullshit (I just picked some delicious, though tiny wild strawberries yesterday); it is as totally wrong as your claim that selective breeding was done "without any thought to the repercussions". Are you suggesting that these selections were make randomly, with no purpose of selecting certain desired traits? In reality, selection for specific "repercussions" is the essence of animal breeding and horticultural selection; it is all that is thought about.
And best of all, selective breeding advances in tiny steps, allowing each step to be closely scrutinized for problems; it is far different from the sudden, drastic changes resulting from gene splicing.
tweakerbell @ 138:
Hear Hear!! Finally, somebody gets it!
Think of Korea's last few scientifically-significant-years.....and ask yourselves, "What's with all the U.S. beef import protests? Why would their top political figures offer their own resignations in order to stop people protesting?"
Bacteria does evolve. Any sick idiot knows the benefits of a penicilon (spelling?) shot in the rear. Some sicker idiots may know the benefits of these byproducts' byproducts in the lungs. NO. NO. NO. !!
Well, it got you all talking, at least - which sort of was the point.
:)
That is truely amazing, of course all the GMO are going to kill us all crowd will never allow it.
spiritcatcher @ 11:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porcine_petroleum
People forget that there are more things produced by petroleum than energy, such as 90% of plastics, asphaltic and weatherproofing materials, etc., etc. In fact, close to half of what petroleum is used for is materials. And while some of this is being replaced by nanotechnology, it's going to take many decades before it is completely replaced.
So while we can replace all of our energy needs with solar power, wind power, tidal power, whatever, a lot of those things are going to be built with petroleum products taking the form of plastics and other durable materials. Hence, oil ain't going away, even if we magically replaced all petroleum burning energy sources with alternative sources overnight.
I'm kind of wary about the GM aspect of this as well, but unlike other GM projects currently in use, this is most likely going to be in a controlled environment, such as a factory or refinery, rather than out in the wide open, such as agriculture or medicine.
Man-made. No such thing as man made....MANipulated...yes...made...no
This sounds like a hoax to me.
Jo @ 93:
Wise_Fool @ 102:
Walmart exemplifies the negatives of capitalism? Ridiculous. They provide jobs and low cost products to everyone. The idea of predatory pricing is also pretty poor in history. If you're angry that people are working at sweatshops..well the poor that decide to work there do it because there are no other options where they live(would you rather they turn to stealing, prostitution, etc. to live?). In many third world countries, these sweatshops pay much more than any other work they can find- just because you never worked hard in your life doesn't mean you should berate and insult those who do. No one is complaining when a new factory opens up to give them jobs where they would otherwise have absolutely none. Other businesses and jobs also open up when a new factory comes to serve the interests of the factory and those that work there.
If you want to help their living standards- then buying more of their products so the factory is more successful is the way to increase their wages. Or other types of capital investment into their countries. Seems like in your ideal world, you'd take away their factories, their jobs, and their living standards. Sure they'll be starving but hey at least they're not working "slave wages".
Login or Register to post comments.