[quote] It sounds like science fiction but a team from the University of Exeter, with support from Shell, has developed a method to make bacteria produce diesel on demand. While the technology still faces many significant commercialisation challenges, the diesel, produced by special strains of E. coli bacteria, is almost identical to conventional diesel fuel and so does not need to be blended with petroleum products as is often required by biodiesels derived from plant oils. This also means that the diesel can be used with current supplies in existing infrastructure because engines, pipelines and tankers do not need to be modified. Biofuels with these characteristics are being termed 'drop-ins'.
"step towards meeting our target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. "
[/quote]
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130422154911.htm[/url]
So if one somehow gets "infected" with that strain, would said person then piss Diesel?
Also, E.coli bacteria's are some of the easiest bacteria's to cultivate and maintain, so it should be easy to mass produce a Diesel derivative using such strain.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;40382817]Aaaaand never heard from again.[/QUOTE]
Lol biodiesel like this is very common already.
[QUOTE=Van-man;40382833]So if one somehow gets "infected" with that strain, would said person then piss Diesel?[/QUOTE]
"what the hell are you doing"
"you know, just fillin' 'er up!"
OILIX? The Patriots?!
Yea no, this seems like a good idea.
Mother fuckin Kio Marv.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;40382817]Aaaaand never heard from again.[/QUOTE]
[quote][h2]with support from Shell[/h2][/quote]
"BIG OIL IS OUT TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY CAN, AND SURELY THEY'RE JUST GOING TO SILENCE THIS EXTREMELY LUCRATIVE RESEARCH THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY INVESTED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO!!! NEVER TRUST A LIZARDMAN"
real talk though everyone that has ever said "big pharma" or "never heard from again" in SH needs to stop posting forever
"step towards meeting our target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. "
but it's the same thing just not from the ground
That sounds awesome.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40382883]OILIX? The Patriots?![/QUOTE]
Glory to Zanzibar Land.
It's still biofuel bullshit if I'm not mistaken. Turns sugar into fuel; marginally more useful than standard biofuel production but this is really not going to alleviate fuel shortages at all, nor will it reduce environmental impact. Sugar needs to come from plant matter which either involves using food crops (which could be eaten instead) or using scrap plant matter which could be used for compost (topsoil depletion is a big problem)
Biofuel is almost completely worthless, until somebody gets a viable photosynthesizing microbe that converts carbon dioxide and sunlight into carbohydrates, stuff like this won't be particularly useful.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;40382817]Aaaaand never heard from again.[/QUOTE]
Because scientific breakthroughs are reported at the time they become viable for consumer use instead of the time of the actual breakthrough; fuck testing and refinement, especially within the schools of thought in which they are a central focus.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;40384338]It's still biofuel bullshit if I'm not mistaken. Turns sugar into fuel; marginally more useful than standard biofuel production but this is really not going to alleviate fuel shortages at all, nor will it reduce environmental impact. Sugar needs to come from plant matter which either involves using food crops (which could be eaten instead) or using scrap plant matter which could be used for compost (topsoil depletion is a big problem)
Biofuel is almost completely worthless, until somebody gets a viable photosynthesizing microbe that converts carbon dioxide and sunlight into carbohydrates, stuff like this won't be particularly useful.[/QUOTE]
"almost identical to conventional diesel fuel "
[QUOTE=wallyroberto_2;40382838]Lol biodiesel like this is very common already.[/QUOTE]
I think he's referring to the fact that most scientific discoveries that could potentially solve a lot of problems hit the news and are never mentioned again.
How many times have we 'potentially cured' cancer since 2011? 5-10 times?
[QUOTE=Within;40386177]I think he's referring to the fact that most scientific discoveries that could potentially solve a lot of problems hit the news and are never mentioned again.
How many times have we 'potentially cured' cancer since 2011? 5-10 times?[/QUOTE]
That's how I interpreted it too. Words like "evil oil companies" didn't even cross my mind until someone mentioned it.
[QUOTE=raccoon2112;40384086]"step towards meeting our target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. "
but it's the same thing just not from the ground[/QUOTE]
There's a lot of pollution caused by the refinement processes of most fuels.
There's no reason why an oil company wouldn't want this.
A potentially unlimited source of fuel, and cutting out the middleman of getting it out of the ground and the supply itself quickly running out?
Why the hell wouldn't you want this?
[QUOTE=raccoon2112;40384086]"step towards meeting our target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. "
but it's the same thing just not from the ground[/QUOTE]
Diesel burns much much cleaner than gasoline when the engine is tuned correctly
[QUOTE=raccoon2112;40384086]"step towards meeting our target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. "
but it's the same thing just not from the ground[/QUOTE]
takes a lot of the pollution that comes from drilling, refining, shipping, etc
[QUOTE=Map in a box;40385901][quote=hypno-toad]It's still biofuel bullshit if I'm not mistaken. Turns sugar into fuel; marginally more useful than standard biofuel production but this is really not going to alleviate fuel shortages at all, nor will it reduce environmental impact. Sugar needs to come from plant matter which either involves using food crops (which could be eaten instead) or using scrap plant matter which could be used for compost (topsoil depletion is a big problem)
Biofuel is almost completely worthless, until somebody gets a viable photosynthesizing microbe that converts carbon dioxide and sunlight into carbohydrates, stuff like this won't be particularly useful.[/quote]"almost identical to conventional diesel fuel "[/QUOTE]
haha, you have literally no idea what he's talking about
[QUOTE=raccoon2112;40384086]"step towards meeting our target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. "
but it's the same thing just not from the ground[/QUOTE]
Thing is that you gotta feed the bacteria. You feed them with stuff that grew somewhere, I presume - you basically, in the end, feed them with the greenhouse gasses, so in the end, it's a closed loop with you only putting energy in (which we can get from solar or nuclear sources), and getting energy out (your car rides around).
As opposed to burning oil we dig up, increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
[QUOTE=Within;40386177]I think he's referring to the fact that most scientific discoveries that could potentially solve a lot of problems hit the news and are never mentioned again.
How many times have we 'potentially cured' cancer since 2011? 5-10 times?[/QUOTE]
Every fucking thread I have to do this.
For a "cure" to become known to the public and actually become commonplace it needs to go through something like 20 years of trials and testing and if it fucks up once along the way then it's rejected and kicked back to the start.
A cure is constantly walking a fucking tightrope because if it slips once, it's done, it's actually fucking smashed by medical boards and rejected.
Never mind the fact that a lot of the treatments you hear about are actually used today, like gold ion shells being lasered to treat tumors and on top of that genetic treatments are now being passed here in the EU.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;40387394]Every fucking thread I have to do this.
For a "cure" to become known to the public and actually become commonplace it needs to go through something like 20 years of trials and testing and if it fucks up once along the way then it's rejected and kicked back to the start.
A cure is constantly walking a fucking tightrope because if it slips once, it's done, it's actually fucking smashed by medical boards and rejected.
Never mind the fact that a lot of the treatments you hear about are actually used today, like gold ion shells being lasered to treat tumors and on top of that genetic treatments are now being passed here in the EU.[/QUOTE]
Another thing is that we DO already have and deploy cures for cancer, many of which haven't existed 20 years ago.
It's just that there is no ultimate cure for cancer, because cancer isn't one illness, but a blanket term for a range of things.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;40382817]Aaaaand never heard from again.[/QUOTE]
Can we make this bannable already
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40387707]Another thing is that we DO already have and deploy cures for cancer, many of which haven't existed 20 years ago.
It's just that there is no ultimate cure for cancer, because cancer isn't one illness, but a blanket term for a range of things.[/QUOTE]
NO! Panaceas are totally a thing, big pharma just buries them. :downs:
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;40384338]It's still biofuel bullshit if I'm not mistaken. Turns sugar into fuel; marginally more useful than standard biofuel production but this is really not going to alleviate fuel shortages at all, nor will it reduce environmental impact. Sugar needs to come from plant matter which either involves using food crops (which could be eaten instead) or using scrap plant matter which could be used for compost (topsoil depletion is a big problem)
Biofuel is almost completely worthless, until somebody gets a viable photosynthesizing microbe that converts carbon dioxide and sunlight into carbohydrates, stuff like this won't be particularly useful.[/QUOTE]
Algae is generally thought of the leader in biofuel sources, and for a good reason.
Fund it. Fund it! FUND IT!
[QUOTE=raccoon2112;40384086]"step towards meeting our target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. "
but it's the same thing just not from the ground[/QUOTE]
Carbon neutral I think.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;40385901]"almost identical to conventional diesel fuel "[/QUOTE]
I don't think you read my post.
The problem with biofuel isn't that the ethanol makes poor fuel (it doesn't really) the problem is the fuel needs to be made with sugar. Sugar that comes from plants. Plants that need to be grown by people using petroleum-fueled farming equipment on huge landmasses that need to be watered from the already depleted aquifers.
This is marginally more useful because it's identical to diesel, but there's still the massive logistical hurdles that any glucose to fuel conversion process has to deal with.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.