TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » Fundamental Change

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 23-01-11, 12:48 AM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Exclamation A brave new world of fossil fuels on demand


A brave new world of fossil fuels on demand

NEIL REYNOLDS | Columnist profile | E-mail
From Monday's Globe and Mail (Includes Correction)
Published Monday, Jan. 17, 2011 5:00AM EST
Last updated Friday, Jan. 21, 2011 4:40PM EST

A brave new world of fossil fuels on demand - The 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 engineered cyanobacterium that produces 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.

By way of comparison, Cornell University’s David Pimentel, an authority on ethanol, says that one acre of corn produces less than half as much energy, equivalent to only 328 barrels. If a few hundred barrels of crude sounds modest, recall that millions of acres of prime U.S. farmland are now used to make corn ethanol.

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.”

The company name honours James Prescott Joule, the 19th-century British scientist. Founded only four years ago, it has begun pilot-project production in Leander, Tex. Using modular solar panels (imagine an array of conventional panels in a one-acre field), it says it will quickly ramp up production this year toward small-scale commercial production in 2012.

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.

Joule began to generate buzz toward the end of 2010. When U.S. Senator John Kerry toured the company’s labs in October, he called the technology “a potential game-changer.” He noted, ironically, that the company’s science is so advanced that it can’t qualify for federal grants or subsidies: The government’s definition of biofuels requires the use of raw-material feedstock.

In December, the World Technology Network named the company the world’s top corporate player in bio-energy research. Biofuels Digest named it one of the world’s “50 hottest” bio-energy enterprises, moving it ahead 10 places in the past year (from 32nd to 22nd). Selected from 1,000 eligible companies around the world, 37 of the “50 hottest” are American-based – another reason not to count out the U.S. just yet.

Conventional fossil fuels are formed from solar energy, too – in a process that takes zillions of bugs and millions of years. Joule’s technology ostensibly produces the same products in less time. In other energy-producing roles, vast quantities of microbes are already hard at work underground, loosening hard-to-recover crude oil. It could be time for science to bring these bugs up into the light of day.

Editor's Note: The original newspaper version of this article and an earlier online version incorrectly stated that Joule Unlimited owns a patent for producing liquid hydrocarbons from E. coli, rather than from a genetically engineered cyanobacterium. This online version has been corrected
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 23-01-11, 12:53 AM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

Hmmmm....

This will be interesting to see if it pans out.

Won't hold my breath though, it probably is another "high temperature pyrolysis" boondoggle.

F
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 23-01-11, 04:06 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by FredFredson View Post
Won't hold my breath though, it probably is another "high temperature pyrolysis" boondoggle.
And what is that?
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 23-01-11, 05:57 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

A few years back there was a flurry of interest in a process whereby organic stuff, like turkey guts, slaughter house waste etc, was heated to very high temperatures and turned into "oil".

The problem, as you might expect, is that by the time you do the energy balance it takes almost as much energy to run the system as you get out at the end. It was never viable as an economic process.
Didn't stop the grand headlines at the time though.

F
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 24-01-11, 06:33 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

Thinking about this alittle more and this line stands out:

Quote:
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.
The bolded lines are the imprtant bit.

Imagine what would happen if these critters got loose and started to grow in the surface layers of the tropical Oceans!

We would potentially be looking at a GEV (Global Extinction Event) as suddenly all the CO2 on the planet would be consumed and turned into hydrocarbons that would be floating on the surface of the sea.

That my friends is potentially the end of life on this planet as we know it.

But hey, we wouldn't have to worry about AGW or Peak Oil any more

F
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 25-01-11, 11:06 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

You really love that stuff, don't you? I remember when people were saying that about GM seeds. That it'd escape and kill all wild life (since the seeds are meant to be a 1 generation affair so that farmers got to buy new ones every year/planting season). GM food may not be 'safe' in the sense we may not know what it does to people long term but one thing it didn't do is provoke a GEV...

More generally, from an investor point of view, I do believe that, for the long term, commodities are a debatable bet. As a speculator, I find them lovely - They bubble up and down like nothing else. But, as an investment, I think their long term return are about 0%...

Case in point: Natural Gas in the US in 2004. "High Noon for Natural Gas" was published. The crisis was at hand (
Amazon.com: High Noon for Natural Gas: The New Energy Crisis (9781931498531): Julian Darley: Books Amazon.com: High Noon for Natural Gas: The New Energy Crisis (9781931498531): Julian Darley: Books
). And, for a while, the prediction seemed correct - In 2008, nat gas were way high... Then, prices collapsed. Not just because of the crisis but because new techniques to extract 'unconventional gas' were developed. And we have had that discussion before with you saying those techniques are horrendously expensive but some other people I know say they are actually getting ever cheaper - Even cheaper than once conventional method.

As an investor/strategist put it, investing in commodities is betting against human ingenuity. His point of view, which is that of a value investor, is that it's better to bet on the companies whose job it is to remove the bottlenecks and lower the commodity prices...

Peak Oil might turn out differently, of course. The planet, being finite, is bound to have physical hard limits. But, overall, I am still skeptical - The End of Times will be hard to pin point exactly - And timing is everything.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-11, 12:53 AM
insignificant data point
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,799
Default

A New York Times report 18 months ago states that there were other (unspecified) nutrients required besides CO2 and water. This being the case, a mass infestation covering the world's oceans is highly improbable.

According to a subsequent report the organism is a genetically modified cyanobacterium.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-11, 03:08 AM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

Quote:
A New York Times report 18 months ago states that there were other (unspecified) nutrients required besides CO2 and water. This being the case, a mass infestation covering the world's oceans is highly improbable.
Unless of course the nutrient required happens to be something we have already put tons of into the oceans. Or is something simple that already exists in sufficient quantities naturally. That's the problem, there isn't enough information for comfort but enough for concern.

As for the GM crops thing, it isn't that these crops are likely to be dangerous to us as consumers, it is that they could be very dangerous for other species around them. Especially plants that have a fairly promiscuous way of mixing an matching their genetic materials, like grasses. You know, things like wheat and corn.

Messing with lifeforms by selective breeding is one thing, messing with the very machinery of their structures, especially when those traits can be passed on to their offspring is another thing entirely. The former works within the limits that evolution has set for how lifeforms work, the latter may break out in unexpected and potentially disastrous ways.

The last time this happened on Earth it changed the atmosphere from one made of methane and co2 to one loaded with that nasty poisonous gas called oxygen. It was the cyanobacteria that lost out last time, I hope they don't get a chance to start over because someone forgot to build in a circuit breaker.

F
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-11, 10:51 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by FredFredson View Post
As for the GM crops thing, it isn't that these crops are likely to be dangerous to us as consumers, it is that they could be very dangerous for other species around them. Especially plants that have a fairly promiscuous way of mixing an matching their genetic materials, like grasses. You know, things like wheat and corn.
Right. So we've had GM fields operating for a few good years now. And, indeed, I think they tend to be careful about leaving some empty space around them (at the beginning at least in France, they did for sure) but I don't think that that would turned out to be full proof.

On the other hand, I insist. After, what, a full decade or more of using the stuff, there's been no GEV. And that's GM with plants which are, as you put it, promiscuous... Thus, I ask the question: If GM were to provoke a GEV, surely, it would already be happening?

Quote:
[M]essing with the very machinery of their structures, especially when those traits can be passed on to their offspring is another thing entirely. [It] may break out in unexpected and potentially disastrous ways. The last time this happened on Earth it changed the atmosphere from one made of methane and co2 to one loaded with that nasty poisonous gas called oxygen. It was the cyanobacteria that lost out last time, I hope they don't get a chance to start over because someone forgot to build in a circuit breaker.
Well, to be fair, I understand your concerns and I think it's good some people are asking those questions. I especially hope that there are such people with such concerns working within the agencies regulating the private corpos which come up with all these new 'products'.

But, ultimately, I think we've done decently thus far - No innovation has yet killed us. Not even the discovery of nuclear weapons.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-11, 09:38 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

And speaking of nuclear... What's the drawbacks of these and can we get them in the West?

China bets on thorium
By Andrew Orlowski •

China bets on thorium ? The Register

China has committed itself to establishing an entirely new nuclear energy programme using thorium as a fuel, within 20 years. The LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) is a 4G reactor that uses liquid salt as both fuel and coolant. China uses the more general term TMSR (Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor).

The thorium fuel cycles produce almost no plutonium, and fewer higher-isotope nasties, the long-lived minor actinides. Thorium is much more abundant than uranium, and the reduced plutonium output eases proliferation concerns. The energy output per tonne is also attractive, even though thorium isn't itself a fissile material.

Thorium reactors are also safer, with the fuel contained in a low-pressure reactor vessel, which means smaller (sub-500MWe) reactors may be worth building. The first Molten-Salt Breeder prototype was built at Oak Ridge in 1950, with an operational reactor running from 1965 to 1969. Six heavy-water thorium reactors are planned in India, which has the world's largest thorium deposits.

The design has also had its champions in Europe, but planning restrictions and a continent-wide policy obsession with conservation and renewables have seen little commercial action. But that might change.

A private company founded by Kazuo Furukawa, designer of the Fuju reactor, called International Thorium Energy & Molen-Salt Technology Inc (iThEMS) aims to produce a small (10KW) reactor within five years. Furukawa is aiming for a retail price of 11 US cents per kWh (6.8p per kWh).

Just to put that into perspective, the UK's feed-in tariff ranges from 34.5p/kWh for a small wind turbine to 41.3p/kWh for a retro-fitted solar installation, making a personal LFTR much more attractive than an additional garage. Just tell them you've got an enormous solar panel.

There's a good 15-minute introduction to LFTR, here. WARNING: contains technical terms and scientific concepts. Renewable energy supporters may wish to meditate before and after viewing.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 4
Francois Cellier, FredFredson, Gilles de Rais, roadkill
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0