Liquid Fuel From The Sun - New England Patriots Forums

Holy Diver · 01-18-2011, 06:14 PM

John Podesta just joined their board...

This company is based in Cambridge, could change energy in the favor of the United States.

Podesta joins biotech firm with patent promising liquid fuels from solar energy | Raw Story

They called it "Liquid Fuel From The Sun," which uses their "proprietary organism" to devour waste and defecate custom hydrocarbons. Joule ultimately hoped such technology could fill the gap in human energy needs as fossil fuel production declines worldwide

"The result is the world’s first platform for converting sunlight and waste CO2 directly into diesel, requiring no costly intermediates, no use of agricultural land or fresh water, and no downstream processing."

***IcyPatriot*** · 01-18-2011, 07:31 PM

Cool stuff ... we genetically made an organism that *****s crude oil ... unreal.

Now they need to perfect it so that it still will cost more than the present crude oil.

Titus Pullo · 01-18-2011, 11:19 PM

Interesting, but seems to be attempting to fly in the face of the basic laws of thermodynamics. Which is not possible.

When debating some new-fangled cheap energy alternative, when it sounds too good to be true, rest assured, it is too good to be true.

Triple-T · 01-20-2011, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titus Pullo

Interesting, but seems to be attempting to fly in the face of the basic laws of thermodynamics. Which is not possible.

When debating some new-fangled cheap energy alternative, when it sounds too good to be true, rest assured, it is too good to be true.

Would you please explain why you think it is 'attempting to fly in the face of the basic laws of thermodynamics'? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm not sure I follow your point.

STFarmy · 01-20-2011, 07:29 AM

But what happens if the sun dies like in Sunshine?!?!??

BTW, if there are any sci-fi fans here, I suggest that movie; it's very cool. Sorry I didn't have anything substantive to add beyond that!

PatsFanInVa · 01-20-2011, 12:38 PM

Also don't understand Titus' assertion... You're basically storing energy you otherwise don't.

Am on phone reading @ lunch, so can't very effectively browse article while posting... But will say, we already have organisms that scrub CO2 & sh1t diesel... They're called algae... I imagine these do both more efficiently, so less processing on the making-hydrocarbons end, perhaps also consume other types of carbon... So, neato in general, though as w/other biodeisels, I doubt the carbon in = carbon out, so good 4 energy, not quite "liquid sunshine" 4 carbon budget

Real World · 01-20-2011, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STFarmy

But what happens if the sun dies like in Sunshine?!?!??

BTW, if there are any sci-fi fans here, I suggest that movie; it's very cool. Sorry I didn't have anything substantive to add beyond that!

Huge sci-fi buff. Sunshine was great, but I wasn't too hot on the ghost from the old ship angle.

Titus Pullo · 01-20-2011, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple-T

Would you please explain why you think it is 'attempting to fly in the face of the basic laws of thermodynamics'? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm not sure I follow your point.

First law of thermodynamics: "Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only change form."

This reads like it expects more output from less input. Thus, be skeptical.

Also, it requires already captured CO2, and that costs money and...energy.

Of course, in order to replace just our vehicle fuel alone, it would require an incubation zone approximately the size of Connecticut.

PatsFanInVa · 01-20-2011, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titus Pullo

First law of thermodynamics: "Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only change form."

This reads like it expects more output from less input. Thus, be skeptical.

Also, it requires already captured CO2, and that costs money and...energy.

Of course, in order to replace just our vehicle fuel alone, it would require an incubation zone approximately the size of Connecticut.

Totally see where your first assertion comes from now, Titus, having read the link:

Quote:

Their first modified E. coli bacteria, which produced diesel fuel, allegedly outputs more energy than it takes in. This would ultimately lead to "unlimited supplies of ethanol and hydrocarbons without the high production costs or environmental consequences," according to Bill Sims, Joule's president and CEO.

...which is quite obviously bullcrap. However, it's the writer's bullcrap, not necessarily the bullcrap of the company in question.

My guess is this - Original claim:

"Because it takes less energy to deploy these little suckers and capture carbon to feed it, than it produces in the form of excreted hydrocarbons, the "energy budget" is a net positive, except the sunshine, which of course is free."

Original claim after bad writer and editor do their work:

"...allegedly outputs more energy than it takes in."

Of course, it's possible that they're stretching the "truth" in the company's press materials, but I doubt it.

Or, it could just be a monumentally stupid claim, but nobody's that stupid.

So you have to do carbon capture (for example, via coal plant scrubbers, right?) We've all been worried about where you sequester captured carbon. Apparently you just feed it to e coli with a tweak or two, and you get deisel.

And if yer gonna be burning oil, as with the biodeisel already in production, it's probably best to be burning the stuff you make at home and that you can make more of.

Triple-T · 01-21-2011, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Totally see where your first assertion comes from now, Titus, having read the link:

...which is quite obviously bullcrap. However, it's the writer's bullcrap, not necessarily the bullcrap of the company in question.

My guess is this - Original claim:

"Because it takes less energy to deploy these little suckers and capture carbon to feed it, than it produces in the form of excreted hydrocarbons, the "energy budget" is a net positive, except the sunshine, which of course is free."

Original claim after bad writer and editor do their work:

"...allegedly outputs more energy than it takes in."

Of course, it's possible that they're stretching the "truth" in the company's press materials, but I doubt it.

Or, it could just be a monumentally stupid claim, but nobody's that stupid.

So you have to do carbon capture (for example, via coal plant scrubbers, right?) We've all been worried about where you sequester captured carbon. Apparently you just feed it to e coli with a tweak or two, and you get deisel.

And if yer gonna be burning oil, as with the biodeisel already in production, it's probably best to be burning the stuff you make at home and that you can make more of.

Right on. Not a thermodynamics issue, but what does it take to get the CO2? Anyone know the answer or is google required?