What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
79 Comments
- morcheeba, on 11/10/2009, -1/+40Energy from air sounds magical & does a disservice to this technology. This actually uses traditional photosynthesis (solar power and CO2) in a new way to directly generate ethanol or diesel fuel.
- elijahyossie, on 11/10/2009, -1/+25A double good thing, of course, because it might help lower CO2 levels.
- c0mputar, on 11/11/2009, -1/+17I thought we would eventually become dependent on typical green technology like nuclear, solar, wind, etc... I figured we would also have to start depending on artificial photosynthesizing machines to do the job of the depleting forests.
Instead, we have already found something that depends on solar energy, and CO2, then produces energy. Heck we don't even need to get rid of carbon-producing energy sources if we used this stuff. Invest billions into this NOW! - niccha, on 11/10/2009, -0/+15Magical it may sound, but at its essence it is true... and putting it in those terms drives interest.
- Nickedynick, on 11/11/2009, -0/+12The oil companies have started to realise that they're going to run out of oil to pump eventually, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Shell bought this up and claimed it as their own.
- gothsquirrel, on 11/11/2009, -3/+13I'll believe it when I see it or after the oil companies buy it and destroy it.
- brainflakes, on 11/11/2009, -0/+9The difference is this is made from existing carbon from the atmosphere rather than adding new carbon from fossil fuels.
We could burn as much of this fuel as we like and we'd never increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because the CO2 was taken from the atmosphere in the first place. - doctechnical, on 11/11/2009, -0/+9If you're going to rehash old 70s conspiracy theories you could at least do so in a mullet.
- adasha, on 11/11/2009, -0/+9Microbes escape into the atmosphere, multiply and crap diesel fuel over everything. CO2 levels plummet, plant life dies out. Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria.
- askantik, on 11/11/2009, -0/+8You've never seen people use coconut or vegetable oil in Diesels? Google is your friend.
- Kyan, on 11/11/2009, -0/+7PAranor01 - no, you missed something. The oil companies' products are burned and produice CO2. Now someone is using their waste CO2 to make more oil products.
If this is true and can be put on an industrial scale, the oil companies will be all over it. This is because in the end, they don't care how much oil they pump out of the ground. They care how much of the refined product they can sell. So, if they've got another source of oil products, then they are licking their chops. - vilago, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6CO2 isnt really pollution but i get what you are saying
- welshie, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6There's more to burning coal on a large scale than CO2 emissions, not least the amount of toxic, radioactive coal ash that ends up in the atmosphere. (Yes, the amount of uranium in coal is small, but when you multiple that small amount per tonne by the amount of coal burnt in a power station, it's probably more than there is as waste from a nuclear plant of similar power output, and look how careful that waste is handled).
(References: Scientific American December 2007, U.S. Geological Survey (October, 1997). "Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash: Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance") - doctechnical, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6Boy, you guys are REALLY missing the big picture here - they've developed a bug/microbe/slime/whatever that converts CO2 and sunshine DIRECTLY INTO BOOZE (ethanol is the Fun alcohol!) without fermentation! That removes a big step from home brewing. This could be the Discovery of our Lifetimes!
Slime+Air&Sunshine -> still -> WHOOPEE! - askantik, on 11/11/2009, -0/+5True, but CO2 is far from the only problem with burning fuel.
Nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, CO, smog, and particulate matter... - shanealeslie, on 11/11/2009, -0/+5My brain thanks you for pointing this out, my liver now hates you though.
- Dunge, on 11/11/2009, -1/+5This kind of invention could be the biggest breakthrough in human science history, but there's barely half a page about it with no explanation, no proof, no video, no nothing, so forget it.
- c0mputar, on 11/11/2009, -1/+5Nuclear waste is barely a concern. Do some research on how effective the French deal with their waste. Also, who cares if it's not renewable, we will just go ahead and use it up, so what?
- SerifTheRobot, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4If I were working on this, I would buy a gun.
- JQP123, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3Just thinking out loud here --- what happens *when* these microbes escape into the environment.
- The2DQuartet, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3How soon will it be until these start competing for roof space with water-heater solar panels?
- FlaNative, on 11/11/2009, -2/+5Biotech Firm Makes a Breakthrough in Creating Stock Value from Air
- Dynamoo, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2You can also make fuel from CO2 using solar power, so the concept isn't new. And solar power won't kill off all life on earth if it goes wrong.
- vilago, on 11/11/2009, -3/+5i HATE you and your people
- doctechnical, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2If we're going to use the SCOTUS definition the headline should have been "Turns Pollution back into Fuel!"
- TTURabble, on 11/11/2009, -3/+5Calling ***** until my H2 is powered by microbe gas and shoots rainbows out of the exhaust.
- NeddieSeagoon, on 11/11/2009, -10/+12It will of course need to be taxed and rationed due to its contribution to global cooling.
- morcheeba, on 11/10/2009, -3/+5I see your point - it drives interest in some people... but other people think "what lower energy state is there of CO2?" and quickly put it in the same category with perpetual motion machines. Or they think of the Atmos clock and think it won't produce much energy (just enough to run a clock).
Atmos clock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmos_clock
Personally, I'd be more interested if the description is more accurate. - fernly, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2Just sayin... what? Are you sayin, for instance, that these people have found bacteria that produce a high-energy molecule, either ethanol or "the molecules of diesel", without eating ("no...feedstock")? That's not possible, that's perpetual motion.
Or are you sayin you think they have a way to get ethanol (a water-soluble molecule) out of a water solution "without the need for extraction or refinement"? If so, they have performed a miracle right there, never mind the magic bacteria.
The claims in that article contradict basic high-school chemistry and biology, dude. Either the writer was ignorant and made a complete botch of the story, or the company is scammin'. Because if they could do any of what the story claims, they would know they had really remarkable, paradigm-busting science and they would take pains to say so and justify their mind-boggling claims. - Squidgius, on 11/12/2009, -0/+2Umm... free unlimited gasoline? I'll take one, thanks.
- c0mputar, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2Well if the concern is the mining for this material, then that is another debate altogether. I have not looked into it but I will take your word on it that it's not prettier then mining for coal.
However, that doesn't change the fact that nuclear energy can be competitive against "cheap" sources of energy, so clearly the expense pays itself off because of the highly efficient output of fissionable material. As for the storing of waste, no one lives underground, and it's far easier to get the government to make rigorous waste-disposal protocols then to ban nuclear energy. Lastly, we must develop nuclear energy, because that is an important source of energy once space travel becomes more prevalent. In fact, we will have to depend exclusively on fissionable material in order to travel from star to star where we can use solar power. So the more research we can put into making the process more efficient, the sooner we can get off this rock before a Palin gets into office and blows the planet up.
As for your definition of "clean", people should not be concerned about hazardous material buried underground in concrete bunkers. Be realistic. The only output is steam, and electricity. - 029A, on 11/11/2009, -1/+3This sounds like OTC stock spam.
- malex, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2Never. Thermal solar is a far more direct usage of the sun's energy, as opposed to growing microbes and them burning their byproducts.
This will be farmed in the deserts and other barren places. No point in putting it on your house. - raza7370, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2This actually uses traditional photosynthesis
- omega6, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2OR it's real and the people who developed it might be smarter than you.. just sayin.
- DolphinBlueInc, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1What a great idea! We'll see if this can actually catch on. At least its a start.
- r3bol, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1Rio summit '92,
Street people kidnapped, hid from view,
To save the earth -- our rulers met,
Some had other secret plans... - JQP123, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1I've worked in the electric power industry on both coal and nuclear facilities. Given a choice, I'd prefer to live beside a nuclear plant rather than coal.
- theonlywizdum, on 11/11/2009, -1/+2ahh, so you're one of those "they sky is falling" people, askantik.
I would like to point out that the first "accident" on that list proves how safe the technology is, even back in the 50s. "A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output at AECL's NRX reactor. The operators purged the reactor's heavy water moderator, and the reaction stopped in under 30 seconds. Even with the multiple failures caused by operator errors, the reactor was shut down in 30 seconds. It would be nice if we had an alternative energy source that produced no pollutants and was 100% efficient, but we don't. Nuclear power is as close as we can get right now, and it could buy us enough time to find the "perfect" energy source that you environmentalists seem to be looking for. - malex, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1You know... there *are* a number of links on that page you appear to have missed.
- askantik, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1"It doesn't cost "billions and billions" to build a nuclear power plant. The most expensive part is the initial construction."
Don't you think that by "BUILD" I meant the initial construction? Heh.
And FYI, nuclear plants don't pop up overnight. They take years to be built. Investing in new nuclear plants will just send us further down the road away from renewable energy, IMO. We could be pursuing technologies we already have (we have solar cells upwards of 30% efficiency). More research always helps, but the tech we have now is pretty amazing. But it needs money to come to life on a large scale. Or we can continue building nuclear plants, which however "clean" the electricity itself might be in terms of global warming, I hope that we can agree that global warming is far from the only environmental problem we face... many of which will be exacerbated by additional uranium mining and new plants.
From 2005 estimates about a new plant: "A new 1,400-megawatt nuclear power plant is going to cost about $2.6 billion," he said. "It is going to take 6 1/2 years to build." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... And that's a more conservative estimate than some of the statistics on your own link, which states "Their construction costs were around $2000 per KW." That equals some $2.8 billion for a 1,400-megawatt plant. Your link says cheaper ones may be built in Australia, but that right now it's looking as if AP1000 is going to be a whopping $3500/KW.
How does $2.6 billion for ONE plant not translate to billions and billions? I'm not proposing we spend billions on research, I'm proposing we spend billions on implementing EXISTING technology.
Additionally, implementing renewable technology on a large scale would make us pioneers, while more reliance on nuclear makes us more reliant on foreign countries: "In 2001 the United States mined only 5% of the uranium consumed by its nuclear power plants. The remainder was imported, principally from Russia (50%), Canada, and Australia." Only 5% of the uranium we used was mined in the US, but it's already ***** ***** up in a lot of places.
Russia estimates it has half a million tonnes of uranium and plans (based on current rates) that it will mine 10,000 to 12,000 tonnes per year. Now, that means at current rates Russia will run out of uranium in less than 42 years. I'm sure you can see how that would be accelerated if the US began importing even more uranium from Russia... Simply put, uranium is rare and we already use it at a pretty high rate. We have some of the biggest deposits of uranium in the world, but it is very low grade (and thus cost-prohibitive) like lignite coal or Alberta's oil in the tar sands.
Finally, I'd like to point out the problems of uranium mining. Uranium mining has already caused a lot of problems for us in the US (despite the fact that only 5% of the uranium we use comes from our own country). A ban has already been issued surrounding the Grand Canyon. "Out of 50 present and former uranium milling sites in 12 states, 24 have been abandoned, and are the responsibility of the US Department of Energy." (aka our tax dollars at work to clean up these messes: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/umtra/ti ... Again, I emphasize that all these problems are here when we only get 20% or our energy from nuclear and only 5% of the uranium is mined domestically.
I hope that you acknowledge these valid points and I don't continue to get buried for what you all probably assume is me being anti-science or too romantic/idealistic. - Jemulov, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1It wouldn't. Since the fuel would then be combusted at a later time, producing carbon dioxide from the sequestered carbon. And the plants, too, would create carbon dioxide themselves by their death and subsequent decaying.
To permanently reduce carbon dioxide in our atmosphere we have to first find a way to permanently remove it from the planetary carbon system, like how the carbon in oil and in coal is separated from the system. Technologies used for producing materials like plastics and high strength applications can use carbon dioxide to produce polymers of the element and 'store' it as it were. - DesertTripper, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1Mmmm, pie pants.
- askantik, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1As expected, you ignored 95% of what I said.
First of all, "The efficiency of PWRs (pressurized water reactors) and BWRs (boiling water reactors) is limited to around 33 percent, because water can be heated to only a certain temperature and only a certain amount of heat can be taken out of water."
However, comparing efficiency of solar to nuclear is not comparing apples to apples. In fact, it's not even comparing two fruits of any kind. Solar cells can get power from the sun directly rather than from uranium-- it's two different energy sources. Comparatively, most plants get less than 2% efficiency from the sunlight that reaches them via photosynthesis.
Solar doesn't collect energy at night, but thankfully these new-fangled inventions called batteries allow us to store power for later use. And I'm not saying solar is the only option... that is you putting words into my mouth. There is also geothermal, wind, biomass, and hydro.
Finally, please show me ANYTHING that says solar panels have to be cleaned and repaired DAILY. If anything, they are less labor-intensive than coal or nuclear plants. Unless you have panels that electronically re-orient themselves throughout the day, there aren't really any moving parts to break down. And they don't have to be cleaned all that often-- certainly not "daily." But even if they did (they do not, but as an example let's pretend that they did), people DO work "daily" at nuclear plants. So what would be the big deal? - omega6, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1They once thought splitting atoms was crazy talk. I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying anything is possible and to immediately shun the idea is very close minded. Though, I will admit that the person writing the article didn't quite understand at least one thing. It's not that they don't need fresh water. It's that it's a non-freshwater solution. So some solution that is not freshwater (i.e. some other solution that they're not saying.) It's just some sort of genetically modified organism that secretes the molecules used for diesel by reacting to sunlight and hangs out in a vat of random solution.
- fernly, on 11/11/2009, -1/+2This is either a scam or the writer ("Nick Chambers, editor") is incompetent. (Or, possibly, both.) Really, read it! You have a mass of bacteria in some suspension of brackish water ("Doesn’t need fresh water") and these bacteria thrive and excrete ethanol without any food intake ("No agricultural feedstock needed") and do so in useful quantities even though they never multiply ("Doesn’t produce biomass") and then, without any processing, filtering or energy input, the ethanol all rises to the surface and runs off as a pure product ("Produces fuel directly without the need for extraction or refinement").
Yeah. Right. That's likely. - JustLoren, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1I almost didn't follow you, until you mentioned cats and dogs.
That convinced me.
THE TIME TO PANIC IS NOW!!!! - Number127, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1I'm sure they're really exaggerating some aspects of it for marketing purposes ("no feedstock" does indeed sound suspicious), but the fundamental idea is sound, and early results have been encouraging. It's worth investigating.
- DesertTripper, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1Might be a good way to fuel the future Mars infrastructure (atmosphere of Mars is mostly CO2.)
It would be great if one of these technologies makes it to market, but I don't know how many "energy breakthroughs" I've heard in the news that have promised fantastic improvements over the system we have now, but never hear about them again.
This sounds cool though. Usable fuel produced directly? I wonder how efficient this process might be compared to, say, a solar steam plant. If the process is efficient enough, it may lead to plants like this producing methane or another light HC, then feeding that to a combined-cycle plant for cheap, clean electricity.
Then there's the obvious benefit of producing cheap hydrocarbons in quantity in the countries where they are used, and letting the Middle East oil sheiks sit around in their crumbling palaces and wonder why their 'black gold' is suddenly worthless. - JQP123, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1"They're no danger in the real world ..."
So you've done thorough testing to determine this?
They said the same thing about genetically modified corn ... and then there was Starling. -
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is