Slashdot Mirror
Start-Up Genetically Modifies a Better Biofuel Bug
Al writes "A tiny cellulose-eating bacterium found a few years ago in the Chesapeake Bay has been genetically modified to help it break down cellulose and convert the results into the sugars needed to make ethanol. Scientists analyzed the organism's genome in 2003 and found that it possessed a combination of enzymes that simultaneously break down the tough cell walls in dead plants and convert the remaining cellulose into sugars. Recently, Zymetis completed its first successful commercial-scale trial using the bug. The company ran the modified microbe through a series of tests in large fermenters and found that it could convert one ton of cellulosic plant fiber into sugar in 72 hours. The microbe's main advantage is its ability to naturally combine two major steps in the ethanol process, which the company says could considerably slash the high costs of producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass like switchgrass, wood chips, and paper pulp. The piece includes a video of the company's CEO discussing the project."
Isn't it pretty much a foregone conclusion that cellulose based ethanol makes no sense when compared to algae or Jatropha (or similar oil seed plants that can grow on non-arable land) which can be converted to biodiesel? Even if the yield per acre were similar (they're not) the process sure looks to be much more complicated and the MUCH lower energy density of ethanol means you are going to waste a lot more of the harvested energy in transporting the fuel.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Isn't it funny that a bay right next door to agencies and military groups that want to dispose of "evidence" happens to be chock full of bugs that, well, dispose of "evidence"...
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
and dissolves your house.
What?
There were some posts about eating Obama poop a bit ago that also had some racist crap in it. I wonder if there's a link?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
A not-insignificant number of Americans use wood for heat, and pay for gasoline. I'm sure many more Canadians and Europeans do as well. I know of two households that are on the grid, and still use a wood stove as their primary heat source. I wonder whether this could be made small enough to convince them to get a heat pump and an ethanol-fueled vehicle.
In 1993, 3.1 million homes used wood for heat; the number dropped to 2 million in 2001
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Algae bio-diesel is a hot topic. You convert sunlight, water and waste-products into bio-diesel, and the biggest problem they've had so far is the algae reproducing too much! The approach of using an organism like algae to produce renewable energy is likely to work and be far cheaper than any tech we would have to manufacture for a long, long time. Algae biochemistry is just far more advanced in terms of its micro-mechanical capability than we are, and it is its own factory; reproducing without abandon.
So what's holding back algae from solving the energy problems of the world?
- One, it's early in development still, although there are two or three notable research plants in the U.S. and England connected to major universities working on it currently.
- Two, the key to making it economical is to raise the ratio of bio-diesel produced to biomass of the algae, basically the efficiency of output compared to the inputs.
Right now they get something like 10-20% efficiency. If they could up that significantly to say 80-90% then it's more economical than even gasoline. Can they do this? They think so:
They've got a concept which involves pumping human waste into the algae water, along with straight carbon-dioxide atmospheres, and pumping in carbon-dioxide black-smoke through the water, smoke harvested from coal-burning plants (making the Greens even happier) which actually scrubs the air clean(er) as a result. With that they think they can get the efficiency up there. So it actually helps us deal with other environmental problems on the side.
Now, where the actual tech comes in will be breeding new strains and adding and subtracting genes. Right now they've mainly bred strains the old fashioned way, without any genetic splicing. Once the splicing does occur, and the world's library of genetic techniques and effects can be brought to bear we may have something, perhaps an oil replacement, a true oil replacement. They'll begin dropping in genes, and playing with the best traits of various strains to create a super-algae. And then, it'll be "bye-bye oil."
But, I'll throw this final monkey wrench in the whole thing: say we did create a breakthrough tech that resulted in oil losing its price advantage, so much that within 5-10 years all gasoline refining could stop and the world could survive on bio-diesel and ethanol, all at cheaper prices than oil allowed - what do you think that would do to the Middle-east?
I think the Arab countries which rely on oil money for basically everything would realize the jig is up, their income is gonna dry up fast, and many of those countries would go completely ape-shit. They'd probably attack Israel, us too perhaps, before their wealth and power began to fade. Without oil money that region is just the armpit of the world, many regions could be called 4th world countries ;P And without oil money their influence would soon wane, and the ability of radical elements to commit global acts of terror would wane just as quickly.
So, let's indeed replace oil ASAP with something like algae-produced bio-diesel, or any similar tech that gets us off oil at a cheaper price than oil, and that will not only keep a lot more wealth in the US, it is ultimately the only way to end global terrorism as a major problem and concern in the world.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
When the new, proven thermal reactors can convert almost any organics -- including cellulose waste -- directly to biodiesel much more efficiently? Much more energy density than ethanol, with less energy input, and almost none of the other disadvantages.
But, I'll throw this final monkey wrench in the whole thing: say we did create a breakthrough tech that resulted in oil losing its price advantage, so much that within 5-10 years all gasoline refining could stop and the world could survive on bio-diesel and ethanol, all at cheaper prices than oil allowed - what do you think that would do to the Middle-east?
Then the primary way to get spodloads of money would be "start a successful business, or get lucky/skillful investing on the stock market", instead of being "just happen to have half the world's oil reserves under your ancestral homeland". At least that way people would generally require some degree of rational thought to get stupidly rich. Without their current oil-money-backed funding, militant extremists would have a much harder time forming cells and carrying out attacks.
As for the algae, I concur. Grey-goo scenarios with nanomachine always make me laugh because our current biosphere is the result of a 'green goo' scenario already. I'd be surprised if it were possible to build nanomachines that substantially outperformed existing biological organisms.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
"At least this way you get rid of a lot of solid waste..."
Yes, but should this be a worry? "Zymetis has genetically modified a rare, cellulose-eating bacterium to break down and convert cellulose into sugars necessary to make ethanol..."
And: ""It has the ability to break down whole plant material, and it excretes enzymes that break down cellulose,..."
And: "Hutcheson and his colleagues switched on certain genes to increase the activity of these enzymes, and turned off other genes that controlled inhibitory behaviors of the microbe, such as those that tell it to stop feeding."
When the bacteria gets loose, will it attack plants everywhere? During evolution, plants selected cellulose because it is structurally strong and can't be destroyed by bacteria.
Technology Review seems to me to be an advertising, public relations site. It doesn't seem to explore the obvious issues.
- That's a fine point, however I think that Israel is in the same position as Japan, the U.S. needs an ally in the region and they are our go-to country. Japan doesn't have a drop of oil, yet we will always be tight with them. Same with Israel, we've got massive economic ties with Israel, and major national security interests in their surviving in the region (and might I take a brief aside to pour cold water on the two state-solution BS, it's a dumb idea). It's true that we generally leave countries alone to do as they please, but we simply cannot do that in the case of oil producing nations. The oil must flow >_>
- This is a very good point, though we may eventually produce strains which tolerate sea water, in fact I think there are existing strains now that tolerate brackish water if not seawater. But your point about them using their own oil is a good one. However, we take care of most of the technical jobs in producing that oil, if we pull our people out they're gonna be paying us to produce their own oil, that would be a rich reversal of fortune. You're right about the nukes, I think this is exactly when the next nuclear attack would be closest.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
...Because you can't handle the truth, that's why! (Jack Nicolson mode off)
(Seriously) Biodiesel is an ester, which means it has a lipid (oily) part and an alcohol part. The algae or jatropha supply the lipid, the alcohol is still required.
Ask anyone who has made their own biodiesel - although they use old french-fry oil, they are also mixing it with methanol (if you want to do the reaction at room temp, the ethanol reaction requires heat) and lye.
to the wild ? what happens if they prove too successful in the wild ?
Read radical news here
The discrepancy between how accurate your account on algae is and how ill-considered your analysis of Arabs is, is truly amazing.
Why would you assume that just because the Arab nations are going to run out of money they are going to blatheringly insane? Would you assume that if the U.S. were running out of money we'd go ape-shit? No, you wouldn't. So your assumption shows a racist bias that is both unfounded and disgusting.
For your information, most Arab countries are investing their oil money into both business and infrastructure. They are looking for ways to create a solid, long-lasting presence in business and finance. To think that the wealth will dry up just goes to show that you don't understand the scale of the money being generated. The wealth of countries like Saudi Arabia are far, far beyond critical mass, and will keep growing with or without oil. Saudi Arabia has more than 7 trillion dollars invested in U.S. companies, and they aren't just investing the America. The Saudi surplus is about as large as our deficit, and they only have 1/10th the number of people. As you can imagine, that is enough to do a lot of impressive things. These task are what these Arab nations are going to be focusing on, not lashing out like cornered animals.
Take your paranoid xenophobia and desire to bankrupt entire cultures to some other forum. We don't want you here. For the record, equating Arab nations to terrorists is equivalent to equating the U.S. to the KKK. How stupid would this sentiment sound: Well, the American economy tanking is ultimately the only way to end global racism (the KKK) as a major problem and concern in the world. It would sound pretty damn stupid wouldn't it? Well Mr. Anenome, that is exactly how silly you sound to people who don't view the world through spectacles of discrimination.
Algae growth requires lots of sun. Libya is all about sun. Saudi Arabia is nearly the same. In fact, the whole region is pretty much sun, sun, sun, wonderful sun!
sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sandstorms, and sun
Well, there's this film which you might not have seen...
No. Oil will always be useful for plastics and other chemicals
It's nothing like grey goo, because grey goo is formed by machines, and machines don't die.
Well, I think you're just being over-emotional about the issue because you're emotionally invested. I am not emotionally invested, nor am I a racist.
I am however a futurist, and like to look at likely scenarios of the future. All I've said is that if the oil tap looks like it's going to run dry that this will destabilize the middle-east further. When the middle-east gets destabilized, generally a few things happen: 1) someone tries to attack Israel. 2) Terrorism increases globally. If you'd like to refute either of those points using history, I'd love to laugh at the attempt.
Iran, for instance, sells a lot of oil right now, it finances their country in large measure. Things are fine for Iran economically, in general, yet they still talk, weekly, about nuking Israel. And you're trying to tell us that that behavior wouldn't get worse if it looked like Iran couldn't afford to spend so much on their military anymore? You are probably as economically illiterate as so many are, I suppose I cannot hold it against you. It's a modern tragedy.
As for these countries having tons of money, you're way, way off. Saudi Arabia is nearly bankrupt. They have borrowed a fuck-ton of money, last time I checked, and I don't think that's changed since then, I can't imagine how it could have. If you want to say that the various royal families have gigantic gobs of money, sure, you got me there. That doesn't mean much, however, it's all in private hands. An economy needs a middle-class. What's your plan to convince the Saudi Royal family, and others like them around the world, virtual despots, to share the wealth? Kuwait is so oil-dependent that as of '91 they were paying a gigantic yearly salary of $80,000 to each resident of the country, many other countries do similar, Venenzuela was trying to set something up like that too (foolishly) until the price of oil floored again. You think Kuwait wouldn't be economically devastated by oil being replaced? You're fooling yourself.
If the oil-tap gets turned off that would result in, literally, trillions of dollars per year no longer flowing into the middle-east. Do you really mean to say that that wouldn't have an effect on the middle-eastern economy? You're fooling yourself. The middle-eastern economy is currently dependent on that cash-flow and does not have the economic infrastructure in place to makeup a shortfall that could drop to zero within 5-10 years - which is exactly what Algae biodiesel could achieve. If WWIII broke out, and oil reserves were cut-off, that could result in a massive switch to biodiesel even faster on our part. When the switchover happens, at the least, the middle-east would experience a depression as long as 15-30 years in duration while it built up other avenues of economic production, and that assumes they don't go to war in that time period.
I have no desire to see this happen, I wish the people of the middle-east well, by and large they are a decent people with extremists messing it up for everyone, just like everywhere else. But we also have to deal with the reality of the situation. You're anger just shows you're not prepared to look at things with that level of detachment.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
The middle east has an awful lot of empty space and sunlight - ideal for algae farms.
Yeah, I wonder what they could do to survive if algae farms become a primary source of energy.
No sig today...
Once upon a time, the Greek Athenians went to all the Greek City States and said, "Lets band together against our enemies for mutual survival against the Persians."
All the city-states agreed and the Greek world became one under the Athenians. To this end they selected the Spartans, the warlike ones, as the soldiers, etc., but the Athenians headed it up and were the naval power of the time. Everyone paid money to this central state to finance arms, boats, and soldiers.
Years went by and the threat was defeated, but a funny thing happened. Athens had grown rich, and reliant, on that money coming in, and when some city-states tried to stop paying, Athens demanded that they continue on pain of war. What began as mutual protection became tribute on pain of death. The Spartans decided to invade Athens.
So, you ask whether a country running out of money would go ape-shit... well, as Greece showed, they would at least go to war. And that's enough.
Know thy history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War
Can I get a "This is Sparta!"?
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
When the bacteria gets loose, will it attack plants everywhere? During evolution, plants selected cellulose because it is structurally strong and can't be destroyed by bacteria.
Technology Review seems to me to be an advertising, public relations site. It doesn't seem to explore the obvious issues.
It probably wouldn't be much of a problem if it got loose. Competition between bacteria in the environment is incredibly tough, and resources are scarce. By increasing the activity of certain enzymes (over-expressing them so they are always produced) and turning off inhibitory genes the bacteria are always going to spending a stupendous amount of energy making these enzymes regardless of whether or not they get anything out of it. That's a big drag on their fitness.
Think about it: if constantly expressing these enzymes was an evolutionarily viable strategy, these guys wouldn't have had to engineer the bacteria to do it.
Which America have you been living in? The one I live in is the most tolerant, most integrated, least racist, least sexist nation that has ever existed on the face of the planet. Equating the KKK to muslim extremism is a colossally failed analogy. The KKK in America is tiny, marginalized, hated by just about everyone; powerless. Muslim extremists, by contrasts, run entire countries and then send reps to the UN denouncing other ethnic groups (mostly Jews). Go crawl back in your hole, idiot.
Try convincing my sister's car.
It's not actually dead yet, but it's not far from "pining for the fjords" (not the Fords).
On the bright side, it isn't making noises about brains.
Pakistan is the centre of global terrorism but it's not based on oil wealth instead on opium profits and such. I don't think we'd see an end to global terrorism even if the middle east was whiped off the earth tommorrow.
In reality, the middle east would probably just become a lot more like Africa - a few prosperous big cities but a lot more poor areas that breed war and hate which would still include Islamic extremism (much like in areas of Somalia).
But even without biofuels the shift is going to happen anyway. The US, Canada and most notable Australia, hold the vast majority of the world's Uranium reserves so even a shift to nuclear power is going to have the same effect. The nations who currently hold the world to ransom are also almost entirely the nations that wont have anything to hold the world to ransom with a few decades down the line with Russia being only the real exception, even then it doesn't have a massive amount compared to the west. The middle east has none (bar a very small amount in Jordan), Africa has a little but not much, Europe has a little but not much, China has a little, Kazakhstan and Brazil have decent reserves, America, Canada and Australia have shit loads of the stuff.
So again, regardless of what replaces oil, it's almost certain the balance of power and control of energy is going to shift whether it's biofuels or nuclear.
Think about it: if constantly expressing these enzymes was an evolutionarily viable strategy, these guys wouldn't have had to engineer the bacteria to do it.
Can we accept this as a general rule? Don't forget: evolution is not done yet. We can also view genetic engineering as evolution's way of speeding up itself.
We can also view genetic engineering as evolution's way of speeding up itself.
Can we though? Genetic engineering (especially in this case) is geared around industrially and scientifically useful properties. Evolution is more concerned with survival and propagation. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but they're not inclusive either.
Yes, maybe bacteria could evolve more active habits of degrading plant material, but to the point they're over-expressing? The company behind this are naturally keeping quiet on exactly how this was done, but many industrially used expression vectors induce production of proteins just below the limit of solubility. As already said, that kind of energy expenditure is not good for competitive fitness, which is why many engineered bacteria have their product expression controlled by the presence or absence of certain compounds, like arabinose. Without that kind of control they'd get out-competed because of the huge energy burden put on them by the over-expressed genes.
Engineering and evolution aren't quite analogues of each other. Evolution might not be done yet, but it tends to be a bit more balanced ecologically than engineering.
I think you're underestimating the funding pumped into Pakistan by Saudi Arabia. They are primarily responsible for the whole wahabi movement, which has played a large role in the radicalization of Pakistani cultures.
Genetic engineering (especially in this case) is geared around industrially and scientifically useful properties.
whatcouldpossiblygowrong
Evolution might not be done yet, but it tends to be a bit more balanced ecologically than engineering.
Hah. Survival of the human race is not guaranteed until a new balance emerges.
This is getting tedious, jumping on, then off, then on ,
then off.....I hope we all make our minds up, my legs are getting tired.
...bacterium found a few years ago in the Chesapeake Bay...
All right! Go Bay-bee! Who needs the rainforest to find useful biology?
...break down the tough cell walls in dead plants and convert the remaining cellulose into sugars.
Oh. I guess we do still need the rainforest.
</sarcasm>
The ultra wealthy Saudis can just as easily manage their foreign investments from some place comfortable like Switzerland. I'm sure you know the royal family in Saudi Arabia is not exactly well-loved, but when your source of wealth is tied to the ground you are too. If their tight control over the population is no longer necessary (because they're not around) things would destabilize quickly.
But we can reduce our consumption for plastics and other chemicals. Last time I needed some more coat hangers, I bought some at Walmart that claim to be made from corn rather than plastic. They were a little more expensive but they are also stiffer and (I feel) easier to use with large shirts or sweaters. They're great.
As others have posted, this bug is too inefficient to compete in the wild. It takes so much energy to eat its food (cellulose) that other bacteria would quickly swamp it. Imagine a dog bred to jump instead of walk. All that extra energy would require more hunting to get more food, and the existing wild dogs would quickly knock it out of competition.
Infuriate left and right
From what I've seen in many cases, while there is a lot of waste in the middle-east (as comes anywhere when you have unbelievable amounts of cash), a lot also goes into infrastructure and making the country more livable. Completely current out petroleum products isn't going to happy anyhow, but we can cut it out of vehicles and fuels, while they'll still be able to sell the product for different uses such as plastics etc.
Keep in mind also, though, that N America imports a *lot* of food products. Last time I heard, the USA wouldn't be able to sustain it's own population with the domestic supplies of food.
That being so, what's the chance that they'd be able to make enough biofuel plants to power the entire country in a reasonable amount of time? Seems like a good project for the Arabic regions, as they're no doubt got a lot of the resources (money, labor, and sun) to do it.
oh mah GAWWWD, it says "GENETICALLY MODIFIED", run for tha heels Horrace!!
It is possible that you have a point. It is possible that the decrease in oil flow will lead to destabilization in the Middle East. That isn't really my concern though. My concern is the tone you choose to set. In general, your Arab sentiment can be boiled down to: the enemy will act in ways we wouldn't expect ourselves to act, fear them. Are you worried that the U.S.'s economic decline may cause us to lash out at an Arab country as we have a history of doing? No, you aren't. Your willingness to assume that other people are going to act in unreasoned ways is what causes most of the misunderstanding in history.
These countries have know for quite a while that their oil reserves are going to run out. I don't see why this would catch them by surprise.
In any case, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I apologize if I am overly emotionally invested but I do really hate how after coming so far in defeating the discrimination of African-Americans, it seems to be largely acceptable today to be racist against Arabs. No insult intended, but your original comments do seem to represent some of the anti-Arab sentiment floating around. If we want to treat Arabs like equals, lets stop considering things as "us vs them". Sure, destabilization may lead to an attack on Israel, but instead of simply vilifying Iran for this and treating them like the enemy, lets try to understand their point of view. Lets acknowledge the wrongs happening in Palestine, lets treat everyone fairly, and them maybe these countries won't feel like they have to treat us like enemies. Unrealistically hopeful? Probably, but I think attempting to empathize with their position is a start.
Fact checks:
Saudi Arabia has a surplus
Oil is only about 40% of the GDP of both Iran and Saudi Arabia
Iran has a good manufacturing industry
Saudi Arabia is building six economic cities (by 2020) to diversify their economy
The bacterium can't attack live plants. Mauthbaux made good points about the fact that genetically engineered bacteria are usually made dependent on some factor they won't get in the wild, precisely to deal with the problem of escapes. The TR article does not mentionwhether this was done, however.
The point that it only attacks dead plants doesn't mean we're home free. Lots of people live inside dead plants (wood), so there could still be a huge problem if this thing did a sci-fi (or should I say SyFy) and gobbled all the world's wood and paper into grey goo. But the bacterium only works in solution, so there again, unless you live in a monsoon jungle, there probably won't be enough ambient water around.
So you make stuff up?
Ok, that's not much of a strech.
Now there's a leap. Ok, when a country becomes unstable most of the time it denigrates into internal strife. Occasionally, a strong man assumes control, sometimes this results in military campaigns. On the surface it might seem like Israel would be the first target for a newly aggressive arab state, but you've got to consider that Israel is also far and away the most formidable opponent. All the attacks against Israel in the last 60 years have come from stable countries. Strong men looking to establish military dominance tend to start by going after weaker countries (like Kuwait.) On the second point there is no correlation between unstable arab regimes and terrorism. Saudi Arabia, which is bin Laden's home country is and has been remarkably stable - even if not friendly to western interests. The al Quaeda became active while Afghanistan was under repressive - but stable - rule. Maybe terrorism correlates with instability, but global terrorism doesn't. Look at N. Ireland, when it was going through the troubles the terrorism was all very targeted - the IRA didn't set off car bombs in India.
Carrying debt, doesn't mean you're nearly bankrupt - bankruptcy is about not being able to meet your financial obligations. The US carries more debt than anyone, and while the value of the dollar has declined lately, the federal government isn't nearing bankruptcy.
No it doesn't. What we consider to be a healthy economy does, but if a countries major industry is exaction, you don't need a middle class. From a humanitarian standpoint, that sucks, from an economic one it works just fine. You only need a middle class if you're economy depends on selling consumer goods (as is the case in most western nations.)
As you, yourself just pointed out in your previous paragraph it would result in literally trillions of fewer dollars flowing into the pockets of literally thousands of people. I obviously can't say that no a lack of oil revenue wouldn't affect the poor, but it would effect them less than you're implying.
No matter which way things go, the outlook for the middle east isn't rosy. But while you might be able to tie invasions to the price of oil, I think it's a stretch to tie ideological violence to the price of oil. All in all, a sharp decrease in petro-dollars might serve to decrease the inequality in these countries, which might serve to blunt the extremism.
As long as we are not using all our corn to make ethanol....
Would you assume that if the U.S. were running out of money we'd go ape-shit?
We'll find out soon enough.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
... will lead to destabilization in the Middle East
In order to destabilize something doesn't it have to be stable to start with?
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
so the feed stream of a mature algae biodiesel production facility might be channeled to bugs like this one. To solve our energy problem let's engage all the of life's kingdoms. algae(biodiesel) --> bacteria(sugar) --> yeast(ethanol) ---537
A high compression engine to run E100.
Invenio via vel creo
You just completely ignored the thrust of the post you're replying to. The point is, this assumption that Arab countries would go invading Israel, for no reason, because their economy is dying is blatantly racist, and that "armpit of the world" crap makes it clear (they're not even the worst-off region, if that's what you're going by).
There's imperialism (which is generally what invading another country is all about) and then there's this bullshit idea about Arabs being crazy, murderous zealots who hate Jewish and Western infidels, which is pretty clearly where you're coming from. You even celebrate the idea of the Arab economies collapsing because, supposedly, it would weaken terrorists!
You may be a perfectly good person, but your point of view on the Middle East is highly racist. I suggest you engage in some self-reflection.
Property is theft.
Mohammad (PBUH) is not a pedophile.
Turkey is a democracy.
Islam supports peace between the religions.
I'd think that hydrocarbons (petrochemicals) would still be useful for things like plastic feedstocks, some fertilizers (until we figure out a cheap way to not need them anymore), even as possible directly-converted foods, recycleable as needed. There will always be applications for petrochemicals, the hot setup is to figure out how to make them directly recycleable instead of burning them off in a car's engine.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
California won't be growing fruit for long. We build condos on the best farmland.
FYI, San Jose was once prime apricot land.
You need to consider the number of gasoline engines that would need to be replaced with diesel engines. All that milled metal isn't being produced without energy inputs. Even recycling a gasoline engine to make a diesel one will take energy.
Ethanol burns in gasoline engines, and only minor tweaks are needed to secure the gaskets (rubber and alcohol don't mix) and to adjust the mixture with air (which can be done in the computer on many models, and sometimes requires a new air or fuel rate sensor or such).
Oh, come on. The Palestinians should have a place to call home. I suggest Syria or Iran. ;-)
If you can make ethanol from cellulose, which corn cobs, corn husks, and corn stalks are mostly made of, the corn kernels (which aren't a very good source of sugar anyway compared to sugar cane) could easily be used for food even as the rest of the plant was used for ethanol.
Would you assume that if the U.S. were running out of money we'd go ape-shit? No, you wouldn't.
Perhaps you haven't been following the news...
Goodbye Mr. Fusion, Hello Mr. Biodiesel!
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Even if bio fuels were to achieve that 80-90 percent efficiency, there are plenty of other uses for oil. The timescale for bio fuel to replace gasoline is probably longer than 5-10 years. However, assume that might be the case somehow. The price of oil would go down, because supply would outstrip demand, and oil would become more competitive again. Companies would look to use oil more for plastics, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and all the other weird and common stuff we never think that oil is used for on a daily basis. Ultimately, this extends the time for oil rich countries to get off their dependence on oil production and diversify their economies. Anyways, the algae is supposed to be good in the desert right? Maybe they fill up those empty oil holes with carbon and shit, and export a different kind of fuel. Instead of exporting that terrorist shit, they will make up for it in clean green human fuel shit.
I think the Arab countries which rely on oil money for basically everything would realize the jig is up, their income is gonna dry up fast, and many of those countries would go completely ape-shit.
And fearing the petrodollar jig was up the U.S invaded Iraq when Saddam wanted Euros for oil.
You think Kuwait wouldn't be economically devastated by oil being replaced? You're fooling yourself.
And when countries that had to use the $US to buy oil produce their own biodiesel what happens to demand for the $US ?
Don't forget: evolution is not done yet.
Don't forget: evolution is not done ever.
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Would you assume that if the U.S. were running out of money we'd go ape-shit?
YES. As a matter of fact a lot of you already did. Just open the tv sometime.
Actually, I do not disagree with your point; it is a 100% valid one but it is just one of the multiple possibilities; grandparent's point is another one; and so on
And your comparison truly sucks.
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Ahahahaha Damien.... get off your high-horse you pious hypocrite.
Actually we are out of money because we went and launched our second offensive war in the countries history, not the other way around.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I highly doubt that the oil tap will be turned off completely. We might not use it for power once we find an alternative, but think of all the other things that we do with oil - plastics, polymers, organic chemicals, etc.
+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
If you have any clue about economics, you know that we do things based on wants (emotion) rather than needs. You also know about externalities, the time value of money, time-based discounting of value, the tragedy of the commons, and so on.
For example, suppose that human-caused climate change is scientifically valid. Economics doesn't prevent us from burning coal and oil like crazy, even if that ultimately kills us all. By your logic, society needs the luxury of burning coal and oil more than it needs a survivable climate!
For example, many places have been deforested for short-term foolish reasons. A famous example is Easter Island. Another example is Iceland. Haiti is a recent example. In such places the topsoil washes away, ultimately causing an inability to effectively grow crops. This killed off the Easter Islanders, helped make the Haitians even more impovershed, and certainly hasn't helped the Icelanders. Nearly the same caused the dustbowl.
Our desire for condos is no different than the desire that Easter Islanders had for chopping down all the trees. Just as the Easter Islanders needed the good land that they destroyed, we need the good land that we are destroying.
Remember: economics is known as "the dismal science" for good reason