View Full Version : Crude Oil from Bugs?
BigRob
06-16-2008, 07:22 PM
This could turn into a major discovery. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367642,00.html)
To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs — very, very small bacteria — so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as wood chips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil.
Unbelievably, this is not science fiction. Pal holds up a small beaker of bug excretion that could, theoretically, be poured into the tank of the giant Lexus SUV next to us.
NO Obamanation
06-16-2008, 08:03 PM
I heard about this today on the radio. I wonder how many bugs it will take to fill my tank :) oh it would be so nice to stick it to the UAE and tell them we got bugs take a hike.
GenSeneca
06-16-2008, 09:19 PM
This is gonna really bug environmentalists.... :D
Tonight on ESPN:
Death match between the environmentalists and the Animal Right Nutz!
Watch as they out tree-hug one another in a fight to the death!
BigRob
06-16-2008, 09:22 PM
This is gonna really bug environmentalists.... :D
Tonight on ESPN:
Death match between the environmentalists and the Animal Right Nutz!
Watch as they out tree-hug one another in a fight to the death!
Those tree hugging hippies can go argue elsewhere. My hummer needs a fill up, and I feel they are saving the world enough for the both of us :cool:
The Scotsman
06-17-2008, 12:36 AM
:confused:
So if these wee guys get out of their tank and end up in the oceans and start eating up all the crap and garbage that's been dumped over the past 50 years or so anyone chucking a butt end off the pier..................
It's been awhile since I did some depth research on this, but if I remember right, this isn't exactly new.
The news consistently sensationalizes everything in order to sell more news. In reality this isn't a big deal. Also, the trigger word "genetically engineered" tends to make average people invent some fantastical 'sci-fi' style Star Trek craziness that has nothing to do with reality.
Genetically engineered, simply means they bred specific cultures of micro-organisms to produce the highest yield of oil. Just as you would breed cows that produce the most milk, or just as they breed sheep that have no horns. Even breeding dogs to keep the best floppy ears and fluffy tail.. could technically be called 'genetic engineering'.
That said, the first discovery of bacteria that produce oil was back in 1957, or earlier. Again... this is not new. Does the technology work? Of course. Can it be profitable and commercially viable? That remains to be seen.
There are a huge host of problems that must be dealt with first. The host tank must be kept in near perfect environmental state for the micro-organisms (mi-orgs) to work best. As in around 30ºC. This requires perfect heat and cooling to maintain temp, or the mi-orgs all die, and the whole batch is ruined and must be scrapped. There must not be any contamination, both of food and air supply. Too much, or too little oxygen, or if anything gets mixed into the food, again the mi-orgs die and repeat.
Finely, this specific plan calls for wood chips and straw waste. If you think about a full barrel of crude oil... verses a pile of wood chips and straw waste, it would take a whole ton of waste to make one barrel of oil. Further, from what I've come up with, the conversion ratio is at about 5%-15%. As in ton of food, for relatively small amount of oil. Granted that was based on 1957 figures, so hopefully things have improved.
Oh and Scottsman, nothing to fear here. These are mi-orgs that are naturally found in nature. If they could survive in the ocean, and convert the planet into an oil pool, they would have done so 6,000 years ago at least. My best understanding is that they will die the moment they are not in a controlled environment.
It isn't new. There already is a plant turning out crude oil from waste.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil
It isn't new. There already is a plant turning out crude oil from waste.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil
Well, your right, but... that article is about a thermal conversion plant. Using heat to break down animal waste into oil.
The article in this thread is about biological conversion, using micro organisms to convert farm waste, like wood hay stubble, into oil.
But, yeah, not new.
Well, your right, but... that article is about a thermal conversion plant. Using heat to break down animal waste into oil.
The article in this thread is about biological conversion, using micro organisms to convert farm waste, like wood hay stubble, into oil.
But, yeah, not new.
Yes, it is a little different process, isn't it?
But the end result is the same.
I wonder why it is we don't hear much about technological breakthroughs like that? Wouldn't it have the potential to at least alleviate our energy problems?
Yes, it is a little different process, isn't it?
But the end result is the same.
I wonder why it is we don't hear much about technological breakthroughs like that? Wouldn't it have the potential to at least alleviate our energy problems?
Couple of possibilities. First, I heard about both of these several years ago, so I guess we do hear about them if we're paying attention.
Why is it not big time mainstream news splashed across the country? Well basically because it's an affront to the goal of destroying America's use of oil, and returning us to the stone age. Why stop using it when it can be made from waste?
Also, it's an affront to the theory that oil is a non-renewable resource. For example, the very same thermal break down process used in your article, has been found naturally near active geological areas like volcanos. They found evidence that oil is forming in mere months near these hot spots, which calls into question the whole "peak oil" and fossil fuel theory. Of course if oil is renewable, then we don't need to worry about getting off it, just finding as much of it as we can.
Of course the biggest issue with these alternate oil sources is cost overhead and fuel supply. Just as the story says, the cost of producing one barrel of oil was $80. That's excessive. Granted the plan is working great now with crude oil selling at $120. But imagine if the price drops again? That plant will be closed, unless it can get it's overhead cost down.
Couple of possibilities. First, I heard about both of these several years ago, so I guess we do hear about them if we're paying attention.
Why is it not big time mainstream news splashed across the country? Well basically because it's an affront to the goal of destroying America's use of oil, and returning us to the stone age. Why stop using it when it can be made from waste?
Also, it's an affront to the theory that oil is a non-renewable resource. For example, the very same thermal break down process used in your article, has been found naturally near active geological areas like volcanos. They found evidence that oil is forming in mere months near these hot spots, which calls into question the whole "peak oil" and fossil fuel theory. Of course if oil is renewable, then we don't need to worry about getting off it, just finding as much of it as we can.
Of course the biggest issue with these alternate oil sources is cost overhead and fuel supply. Just as the story says, the cost of producing one barrel of oil was $80. That's excessive. Granted the plan is working great now with crude oil selling at $120. But imagine if the price drops again? That plant will be closed, unless it can get it's overhead cost down.
Do you think that the news media has the goal of destroying America's use of oil, and returning us to the stone age?:eek:
$80 a barrel sounds pretty cheap by today's standards, and it seems likely that the price could go down when the volume goes up.
I wonder what might happen if the feds were to stop subsidizing corn ethanol, and use the money to fund research into the process of making oil out of waste?
Sihouette
06-21-2008, 09:16 AM
We are in the Stone Age. You've got it exactly Bass Ackwards.
The progressive age is what Europe is doing and has been doing for decades. It's like you're promoting dragsleds over the wheel.
Burning nasty polluting smudgy fuels that are ruining our atmosphere and destroying National Security from dependance is preferable to longstanding renewable and clean energy? Really?
Oooga booga.
Sihouette
06-21-2008, 09:38 AM
At present, more than half of Iceland’s electrical power and its need for space heating and hot water from geothermal energy. Geothermal heating is used in a community level in Iceland where hot water is pumped up from the station and circulated around a neighborhood or town. In addition to this, this hot water and steam from boreholes is used for running turbines for the sake of producing electricity and for heating homes and businesses.
The rest of the electricity needs of Iceland is met by hydroelectric power while fossil fuels are imported only for transportation needs. Now this bid of drilling these vents are scheduled to start in the summer of 2008 as an alternative and renewable source of energy. Source: http://www.thinksolarenergy.net/74/deep-drilling-geothermal-energy/renewable-energy/
In Oregon they're proposing drilling deep boreholes to develop geothermal technology virtually anywhere, even outside areas where these hot features come near surface. But even if they didn't, there are so many geothermally active areas in the US alone to tap and produce power from that us not doing so is grossly irresponsible.
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n176/SSilhouette/Geothermalmap.jpg
The red areas indicate high surface geothermal activity, easily tapped and utilized. That's about 1/3 of the US land surface over nearly the entire West. In the East is a plethora of running water for hydropower potential. Our deserts provide more than ample solar energy year-round and there's a solar farm in use in the high desert of California and elsewhere. Acres upon acres of solar panels help keep this huge-consuming state juiced up. But just East of the Sierra Nevada are mulitiple bubbling hydrothermal jets just boiling away. The relative cost to install steam generators there is laughable. It's all just going to waste while our BigOil politicians lobby for astronomically expensive offshore oil drilling.
Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil....
You are getting dizzy...you are falling asleep....don't dream of anything but Oil....
NO Obamanation
06-21-2008, 10:04 AM
In Oregon they're proposing drilling deep boreholes to develop geothermal technology virtually anywhere, even outside areas where these hot features come near surface. But even if they didn't, there are so many geothermally active areas in the US alone to tap and produce power from that us not doing so is grossly irresponsible.
You can ALWAYS count on Oregon to NOT do the right thing. This is the most backward state in the union. The people in government here would kill a million children to save one old and dying tree!
Sihouette
06-21-2008, 01:20 PM
OK silly. Let me be more specific: some people in Oregon, not the entire state as one solid mindset, are looking into deep bore geothermal.
However, as I said, with as much surface or near-surface geological features in the West particularly, there will be no deep drilling at all.
Little bitty Iceland is handily tapping this easy and perpetual clean source of energy. It's just downright embarassing that the US claims it's too hard...
Who do they think they're pulling the wool over with that claim?
We are in the Stone Age. You've got it exactly Bass Ackwards.
The progressive age is what Europe is doing and has been doing for decades. It's like you're promoting dragsleds over the wheel.
Burning nasty polluting smudgy fuels that are ruining our atmosphere and destroying National Security from dependance is preferable to longstanding renewable and clean energy? Really?
Oooga booga.
What the heck are you talking about? I've been to Europe... they use nuclear power, and petrol gas. Same as here. :rolleyes: Ignorant people...
Sihouette
06-21-2008, 01:35 PM
Be more specific.
France relies heavily on nuclear, other countries not.
Depends on where you go. I for one remember Chernobyl and would never promote that deadly cocktail over totally benign sources like hydro, geothermal and solar.
That was my favorite part of recent ad campaigns aimed to scare people into accepting "imminent need" to drill for oil domestically...the nuclear bit. Message: "Hey, either give us the oil we want to drill for, the environment be damned or we'll shove nuclear down your throats."
Newsflash: we're tired of BigOil shoving anything down our throats.
Fearmongering. Will they stop at nothing?
Be more specific.
France relies heavily on nuclear, other countries not.
Depends on where you go. I for one remember Chernobyl and would never promote that deadly cocktail over totally benign sources like hydro, geothermal and solar.
That was my favorite part of recent ad campaigns aimed to scare people into accepting "imminent need" to drill for oil domestically...the nuclear bit. Message: "Hey, either give us the oil we want to drill for, the environment be damned or we'll shove nuclear down your throats."
Newsflash: we're tired of BigOil shoving anything down our throats.
Fearmongering. Will they stop at nothing?
Is this the Chernobyl you visited?
The exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power station is teeming with life.
As humans were evacuated from the area 20 years ago, animals moved in. Existing populations multiplied and species not seen for decades, such as the lynx and eagle owl, began to return.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm
Do you think that the news media has the goal of destroying America's use of oil, and returning us to the stone age?:eek:
Liberals in general.
$80 a barrel sounds pretty cheap by today's standards, and it seems likely that the price could go down when the volume goes up.
You are thinking way short term. Broaden your view of oil prices and you'll find that the price of crude oil has only been over $80/per barrel since Nov of '07. This means that this plant has only been profitable for aprox: 8 months. Again, if the price drops the plant ends up closed. There is absolutely no promise or guarantee that prices will remain high or low, or anything.
Even now we have private citizens drilling their own wells in their back yard, pumping oil. If this continues the crude oil will flood the market, and prices will drop like a rock.
Further, the only way that increasing volume, reduces costs, is by reducing profit margin. This plant can't reduce profit margin. They are barely making it as is.
Finely, they can't increase volume as it stand currently. The reason is because they don't have a variable fuel source. If your fuel is oil, you just dig more wells. If it's wood, you just chop more trees. If you need Iron or Tin or some metal, there's tons of it, just purchase more.
But In this case, the fuel source is animal waste from a turkey or live stock slaughter house. You simply can't get more fuel from them, than they churn out in a day. Further, you can't order from across the nation because shipping the waste to your plant costs big $$ that cuts into profits, which is why they located the plant right next to the slaughter house.
I wonder what might happen if the feds were to stop subsidizing corn ethanol, and use the money to fund research into the process of making oil out of waste?
Nothing. Research into alternative fuels of this nature, are already privately funded. This odd idea that tossing more money at it, will fix everything, is a farce. Further, they are already subsidized according to both articles. So they are already being funded, and nothing more is happening. Which makes my point.
Further, all subsidies should be ended anyway, it's unconstitutional.
OK silly. Let me be more specific: some people in Oregon, not the entire state as one solid mindset, are looking into deep bore geothermal.
However, as I said, with as much surface or near-surface geological features in the West particularly, there will be no deep drilling at all.
Little bitty Iceland is handily tapping this easy and perpetual clean source of energy. It's just downright embarassing that the US claims it's too hard...
Who do they think they're pulling the wool over with that claim?
You show me where anyone anywhere claimed Geothermal power is 'too hard'? Do you want to know who hates geothermal power? It's liberals. Eco-nutz to be specific. They are the ones against Geothermal power. Do you know anything about the topic of which you speak?
Liberals in general.
You're ascribing quite a goal to an undefined and disparate group of poeple, it seems to me. Just what is your definition of "liberal" anyway?
And, do you really believe that returning to the stone age is anyone's goal, or simply a possible result of the ideology they espouse?
You are thinking way short term. Broaden your view of oil prices and you'll find that the price of crude oil has only been over $80/per barrel since Nov of '07. This means that this plant has only been profitable for aprox: 8 months. Again, if the price drops the plant ends up closed. There is absolutely no promise or guarantee that prices will remain high or low, or anything.
Even now we have private citizens drilling their own wells in their back yard, pumping oil. If this continues the crude oil will flood the market, and prices will drop like a rock.
Further, the only way that increasing volume, reduces costs, is by reducing profit margin. This plant can't reduce profit margin. They are barely making it as is.
Finely, they can't increase volume as it stand currently. The reason is because they don't have a variable fuel source. If your fuel is oil, you just dig more wells. If it's wood, you just chop more trees. If you need Iron or Tin or some metal, there's tons of it, just purchase more.
But In this case, the fuel source is animal waste from a turkey or live stock slaughter house. You simply can't get more fuel from them, than they churn out in a day. Further, you can't order from across the nation because shipping the waste to your plant costs big $$ that cuts into profits, which is why they located the plant right next to the slaughter house.
You have a good point there. Should the price of oil go down, then the anything into oil idea will no longer be profitable. Should we develop our domestic supply, and thus cause the price to go down, then there won't be any justification for continuing to make our own oil. That, however, is speculative. It is more likely that the price of oil will stay high, and that we will continue to buy it from nations that hate us and wish us harm.
Oh, and the "anything into oil" idea is just that. It doesn't have to be made from turkey guts. It could be made from anything that happens to be available in significant quantities in any local area.
Not that making oil, or any other single idea is going to solve the energy problem, of course.
Nothing. Research into alternative fuels of this nature, are already privately funded. This odd idea that tossing more money at it, will fix everything, is a farce. Further, they are already subsidized according to both articles. So they are already being funded, and nothing more is happening. Which makes my point.
Further, all subsidies should be ended anyway, it's unconstitutional.
There, we agree. Of course, that unconstitutional subsidy of corn ethanol, along with a whole lot more subsidies that need to be ended, keep on going, don't they?
You're ascribing quite a goal to an undefined and disparate group of poeple, it seems to me. Just what is your definition of "liberal" anyway?
And, do you really believe that returning to the stone age is anyone's goal, or simply a possible result of the ideology they espouse?
Unbomber was pretty much an Earth in the Balance, anti-advancement eco-nut. He hate progress and development. His goal was to revert to a stone age type world. And I've met dozens of people who litterally support that idea.
But I would think you are right, that most support this regression based on their ideology. Not directly.
You have a good point there. Should the price of oil go down, then the anything into oil idea will no longer be profitable. Should we develop our domestic supply, and thus cause the price to go down, then there won't be any justification for continuing to make our own oil. That, however, is speculative. It is more likely that the price of oil will stay high, and that we will continue to buy it from nations that hate us and wish us harm.
Well, when the CEO of Exxon was determining whether to invest in alternative fuels, his state reason for not doing so was... the price of oil may go down, and Exxon would lose it's investment. So... there is no reason prices will stay high, or low or anything. Even oil CEOs claim they do not know what the price will do, and it's just as likely to drop as climb.
That also blows a hole in the stupid ignorant foolish liberal theory that all the oil CEOs are purposefully causing the high prices, because if they were, then they would have no fear in investing in high cost alternative energy sources.
Oh, and the "anything into oil" idea is just that. It doesn't have to be made from turkey guts. It could be made from anything that happens to be available in significant quantities in any local area.
True, but all the current 'waste to oil' programs have the same problems. Namely profitability.
There, we agree. Of course, that unconstitutional subsidy of corn ethanol, along with a whole lot more subsidies that need to be ended, keep on going, don't they?
Yeah, and they won't stop as long as we keep justifying them continuing. Remember, the Repugs eliminated farm subsidies, and as soon as the liberals got back the majority, we have them again. It's just a matter of making the case and sticking to our guns.
Unbomber was pretty much an Earth in the Balance, anti-advancement eco-nut. He hate progress and development. His goal was to revert to a stone age type world. And I've met dozens of people who litterally support that idea.
If you think of the Unabomber as the typical "liberal", then no wonder you hate liberals so much. Just what percent of the population do you think actually espouse his ideals?
But I would think you are right, that most support this regression based on their ideology. Not directly.
I'm not so sure anyone supports regression, but they do support ideologies that could result in regression.
Well, when the CEO of Exxon was determining whether to invest in alternative fuels, his state reason for not doing so was... the price of oil may go down, and Exxon would lose it's investment. So... there is no reason prices will stay high, or low or anything. Even oil CEOs claim they do not know what the price will do, and it's just as likely to drop as climb.
That also blows a hole in the stupid ignorant foolish liberal theory that all the oil CEOs are purposefully causing the high prices, because if they were, then they would have no fear in investing in high cost alternative energy sources.
If guys like the Unabomber are the only ones espousing the idea that CEOs are purposedully causing high prices, then there is little credence to that idea. I suspect that those few who rant about the evil oil industry are simply doing so for political points, and to draw attention from the real challenges we face. If one or two real extremists make noises about "nationalizing the industry", we need to take their opinions as just that: The ranting of a small minority.
True, but all the current 'waste to oil' programs have the same problems. Namely profitability.
Yes, that is the problem. Of course, should the price remain high, then profitability won't be a concern, and we'll see more such plants, which, ironically, could depress the price of oil and cut their profit margins.
What we have is an interesting dilemma. Should the industry guess that prices will remain high, and put its money into alternative fuel and into exploiting the more expensive to develop reserves, and be right, then they will profit. If they manage to produce enough oil to change the supply and demand equation, then their investments won't pay off and they'll lose. It's a gamble either way.
It's a lot like farming. The farmers plant a crop, are unusually successful in producing that crop, and lose money because of lower prices due to high supply. I've seen it happen over and over here in farming country.
Yeah, and they won't stop as long as we keep justifying them continuing. Remember, the Repugs eliminated farm subsidies, and as soon as the liberals got back the majority, we have them again. It's just a matter of making the case and sticking to our guns.
The Repugs eliminated farm subsidies? I must have missed that one. Was it during the liberal Repug domination of Congress and the WH from '00 to '06, or are you talking about something that happened a long time ago when the Democraps were liberals and the Repugs were conservatives?
If you think of the Unabomber as the typical "liberal", then no wonder you hate liberals so much. Just what percent of the population do you think actually espouse his ideals?
Not the same methods though. Liberals pass industry destroying legislation instead of passing bombs. Same ideals.
If guys like the Unabomber are the only ones espousing the idea that CEOs are purposedully causing high prices, then there is little credence to that idea. I suspect that those few who rant about the evil oil industry are simply doing so for political points, and to draw attention from the real challenges we face. If one or two real extremists make noises about "nationalizing the industry", we need to take their opinions as just that: The ranting of a small minority.
Actually believe they really want to destroy the industry. Remember Pol Pot and the killing fields? It was a socialist philosophy of "returning to the old ways", an anti-progression. People with eye glasses were slaughtered because they were 'advanced'.
Yes, that is the problem. Of course, should the price remain high, then profitability won't be a concern, and we'll see more such plants, which, ironically, could depress the price of oil and cut their profit margins.
And lower the price of oil, killing the bio-fuel industry. It's a plant they may work itself out of a job. Of course, there is still hope they can lower cost somehow. Time will tell.
What we have is an interesting dilemma. Should the industry guess that prices will remain high, and put its money into alternative fuel and into exploiting the more expensive to develop reserves, and be right, then they will profit. If they manage to produce enough oil to change the supply and demand equation, then their investments won't pay off and they'll lose. It's a gamble either way.
Not really. Oil companies should produce oil. If they do, there's no gamble since oil will ALWAYS be in demand.
The Repugs eliminated farm subsidies? I must have missed that one. Was it during the liberal Repug domination of Congress and the WH from '00 to '06, or are you talking about something that happened a long time ago when the Democraps were liberals and the Repugs were conservatives?
Part of the 1996 Repug congress, in an effort to cut federal spending (shocking), they passed the Freedom to Farm Act, which in part was a deal that over 7 years, subsidies would be gradually eliminated.
However, in 2002, while under Democrap control, and with a number of lame Liberal Repugs, the Democraps passed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, which completely dismantled the phase out of subsidies.
32 Democraps, and 12 Repugs voted for the bill. I couldn't find a more complete roll call. The 12 repugs included a lot of liberals, like Jumpin Jim Jefferds.
Not the same methods though. Liberals pass industry destroying legislation instead of passing bombs. Same ideals.
Actually believe they really want to destroy the industry. Remember Pol Pot and the killing fields? It was a socialist philosophy of "returning to the old ways", an anti-progression. People with eye glasses were slaughtered because they were 'advanced'.
It is just a bit of a stretch to say that Pol Pot and his regime were "liberals", especialy while saying that all Democrats and many Republicans are also "liberals." I think your definition of the term is somewhat elastic.
And I don't think that it is part of the platform of the Democrats, nor the intent of liberal Republicans, to destroy industry. Why would anyone want to do that?:confused:
And lower the price of oil, killing the bio-fuel industry. It's a plant they may work itself out of a job. Of course, there is still hope they can lower cost somehow. Time will tell.
It seems likely that increased size of plants and further research will be able to lower costs. Maybe not, but it does seem like a good bet.
Not really. Oil companies should produce oil. If they do, there's no gamble since oil will ALWAYS be in demand.
Yes, it will always be in demand, but not necessarily at a profitable price.
Part of the 1996 Repug congress, in an effort to cut federal spending (shocking), they passed the Freedom to Farm Act, which in part was a deal that over 7 years, subsidies would be gradually eliminated.
However, in 2002, while under Democrap control, and with a number of lame Liberal Repugs, the Democraps passed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, which completely dismantled the phase out of subsidies.
32 Democraps, and 12 Repugs voted for the bill. I couldn't find a more complete roll call. The 12 repugs included a lot of liberals, like Jumpin Jim Jefferds.
I didn't know that. It is amazing to me that the Congress was able to pass such an act in the first place, and get Clinton to sign it. It's no surprise that it was dismantled. There must have been huge pressure from the farm lobby.
GenSeneca
06-23-2008, 09:24 PM
I don't think that it is part of the platform of the Democrats, nor the intent of liberal Republicans, to destroy industry.
Democrats and liberal Republicans will greatly raise taxes on all industry, they are openly saying so: Cap and Trade
Thats code for Tax and Spend: Tax the Industries and Spend their money.
The consumer gets stuck holding the bag on both ends....
Additionally, Democrats are pushing for Profits taxes on Oil Companies - Those who don't know their history.... Vote Democrat.
It may not be a platform for destruction but its definitely not a pro-growth, pro-business environment Democrats are seeking to create.
When did Democrats abandon Capitalism? I haven't heard one say anything nice about it for years, instead its about how the free market is a failure or corrupt... As though politicians are somehow less corrupt and not monumental in their failures.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.