Deja Vu: Scientists Turn Pollution Directly Into Fuel Using The Sun

 

[social_buttons]

It’s been a busy Fall for the making-fuel-out-of-pollution-using-nothing-but-the-power-of-the-sun crowd. First we heard about a company that says it has succeeded in creating a system that uses engineered microbes in reactors out in the desert to eat carbon dioxide and poop out diesel and ethanol. Next we heard about a crazy mirror-ring contraption that reaches amazingly high temperatures to force carbon dioxide to give up one oxygen to make a precursor to fuel. And now…

Researchers at UCLA have engineered a bacteria that can eat carbon dioxide and burp out butanol—a liquid fuel that can be substituted into our existing fuel infrastructure without modification. Yep, that’s right, even your old jalopy can burn butanol without any side effects.

The team of scientists from the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science took a cyanobacteria and genetically modified it to consume carbon dioxide and produce a gas which can easily be stripped off and converted to butanol. I’ve written about butanol as being a great substitute for gasoline before. The reaction the team is harnessing is powered directly by energy from sunlight, through photosynthesis.

To create their microbe frankenstein, they first took the cyanobacterium Synechoccus elongatus, and then increased the amount of a particular enzyme inside of it that helps to collect carbon dioxide. They then mushed in some genes from other organisms to make the engineered organism create the isobutyraldehyde gas which can be easily converted to butanol and other petroleum-based products. Apparently the engineered microorganisms can also directly create liquid butanol, but, according to the researchers, the process is easier if they are made to produce the gas instead.

The beauty of a process like this is that it avoids using energy intensive middle steps to create fuel—harvesting grass or refining and concentrating ethanol for instance. The organisms simply take carbon dioxide and turn it directly into a usable fuel.

“This new approach avoids the need for biomass deconstruction, either in the case of cellulosic biomass or algal biomass, which is a major economic barrier for biofuel production,” said UCLA professor and team leader James C. Liao, in a statement. “Therefore, this is potentially much more efficient and less expensive than the current approach.”

Given how many of these direct-fuel-from-pollution discoveries are currently being made, it’s certainly exciting to think that actual commercialization of them is not too far away. According to Liao, there are only a few obstacles to overcome in this realm. “We are continuing to improve the rate and yield of the production,” he said. “Other obstacles include the efficiency of light distribution and reduction of bioreactor cost. We are working on solutions to these problems.”

The research appears in the Dec. 9 edition of the journal Nature Biotechnology, available online.

Source: UCLA

Image Credit: UCLA





About the Author

Not your traditional car guy.
  • evnow

    Given how many of these direct-fuel-from-pollution discoveries are currently being made, it’s certainly exciting to think that actual commercialization of them is not too far away

    That depends on your definition of “not too far away”. Give it a century – we will definitely get there.

    Unfortunately, we don’t have a century. Peak oil is upon us already.

  • evnow

    Given how many of these direct-fuel-from-pollution discoveries are currently being made, it’s certainly exciting to think that actual commercialization of them is not too far away

    That depends on your definition of “not too far away”. Give it a century – we will definitely get there.

    Unfortunately, we don’t have a century. Peak oil is upon us already.

  • evnow

    Given how many of these direct-fuel-from-pollution discoveries are currently being made, it’s certainly exciting to think that actual commercialization of them is not too far away

    That depends on your definition of “not too far away”. Give it a century – we will definitely get there.

    Unfortunately, we don’t have a century. Peak oil is upon us already.

  • evnow

    Given how many of these direct-fuel-from-pollution discoveries are currently being made, it’s certainly exciting to think that actual commercialization of them is not too far away

    That depends on your definition of “not too far away”. Give it a century – we will definitely get there.

    Unfortunately, we don’t have a century. Peak oil is upon us already.

  • evnow

    Given how many of these direct-fuel-from-pollution discoveries are currently being made, it’s certainly exciting to think that actual commercialization of them is not too far away

    That depends on your definition of “not too far away”. Give it a century – we will definitely get there.

    Unfortunately, we don’t have a century. Peak oil is upon us already.

  • Joe

    Hey Nick:

    DON’T TELL ANYONE, BUT CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUTANT.

    IT IS A NATURALLY OCCURING GAS, AS IT HAS BEEN FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS AND HAS BEEN USED BY ALL PLANTS FOR JUST AS LONG. IT HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND CONSUMED BY PLANTS BEFORE MAMMALS EVER EXISTED.

    STRANGE, BUT TRUE !!!

  • Joe

    Hey Nick:

    DON’T TELL ANYONE, BUT CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUTANT.

    IT IS A NATURALLY OCCURING GAS, AS IT HAS BEEN FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS AND HAS BEEN USED BY ALL PLANTS FOR JUST AS LONG. IT HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND CONSUMED BY PLANTS BEFORE MAMMALS EVER EXISTED.

    STRANGE, BUT TRUE !!!

  • Joe

    Hey Nick:

    DON’T TELL ANYONE, BUT CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUTANT.

    IT IS A NATURALLY OCCURING GAS, AS IT HAS BEEN FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS AND HAS BEEN USED BY ALL PLANTS FOR JUST AS LONG. IT HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND CONSUMED BY PLANTS BEFORE MAMMALS EVER EXISTED.

    STRANGE, BUT TRUE !!!

  • Nick Chambers

    Hey Joe:

    DON’T TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY BUT TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS LAME.

    ALSO, I GUESS YOU MAY NOT HAVE HEARD IN YOUR CAVE OF DELUSION, BUT THE EPA JUST RULED THAT ALL GREENHOUSE GASES, INCLUDING CARBON DIOXIDE, ARE DANGEROUS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND, THEREFORE, REGULATABLE UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT AS POLLUTANTS. WHILE WHAT YOU SAY IS TECHNICALLY TRUE, IT IGNORES THE CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION.

  • Jeffrey Henderson

    @Nick

    Well god damn!! If some appointee at the EPA said it’s a pollutant than by god we better do something to stop this evil gas and do it quick.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think this is an awesome breakthrough and these kind of technologies will definitely bring good to society but can we PLEASE stop thinking that CO2 is going to kill everyone?

    OR

    If you really believe it’s going to kill everyone can you PLEASE hold your breath indefinitely?? You know every time you exhale you’re polluting OUR environment.

    Thx!

  • Jeffrey Henderson

    @Nick

    Well god damn!! If some appointee at the EPA said it’s a pollutant than by god we better do something to stop this evil gas and do it quick.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think this is an awesome breakthrough and these kind of technologies will definitely bring good to society but can we PLEASE stop thinking that CO2 is going to kill everyone?

    OR

    If you really believe it’s going to kill everyone can you PLEASE hold your breath indefinitely?? You know every time you exhale you’re polluting OUR environment.

    Thx!

  • Jeffrey Henderson

    @Nick

    Well god damn!! If some appointee at the EPA said it’s a pollutant than by god we better do something to stop this evil gas and do it quick.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think this is an awesome breakthrough and these kind of technologies will definitely bring good to society but can we PLEASE stop thinking that CO2 is going to kill everyone?

    OR

    If you really believe it’s going to kill everyone can you PLEASE hold your breath indefinitely?? You know every time you exhale you’re polluting OUR environment.

    Thx!

  • Hi Nick…Great site!

    Converting CO2 is indeed a noble pursuit in human terms, but don’t get too caught up in the EPA rhetoric and newspeak.

    CO2 is technically NOT a pollutant, despite what anybody says in the 21st century. It’s actually a very abundant gas, that is crucial to life on Earth, and in fact has existed at MUCH higher concentrations in the past, adn vegetation flourished as a result!…It’s just not ideal for Humans above a certain concentration right now, due to ClimateChange concerns. PERIOD

    nb. Is H20 also a “pollutant” because it would be dangerous at higher levels? (ie. drowning in a pool of it?) The EPA is just playing fast and loose with syntax and terminology in order to achieve it’s political and regulatory objectives, and recent declarations clear the path to proceed with regulations on CO2…That’s all.

    You should also realize that NO2 and Methane (and yes even water vapor) are far, FAR more powerful greenhouse gases…but not as easily controled, captured or commodified. Let’s try to keep things in perspective from at least a factual POV…If not a rhetorical one. Thanks

    BTW: If you want to label CO2 as “dangerous to human health” then doesn’t that mean all soda, beers, and sparkling water/wines will be pulled off the shelves as well? if it really is a pollutant, then why not?

    Carbon Monoxide on the other hand…

    Now THAT’s a toxic pollutant!

    Keep up the good work

    ..and keep it REAL 😉

    -JF

  • Hi Nick…Great site!

    Converting CO2 is indeed a noble pursuit in human terms, but don’t get too caught up in the EPA rhetoric and newspeak.

    CO2 is technically NOT a pollutant, despite what anybody says in the 21st century. It’s actually a very abundant gas, that is crucial to life on Earth, and in fact has existed at MUCH higher concentrations in the past, adn vegetation flourished as a result!…It’s just not ideal for Humans above a certain concentration right now, due to ClimateChange concerns. PERIOD

    nb. Is H20 also a “pollutant” because it would be dangerous at higher levels? (ie. drowning in a pool of it?) The EPA is just playing fast and loose with syntax and terminology in order to achieve it’s political and regulatory objectives, and recent declarations clear the path to proceed with regulations on CO2…That’s all.

    You should also realize that NO2 and Methane (and yes even water vapor) are far, FAR more powerful greenhouse gases…but not as easily controled, captured or commodified. Let’s try to keep things in perspective from at least a factual POV…If not a rhetorical one. Thanks

    BTW: If you want to label CO2 as “dangerous to human health” then doesn’t that mean all soda, beers, and sparkling water/wines will be pulled off the shelves as well? if it really is a pollutant, then why not?

    Carbon Monoxide on the other hand…

    Now THAT’s a toxic pollutant!

    Keep up the good work

    ..and keep it REAL 😉

    -JF

  • Hi Nick…Great site!

    Converting CO2 is indeed a noble pursuit in human terms, but don’t get too caught up in the EPA rhetoric and newspeak.

    CO2 is technically NOT a pollutant, despite what anybody says in the 21st century. It’s actually a very abundant gas, that is crucial to life on Earth, and in fact has existed at MUCH higher concentrations in the past, adn vegetation flourished as a result!…It’s just not ideal for Humans above a certain concentration right now, due to ClimateChange concerns. PERIOD

    nb. Is H20 also a “pollutant” because it would be dangerous at higher levels? (ie. drowning in a pool of it?) The EPA is just playing fast and loose with syntax and terminology in order to achieve it’s political and regulatory objectives, and recent declarations clear the path to proceed with regulations on CO2…That’s all.

    You should also realize that NO2 and Methane (and yes even water vapor) are far, FAR more powerful greenhouse gases…but not as easily controled, captured or commodified. Let’s try to keep things in perspective from at least a factual POV…If not a rhetorical one. Thanks

    BTW: If you want to label CO2 as “dangerous to human health” then doesn’t that mean all soda, beers, and sparkling water/wines will be pulled off the shelves as well? if it really is a pollutant, then why not?

    Carbon Monoxide on the other hand…

    Now THAT’s a toxic pollutant!

    Keep up the good work

    ..and keep it REAL 😉

    -JF

  • Nick Chambers

    Jo and Jeffrey,

    I am well aware of the technical aspects of what CO2 is from a chemical standpoint and how it is necessary for life as we know it. I also understand that CO2 is not the most effective greenhouse gas. I am also well aware that the greenhouse effect has been operating on this planet for hundreds of millions of years. I have a graduate education in Soil Chemistry and an undergraduate degree in Geology.

    The basic misunderstood issue isn’t that CO2 by itself is dangerous, it’s the manner in which it’s produced. I’m not caught up in any government regulatory scheme. I believe the EPA has made the right decision declaring CO2 (and all greenhouse gases) a danger to human health and therefore regulatable as a pollutant under the clean air act. What that means is that the EPA can now look at all the ways in which CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) enters the atmosphere and determine, on a case by case basis, which ways represent a threat to human health. Clearly breathing will not be on that list. But the burning of fossil fuels will be and should be.

  • JJ

    Its interesting to see the development in CO2+solar to synfuels, but I am becoming more doubtful for the very simple reason that the available solar energy is so diffused and that large areas would be needed to generate any useful volumes of fuel. Perhaps this would be an easy process to put out to sea using huge floating pontoons feeding a factory ship to process the fuel.

    Even if all the bio or catalytic processes were 100% efficient at converting a given acreage amount of light with unlimited CO2, the energy embedded into the fuel will eventually be used by an internal combustion energy at only 30% efficiency or worse. The front end will never be 100% efficient since plants are only near 1% efficient. I’d doubt that any synfuel process could use 10% of the solar energy.

    If the solar energy were instead used to drive electric power generation, the front end is now perhaps 30% efficient with a Stirling engine or concentrated PV and the backend use is closer to 90% efficient in EVs with battery storage and drive chain. So we are already there in electric except the front and back ends are both more expensive than the current fuel based economy. I already said as much in the previous story on iron oxide as the catalyst used with the Suncatcher dish.

    Maybe the synfuel industry should be looking at using heat from a much more concentrated source such as nuclear heat (Thorium please) or the giga BTUs of available waste heat. Of course life in the deep oceans uses no light and lives off nothing but heat and the available minerals from the thermal vents. Perhaps there is some bacteria that can be found there that can really be far more productive in a confined space fed CO2 directly from fossil fuel plant.

    That then begs the question, if you use any fossil fuel to make electricity and produce waste CO2 then use maybe dense nuclear heat and suitable bacteria or catalyst to turn that waste CO2 back into some fuel, you might as well cancel it all out and use the nuclear heat to electricity and forget fuels => CO2+energy => fuel issue in the first place. We should only use fuels for machines for which there can not be a practical electrical equivalent.

    As for the CO2 and EPA issue. I believe humans emit about 10% of the CO2 that natural processes emit, but we don’t recycle it hence we are acting as a tipping force. Either we reduce our emissions or we help nature to increase its take up on a huge scale to get back into balance. Once we are in rough balance, the situation should work itself out eventually. In the mean time the EPA is just the device we can use to get the ball rolling.

  • JJ

    Its interesting to see the development in CO2+solar to synfuels, but I am becoming more doubtful for the very simple reason that the available solar energy is so diffused and that large areas would be needed to generate any useful volumes of fuel. Perhaps this would be an easy process to put out to sea using huge floating pontoons feeding a factory ship to process the fuel.

    Even if all the bio or catalytic processes were 100% efficient at converting a given acreage amount of light with unlimited CO2, the energy embedded into the fuel will eventually be used by an internal combustion energy at only 30% efficiency or worse. The front end will never be 100% efficient since plants are only near 1% efficient. I’d doubt that any synfuel process could use 10% of the solar energy.

    If the solar energy were instead used to drive electric power generation, the front end is now perhaps 30% efficient with a Stirling engine or concentrated PV and the backend use is closer to 90% efficient in EVs with battery storage and drive chain. So we are already there in electric except the front and back ends are both more expensive than the current fuel based economy. I already said as much in the previous story on iron oxide as the catalyst used with the Suncatcher dish.

    Maybe the synfuel industry should be looking at using heat from a much more concentrated source such as nuclear heat (Thorium please) or the giga BTUs of available waste heat. Of course life in the deep oceans uses no light and lives off nothing but heat and the available minerals from the thermal vents. Perhaps there is some bacteria that can be found there that can really be far more productive in a confined space fed CO2 directly from fossil fuel plant.

    That then begs the question, if you use any fossil fuel to make electricity and produce waste CO2 then use maybe dense nuclear heat and suitable bacteria or catalyst to turn that waste CO2 back into some fuel, you might as well cancel it all out and use the nuclear heat to electricity and forget fuels => CO2+energy => fuel issue in the first place. We should only use fuels for machines for which there can not be a practical electrical equivalent.

    As for the CO2 and EPA issue. I believe humans emit about 10% of the CO2 that natural processes emit, but we don’t recycle it hence we are acting as a tipping force. Either we reduce our emissions or we help nature to increase its take up on a huge scale to get back into balance. Once we are in rough balance, the situation should work itself out eventually. In the mean time the EPA is just the device we can use to get the ball rolling.

  • JJ

    Its interesting to see the development in CO2+solar to synfuels, but I am becoming more doubtful for the very simple reason that the available solar energy is so diffused and that large areas would be needed to generate any useful volumes of fuel. Perhaps this would be an easy process to put out to sea using huge floating pontoons feeding a factory ship to process the fuel.

    Even if all the bio or catalytic processes were 100% efficient at converting a given acreage amount of light with unlimited CO2, the energy embedded into the fuel will eventually be used by an internal combustion energy at only 30% efficiency or worse. The front end will never be 100% efficient since plants are only near 1% efficient. I’d doubt that any synfuel process could use 10% of the solar energy.

    If the solar energy were instead used to drive electric power generation, the front end is now perhaps 30% efficient with a Stirling engine or concentrated PV and the backend use is closer to 90% efficient in EVs with battery storage and drive chain. So we are already there in electric except the front and back ends are both more expensive than the current fuel based economy. I already said as much in the previous story on iron oxide as the catalyst used with the Suncatcher dish.

    Maybe the synfuel industry should be looking at using heat from a much more concentrated source such as nuclear heat (Thorium please) or the giga BTUs of available waste heat. Of course life in the deep oceans uses no light and lives off nothing but heat and the available minerals from the thermal vents. Perhaps there is some bacteria that can be found there that can really be far more productive in a confined space fed CO2 directly from fossil fuel plant.

    That then begs the question, if you use any fossil fuel to make electricity and produce waste CO2 then use maybe dense nuclear heat and suitable bacteria or catalyst to turn that waste CO2 back into some fuel, you might as well cancel it all out and use the nuclear heat to electricity and forget fuels => CO2+energy => fuel issue in the first place. We should only use fuels for machines for which there can not be a practical electrical equivalent.

    As for the CO2 and EPA issue. I believe humans emit about 10% of the CO2 that natural processes emit, but we don’t recycle it hence we are acting as a tipping force. Either we reduce our emissions or we help nature to increase its take up on a huge scale to get back into balance. Once we are in rough balance, the situation should work itself out eventually. In the mean time the EPA is just the device we can use to get the ball rolling.

  • ChuckL

    What we need gentlemen is a way to restrict the Federal Government to only those powers that are assigned to it by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    Essentially what has been done in the name of environmental control is restricted to the States and the Federal Government is prohibited from acting in these areas.

    This also applies to Healthcare and Federal welfare payments, including my Social Security. The only thing that the Federal Government should be doing in these matters is determining how to transfer them to the states without more harm to the citizens of this country.

  • ChuckL

    What we need gentlemen is a way to restrict the Federal Government to only those powers that are assigned to it by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    Essentially what has been done in the name of environmental control is restricted to the States and the Federal Government is prohibited from acting in these areas.

    This also applies to Healthcare and Federal welfare payments, including my Social Security. The only thing that the Federal Government should be doing in these matters is determining how to transfer them to the states without more harm to the citizens of this country.

  • ChuckL

    What we need gentlemen is a way to restrict the Federal Government to only those powers that are assigned to it by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    Essentially what has been done in the name of environmental control is restricted to the States and the Federal Government is prohibited from acting in these areas.

    This also applies to Healthcare and Federal welfare payments, including my Social Security. The only thing that the Federal Government should be doing in these matters is determining how to transfer them to the states without more harm to the citizens of this country.

  • Jack

    Most global warming scientists (don’t let them get away with changing their stripes) will grudgingly admit that the climate-change models they trumpted hysterically are extremely limited. Garbage in, garbage out. They are nowhere near ANY kind of fidelity to the real processes in their models. For instance, it is well known (but supressed) that the role of and mechanism cloud formation is poorly understood to not at all in terms of climate mechanics. Are you willing to tell me you now know enough to completely re-orient and damage our economy on a massive scale? Is this the bar that you would set, acting on sketchy information and incomplete (i.e., flawed) computer models? And we also know now that large portions of the scientific data were manipulated and fabricated. Hmm…

  • Jack

    Most global warming scientists (don’t let them get away with changing their stripes) will grudgingly admit that the climate-change models they trumpted hysterically are extremely limited. Garbage in, garbage out. They are nowhere near ANY kind of fidelity to the real processes in their models. For instance, it is well known (but supressed) that the role of and mechanism cloud formation is poorly understood to not at all in terms of climate mechanics. Are you willing to tell me you now know enough to completely re-orient and damage our economy on a massive scale? Is this the bar that you would set, acting on sketchy information and incomplete (i.e., flawed) computer models? And we also know now that large portions of the scientific data were manipulated and fabricated. Hmm…

  • Nick Chambers

    Jack,

    It is a fact of life that we are constantly forced to act on incomplete information. In fact, I would posit that it is a fundamental instrument of our economy, our daily lives, and everything else that humans do. The idea that we have to be 100% positive about something before we act is lunacy. If we used that same criteria with our economy, with our government, or, indeed, with our personal lives, humans would still be eating bugs from the back of a stick and throwing excrement at each other for fun.

    The assertion that “large portions” of the scientific data and literature regarding climate change have been manipulated clearly shows that you have no concept of the amount of overwhelming information out there that indicates global warming is occurring and it is caused by humans. In thousands of published papers and in even countless more thousands of unpublished observations, it is now clear that climate change is occurring and that humans are causing it.

    Models are just models. They are certainly prone to mistakes. But models are not the whole story, regardless of what the media tells you.

    The natural environment, just like the economy, is a complex and dynamically changing thing. There is no way to accurately predict every possible outcome from every input or action. But like any successful corporation or government, once you have most of the information and it clearly shows a trend, you need to act on that trend to maximize the outcome. If you don’t, your corporation or government will be hurt. In the case of climate change, it’s not only hurt we are talking about, it’s the death of civilization as we know it. Are you willing to risk everything because only 20% of the information has yet to come in?

  • Bob

    Wow, I am impressed by the response this article has caused.

    This kind of system is the kind of system that a village could put together to make their village energy SUSTAINABLE!

    It doesn’t have to be large scale just a scale that is efficient.

    Remember as the individual “bugs” die they can also be a form of food or compost or something.

    I always wonder if the scientists can see these solutions as a way to build small islands of sustainability that in the long run will link together to form a world wide sustainability.

    How stable is butanol for storage?

  • Bob

    Wow, I am impressed by the response this article has caused.

    This kind of system is the kind of system that a village could put together to make their village energy SUSTAINABLE!

    It doesn’t have to be large scale just a scale that is efficient.

    Remember as the individual “bugs” die they can also be a form of food or compost or something.

    I always wonder if the scientists can see these solutions as a way to build small islands of sustainability that in the long run will link together to form a world wide sustainability.

    How stable is butanol for storage?

  • Bob

    Wow, I am impressed by the response this article has caused.

    This kind of system is the kind of system that a village could put together to make their village energy SUSTAINABLE!

    It doesn’t have to be large scale just a scale that is efficient.

    Remember as the individual “bugs” die they can also be a form of food or compost or something.

    I always wonder if the scientists can see these solutions as a way to build small islands of sustainability that in the long run will link together to form a world wide sustainability.

    How stable is butanol for storage?

  • Bob

    Wow, I am impressed by the response this article has caused.

    This kind of system is the kind of system that a village could put together to make their village energy SUSTAINABLE!

    It doesn’t have to be large scale just a scale that is efficient.

    Remember as the individual “bugs” die they can also be a form of food or compost or something.

    I always wonder if the scientists can see these solutions as a way to build small islands of sustainability that in the long run will link together to form a world wide sustainability.

    How stable is butanol for storage?

  • Bob

    Wow, I am impressed by the response this article has caused.

    This kind of system is the kind of system that a village could put together to make their village energy SUSTAINABLE!

    It doesn’t have to be large scale just a scale that is efficient.

    Remember as the individual “bugs” die they can also be a form of food or compost or something.

    I always wonder if the scientists can see these solutions as a way to build small islands of sustainability that in the long run will link together to form a world wide sustainability.

    How stable is butanol for storage?

  • DrSnacks

    Man some guy leaks a couple of emails of scientists clowning about what a bunch of retards you deniers are and you all the sudden think you have a license to come out of the woodwork and ruin every conversation the grown-ups are trying to have.

  • DrSnacks

    Man some guy leaks a couple of emails of scientists clowning about what a bunch of retards you deniers are and you all the sudden think you have a license to come out of the woodwork and ruin every conversation the grown-ups are trying to have.

  • If this tech proves to be a little too efficient, then Big Oil will hide it, get rid of it, asap!!

  • If this tech proves to be a little too efficient, then Big Oil will hide it, get rid of it, asap!!

  • Curmudgeon

    RE: Carbon Dioxide eating microbes

    Headlines shortly after microbes are put to work making fuel from atmospheric CO2: “World faces dangerous Carbon Dioxide deficit. Talks in Copenhagen move towards a Carbon Dioxide Deficit Tax to be collected internationally and paid to large fuel CO2 refinery corporations (ex oil corporations). Developing nations and individuals have been put on notice: Make more CO2 or be prepared to pay a significant CO2 deficit tax.”

  • Curmudgeon

    RE: Carbon Dioxide eating microbes

    Headlines shortly after microbes are put to work making fuel from atmospheric CO2: “World faces dangerous Carbon Dioxide deficit. Talks in Copenhagen move towards a Carbon Dioxide Deficit Tax to be collected internationally and paid to large fuel CO2 refinery corporations (ex oil corporations). Developing nations and individuals have been put on notice: Make more CO2 or be prepared to pay a significant CO2 deficit tax.”

  • Jack

    “The assertion that “large portions” of the scientific data and literature regarding climate change have been manipulated clearly shows that you have no concept of the amount of overwhelming information out there that indicates global warming is occurring and it is caused by humans.”

    This is a complete falsehood! There is NO evidence that global warming is man-made. Where is your proof sir? [slap!]

    The trend in fact, is down. THank you very much. Global temperatures show a consistent decrease, so glad you brought it up. But you wouldn’t know that, and even if you did you are inclined to dismiss it (as I am sure you are engaged in such a mental pursuit at this moment). Since the reaction is: ‘oh, the temperatures might go, they might go down. They equally prove the case that global warming is happening.’ Such a view is incoherent, sorry to break it to you. If said temperatures rise, even if by a little bit and are triumphantly held to be solid evidence of global warming, then the converse must be true as well, undercutting the entire argument.

    If ever we want/need an example of weak minds to demonstrate the power of suggestability (if not guillibility) we can look not just to the average lemming but the ones who ought to know better. Perhaps Bush could have said instead: “I had to abandon scientific method in order to save the earth.”

  • Jack

    “The assertion that “large portions” of the scientific data and literature regarding climate change have been manipulated clearly shows that you have no concept of the amount of overwhelming information out there that indicates global warming is occurring and it is caused by humans.”

    This is a complete falsehood! There is NO evidence that global warming is man-made. Where is your proof sir? [slap!]

    The trend in fact, is down. THank you very much. Global temperatures show a consistent decrease, so glad you brought it up. But you wouldn’t know that, and even if you did you are inclined to dismiss it (as I am sure you are engaged in such a mental pursuit at this moment). Since the reaction is: ‘oh, the temperatures might go, they might go down. They equally prove the case that global warming is happening.’ Such a view is incoherent, sorry to break it to you. If said temperatures rise, even if by a little bit and are triumphantly held to be solid evidence of global warming, then the converse must be true as well, undercutting the entire argument.

    If ever we want/need an example of weak minds to demonstrate the power of suggestability (if not guillibility) we can look not just to the average lemming but the ones who ought to know better. Perhaps Bush could have said instead: “I had to abandon scientific method in order to save the earth.”

  • Nick Chambers

    Jack,

    Before I am forced to defend myself even given the overwhelming support I have the world over, my only question to you is, where do you get your evidence that global warming is not man made? My evidence that it is man made is in the form of thousands of scientific papers on the topic, more than 13 years of undergraduate and graduate education in geology, soil science, microbiology, agriculture, and chemistry courses, never ending research on the topic to be able to publish about it, and an open mind. What’s yours? The opinions of some fringe “scientists” funded by big oil, republican lobbyists, or the like? Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? Seriously, I’d like to know what your proof is to back up your claim that global warming is not man made.

  • Maybe you can hook up a CO2 booster to this process. They are used to increase yields in greenhouses– by increasing CO2 levels.

    Google: CO2 Boost – All-natural CO2 Generators for the purpose of CO2

    Don’t tell the EPA or anything. They may decide that plant boosting is poisonous.

    By the way, Al Gore is a fraud.

  • Maybe you can hook up a CO2 booster to this process. They are used to increase yields in greenhouses– by increasing CO2 levels.

    Google: CO2 Boost – All-natural CO2 Generators for the purpose of CO2

    Don’t tell the EPA or anything. They may decide that plant boosting is poisonous.

    By the way, Al Gore is a fraud.

  • Jack

    Um, if you don’t know you can’t prove a negative, then you are beyond help.

  • Jack

    Um, if you don’t know you can’t prove a negative, then you are beyond help.