Common bacteria converts seaweed to ethanol

[konradv]

seaweed is gay...............

That'll be the next thing the k00ks push......cars powered by seaweed!!

God I love this forum!!!!!!!!

That's right kookster, you prefer dinosaur shit, don't you?

 

[westwall]

Why do we need to "replace" fossil fuels? What is wrong with using them

Petroleum has so many better uses in the manufacture of plastics and other materials.

 

[westwall]

Why do we need to "replace" fossil fuels? What is wrong with using them

I think you're the clear winner of the "Most Completely Clueless Poster" award for 2012.

Fossil fuels release fossil carbon into the atmosphere when they are burned.

Burning fossil fuels over the last couple of centuries has increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels by 40%.

Carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas.

Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have produced abrupt and unnatural global warming and accelerating climate changes that threaten to destroy important parts of the Earth's ecosystems and bio-diversity and also threaten human civilization and populations.

That's why we need to replace fossil fuels with clean, non CO2 emitting energy sources, like solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean energy (wave, tide, current) sources or, second best, carbon neutral bio-fuels like ethanol.

Who cares. CO2 is not a pollutant. More CO2=more and bigger plants.

 

[skookerasbil]

seaweed is gay...............

That'll be the next thing the k00ks push......cars powered by seaweed!!

God I love this forum!!!!!!!!

That's right kookster, you prefer dinosaur shit, don't you?

Hey what can I say? I never quite embraced that eccentric nutter thing that is somehow compelling to the radical environmentalists. Always wondered what that was about.......perhaps the response of assholes who, as kids, had their mouths washed out with too much Lifeboy soap? Being forced to eat lima beans as a child? IDK.........but there is some fcukkedupedness going on there.

 

[alan1]

Why do we need to "replace" fossil fuels? What is wrong with using them

I think you're the clear winner of the "Most Completely Clueless Poster" award for 2012.

Fossil fuels release fossil carbon into the atmosphere when they are burned.

Burning fossil fuels over the last couple of centuries has increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels by 40%.

Carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas.

Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have produced abrupt and unnatural global warming and accelerating climate changes that threaten to destroy important parts of the Earth's ecosystems and bio-diversity and also threaten human civilization and populations.

That's why we need to replace fossil fuels with clean, non CO2 emitting energy sources, like solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean energy (wave, tide, current) sources or, second best, carbon neutral bio-fuels like ethanol.

Doesn't burning ethanol also create CO2?
Is CO2 from ethanol somehow different than CO2 from fossil fuels?

 

[westwall]

Why do we need to "replace" fossil fuels? What is wrong with using them

I think you're the clear winner of the "Most Completely Clueless Poster" award for 2012.

Fossil fuels release fossil carbon into the atmosphere when they are burned.

Burning fossil fuels over the last couple of centuries has increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels by 40%.

Carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas.

Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have produced abrupt and unnatural global warming and accelerating climate changes that threaten to destroy important parts of the Earth's ecosystems and bio-diversity and also threaten human civilization and populations.

That's why we need to replace fossil fuels with clean, non CO2 emitting energy sources, like solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean energy (wave, tide, current) sources or, second best, carbon neutral bio-fuels like ethanol.

Doesn't burning ethanol also create CO2?
Is CO2 from ethanol somehow different than CO2 from fossil fuels?

Oh yes...it's a kinder gentler brand of CO2

 

[Mr. H.]

And the reason for that is just what exactly???? Are you imagining that there is a big shortage of seaweed?

See my most recent post above.
Exactly.

So...you're incapable of answering the questions rationally then....as I suspected

I answered you. You're just a tad... dim.

 

[RollingThunder]

Why do we need to "replace" fossil fuels? What is wrong with using them

I think you're the clear winner of the "Most Completely Clueless Poster" award for 2012.

Fossil fuels release fossil carbon into the atmosphere when they are burned.

Burning fossil fuels over the last couple of centuries has increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels by 40%.

Carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas.

Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have produced abrupt and unnatural global warming and accelerating climate changes that threaten to destroy important parts of the Earth's ecosystems and bio-diversity and also threaten human civilization and populations.

That's why we need to replace fossil fuels with clean, non CO2 emitting energy sources, like solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean energy (wave, tide, current) sources or, second best, carbon neutral bio-fuels like ethanol.

Doesn't burning ethanol also create CO2?
Is CO2 from ethanol somehow different than CO2 from fossil fuels?

Bio fuels like ethanol are considered to be 'carbon-neutral' in that they are made from plants that just recently removed some carbon from the atmosphere so the net balance when the bio fuels are burned is zero because about as much carbon is released as CO2 when the plant fuel is burned as was sequestered when the plant was growing. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, contain vast quantities of carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago over long periods of time. Any carbon released as CO2 when fossil fuels are burned is a net addition to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[RollingThunder]

And ethanol could never ever supplant the 20 million barrels of crude that we use each day in the U.S.

And the reason for that is just what exactly???? Are you imagining that there is a big shortage of seaweed?

See my most recent post above.
Exactly.

So...you're incapable of answering the questions rationally then....as I suspected

I answered you. You're just a tad... dim.

You may, I suppose, be imagining that you answered me but that was only in your own little private fantasy world. Now try doing it in the real world, "tad...dim".

Please explain exactly why ethanol "could never ever" replace fossil fuels, particularly if it could be made from abundant seaweed, that isn't, BTW, a food source for humans. Some countries have already made a good start. Explain this....

Ethanol fuel in Brazil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brazil is the world's second largest producer of ethanol fuel and the world's largest exporter. Together, Brazil and the United States lead the industrial production of ethanol fuel, accounting together for 87.8% of the world's production in 2010.[1][2] In 2010 Brazil produced 26.2 billion litres (6.92 billion U.S. liquid gallons), representing 30.1% of the world's total ethanol used as fuel.[1]

Brazil is considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy and the biofuel industry leader,[3][4][5][6] a policy model for other countries; and its sugarcane ethanol "the most successful alternative fuel to date."[7] However, some authors consider that the successful Brazilian ethanol model is sustainable only in Brazil due to its advanced agri-industrial technology and its enormous amount of arable land available;[7] while according to other authors it is a solution only for some countries in the tropical zone of Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa.[8][9][10]

Brazil’s 36-year-old ethanol fuel program is based on the most efficient agricultural technology for sugarcane cultivation in the world,[11] uses modern equipment and cheap sugar cane as feedstock, the residual cane-waste (bagasse) is used to process heat and power, which results in a very competitive price and also in a high energy balance (output energy/input energy), which varies from 8.3 for average conditions to 10.2 for best practice production.[5][12] In 2010, the U.S. EPA designated Brazilian sugarcane ethanol as an advanced biofuel due to its 61% reduction of total life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, including direct indirect land use change emissions.[13][14]

There are no longer any light vehicles in Brazil running on pure gasoline. Since 1976 the government made it mandatory to blend anhydrous ethanol with gasoline, fluctuating between 10% to 22%.[15] and requiring just a minor adjustment on regular gasoline engines. In 1993 the mandatory blend was fixed by law at 22% anhydrous ethanol (E22) by volume in the entire country, but with leeway to the Executive to set different percentages of ethanol within pre-established boundaries. In 2003 these limits were set at a minimum of 20% and a maximum of 25%.[16] Since July 1, 2007 the mandatory blend is 25% of anhydrous ethanol and 75% gasoline or E25 blend.[17] The lower limit was reduced to 18% in April 2011 due to recurring ethanol supply shortages and high prices that take place between harvest seasons.[18]

The Brazilian car manufacturing industry developed flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on any proportion of gasoline (E20-E25 blend) and hydrous ethanol (E100).[19] Introduced in the market in 2003, flex vehicles became a commercial success,[20] reaching a record 92.3% share of all new cars and light vehicle sales for 2009.[21] By December 2009 they represented 39% of Brazil's registered Otto cycle light motor vehicle fleet,[21] and the cumulative production of flex-fuel cars and light commercial vehicles reached the milestone of 10 million vehicles in March 2010,[22][23] with 70 flex models available in the market by mid 2010 from 11 major carmakers.[24] The success of "flex" vehicles, together with the mandatory E25 blend throughout the country, have allowed ethanol fuel consumption in the country to achieve a 50% market share of the gasoline-powered fleet by February 2008.[25][26] In terms of energy equivalent, sugarcane ethanol represented 17.6% of the country's total energy consumption by the transport sector in 2008.[27]

 

[Unkotare]

What a waste of yummy seaweed!

 

[westwall]

I think you're the clear winner of the "Most Completely Clueless Poster" award for 2012.

Fossil fuels release fossil carbon into the atmosphere when they are burned.

Burning fossil fuels over the last couple of centuries has increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels by 40%.

Carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas.

Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have produced abrupt and unnatural global warming and accelerating climate changes that threaten to destroy important parts of the Earth's ecosystems and bio-diversity and also threaten human civilization and populations.

That's why we need to replace fossil fuels with clean, non CO2 emitting energy sources, like solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean energy (wave, tide, current) sources or, second best, carbon neutral bio-fuels like ethanol.

Doesn't burning ethanol also create CO2?
Is CO2 from ethanol somehow different than CO2 from fossil fuels?

Bio fuels like ethanol are considered to be 'carbon-neutral' in that they are made from plants that just recently removed some carbon from the atmosphere so the net balance when the bio fuels are burned is zero because about as much carbon is released as CO2 when the plant fuel is burned as was sequestered when the plant was growing. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, contain vast quantities of carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago over long periods of time. Any carbon released as CO2 when fossil fuels are burned is a net addition to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

They are only carbon neutral when you ignore the processing of the bio mass to create the fuel. Tsk tsk tsk. Allways cutting corners and getting it wrong.

Here is the breakdown....

Photosynthesis: 6H2O + 6CO2 => C6H12O6 + 6O2
Fermentation: C6H12O6 => 2C2H5OH + 2CO2
Combustion: 2C2H5OH + 6O2 => 4CO2 + 6H2O

When one looks at just this simple formula everything looks carbon neutral because photosynthesis uss 6CO2 per mole of glucose. Fermentation and combustion create 2CO2 and 4CO2 respectively thus balancing out the photosynthesis. However, it takes fuel to grow and harvest the corn or sugarcane for fermentation, fermentation requires heat so that the reaction can occur (which takes more fuel) thus it turns out that ethanol is nowhere near carbon neutral. Yet another fib profered upon the people of the world.


Tsk tsk tsk.

 

[RollingThunder]

Doesn't burning ethanol also create CO2?
Is CO2 from ethanol somehow different than CO2 from fossil fuels?

Bio fuels like ethanol are considered to be 'carbon-neutral' in that they are made from plants that just recently removed some carbon from the atmosphere so the net balance when the bio fuels are burned is zero because about as much carbon is released as CO2 when the plant fuel is burned as was sequestered when the plant was growing. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, contain vast quantities of carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago over long periods of time. Any carbon released as CO2 when fossil fuels are burned is a net addition to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

They are only carbon neutral when you ignore the processing of the bio mass to create the fuel. Tsk tsk tsk. Allways cutting corners and getting it wrong.

Here is the breakdown....

Photosynthesis: 6H2O + 6CO2 => C6H12O6 + 6O2
Fermentation: C6H12O6 => 2C2H5OH + 2CO2
Combustion: 2C2H5OH + 6O2 => 4CO2 + 6H2O

When one looks at just this simple formula everything looks carbon neutral because photosynthesis uss 6CO2 per mole of glucose. Fermentation and combustion create 2CO2 and 4CO2 respectively thus balancing out the photosynthesis. However, it takes fuel to grow and harvest the corn or sugarcane for fermentation, fermentation requires heat so that the reaction can occur (which takes more fuel) thus it turns out that ethanol is nowhere near carbon neutral. Yet another fib profered(sic) upon the people of the world.
Tsk tsk tsk.

I sometimes forget just how stupid you actually are. The process of growing the plants and processing them into bio fuel does require some fuel but not nearly as much as the process produces which means that they can use a small portion of the ethanol in the tractors and to heat the stills and the whole thing remains carbon neutral. A term, BTW, the meaning of which you seem incapable of actually comprehending. They're burning a plant fuel that releases an amount of CO2 into the air when burned that is equal to the amount of CO2 that the plants previously sequestered from the air. The net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains the same = "carbon neutral".

 

[Mr. H.]

So...you're incapable of answering the questions rationally then....as I suspected

I answered you. You're just a tad... dim.

You may, I suppose, be imagining that you answered me but that was only in your own little private fantasy world. Now try doing it in the real world, "tad...dim".

Please explain exactly why ethanol "could never ever" replace fossil fuels, particularly if it could be made from abundant seaweed, that isn't, BTW, a food source for humans. Some countries have already made a good start. Explain this....

You're the moron that skipped high school chemistry.

Roiling Thrombose

 

[The Infidel]

Bio fuels like ethanol are considered to be 'carbon-neutral' in that they are made from plants that just recently removed some carbon from the atmosphere so the net balance when the bio fuels are burned is zero because about as much carbon is released as CO2 when the plant fuel is burned as was sequestered when the plant was growing. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, contain vast quantities of carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago over long periods of time. Any carbon released as CO2 when fossil fuels are burned is a net addition to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

They are only carbon neutral when you ignore the processing of the bio mass to create the fuel. Tsk tsk tsk. Allways cutting corners and getting it wrong.

Here is the breakdown....

Photosynthesis: 6H2O + 6CO2 => C6H12O6 + 6O2
Fermentation: C6H12O6 => 2C2H5OH + 2CO2
Combustion: 2C2H5OH + 6O2 => 4CO2 + 6H2O

When one looks at just this simple formula everything looks carbon neutral because photosynthesis uss 6CO2 per mole of glucose. Fermentation and combustion create 2CO2 and 4CO2 respectively thus balancing out the photosynthesis. However, it takes fuel to grow and harvest the corn or sugarcane for fermentation, fermentation requires heat so that the reaction can occur (which takes more fuel) thus it turns out that ethanol is nowhere near carbon neutral. Yet another fib profered(sic) upon the people of the world.
Tsk tsk tsk.

I sometimes forget just how stupid you actually are. The process of growing the plants and processing them into bio fuel does require some fuel but not nearly as much as the process produces which means that they can use a small portion of the ethanol in the tractors and to heat the stills and the whole thing remains carbon neutral. A term, BTW, the meaning of which you seem incapable of actually comprehending. They're burning a plant fuel that releases an amount of CO2 into the air when burned that is equal to the amount of CO2 that the plants previously sequestered from the air. The net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains the same = "carbon neutral".

Very expensive and not cost effective.

 

[Leweman]

too bad ethanol is horrible for engines ... if they can fix that problem then they might have something.

 

[Gagafritz]

Using our food supply as fuel as the stupidest idea i have ever heard. As for oil, what is more NATURAL than oil? Nothing. We didn't invent it or put it there. It is there in abundance. What good does it do to leave it in the ground? NOTHING. Use it until it is gone, then move on. But, it will never be gone.

 

[RollingThunder]

And ethanol could never ever supplant the 20 million barrels of crude that we use each day in the U.S.

And the reason for that is just what exactly???? Are you imagining that there is a big shortage of seaweed?

See my most recent post above.
Exactly.

So...you're incapable of answering the questions rationally then....as I suspected

I answered you. You're just a tad... dim.

You may, I suppose, be imagining that you answered me but that was only in your own little private fantasy world. Now try doing it in the real world, "tad...dim".

Please explain exactly why ethanol "could never ever" replace fossil fuels, particularly if it could be made from abundant seaweed, that isn't, BTW, a food source for humans. Some countries have already made a good start. Explain this....
Ethanol fuel in Brazil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're the moron that skipped high school chemistry.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....Well, Mr Horseshit, I see you're still incapable of answering the question rationally. So typical of you moronic denier cultists to make idiotic statements that you can neither back up with any evidence nor even explain. I guess that's because you're just parroting the moronic lies and propaganda you scrape off of the fossil fuel industry sponsored denier cult blogs.

In fact, there are no barriers to producing vast quantities of alcohol fuel using these kind of genetically engineered bacteria to convert the sugars in otherwise unusable plant material like seaweed into something that can be fermented into alcohol. There are probably better alternatives like electric vehicles and hydrogen powered vehicles but bio-fuels will also probably continue to be developed and have its place in the new non-carbon emitting world energy economy.

BTW, how long have you been a stooge for the oil companies?

 

[RollingThunder]

I sometimes forget just how stupid you actually are. The process of growing the plants and processing them into bio fuel does require some fuel but not nearly as much as the process produces which means that they can use a small portion of the ethanol in the tractors and to heat the stills and the whole thing remains carbon neutral. A term, BTW, the meaning of which you seem incapable of actually comprehending. They're burning a plant fuel that releases an amount of CO2 into the air when burned that is equal to the amount of CO2 that the plants previously sequestered from the air. The net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains the same = "carbon neutral".

Very expensive and not cost effective.

Only in your little rightwingnut bizarro-world, InfidelityTroll. Or perhaps you'd like to explain your position to the Brazilians, you pathetic brainwashed retard.

Ethanol fuel in Brazil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RollingThunder]

too bad ethanol is horrible for engines ... if they can fix that problem then they might have something.

A small but not insurmountable problem that the Brazilians apparently aren't having much problem with. Henry Ford designed the famed Model T Ford to run on alcohol -- he said it was "the fuel of the future". Ethanol blends are increasingly used in South Africa, while Brazil, the world's ethanol fuel success story, produces four billion gallons of ethanol a year. All Brazilian fuel contains at least 24% ethanol, and much of it is 100% ethanol. Many other countries are implementing ethanol fuel programs. Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors all recommend ethanol fuels, and nearly every car manufacturer in the world approves ethanol blends in their warranty coverage.

Title : Effects of Alcohol Fuels on Engine Wear.

Descriptive Note : Interim rept. Sep 76-Sep 80,

Corporate Author : SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INST SAN ANTONIO TX ARMY FUELS AND LUBRICANTS RESEARCH LAB

Personal Author(s) : Owens,E. C. ; Marbach,H. W. , Jr. ; Frame,E. A. ; Ryan,T. W. , III

Report Date : OCT 1980

Abstract : Research into the effects of alcohol on engine lubrication and wear has investigated four alcohol-containing fuels; pure methanol, pure ethanol, methanol in unleaded gasoline, and ethanol, in unleaded gasoline. This research work has indicated that during low-temperature engine operations such as winter commuter service and warmup, use of pure methanol may result in increased engine wear. This increased wear appears to be primarily a low-temperature problem. With the engine warmed to normal operating temperatures, this increased wear has not been observed. To this point, the research with ethanol-containing fuels has not detected any wear increases. This may be due to the short duration engine tests being conducted, but nevertheless indicates that increased wear should be of less concern with this fuel. Wear mechanism studies have indicated that corrosive attack within the piston ring and cylinder area by alcohol combustion byproducts is partially responsible for the increased wear. Investigation of alcohol and lubricant compatibility and physical removal of the lubricant films by liquid alcohol have provided additional insights into these wear phenomena.

 

[westwall]

Bio fuels like ethanol are considered to be 'carbon-neutral' in that they are made from plants that just recently removed some carbon from the atmosphere so the net balance when the bio fuels are burned is zero because about as much carbon is released as CO2 when the plant fuel is burned as was sequestered when the plant was growing. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, contain vast quantities of carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago over long periods of time. Any carbon released as CO2 when fossil fuels are burned is a net addition to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

They are only carbon neutral when you ignore the processing of the bio mass to create the fuel. Tsk tsk tsk. Allways cutting corners and getting it wrong.

Here is the breakdown....

Photosynthesis: 6H2O + 6CO2 => C6H12O6 + 6O2
Fermentation: C6H12O6 => 2C2H5OH + 2CO2
Combustion: 2C2H5OH + 6O2 => 4CO2 + 6H2O

When one looks at just this simple formula everything looks carbon neutral because photosynthesis uss 6CO2 per mole of glucose. Fermentation and combustion create 2CO2 and 4CO2 respectively thus balancing out the photosynthesis. However, it takes fuel to grow and harvest the corn or sugarcane for fermentation, fermentation requires heat so that the reaction can occur (which takes more fuel) thus it turns out that ethanol is nowhere near carbon neutral. Yet another fib profered(sic) upon the people of the world.
Tsk tsk tsk.

I sometimes forget just how stupid you actually are. The process of growing the plants and processing them into bio fuel does require some fuel but not nearly as much as the process produces which means that they can use a small portion of the ethanol in the tractors and to heat the stills and the whole thing remains carbon neutral. A term, BTW, the meaning of which you seem incapable of actually comprehending. They're burning a plant fuel that releases an amount of CO2 into the air when burned that is equal to the amount of CO2 that the plants previously sequestered from the air. The net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains the same = "carbon neutral".

Sooooo, it does require fuel but for some magical reason that doesn't count thus you get to mainatin the fiction that ethanol is carbon neutral...that about cover it?

Look at the mathematics of what you claim silly person. You really are not too swift you know that!