Very Interesting: Will the price of Gas come down to 16 Cents a Gallon? Please read on.

"Ten years ago I could never have imagined I’d be doing this,” says Greg Pal, 33, a former software executive, as he squints into the late afternoon Californian sun. “I mean, this is essentially agriculture, right? But the people I talk to – especially the ones coming out of business school – this is the one hot area everyone wants to get into.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece

Freddie.

Thanks Freddie for sharing this info and link.

I was reading through some of the comments of readers and one comment which really got me thinking was use of House hold kits for conversion. Who needs another factory to produce tons of oil and manipulate the market - instead have small household kits which everyone can use for captive consumption and then buy the shortfall from pumps...the savings would be enormous to the 'whole of mankind' by way of savings in HUGE infrastructure in building the so called factory, then recurring costs of delivering the 'raw material', storage. handling, distribution etc...

There was another very interesting email I received from one of my friends which talked about the rise in price of eggs and then how the town responded to bring it back to normal - will post it seperately with respect to our consumption of Gasoline...

Thanks Freddie anyways - even if this does not become a reality, we do have some hope...

Hiren

It is entirely a different picture today from what was projected then. At that time they were trying to introduce a household power generating plant that will be self sufficient to run a home entirely on gas and Green Power with solar and Wind Power to supplement. They were in the initial stages of making a prime mover for the rear wheels of the car, for under a thousand dollars with batteries to power them. But the Battery technology was in its initial stages of development. Though it could run a vehicle for up to an hour or a distance of sixty miles, did not have any room left for a payload. It was tethering on its brink and now has come out on top.

The alternate power source will totally eliminate the need for the fossil fuels, if not in the immediate future, will be the major mode of energy for the prime movers starting this year onwards.

We are now at the cross roads of the energy crunch. If the price of it moves up any, we all will be packing up and moving to warmer climes like what the Gypsies did a thousand years ago. When you take a night flight out in North America, we can see how we all are perched at the border at the 49th Parallel, except for a few natural resource developments in the north. There will be a mass exodus from Canada, if the prices don't drop or alternate sources are not developed

It always gets worse, before it becomes any better.

Freddie.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo04/gas.html

The statement that this fuel will be carbon negative is nonsense. If ten carbon molecules go into the process, ten carbon molecules will come out in some way shape or form. And since this is fuel to be burnt - I would almost guarantee that it will come out in carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. First rule of chemistry - elements are not created or destroyed (except in a nuclear reaction).

Also, we know that converting one molecule to another either releases energy or absorbs energy. We don't know what the energy equation is in this case. For example, to make ethanol the corn plant takes carbon dioxide from the air, water from the roots and energy from the sun (photosynthesis) to make sugar or starch molecules. This yeast in the fermentation process downgrades the energy stored in the starch molecules to make ethanol. The loss of energy is actually the energy used by the yeast to live and multiple. It is evidenced by the bubbles of carbon dioxide leaving the vessel.

In this case, we don't know where or what form of energy is required by the bugs to convert the molecules of feedstock to crude oil?

BV

""The company claims that this “Oil 2.0” will not only be renewable but also carbon negative – meaning that the carbon it emits will be less than that sucked from the atmosphere by the raw materials from which it is made.""

Their claim is, that we currently burn hydro carbons and emit carbondioxide into the environment.
Now, the plants that they use take up this carbondioxide in the atmosphere. They use these plants, to produce the "Oil 2.0". There by eliminating the oil required from the ground. Making it Carbon negative.
They forget that we are utilizing a selective portion of this Carbon element. Not all of it. What is left is bagasse, which again becomes carbon dioxide when burnt.

As long as this dependence that we currently have on the hydro-carbons is steady or increasing, we will be emitting this carbondioxide steadily or in abundance. The equation will never be negative. Lowering the consumption as it is happening now with the increase in prices for the crude, seems to be the only way to minimize it.

But it is an ingenious method by which they are producing this oil, which hitherto was only an imagination in the mind, and currently has become a news item, attracted my attention to it.

There are equations with 'raw materials' and the 'end products' that are very well known to scientists and they exist in their books, it is the process and the accelerants are yet to be found and researched. R & D will open new windows for the scientists as long as there are funds available to them to do it.

Freddie.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ftfl
""The company claims that this “Oil 2.0” will not only be renewable but also carbon negative – meaning that the carbon it emits will be less than that sucked from the atmosphere by the raw materials from which it is made.""

Their claim is, that we currently burn hydro carbons and emit carbondioxide into the environment.
Now, the plants that they use take up this carbondioxide in the atmosphere. They use these plants, to produce the "Oil 2.0". There by eliminating the oil required from the ground. Making it Carbon negative.
They forget that we are utilizing a selective portion of this Carbon element. Not all of it. What is left is bagasse, which again becomes carbon dioxide when burnt.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ftfl
As long as this dependence that we currently have on the hydro-carbons is steady or increasing, we will be emitting this carbondioxide steadily or in abundance. The equation will never be negative. Lowering the consumption as it is happening now with the increase in prices for the crude, seems to be the only way to minimize it.

But it is an ingenious method by which they are producing this oil, which hitherto was only an imagination in the mind, and currently has become a news item, attracted my attention to it.

There are equations with 'raw materials' and the 'end products' that are very well known to scientists and they exist in their books, it is the process and the accelerants are yet to be found and researched. R & D will open new windows for the scientists as long as there are funds available to them to do it.

Freddie.

---