why would they riot over this??? it's not going into their mouth...it's going into their CARS..

If the UCLA-developed process for producing C5 and C6 alcohols proves practical, we should test said compounds for suitability for spark-ignition and compression-ignition engines, and also aviation turbine engines. BTW I am not ignoring possible uses of C4, C5, etc. alcohols as chemical feedstocks.

Because Diesel engines have particulate and NOx problems, I would be interested in whether C5 and C6 alcohols would result in lower emissions than BioDiesel (methyl esters of fatty acids) or Fischer-Tropsch Diesel fuels.

Alex...what they make is not GMed...They just use bacteria to make something that doesn't exist naturally...

There are enough tons of coal being dug and there are enough barrels of oil being got out of the ground so that the researchers can be paid to see if they can make bacteria produce long chain alcohols.

All dogs are said to be genetically modified wolves; just that they were modified by breeding for specific characteristics rather than shooting gold spheres coated with DNA into cells.

Nature is also genetically modifying organisms with the help of viruses; it does not need humans.

Propane instead of methane would be nice for bacteria to make. It can be transported as liquid at low pressures, but makes a gas when released. Butane is a little bit too liquid below freezing. The need for extra large tanks makes hydrogen too heavy. Perhaps Ammonia is the best carbon free fuel. We risk demise when driving any way so what if ammonia is somewhat antibiotic. Sodium and air and water make a good source of energy, and the resulting sodium hydroxide will pickup CO2.

Even if it comes from solar cells, every bit of energy comes from nuclear reactions. There was no oxygen to burn hydrogen before it was made in stars.

There is no renewable energy. Renewable energy is just a falsification invented to disguise expensive forms of energy that failed already, over two centuries ago, to supply the wants of human organisms.

Nature does not conserve energy. Less than one two thousand millionth (1/2000,000,000) of the solar rays meet up with the earth and a very few of these photons ever convert ADP to ATP and thence CO2 and H2O to H12C6O6 (sugar) and O2 (oxygen). Plants took over the earth by creating one of the most deadly chemicals O2 and destroyed most of the organisms that inhabited the earth up till that point in time.

There is no reason not to use uranium and thorium to produce energy for humans as it is already destroying itself. Most of the U235 that was on the earth when it was formed is gone already and is now lead. Thorium atoms wait about 2,000,000,000 years and then expell a helium nucleus and becomes lead in about 25 years. Uranium does not take so long to start but takes longer to get all the way to lead. It stops for about 2000 years to become radium, the most dangerous natural element to be found naturally on the face of the earth except except that there is so little. Oxygen and sunlight are statistically far more dangerous.

There is enough Uranium in storage already to supply all the energy used by civilization for at least the next two hundred years if used in Rubbia Reactors. Much of this is in stored "used" fuel rods. The two thousand tons of "used" fuel rods produced by US nuclear reactors every year have enough energy remaining to produce 40,000,000,000,000 KWH of heat. This is enough to supply all the electricity of the US for five years using Rubbia Reactors (Accelerator Driven Sytems), or the same level of power for 25 years. If converted to a metal the remaining uranium fuel would be a 15 foot cube. All of the used uranium from all of the US reactors for a year could be put in a single small high ceiling room.

If all of the dangerous actual products of fission were removed from the used fuel they would form a cube about six feet on a side. This is all of the material that actually has to be stored for a years worth of operation of all the US reactors.

It might have taken about 20,000 tons of mined uranium to produce 2000 tons of fuel in the enrichment process, and this means that there is another 250 years of energy available in stored depleted uranium of one years enrichment process.

There is a high enough percentage of uranium in sea water to make it worth while to extract if used in Rubbia Reactors, but it will be a century or much more before it is economic compared to mines. This does not even consider the three times more abundant thorium.

Most energy efforts and money should be spent on developing processes for producing fuel from nuclear heat. Initially this will be done by using nuclear reactors to produce all electricity and diverting gas and coal to replace oil. Heat pumps will be used for heating and even cooking.

Then will come hydrogen production and then the loop will be closed by combining recaptured CO2 with hydrogen to produce methane or methanol which can be converted to gasoline or used directly.

There may be an electrolysis process invented that will use CO2 and water to produce methane directly. Some CO2 can be converted to charcoal to be mixed with soil to enhance fertility, but before that will come the conversion of biomass to charcoal for the same purpose instead of putting the CO2 back into the air. ..HG..

Actually contaminating Los Angeles has an upside. It would solve the gang problem.

Any one who passes a college level physics class has the skill set to make an atomic weapon provided the materials. The basic physics for a device was solved in the 1940's with sliderules and charts. even a boosted fusion fission device is with in the grasp of most college level engineering students these days. On access to the materials needed keep the dragon at bay, hence the reason to stop Iran from having enrichment tech once they have enough U235 its a matter of 1940 tech to bring 2 subcritial masses together at >200 Meters per second relative velocity.

Nuclear presents a problem worse than all the those associated with its lethality. Because of the technical issues of mining, refining and handling it can be manipulated by those who will use it to control populations, just as is happening with oil. Nuclear is in a big sweat now because if "renewable" (if I'm allowed to use that term) resourses continue to be developed then there will be thousands of sources of energy, all in competition with one another, employing millions of people. All of the energy will be clean, there will never again be an issue about poisoning of mankind, whether it is CO2 or radiation. So Henry, put it to bed, the nuclear issue is over.

danm, you should do a calculation of the potential of solar power. If you do, you will find that to power the entire US, it would require about 600 km by 600 km of solar panels in the southwest states. This is not very much, considering that: 1) commercial PV efficiency will likely double in the next few years, 2) capable fully electric cars will be available in the next few years, 3) the rest of the country can also produce its own solar electricity, though not as much as the desert southwest, 4) it is expected that solar electricity will reach grid parity in California without subsidies in about 5 years, 5) most of that required surface area could be found on rooftops throughout the region which are otherwise wasted space.

In less than 20 years there will be no more energy crisis.

Marc_BC, i honestly hope you're optimism is correct. my doubts stem from facts such as: all solar panels manufactured to date equal less than a sq km. ...can we capture enough power for a car? (granted, it would be a much different car that we're used to driving) and capture enough for all manufacturing? trucking? RR's