Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112697-New-Bacteria-Replaces-Need-For-Gasoline


The best parts: it's clean (compared to gas), and it turns excrement into a substance that's actually better for your engine then gasoline.

And can be made by anyone, anywhere, and will burn in a current car engine.

Big Oil, prepare thine ass!

Provided they don't just buy it out then stagnate the research/development on it of course.

Edit: I read the rest of the article in Professor Farnsworth's voice after the "Good news everyone"

How much does it cost relative to energy density, though?

There's been a lot of technologies that have promised to replace oil. The difficulty has always been in getting them to an effective price point, and as dogma says, with enough energy density for a vehicle. Good to see there's another possibility, but at this point it's just one promising finding.

Impossible.

The problem with replacing gas is - most of the gas companies won't stand for it. They make too much of a profit. Like someone else said, I can see them buying this and putting a stop to it almost immediately.

This technology has been developing for the better part of the past decade. We've known it would work for awhile. The problem is production. We currently don't have a method of growing the bacteria that would produce enough for the consumer market.

The US alone consumes 21 million barrels per day.

Can you supply that much fuel from this source economically?

Production, AND distribution. You will have to figure out and build the infrastructure to get it from vat to the tank of my Harley.

People said that it's the oil companies holding back the electric car too. Guess what? We still dont' have the battery technology to make them viable for anything other than local transport. You don't need to hold back technology that simply isnt' there.

We've also had biodesiel, and ethanol, and even hydrogen as potential "Gasoline killers." The reason they haven't replaced gasoline has a lot to do with current infrastructure and the unwillingness of companies to build cars to run on them, but the main reason is this: Gasoline is still the cheapest, most energy dense fuel available.

Change one of those two things, and people will get interested.

Polonius wrote:People said that it's the oil companies holding back the electric car too. Guess what? We still dont' have the battery technology to make them viable for anything other than local transport. You don't need to hold back technology that simply isnt' there.

We've also had biodesiel, and ethanol, and even hydrogen as potential "Gasoline killers." The reason they haven't replaced gasoline has a lot to do with current infrastructure and the unwillingness of companies to build cars to run on them, but the main reason is this: Gasoline is still the cheapest, most energy dense fuel available.

Change one of those two things, and people will get interested.

Why is it not there, though? The electric car problem, I mean. Is it because we truly are not at a point of technological advancement to support such a car? Or is it simply because nobody has put in the research and R&D funds for long enough to figure out how to do it? After all, how is the technology supposed to get there if there are companies holding back the research into said technology?

Actually given the testimony of workers (both current and former) in the auto industry, it actually IS big business holding things back. The auto industry thinks that as long as it keeps doing what it's always been doing, everything will be fine.

They've had the capability of building highly efficient electric cars and etc for quite some time, but the industry doesn't want to do that because it means they have to change.

CiaranAnnrach wrote: After all, how is the technology supposed to get there if there are companies holding back the research into said technology?

Please take off the tin-foil hat. No conspiracy is holding back hybrid/electric/other technologies. Research like this incredibly expensive and takes decades.

Toyota is on their 3rd or 4th generation hybrid motor. My Prius is the third generation, if I recall correctly. Each one is more efficient than the last. Personally, of the options I've seen and heard about, I think battery/Fuel cells have the best chance of making it.

CiaranAnnrach wrote:
Why is it not there, though? The electric car problem, I mean. Is it because we truly are not at a point of technological advancement to support such a car? Or is it simply because nobody has put in the research and R&D funds for long enough to figure out how to do it? After all, how is the technology supposed to get there if there are companies holding back the research into said technology?

The problem is storage. Batteries simply weigh a lot, and wear out, and can only carry so much juice. If you don't mind keeping an extension cord from your car to an outlet, you can build a kick-ass electric car.

Melissia wrote:Actually given the testimony of workers (both current and former) in the auto industry, it actually IS big business holding things back. The auto industry thinks that as long as it keeps doing what it's always been doing, everything will be fine.

They've had the capability of building highly efficient electric cars and etc for quite some time, but the industry doesn't want to do that because it means they have to change.

I'm gonna need a citation for this. Chemistry and Physics limit the weight and storage of batteries. If there's a top secret plot to hold back battery research, that would be mind boggling. Mostly because the people doing the research won't be in the auto industry....

kronk wrote:

CiaranAnnrach wrote: After all, how is the technology supposed to get there if there are companies holding back the research into said technology?

Please take off the tin-foil hat. No conspiracy is holding back hybrid/electric/other technologies. Research like this incredibly expensive and takes decades.

Toyota is on their 3rd or 4th generation hybrid motor. My Prius is the third generation, if I recall correctly. Each one is more efficient than the last. Personally, of the options I've seen, battery/Fuel cells have the best chance of making it.

No tin foil hat here, or conspiracy theories - you can take those insinuations elsewhere. Just healthy skepticism and an honest question. Has this issue been researched as much as it could have been over the past decades? Or have oil companies, and other players in the market, knowingly hindered such research?

I can find little evidence to support either side. There's the documentary "Who killed the electric car", which blames oil companies in part for the failure of the EV1, but I'm loathe to trust documentaries completely - they usually like to leave out inconvenient facts that don't support the message they are selling. So if you have something you can point me at to support your assertions one way or the other, I'd appreciate it.

[Edit] Though, looking back, that documentary / things you hear growing up have more to do with killing the electric car as a principle. The documentary I referenced focuses more on the electric car as a tool for day-to-day use, and not long term travel. I can see and admit the possibility that we just aren't at a technological point where a battery is capable of supporting long term travel, but I still wonder what might be today if the Electric Car was taken seriously as a fuel alternative 20 years ago, instead of largely forgotten for a time.

I never said there was a plot. Remember the old adage, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity/incompetence [or in this case laziness/resistance to change]".

kronk wrote:
Please take off the tin-foil hat. No conspiracy is holding back hybrid/electric/other technologies. Research like this incredibly expensive and takes decades.

Sometimes a new product requires multiple advances to work. The first plane required internal combustion, as steam was simply way too heavy. it still required advances in control surfaces to work. Nobody could have built a plane before gas engine, but it still took the Wright brother's testing in control to make it viable.

The switch to jet power was easy, because it just took effecient jet engines (the hard part). Slapping them into an airframe was (relatively) easy.

The same applies to the electric car. We know how to build them. We just need a power source that doesn't suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I never said there was a plot. Remember the old adage, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity/incompetence [or in this case laziness/resistance to change]".

Still, even if the car companies went all in on electric cars, they'd be restricted to niche markets due to technological impediments outside of the industries control.

Not really, they're good enough for the every day drive to and from work, which is where you see most cars used.

Melissia wrote:Actually given the testimony of workers (both current and former) in the auto industry, it actually IS big business holding things back. quote]

Sales (or incredible lack thereof) of the Leaf and Volt bely that statement.

CiaranAnnrach wrote:I can find little evidence to support either side. There's the documentary "Who killed the electric car", which blames oil companies in part for the failure of the EV1, but I'm loathe to trust documentaries completely - they usually like to leave out inconvenient facts that don't support the message they are selling. So if you have something you can point me at to support your assertions one way or the other, I'd appreciate it.

Do your own research, man. I can't be arsed.

But electric cars aren't dead. They hit a dead end. The path they were following was too expensive, the material needed was too rare for mass production, and it was not efficient enough. Not by a long shot. I truely believe that following the current hybrid technology will lead to (a) batteries that will reliably last 1000 miles per charge or (b) hybrids that get 200 miles per gallon and be affordable for everyone. How far away are they? I got no clue. the problem with the batteries is that they use some pretty nasty ingredients and are hard to get to without strip mining.

To replace Gasoline, you need:

1. High energy density.
2. A lot of it.
3. A way to get to the resource easily.
4. A fething plan.

Melissia wrote:Not really, they're good enough for the every day drive to and from work, which is where you see most cars used.

Actually, it's where you see cars used most of the time, which is very different.

I dont' want to own two cars, one for my daily commute, and one to drive to another city.

And you wouldn't necessarily have to, because the tech for batteries is getting better, especially combined with things such as using the energy from breaking to recharge the batteries.

You realize, of course, that hybrid cars are only a temporary solution that's slightly putting the problem off for a few more years.

kronk wrote:
Do your own research, man. I can't be arsed.

I'd have assumed that by saying "I can find little evidence" would indicate that I am, in fact, doing some of my own research. However if you are unwilling to back up your own assertions with links or facts, then I am forced to take everything you've said with a grain of salt and a dose of skepticism. Most of what you say does make sense, but forgive me if I don't blindly accept your words as truth and fact.

Melissia wrote: putting the problem off for a few more years.

Elaborate?

You're proposing that the world will run out of oil in 10 years?

CiaranAnnrach wrote: Most of what you say does make sense, but forgive me if I don't blindly accept your words as truth and fact.

Meh. It's the internet. That's pretty much a given.

kronk wrote:You're proposing that the world will run out of oil in 10 years?

You think that the availability of oil will be the same in ten years?

Even with its one child per family policy, China's usage of oil is growing exponentially, nevermind countries in South America, East Asia, and Africa. Everyone wants a piece of that modernization pie. And there's only so much oil to drill for, and the amount gets smaller every year as it's all used up.

Melissia wrote:And you wouldn't necessarily have to, because the tech for batteries is getting better, especially combined with things such as using the energy from breaking to recharge the batteries.

You realize, of course, that hybrid cars are only a temporary solution that's slightly putting the problem off for a few more years.

Except the tech for batteries isn't getting better very quickly, for reasons pointed out. Simply put, evolution wont' result in long range batteries. It's simply not there. It'll take (another) great leap in battery tech for reliable 300 mile range cars.

There are upper limits to tech. You can't build a steam engine that's as lightweight and reliable as a diesel. Can't be done. Similarly, modern lithium ion batteries are limited.

And those batteries are being researched for use in everytying, not just cars. Phones, iPods, and laptops all use that tech. There is plenty of money going into that research.

Polonius wrote:There are upper limits to tech.

We haven't gotten even CLOSE to reaching them.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:There are upper limits to tech.

We haven't gotten even CLOSE to reaching them.

Please don't selectively quote me so that I say something sweeping that you can easily rebut.

Every form of technology has upper limits, based on physical laws. Even a tripling of lithium ion battery effeciency won't dramatically increase the liklihood of electric cars, and that's approaching the maximum theoretical limit for the materials involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Research

There might be an electric car, but it will be due to a completely new battery, not the slow progress we're making. Even Lithium Ion batteries aren't that old. They were only used in pacemakers a few decades ago.

It will be new tech that makes mass market, general purpose electric cars possible. Not the refinment of current tech.

kronk wrote:The US alone consumes 21 million barrels per day.

Can you supply that much fuel from this source economically?

Forgive the caps please:

STOP. DRIVING. HUMMERS.

Thx.

Henners91 wrote:

kronk wrote:The US alone consumes 21 million barrels per day.

Can you supply that much fuel from this source economically?

Forgive the caps please:

STOP. DRIVING. HUMMERS.

Thx.

To the rest of the world: Suck it!

(I drive a Prius and get 45-50mpg)