The organism they created can create ethanol OR diesel fuel. It is not just ethanol. That's part of the reason it's such a significant discovery.

Yep, I saw that in the article, but it also mentions "Jaguars and jet engines". Granted, there are apparently Diesel-fueled Jaguars, but jet engine is still a stretch despite the existence of multi-fuel tank turbines.
[/quote]
That's the point. It can create ethanol or any number of hydro-carbon based fuels. Why is a jet engine a stretch? Jet fuel is pretty much really high quality diesel fuel with additives. If you can already make diesel it makes sense that that could be made into jet fuel.

Why is a jet engine a stretch? Jet fuel is pretty much really high quality diesel fuel with additives.[/quote]
The operative words are "high quality". Unlike multi-fuel tank engines, which will run on nearly anything, aircraft fuel systems are much more finicky. For example, Wikipedia tells me there must not be more than 30 parts per million water in jet fuel, which seems quite low. It remains to be seen whether this process can deliver that, especially since they're already having trouble separating fuel from water at all.

Why is a jet engine a stretch? Jet fuel is pretty much really high quality diesel fuel with additives.

The operative words are "high quality". Unlike multi-fuel tank engines, which will run on nearly anything, aircraft fuel systems are much more finicky. For example, Wikipedia tells me there must not be more than 30 parts per million water in jet fuel, which seems quite low. It remains to be seen whether this process can deliver that, especially since they're already having trouble separating fuel from water at all.
[/quote]

If they can make diesel fuel cheaply, they can refine it the same way they refine diesel fuel today. It is not a different product. It is the same product made a different way.

[quote name='Luckless' timestamp='1299005752' post='4780624']
Small bits of oil that get missed during a clean up don't spread across ecosystems and reproduce, and they don't transmute into new, potentially more hazardous lifeforms.

If you're worried about those modified bacteria spreading, you seriously have bigger fish to fry. Using genetically modified bacteria to produce specific molecules is a completely normal part of modern pharmaceutical production. I don't see why those diesel-producing bacteria should be any more or less dangerous than this other technology which has already been in widespread use for a very long time.

Note that of course it's reasonable to worry about unwanted spread of such things - but to reject the development outright because of it is just as stupid as being totally careless about it.
[/quote]

The difference is that of scale. Pharmaceutical applications are generally carried out in highly controlled manners, in contained zones. They are (suppose) to have protocols in place to deal with accidental leaks and the like.

The application we are talking about here is one of massive fields of the stuff to get suitable energy collection. This means that not only is there far greater chances of containment breach, but there is also less ability to put backup safeties in place.

I also question whether this is actually any better than direct solar collection in total energy efficiency, and environmental protection. (That is to say, if the same amount of energy used to build and maintain the fields could instead be used to produce enough hydrogen for fuel cells to provide energy equal to or greater than the diesel produced, then it is likely better to go the fuel cell route.)

[quote name='Prefect' timestamp='1299052731' post='4780895']
[quote name='Luckless' timestamp='1299005752' post='4780624']
Small bits of oil that get missed during a clean up don't spread across ecosystems and reproduce, and they don't transmute into new, potentially more hazardous lifeforms.

If you're worried about those modified bacteria spreading, you seriously have bigger fish to fry. Using genetically modified bacteria to produce specific molecules is a completely normal part of modern pharmaceutical production. I don't see why those diesel-producing bacteria should be any more or less dangerous than this other technology which has already been in widespread use for a very long time.

Note that of course it's reasonable to worry about unwanted spread of such things - but to reject the development outright because of it is just as stupid as being totally careless about it.
[/quote]

The difference is that of scale. Pharmaceutical applications are generally carried out in highly controlled manners, in contained zones. They are (suppose) to have protocols in place to deal with accidental leaks and the like.

The application we are talking about here is one of massive fields of the stuff to get suitable energy collection. This means that not only is there far greater chances of containment breach, but there is also less ability to put backup safeties in place.

I also question whether this is actually any better than direct solar collection in total energy efficiency, and environmental protection. (That is to say, if the same amount of energy used to build and maintain the fields could instead be used to produce enough hydrogen for fuel cells to provide energy equal to or greater than the diesel produced, then it is likely better to go the fuel cell route.)
[/quote]

any day now corn could mutate into flesh eating plants. We should stop growing corn for this reason.

any day now corn could mutate into flesh eating plants. We should stop growing corn for this reason.[/quote]
Thank you for that valuable contribution, which is the last of its ilk I will comment upon.

any day now corn could mutate into flesh eating plants. We should stop growing corn for this reason.

Thank you for that valuable contribution, which is the last of its ilk I will comment upon.


[/quote]

well that's essentially the argument. It's an organism therefore it could evolve into something negative. It also is used over large land spaces so there is a large risk of contamination to other species. Therefore we should not use it.

The same is true of corn.

no u

[quote name='Jan Wassenberg' timestamp='1299454485' post='4782599']

any day now corn could mutate into flesh eating plants. We should stop growing corn for this reason.

Thank you for that valuable contribution, which is the last of its ilk I will comment upon.


[/quote]

well that's essentially the argument. It's an organism therefore it could evolve into something negative. It also is used over large land spaces so there is a large risk of contamination to other species. Therefore we should not use it.

The same is true of corn.
[/quote]

Ah, no. It is a highly unnatural organism (with a completely unknown reaction to a wide range of environments) that directly produces diesel fuel. It Already is a potentially very harmful lifeform, aka "something negative", and the issue in question is its ability to mutate to survive, one of the most basic aspects of life and the foundation of the theory of evolution. Can you, in all your infinite wisdom, actually claim that there is no way such an organism can survive in the wild, and there wreck havoc with ecosystems? (hint, go read "Invasive species" on Wikipedia.)

(And yes, I'm against the general dicking around with genetics in crops. We already have problems with normal natural invasive species, and I have heard several cases of genetically modified crops going beyond their plantings already.)

Ah, no. It is a highly unnatural organism (with a completely unknown reaction to a wide range of environments) that directly produces diesel fuel. It Already is a potentially very harmful lifeform, aka "something negative", and the issue in question is its ability to mutate to survive, one of the most basic aspects of life and the foundation of the theory of evolution. Can you, in all your infinite wisdom, actually claim that there is no way such an organism can survive in the wild, and there wreck havoc with ecosystems? (hint, go read "Invasive species" on Wikipedia.)

(And yes, I'm against the general dicking around with genetics in crops. We already have problems with normal natural invasive species, and I have heard several cases of genetically modified crops going beyond their plantings already.)

Invasive species are generally species that easily adapt and quickly reproduce that are transported to an ecosystem they are well suited for where they have no natural predators.

An organism with no natural terrestrial ecosystem will not become invasive, because as soon as it gets out it dies.

I already gave the example of it probably needing high quantities of moderate temperature, high nutrient, non-saline non-chlorinated water with an abundance of CO2. I'm sure puddles surrounding volcanic hot springs are thoroughly terrified, but not the hot springs themselves as they are probably too hot for it to survive.

I'll take energy independence and gas that is both carbon neutral AND 1/3 the price of the oil we are using today thanks.