Chinese astronauts make rocket fuel and oxygen in space(livescience.com)
livescience.com
Chinese astronauts make rocket fuel and oxygen in space
https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/chinese-astronauts-make-rocket-fuel-and-oxygen-in-space-using-1st-of-its-kind-artificial-photosynthesis
142 comments
> why we aren't bioengineering plants to produce rocket fuel
Plants are self-assembling albeit inefficient photosynthesises.
On earth, where they can harvest their carbon in situ, that inefficiency outweighed by us not having to make them. Their main components by wet and dry mass, carbon and oxygen, are dissolved in atmosphere. In space, on the other hand, the major cost is lifting. (Even earth, farming quickly becomes uneconomical when just water costs balloon.)
In space you’re moving all the mass the plant is built out of at exorbitant cost. At that point, you might as well just assemble the machinery on the ground and get the efficiency boost.
I can only see an exception arising if lifting costs start scaling with volume more than mass, i.e. post chemical rocketry, at which point sending up compacted carbon and water and letting plants assemble themselves in space makes more sense than sending up panels and tiny labs. (That or you’re going somewhere with accessible carbon and/or oxygen.)
Plants are self-assembling albeit inefficient photosynthesises.
On earth, where they can harvest their carbon in situ, that inefficiency outweighed by us not having to make them. Their main components by wet and dry mass, carbon and oxygen, are dissolved in atmosphere. In space, on the other hand, the major cost is lifting. (Even earth, farming quickly becomes uneconomical when just water costs balloon.)
In space you’re moving all the mass the plant is built out of at exorbitant cost. At that point, you might as well just assemble the machinery on the ground and get the efficiency boost.
I can only see an exception arising if lifting costs start scaling with volume more than mass, i.e. post chemical rocketry, at which point sending up compacted carbon and water and letting plants assemble themselves in space makes more sense than sending up panels and tiny labs. (That or you’re going somewhere with accessible carbon and/or oxygen.)
By far the most credible case for asteroid mining is water & carbon compounds. A little H, O, and C, and you have conventional hydrocarbon propellant + LOX.
I don't know what the actual claim that is being made here is; This seems to redirect ultimately to a lay press release from a state space agency rather than to a scientific paper. There do seem to be a number of competing articles on electrochemical synthesis of ethylene from CO2.
https://www.carboncapturejournal.com/news/artificial-photsyn...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50522-7
https://lanzatech.com/lanzatech-produces-ethylene-from-co2-c...
https://techport.nasa.gov/projects/93860
https://news.umich.edu/in-step-toward-solar-fuels-durable-ar...
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/717409
I don't know what the actual claim that is being made here is; This seems to redirect ultimately to a lay press release from a state space agency rather than to a scientific paper. There do seem to be a number of competing articles on electrochemical synthesis of ethylene from CO2.
https://www.carboncapturejournal.com/news/artificial-photsyn...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50522-7
https://lanzatech.com/lanzatech-produces-ethylene-from-co2-c...
https://techport.nasa.gov/projects/93860
https://news.umich.edu/in-step-toward-solar-fuels-durable-ar...
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/717409
Glucose can be used as a component in solid fuels, you just need to find an oxidizer to mix in.
Alternatively, you can break it down into ethanol, which has been used as liquid rocket fuel since at least the first half of the '40s.
Alternatively, you can break it down into ethanol, which has been used as liquid rocket fuel since at least the first half of the '40s.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket
This classic book tells the story of liquid rocket fuel development
https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pd...
You'd think that you could mix any of a wide range of fuels with a wide range of oxidizers and get a good rocket fuel but it does not really work that way, most combinations are pretty awful, including the ethanol + O2 used in the V2. There was a time when there was interest in "storable" liquid propellants but once solid propellants reached this level of maturity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman
those were obsolete.
It is hard to beat H2+oxygen or hydrocarbons+oxygen if you pick the right hydrocarbons (rocket kerosene isn't quite the kerosene you use in a lamp)
I'm not sure if ethylene is really that good of a rocket fuel. In the context of a space economy I see it as a "reactive carbon" substance which is easy to make other things out of, say,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene
in the sense that glucose is reactive carbon you can build structural carbohydrates and all sorts of biological molecules out of. There is talk about SpaceX establishing a methane economy on Mars, methane is definitely an easy to synthesize rocket fuel but it not very reactive and not on the path to making other things you might want.
This classic book tells the story of liquid rocket fuel development
https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pd...
You'd think that you could mix any of a wide range of fuels with a wide range of oxidizers and get a good rocket fuel but it does not really work that way, most combinations are pretty awful, including the ethanol + O2 used in the V2. There was a time when there was interest in "storable" liquid propellants but once solid propellants reached this level of maturity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman
those were obsolete.
It is hard to beat H2+oxygen or hydrocarbons+oxygen if you pick the right hydrocarbons (rocket kerosene isn't quite the kerosene you use in a lamp)
I'm not sure if ethylene is really that good of a rocket fuel. In the context of a space economy I see it as a "reactive carbon" substance which is easy to make other things out of, say,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene
in the sense that glucose is reactive carbon you can build structural carbohydrates and all sorts of biological molecules out of. There is talk about SpaceX establishing a methane economy on Mars, methane is definitely an easy to synthesize rocket fuel but it not very reactive and not on the path to making other things you might want.
Reminds me of "UnkrautEx und Puderzucker".
Sort of early 'RoundUp' with high contents of Sodium chlorate combined with powdered sugar. Very dangerous! But fun :-)
Even more fun, but potentially fatal very fast would be Potassium chlorate.
But I've been cautious, and limited myself to selfmade blackpowder mostly, during the times one 'did that' as young boys with toys.
Still have all my fingers, no burn scars, full eyesight & hearing, though. Phew! :-)
Sort of early 'RoundUp' with high contents of Sodium chlorate combined with powdered sugar. Very dangerous! But fun :-)
Even more fun, but potentially fatal very fast would be Potassium chlorate.
But I've been cautious, and limited myself to selfmade blackpowder mostly, during the times one 'did that' as young boys with toys.
Still have all my fingers, no burn scars, full eyesight & hearing, though. Phew! :-)
The early internet had some wild recipes online, almost unimaginable today. A bit curious how long I would have to dig to find those things, if at all, but really don’t feel to leave that trail.
Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Book_of_Chemistry_E...
Btw, when I did this the internet didn't exist, 1977 to 1980, I think. It was in schoolbooks for chemistry, not chlorate stuff, but blackpowder at least. I also went into university libraries for more advanced stuff, after understanding teachers gave hints, and warnings, about not doing anything which one doesn't really understand. Not limited to explosives. Toxicity, fumes, pH, and so on.
We've been really dumbed down. No more interesting experimental kits ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry_set ) . No more availability of the ingredients. I could walk into a drug store and get that stuff for chump change, there. Not needing to produce finest charcoal myself. Or sulfur. Potassium nitrate. Flashbulbs and a 9V-block and some wires for electrical ignition!1!!
Bang! Whee!
edit: Thinking about it I can't shake the feeling that it did not make us safer. Though that may depend on the country.
Anyway, one does hear and read about much more loud booms caused by reckless use of smuggled illegal fireworks year round. Be it just for fun, ripping up trashcans, recycling containers, shopping windows, ATMs...
Or the really 'good stuff' (military) smuggled in from afar.
Or, well... just guns?
Btw, when I did this the internet didn't exist, 1977 to 1980, I think. It was in schoolbooks for chemistry, not chlorate stuff, but blackpowder at least. I also went into university libraries for more advanced stuff, after understanding teachers gave hints, and warnings, about not doing anything which one doesn't really understand. Not limited to explosives. Toxicity, fumes, pH, and so on.
We've been really dumbed down. No more interesting experimental kits ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry_set ) . No more availability of the ingredients. I could walk into a drug store and get that stuff for chump change, there. Not needing to produce finest charcoal myself. Or sulfur. Potassium nitrate. Flashbulbs and a 9V-block and some wires for electrical ignition!1!!
Bang! Whee!
edit: Thinking about it I can't shake the feeling that it did not make us safer. Though that may depend on the country.
Anyway, one does hear and read about much more loud booms caused by reckless use of smuggled illegal fireworks year round. Be it just for fun, ripping up trashcans, recycling containers, shopping windows, ATMs...
Or the really 'good stuff' (military) smuggled in from afar.
Or, well... just guns?
The difficult part done by plants is synthesizing complex organic molecules that can be used as food.
For now and the near future there are no ways of doing that part otherwise than by using living plants or fungi, possibly with genome modifications.
The part with capturing solar light and splitting water and reducing carbon dioxide to a very simple carbon compound can be done with artificial means much more efficiently than in plants, so there is little doubt that this will become commonly used in the near future.
Ethylene or methane are good for fuel or for making plastic, but when a slightly more complex organic substance were made, e.g. glycine or glycerol, that could be used to feed a culture of fungi, which could be used to make human food, especially if genetically-modified to make higher quality proteins.
For now and the near future there are no ways of doing that part otherwise than by using living plants or fungi, possibly with genome modifications.
The part with capturing solar light and splitting water and reducing carbon dioxide to a very simple carbon compound can be done with artificial means much more efficiently than in plants, so there is little doubt that this will become commonly used in the near future.
Ethylene or methane are good for fuel or for making plastic, but when a slightly more complex organic substance were made, e.g. glycine or glycerol, that could be used to feed a culture of fungi, which could be used to make human food, especially if genetically-modified to make higher quality proteins.
Lichens!
Cyanobacteria that can exist in the vacuum of space AND produce oxygen... just not fast enough to be useful, but one day, a big hairy space ship will rule the universe!
See: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1acqxml/lichen_survi...
Cyanobacteria that can exist in the vacuum of space AND produce oxygen... just not fast enough to be useful, but one day, a big hairy space ship will rule the universe!
See: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1acqxml/lichen_survi...
Why aren't we engineering plants to produce automotive fuel? We ought to at least be able to do diesel.
Plants have very low sunlight conversion efficiency compared to solar farms. If you need chemical fuel instead of electricity, it would still be more efficient to use solar electricity to turn carbon dioxide and water into simple liquid fuels like methanol (usable in spark ignition engines) or dimethyl ether (usable in diesel engines).
Solar panels have a manufacturing cost, though, while you could imagine a renewable plantation of diesel trees that needs no raw ingredients other than a handful of seeds. It could even be self-seeding, though there are some good reasons we don't usually produce GE crops with viable seeds.
I'm sure the economics don't work out for it: solar panels are already cheap, the land could grow other crops, etc. But photosynthesis being lower-yield than photovoltaic generation isn't enough to rule it out. Perhaps as science fiction, on a future mission to an Earthlike planet that doesn't have the right resources to produce semiconductors at scale.
I'm sure the economics don't work out for it: solar panels are already cheap, the land could grow other crops, etc. But photosynthesis being lower-yield than photovoltaic generation isn't enough to rule it out. Perhaps as science fiction, on a future mission to an Earthlike planet that doesn't have the right resources to produce semiconductors at scale.
what goes through my mind is the fact plants aren't low maintenance, the land has to be tended.
growing the fuel plant is probably easy.
How do you get it OUT of the plant?
Solar panels just sit there (they do need cleaning i admit) and produce electricity that we can manipulate very cheaply already.
What machine collects diesel from plants? Can you safely dispose of the plant matter?
growing the fuel plant is probably easy.
How do you get it OUT of the plant?
Solar panels just sit there (they do need cleaning i admit) and produce electricity that we can manipulate very cheaply already.
What machine collects diesel from plants? Can you safely dispose of the plant matter?
Biodiesel is an oil plus an alcohol (usually 80% vegetable oil + 20% methanol) reacted using an alkaline catalyst like lye.
Methanol is also known as "wood alcohol", and can be made at ~40% yield by cooking down wood ("destructive distillation") in a specific fashion, or made from too-cheap-to-meter natural gas if you've got it. Anything you can do with natural gas can also be done with anaerobically fermented methane. You can also use ethanol (fermented from any carbohydrate crops) instead of methanol, creating a biodiesel with slightly different but still usable properties.
...
Sunflower, rapeseed, and soybean oil have very well-established agricultural workflows which require very little labor input.
Palm oil is substantially higher yield, but more labor intensive and is associated with tropical rainforest destruction.
...
You don't necessarily even need to react your vegetable oil. The original Diesel Cycle demonstration engines ran on straight peanut oil, and there are some truck engines out there (like the 12 valve Cummins) that will happily run on filtered waste fryer oil all day long. It's just a matter of tuning, viscosity, compression ratios, seal materials, and the like, being slightly different from petrochemical diesel fuel. Reacting vegetable oils into fatty acid esters ("biodiesel") does attain some modest engine benefits, but mostly it's to match compatibility with petrochemical diesel grades so that you don't, eg, need to replace your fuel lines & pumps with different diameter fuel lines & pumps.
Methanol is also known as "wood alcohol", and can be made at ~40% yield by cooking down wood ("destructive distillation") in a specific fashion, or made from too-cheap-to-meter natural gas if you've got it. Anything you can do with natural gas can also be done with anaerobically fermented methane. You can also use ethanol (fermented from any carbohydrate crops) instead of methanol, creating a biodiesel with slightly different but still usable properties.
...
Sunflower, rapeseed, and soybean oil have very well-established agricultural workflows which require very little labor input.
Palm oil is substantially higher yield, but more labor intensive and is associated with tropical rainforest destruction.
...
You don't necessarily even need to react your vegetable oil. The original Diesel Cycle demonstration engines ran on straight peanut oil, and there are some truck engines out there (like the 12 valve Cummins) that will happily run on filtered waste fryer oil all day long. It's just a matter of tuning, viscosity, compression ratios, seal materials, and the like, being slightly different from petrochemical diesel fuel. Reacting vegetable oils into fatty acid esters ("biodiesel") does attain some modest engine benefits, but mostly it's to match compatibility with petrochemical diesel grades so that you don't, eg, need to replace your fuel lines & pumps with different diameter fuel lines & pumps.
Thanks! very interesting space that i barely understand lol. hope it didn't come off as know it all, just questions.
I’d rather farm food where plants grow well and put up panels where they don’t..
> I'd rather farm food where plants grow well and put up panels where they don’t..
False dichotomy. There are places where food does not grow at all and can be used to grow fuel crops. Say, the ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel
False dichotomy. There are places where food does not grow at all and can be used to grow fuel crops. Say, the ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel
No need for diesel trees when there's wood gas, which was successfully used to power vehicles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas
It's wildly inefficient though and not worth the trouble compared to solar panels and batteries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas
It's wildly inefficient though and not worth the trouble compared to solar panels and batteries.
Depends on the context? Could be used in facitilies to produce biochar for production of terra preta/black earth/chernozem which counts as carbon-sink and is very productive soil. Doubly dual-use, so to speak. On-demand. Either biochar, or wood gas. Maybe even both.
You wrote it like „diesel trees” would be working in a way where you simply chop it down and put it in your gas tank.
Making and then using „diesel trees” would definitely require special equipment and manufacturing pipelines that might be the same cost or more than those for solar panels.
Making and then using „diesel trees” would definitely require special equipment and manufacturing pipelines that might be the same cost or more than those for solar panels.
It's my science fiction story, so I'm going to say the tree we engineered for this was the sugar maple: you can put a tap in it and collect highly pure diesel fuel with a pre-Columbian level of technology.
> Plants have very low sunlight conversion efficiency compared to solar farms.
Measured how? If nothing else, they seem to be good at carbon capture. And I don't see how you it could account for engineered for plants engineered to store more of their energy as oil.
Measured how? If nothing else, they seem to be good at carbon capture. And I don't see how you it could account for engineered for plants engineered to store more of their energy as oil.
Measured by the fraction of incident sunlight that gets transformed to usable energy. Solar farms generate about 30 times as much power per hectare as corn farms, assuming that you can use electricity directly:
"Ecologically informed solar enables a sustainable energy transition in US croplands"
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2501605122
As a rough estimate, you'd lose 2/3 of that energy if the electricity had to be turned into liquid fuels. That would still mean 10 times greater usable energy produced per acre.
Plants genetically engineered for fuel production might be somewhat more efficient in the future, but future solar farms are also probably going to be more efficient.
"Ecologically informed solar enables a sustainable energy transition in US croplands"
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2501605122
As a rough estimate, you'd lose 2/3 of that energy if the electricity had to be turned into liquid fuels. That would still mean 10 times greater usable energy produced per acre.
Plants genetically engineered for fuel production might be somewhat more efficient in the future, but future solar farms are also probably going to be more efficient.
For anyone wanting to learn more - the holy grail of Ag engineering would be to increase the efficiency of rubisco, which is the rate-limiting enzyme in photosynthesis - so understandably there’s a ton of research at doing just that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO
Strongly recommend for one of the light-dependent reactions from before that enzyme: https://youtu.be/WhCczIqADuI
A somewhat less (but still!) ambitious project is to retrofit C4 photosynthesis into rice. It's something like 50% more efficient, and has evolved independently dozens of times, so it's probably a lot more feasible.
Why do we need more efficient photosynthesis in plants? Is it for indoor cultivation?
If you had a widely applicable improvement, you’d be able to grow fruit trees in Canada or have two harvests in one season for food crops, or grow much denser species of wood, much more quickly for construction lumber. It would be massively world changing — but it is a 4 billion year old enzyme so is pretty entrenched..
Oh interesting! Is photosynthesis the main thing limiting growth speed?
I would have expected there to be multiple processes with similar or aligned timings, or some built in limiting mechanism or something... it's not like giving humans higher calorie food makes them become adults faster.
I would have expected there to be multiple processes with similar or aligned timings, or some built in limiting mechanism or something... it's not like giving humans higher calorie food makes them become adults faster.
Improving rubsico would be more along the lines of improving your metabolism so that you can process 4,000 calories per day with the loose analog of supplying more CO2 being the ‘higher calorie food’. It’s the single largest bottleneck in photosynthetic efficiency. TBH, it would likely take several more breakthroughs for plants to make use of an improved rubisco but it’s still a massive target for ag research.
Plants get more energy, so they generate more food.
Ok, yeah, if your reference for biofuel is corn, where you can only use a tiny fraction of the plant, no kidding it'll look bad.
Which plant do you estimate is a much better pick?
Either a perennial with oily fruit (someone mentioned palm oil down below), or something where you can relatively easily use the entire plant. The idea I keep coming back to is algae bred or engineered for oil content, but I'm not actually sure how feasible that is.
> Mayali says that growing phytoplankton outdoors with natural light and finding a less energy-intensive method of powering production would help microalgae-based diesel compete.
I'm sorry, were they measuring the carbon footprint of growing algae by what it takes to grow it inside with artificial light?
I'm sorry, were they measuring the carbon footprint of growing algae by what it takes to grow it inside with artificial light?
Biodiesal is already a thing. Also, we (the US) already blend a portion (about 10%) of corn-derived ethanol to our gasoline. There are problems with it though, one of which is that overall, it probably has a higher carbon footprint (fertilizer, harvesting, processing, etc.) than just not using it.
Corn ethanol is a farm subsidy. It gets greenwashed as something positive because plant=natural=good.
It’s not great for the environment, but it keeps a food surplus available in crisis instantly by just turning off the ethanol production facilities
True. But it might be cheaper to store the corn for a year and then dispose of it, replace it with fresh corn.
> But it might be cheaper to store the corn for a year and then dispose of it, replace it with fresh corn.
I don't think any food crisis scenario in the US involves a road bump that spans a single year and doesn't disrupt existing crops.
I don't think any food crisis scenario in the US involves a road bump that spans a single year and doesn't disrupt existing crops.
If you are disposing of the corn anyway, why not turn it into Ethanol and then burn it as car fuel?
The only real issue with Ethanol IMO is that corn Ethanol is preventing progress in advanced synthesis made out of, ex: switchgrass cellulose. There are better sources of ethanol if we invest into them.
The only real issue with Ethanol IMO is that corn Ethanol is preventing progress in advanced synthesis made out of, ex: switchgrass cellulose. There are better sources of ethanol if we invest into them.
"If you are disposing of the corn anyway, why not turn it into Ethanol and then burn it as car fuel?"
It costs more money and has a higher carbon footprint than simply using gasoline.
It costs more money and has a higher carbon footprint than simply using gasoline.
More money yes.
The carbon footprint thing doesn't past review of the overall literature. There's one outspoken guy who has to bend over backwards and publishes media articles rather than keeping things academic who tries to make the public believe what you say, but I'm not convinced he's arguing in any serious manner.
The carbon footprint thing doesn't past review of the overall literature. There's one outspoken guy who has to bend over backwards and publishes media articles rather than keeping things academic who tries to make the public believe what you say, but I'm not convinced he's arguing in any serious manner.
-
They are used for all sorts of things we eat, corn nuts, hominy, grits, corn meal/flour and all the things those are used in. Personally, I find it far more palatable than sweet corn and it is far more useful/versitile/nutritious than sweet corn; it is a traditional cereal grain and can be used for all those things we use wheat and rye for.
Surely you can make cornstarch from it, and that problem only lasts a year.
>corn-derived ethanol to our gasoline
Stupidest possible thing to do with food. Especially since in some operations you put in more diesel than take ethanol out.
Stupidest possible thing to do with food. Especially since in some operations you put in more diesel than take ethanol out.
It's my understanding that corn produces the most (edible) calories per square metre of any of our farmed plants
edit: Looked it up - Rice has the highest number of calories per square metre of farmland, just that it requires marshy/swamp land to grow.
edit: Looked it up - Rice has the highest number of calories per square metre of farmland, just that it requires marshy/swamp land to grow.
There are many varietals of rice. Most do not grow in marsh land. Farmers often do flood the fields at the beginning of a rice growing season in order to drown out any competing plants. Flooding is not necessary though. Rice will grow with normal irrigation.
Yes. Rice tolerated flooding better than weeds so it is used as a cheap and easy weed control. Also some places grow fish alongside rice in the same land, getting some extra pest control and fertilizer for free.
We literally make ethanol from corn and sugar cane. And biodielse from soy.
It doesn't make economic and enviromental sense in most parts of the world (especially corn). In some places they are net-positive on carbon emissions compared to oil-derived gasoline. Tilling the fields, growing, harvesting, processing and transporting often emits more CO2 than the equivalent gasoline produced. Especially the initial tilling of the land to convert it to farmland releases A LOT of CO2 into the atmosphere (this is a one-time thing though).
In the US all (ground vehicle) gasoline sold needs to have 10% ethanol (corn-based), in Brazil it is 20% (sugar cane based). In Brazil almost all cars support 100% ethanol fuel and it is quite common to fuel with ethanol only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
The whole bio-fuel industry is a very complex mix of economics (often requires subsidies to make sense), geopolitical (less imported oil), environmental concerns (mass scale farming soil degradation and CO2 emissions derived from it) and logistical (completely different transportation and refining process).
Fun fact ethanol freezes at a fairly high temperature and mixes with water which makes it not ideal for cold climates and boats. It is quite common for unaware boat owners to f-up their engines by buying car-grade fuel-station gasoline in Brazil.
It doesn't make economic and enviromental sense in most parts of the world (especially corn). In some places they are net-positive on carbon emissions compared to oil-derived gasoline. Tilling the fields, growing, harvesting, processing and transporting often emits more CO2 than the equivalent gasoline produced. Especially the initial tilling of the land to convert it to farmland releases A LOT of CO2 into the atmosphere (this is a one-time thing though).
In the US all (ground vehicle) gasoline sold needs to have 10% ethanol (corn-based), in Brazil it is 20% (sugar cane based). In Brazil almost all cars support 100% ethanol fuel and it is quite common to fuel with ethanol only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
The whole bio-fuel industry is a very complex mix of economics (often requires subsidies to make sense), geopolitical (less imported oil), environmental concerns (mass scale farming soil degradation and CO2 emissions derived from it) and logistical (completely different transportation and refining process).
Fun fact ethanol freezes at a fairly high temperature and mixes with water which makes it not ideal for cold climates and boats. It is quite common for unaware boat owners to f-up their engines by buying car-grade fuel-station gasoline in Brazil.
> in Brazil it is 20% (sugar cane based)
30% in 2025 for cars (from 27%), 15% biodiesel in diesel for trucks (from 14%).
Source: https://www.em.com.br/politica/2025/06/7183470-governo-aumen...
> The whole bio-fuel industry is a very complex mix of economics (often requires subsidies to make sense), geopolitical (less imported oil), environmental concerns (mass scale farming soil degradation and CO2 emissions derived from it) and logistical (completely different transportation and refining process).
Don't forget lobyying by the relevant sectors!
30% in 2025 for cars (from 27%), 15% biodiesel in diesel for trucks (from 14%).
Source: https://www.em.com.br/politica/2025/06/7183470-governo-aumen...
> The whole bio-fuel industry is a very complex mix of economics (often requires subsidies to make sense), geopolitical (less imported oil), environmental concerns (mass scale farming soil degradation and CO2 emissions derived from it) and logistical (completely different transportation and refining process).
Don't forget lobyying by the relevant sectors!
And the social implications of converting farmland from growing food to growing sugar cane/corn/soy. It is a VERY complex topic, but it seems overall it is a marginally positive thing for Brazil (even in emissions). While a very negative thing in the US because of all the subsidies required to make corn ethanol viable and overall negative emissions impact compared to oil gasoline.
See https://www.aircela.com/ and many other e-fuel startups, that one makes a very pretty image of a "personal fuel synthesizer" which makes about a gallon of gas a day which is about what my wife and I use.
Cool! They have the numbers, too. Their system needs electricity for electrolysis, 75kWh per gallon of fuel. Compare to 0.24-0.87 kWh/mi for electric cars.
For a car that gets 30mpg that is 2.5 kWh/mi which is 3x worse than the the least efficient electric car, 10x worse than the best.
Still people will want to keep classic cars running in the future and there will be some market, enthusiasts will be willing to pay upwards of $8/gallon. Methanol-to-gasoline fuel is very high octane, around 96, which should keep old engines happy.
The most significant market, I think, for e-fuels are large vehicles such as construction trucks and farm tractors. California has absolutely terrible air quality not just in cities but in ag areas and it would be ideal to synthesize
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether
which burns without any soot because it has no C-C bonds.
Still people will want to keep classic cars running in the future and there will be some market, enthusiasts will be willing to pay upwards of $8/gallon. Methanol-to-gasoline fuel is very high octane, around 96, which should keep old engines happy.
The most significant market, I think, for e-fuels are large vehicles such as construction trucks and farm tractors. California has absolutely terrible air quality not just in cities but in ag areas and it would be ideal to synthesize
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether
which burns without any soot because it has no C-C bonds.
We do this for some plants. Hybrid palms are used for palm oil production due to the favorable yields and properties compared to parental species. One might ask why there are no cars powered off palm oil seeing as we can readily grow it across the world?
There are. Millions of them. Most any diesel can run just fine on veg oils, even used cooking oil. (Some very modern cars might need the electronic control systems tweaked.) There have been times/places where grocery stores put limits on oil once it became cheaper than diesel.
Mythbusters: https://youtu.be/QEX1YFXYTdI
TopGear: https://youtu.be/GOFbsaNeZps
Mythbusters: https://youtu.be/QEX1YFXYTdI
TopGear: https://youtu.be/GOFbsaNeZps
So now, on top of clearing forests and destroying ecosystems for farmland and infinite suburbia, we should clear even more forests to get fuel for cars, so we can drive them through the infinite suburbia.
The forests are cleared because they are allowed to be sold for clearance. Doesn't matter if its palm oil or for cows or sugarcane or ranch homes or solar panels or data centers. People tend to want a return on their investment in land vs spending serious capital to not do anything with a jungle. If you want to limit this you need to prevent land from being sold to entities that would like to profit from it. The specific thing being grown is basically irrelevant.
So many incorrect statements... you know the world is bigger than your (presumably US) backyard.
I suggest travelling around the world a bit and visiting ie Borneo how entire rainforest ecosystem is being reduced to nothing just due to palm oil plantations, mostly for biofuel and cheap&bad for health food additive.
Similar sight across many places out there. What you wrote ain't valid for a single one.
I suggest travelling around the world a bit and visiting ie Borneo how entire rainforest ecosystem is being reduced to nothing just due to palm oil plantations, mostly for biofuel and cheap&bad for health food additive.
Similar sight across many places out there. What you wrote ain't valid for a single one.
The issue is once again the forest is allowed to be sold. If you open up land for development, that is typically what tends to happen. People will seek out whatever use case makes sense with that land. No one wants to lord over a nature preserve. Everyone wants to make their buck into a buck fifty. Clearcutting of the rainforest in Borneo could be solved with a pen stroke by the government in charge but it seems they are more interested in supporting industrialization than preservation.
Over 1% of US land is devoted to biofuels. If we replaced those corn fields with solar, it would produce 4x the electricity currently consumed in the US.
Or if we just put those panels on any other land. Land isn't the constraint here.
Sure if we could magically transport and store it. Like we can for liquid fuels.
No magic required: the tech for transporting electricity predates writing, and that by about six millenia; while reusable storage was only about 27 years after dynamo generators, 1859 vs. 1832.
Both have since been improved upon somewhat.
Both have since been improved upon somewhat.
Magically transporting and storing liquid fuels involves an unbelievably massive supply chain of trucks and refineries and storage tanks and gas stations.
If we need infrastructure to make use of energy we can ‘magic’ it up.
If we need infrastructure to make use of energy we can ‘magic’ it up.
Something like 40% of the corn grown in the US is turned into biofuel:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=1057...
https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=1057...
My guess: (in the US, at least) brains focussed on profits have taken less delight in exploration/invention. (Somewhat similar to what's been happening in science.)
We kind of are but we are also in the process of stopping burning stuff to create energy for ourselves, as usually burning creates CO2.
Do you want plants you grind up into fuel or are you thinking Niven style Booster Trees?
We do. It is called biodiesel. You can make it from any organic matter.
Any? That's even more optimistic than me.
We do and call it canola oil - which should give you an idea of whether eating canola oil is a good idea
Internal combustion engines and humans fundamentally use the same chemical process to generate energy. The fact that something can be used as automotive fuel alone says nothing about whether or not it is safe for human consumption.
> same chemical process
Our digestive systems heat and oxidize hydrocarbons to generate kinetic energy? You sure about that?
Our digestive systems heat and oxidize hydrocarbons to generate kinetic energy? You sure about that?
Different process, same outcome: hydrocarbons are broken down and oxidized into CO2. We just do it with some enzymes in the Krebs cycle instead of doing a high temperature reaction.
We do use oxidation to generate energy.
Of glucose, not a hydrocarbon, but there are plenty of organisms that use hydrocarbons directly.
We don't because we use glucose as our easily transportable fuel, which we evolved because plants happened to produce glucose when we evolved. If there were plants producing some hydrocarbon in fruits we'd have evolved mitochondria to use that instead.
Of glucose, not a hydrocarbon, but there are plenty of organisms that use hydrocarbons directly.
We don't because we use glucose as our easily transportable fuel, which we evolved because plants happened to produce glucose when we evolved. If there were plants producing some hydrocarbon in fruits we'd have evolved mitochondria to use that instead.
[deleted]
Because we are too busy making ethanol to add to gasoline so that motorcycle mechanics and small engine mechanics are guaranteed to have unlimited work every spring.
In a more serious response almost all questions like yours can boil down to economics. You can be certain if there is a way make something at a profit someone will jump in and make it happen. If there is no money in it you can expect that even if it is more environmentally friendly it may be part of research but not going to be implemented unless it becomes profitable.
In a more serious response almost all questions like yours can boil down to economics. You can be certain if there is a way make something at a profit someone will jump in and make it happen. If there is no money in it you can expect that even if it is more environmentally friendly it may be part of research but not going to be implemented unless it becomes profitable.
[deleted]
In my opinion there is still a lot to discover around the manipulation of the environment of plants. Generally speaking its the milieu which has the primary effect on life. Genetic manipulation and environment settings should be applied together to find very specific appliances.
Very intriguing is the Primeval Code[0] in which plants and other life exposed to electrostatic fields changed significantly down to the genome.
Would be very interesting which other artificial settings and compositions affect life in which ways.
0. https://rexresearch.com/ebner2/BurginDerUrzeitCode.pdf
Very intriguing is the Primeval Code[0] in which plants and other life exposed to electrostatic fields changed significantly down to the genome.
Would be very interesting which other artificial settings and compositions affect life in which ways.
0. https://rexresearch.com/ebner2/BurginDerUrzeitCode.pdf
To be a pedantic armchair non-expert internet commenter, let plants rot and they produce methane which can in my head be used as rocket fuel. Also corn and other plants to ethanol.
Depending on system rocket fuel is not that choosy. Oxidiser is harder part, otherwise depending type of engine pretty much anything goes. Ofc, some do have better mass ratios, but in space that is less of concern.
FYI “begs the question” does not mean “raises the question”.
Classically it doesn't, but colloquially it does. The dreaded "language changes and evolves" defense that frustrates pedants everywhere.
(I say this in the friendly spirit of a long-defeated fellow pedant who has hit people with your exact comment for decades)
(I say this in the friendly spirit of a long-defeated fellow pedant who has hit people with your exact comment for decades)
Yip, the reality is that words mean what people think they mean, and that changes over time. Don't think I'm yet ready to accept 'I could care less', but the colloquial meaning of begging the question is logical, reasonable, and is only objectionable on historical grounds.
'I could care less' is the thing which pisses me off the most, as it directly contradicts what the person actually wants to say.
as a non-native speaker that confused me quite a bit in the beginning.
as a non-native speaker that confused me quite a bit in the beginning.
We are, there has been lots of work on algae biofuels, etc
Sounds like Day of the Triffids
This won't enable perpetual space travel in case anyone thought so.
Rockets need to eject particles to generate force. And to eject 1 kg of fuel, its photo synthesis system has to lose 1 km of mass in one way or another.
The solution is to find a way to generate thrust without rocket fuel ejection.
Rockets need to eject particles to generate force. And to eject 1 kg of fuel, its photo synthesis system has to lose 1 km of mass in one way or another.
The solution is to find a way to generate thrust without rocket fuel ejection.
Can we "swim" through space? Collect particles from space, add energy, expell them backwards to generate a net thrust.
That's called a Bussard ramjet: collect hydrogen and fuse it for power to energise the collection mechanism and thrust to overcome the drag. I think the current consensus is that the interstellar medium round these parts is too thin to make it work in deep space.
And if it would be dense enough it would work as a brake instead.
There's a huge density difference if you aren't close to a planet or star.
Solar sails are probably more practical.
Solar sails are probably more practical.
Yep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
Gather interstellar hydrogen, use it to run a fusion engine for propulsion and power. :)
Gather interstellar hydrogen, use it to run a fusion engine for propulsion and power. :)
Also: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Bussard_collector
Star Trek assumed that all warp class vehicles would require them for operation and in-situ fuel replenishment.
Star Trek assumed that all warp class vehicles would require them for operation and in-situ fuel replenishment.
[deleted]
no particles needed, we already have ion drive, just need electricity
Just out of curiosity, what do you think an ion is?
Ions are atoms ..... tiny particles
Quite big tiny particles in this application: Xenon is a fairly hefty atomic number of 54 - exactly double iron.
And you need quite a bit of it: even fairly small spacecraft like probes can have nearly a tonne of the stuff. Which, considering there's only 30-40ish tonnes extracted per year at a cost of about 1.5ish dollars per gram is quite a bit!
And you need quite a bit of it: even fairly small spacecraft like probes can have nearly a tonne of the stuff. Which, considering there's only 30-40ish tonnes extracted per year at a cost of about 1.5ish dollars per gram is quite a bit!
Ions are small enough that you can bring enough for a whole trip pretty easily. Yes they're still consumable, but you need a tiny fraction of the reaction mass you need with a conventional rocket.
Ion drives ionize particles like xenon and expel them; they're much more fuel/weight efficient than burning fuel but they still use fuel, unfortunately.
There's been a number of pure electric propulsion proposals or prototypes, but they've all turned out to be a hoax; the latest one I recall was the EmDrive [0], where any paper claiming it produced positive thrust was debunked with the measurements having been influenced by outside forces.
The TL;DR is that reactionless drives are not possible due to Newton's third law. This page / this website is always a great resource for things like this, it's in the context of writing science fiction but it has tons of research: [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive
[1] https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/reactionlessdr...
There's been a number of pure electric propulsion proposals or prototypes, but they've all turned out to be a hoax; the latest one I recall was the EmDrive [0], where any paper claiming it produced positive thrust was debunked with the measurements having been influenced by outside forces.
The TL;DR is that reactionless drives are not possible due to Newton's third law. This page / this website is always a great resource for things like this, it's in the context of writing science fiction but it has tons of research: [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive
[1] https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/reactionlessdr...
Maybe we could travel without bodies. Ala Lovecraftian astral travel or whatever. I mean you couldn't ship matter like that but for everything else it might work just fine.
Astral projection isn't Lovecraftian per se (fhtagn), but it's an interesting thing to ponder from a hypothetical / fictional perspective.
At best we'll be able to send out probes. Maybe, but this still feels science fiction too, we can harness quantum entanglement for long distance instant communication.
At best we'll be able to send out probes. Maybe, but this still feels science fiction too, we can harness quantum entanglement for long distance instant communication.
In his books, one way of travelling was to switch souls with a creature on another planet. Apparently it worked very well. Though managing a new set of limbs and senses could be difficult.
This is from January, have there been any updates in the past 7 months?
There is exceptionally little material info in this article and so very much speculation
There is exceptionally little material info in this article and so very much speculation
Apparently it has been in production since 2015. Why is this the first we are hearing about it?
Because English language news sources aren't particularly interested in developing the relationships necessary to report on Chinese scientific breakthroughs. It undermines the prevailing media narrative that China is behind and backwater.
Americans don't like the idea that maybe China is actually rocketing past them technologically and infrastructurally, so news doesn't really report on it much.
Americans don't like the idea that maybe China is actually rocketing past them technologically and infrastructurally, so news doesn't really report on it much.
> It undermines the prevailing media narrative that China is behind and backwater.
The prevailing narrative, particularly around hacker news, is that China is a dangerous foe and it's technological progress is a sign that we need to give our own government more money and less oversight so that we don't lose our "technological advantage."
> Americans don't like the idea that maybe China is actually rocketing past them technologically and infrastructurally
I don't buy this explanation given it's value to American propagandists. American society is naturally competitive. There's only two likely reasons why it doesn't get reported.
It's either not as true as the Chinese would like you to believe or American industry is already profiting off of it.
The prevailing narrative, particularly around hacker news, is that China is a dangerous foe and it's technological progress is a sign that we need to give our own government more money and less oversight so that we don't lose our "technological advantage."
> Americans don't like the idea that maybe China is actually rocketing past them technologically and infrastructurally
I don't buy this explanation given it's value to American propagandists. American society is naturally competitive. There's only two likely reasons why it doesn't get reported.
It's either not as true as the Chinese would like you to believe or American industry is already profiting off of it.
China is also nutoriuous for paper mill publishing houses and overblown scientific claims.
Its also needlessly complicated to send the experiment to space. It would be equally valid science if made on earth. So there is a clear performance in the experiment not justifiable by any scientific reason.
Not to say china isn't ahead in space development right now. Artemis is going quite badly and china could certainly be faster to building usable moon outpost.
Its also very cool science, if its claims are true.
Its also needlessly complicated to send the experiment to space. It would be equally valid science if made on earth. So there is a clear performance in the experiment not justifiable by any scientific reason.
Not to say china isn't ahead in space development right now. Artemis is going quite badly and china could certainly be faster to building usable moon outpost.
Its also very cool science, if its claims are true.
What makes you think they didn't test it on Earth first? The Chinese report on this [1] makes this clear with more accurate verbiage: "China's space station has recently conducted experiments on extraterrestrial artificial photosynthesis technology, completing the in-orbit verification of efficient carbon dioxide conversion and oxygen regeneration processes." I think the reason you want to validate your findings in the domain that they'll be used are somewhat self evident.
> "Artemis is going..."
That's quite optimistic.
[1] - https://english.news.cn/20250120/375a0de3a7fc416096799714eaf...
> "Artemis is going..."
That's quite optimistic.
[1] - https://english.news.cn/20250120/375a0de3a7fc416096799714eaf...
I only want to point out that showing scepticism to chineese scientific claims when so few details are given is well grounded.
Microgravity is not the target environment for the technology , and it verifying its operation in microgravity feels like a very minor breakthrough compared to the tech itself.
So sending it to space is performance to show off and make headlines.
Its very important tech. If their claims are true its amazing... but doing it in orbit is not the amazing part.
China is doing alot of great research, and the idea that china is behind is laughable in many sectors. But sorting through the real science is so much harder in the noise of empty papers and puffy articles.
> That's quite optimistic.
Urgh. One can dream i guess
Microgravity is not the target environment for the technology , and it verifying its operation in microgravity feels like a very minor breakthrough compared to the tech itself.
So sending it to space is performance to show off and make headlines.
Its very important tech. If their claims are true its amazing... but doing it in orbit is not the amazing part.
China is doing alot of great research, and the idea that china is behind is laughable in many sectors. But sorting through the real science is so much harder in the noise of empty papers and puffy articles.
> That's quite optimistic.
Urgh. One can dream i guess
The Chinese also aren't the most transparent when it comes to their own technological advances. Certainly much less transparent than NASA.
Or it is mostly updated in Mandarin and in mostly Chinese-exclusive media ecosystem like WeChat which is not easily indexed and probed.
That's part of it too, but CNSA really does play its cards much closer to its chest than NASA. It's more in line with the Soviet approach of sharing the minimum information necessary to support a narrative. For example, try to find video of any Long March rocket failure, and literally the only one released is from the 90s and was only released a few years ago.
I read mandarin and I use WeChat. It's still less transparent. There are many self-congratulatory press releases without enough technical information. The Chinese haven't realized yet that transparency here is a form of soft power.
> transparency here is a form of soft power.
I severely doubt that and the ability to form and control narrative is much more important
I severely doubt that and the ability to form and control narrative is much more important
Especially considering the ruling class does not like when people are reminded that China has its own space station and has never allowed a single non-Chinese person on it, while we failed in several ways over months to return the astronauts from the ISS, and President Trump just decreed that he’s going to give 600,000 (more?) Chinese students visas to study at American universities and invariably displacing their indigenous.
I personally have nothing against the Chinese and respect them being oddly far more interested in the wellbeing of their own people than remotely anything in any western country, but it sure is odd behavior by people who consider China a threat.
“China’s an enemy” … “let’s bring in 600,000 Chinese every single year to learn from us and take the knowledge back to China and the ones that remain will be embedded spies like the people of other foreign nations who have burrowed into America and its power structure”.
I personally have nothing against the Chinese and respect them being oddly far more interested in the wellbeing of their own people than remotely anything in any western country, but it sure is odd behavior by people who consider China a threat.
“China’s an enemy” … “let’s bring in 600,000 Chinese every single year to learn from us and take the knowledge back to China and the ones that remain will be embedded spies like the people of other foreign nations who have burrowed into America and its power structure”.
I'm not sure that a government that goes out of its way to try to silence political dissent and enforce social order through fear should be considered interested in the wellbeing of its people. [0][1][2]
[0]: https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-targets/china-tran...
[1]: https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/358765...
[2]: https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/peng-shuai-china-disappeared-ho...
[0]: https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-targets/china-tran...
[1]: https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/358765...
[2]: https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/peng-shuai-china-disappeared-ho...
You talk about US or China? For outsiders, the lines are getting blurrier every day, in quite a few aspects US is currently the bigger/worse offender and a proper bully. China just wants to sell their cars here.
I wouldnt take my family to a trip to US these days for example, no such issue with China. One sample aspect, a very practical one too, but there are many others.
I wouldnt take my family to a trip to US these days for example, no such issue with China. One sample aspect, a very practical one too, but there are many others.
I quite like how link [2] he provided leads with something like "The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has many ways of administratively disappearing those it distrusts. It has punished tens of millions of people through its formal, but crude and opaque, criminal justice system."
US Incarceration Rate: 541 per 100k
Chinese Incarceration Rate: 119 per 100k
It leads to the amusing outcome that the US has more people incarcerated than China, in spite of China having 4x the population of the US. It's entirely possible to criticize the Chinese system without resorting to disinformation, but as you allude to, those critiques probably hit a bit too close to home. It's akin to how the Wiki page on authoritarianism [1] has been radically shifted over time to the point that "modern" definition and the definition of 20 years ago [2] are completely different. Yet the old definition is the one that literally everybody uses, but it, again, hits a bit too close to home.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authoritarianism&...
US Incarceration Rate: 541 per 100k
Chinese Incarceration Rate: 119 per 100k
It leads to the amusing outcome that the US has more people incarcerated than China, in spite of China having 4x the population of the US. It's entirely possible to criticize the Chinese system without resorting to disinformation, but as you allude to, those critiques probably hit a bit too close to home. It's akin to how the Wiki page on authoritarianism [1] has been radically shifted over time to the point that "modern" definition and the definition of 20 years ago [2] are completely different. Yet the old definition is the one that literally everybody uses, but it, again, hits a bit too close to home.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authoritarianism&...
Let’s be honest here. America has the extremely high incarceration rate because of two primary factors; many of Americas regions are effectively uncivilized (if you don’t know that, you simply cannot understand this issue), and there is also a high problem of violence by Africans and if justice and law enforcement were actually conducted to keep society safe and peaceful as should be, the per capita incarceration rate and the real number of Africans incarcerated in the USA would be even far higher.
The “amusing outcome” is actually that when you look at the crime rates of East Asians, you see similar rates as in east Asia, and if you look at all other ethnicities’ crime rates anywhere they are, you also see similar patterns, not matter how removed they are from each other.
These are not complicated or challenging things, the problem is just that a new kind of delusional religion has been constructed around believing nonsense as a base assumption.
The “amusing outcome” is actually that when you look at the crime rates of East Asians, you see similar rates as in east Asia, and if you look at all other ethnicities’ crime rates anywhere they are, you also see similar patterns, not matter how removed they are from each other.
These are not complicated or challenging things, the problem is just that a new kind of delusional religion has been constructed around believing nonsense as a base assumption.
> many of Americas regions are effectively uncivilized
I suppose America does have a lot of undeveloped land and national parks that are left wild, but I don't see how that could ...
> ... the real number of Africans incarcerated in the USA would be even far higher
... Ohhhh you are just racist. Got it. Take that somewhere else.
I suppose America does have a lot of undeveloped land and national parks that are left wild, but I don't see how that could ...
> ... the real number of Africans incarcerated in the USA would be even far higher
... Ohhhh you are just racist. Got it. Take that somewhere else.
Quite bold to say the quiet part out loud. I think for what good intention there was at some point, it was to prevent a repeat of America circa 1900 which worked as an inspiration to Germany circa 1930, but it ended up getting taken to a no less destructive extreme. Nonetheless, it makes pointing out issues with legal systems in other countries overt misinformation, as it's plainly false.
How is that any different than anything happening in the West? It’s not! At least the Chinese government does not seem to be importing tens of millions of foreigners to displace, disown, dispossess, plunder, dismember, and commit crimes and terrorize its own people.
Say what you want, but a government that is swapping out and replacing its own people (as von der Leyden basically admitted two days ago), all while claiming to be “democratic” (while not allowing anyone to vote on their own replacement) is exponentially more diabolical and evil than what you are highlighting. The western governments don’t “silence political dissent”? “Enforce social order through fear”?
Are you just lying to yourself of how can you not be aware of what is going on outside of what is likely an ideological bubble? What was the Palestine protests situation on college campuses in the U.S., if not “silencing political dissent” and “enforcing social order through fear”?? Now the Zionists are demanding America basically cancel the first amendment.
Can you raise public objections about tens of millions of Africans and Asians flooding into your communities that used to be safe in Europe, or will you be terrorized with judicial persecution and be downvoted online and censored simply because you have reasonable objections to being abused and harmed?
An American was just stabbed in the face by an “asylum seeker” in Germany, because he was trying to intervene in him attempting sexual assault on a woman. Did you hear about that? Do you know that rape in Europe had sky rocketed everywhere because of all the “asylum seekers”? Do you feel pangs of anxiety at hearing that and urges to make excuses for it or the fact that people who do excise it are accessories to those violent crimes that are being perpetrated all across Europe?
And that’s without even all the many other examples one could list to day’s end. You seem to be fooling yourself for some reason. This is not a sportsball game where “my team good, their team bad”. Let’s be principled here, regardless of team.
I don’t actually blame China for what you accuse them of, because there are long standing hostile, strategic plans that go well beyond what most people have any kind of understanding for, whose objective is basically destroying/taking over China just as they want to take over Russia in order to achieve total world domination. And no, you don’t have to believe me, you can read any of the many “think tank” and niche journal articles where they not only lay out their objectives, but also their strategic and tactical plans they’ve been executing for decades. I have even worked with them and discussed these types of plans with them. They’re insane and a certain kind of stupid, a kind of fools stupidity.
Frankly, what the Chinese themselves also probably do not understand is that those 600,000 Chinese students Trump wants to let in, are part of a strategy to prevent a two-front war with China and Russia and to separate and dominate them both, regardless of how successful that will be. (It won’t)
Say what you want, but a government that is swapping out and replacing its own people (as von der Leyden basically admitted two days ago), all while claiming to be “democratic” (while not allowing anyone to vote on their own replacement) is exponentially more diabolical and evil than what you are highlighting. The western governments don’t “silence political dissent”? “Enforce social order through fear”?
Are you just lying to yourself of how can you not be aware of what is going on outside of what is likely an ideological bubble? What was the Palestine protests situation on college campuses in the U.S., if not “silencing political dissent” and “enforcing social order through fear”?? Now the Zionists are demanding America basically cancel the first amendment.
Can you raise public objections about tens of millions of Africans and Asians flooding into your communities that used to be safe in Europe, or will you be terrorized with judicial persecution and be downvoted online and censored simply because you have reasonable objections to being abused and harmed?
An American was just stabbed in the face by an “asylum seeker” in Germany, because he was trying to intervene in him attempting sexual assault on a woman. Did you hear about that? Do you know that rape in Europe had sky rocketed everywhere because of all the “asylum seekers”? Do you feel pangs of anxiety at hearing that and urges to make excuses for it or the fact that people who do excise it are accessories to those violent crimes that are being perpetrated all across Europe?
And that’s without even all the many other examples one could list to day’s end. You seem to be fooling yourself for some reason. This is not a sportsball game where “my team good, their team bad”. Let’s be principled here, regardless of team.
I don’t actually blame China for what you accuse them of, because there are long standing hostile, strategic plans that go well beyond what most people have any kind of understanding for, whose objective is basically destroying/taking over China just as they want to take over Russia in order to achieve total world domination. And no, you don’t have to believe me, you can read any of the many “think tank” and niche journal articles where they not only lay out their objectives, but also their strategic and tactical plans they’ve been executing for decades. I have even worked with them and discussed these types of plans with them. They’re insane and a certain kind of stupid, a kind of fools stupidity.
Frankly, what the Chinese themselves also probably do not understand is that those 600,000 Chinese students Trump wants to let in, are part of a strategy to prevent a two-front war with China and Russia and to separate and dominate them both, regardless of how successful that will be. (It won’t)
Chinese scientific progress relatively rarely gets reported on because nearly all science reporting is a push-based system of institutions throwing press releases at publications. The publications don't have the chops to analyse or verify that information, or to go and find interesting research happening on their own, so they mostly stick with uncritically repackaging output from the places they trust.
Can America please start doing cool shit again like this instead of eating ourselves alive?
Ah, all the great memories of making oxygen in the chem lab. Back when we used to rip the protons, neutrons, and electrons out of Flourine atoms and smash them into Nitrogen atoms until the N turned into O. Back when we made things the old-fashioned way.
This is silly, but also begs the sillier question why we aren't bioengineering plants to produce rocket fuel