Audi says e-fuel is superior because of its purity. Unlike fossil fuels, which vary in composition depending on their place of origin, synthetic fuels contain no olefins or aromatic hydrocarbons. This optimizes combustion and results in fewer emissions.



Audi has been producing e-fuels at a research facility in Hobbs, New Mexico, through a partnership with Joule, a firm that specializes in developing synthetic fuels with solar energy (see 50 disruptive companies - MIT Tech REview). At the facility, genetically engineered photosynthetic microorganisms are kept in water (which could be brackish, salt or wastewater). They metabolize carbon dioxide after being exposed to sunlight and produce fuel as a byproduct.

~~
~~

Mangold said the tests also demonstrate that electric power is not the only option for making cars more environmentally friendly. “There are other concepts that permit long-distance, low-emission driving,” he said.

~~
~~


Once the technology is fully commercialized, Joule aims to produce 25,000 gallons of synthetic ethanol and 15,000 gallons of synthetic diesel per acre annually, for as little as $1.28 a gallon and $50 a barrel, excluding subsidies.

Joule has engineered microbes that harness the sun’s energy to convert carbon dioxide and water directly into ethanol or hydrocarbon fuels. When housed in bioreactors in sunny areas and at full-scale production, the company says, these photosynthetic organisms can produce 15,000 gallons of diesel or 25,000 gallons of ethanol per acre per year. The process offers an advantage over making biofuels from corn or cellulose, because growing those materials requires large amounts of arable land. It’s also an improvement over using photosynthetic algae to make biofuel precursors, as some other companies do, because those chemicals must then be processed to make fuel.
(more)

Budget pressures now force the National Institutes of Health to reject half of worthwhile research proposals, putting scientific progress at risk and leading many of the USA's brightest minds to consider careers overseas, says NIH director Francis Collins.

"While the scientific opportunities have never been more exciting than right now, the stress on the biomedical community in the United States has never been more severe," says Collins, in an exclusive interview with the USA TODAY Editorial Board Wednesday. "Many young investigators are on the brink of giving up because of the difficulty of getting support."

The NIH once funded one in three research proposals. For the past 10 years, NIH has had enough to fund only one in six, although the quality of the research is as high as ever, Collins says.

"We are throwing away probably half of the innovative, talented research proposal's that the nation's finest biomedical community has produced," Collins says. "Particularly for young scientists, they are now beginning to wonder if they are in the wrong field. We have a serious risk of losing the most important resource that we have, which is this brain trust, the talent and the creative energies of this generation of scientists."

(more)

If you want to run for office some day, you better not believe that everyone is entitled to legal counsel before the government locks them away. Or, at least, that’s the message sent by a new Republican Governors Association ad targeting Vincent Sheheen, a former prosecutor who now represents civil and criminal clients in private practice. Sheheen is a Democratic candidate for governor against incumbent Nikki Haley (R-SC).

The RGA’s ad attacks Sheheen for “defend[ing] violent criminals” and ends with the tagline “Vincent Sheheen protects criminals not South Carolina.” Watch it:


&feature=player_embedded


The implication of this ad is that Sheheen is somehow unfit for public office because he once provided legal counsel to people accused of crimes. Indeed, the ad lists several serious crimes, including sex offenses and child abuse, that Sheheen’s clients were accused of committing. It is likely that many of these clients are very, very bad people.

But in the American justice system, we do not presume that anyone is guilty of a crime until after they have received a trial where they were represented by counsel — indeed, we afford all criminal defendants a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Moreover, as the Supreme Court explained more than half a century ago, the right to a trial often means little unless criminal defendants enjoy the right to counsel. Without an attorney, Justice Hugo Black wrote in 1963, an innocent man “faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.”

(more)

NEWT GINGRICH, NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House, 1995-99: The point I made was that we had to be prepared, in the tradition of Wooden at UCLA, to run a full court press. And we had to see how Obama behaved and to offer an alternative to what he wanted to do.

ROBERT DRAPER: So they decided that they needed to begin to fight Obama on everything. This meant unyielding opposition to every one of the Obama administration’s legislative initiatives.

Continuing its steady and unrelenting assault on the laws that limit the ability of wealthy Americans to influence the course of electoral campaigns, the Supreme Court today declared that regulations that limit the aggregate amount donors can give to electoral campaigns in a single election cycle are unconstitutional. This is a campaign finance limit you probably haven’t thought much about, and it’s one that affects a relatively small number of donors (at least up until now).

It’s too early to tell how much the removal of this limit will alter the electoral landscape. But the implication is clear. The five conservative justices on the Supreme Court seem determined to dismantle the entire edifice of campaign finance law.

Today’s ruling is a small but important step on the road to the ultimate victory for those who would like to make it possible to literally buy any politician you wish: the removal of all limits on contributions to candidates. That’s the end game, and that’s where this Court is headed.

There’s a nice explainer of what was at issue in this case here, and I’ll let the Post’s Aaron Blake explain what the Court did today:

In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that individuals should be able to give the maximum per-candidate and per-party contributions to as many party committees, presidential and congressional candidates as they want. Under the current limits, individuals could give no more than $123,000 in total and $48,600 to candidates for the 2013-2014 election cycle.

The court did not strike down contribution limits per candidate (now $2,600) and per party committee (now $32,400), but the decision does overturn previous rules that restricted individuals from giving those maximum donations to dozens of candidates and several party committees.

This meant that wealthy donors would have to be more selective about whom they contributed to — contributing to House Democrats’ campaign committee, for instance, but not Senate Democrats’.

(more)

Former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell denied Wednesday that there was any cover-up or political influence in messaging after the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

“We did not deliberately downplay the role of terrorists in the Benghazi attack in our analysis or in the talking points,” Morell said during a House Intelligence Committee hearing.

“And neither I, nor anyone else at the agency, deliberately misled anyone in Congress about any aspect of the tragedy in Benghazi,” Morell added.

Morell was deputy director of the agency at the time of the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which led to the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Both Morell and the agency, as well as the administration, have faced criticism from the right regarding the handling of the attack, including claims that there were political motives behind the framing of the information surrounding the incident.
(more)

THE PRESIDENT: Everybody, please have a seat. Thank you so much. Welcome to the White House.

Six months ago today, a big part of the Affordable Care Act kicked in as healthcare.gov and state insurance marketplaces went live. And millions of Americans finally had the same chance to buy quality, affordable health care -- and the peace of mind that comes with it -- as everybody else.

Last night, the first open-enrollment period under this law came to an end. And despite several lost weeks out of the gate because of problems with the website, 7.1 million Americans have now signed up for private insurance plans through these marketplaces -- 7.1. (Applause.)

The truth is, even more folks want to sign up. So anybody who was stuck in line because of the huge surge in demand over the past few days can still go back and finish your enrollment -- 7.1 million, that’s on top of the more than 3 million young adults who have gained insurance under this law by staying on their family’s plan. That’s on top of the millions more who have gained access through Medicaid expansion and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Making affordable coverage available to all Americans, including those with preexisting conditions, is now an important goal of this law. (Applause.)

And in these first six months, we’ve taken a big step forward. And just as importantly, this law is bringing greater security to Americans who already have coverage. Because of the Affordable Care Act, 100 million Americans have gained free preventive care, like mammograms and contraceptive care, under their existing plans. (Applause.) Because of this law, nearly 8 million seniors have saved almost $10 billion on their medicine because we’ve closed a gaping hole in Medicare’s prescription drug plan. We’re closing the donut hole. (Applause.) And because of this law, a whole lot of families won’t be driven into bankruptcy by a serious illness, because the Affordable Care Act prevents your insurer from placing dollar limits on the coverage they provide.

These are all benefits that have been taking place for a whole lot of families out there, many who don’t realize that they’ve received these benefits. But the bottom line is this: Under this law, the share of Americans with insurance is up and the growth of health care costs is down, and that’s good for our middle class and that’s good for our fiscal future. (Applause.)

Now, that doesn’t mean that all the problems in health care have been solved forever. Premiums are still rising for families who have insurance, whether you get it through your employer or you buy it on your own -- that’s been true every year for decades. But, so far, those premiums have risen more slowly since the Affordable Care Act passed than at any time in the past 50 years. It’s also true that, despite this law, millions of Americans remain uncovered in part because governors in some states for political reasons have deliberately refused to expand coverage under this law. But we’re going to work on that. And we’ll work to get more Americans covered with each passing year. (Applause.)

And while it remains true that you’ll still have to change your coverage if you graduate from college or turn 26 years old or move or switch jobs, or have a child -- just like you did before the Affordable Care Act was passed -- you can now go to healthcare.gov and use it year-round to enroll when circumstances in your life change. So, no, the Affordable Care Act hasn’t completely fixed our long-broken health care system, but this law has made our health care system a lot better -- a lot better. (Applause.)

All told, because of this law, millions of our fellow citizens know the economic security of health insurance who didn’t just a few years ago -- and that’s something to be proud of. Regardless of your politics or your feelings about me, or your feelings about this law, that’s something that’s good for our economy, and it’s good for our country. And there’s no good reason to go back.

[font size="3"]]Let me give you a sense of what this change has meant for millions of our fellow Americans. I’ll just give you a few examples. Sean Casey, from Solana Beach, California, always made sure to cover his family on the private market. But preexisting medical conditions meant his annual tab was over $30,000. The Affordable Care Act changed that. See, if you have a preexisting condition, like being a cancer survivor, or if you suffer chronic pain from a tough job, or even if you’ve just been charged more for being a woman -– you can no longer be charged more than anybody else. So this year, the Casey family’s premiums will fall from over $30,000 to under $9,000. (Applause.)

And I know this because Sean took the time to write me a letter. “These savings,” he said, “will almost offset the cost of our daughter’s first year in college. I’m a big believer in this legislation, and it has removed a lot of complexity and, frankly, fear from my life. Please keep fighting for the ACA.” That's what Sean had to say.

Jeanne Goe is a bartender from Enola, Pennsylvania. Now, I think most folks are aware being a bartender, that's a job that usually doesn't offer health care. For years, Jeanne went uninsured or underinsured, often getting some health care through her local Planned Parenthood. In November, she bought a plan on the marketplace. In January, an illness sent her to the hospital. And because her new plan covered a CAT scan she wouldn’t have otherwise been able to afford, her doctor discovered that she also had ovarian cancer -– and gave her a chance to beat it. So she wrote me a letter, too. She said it’s going to be “a long tough road to kill this cancer, but I can walk that road knowing insurance isn’t an issue. I won’t be refused care. I hope to send a follow-up letter in a few months saying I am free and clear of this disease, but until then, I know I will be fighting just as you have been fighting for my life as a working American citizen.”[/font]

And after her first wellness visit under her new insurance plan, Marla Morine, from Fort Collins, Colorado, shared with me what it meant to her. “After using my new insurance for the first time, you probably heard my sigh of relief from the White House.” (Laughter.) “I felt like a human being again. I felt that I had value.”

That’s what the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, is all about -– making sure that all of us, and all our fellow citizens, can count on the security of health care when we get sick; that the work and dignity of every person is acknowledged and affirmed. The newly insured like Marla deserve that dignity. Working Americans like Jeanne deserve that economic security. Women, the sick, survivors -- they deserve fair treatment in our health care system, all of which makes the constant politics around this law so troubling.
(more)