Care to comment Jtabeb

[jtabeb]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

Same here.

Correct me if I'm wrong JT, but don't jets runs on what is basically kerosene? Not refined to the level of gasoline. What would GAS or diesel cost if made with algae? Remember, the question is not about viability, but rather cost. We already have many alt energy sources but none work at the cost or the scale of oil. I'm not saying this stuff does not have promise, I think it does, but when they reach the point they can make the stuff work and work cheaply, we'll know about it because it is sitting in our gas tank, not because it was announced by some super secret government entity.

I'm always skeptical of "press releases" announcing something is almost there. Especially coming from a government source. There has to be a lot of top down pressure to announce good news in this economic environment. I've just seen too many "we've turned the corner" announcements lately I guess.

Steve Tractor trailers use diesel engines. Hardly weak or short lived engines. It's when they try to make them too cheaply they have the problems you mention. Like anything, you get what you pay for. The Yugo didn't suck because it was a gas engine. It sucked because it was a POS.

What is diesel?

I happen to know that we run DIESEL Cessna 172's in iraq on JP-8 (kerosene).

Yes, not gas, but it is diesel and you can run Diesel in "PLANES, TRAINS, AUTOMOBILES, and SHIPS". That is my point, A UNIVERSAL SOLUTION. (Sorry gas cars, use what gas we got left)

[GRG55]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

The Europeans seem to have plenty of diesel engines that do the stop and go thing just fine, how are they doing it? More aggressive electronic controlled heaters for idle time? Big heavy flywheels to act as both a constant idle load and to store excess kinetic energy for use on demand like batteries in a hybrid?

Spend some time in Europe and you'll find most of them do a lot less stop and go than the average Canadian or American. We drive to the post office...stop...then drive to the dry cleaner...stop...then drive to the grocery store...stop...then drive to the WalMart...stop...you get the picture.

Most of us won't go 500 feet to a mailbox to post a letter without getting in the car and driving. And how many parents do you know that live 8 blocks from the school, but still drive their kids there in the morning?

European cities and villages aren't generally organized around the mall, big box retailer and massive supermarket, each with its own parking lot, and all set some distance from the McMansion with the double front drive garages in the residential subdivision.

But if a European chooses to use a diesel for a lot of short trips, and not much else, they won't be immune from the added maintenance and shortened service life.

[jtabeb]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

This is great for the Pentagon - it's an energy source independent of imports. Thus it is a national security win for us.

However, I just don't see this being scalable. I don't see it ever putting a dent in current total petroleum use.

Here's the relevant quote:

She said the projects, run by private firms SAIC and General Atomics, expected to yield 1,000 gallons of oil per acre from the algal farm.

1,000 gallons per acre? The US consumes 380 million gallons of gasoline a day. Say we replace 20% of current gasoline consumption with algae (we need 76 million gallons of green stuff - and I'll ignore refining for the moment, which would increase the #). We would need to commit 76,000 acres. But will 76,000 acres produce 76 million gallons a day? Obviously not. I would like to know how long it takes an acre to produce 1,000 gallons. What is the life cycle of this stuff? How much water is needed? How much land do we have near that amount of water?

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexpla...e=gasoline_use

To be scalable and to ward off peak oil, I would guess that competing uses of land - agriculture for food - would be severly impacted. Like a $30.00 a can of beans impact. And that's not even factoring in inflation from the ongoing financial crisis.

Can someone please correct me? I was really positive of this development when I saw the headline.

Dude, closed loop + LED lights + Indoor and climate control = 1,000,000 gallons per acre PER YEAR (Yes, I did the math). I think we can live with the enviornmental impact of about 365 square miles about 234,000 acres put to use as biodiesel production to meet our yearly petroleum requirements (esp since the land can be crap desert or any otherwise non agriculturally useful land).

Yeah, it's alot but considering what you are replacing, it's a drop in the bucket Esp. if you use land that is non-agricultrually productive (which you, of course SHOULD, so you don't compete with the food supply).

It's an appollo size project, and could be had for FAR LESS than the $13 trillion we paid to backstop the financial economy.

How much LESS you ask?

About $12.5 TRILLION LESS, so YES I think it's worth 500 Billion and 365 square miles.

(And even if I'm off by a FACTOR OF 10, which I'm NOT, it is STILL LESS THAN HALF the cost of backstopping the Financial industry.

Your opinion may differ of course, but then I would ask "What's YOUR alternative?"

V/R

JT

P.S. BTW our national annual fuel bill if we imported all this oil from outside producers at market prices?

$1.8 Trillion

VS a cost to make our own Algae-Based BioDiesel?

$500 Billion

You do the math

[jtabeb]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

Spend some time in Europe and you'll find most of them do a lot less stop and go than the average Canadian or American. We drive to the post office...stop...then drive to the dry cleaner...stop...then drive to the grocery store...stop...then drive to the WalMart...stop...you get the picture.

Most of us won't go 500 feet to a mailbox to post a letter without getting in the car and driving. And how many parents do you know that live 8 blocks from the school, but still drive their kids there in the morning?

European cities and villages aren't generally organized around the mall, big box retailer and massive supermarket, each with its own parking lot, and all set some distance from the McMansion with the double front drive garages in the residential subdivision.

But if a European chooses to use a diesel for a lot of short trips, and not much else, they won't be immune from the added maintenance and shortened service life.

You should really drive a mercedes or volkswagon diesel. You haven't really DRIVEN a DIESEL till you've driven one of these. (I think you might change your perspective if you did)

[gnk]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

Your opinion may differ of course, but then I would ask "What's YOUR alternative?"

More bicycles?

Seriously, sort of. I agree that we need to pursue and invest in alt energies. But we also have to face the truth - we are petroleum man. No one in the history of the world found and exploited such a cheap and powerful energy source... an energy source that nature took millions of acres and millions of years of sunlight and geologic pressure to develop.

We should pursue alt energies... but lifestyle changes should also begin NOW. Either we slowly leave oil, or it may surprsingly leave us. I prefer that society has some control over it.

And I'm not saying that oil will disappear overnight - it never will really disappear. But just a small percentage drop in supply vs. demand and prices skyrocket and economies crash.

The techno-fix dreamer cornucopians may be right one day.... but their visions should not give us a false sense of security either. What if they're wrong, or not fast enough w/ development and the SHTF real quick? I rather we start adapting now and risk overcaution, then to blindly continue w/ business as usual and risk a catastrophic change that is forced upon us.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

They appear to be using the brakish/waste/grey water in lieu of artificial fertilizers to encourage growth, which is actually pretty impressive (they clean the water and grow faster than normal too since the pollutants in the water are great algae food) but still suggests relatively low volume.

The problem with doing algae farming on saltwater is the sheer distance you'd have to cover to farm enough algae. You'd need thousands and thousands of boats constantly farming the sea, and then they have to transport their haul to be processed somewhere since they can only hold so much, which is also energy intensive. On top of that they'd be stripping algae out of the water faster then it'd be growing normally (unless the genetically engineer something that grows much faster, but you wouldn't want to release something like that in the wild as it'd cause all sorts of ecological disasters), you'd run into supply issues just like we're getting with oil right now.

So what they're doing is trying to grow lots and lots of algae in small (well relatively small, you're still talking about something the size of a small lake) man made water ways so they can continuously grow and process the stuff. Its a great idea, its probably one of the most likely "green" renewable sources of energy we could whip up in a reasonably short period of time, but its still fairly risky all things considered and will take years at best to get working on a large scale. Much less on a scale where it'd be enough to make a significant chunk of day to day energy use.

Good response.

[bobola]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

Starving Steve,

I have seen others here call you crazy, and now it's my turn to do the same.

Dirt in the fuel..?? In a diesel engine...???
What are you talking about..??

Anyone who understands diesel engines knows that first and foremost that you have to filter all the dirt and water out of diesel fuel before it gets to the fuel pump, or you aren't going anywhere.

I'm a former marine engineer, who maintained a number of different diesel engines on a number of different boats over a number of years. Of course you have to give the engine clean fuel...that's a no-brainer. That's in diesel engine owner 101. That's why 10 and 20 micron filters are used. That's why fuel takes a trip through a centrifuge on the bigger boats, to remove the dirt and water, and then off the the day tank.

Well Steve, I suggest that you not buy and use a computer because eventually you will get a virus, or a hacker will steal your credit card info, or the hard drive will crash...etc...it won't work for you....don't go that route...

[radon]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

I would like to know how long it takes an acre to produce 1,000 gallons.

I would like to know that as well. 1K per acre a day is completely impossible. My back of the napkin gives an upper limit, assuming 100% solar energy conversion to diesel, of around 700 gallons/acre day based on isolation in the US, and the heat value of diesel. I used a the high isolation value of 7KWh/m2 per day. This is rarely found in the United States, and obviously 100% energy conversion is not possible. If they are making 1K gallons a day it would be nice to know where they are getting the extra energy.

I suspect it is closer to 1K per year due the the inefficiency of photosynthesis and other issues. Also most of the test sites I've read about have (generous) production estimates of 1 - 1.5K gallons per acre a year.

But where does this leave us for fuel replacement? Even if we use the generous value of 1500 gallons/acre a year we end up with around 4 gallons per acre a day. In order to replace GNKs 400 million gallons a day would require 100 million acres. At 640 acres per square mile that comes to 150K square miles. That is about the size of Montana. Even if I am off by a factor of 10 development on that scale is completely unrealistic.

My knee jerk reaction is that this is primarily for public relations, and they are not saying how long it takes to produce 1000 gallons because it wouldn't make for a great press release. Until they get a handle on their real production costs, without subsidies, and volume on a commercial scale I'll hold off on getting excited.

[radon]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

Dude, closed loop + LED lights + Indoor and climate control = 1,000,000 gallons per acre PER YEAR (Yes, I did the math).

Where do you get the electricity to run the lights?

I'm all for a free lunch, but this isn't it. I hope you are not suggesting that you burn the biodiesel you produced to generate electricity for LEDs. This is not a perpetual motion machine. It won't produce a net positive energy output in the form of surplus biodiesel.

In my opinion using a ton of electricity to make a little biodiesel is wasteful; it is more efficient to skip the diesel phase altogether. Why run LEDs all day when you can drive an electric car

[jtabeb]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

More bicycles?

I rather we start adapting now and risk overcaution, then to blindly continue w/ business as usual and risk a catastrophic change that is forced upon us.

Agree

Sure, we should have started ADAPTING in the early 80's wasn't an appetite for it politically, (nor still, now).

Understand that change WILL BE FORCED UPON, not voluntarily accepted. That there is a viable alternative that would be workable in say 5 years time, yes that adds to the stupidity. But in the end, the system will get what it wants, until it breaks and no longer functions. (Again, it doesn't HAVE TO, it will be made to or allowed to, for political reasons).

Can't have the leaders running around and using foresight now, can we?

[jtabeb]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

Why run LEDs all day when you can drive an electric car

The Sun (see solar THERMAL electrical generation)

Batteries, The short answer is you need BTUs for a transport fuel, not watts. (BTW How much material exists to electrify the entire vehicle fleet, HINT:not enough ).

Pipe dreams are great but if you are looking at scalability, electrification AIN'T it (AND it does not address aircraft fuels, that's kinda big don't you think?)

And Yes, as long is the Sun is shining, it is a perpetual motion machine. (It's called a SUSTAINABLE solution, not a depleting resource).

Okay, technically the Sun will deplete in what, another 4.6 Billion years, but that's beyond my time horizon.

[rabot10]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

This whole thread can be summed up with one word.

HOPE!!

For all of the skeptics, I say what is your idea? If you have no quasi technology to hope for than we are all domed – at least most of the non elite (lol) which I am a part of are done.
I HOPE it works the alternatives are not something I want to confront.

Not JMHO - do the math - it all works out.

[GRG55]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

You should really drive a mercedes or volkswagon diesel. You haven't really DRIVEN a DIESEL till you've driven one of these. (I think you might change your perspective if you did)

I have. We have a Jetta turbo-diesel in the family, and if I was ever to own a sedan again [possible, but not probable] a Merc E350 Blutec would be high on the list. A few years ago, when I was living in the Middle East, I got a chance to try out a pre-production VW Touareg, with a 10 cylinder diesel engine, on the Autobahn between Frankfurt and Weisbaden. But I'm not sure exactly what aspect of my perspective you think would change?

Diesels are not a good choice if you plan to use them for a lot of short hops. And it does not matter who makes them, or whether you're in Europe or North America. Period. [it's sort of like using one of those F16s of yours to commute from Randolph to Laughlin...it can be done, but not really good for the vehicle if done habitually ;). Much better to use a Texan II in that service, non?]

[radon]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

The Sun (see solar THERMAL electrical generation)

Pipe dreams are great but if you are looking at scalability, electrification AIN'T it (AND it does not address aircraft fuels, that's kinda big don't you think?)

I would argue that neither is biodiesel. My napkin said that 1 million gallons an acre a year from the solar flux alone is thermodynamical impossible. That is why I asked about the source of electricity. For instance, if you are using 100 acres to focus light to run a 1 acre growing operation then the your 1million gallons per acre is off by a factor of 100. If you are burning coal for it then it is hardly carbon neutral, and this whole exercise is pointless if you are burning oil. Without an external source of energy your growing operation is limited by the amount of solar radiation falling on an acre.

What I was trying to illustrate with the electric car example is that every time you convert energy you lose some to heat and that you would have more energy to move things around if you didn't use it to grow diesel first. I could see using some of this for a replacement for some industrial feedstocks. Maybe my napkin is wrong. It has been wrong before, but right now most of the things I'm reading sound way too optimistic.

[jtabeb]

Re: Care to comment Jtabeb

I would argue that neither is biodiesel. My napkin said that 1 million gallons an acre a year from the solar flux alone is thermodynamical impossible. .

A. Surface Area (you are only counting the radiative solar output per sq Acre, correct? I'm on the other hand am not. Why? Because TOTAL Radiative output need not be limited to the collection of only the production area). I'm pretty sure (and have seen in Japan) Solar collectors that pipe light via Fibre Optics, and surface area is surface area. (and it need not be horizontal surface area)

You are ALSO assuming that you are growing on a flat pond or surface which limits surface area to the numbers you mention. (Try thinking in 3D and see if you can find any interesting ideas). Just to draw the picture a bit for you mentally, imagine a 1x1x1 Acre structure (yes 208' by 208' by 208'). I agree with you totally, you will never get anywhere near what is usefull/needed if you limit the discussion to 2 dimensions. IF you think in 3D, you get SOME very VERY exciting alternatives.

You are going to be limited by weight beaing capacity, surface area, thermal envelope, and how much potosyntheticly compatible radiation you can deliver, BUT these are BIG limits (even with EXISTING TECHNOLOGY). Maybe I mispoke and should have said "Manhatten Project" Vs. "Appolo Project", but anything that scales CUBICLY, has got some potential (at least I think so). (Even if the solar radiative output limit is a Square of surface area function, an ULTIMATE LIMIT if you will).

B. Solar Thermal Burns no coal nor oil, and can be timed shifted by about 8 hours with an adequate heat sink which allows eletrical production from the stored thermal energy after the sun is down, so I am confused as to what you are trying to argue here.

(Sorry, I can be dense at times, just trying to keep up)