- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 16,501
- Reaction score
- 3,829
- Location
- Sheffield
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The oil companies are experimenting with algae as fuel.
What could go wrong?
:thumbs:
The oil companies are experimenting with algae as fuel.
What could go wrong?
:thumbs:
The oil companies are experimenting with algae as fuel.
What could go wrong?
:thumbs:
The oil companies are experimenting with algae as fuel.
What could go wrong?
:thumbs:
Algae and switchgrass, are effectively collecting solar energy at very low density, and converting a very small amount of that energy to a recoverable hydrocarbon.It's not just fuel companies. The problem with algae so far is the ability to do it in a manner that could even remotely keep up with demand. We have a local government-funded facility that, among other things, does a fair amount with bio-fuel research. Last time I saw any of them being interviewed, they were saying that algae and switchgrass were the most promising but they still had a very long way to go before they were viable.
3 Billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. The food price is twice what it would be if we stopped doing this evil.
I'm surprised he hasn't posted already.Soylent green? :2razz:
CO2 capture is certainly a plausible approach. However, there is still no convincing evidence that reducing CO2 has any real benefit. Climate science could be fixated on the wrong tree.Algae and switchgrass, are effectively collecting solar energy at very low density, and converting a very small amount of that energy to a recoverable hydrocarbon.
I think the more direct approach of simply making hydrocarbons from scratch is a more sustainable path.
Start-up Sunfire’s e-fuels can decarbonise industries most addicted to fossil fuels | Clean Energy Wire
Solar and wind energy at high density will create a problem for electrical grids, the current oil refineries have large scale grid connections
for co generation, so could harvest the massive energy surpluses and store those surpluses as carbon neutral transport fuels.
Current jets could fly across the ocean without any new CO2 emissions, (the fuel having been made with CO2 harvested from the environment).
Gasoline cars could fill up with carbon neutral gasoline, and so on.
As the process gets more efficient, the price where this technology becomes viable get closer.
I have a couple of questions for you, Tim... of that $2.50 a day how much of that is actually being spent on food? And do you know how much a serving of corn costs? Or a serving of sugar costs?
We use about 1/3 of our corn production for fuel. That means growing high sugar corn, also known as sweet corn. Now pretty much ALL corn grown is high sugar. Why that matters is modern corn has almost NO nutritional value. Traditional corn had good sized protein kernel but high sugar corn has a very small, insignificant protein kernel. Additionally, high sugar corn does not pick up nutrients and minerals from the soil like traditional corn did. And since our soils (world wide) are depleted now that makes the problem even worse. Corn is now an empty calorie. About all it does is promote diabetes.
BTW; modern bio-engineered crops of all types grow faster and bigger and are more pest resistant, but do not take up nutrients very well. Dumping large amounts of nitrogen on them increases the yield (top growth) even further, but does nothing to improve the depleted soil.
In many poverty stricken nations (much of Africa and S. America) the land that could be used for domestic consumption crops is being used to grow export crops to pay back loans. In other countries population has exceeded the ability of that nation to feed itself. That is the case in Egypt, for instance. And importing caused huge increases in prices, because transport and processing imported bulk food is expensive. Which led to the "Arab Spring".
I'm surprised he hasn't posted already.
Chemically speaking, you could build the entire plastics industry on algae slime. It's a logical way to develop some of the staple compounds.
CO2 capture is certainly a plausible approach. However, there is still no convincing evidence that reducing CO2 has any real benefit. Climate science could be fixated on the wrong tree.
That seems a modest proposal.I meant soylent green as in the food, not the member here lol
The real benefits of air carbon capture, is not reducing CO2, but the concept that a small plant could be built (say in a shipping container)I'm surprised he hasn't posted already.
Chemically speaking, you could build the entire plastics industry on algae slime. It's a logical way to develop some of the staple compounds.
CO2 capture is certainly a plausible approach. However, there is still no convincing evidence that reducing CO2 has any real benefit. Climate science could be fixated on the wrong tree.
The oil companies are experimenting with algae as fuel.
What could go wrong?
:thumbs:
The number for economic viability of any technology is always changing and is relative to the alternativesI mean other than failing to be economically competitive, I don't see what could go "wrong."
The number for economic viability of any technology is always changing and is relative to the alternatives
that can perform the same function.
Since Fossil fuels are finite resources, at some point the laws of supply and demand will push the prices up,
but they have a ceiling, because of alternate technologies waiting in the wings.
At some point one of the alternatives will be more economical than extracting and refining fossil oil.
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/15/no-end-in-sight-for-the-biofuel-wars/"][/URL]biofuels[/FONT]
[h=1]No end in sight for the biofuel wars[/h][FONT="]Biofuels are unsustainable in every way, but still demand – and get – preferential treatment Guest post by Paul Driessen, The Big Oil-Big Biofuel wars rage on. From my perch, ethanol, biodiesel and “advanced biofuels” make about zero energy, economic or environmental sense. They make little political sense either, until you recognize that politics is…
[/FONT]