Posted on 12/25/2013 3:51:31 AM PST by neverdem
Researchers at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) are pioneering a process that produces oil from algae in just one hour. Wet algae goes in, heat and pressure is applied, and crude oil comes out. From the PNNL itself:
“It’s a bit like using a pressure cooker, only the pressures and temperatures we use are much higher,” said [Douglas Elliott, the laboratory fellow who led the PNNL team's research]. “In a sense, we are duplicating the process in the Earth that converted algae into oil over the course of millions of years. We’re just doing it much, much faster.”
The process can only handle 1.5 liters of algal slurry at a time, but researchers are confident that in can be scaled up. Plenty of other teams and companies are working on generating energy from algae, but this new process marks a significant step forward in the field for a few reasons. First, it can be run continuously, rather than batch-by-batch, making it easier to mass produce. Second, the algae input doesn’t need to be dried out—an expensive process—but can go in as a wet slurry. The process also produces water and important nutrients necessary for growing algae which can then be reused.
Making our own oil from algae would be great—the process is green, insofar as the carbon released by burning the resultant oil is offset by carbon used in the algae production process. And it’s sustainable, in that we can keep growing more algae to produce more oil. But, like every other green energy source, its future depends on whether or not it can be commercially produced at cost-effective levels. This method isn’t ‘there’ yet, but researchers are making impressive strides.
Note that the PNNL is operated by the Department of Energy. Reports like this one are a reminder that governments are best-served allocating money towards the research and development of nascent green technologies rather than by subsidizing them and trying to pick winners in the marketplace.
Interesting. Usually, cherry-picking comments--that is, taking them completely out of context so that the cherry-picker can imply they said something completely different--is something I only see on pseudoscience scam sites. I have never claimed to know everything. Everything you have said about science, on the other hand, has a heavy flavor of pseudoscience about it, very much of the creationist flavor (although I could be wrong--it could be a different species of pseudoscience).
I'm not sure if you realize it, but if the chemistry and physics of DNA were so incredibly complicated that understanding it is beyond human capability, life would not be possible. Because infinite complexity is, in fact, chaos, and life cannot exist in chaos. Life can only exist because absolute physical laws provide an ordered framework in which living things can exist. And order cannot be infinitely complex, by definition.
“Interesting. Usually, cherry-picking comments—that is, taking them completely out of context so that the cherry-picker can imply they said something completely different—is something I only see on pseudoscience scam sites.”
Logical fallacy. Your argumentative fantasy unrelated to anything under discussion.
“I’m not sure if you realize it, but if the chemistry and physics of DNA were so incredibly complicated that understanding it is beyond human capability”
Logical fallacy - this is your strawman, not my argument.
“And order cannot be infinitely complex, by definition.”
A diatribe punctuated with spew. You are arguing that the sky is blue when nobody but you is having the argument.
If you’re a PhD at all, you function as an over-educated technician, based on your absolutist rhetoric. Absolutism as you express it is driven by your own ignorance and misunderstanding, not thorough understanding of “everything” in a narrow area of inquiry.
Now please - if you wish to insult me do it directly, I can at least respect directness. I can’t respect your selected approach of pretending I argued something and then constructing a patronizing diatribe refuting your own fabrication.
Logical fallacy - this is your strawman, not my argument.
Ah, thank you for confirming that your pseudoscience is the creationist flavor. Creationism is the only brand of pseudoscience I am aware of where the adherents start making a lot of noise about "logical fallacies" and "strawmen" when their claims are shown to be illogical or to have no evidentiary basis.
Now please - if you wish to insult me do it directly, I can at least respect directness. I can’t respect your selected approach of pretending I argued something and then constructing a patronizing diatribe refuting your own fabrication.
Yep, typically creationist style denial when their own words are subjected to logical analysis. It is obvious (has been obvious for a while) that you strongly resist science, even while pretending to have some knowledge about it and even claiming to know scientists. I find this phenomenon, which is not unique to you, quite interesting. It is actually an active area of research in the scientific and medical community.
“Ah, thank you for confirming that your pseudoscience is the creationist flavor”
Good grief. Don’t you know that “logical fallacy” is an actual thing that has nothing to do with genetics or theology? You created a strawman (arguing a point you wish I made, rather than the point I made) - what else am I supposed to call it, if not what it is?
Come on, insult me directly if you want to, don’t make crap up!
“Yep, typically creationist style denial when their own words are subjected to logical analysis.”
You couldn’t do a logical analysis with or without a government grant, or find it if it were attached to your posterior with both hands.
” It is obvious (has been obvious for a while) that you strongly resist science,”
You amuse me. I advocate for letting research go where it may go, and you say you and people like you should decide what gets researched. Who resists science? I’d say it’s you and your brand of “jackboot research”. You are part of cabal of uncreative scientific sameness, harvesting government grants rather than exercising scientific curiosity and rigor. It’s too much work for you and your type to be creative.
“It is actually an active area of research in the scientific and medical community.”
There are government grants for all sorts of “research”
It’s even possible that there is “active research” going on about supposed researchers who claim to know “everything” and how it taints their lives and research.
You argue like a bitter, unpopular high school girl.
I’m sure your “research” is just as objective - and relevant.
Your latest tack that I am somehow a “creationist fundamentalist” that is hostile to science takes the cake.
You simply cannot process the fact that your studies into “biofuels” for instance are just plain wrong, and stupidly so.
Wow.
Does this actually create usable oil?
Huge if true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.