Posted on 12/25/2013 3:51:31 AM PST by neverdem
So I've 'heard'.
Sorry, but Mexico is pissed NOW that a mere trickle comes there way!
I guess we’ll know if private money starts jumping on it.
No. What it means is that according to everything I know about biological systems, the laws of physics, the process of pumping, transporting, and cracking oil, etc., taken in conjunction with the facts presented in this article about processing algae, I have every reason to think that this technology is a viable alternative to at least some of our energy needs.
I use language such as "suggests" as all scientists use such language--to mean that all available evidence supports my opinion, while acknowledging that contrary evidence could show up in the future. If there is opposing data, it is not out of reach--I or someone else would have found it or known about it already.
Do not mistake a scientist's acknowledgement that he or she could be wrong for uncertainty. We use language such as "suggests", "could", "possibly", etc., when we are, in fact, very, very certain.
Haha, you're funny. Usually, I'm accused of being a big-pharma shill.
I have seen very little science that is funded purely by government or purely by industry. *Most* researchers have a mix of funding. Many businesses receive research grants--ever hear of BARDA or DARPA? Etc.
There is no reason biofuels can't replace at least some of our oil imports. Replacing *all* of them would be fantastic, but the problem with that is space--not energy. Vats to grow algae while exposing them to sufficient sunlight to photosynthesize are going to have a large footprint.
Algae is not the only biofuel under development. All you need is an organism that produces long-chain carbons suitable for fuel and at a high enough yield for the effort to be worthwhile. This method probably will *not* be viable, ever. However, researchers are creative, and I'm sure other people are busy thinking of other solutions that have more promise.
I don't know about you, but personally, I would love to see the middle eastern oil barons put out of business. So I support any effort at alternatives that looks viable; I don't dismiss any of them out of hand, without considering whether they are scientifically sound.
I'm right there with you. I think the 'solution' will eventually be something like "all of the above", meaning that in some circumstances, solar photovoltaic will make sense, in others, you'll see stuff like that described in the article, along with geothermal , nuclear, and just about anything else you can imagine. "Fossil" fuels will also certainly always be a part of the mix, though hopefully not at current usage.
I dream of a day when the President of the United States, in response to a question from the press, responds with "Saudi who?"
I think, though, that anything we use has to make sense and cents. If it's not cost-effective, its just a big waste of money and effort. Granted, the beginning stages of just about any technology is likely to not be cost effective initially. That's just the way the world works. If there is enough promise in some technology, it will eventually happen, because the market will demand it.
I really believe that God has given us a world with enough energy in it for us to succeed and prosper. We just have to figure out how to do it. I believe it is one of the challenges he sets before us as a species.
The best species of algae for use as biofuel are those with maximum oil yield. Most of them are seawater types.
This is about algae. So, just use square footage of the ocean.
Good point!
It jumped all OVER the SUBSIDY money (ethanol) we taxpayers have stolen from us!
No; the PROBLEM is MONEY.
My wallet wants it to be financially sound!
“Obvious metaphor”? Not at all.
I’ve reread your Post 20 several times, as well as the post it responded to, and am unable to interpret it to say anything other than “there can be no net gain in energy from gardens”, and, by inference, from algae.
If you want to make that claim, you need to show that the energy required to make the algae-to-oil conversion exceeds the energy in the oil produced by that method. That is a fact not in evidence in this article.
Don’t need Colorado River water.
Build a canal from the Gulf of California, fill the Salton Sink; that yields thousands of square miles with lots of sunlight to grow algae.
“Obvious” is a relative term, I suppose.
It just went over your head.
“If you want to make that claim, you need to show that the energy required to make the algae-to-oil conversion exceeds the energy in the oil produced by that method.”
Absolutely not. It is the burden of the article posted that it meets the test of providing an energy alternative as claimed. It does not, just like ethanol does not - all biofuels require more energy (usually in the form of the petroleum they purport to replace) than they produce in fuel.
Again, it just went over your head.
“Haha, you’re funny. Usually, I’m accused of being a big-pharma shill.”
Nah, you are economically illiterate - that’s the exclusive domain of government. Big Pharma has to make money, so they can’t afford to be economically illiterate.
“All you need is an organism that produces long-chain carbons suitable for fuel and at a high enough yield for the effort to be worthwhile.”
Yes, and all we need is for a block of lead to be converted to a block of gold, and all will be well.
I am all for the research (depending on the source of funds), but unfortunately, the likelihood that it will be cost viable and energy net-positive to get to a usable fuel form is small.
To the larger issue - just because government is heavily involved in funding research doesn’t mean that research would not be conducted without it. There are some areas of research, I concede, that is appropriate for government - but for government to provide the bulk of research funding as it does now is a travesty to academia and to science.
Biofuels research occurs not because it is good science but because it is good politics. The corn belt loves this research because agriculture conglomerates get paid - regardless of the science behind it - or regardless of how much energy they waste or fail to produce. That is good politics.
The only historically viable renewable biofuel is wood. It does not need to be converted into a usable form - you just burn it and it releases heat.
Maybe algae can be processed efficiently into some sort of fuel pellet that can be burned, who knows, but the idea that it can produce a viable conventional fuel at a cost lower than existing sources is a pipe dream for now (you agree, based on your link). It is so out-of-whack economically that only a government funded scientist or politician sees good out of it - which is a self-perpetuating stream of government funded “research” to pretend to try to make it economically viable.
If it were left to private research it would not happen. You might lament this fact, but I do not. If a viable opportunity for biofuels to be exploited profitably were to occur, it will be because of private research, not government research.
Production of corn for bioethanol is very energy-intensive; production of algae is not.
You’re claiming it’s impossible for this to work; it’s only impossible if it violates one of the laws of thermodynamics.
This may very well be impractical; the article doesn’t answer that question.
You, on the other hand, are claiming it’s impossible - it’s up to you, then, to tell us which law of thermodynamics is being violated by this process.
“Production of corn for bioethanol is very energy-intensive; production of algae is not.”
You make the wrong comparison. You cannot compare the production of ethanol to the production of algae.
A closer comparison would be for you to compare the production of corn to the production of algae.
The big energy nut to crack is the production of ethanol from corn (you concede it’s energy-intensive) or in this case the production of “oil” from algae - which the article concedes is not viable.
“This may very well be impractical; the article doesn’t answer that question.”
The article does answer that question. it states clearly that it’s not “there....yet”. Sure you’ve got the dangling “yet” but that’s just a plea for more money to be wasted.
This technology clearly demonstrates that you can take (metaphorically - just to help you out) 10 barrels of petroleum and turn it into 1 barrel of biofuel.
The very definition of success in government!
“You, on the other hand, are claiming it’s impossible - it’s up to you, then, to tell us which law of thermodynamics is being violated by this process.”
It is a process that has nothing to do with thermodynamics. It’s not even science, in the conventional sense. It’s politics.
There is no limit to what government scientists cannot do given sufficient inputs of money.
Biofuels is just one more example.
I made the right comparison; I compared “Production of corn” to “production of algae”, which you even included in your quote.
Corn is expensive to plant/fertilize/harvest; algae can be grown for free, and probably harvested cheaply.
If a gallon of oil can be produced from algae for less than the cost of a gallon of oil from petroleum, private industry will do it.
It’s by no means clear that this cannot be done.
“It’s by no means clear that this cannot be done.”
Except that the researchers from a government lab provide no evidence that it can be done.
SO to be fair you must say it is by no means clear that this can be done.
“Corn is expensive to plant/fertilize/harvest; algae can be grown for free, and probably harvested cheaply.”
Corn is planted and havested all over the world. It can be done profitably. Algae grows everywhere but you offer no evidence whatsoever that it can be grown/harvested profitably. What isn’t profitable is turning it into ethanol. This again is so obvious as to go without saying to anyone but you, apparently.
Your argument is back-asswards. Provide the evidence contrary to what the article states about the process not being viable. There is no evidence, nor has there ever been evidence that “biofuel” replacement for conventional fuels can be done without a greater gallon-for-gallon input of the conventional fuels that it is supposed to replace.
That’s back to the two potatoes to get one potato argument. only in the case of biofuels, it’s more like 5-10 potatoes to get 1 potato that sells for the price of 10 potatoes.
Biofuel is a political animal - science has already proven this as fact. The vast majority of funding for biofuels is from our wasteful government.
This isn’t a hard argument to have - provided you are honest about what you are arguing about - and nobody - involved in government-funded biofuels research is honest about it. If they were they’d bow to the pragmatic reality that we will never....never ever ever ever ever replace traditional petroleum with biofuel. Never ever ever ever.
Instead of asking me to provide evidence that it won’t - it’s up to you to provide evidence that it can and will. There has never been any biofuel produced that didn’t require more fossil fuel to produce it. THis has NEVER happened. Why do you believe it will?
So far, there’s no proof it can be done.
But, algae collects energy from the sun, with minimal human interaction/contribution.
I don’t recall ever saying corn couldn’t be planted/harvested profitably - as food; there is, however, general agreement that it takes more energy to raise corn than it yields in ethanol.
If “oil” can be produced from algae (I think current processes produce kerosene/diesel, rather than ethanol) using less energy than is contained in the resulting oil, then it can be done profitably. I know nothing at all about that process.
I do know that copper producers can profitably get 50 lbs of copper out of a ton of rock; it doesn’t seem to be out of the realm of possibilities that diesel fuel can be profitably produced from algae. That process has a big advantage over corn-to-ethanol in that production of the raw material is far cheaper than the production of corn.
I’m not sure it will ever happen. But, “Never” is a very long time.
I would never guarantee that it will work.
You, however, have no problem with guaranteeing it won’t.
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.