On Jul 20, 2009, at 5:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
HH: Possibly a better way to go is to use oxygen to burn the
power plant fuel and recycle 100% of the CO2 through algae. Then run
the power plant on the algae, its oil, cellulose and all. No coal
necessary at all.
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:07:14 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
They should wake up and realize that the second
approach could employ a lot more people in a lot less dangerous
environment.
[snip]
I suspect that they prefer employing fewer people; it costs less.
Regards,
On Jul 21, 2009, at 1:38 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:07:14
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
They should wake up and realize that the second
approach could employ a lot more people in a lot less dangerous
environment.
[snip]
I suspect that
Exxon ... announced a five-year, $600 million partnership with
Synthetic Genomics Incorporated (SGI), a California-based genetic
engineering firm ...
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Exxon-Mobil-and-the-future-of-
algae-based-biofuel-19706-3-1.html
http://tinyurl.com/mzpsee
They talk
-Original Message-
HH: Possibly a better way to go is to use oxygen to burn the
power plant fuel and recycle 100% of the CO2 through algae. Then run
the power plant on the algae, its oil, cellulose and all. No coal
necessary at all. No sequestration necessary. The byproduct, a
5 matches
Mail list logo