-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 3:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: replacing fossil fuels
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, "Dan Minette" <[email protected]> wrote: [Dan] >>In fact, the candidates that now exist require a rare supplement that >>isn't found in ocean water. ?It won't be costly to supply it, but they >>don't grow without it. ?It's kinda like worrying that corn will displace >>the woodlands. [Keith] >>If you are going to grow it inside of glass tubes where you can supply >>the rare supplement, then the cost of the tubes has to be around 1/5th >>of the cost of solar power on an area basis. > > That's not the plan. _Right now_ a pilot plant is either in operation or > about to start up near Austin TX. They have trays that collect the > hydrocarbons that are sweated off the plants. The person who is CEO is a > rich, successful venture capitalist, who's Phd in biology from MIT a ways > back proposed the mapping of the human gnome. My understanding was this > practical plan was the starting point for the project. > > We'll see how well he does. But, he has been successful in the past in > bioengeering, and has a net worth in the mulit-millions. He thinks he can > get the price of diesel down to $30/barrel with his process. >You didn't address my objection which is the low efficiency with which >plants convert light into chemical energy. That's what causes the >high area requirements. You are making an argument from authority >which I don't see as being backed up by physics and chemistry It's not actually an argument from authority. It's an argument that I'd trust someone who has a track record of having done stuff more than someone who hasn't. For example, you would have been reasonable to take a physics argument on a new topic from Richard Feynman more than Dan Minette. We know bioengeering costs are going down quickly. We know solar costs aren't. From their website, we know they are now producing at 1/4th of their projected output. If they can make close to that output, it will work. If they can't, in a cost effective manner, it won't. But, since they are working in a field where the fundamental costs are dropping faster than Moore's law for computer chips, I'd rate them as having a chance. Solar has been around for decades, and costs in that area have not come down a factor of 2 in the last decade. I don't see fundamentals in mesoscopic physics that will afford such an improvement on the horizon, either. So, let's see what would they require to replace foreign oil if they do meet their production goals. At 15,000 gallons/acre of diesel , that's roughly 360 barrels/acre. So, if we use roughly 20 million barrels/day of oil, we'd need roughly 20 million acres. We planted about 88 billion acres of corn this year. IIRC, we were looking at 20% of that acreage for the little ethanol we use. Plus, these plants don't need fresh water or prime soil. And they grow, they aren't expensive to manufacture. So, we are talking a lot of acreage, but we can use all that scrubland folks were talking about and brackish water. _If_ it works, mind you, I think the chances they have of meeting their goals is less than 50-50. But compare that with solar power which has been promising pie in the sky in the sweet bye and bye since I was in college in the '70s. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
