Re: replacing fossil fuels
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Julia ju...@zurg.net wrote: Short version: It was in a moderation queue. Weird... I never saw the notice that any messages were awaiting moderation. I'll have to figure out what happened there. Good to see you around here, Julia! Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: replacing fossil fuels
ÿ On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: And it doesn't help when the moderators are in different parts of the world in different time zones and for whatever reason need to confer before making a decision (sometimes frex spambots can be quite clever, though others can be so obvious it's a wonder their creators think anyone would fall for them). We don't need to confer about this kind of thing. The only time we need to agree is on those very, very rare occasions when we see the need to shut someone out. And yes, the spambots attack regularly. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: replacing fossil fuels
On Jul 6, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: We don't need to confer about this kind of thing. The only time we need to agree is on those very, very rare occasions when we see the need to shut someone out. I've found, on the lists/communities I mod, that if none of the mods approve a post given ample opportunity to do so, if it sits in the queue long enough, a quick poll of the other mods for is this post a problem? will usually arrive at some consensus as to whether to reject it or not. (Although the first person to ask is usually the one who ends up tasked with telling the offender what the problem was..) And yes, the spambots attack regularly. They do indeed. Although the most foolproof test of all seems to be having a human read the first few posts from a new member and only approve posters who seem to be posting mostly on topic and from a perspective of interest in the discussion. Even if someone were to try to write a bot script to fake enough seemingly on-topic replies to gain unmoderated access and not just try to blast out as much spam as it can before it's killed, that faking process itself would be .. *rather* non-trivial. :D Oh yeah? Well, I speak LOOOUD, and I carry a BEEEger stick -- and I use it too! **whop!** -- Yosemite Sam ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: replacing fossil fuels
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net 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 http://www.jouleunlimited.com/ There is remarkably little actual information at this URL. As with solar, no offense Keith, but it's all for the True Believer. For example, lift costs have not come down appreciably in 50 years. Of course not. The present cost and the present market are and largely government projects. If it helps any, I no longer think power satellites or serious human presence in space will *ever* happen. Something that I don't think is as good but is certainly a lot less expensive has come along. I am now working on that project to the exclusion of any work on space transportation. Tell you more about it in August. Keith The costs of things like gene splicers have been going down by close to 50% per year. Now, past history doesn't guarantee future performance, but I know it is much more likely that we will have a computer that's 20x as fast in 10 years for the same cost than a plane that?s 2x as fast in 10 years for the same money. Now, I'd rate his odds as less than 50/50, but it's the most likely thing I've seen in 30 years. Dan M. -- ___ Brin-l mailing list bri...@box535.bluehost.com http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com End of Brin-l Digest, Vol 18, Issue 1 * ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: replacing fossil fuels
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 3:40 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: RE: replacing fossil fuels On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net 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
RE: replacing fossil fuels
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:09 PM Wonder where this hung out for over two weeks before making it into a posting? Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: replacing fossil fuels
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 8:40 AM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: RE: replacing fossil fuels On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:09 PM Wonder where this hung out for over two weeks before making it into a posting? Keith --- Short version: It was in a moderation queue. Long version: There are 3 moderators, for some reason I seem to be the only one who checks for posts awaiting moderation (or it's that way most of the time), this computer has been having issues (and needing replacement, and there is a machine to replace it, but getting it set up will take time I haven't had yet for 2 months now), and things even more hectic than usual for those 2 weeks. Also, the software has changed since I first started doing moderation on a Nick-run system, and it's not as easy to automatically clear someone's moderate flag, plus it used to be they'd clear themselves after a certain period of time or a certain number of posts, which hasn't been happening for more than a year, so the system is creating more work for the moderator(s) than it did 3 years ago. Keith's moderation flag has been cleared now. If at any point, you're aware of a post you've made and it hasn't shown up for a couple of days, if you send me e-mail at fractalf...@gmail.com, I'll know I ought to be logging on from whatever system I have access to ASAP to check on that. (I can *usually* manage 5 minutes a day at that address to look at anything extremely critical. I think there were 2 days in the past 3 weeks I wasn't even able to do *that*, though.) (The short version of what happened during that time, that I gave to various people for various reasons, was I fell off the internet. And a point at which I expected to do some catch-up, it turned out that I didn't have the internet access I'd anticipated I would.) Julia ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: replacing fossil fuels
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Dan Minette Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 10:01 AM To: 'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion' Subject: RE: replacing fossil fuels That's not the plan. _Right now_ a pilot plant is either in operation or about to start up near Austin TX. - Leander. Whoda thunk? Julia who would *not* have believed it 20 years ago, not *Leander* ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: replacing fossil fuels
That's not the plan. _Right now_ a pilot plant is either in operation or about to start up near Austin TX. Leander. Whoda thunk? Well, Gautam would have, but he's BFF with the CEO. Well not really, but they do see each other now and again. I think they met because their paths crossed due to Gautem's work in biosecurity and the CEO being from MIT where Gautam is now at. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: replacing fossil fuels
At 10:58 AM Sunday 7/4/2010, Julia wrote: -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 8:40 AM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: RE: replacing fossil fuels On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:09 PM Wonder where this hung out for over two weeks before making it into a posting? Keith --- Short version: It was in a moderation queue. Long version: There are 3 moderators, for some reason I seem to be the only one who checks for posts awaiting moderation (or it's that way most of the time), this computer has been having issues (and needing replacement, and there is a machine to replace it, but getting it set up will take time I haven't had yet for 2 months now), and things even more hectic than usual for those 2 weeks. Also, the software has changed since I first started doing moderation on a Nick-run system, and it's not as easy to automatically clear someone's moderate flag, plus it used to be they'd clear themselves after a certain period of time or a certain number of posts, which hasn't been happening for more than a year, so the system is creating more work for the moderator(s) than it did 3 years ago. Keith's moderation flag has been cleared now. If at any point, you're aware of a post you've made and it hasn't shown up for a couple of days, if you send me e-mail at fractalf...@gmail.com, I'll know I ought to be logging on from whatever system I have access to ASAP to check on that. (I can *usually* manage 5 minutes a day at that address to look at anything extremely critical. I think there were 2 days in the past 3 weeks I wasn't even able to do *that*, though.) Does this list get messages from obvious spambots attempting to join and post spam as often as some of the other lists I co-moderate do? If it does, it's no wonder when a real message from a real list member gets held up from time to time (even when the real list member is not the list owner who somehow accidentally revoked his own right to post to the list . . . no, I'm not referring to myself . . .) And it doesn't help when the moderators are in different parts of the world in different time zones and for whatever reason need to confer before making a decision (sometimes frex spambots can be quite clever, though others can be so obvious it's a wonder their creators think anyone would fall for them). (I thought about snipping the long version above, but then thought again that it seemed relevant enough to leave . . . ) (The short version of what happened during that time, that I gave to various people for various reasons, was I fell off the internet. And a point at which I expected to do some catch-up, it turned out that I didn't have the internet access I'd anticipated I would.) Julia Glad to see you're back, anyway! . . . ronn! :) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: replacing fossil fuels
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:09 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: RE: replacing fossil fuels 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. 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. http://www.jouleunlimited.com/ As with solar, no offense Keith, but it's all for the True Believer. For example, lift costs have not come down appreciably in 50 years. The costs of things like gene splicers have been going down by close to 50% per year. Now, past history doesn't guarantee future performance, but I know it is much more likely that we will have a computer that's 20x as fast in 10 years for the same cost than a plane thats 2x as fast in 10 years for the same money. Now, I'd rate his odds as less than 50/50, but it's the most likely thing I've seen in 30 years. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: replacing fossil fuels
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: (keith) US usage is around 20 M bbl/day, world production around 80 M bbl/day. If this thing gets loose in the sea, BPs disaster would seem like nothing. Better to hope it can't be done. I raised that question with Gautam, who is a former member of Brin-L and happens to be a published author in the field of biosecurity. He also happens to know one of the leaders in the field personally: the man wrote the proposal for the human gnome project as his PhD dissertation. The answer is that the plants that are being used now suffer from the problem of being hothouse plants. They are the opposite of kudzuthey have a hard time surviving in the wild. 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. 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. Because if it isn't, then it would be less expensive to use electric power to make hydrogen, sort CO2 out of the air and use F/T synthesis to make oil. SBSP will get into that range if there is a way to get transport to GEO down into the $100 per kg or less range. Which I think will happen when Star Wars works. :-) In the field of synthetic biology prices have been falling a factor of two per year for the last decade or so. Lasers, the critical element in transmitting power to rockets have been falling at least that fast. They are now up to 100kW continuous. Scale up by a factor of ten and buy them by the thousands to get the GW level of power you need for a 100 ton per hour parts pipeline to GEO. That's one of the reasons it fits the black swan model. With solar and space, it's always tomorrow when prices fall like a rock. A pilot plant is being built in TX as we speak. We'll know more in a year. If they can get around the fundamental problem of photosynthesis efficiency I will be highly impressed. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: replacing fossil fuels
On 06/14/2010 07:51 PM, Dan Minette wrote: SBSP will get into that range if there is a way to get transport to GEO down into the $100 per kg or less range. Which I think will happen when Star Wars works. :-) In the field of synthetic biology prices have been falling a factor of two per year for the last decade or so. That's one of the reasons it fits the black swan model. With solar and space, it's always tomorrow when prices fall like a rock. What about nuclear? Aren't most its operating costs well known today? Why aren't we (and by we, I mean everyone, not just this list) talking more about nuclear power in light of the oil spill? I've been wondering how much the oil spill puts nuclear into perspective: off-shore drilling has put almost all of the Gulf ecosystem into turmoil with 1 (!) accident/disaster. (And a chunk of the Atlantic ecosystem if they don't cap it sooner rather than later?) Doesn't that have a larger long term impact than either (or possibly both) 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl? (Did those events cause extinctions?) I've heard the criticism that at least oil is natural, but how likely is a natural disaster that would have caused this sort of disastrous spill? (What factor of earthquake would we be talking about to cause this? Wouldn't there be more things to worry about than an oil spill in such a case-- volcanoes, tidal waves, perhaps even continental drift?) (...not to mention that it is surprising how many people today need it explained that radioactivity is also a natural effect and not all radioactivity in the world/universe is human-enriched/created...) -- --Max Battcher-- http://worldmaker.net ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: replacing fossil fuels
What about nuclear? Aren't most its operating costs well known today? Why aren't we (and by we, I mean everyone, not just this list) talking more about nuclear power in light of the oil spill? Well, nuclear is a good replacement for coal and natural gas, and not so good of one for oil. It's a good source for electricity, which is responsible for about 40% of our electricity consumption. Oil is rarely used, now, to generate electricity, only a couple percent of our oil consumption is for that. Transportation dominates oil consumption, and using nuclear power for transportation requires a major breakthrough in energy storage. But, we certainly can replace coal with nuclear. The problem with the new nuclear designs are political, nuclear has special hoops to jump through that result in billions of dollars of cost for new designs. That's why what appears to be a much cheaper and safer design cannot get off the ground, they can't afford the bureaucracy. It's akin to affordable housing in California, if need be 50 year old 3 story buildings are declared historical landmarks to keep housing prices high. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: replacing fossil fuels
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: Earlier I had reported that the events in the Gulf were unprecedented, a black swan. Since then, folks in the oil patch are still incredulous, but are increasingly upset with BP breaking the rules of the game. snip (excellent material) Up until now, a replacement for fossil fuels hasn't existed. True. It's not hard to make or collect energy, it just hard to do it for a low enough cost to displace fossil fuels. And, if the US and Europe decided to not use oil or coal, then they'd just be blown away by China and India, who's economy would expand while ours would shrink as costs skyrocketed in the West and stayed the same elsewhere. So if you want to displace fossil fuels without causing an economic disaster, the cost of the new energy source has to be less current cost. That's about 2 cents per kWh for electricity and 1 cent to make synthetic hydrocarbon fuels. The only solution is a positive black swan. It is increasingly likely (I've changed my odds from 5% to 20%) that synthetic biology will allow the creation of fuels from sunlight, carbon dioxide and sea water. This is the best bet I've seen yet. Regular biology does this all the time. But starting with photosynthesis at no better than 3%, the process is woefully inefficient. But say someone did create a synthetic algae that had a truly remarkable efficiency to capture sunlight of 10% and better yet, it excreted oil into the water and nothing ate it. Figure 5kWh per day, at ten percent .5 kWh/day per square meter. There is about 40 kWh in a gallon of liquid fuel, so figure that each square meter will make 1/80 gal per day (sorry for the mixed units). A square km has a million square meter and would make about 12,500 gal per day or 312 bbl/day/km^2. The Gulf of Mexico has 1.6 million square km of area so the production would be around 500 million bbls per day. US usage is around 20 M bbl/day, world production around 80 M bbl/day. If this thing gets loose in the sea, BPs disaster would seem like nothing. Better to hope it can't be done. I had rather use higher efficiency and keep the hydrocarbons inside steel containers. Penny a kWh will make $30/bbl oil and 2 cents will make $50/bbl oil. (The chemistry, energy balance and economics are simple to figure out.) Two cent power means a capital cost of $1.6 B/GW or less. SBSP will get into that range if there is a way to get transport to GEO down into the $100 per kg or less range. It looks like there is another way as well. I will be able to talk about it sometime in August when the patents publish. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: replacing fossil fuels
US usage is around 20 M bbl/day, world production around 80 M bbl/day. If this thing gets loose in the sea, BPs disaster would seem like nothing. Better to hope it can't be done. I raised that question with Gautam, who is a former member of Brin-L and happens to be a published author in the field of biosecurity. He also happens to know one of the leaders in the field personally: the man wrote the proposal for the human gnome project as his PhD dissertation. The answer is that the plants that are being used now suffer from the problem of being hothouse plants. They are the opposite of kudzuthey have a hard time surviving in the wild. 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. SBSP will get into that range if there is a way to get transport to GEO down into the $100 per kg or less range. Which I think will happen when Star Wars works. :-) In the field of synthetic biology prices have been falling a factor of two per year for the last decade or so. That's one of the reasons it fits the black swan model. With solar and space, it's always tomorrow when prices fall like a rock. A pilot plant is being built in TX as we speak. We'll know more in a year. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
