[Vo]:Diode array 080410
Vorts, The diode array is still available for development. It is said that the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids devices that absorb heat while releasing electrical power but I don't see how this general law actually has a real ability to prevent diodes in the diode array from rectifying random thermal electrical movements and the array from aggregating the independent intermittently forward outputs from the constituent diodes. The mobile electrons in a diode sometimes have enough energy to flow forward through the diode of origin, climb to the negative terminal, and then contribute electrical power to the aggregate load. Aloha, Charlie
Re: [Vo]:Burning our food for fuel
From Harry Veeder: Burning stuff for power is so archaic. harry Indeed. And Sir Arthur' suggested we learn how to eat oil instead of burning it. Jed, was that succulent comment from Profiles From The Future? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
Howdy Jones, Just returned from a reunion meet for ex members of the state water planning group where I listened to some interesting arguments for algae to bio-fuel production from sewage plants. Never can happen because it would involve a municipal public function and an atmosphere generated in a public arena is impossible to accomplish anything.. bio-fuels will have to originate from the private sector. I did e-mail Kertz and offer to ship no charge some sample algae from area plants and certain natural aggressive algae seeps in the area. No surprise I didn't receive a response.. must be busy entertaining the Vancouver Loop. Thats what we call the Canadian version of Bear Stearns. Kinda a shame because he has part of the theme to a very good idea for algae production. Just needs to think inclined plain rather than vertical zip lock baggies.The maintenance and cost of the baggies will eat him alive. A plant as he proposes has self limiting capabilities. To supply demand we need some 19 MBD of finished fuel. It could be done if a west Texas county now assigned nuke waste could be adapted for both nuke waste and bio stock algae raw materials production using humongous lagoon systems.. naw., makes too much sense. hehe, maybe W would donate his Crawford Texas ranch and go live in the presidentail library to be built at SMU Dallas like his daddy has at Texas AM, or maybe UT would rent him a room at the LJB presidential library in Austin. Texas will soon have 3 of these libraries.. seems a waste, cuz kids don't read now they have I pods and Blackberries. Richard Jones wrote, a major point not yet made is to remember that Kertz's algae produce 50% oil and almost 50% protein (food), so if the efficiency is 35% for the oil - it is 70% for the net biomass, and the food may be just as important as the oil to the third world. This is especially true since corn is being used to make ethanol and is comparatively low in protein anyway. Well that is surely wildly optimistic. Kertz's technique appears to be between 25-30% efficient for the oil, which is half of the biomass. That is: if we could believe that the numbers presented by him are fully accurate, and also fully scalable to many acres, and fairly robust, weather-proof, etc? This would actually reconcile his numbers with those already published by others which claim that Algae conversion efficiency can go up to 50% of the solar energy. It should be noted that there are also far lower figures than that in the older literature. And even so, it would be 50% for the total biomass *on a best case scenario* of which half may be lipids. One should then discount that number by the usual factors which almost always make complicated processes come-out to be less efficient than the best case scenario- but also realizing that here, the best possible bio-engineered scum has probably not yet been found or hybridized. If there was ever a good place for genetic engineering to be put to good use, this would seem to be it. Bottom line: even if Kertz is off on the high side by 100%- the system is better than anything else which has such an advantageous ecological footprint. Even wind energy does not actively remove CO2- plus as mentioned, there is little reason that the algae site cannot share its required land with windmills. I've never been to a desert that wasn't windy.
[Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
--- Richard, Yes, I agree with you that the political problems of using existing sewage plants and ponds for Algoil range from high-to-insurmountable. I got a cold shoulder from a call placed to the local plant here, which just happens to be perfectly sited for such a dual use. However, if anyone is ever able to get a single viable sewage plant converted over to algoil, anywhere in the USA, and the accountants agree that the facility has a good ROI, then that single success story could be a perfect model for a nationwide taxpayer initiative ... ... and for letting the voters decide what to do next- and for taking that kind of pragmatic decision out of the hands of lazy bureaucrats, who do not want added responsibility for their jobs. Let OPEC try to digest the effect of that option - as well as a heaping toilet-bowl full of our funky sewage, so to speak. There are probably more wannabe greens out there in the general public than the pols realize, since many have a more pressing agenda as first priority. Both hawks and doves, pro-choice and pro-life, unless they are also part of the Petro-mafia-complex, would rather see our transportation-fuel dollars stay here at home. As you know there are many variables to balance for biofuel, and no single plan has appeared to be the best overall choice, outside of placing the algoil ponds next to an existing coal plant. Kertz's system, despite very high output, would be expensive in terms of investment per acre, and possibly too fragile for many areas (not robust in bad weather). The very shallow open-pond is preferable in areas where there is plenty of water, so that evaporation is not a problem. If you have every seen a sliding-form curbing machine in action, then you can realize how simple and cheap a 3 inch deep pond can be... ...and in deserts, some kind of better-engineered floating blanket might work to inhibit evaporation- perhaps a reinforced version of bubble wrap similar to what is used in winter for swimming pool heat retention. Fred and I have been brainstorming all of the options, and one of the best combinations for Algoil which does not demand forced CO2 from an adjoining power plant (which BTW is the best option of all, but is their perogative), is the cluster of open-ponds which are fed with the cheapest possible carbon source, which is NOT going to be airborne CO2, unfortunately, but could be powdered lignite, or other subgrade of coal+minerals ($30 ton + shipping) The limiting variable for algoil will always be free carbon, and CO2 from air is too diffuse to be the only source, plus it raises water acidity too high. If the value of the biodiesel is around $2+ per gallon wholesale, then that is about 30 cents per pound. Given normal manufacturing realities you cannot pay more than about 6-7 cents for the raw carbon. CO2 from air cost more than that because you must pump as much as 6000 tons of air for every ton of retained carbon (depending on how alkaline the water can be kept). CO2 from air is much more effective when the water is slightly alkaline. The water then acts like a sponge for airborne CO2, which can then provide about 30-40% of the need without lowering th pH too much. Crushed lignite, when it contains lots of limestone or soda ash is alkaline and additionally provides the remainder free carbon and iron, which is a fertilizer for algae. I have no doubt that algae can be genetically engineered to thrive on lignite. After all, it has been twenty years since Monsanto (I think it was them) modified a strain which can convert natural gas directly into methanol- NO sunlight required, just heat- something the experts back then said could not be done. Nowadays methane costs too much to use as a feedstock for algae, and the system is not commercially exploited, but it does show that Mother Nature is very adaptable to convert any kind of carbon into lipids. The most ideal situation of all might be an abandoned strip mine, where there is remaining a subgrade strata of lignite or subgrade coal which has been left. That situation is just as easily adapted to aquaculture as to a return to grazing land; and therefore it is win-win, since the land is so poor for anything else. There are actually thousands of square miles of such sites scattered across the US, since coal has been strip-mined for several hundred years, and the old sites are often just abandoned once the subgrade level has been reached. There could end up being a dozen different ways to make biodiesel. Even if it ends up costing slightly more or OPEC lowers the price of oil, we need to keep these dollars at home. This is what the DoE should be focused on doing, NOW... IMHO. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
Howdy Jones, We have an ideal site for an bio plant as you described. Alcoa-Rockdale , just northeast of Austin Texas. 60,000 acres, old lignite strip mine and electricpower gen plant. Alcoa wants to decommission it. By the looks of Alcoa performance on Wall St. Its surprising one of their thinkers ( if any are left) hasn't thought about using the site for such,,, in the long run they would make a better return on bio fuel,, considering that bauxite is in the sights of Hugo Chavez et al. Locally, we also have LCRA plant near Bastrop that mines lignite onsite, LCRA is owned by the state of Texas. Alcoa would be the ideal candidate.. If I had a prepared brief on your and Horace study, I would see it got in the right hands at Alcoa.. via a friend at TWDB the state water board that has environmental oversite at Alcoa and remains on theiur case for polluting the neighborhood.. thus Alcoa's empty threat of abandoning the Rocjdale plant.. put in during WW2 for aluminum defense .. in other words, the darn plant was bought and paid for by Uncle Sam. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:44:10 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] The very shallow open-pond is preferable in areas where there is plenty of water, so that evaporation is not a problem. If you have every seen a sliding-form curbing machine in action, then you can realize how simple and cheap a 3 inch deep pond can be... [snip] If you feed the pond with salt water and cover it with transparent plastic sheet, then inflate it with a slight overpressure, you have a simple but very cheap solar fresh water generator too. The water vapor condenses on the plastic sheet, and runs down the inside surface where it is collected in guttering. Two birds with one stone. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:44:10 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] fed with the cheapest possible carbon source, which is NOT going to be airborne CO2, unfortunately, but could be powdered lignite, or other subgrade of coal+minerals ($30 ton + shipping) You have just found another way of mining fossil fuels. You might be better off burning the lignite first, then feeding the CO2 to the algae. BTW they need the carbon to be in the form of CO2. Solids are useless to them. Besides, if they don't take the CO2 from the air, then the whole is no longer carbon neutral, and consequently useless as a means of mitigating global warming. The limiting variable for algoil will always be free carbon, and CO2 from air is too diffuse to be the only source, plus it raises water acidity too high. Acidity shouldn't be a problem, because by converting the CO2 into algoil, the algae lower the CO2 concentration, and hence the acidity. BTW, as you have previously pointed out, they do better when fed with *additional* CO2, which proves that acidity is not a problem. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
Jones, you are very clever but the main reason to look at Algoil biofuels etc is to try to reduce the de-sequestration of fossil carbon. Using a lignite source will just not cut the mustard! I know that some Americans are getting excited about freeing themselves from the yoke of OPEC and, from the point of view of sustainable economics, it makes sense to become more self sufficient in energy but getting the CO2 from existing coal/oil/gas fired plants would be FAR better...
Re: [Vo]:Burning our food for fuel
--- On Thu, 4/10/08, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Vo]:Burning our food for fuel To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thursday, April 10, 2008, 8:14 PM Quite some time back someone on this list -- Jed, maybe, or maybe it was actually several people -- opined that alternative biofuels which require arable land to grow could plausibly be viewed as, at least, fundamentally stupid, or at worst as a crime against humanity. Recently I've noticed an interesting trend: In the context of articles on inflation and world food supplies, alternative fuels are now coming up time and again as one of the main causes of rising food prices. Just as one trivial example, here's an excerpt from today's Wall Street Journal, which happened to have a story on rising inflation: I've been on a continuous rant for several years against the making of ethanol from corn, and not just on this list. This whole thing is just plain evil. I said it back then, people will die from this insanely misguided policy. To watch how it came about is a lesson in the law of unintended consequences. Although, they are no doubt running for cover or looking for plausible deniability, this horror started with misguided and supremely ignorant environmentalists. It sounds so nice, so sensible, so renewable. Hey, we have all this corn let's make some motor fuel from it. Soon we get legislation in response from this. Archer Daniels Midland and and Cargill are only too happy to comply and take advantage. By now, everyone will want to lay the blame on them, but even though I wish they had a more finely tuned moral compass, the fault is hardly all theirs. I'm not saying those who call themselves environmentalists are wrong, but many of them were wide of the mark on this one. I'm just pointing out that you should be careful what you wish for. What the hell, everybody is an environmentalist, including me. But you must be extremely careful what you make a lot of noise about versus what works effectively. M. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Vo]: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
--- Nick Palmer wrote: getting the CO2 from existing coal/oil/gas fired plants would be FAR better... I agree 100%. The situation is not either/or. CO2 should definitely be removed from the exhaust of all existing fossil fired plants, and fed to algae- there is no question about that. However, that will not be enough to end the US dependence on Middle Eastern Oil. File that away and move on to the trickier question, which basically resolves to the dilemma of the lesser of two evils Would we be better off for that percentage of shortfall, which the above will not cover, to continue importing the balance of the oil from Arabia, Venezuela and other OPEC thugs, or would we be better off converting our own resources for the purpose? The same amount of CO2 gets into the air either way. No-brainer. Jones
