[Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
Best option would be to get the CO2 from the atmosphere as we are all aware, let's see the implications: = extensive growing surfaces with ample water, nutrients and sunlight = the oceans provide all that, as discussed before = it occurs to me we could use the natural ocean streams as conveyor belts = a closed loop conveyor belt running around, or even constituting, the growing surface would be nice = how about using the Gyres ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyre ), for example the North Atlantic Gyre (you know, that current aka Gulf Stream in some places which makes winters so cold on US Atlantic coasts and so wonderfully temperate here ;-) which circles the Sargasso Sea: Let's see what Wikipedia says on our putative NATO (North Atlantic Turning Oilfield ;-) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargasso_Sea : The Sargasso Sea is an elongated region in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean, surrounded by ocean currents... Portuguese sailors were among the first to discover this region in the 15th century, although it may have been known to earlier mariners, as a poem by the late 4th century AD author Rufus Festus Avienus describes a portion of the Atlantic as being covered with seaweed. Christopher Columbus and his men also noted the Sargasso Sea, and brought reports of the masses of seaweed on the surface. (emphasis is mine) We might be able to harvest the native seaweed and/or grow better suited algae ... what do you think Vorts, shall we farm the Sargasso Sea and push the harvest onto the North Atlantic Gyre for cheap transportation? Or would it be better to simply farm the Gyre? Or is this a sea lea idea? ;-) Michel NorthAtlanticGyreAndSargass.gif
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
Nice posting Michel, I can envision a fleet of large ocean going catamaran vessels, hulls perhaps 200 meters in length, and designed so that between the hulls is fitted on a roller mecahism a continuous recirculating open-weave netting to harvest the sargasso. The catamaran could even be powered at one or two knots by sail and/or the more efficient 'kite' and at the same time produce some onboard electrical power from the wind. Biomimicry: It will operate not unlike the baleen whale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baleen_whale ... and will have onboard tanks to digest the seaweed into biobutanol. For marketability we can call the product: Baleenoil or some such gimmick As the seaweed is harvested, iron-based fertilizer is spread from the stern. A supply ship shuttles back and forth to the Canary Islands, where our office will be based ;-) ... the trade is biobutanol one-way and mineral-ore-fertilizer the other way. Millions of tons of CO2 will be converted into transportation fuel, in a 'carbon neutral' way, totally responsible and green, and we will be richer (at least in moral-net-worth) than Gates and Midas combined... by selling the baleenoil (biobutanol) to French and American drivers for around a Euro per liter. How does that sound? Jones --- Michel Jullian wrote: Best option would be to get the CO2 from the atmosphere as we are all aware, let's see the implications: = extensive growing surfaces with ample water, nutrients and sunlight = the oceans provide all that, as discussed before = it occurs to me we could use the natural ocean streams as conveyor belts = a closed loop conveyor belt running around, or even constituting, the growing surface would be nice = how about using the Gyres ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyre ), for example the North Atlantic Gyre (you know, that current aka Gulf Stream in some places which makes winters so cold on US Atlantic coasts and so wonderfully temperate here ;-) which circles the Sargasso Sea: Let's see what Wikipedia says on our putative NATO (North Atlantic Turning Oilfield ;-) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargasso_Sea : The Sargasso Sea is an elongated region in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean, surrounded by ocean currents... Portuguese sailors were among the first to discover this region in the 15th century, although it may have been known to earlier mariners, as a poem by the late 4th century AD author Rufus Festus Avienus describes a portion of the Atlantic as being covered with seaweed. Christopher Columbus and his men also noted the Sargasso Sea, and brought reports of the masses of seaweed on the surface. (emphasis is mine) We might be able to harvest the native seaweed and/or grow better suited algae ... what do you think Vorts, shall we farm the Sargasso Sea and push the harvest onto the North Atlantic Gyre for cheap transportation? Or would it be better to simply farm the Gyre? Or is this a sea lea idea? ;-) Michel
[Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
It sounds quite shipshape ;-) The harvesting/processing vessels could be powered by their own algoil in low wind conditions, quite frequent in the Sargasso Sea. The bulk of the fertilizers, iron included, would be made on the spot too, in the form of the press cake, right? Michel - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy' Nice posting Michel, I can envision a fleet of large ocean going catamaran vessels, hulls perhaps 200 meters in length, and designed so that between the hulls is fitted on a roller mecahism a continuous recirculating open-weave netting to harvest the sargasso. The catamaran could even be powered at one or two knots by sail and/or the more efficient 'kite' and at the same time produce some onboard electrical power from the wind. Biomimicry: It will operate not unlike the baleen whale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baleen_whale ... and will have onboard tanks to digest the seaweed into biobutanol. For marketability we can call the product: Baleenoil or some such gimmick As the seaweed is harvested, iron-based fertilizer is spread from the stern. A supply ship shuttles back and forth to the Canary Islands, where our office will be based ;-) ... the trade is biobutanol one-way and mineral-ore-fertilizer the other way. Millions of tons of CO2 will be converted into transportation fuel, in a 'carbon neutral' way, totally responsible and green, and we will be richer (at least in moral-net-worth) than Gates and Midas combined... by selling the baleenoil (biobutanol) to French and American drivers for around a Euro per liter. How does that sound? Jones --- Michel Jullian wrote: Best option would be to get the CO2 from the atmosphere as we are all aware, let's see the implications: = extensive growing surfaces with ample water, nutrients and sunlight = the oceans provide all that, as discussed before = it occurs to me we could use the natural ocean streams as conveyor belts = a closed loop conveyor belt running around, or even constituting, the growing surface would be nice = how about using the Gyres ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyre ), for example the North Atlantic Gyre (you know, that current aka Gulf Stream in some places which makes winters so cold on US Atlantic coasts and so wonderfully temperate here ;-) which circles the Sargasso Sea: Let's see what Wikipedia says on our putative NATO (North Atlantic Turning Oilfield ;-) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargasso_Sea : The Sargasso Sea is an elongated region in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean, surrounded by ocean currents... Portuguese sailors were among the first to discover this region in the 15th century, although it may have been known to earlier mariners, as a poem by the late 4th century AD author Rufus Festus Avienus describes a portion of the Atlantic as being covered with seaweed. Christopher Columbus and his men also noted the Sargasso Sea, and brought reports of the masses of seaweed on the surface. (emphasis is mine) We might be able to harvest the native seaweed and/or grow better suited algae ... what do you think Vorts, shall we farm the Sargasso Sea and push the harvest onto the North Atlantic Gyre for cheap transportation? Or would it be better to simply farm the Gyre? Or is this a sea lea idea? ;-) Michel
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...
[Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
I do like algoil Jones, I just don't share your skepticism about Nanosolar, and it looks as if I am not the only Frenchman in this case, see: http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2213340/edf-ploughs-50m-nanosolar EDF ploughs $50m into Nanosolar Energy giant joins Google founders in backing US developer of low-cost solar panels... A case of no prophet accepted in his own country? ;-) Michel - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy' For the record the insight about the Oil Industry getting into the Algoil act, and probably converting it into their net big growth industry so to speak, as if they invented the idea ... came from Michael not me. But I agree with it wholeheartedly and will soon induct MJ into our bulging chapter of Cynics Anonymous...
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:15:57 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Wow - this guy Glen Kertz - who has an operating system (pictured) so his claims are based on actual results - sez he can produce about 100,000 gallons of algae oil peracre per year, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons fromsoybeans. That appears to be the highest of the figures which have been claimed in the various published reports. [snip] I suspect strongly, that the number quoted is a projection based upon his calculations, rather than an actual measurement. In order for it to be an actual measurement the algae would have to be *extremely* efficient at converting sunlight into chemical energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
Jones, You're right about ethanol of course, but PV is real nice IMHO, no moving part, no pollution, probably the highest overall efficiency, even at Nanosolar's present 9 to 10% sun-to-electric efficiency. Even if the 50% figure for sun-to-algoil was true --I am skeptical too--, what would be the overall sun-to-wheel efficiency? Michel - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy' ... It seems prudent that the huge amounts of money being poured into ethanol and thin-film solar cells should be discouraged and redirected to Algoil... or am I missing something?
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
Michel You're right about ethanol of course, but PV is real nice IMHO, no moving part, no pollution, probably the highest overall efficiency, even at Nanosolar's present 9 to 10% sun-to-electric efficiency. Even if the 50% figure for sun-to-algoil was true --I am skeptical too--, what would be the overall sun-to-wheel efficiency? I am not sure efficiency is the main concern. If the comparative cost of the oil produced is close but acceptable, and the dollars stay at home instead of going into the hands of our enemies: Saudi Arabia in particular, then we are better off. Arabia is the home of anti-Western terrorism and the sponsor of Bin Laden, and that is all the convincing any of us should need. Algoil would also allow us to walk out Iraq almost immediately. But in addition to the stay-at-home dollars which is the big advantage (even if we must pay slightly more) we get a stable currency and a large proactive mitigation of CO2. But 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. But the most important point for a shift of investment dollars is that a decent ROI for nanosolar panels is nonexistent if you include all costs, and eliminate tax benefits. They are hiding major problems ! Some bloggers and proponents of algae fully believe that pond algae gives 4 times higher return per investment dollar than thin-film solar panels, and there are figures to support this, which of course nanosolar advocates try to minimize. The only thing which will convince most of us, and in particular: the potential investors in alternative energy- is the comparative bottom line of a fully operating system like that of Kertz. His may not be the best approach however. Despite his glowing claims, it is likely (if not obvious) that his vertical growth thing is not going to give as great a ROI because of the very high cost per acre of the enclosed space- not as high as nanosolar but twice as high as force-fed CO2 ponds. To my thinking the best implementation of Algoil is to put these CO2 ponds in immediately adjoining existing grid plants; which now belch CO2 directly into the air. That is win-win, and even though we want to see coal eliminated, eventually. In reality, that goal will take decades and in the meantime Algoil can strongly mitigate the problem. BTW has everyone seen the Nova (PBS) episode relating to global dimming? This is a big discovery, and hugely important if the numbers are accurate, because it explains two issues: 1) why a substantial minority of experts doubt the full significance of *global warming* and are actually partly correct, but at the same time 2) are doubly wrong in their erroneous models for the future effects. You must include the mitigating effects of global dimming in the past and how that has maxed-out. Without global dimming, global warming would already have pushed us past the point-of-no-return (which is the melting of the huge methane clathrate deposits) - and which will happen in 15 years anyway, without some mitigation of the problem. Nearly the whole state of Florida and most of Louisiana along with Boston and NYC will be gone within the lifetime of our children- if we do nothing! It is a very powerful message, far more factual than what Al Gore (Al Bore to his enemies) has produced; and I hope everyone who wants to weigh-in on what they see as a minimal impact of global warming (so far) will view this Nova special. Personally, and in somewhat of a reversal (or maturation) of belief I would now even have to agree with the skeptics that the impact of CO2 has been somewhat minimal to date, except in Alaska and Greenland, where it is more severe than the skeptics realize. However, I would add that it is minimal to the same extent as a small crack in the bottom of a large dam is minimal That large dam is metaphorically the trillions of tons of frozen methane - which if released due to higher ocean temps, is far worse, as a greenhouse gas, than is CO2. Thank heavens for global dimming. Jones
[Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
Let me correct this: 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. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
--- On Wed, 4/2/08, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not sure efficiency is the main concern. If the comparative cost of the oil produced is close but acceptable, and the dollars stay at home instead of going into the hands of our enemies: Saudi Arabia in particular, then we are better off. Arabia is the home of anti-Western terrorism and the sponsor of Bin Laden, and that is all the convincing any of us should need. Algoil would also allow us to walk out Iraq almost immediately. But in addition to the stay-at-home dollars which is the big advantage (even if we must pay slightly more) we get a stable currency and a large proactive mitigation of CO2. Actually, when the major oil companies have run out of making large profits from the asset appreciation of the reserves they now own, they might be convinced to go for this idea in a big way. Think of the business they are in now and compare it to algae farming and the chemical processing that would follow it. Locating and owning optimum sites for algae farming could replace exploration and drilling. While they wouldn't be the same sort of refineries, oil company engineers could do what they do best, designing and implementing the large scale chemical processing plants that give us our present petroleum products. Let's face it. These guys are really good at pumping and chemically transforming huge amounts of liquid and gaseous stuff. M. You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
From Jones, ... Locating and owning optimum sites for algae farming could replace exploration and drilling. While they wouldn't be the same sort of refineries, oil company engineers could do what they do best, designing and implementing the large scale chemical processing plants that give us our present petroleum products. Let's face it. These guys are really good at pumping and chemically transforming huge amounts of liquid and gaseous stuff. I agree. One would think that algoil refineries would be right up their alley. I hope some junior oil exec is doing his best to plant the seeds of corporate expansion. Exxon-Algoil. If it's good enough for our stock holders, it's good enough for Independent Republic of Texas. And now, back to Jericho! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_(TV_series) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
--- OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. One would think that algoil refineries would be right up their alley. I suppose Algore will try to take credit for algoil. You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
[Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
- Original Message From: OrionWorks http://tinyurl.com/2t2de3 Wow - this guy Glen Kertz - who has an operating system (pictured) so his claims are based on actual results - sez he can produce about 100,000 gallons of algae oil peracre per year, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons fromsoybeans. That appears to be the highest of the figures which have been claimed in the various published reports. It is one more bit of evidence that this is the best way to proceed with alternative fuel. Very high conversion efficiency - no soil depletion - and adaptability to desert locales. All of these are gigantic advantages. Even co-siting with windmills. It seems prudent that the huge amounts of money being poured into ethanol and thin-film solar cells should be discouraged and redirected to Algoil... or am I missing something? OK here we are back to figuring out - and then trying to rationalize the solar conversion rates. Prior to this, there have been a half dozen claims from operators of small ponds that the solar conversion rate for algae can push 50% when CO2 is force-fed. That is to say: half of all the solar energy falling on a pond is converted into oil energy. Many on Vo have doubted those efficiency estimates (which require added CO2 and heat) - but this technique substitutes a vertical growing area for the CO2. Actually many would prefer to see CO2 channeled into ponds, as long as there are coal plants emitting directly into the atmosphere, and it is not an either/or situation; since this technique works without the need for burning coal or methane, it appears that both methods have advantages for differing locales and situations. One acre is about 4047 meters^2 ... and sunlight in the southern USA transfers a kilowatt per meter^2 to earth at noon in the summer. If you figure that there are 4000 yearly hours of prime sunlight in some deserts, and reducing the maximum figure for irradiation by one quarter to account for mornings and evenings, that would be about 12 GW-hrs (12 million KW-hrs per acre-yr) unless my math is too hasty (once again ;-) Diesel oil contains about 120,000 btu per gallon of heat energy. One KW-hr is 3,400 btu. Kertz's acre of oil then gives 12 billion btu per year, which is about 3.5 GW-hrs. Not quite the 50% conversion efficiency which others have claimed, but not too shabby either... Even though there are many other political issues which are compelling in this election season, I personally will cast my vote for any candidate, even Nader (gag me with a rat) if that candidate will embrace an all-out Manhattan project type of committed effort towards Algoil. It is that important, IMHO. Where is our Green candidate? Unfortunately, anyone who is electable seems to always have Big-Oil backers. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
Howdy Jones, Notice buried deep in the CNN article is a remark by Kertz.. regarding their search for new forms of algae Intriguing details like that keep Kertz and other scientists searching for more and different algae. While dusty west Texas may not be the best hunting grounds, he said he is always on the lookout for samples in puddles, streams or ponds. This was the method used by the developers of the Medina soil activator. Railroad worker traveling across the southern Arizona desert notice certain small ponds had a prolific growth after a rainfall. Taking samples of the algae+ back to Medina Texas, he cultivated a stimulator. Not to worry.. after all these years and fields of high yield sorgum produced from spraying the activator has yet to interest the D of A. Richard Jones wrote, http://tinyurl.com/2t2de3
