Keith, >So in short Todd, as with the last 25 years, there is no biodiesel >from algae right now on Planet Earth, but hey! it's just around the >corner (December next year this time). Ho-hum, yawn...
You can ho-hum-hokum-yawn all you wish. What good things are there that you can think of that once weren't and now are? And what of the biodiesel from New Zealand sewage treatment ponds? Or Dave Bayless' working proto? In general, doesn't a person or society have to crawl before they can run? Algae isn't air powered cars, magnets, or little blue pills pedaled by snake oil sales persons. It's a reality that's being worked on right now while you're yawning, despite an entire herd of market forces that have kept it at a snail's pace up to this point - no different than solar and wind which have faced the same roadblocks the past thirty years. Just out of curiosity, where are those two industries going now? And with the increasing cost of fossil fuels, both environmental and economical, they've become competitive in increasing instances, in spite of the ongoing corporate welfare (subsidies) payed out to the likes of nuclear, coal, oil and gas. So Keith, what are you suggesting with the "Ho-hum, yawn...?" Do you think we should just give up? Throw in the towel? Let corporate dinos strip the world of all it's buffers and watch society at large die a miserable, writhing end? Thank you, but no. At least not for me. As for >Are you really >thinking in the same corporatist and/or guzzle-addicted mindset that >sees "overall US demand" as something that can be replaced, or >sustained in any way? The answer is no, and you know that without asking the question. Unfortunately you're not waiting for the unneeded answer, as your next remark implies... >How do you figure it - current growth trends in >consumption extrapolated to 2020, like the US DoE? LOL! Dream on I've expressed myself often enough throughout my existence (not to mention on this list) that the candle needs to be burnt from both ends (more if it were possible). Anything less only provides a slower anhilation at the hands of collective stupidity, carelessness, selfishness or whatever. Apparently, or so it would seem, you think I've sold out somewhere along the line? If so, I wonder how you could come to such a conclusion? I can tell you this, however. No different than all the corporate fuel elitists, it's been self-evident for years that oilseeds and WVO will put but a small dent in the petroleum distillate fuel oil market, even if demand were somehow halved, whether by overnight magic or economic and environmental necessity, even if all the rain forests were stripped for palm oil (Can you spell "destruction?") and all the jatropha in the world were put towards fuel. You know full well that the oilseed market is going to bottom out soon, more probably than not after next year's harvests as biodiesel demand grows and feed meal gluts rise. With plants being built at a jack rabbit pace at the moment, at least in the US, and demand for oil feed stocks steadily increasing rapidly, the inevitable result will be the market correcting itself, with farmers finding a production plateau that is "sustainable." That is unless Congress (as far as the US goes) continues to offer the corporate welfare dollar to blenders. With that knowledge firmly in hand, what is it that you suppose will fill the role under the substitution principle? Soy got it's windfall. Now it's time to stabilize an industry, and try to do that before the oilseed industry faces a glut, or at least meet that window as quickly as possible. If feed stocks such as algae or similar such are not put into play as fast as possible, the result will be at first a lull in the biodiesel industry for several years, and at worst a final curtain pulled on this play called life. "The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization." Ralph Waldo Emerson Well, I don't much consider what we have on hand at present to be but a remote and horribly distorted facsimile of "civilization." And I would strongly encourage you to take a longer look at algae's role in carbon recycling and efforts towards carbon neutrality. Or are you thinking that getting an extra 45% efficiency out of a btu is a wasted effort? Have you considered how many commercial boilers, kilns, furnaces and ovens could be integrated with bioreactors and biodiesel production? And given the opportunity, would you seize it, or would you shun it, thinking that it was just another method to keep lining the pockets of big money interests? Perhaps so called "geologic sequestration" (waste) is a more logical approach than one of Max Utility? I think not. Todd Swearingen Keith Addison wrote: >So in short Todd, as with the last 25 years, there is no biodiesel >from algae right now on Planet Earth, but hey! it's just around the >corner (December next year this time). Ho-hum, yawn... > >Ho-hum yawn ANYWAY, because, frankly, so what? Are you really >thinking in the same corporatist and/or guzzle-addicted mindset that >sees "overall US demand" as something that can be replaced, or >sustained in any way? How do you figure it - current growth trends in >consumption extrapolated to 2020, like the US DoE? LOL! Dream on! > > > >>It's the future or commercial biodiesel is plumb (horse droppings) >>out of luck. >> >> > >Anything much bigger or more centralised than appropriate smallscale, >local, integrated, distributed production is just plumb out of luck. > >Unless you want to argue with this: >"How much fuel can we grow? How much land will it take?" >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html#howmuch > >Sorry, wrong paradigm, even the US military says that these days. > >Small-scale local-level oil-from-algae production might have its >appeal in some circumstances (the city-farm setting eg, to supplement >waste supplies), but existing algae types don't seem to cut it, it >would probably mean using GMOs, with all the due reservations about >that, and problems remain with extraction (who needs heptane) and >with drying the stuff out in the first place without wasting a lot of >time, effort and energy. > >Keith > > > > >>Southern Kaliforn-I-eh. >> >>By December's end, 2007. Plant is or has already been contracted >>upon and should be completed by then. >> >>Don't think it's quite yet proper to say what firm is financing it, >>at least not until they issue their first press release, which they >>may have already done for all I'm aware of. >> >>The 100,000 gallons is just an estimate projected upon the >>reasonably accepted value of 2,000 gpa from inoculated species in a >>horizontal acre. >> >>This plant will be growing vertically, permitting at least 50 x >>production capability. >> >>Will kinda' knock the socks off anything going. They'll just have to >>get the costs down to something affordable..., which will happen in >>short order. >> >>It's either that or biodiesel will be bottlenecked until hell >>freezes over with a an economically sustainable level of oilseed >>production (perhaps 5% at best of overall US demand) and consuming >>the vast majority of WVO supplies. >> >>It's the future or commercial biodiesel is plumb (horse droppings) >>out of luck. >> >>Todd Swearingen >> >> >>Keith Addison wrote: >> >> >> >>>>And/or 100,000 gallons of oil per acre when growing algae. >>>> >>>>Todd Swearingen >>>>\ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Um, where exactly are these acres of algae each producing 100,000 >>>gallons of oil? Anywhere here on Planet Earth in August 2006? >>> >>>:-) >>> >>>Keith >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Kirk McLoren wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>1000 gallons methanol per acre with hemp if using pyrolytic distillation. >>>>> >>>>>Kirk >>>>> >>>>>*/Jason& Katie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> WHAT!?!?!?!?!? >>>>> >>>>> > Could we replace all our oil with bio-fuels? Well... maybe. But >>>>> it would >>>>> > be an extraordinary effort. A fifty-fifty mix of bio-diesel and >>>>> ethanol >>>>> > would require putting three times the productive farm land in >>>>> >Iowa toward >>>>> > nothing but the production of fuel just to match what we >>>>> currently import. >>>>> > Make it five Iowas to solve the whole problem. Trouble is, that >>>>> much farm >>>>> > land is not readily available. There's also >the little nit of >>>>> figuring >>>>> > out what we eat while every scrap of land is busy working for >>>>> our gas >>>>> > tanks. >>>>> > Naturally, if we combine bio-fuels with the two hoped for goals >>>>> in regular >>>>> > cars -- more efficient engines and lighter weight vehicles -- we >>>>> can >>>>> > shrink the requisite greenspace. Brazil, which generates >>>>> >ethanol from >>>>> > sugar cane, has been systematically raising the amount of >>>>> ethanol in their >>>>> > fuel supply, and Brazilian manufacturers have been adding small >>>>> flex-fuel >>>>> > vehicles that can run on anything from E0 to >E100. Zap is >>>>> bringing at >>>>> > least one of these vehicles to US consumers next year. >>>>> >>>>> im all for the efficiency argument, but COME ON PEOPLE! doesnt anyone >>>>> believe in using something OTHER than corn and soy? they are NOT >>>>> the best >>>>> feedstocks anyone could use for fuel! move to a better supply, not >>>>> a higher >>>>> yield. this is ridiculous! if the supply was a high density stock >>>>> the land >>>>> requirement would be porportionally lower. >>>>> >>>>> for diesel replacement assume we used castor in the USA: >>>>> -oil yield would be roughly 151 gallons per acre compared to 48 >>>>> gallons of soy oil. >>>>> -THEREFORE one acre of castor would eliminate the need for more >>>>> than 3 acres of soy. >>>>> which means those other 2 acres of new empty field could be >>>>> used for food or- OH NO! TREES! >>>>> >>>>> for gasoline replacement assume we use sugarbeets (not very good, >>>>> but more >>>>> climate friendly) in the USA: >>>>> -ethanol yield would be 412 gallons per acre compared to 214 gallons >>>>> of corn ethanol >>>>> -THEREFORE one acre of sugarbeets would eliminate the need for >>>>> 1.9 acres of corn. >>>>> you see where im going with this? >>>>> >>>>> by selective breeding of some of the more tropical varieties of >>>>> high density >>>>> stock, we can slowly push the growing regions further north, >>>>> increasing the >>>>> supply density, and lowering the acreage needed to supply the same >>>>> amount. >>>>> WE DONT NEED CORN OR SOY FOR FUEL! i might be raving like an >>>>> idiot, but >>>>> noone can seem to understand that corn and soy are not the only >>>>> crops in the >>>>> world. >>>>> >>>>> Jason >>>>> ICQ#: 154998177 >>>>> MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> >>>>> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
