Maybe so, but burning ANYthing for energy forever, is not a great idea.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > The short list of algal biomass production cost problems: > > 1) Capital cost per area of capturing insolation. > 2) Operation of energy to sufficiently concentrate biomass from the growth > medium. > 3) Insurance against hail and other damaging weather conditions, to the > capital equipment capturing insolation.. > > There are more but these have been the blocking factors in all systems > that have actually gone to the trouble of demonstrating how much biomass > they produce per investment. > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when >> the world will wake up. >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Ken Deboer <barlaz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I agree entirely with your assessment, James. 10 years ago I was >>> intimately engaged in biofuels,raising my own and even starting the first >>> Company in the state to get a biofuel production plant up. However, in >>> collaboration with various colleagues in academia and commerce, after a >>> year of discussions, conferences etc we very deliberately gave up the whole >>> idea. A couple smallish biodiesel plants did form around this time, and >>> all went belly up very soon, for the very good economic (and also >>> environmental) reasons you mention. Most people now are convinced that >>> biofuels may very well make a nice small niche market in some places, but >>> never a major fuel contributor. (Cold fusion cars need no biofuel!) >>> cheers, ken >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI >>>> technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology >>>> in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was >>>> rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass >>>> production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to >>>> contamination of the algae species. >>>> >>>> For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: >>>> >>>> "Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer >>>> film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can >>>> serve as its own laboratory vessel." >>>> >>>> >>>> I mean, come on.... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Was this old story related to the grant in question ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* James Bowery >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query >>>>>> about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the >>>>>> DoE >>>>>> for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so >>>>>> similar, >>>>>> I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of >>>>>> biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem >>>>>> for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Brad Lowe wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Some links: >>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil >>>>>> http://www.genifuel.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
