now I understand completely. Thank you for dumbing that down for me.
I'm sure that we're using corn based because giant agribusiness is filtering money into the pockets of politicians at high levels... giving the appearance of caring for the environment and the well being of it's citizens while skimming more money at our expense. I'm also assuming that a smart guy like you FM was asking a rhetorical question.
So you're saying the problem is the fact that you need to get all that alcohol from somewhere and that's expensive and/or polluting and/ or difficult? I'm really trying to understand this technology and how practical it is.
alcohol production for fuel should be looked at as a big commodity (Youre right ag-business is driving this entire ethanol wagon). The commodity shouldnt be based on a single feed stock when there are a multitude of ways to produce the stuff.
The hell of it is that, if they t least used the whole corn plant all the time, the methods would be more efficient as theres more sugar in the corn stems than in the grain, thats where the high fructose corn syrup comes from.
Have youseen what the prices of Hillbilly flour has gone to? I love my corn bread but Ill be damned if I gotta compete with fuel factories when corn isnt even the best choice for making alcohol.
The whole point is that you need alcohol AND algae mix to make the diesel.
My only reservations are
1. Wed need to expand the production of algae waaay beyong the 100000gal/acre/yr to make a dent in our DAILY use of petroleum. I think this can be done by looking at the sea coasts, flooded mines, sewage plants,(this could lead to a whole new way of high treated sewage using multiple lagoons and spray irrigation rather than dumping into a river),
2. Wed need to be able to produce alcohols from a whole host of more mundane feedstocks NOT GRAINS.
and is that practical? Meaning practical and not practical only to a few peoples profit margins.....
REALLY GOOD articles Walter.
Ok, I learned that , since gas is less efficient than diesel, wed need about 138 BILLION gals of algae diesel per year(If we wanted to run our entire fuel demands through diesel). In the first and second articles The DOE used a seabed and estuary approach as well as a desert basin algae pool system, and theycalculated that to produce 7.5 BILLION gallons per year youd need 780 suare miles (Delaware is 1200 square miles). SO, to take care of ALL our fuel needs wed need an area about 15000 square miles, about the size of the NEtherlands or, in US terms, about the size of NEw Jersey and MAssachussets together. Thats not out of the question but sends us to consider the ocean for ease of access and harvest.
The first paper jogged my memory that all this harkens back to Jimmy Carter and his biofuel programs that were shitcanned by Reagan in 1982.
Are there questions of screwing up the ocean and ecology in general if we started mass harvest of algae from the ocean world wide? that sounds like it has the potential to really cause problems to me....
farmerman wrote:REALLY GOOD articles Walter.
I found them via
this website, which is in French, but a subside of the above mentioned "green fuel website".
I went there Walter ..... but it's all greek to me...
BP. The US DOE report had a concept re ocean harvest of algae. I think that the production of algae by bubbling waste gases into a warm ocean or estuary is mentioned as a reaesrch topic , I dont think that Id wanna start productions without knowing whether any environmental damages are gonna occur and, if they do, to what extent.
Waltere, the French article had a really good series of sections with graphics about the actual recipe for making the diesel fuel and glycerine.
Well, I really didn't understand all that until I'd looked at the graphics :wink:
farmerman wrote:BP. The US DOE report had a concept re ocean harvest of algae. I think that the production of algae by bubbling waste gases into a warm ocean or estuary is mentioned as a reaesrch topic , I dont think that Id wanna start productions without knowing whether any environmental damages are gonna occur and, if they do, to what extent.
Waltere, the French article had a really good series of sections with graphics about the actual recipe for making the diesel fuel and glycerine.
agree with that. I do think we need to go forward with it though.... even if we only produce enough at first to make a dent.... well... that's a dent...
farmerman wrote:
!00 000 barrels per acre per year divide that into our present...
I read that as 100,000 gallons of oil per acre vs 30 and not 100K barrels. Nonetheless there's lots and lots of acres down there in Arizona, Nevada, Southern Utah, Texas, NM etc. and those acres are totally useless for most purposes, but ideal for this one. All that's needed is lots of sunlight and there is no shortage.
youre right gunga. I just let my fingers get ahead of my brain. I calc'd on the basis of total petroleum needs per year IN GALLONS , I must have just used that one reference to barrels by mistake.
Assuming the New HAmpshire values are correct, We still would need about 15000 square miles of surface for algae farming to produce ALL our petroleum needs.
farmerman wrote:youre right gunga. I just let my fingers get ahead of my brain. I calc'd on the basis of total petroleum needs per year IN GALLONS , I must have just used that one reference to barrels by mistake.
Assuming the New HAmpshire values are correct, We still would need about 15000 square miles of surface for algae farming to produce ALL our petroleum needs.
Sounds like a plan to me. Ever been in the southwest deserts??
so we could get it done without screwing around with the ocean?
This idea is much better than the oceans. The oceans like any body of water are basially flat surfaces and this whole thing is about maximizing the ratio of surface area to volume. This basic idea works like the radiator in a car.
Interesting question is how high could you build the thing before the tubes near the bottom started getting blocked off too much from sunlight.
farmerman wrote:
Assuming the New HAmpshire values are correct, We still would need about 15000 square miles of surface for algae farming to produce ALL our petroleum needs.
I havnt read right to the end of the discussion but FM is calculating flat surface area. Ie spread out like a lake.
The vertical system mentioned here does away with that.
Ground layer relectors reflect light up between the rows?
still, there must be a height limit.
Using up perfectly good space in the desert is, IMHO, less desirable than having a stacked series of algae farms in a warm ocean area. The 3'D aspect is easire to achieve in a medieum that supports the structures all around than it is on a land platform where theyd have to build cages and import water, Imagine a set up like the Chinese Water Sport Stadium for the Olympics. . No dadpad, my calcs were based upon the first articles production of 100000gal/year PER ACRE. I then went and found out our total annual oil needs ( and I converted all gasoline into diesel so I had the full annual oil needs ) Then I merely expanded production to achieve the amount needed. USing the articles biodiesel production, the 15000 square miles is already considering the production scheme proposed in gungas article.
WSO, wed have to devote an area twice the size of NEw JErsey (and probably larger because the desert basins of US arent all just flat pans,). In the BAsin and RAnge area of The 4 corners, there are tilted plains interrupted by long mountain ranges. SO the "desert areas would have to acount for spacing of the bioreactors, water hookups, framing etc. It would become a nightmare . ALl youd have to do in the oceans is find an area with suitable water temps and SUSPEND these reactors (linula and other algae already grow in seawater). The project would involve isolating reactor "pods" where the algae are making our diesel, from the nearby ocean water (so the sea doesnt turn anoxic from a huge algae bloom. (Even that isnt a problem because pressure transducers can be outfitted on the reactors to monitor for leaks and the companies involved could send ROVS or minisubs to "patrol" the whole thing.
The good thing about the oceans is the relative life expectancy and onvenience and protection from the elements.
No, Ill stick with oceans mostly because I dont think that we should mess up the land environment any more than it is for a process that can be done relatively invisibly and more safely in a shallow sea. I picture the reactors like the way they grow pearl oysters in JApan. They suspend the oyster spat from these long lines and achieve a 3D pearl farm.
I knes that finally, after all this greein , Id disagree with gunga on somethin :wink:
