Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Robin wrote.. With a little bit of luck, we'll have commercial fusion power by then, and they will have closed down altogether. Terry asked... With which technology? Robin replied.. The one I'm designing right now. :) Howdy Vorts.. Better ask Japan Inc. before you spend too much money making one Robin. Japan Inc. has a near lock on future Nuke plant equipment now adays. What kind of lock?.. Try getting any new electric generating plant plan approved for liscensing and construction regardless of the fuel source, coal, nuke or Robin's design. Ask TXU Dallas.. Somebody did a number on them until Goldman-Sachs was called in on "how to get things done in the real world". Lotsa plants in design, few in costruction.. won't be in time for the electric power crunch coming to USA. Keep a bicycle handy. Richard
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:40:53 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >>That makes sense for an electric power plant, where the cost of capital >>equipment is well known, but not much sense for e.g. CRUDE OIL/GASOLINE, where >>the cost can the calculated any of a thousand different ways, >>depending on what >>one decides to include or leave out. > >I am sure industry experts have a standard metric that covers most >costs. It would be impossible to run an oil business if there were a >thousand different ways to estimate costs. As shown in footnote 14, >the $1000 rough estimate is based on a DOE "staff communication." I >am sure it is not $100 and not $10,000. > >- Jed This is supposed to be a global measure of cost efficiency, however in order to do that for the oil industry, one would have to know how much had been invested in the oil industry - ever, and how much of the that sum actually went into equipment, and how much of that equipment was still in use, and that on a global scale. Good luck trying to get hold of those numbers. Then take into consideration that the rate of oil delivery is not only determined by production capacity, but also by other factors, e.g. politics and weather. A cost / kWh is easy to calculate - just use the price of oil - but a "power plant" cost is near impossible. One could look at it on a cost/oil rig basis, but these vary considerably, depending on lots of factors. A.o. location, weather, operator, whether or not oil is found soon or late while drilling, or at all, the size of the find etc. etc. In short, I find the comparison given in the diagrams only of value in that it provides comparative conversion efficiencies for various technologies. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 5 Apr 2007 07:10:16 -0400: Hi, [snip] >On 4/4/07, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> With a little bit of luck, we'll have commercial fusion power by then, and >> they >> will have closed down altogether. > >With which technology? The one I'm designing right now. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza - reality check, please
A bit too hasty on this: After all - only one kilowatt of solar per meter^2 on average may fall on the pond over daylight but 50 kilowatts of heat energy may be dissipated by the same area over the 24 hour day ... maybe not in the pond configuration but in the tube setup used by MIT. 50 kilowatts per hour would be too much and 50 kWhr per day would be too little. Frankly, too little factual detail is known to even guess, and that was a poor guess at that ... but planners and alternative energy advocates must give the reports which have been published the benefit of the doubt. There is a likelihood, based on these reports, that what appears to be in excess of 100% of the solar energy falling on a pond area is being converted into biofuel, and that could be true even if only 5% of the photons were being utilized. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza - reality check, please
Jed Rothwell wrote: With IR photosynthesis alone, and no sunlight photosynthesis, you might pull this off with less than 1000 acres. The conceptual problem that all of us have - when comparing single cell life with "agriculure" is that the two are radically different in a few vital categories, yet at the same time very similar is some respects. This can lead to false assumptions. We tend to think too much in terms of either/or. Either the organism uses photosynthesis or it uses chemistry - IOW derives energy by digesting chemicals which are not fully oxidized. When using chemical energy and no light - in order to reduce CO2, which is the common "raw material" in most life (that is to de-oxidize CO2 and reuse the carbon) there would need to be a "free" supply of partially reduced chemicals. These need not be carbohydrates - yet in order to derive what "seems like" it is more than 100% of the solar energy which is falling on the pond, the source is chemical. Coal ash is part of that source. NOx is another part of that source. Solar photons can be catalytic without being required to be a significant "energy source" in themselves. With Algae (broadened to include all single cell life) there are strains which can do many things well, some of then not requiring light - including producing enzymes which can derive energy from minerals in the exhaust stream from buring coal, including sulfur, iron, silicates, phosphates and calcites. These minerals have already been partially or fully reduced by the combustion itself, and they have plenty of "free" energy to be harnessed by algae which does not require sunlight. A ton of smokestack effluent might have 10% of more partially reduced minerals and soot, including significant amounts of NOx if hight temperature combustion is allowed. The nitrogen oxides, in particular, also have energy content to add into the mix, in addition to the nitrogen needed for proteins. Many of these could be transitory. All in all, it may be possible for a pond to produce what appears to be more net energy of biofuel - than if 100% of the solar energy falling on it were converted into that fuel. That is true - even if in fact only 5% of the solar photons were being actually converted. For this to happen the other 95+% which gives the appearance of "too much efficiency" must be coming from a combination of chemicals in the ash, NOx and waste heat energy. The solar would be catalytic - not primary energy. After all - only one kilowatt of solar per meter^2 on average may fall on the pond over daylight but 50 kilowatts of heat energy may be dissipated by the same area over the 24 hour day ... maybe not in the pond configuration but in the tube setup used by MIT. The beauty of all of this is that the very things which we do not want in the air we breath are what the algae "want" in order to double their mass every few hours. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza - reality check, please
I wrote: Actually, with heat alone and no photosynthesis, you might pull this off with less than 1000 acres. This is inaccurate, as Beene noted. It should say: With IR photosynthesis alone, and no sunlight photosynthesis, you might pull this off with less than 1000 acres. I wonder if it is possible to efficiently convert full sunlight into PAR, and feed only that light to plants? (PAR is 450 and 660 nm light -- see my book, p. 131.) Peter Hagelstein once told me that piece of colored glass placed over a white lightbulb & reflector -- such as an old fashioned traffic light -- does not absorb much energy. In other words, most of the photons eventually emerge as green light "after bouncing around in there for a while" as he put it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza - reality check, please
I wrote: The algae converts waste heat back into carbon compounds, recovering some of the lost energy. That is stupid way to express the idea. It should be: The algae uses IR from the waste heat to synthesize carbon compounds, converting some waste heat back into high-grade potential chemical energy. It is unclear to me what the overall efficiency of this conversion process is. For plants using white sunlight, it is on the order of 1% or 2% as I said. For lettuce provided with only PAR in ideal growing conditions at the Japanese food factory, it can go up to ~15%, but you have to convert all of the light into the right wavelength. One source says: "The chlorosome of vent-dwelling green sulfur bacteria makes them the world champions at garnering photons." I assume that means it is somewhere up around 5% or 10%, but I do not know. Looking up green-sulfur bacteria energy efficiency, I found some sources that say: "The efficiency of energy transfer from carotenoid to bacteriochlorophyll a in the RC core complex was 23% at 6 K, and from the FMO-protein to the core it was 35%. . . ." I assume this describes a multi-stage process with 8% efficiency overall. In 1952, someone concluded: "These results are considered as support for the view that also in the bacterial photosyntheses the primary photochemical reaction consists in the photolysis of H2O, and that the chemical energy released during the oxidation of the electron donor is not utilized for CO2 assimilation. Hence the photosynthetic processes of the green sulfur bacteria are thermodynamically less efficient than is green plant photosynthesis." By the way, the initial "excitron" capture phase for any photosynthetic process is astoundingly efficient. If only we could make thermoelectric generators this good! These bacteria tolerate remarkably high temperatures. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza - reality check, please
The "photo" in photosynthesis means "photonic" but heat (IR) is also photonic and heat has been totally neglected in your argument. It has been over two years since photosynthesis experts from Arizona State University found and documented photosynthesis taking place deep within the Pacific Ocean. Other have claimed this same things for 20 years going back to Cousteau, but DNA analysis was not available then. The team isolated a bacterium that doesn't live off sunlight but uses IR coming from hydrothermal vents nearly 8000 ft deep vents off of Mexico. Using DNA analysis the team classified the microbe as a member of the green sulfur bacteria family. The fact that the organism is obligate means it solely relies on photosynthesis to live. "This is startling in the sense that you do not expect to find photosynthesis in a region of the world that is so completely dark" Coal fired power plants, as it turns out, emit lots of sulfur and other ash which is toxic to humans by not to genetically engineered strains. They also have copious amounts of excess heat. Given the profit motive, and the need for such hybridized life-forms to flourish on what was formerly considered as waste, does anyone really doubt that this discovery has not already been put to use for engineering genetically modified biota, producing biofuels? Jones
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza - reality check, please
I wrote: It is waste heat from coal, which is ~60% to ~70% of the starting heat. Assume the plants convert 10% of that heat back into carbon compounds, which would be phenomenally good. That 6% the waste heat. 6% of the starting heat, I mean. A 6% improvement in coal plant production would extremely valuable. Even 1.2% is worth doing. I cannot evaluate whether this method would be more cost-effective than other schemes to improve coal plant efficiency. Any method you use ends up reducing CO2 emissions. Replacing 40-year old coal plants with ultra-modern version will probably reduce emissions per MHW by more than 6%, and certainly more than 1.2%. Assume that other species of algae in the same ponds absorb sunlight, and you get a better rate of return, although it takes a bigger pond, as I noted. Actually, with heat alone and no photosynthesis, you might pull this off with less than 1000 acres. All of the algae CO2 capture projects that have been implemented until now use photosynthesis. The waste heat is used to enhance photosynthesis, especially in winter. Some of these projects are on a large scale. They reduce collection area by using vertically hung plastic bags full of algae glop, rather than flat ponds. Still, none of them captures 100% of the light. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza - reality check, please
Jones Beene wrote: Your logical error here --and it invalidates your whole argument is the assumption that algae are merely converting sunlight into energy. Wrong. Or should I say partially wrong. Sunlight is a catalyst for growth and is advantageous, but single-cell life will proliferate in total darkness with only heat and CO2 I know that. As you said, that would be for the non-photosynthetic species. However, this is not a perpetual motion machine. You cannot go indefinitely with no energy inputs. The algae converts waste heat back into carbon compounds, recovering some of the lost energy. It is waste heat from coal, which is ~60% to ~70% of the starting heat. Assume the plants convert 10% of that heat back into carbon compounds, which would be phenomenally good. That 6% the waste heat. So you are reducing power plant energy consumption by 6%. (I expect it would be more like 1.2% but make it 6%.) That's good, but there are plenty of other ways to improve efficiency by that extent, and they cost a lot less. There is no way a biological species can convert heat or light into a chemical species at better rates than that. Assume that other species of algae in the same ponds absorb sunlight, and you get a better rate of return, although it takes a bigger pond, as I noted. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza - reality check, please
Jed Rothwell wrote: Oh come now, that's absurd. Let us have a reality check here please! Let's assume the system is a black hole that absorbs every joule of sunlight and converts it into oil. 1 acre = 4,047 m^2. Your logical error here --and it invalidates your whole argument is the assumption that algae are merely converting sunlight into energy. Wrong. Or should I say partially wrong. Sunlight is a catalyst for growth and is advantageous, but single-cell life will proliferate in total darkness with only heat and CO2. The "photo" in photosynthesis means "photonic" but heat (IR) is also photonic and heat has been totally neglected in your argument. Which is to be expected, since most of your mindset is based on the erroneous conclusions of whats-his-name, and he fell prey to the same logical error. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza - reality check, please
Jones Beene quotes someone: Valcent has extrapolated data from its test bed facility to conclude that production yields of up to 150,000 gallons (3,570 barrels) of bio-oil per acre per year are possible at a cost of about $20 per barrel. Oh come now, that's absurd. Let us have a reality check here please! Let's assume the system is a black hole that absorbs every joule of sunlight and converts it into oil. 1 acre = 4,047 m^2. Sunlight falling on 1 m^2 at the equator under ideal conditions produces about 1 kW for ~6 hours per day (insolation in Africa); 4.2 kWh/day. For one acre, that's 17 MWh/day. See: http://www.apricus.com/html/solar_energy_calculator.htm Divide by 24 hour for continuous output and it comes to 0.708 MW/acre. 1000 acres, which this writer claims is enough for a power plant, collects enough for continuous 708 MW operation with a black hole collector. But we are talking about North America, not the Sahara desert, and it is inconceivable that the thing is 100% efficient at conversion. A pond filled with algae is not a black hole; it reflects plenty of sunlight. I doubt the overall process of conversion is even 2% by the time you process the stuff into oil, but even at 5% conversion efficiency in Africa you are talking about a 35 MW generator, which is a lot smaller than most coal-fired plants. Substitute North American insolation (4.3) and with 5% overall efficiency and you get a 25 MW plant. If the the technology emerges such that the strains of algae are hybridized to be robust using only heat and CO2, such as those under development which have been using single cell organisms hybridized from deep ocean vents - then it may be possible to increase the average yield up to nearer to the best case. That would be a perpetual motion machine! You have to have energy input into the system, which can only be sunlight in this case. In the ocean vents, the input is geothermal heat. If the system were operated on the scale of an average farm - with 1000 acres of these algae ponds, then the value of the oil produced at 150,000 gallons per acre (best case) is at least $300,000,000 . . . . 150,000 gallons per acre per year?!? With 4.3 insolation, an acre collects 12 MWh per day, assuming a black hole collector. Multiply by 365 days per year and you get 4,380 MWh per year. That converts to 120,000 gallons of gasoline per year, but again, this is not a black hole. In real life it converts to 6,000 gallons. (Assuming they have a fantastically effective 50% collection and conversion it would be 60,000 gallons -- still way short of 150,000.) I did this by several different methods, but you can cheat and convert kWh to gallons the easy way here: http://www.mhi-inc.com/Converter/Energy%20Converter.htm Also, $300,000,000 divided by 150,000 would be $2,000 per gallon. This must mean $300 million for the 1000 acres, and the writer assumes gasoline is worth $2 per gallon, or $84 per barrel. Actually, gasoline is worth about $1 per gallon wholesale, and you get only 5%, so it comes to $7,500 per acre ($7.5 million for the 1,000 acres.) The best legal cash crop in the world today is tobacco, which is worth about $2,000 to $4,000 per acre, so this is pretty darn good. Bear in mind that coal cost about 6 times cheaper than oil per BTU of heat, so if you burn the oil in the generator, instead of using it for transportation fuel, the cash value per acre falls to about $1,300 per year. However, no one in the U.S. would burn oil to generate electricity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: That makes sense for an electric power plant, where the cost of capital equipment is well known, but not much sense for e.g. CRUDE OIL/GASOLINE, where the cost can the calculated any of a thousand different ways, depending on what one decides to include or leave out. I am sure industry experts have a standard metric that covers most costs. It would be impossible to run an oil business if there were a thousand different ways to estimate costs. As shown in footnote 14, the $1000 rough estimate is based on a DOE "staff communication." I am sure it is not $100 and not $10,000. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Robin wrote.. With a little bit of luck, we'll have commercial fusion power by then, and they will have closed down altogether. With which technology? Terry Howdy Vorts, Year 2010, provided it arrives on time is only 2 1/2 years off. The USA, provided it makes it another 2 1/2 years, won.t even be caught standing in line when the train arrives. For a scenario of where we will be in commercial fusion in 2 1/2 years, imagine hurricane Rita/ Katrina and the mass panic exodus of 2 million people fleeing Houston that day. Absolute chaos, and panic, every man for himself. If you believe the leadership will provide, just remember the people standing on the freeway overpasses in NOLA for 3 days waiting for help. Ah! FEMA.. so secretive that the public isn't given the names of the local officials. So ineffective they can't even spend $ 50-150 billion dollars .. even a dumb college girl can do that. Show me where DOE or DOD has done a better job than FEMA and I will believe fusion will be waiting for me in 2010. Get a bicycle, a wood stove and some chickens. Richard
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
On 4/4/07, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: With a little bit of luck, we'll have commercial fusion power by then, and they will have closed down altogether. With which technology? Terry
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:31:06 -0400 (GMT-04:00): Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk writes: > >>>Where document are you talking about? I do not see "Unit Cost" in the >>>NREL document. >> >>In each of the diagrams, under each "fuel type", e.g. for CRUDE OIL/GASOLINE >>they have a Unit Cost ($/kW) : 1000, Total Cost ($/kW delivered) 8505. > >Ah, you are talking about the diagrams on pages 2 - 15. The "$/kW" cost is for >capital equipment, as listed in Appendix C, p. 15. For example, in column 2 it >shows that an advanced Central Baseload Fossil Plant is expected to cost >$1,200 per kW, and footnote 1 says this is based on: That makes sense for an electric power plant, where the cost of capital equipment is well known, but not much sense for e.g. CRUDE OIL/GASOLINE, where the cost can the calculated any of a thousand different ways, depending on what one decides to include or leave out. It would have made a lot more sense to do the entire comparison based on cost / unit energy, because the energy suppliers already include their own costs (including plant costs) when they calculate the price they are going to charge. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
In reply to R.C.Macaulay's message of Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:43:28 -0500: Hi Richard, [snip] > > >Jones wrote.. >There was a "green" alternative-energy story last fall: > >"Global Green To Fund Demonstration Algae Bioreactor Plant" > >http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/global_green_to.html > > >Howdy Jones, > >Good insight, I passed on your comments to a party inside LCRA . > >The Lower Colorado River Authority ( LCRA) is a state of Texas entity that >has some coal fired power plants including three units in my back yard. >They made an announcement they were finally working on stack emissions and >would build a 4th stack to scrub the baddest.. should be ready by year >2010..whoopie. With a little bit of luck, we'll have commercial fusion power by then, and they will have closed down altogether. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jones wrote.. There was a "green" alternative-energy story last fall: "Global Green To Fund Demonstration Algae Bioreactor Plant" http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/global_green_to.html Howdy Jones, Good insight, I passed on your comments to a party inside LCRA . The Lower Colorado River Authority ( LCRA) is a state of Texas entity that has some coal fired power plants including three units in my back yard. They made an announcement they were finally working on stack emissions and would build a 4th stack to scrub the baddest.. should be ready by year 2010..whoopie. Richard
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Robin van Spaandonk writes: >>Where document are you talking about? I do not see "Unit Cost" in the >>NREL document. > >In each of the diagrams, under each "fuel type", e.g. for CRUDE OIL/GASOLINE >they have a Unit Cost ($/kW) : 1000, Total Cost ($/kW delivered) 8505. Ah, you are talking about the diagrams on pages 2 - 15. The "$/kW" cost is for capital equipment, as listed in Appendix C, p. 15. For example, in column 2 it shows that an advanced Central Baseload Fossil Plant is expected to cost $1,200 per kW, and footnote 1 says this is based on: Electricity Supply: Supporting Analysis for the National Energy Strategy" SR/NES/90-03, DOE/EIA, 1991 EPRI, Technical Assessment Guide (TAG), Vol. 1,1986 A bit out of date. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:57:38 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >> >waste heat from generators far exceeds the total amount of heat >> >generated by burning coal. See the figure on last page of this document: >> > >> >http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf >> >>Why is the "Unit cost" in $/kW as opposed to $/kWh? Is this a mistake, or are >>they actually talking about power plant construction costs? > >Where document are you talking about? I do not see "Unit Cost" in the >NREL document. In each of the diagrams, under each "fuel type", e.g. for CRUDE OIL/GASOLINE they have a Unit Cost ($/kW) : 1000, Total Cost ($/kW delivered) 8505. This makes no sense to me. Gasoline doesn't cost $1000/kW. The very notion is pointless. It also doesn't cost $1000/kWh, unless we have been subject to rampant hyperinflation overnight, and nobody told me. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
There was a "green" alternative-energy story last fall: "Global Green To Fund Demonstration Algae Bioreactor Plant" http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/global_green_to.html Global Green Solutions has agreed to fund a pilot plant demo-ing the technology developed by Valcent Products for an algae system that converts CO2 to biofuel oil. There are 5-6 outfits with similar algae biofuel technology in the USA, including one known as MIT. There could be many more overseas. There are also ramifications for going much further than this story indicates. MUCH further - if you read between the lines. If the system lived up to best-case expectations, then in theory any present day coal-fired plant with enough acreage for ponds could actually harvest enough algae to need very little or NO coal and become very close to carbon neutral and self-sufficient ! This is a very optimistic reading of present results, granted, but it does explain rationale for why the huge influx of VC funding is going into something brand new and into buying up coal utilities at extremely high premiums. Note also that most of these utilities being bought have large adjoining acreage. This GGS system yields a constant supply of algae during day time, which is harvested and processed to remove the oil, which will sell for FAR more than the coal which was burned to make it... or ... leaving a residue of some 50% by weight, which can also be sold for a variety of commercial products (animal feed) OR converted by enzymes into butanol ... OR burned in place of much of the coal! The system can be conceived in theory as a closed-loop producing all the fuel it needs - or at least producing products more valuable than the fuel which is burned. It is win-win, and the economics are staggering. Valcent has extrapolated data from its test bed facility to conclude that production yields of up to 150,000 gallons (3,570 barrels) of bio-oil per acre per year are possible at a cost of about $20 per barrel. By comparison, soybeans yield about 68 gallons per acre and palm about 635 gallons per acre. This would seem like so much hyperbole, yet other studies from competitors are similar. This is not even the highest claim which can be found (in gallons per acre). Yes - let's be clear that it is a big mistake to extrapolate from a best-case result to an average result over an extended period. But understand that this plant is based on only solar algae during daytime, so that 1/3 of the breeding time is underutilized. If the the technology emerges such that the strains of algae are hybridized to be robust using only heat and CO2, such as those under development which have been using single cell organisms hybridized from deep ocean vents - then it may be possible to increase the average yield up to nearer to the best case. If the system were operated on the scale of an average farm - with 1000 acres of these algae ponds, then the value of the oil produced at 150,000 gallons per acre (best case) is at least $300,000,000 and if the fuel for the power plant which supplies the CO2 comes from the non-oil algae residue, with some added coal perhaps, then the electrical power would be essentially free of incremental cost, and the whole system much closer to carbon neutral. OK. No one is suffering under the delusion that this can happens soon, but the fact that it has happened at all on a smaller scale - and in the best case scenario- in a real pilot plant- this is indicative of why so much venture capital is headed into this technology. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >waste heat from generators far exceeds the total amount of heat >generated by burning coal. See the figure on last page of this document: > >http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf Why is the "Unit cost" in $/kW as opposed to $/kWh? Is this a mistake, or are they actually talking about power plant construction costs? Where document are you talking about? I do not see "Unit Cost" in the NREL document. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:35:15 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Jones Beene wrote: > >>>However, what's not clear to me is what would algoil be doing under >>>equivalent conditions at 9 am in December, when temperatures are >>>hovering around 15 - 25 degrees F, or less. >> >>The prime location for any algae pond and CO2 sytem is adjacent to a >>regular power plant, where the hot water from cooling the steam >>generators (waste heat) heats the pond. > >As far as I know, all of the present large-plans to grow algae use >waste heat and CO2 from power plants. Some pilot plants have been built. > >It should be noted that there is a huge amount of waste heat from >power generation, so this method could recycle a lot of carbon. As I >said before, I expect the photosynthetic efficiency of algae in the >artificial environment would be much better than the natural 2%. The >waste heat from generators far exceeds the total amount of heat >generated by burning coal. See the figure on last page of this document: > >http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf Why is the "Unit cost" in $/kW as opposed to $/kWh? Is this a mistake, or are they actually talking about power plant construction costs? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jones Beene wrote: However, what's not clear to me is what would algoil be doing under equivalent conditions at 9 am in December, when temperatures are hovering around 15 - 25 degrees F, or less. The prime location for any algae pond and CO2 sytem is adjacent to a regular power plant, where the hot water from cooling the steam generators (waste heat) heats the pond. As far as I know, all of the present large-plans to grow algae use waste heat and CO2 from power plants. Some pilot plants have been built. It should be noted that there is a huge amount of waste heat from power generation, so this method could recycle a lot of carbon. As I said before, I expect the photosynthetic efficiency of algae in the artificial environment would be much better than the natural 2%. The waste heat from generators far exceeds the total amount of heat generated by burning coal. See the figure on last page of this document: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf Waste heat from generators is a little less than the 28.1 quads shown here, because that figure transmission and distribution losses (T&D losses). Coal produces 22.7 quads. I wouldn't know, but I doubt that the overall conversion efficiency of the algae plant can convert more than the equivalent of 5% of the waste heat into biofuel with algae. It is not a direct, one-for-one conversion by any means, but anyway if it is 5%, that would be 1.4 quads. The U.S. uses about 99 quads per year. Transportation uses 26.6 quads, so at 5% conversion, algae biofuel would supply 5% of our transportation fuel, which is way more than corn ethanol would supply if it were an energy supply instead of an energy sink. This figure illustrates how transportation is by far the least efficient sector. Industrial use of energy is the most efficient sector. Overall, useful energy is 34.3 quads and rejected energy (waste heat, T&D losses and so on) is 57.8 quads. This shows how much leeway there is to save energy with better efficiency. I think efficiency of up to 60% is possible in many major applications, whereas transportation is mired at 20%, not far from where it was when Henry Ford brought out the model T. The overall energy efficiency of electric power generation could be vastly improved by using more cogeneration. For a big-picture look at energy, see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/aer.pdf There is an interesting trend on page xxxv, Fig. 65. "In 1999, transportation sector carbon dioxide emissions overtook industrial sector emissions." - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Speaking of ponds, Jones. For spending a lazy afternoon on a dairy lagoon where the algae bloom, fed by wash-down nutrients and CO2 from Anerobic digestion of biomass sediment. http://maps.google.com/maps?li=rwp&q=2295+CR+H,+CLOVIS,+NM+88101&ie=UTF8&t=h &om=0&z=18&ll=34.588589,-103.180574&spn=0.001762,0.005375&iwloc=addr Jones Beene wrote. > > > These cells might achieve 40% at noon in July after being cleaned, yet > only 10% at 9 am in December with the normal coating of grime which > silicon picks up rapidly -plus- the main point is that they are > extraordinarily expensive compared to ponds and plumbing (for CO2). > > NREL has reported tank grown mixed algae strains which can surpass the > 40% efficency figure anyway, and generally algae will continue to > multiply for several hours after the sun goes down. > > The only comparison which counts in the least - therefore, is this: > > How much net energy, averaged over a full year, can be captured and > stored per dollar of investment, less incremental costs. > > Under these criteria, which are the only ones which matter, it would not > surprise any expert if the advantage of algoil over advanced silicon > solar-cells turns out to be in the range of 50 times more energy > returned per dollar of investment. > > Jones >
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
> > Jones claims they could possibly end up producing 50 > > times more energy returned per dollar of investment > > compared to solar cell technology. I'd like to believe > > that, but I remain a tad skeptical. > Then compute how much 200 acres of solar cells will cost... > > Jones Repeating the conclusion of my previous post: I guess when it comes down to the basics, [generating] five to ten times more "energy returned per dollar" would be nothing to sneeze at either. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Steven Jones makes an interesting point about the vulnerability of solar cell technology under certain seasonal conditions. However, what's not clear to me is what would algoil be doing under equivalent conditions at 9 am in December, when temperatures are hovering around 15 - 25 degrees F, or less. The prime location for any algae pond and CO2 sytem is adjacent to a regular power plant, where the hot water from cooling the steam generators (waste heat) heats the pond. These power plants are usually sited in a remote location, and have large buffer zones which can accomodate a pond of several hundred acres. An do not forget that there are algae strains which need little or no solar input at all - if they have heat and CO2 (these are found naturally around deep ocean thermal vents). 200 acres of algae, doubling in mass every few hours is lots of biota to work with - and you are also removing CO2 so it is win-win. Jones claims they could possibly end up producing 50 times more energy returned per dollar of investment compared to solar cell technology. I'd like to believe that, but I remain a tad skeptical. Then compute how much 200 acres of solar cells will cost... Jones
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
>From Jones: > These [solar] cells might achieve 40% at noon in July > after being cleaned, yet only 10% at 9 am in December > with the normal coating of grime which silicon picks > up rapidly -plus- the main point is that they are > extraordinarily expensive compared to ponds and > plumbing (for CO2). > > NREL has reported tank grown mixed algae strains which > can surpass the 40% efficency figure anyway, and > generally algae will continue to multiply for several > hours after the sun goes down. > > The only comparison which counts in the least - > therefore, is this: > > How much net energy, averaged over a full year, can be > captured and stored per dollar of investment, less > incremental costs. > > Under these criteria, which are the only ones which > matter, it would not surprise any expert if the > advantage of algoil over advanced silicon solar-cells > turns out to be in the range of 50 times more energy > returned per dollar of investment. > > Jones Jones makes an interesting point about the vulnerability of solar cell technology under certain seasonal conditions. However, what's not clear to me is what would algoil be doing under equivalent conditions at 9 am in December, when temperatures are hovering around 15 - 25 degrees F, or less. In the northern hemisphere the little critters would have already endured in excess of 12 hours of darkness (no photosynthesis) and sub freezing temperatures lowering their over-all body temperatures. I get the impression that they would work like gangbusters during the summer months. However, during the winter months I would be concerned that they might actually turn into a liability. Jones claims they could possibly end up producing 50 times more energy returned per dollar of investment compared to solar cell technology. I'd like to believe that, but I remain a tad skeptical. Oh, what the hey. I guess when it comes down to the basics, five to ten times more "energy returned per dollar" would be nothing to sneeze at either. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Frederick Sparber wrote: Jed keeps harping on the low (2%?) solar conversion efficiency of growing biomass It is probably lower than that for general agriculture, but once again, that figure is meaningless as -- and so is the 40% efficiency number for new solar cells. These cells might achieve 40% at noon in July after being cleaned, yet only 10% at 9 am in December with the normal coating of grime which silicon picks up rapidly -plus- the main point is that they are extraordinarily expensive compared to ponds and plumbing (for CO2). NREL has reported tank grown mixed algae strains which can surpass the 40% efficency figure anyway, and generally algae will continue to multiply for several hours after the sun goes down. The only comparison which counts in the least - therefore, is this: How much net energy, averaged over a full year, can be captured and stored per dollar of investment, less incremental costs. Under these criteria, which are the only ones which matter, it would not surprise any expert if the advantage of algoil over advanced silicon solar-cells turns out to be in the range of 50 times more energy returned per dollar of investment. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jed keeps harping on the low (2%?) solar conversion efficiency of growing biomass, I'll put my ~3.5 acres of irrigated farmland into Jatropha Curcas bushes, where land all around it is selling for $.50 to $1.50 per square foot, up against his "41% efficient Solar Collector" anytime. That is, If I can hire Jones Beene to do the harvesting and stompin/squeezing for energy storage. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_crop#Yields_of_common_crops_associated_with_biodiesel_production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha http://www.jatrophaseeds.com/jatropha_curcas.htm "Jatropha curcas grows almost anywhere, even on gravelly, sandy and saline soils. It can thrive on the poorest stony soil. It can grow even in the crevices of rocks. The leaves shed during the winter months form mulch around the base of the plant. The organic matter from shed leaves enhance earth-worm activity in the soil around the root-zone of the plants, which improves the fertility of the soil. Climatically, Jatropha curcas is found in the tropics and subtropics and likes heat, although it does well even in lower temperatures and can withstand a light frost. Its water requirement is extremely low and it can stand long periods of drought by shedding most of its leaves to reduce transpiration loss. Jatropha curcas is also suitable for preventing soil erosion and shifting of sand dunes. " Fred
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
What does big-oil fear more than Nancy Pelosi and the Dem-wits? Answer: the resourcefulness of the American farmer, backed by voter anti-tax sentiment in support of this 'local hero'. And now with aquaculture and depleted fishing resources - they also are fearing the emergence of low-cost sea-based aquaculture (algae harvesting). Oil prices cannot go much higher than $3.50-4.00 at the pump now, because of this looming price-cap - placed on oil NOT by the legislature (which would like to see it go even higher) but by the farm lobby and good-old capitalist profit-motive ... ...together with the clear realization in DC that that if the farmer and aquaculture get 'over the hump' and into full production and employment, then each will have the necessary voter bloc constituency - which can and WILL eliminate most taxes for the domestic product only, putting big-oil and big government spenders at competitive disadvantage. Part of the PR problem for algoil starts at the top. Vital info has been accumulated by NREL, but is not being released in a timely fashion. They are not comfortable with a massive shift of resources into aquaculture. However, discovery of this profit potential (in alternative fuel) is almost impossible to obfuscate. What we see now, in the recent boom in ethanol production will shift next year and beyond into a boom in aquaculture and biodiesel. There is little chance of turning back that trend --unless LENR, ZPE or hydrino-tech comes to the rescue. The late/great 300+ page study on algae - crammed full of disinformation from DoE is now 10 years old, and NREL was supposed to have a timely update with revised comparisons on the yield of the newer strains of algae, which are superior (as expected) and best techniques - but no one can find this revision online. Is this deliberate interference ? ...ah shucks, probably just being held-up a bit by Petro-insider "consultants" as it is very damaging to 'bidness' as they say in Dubai. At 10 years old, when crude was under $20 or about a fourth of what it is now - biodiesel from aquaculture was not then seen by DoE as competitive - so consequently they did NOT plan for it aggressively (as they should have). They even said: "Even with assumptions of $50 per ton of CO2 as a carbon credit, the cost of biodiesel never competes with the projected cost of petroleum diesel." That was their erroneous conclusion then! One hopes that we will not repeat that error and will plan aggressively and encourage the shift away from OPEC for the next ten years: which is based firmly biodiesel from aquaculture. Yields are up to 10,000 time higher per acre than soybeans, for instance. BTW this report does admit that 100% self-sufficiency is possible through aquaculture - but hardly a dent can be accomplished from agriculture alone (soy and corn). That "never competes" conclusion is what big-oil "wants" you to remember in 2007, but my-my -- look how a few oil-Wars change everything which was valid then, as now the wholesale price of petro-diesel at the pump in 2007 is actually higher than biodiesel in many places. The cost estimates for the ASP program developed in 1995 showed that algal biodiesel cost would range from $1.40 to $4.40 per gallon based on long-term projections - three times more than petro-diesel then. They also allude to the 'full-tax' or 'less-tax' implications. That is the very consideration which puts government at odds with citizens. Voters will pay modest taxes on biodiesel for road improvement but not massive taxes for sponsoring oil-wars or other pork. Yes that is a gross over-simplification of the embedded dynamics, but it gets to the crux of the problem. We, the citizens, want self-sufficiency and are willing to vote for the US farmer (or aquaculturist) in any way which will get us there, even if it means lower taxes for Hawks to wage war with. The current price of biodiesel has lived up to that estimate (actually below the low end of that estimate), but 2007 numbers for petro-diesel are much higher than DoE estimated then. The next ten years will be even harder to estimate, because biodiesel from algae itself will probably lower the rigged-price which the Arabs and OPEC can extort. They can and will sell oil any price necessary to ruin or stifle the competition, so we must protect biodiesel from predatory pricing and we can use one-sided taxes to do that. However, this will probably lower overall tax revenues -- so there is the problem in a nutshell. Duh! Average price per gallon in the USA, from DoE two years ago: Biodiesel (untaxed but from higher priced soy, NOT algae) $2.27 Diesel (taxed) $2.24 Gasoline (taxed) $2.11 Ethanol (untaxed) $1.86 I filled up today in California with regular gasoline at $3.25. I wish I had a diesel and would even pay more for biodiesel - but look at what little choice the consummer has in that regard. Forty percent of autos in Eu
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
True, however, in terms of weather patterns, a small temperature over a large area has more effect than large but concentrated. see el nino. On 4/2/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: leaking pen wrote: >Also, large ponds that are heated... that waste heat goes straight >up, and will change weather patterns. Well, we are only talking about doing this with waste heat from generators, and that already goes straight up. It is mostly released in the form of steam from the large conical cooling towers that many people mistakenly believe are nuclear reactors. (By the way, this steam kills millions of birds, many more than wind turbines do.) Still, this is a point well taken, and it might be a good idea to reduce evaporation from ponds, especially in arid places. In the photos of algae production in power plants that I saw recently, the algae was grown in large plastic bags exposed to sunlight. This would prevent evaporation. I cannot find those photos, but they are out there . . . somewhere. - Jed -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
leaking pen wrote: Also, large ponds that are heated... that waste heat goes straight up, and will change weather patterns. Well, we are only talking about doing this with waste heat from generators, and that already goes straight up. It is mostly released in the form of steam from the large conical cooling towers that many people mistakenly believe are nuclear reactors. (By the way, this steam kills millions of birds, many more than wind turbines do.) Still, this is a point well taken, and it might be a good idea to reduce evaporation from ponds, especially in arid places. In the photos of algae production in power plants that I saw recently, the algae was grown in large plastic bags exposed to sunlight. This would prevent evaporation. I cannot find those photos, but they are out there . . . somewhere. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
not in all of the us. a lot of empty ground is here in the southwest, and algae will grow year round. Also, large ponds that are heated... that waste heat goes straight up, and will change wehather patterns. On 4/2/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jones Beene wrote: >That is an artificial distinction. You definitely do NOT need, nor >even want "tanks". There are tanks in most of the prototypes now on line, such as this one: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/worlds_first_ca.php >In fact there are already plans and suggestions from NREL that >almost every power plant in the USA which now burns coal or natural >gas could and should be piping CO2 into an adjoining algae pond. In the U.S. outdoors it is too cold in winter for algae to grow naturally. (I have several ponds and streams, and I am quite familiar with the stuff.) You need to keep it warm, and exposed to sunlight. Therefore, a growing pond would have to be covered or heated with waste heat from the generator plant. I said "tanks" but I had in mind covered ponds or the plastic bags now being used for this application. There is plenty of waste heat at plants, not to mention CO2, so that is a promising technology. But you cannot have ponds thousands of hectares wide in natural conditions that are heated and that produce algae year-round in natural conditions (that is, without massive infusions of man-made heat or CO2). Algae grown at fossil fuel generator plants is probably a great idea, but it cannot begin to supply all of the liquid fuel we need for transportation (14,080 GWh/day). Naturally, it could if we were to reduce liquid fuel demand by a factor of 5 or 10, which we could easily do with plug-in hybrid cars. In a plug-in hybrid world, something like algae from fossil fuel plants would fit in perfectly, because it would reduce CO by half. That is to say, assuming the algae recovers all of the CO2 from the fossil fuel plants, it would end up using the same oxygen twice before finally converting it to CO2. - Jed -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Frederick Sparber wrote: > As soon as we get > back of the picture and stop polluting the water, we should also stop > harvesting the stuff. > Yes, otherwise it ends up in the ocean and rots. If so, that is what it has been doing for millions of years, and that's what it is "supposed" to do. You can bet that if we interfere on a scale large enough to satisfy a significant fraction of our energy needs, we will also disrupt some aspect of the ecosystem, starting with the species that cause the rotting. In other words, the scale of human energy production is simply too big for natural photosynethic processes. Not too big for wind or direct solar, or perhaps geothermal. Some natural energy sources are bigger than others. But I would prefer to see us use an unnatural source such as fission or cold fusion. As a rule, I think it is better for us and for the ecology if we step out of the loop, and no longer try to depend on nature for our needs. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jed Rothwell wrote. > > > Frederick Sparber wrote: > > >Don't leave out waste heat from nuclear power plants heating algae ponds, > >Jones. Plenty of "sequestered" CO2 to pipe to them, and it would > >help reduce cooling tower water usage, too. > > Where is "sequestered" CO2 near a nuclear plant? As I said, they > build these things far from cities, and also far from fossil fuel > plants. Or are you suggesting they should pipe CO2 from a fossil fuel > plant a few hundred kilometers away? That might work. I suppose it > does not take much energy to pump the gas. > That 1040 Megawatt Arizona Public Service natural gas fueled power plant is "about 50 miles west of Phoenix. So is the 3,900 Megawatt Palo Verde Nuke Plant. CO2 from ethanol plants and other sources is easy to compress to liquid for transport by truck, rail or pipeline (even as a mix with natural gas in off season). > > I must say though, I would much prefer to see them tear down the > coal-fueled plants and build nuclear plants or wind turbines. I > suppose you can pump CO2 from natural gas-fired plants, which will be > with us for a long time to come, alas. > > - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jed Rothwell wrote. > > Frederick Sparber wrote: > > >Pollution, Bloom, or not, Jed, all of the water from watershed runoff > >contains algae. > > Yes. Way too much. We should be trying to reduce that. > > > >Figure out how much algae is available per unit volume after you've > >allowed for feeding aquatic life and available natural plant > >nutrients. Cost effective > >harvesting using stream (gravity) flow since maximum production is near the > >surface, doesn't seem intractable. > > This sounds like a large scale project that may hurt the ecosystem, > especially if we curb the pollution that causes algae blooms, and > reduce the amounts to natural levels. The amount you should leave to > feed aquatic life is easily computed: it is exactly the amount that > nature has been providing for millions of years before we got into > the picture. Species are evolved to eat that much. > No problem there, Jed, we switch to eating fish and clams/mussells which frees up corn for E-85 production. :-) > > As soon as we get > back of the picture and stop polluting the water, we should also stop > harvesting the stuff. > Yes, otherwise it ends up in the ocean and rots. > > We should also stop harvesting wild fish, by the way. We should only > eat domesticated ones grown by us. > > In other words, it is not a good idea to remove millions of tons of > food from the ecosystem food chain for any reason, whether the food > will be eaten by fish (algae) or by people in Mexico (corn). I think > it would be far better to tap solar energy with less invasive > devices, such as wind turbines and solar-thermal collectors. > > Again, the reason boils down to the fact that natural photosynthesis > is inefficient; it takes a lot of sunlight to produce a little > chemical fuel. The latest solar cells are 400 times more efficient > per square meter than the best naturally occurring photosynthetic > conversion. Therefore, they will have a smaller impact on the ecosystem. > > Unnatural photosynthesis in a heated pond charged with CO2 from a > fossil fuel plant is an entirely different story. It is far better to > start with, and you might improve it with domesticated species of > algae. I have read there are some that might be far more efficient. > U.C. Berkeley has engineered a stain that might be 100,000 times > better at producing hydrogen than natural algae. See: > http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70273 > Blue-Green Algae is practically everywhere (airborne) as is CO2. As long as the water is warm and nutrients, NOx, and sunlight adequate you can see the O2 bubbles come off as the algae proliferate in a container. > > Domesticated species are often more efficient, but as I said > previously there is an inevitable trade-off: they cannot survive in > the wild. They are weak. For example, in food crops, we redirect most > of their metabolism to producing grain, which weakens their natural > defenses and other adoptions. If you plant human bred corn (maize) in > the middle of a meadow in the woods, it attracts too many herbivores, > and the seeds fall so thickly around the plant the next generation > does not survive. Natural corn -- the type that was first > domesticated by native Americans -- had smaller cobs with fewer grains. > Tis far better to plant Cannabis in the woods, I hear, even though it's agains the Law I fear... Unanimous. (at Berkely?) Must be a full moon out there. Fred. > Fred > > - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Frederick Sparber wrote: Don't leave out waste heat from nuclear power plants heating algae ponds, Jones. Plenty of "sequestered" CO2 to pipe to them, and it would help reduce cooling tower water usage, too. Where is "sequestered" CO2 near a nuclear plant? As I said, they build these things far from cities, and also far from fossil fuel plants. Or are you suggesting they should pipe CO2 from a fossil fuel plant a few hundred kilometers away? That might work. I suppose it does not take much energy to pump the gas. I must say though, I would much prefer to see them tear down the coal-fueled plants and build nuclear plants or wind turbines. I suppose you can pump CO2 from natural gas-fired plants, which will be with us for a long time to come, alas. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Frederick Sparber wrote: Pollution, Bloom, or not, Jed, all of the water from watershed runoff contains algae. Yes. Way too much. We should be trying to reduce that. Figure out how much algae is available per unit volume after you've allowed for feeding aquatic life and available natural plant nutrients. Cost effective harvesting using stream (gravity) flow since maximum production is near the surface, doesn't seem intractable. This sounds like a large scale project that may hurt the ecosystem, especially if we curb the pollution that causes algae blooms, and reduce the amounts to natural levels. The amount you should leave to feed aquatic life is easily computed: it is exactly the amount that nature has been providing for millions of years before we got into the picture. Species are evolved to eat that much. As soon as we get back of the picture and stop polluting the water, we should also stop harvesting the stuff. We should also stop harvesting wild fish, by the way. We should only eat domesticated ones grown by us. In other words, it is not a good idea to remove millions of tons of food from the ecosystem food chain for any reason, whether the food will be eaten by fish (algae) or by people in Mexico (corn). I think it would be far better to tap solar energy with less invasive devices, such as wind turbines and solar-thermal collectors. Again, the reason boils down to the fact that natural photosynthesis is inefficient; it takes a lot of sunlight to produce a little chemical fuel. The latest solar cells are 400 times more efficient per square meter than the best naturally occurring photosynthetic conversion. Therefore, they will have a smaller impact on the ecosystem. Unnatural photosynthesis in a heated pond charged with CO2 from a fossil fuel plant is an entirely different story. It is far better to start with, and you might improve it with domesticated species of algae. I have read there are some that might be far more efficient. U.C. Berkeley has engineered a stain that might be 100,000 times better at producing hydrogen than natural algae. See: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70273 Domesticated species are often more efficient, but as I said previously there is an inevitable trade-off: they cannot survive in the wild. They are weak. For example, in food crops, we redirect most of their metabolism to producing grain, which weakens their natural defenses and other adoptions. If you plant human bred corn (maize) in the middle of a meadow in the woods, it attracts too many herbivores, and the seeds fall so thickly around the plant the next generation does not survive. Natural corn -- the type that was first domesticated by native Americans -- had smaller cobs with fewer grains. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jones Beene wrote. > > > Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > As I said in a previous message, my remarks only apply to plantlife > > grown outdoors in North America. I said: "Growing algae in tanks is > > another matter." > > > > That is an artificial distinction. You definitely do NOT need, nor even > want "tanks". > > In fact there are already plans and suggestions from NREL that almost > every power plant in the USA which now burns coal or natural gas could > and should be piping CO2 into an adjoining algae pond. > Don't leave out waste heat from nuclear power plants heating algae ponds, Jones. Plenty of "sequestered" CO2 to pipe to them, and it would help reduce cooling tower water usage, too. Fred > > The cost of earthmoving to create large ponds is well known and de > minimis. Most power plants are located far removed from urban areas with > plenty of buffer land which is perfect for such ponds. Hot water is a > plus for algae, allowing full year-round growing. If every power plant > could convert even half of its normal CO2 emissions into algoil, then > this is a huge step forward towards eliminating Arab oil, and might > actually benefit the consummer in several ways. > > 1) less direct CO2 emission - near neutral net emission > 2) self-sufficient production of transportation fuel in the USA > 3) lower net cost of electricity, when the algoil is sold a profit. > > It is no coincidence that the huge recent sale of power-plants in Texas, > alluded to by Richard, will coincide with this shift towards algoil > production by power companies (formerly oil drillers). > > Jones
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Pollution, Bloom, or not, Jed, all of the water from watershed runoff contains algae. Figure out how much algae is available per unit volume after you've allowed for feeding aquatic life and available natural plant nutrients. Cost effective harvesting using stream (gravity) flow since maximum production is near the surface, doesn't seem intractable. Fred > [Original Message] > From: Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 4/2/2007 10:44:46 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza > > Frederick Sparber wrote: > > >Jones Beene did a Google satellite view of the area where the Colorado River > >enters the Gulf of California last year. > > Let me amend that: my statement applied to plant life grown outdoors > on land in North America, not in water. > > However, the huge algae blooms in water in rivers and in the ocean > are caused by pollution, so let us hope we eliminate them in the > future. I suppose they might be harvested in the meanwhile, but the > long-term goal should be to get rid of them. > > > >Enough Algae Bloom biofuel potential to run all the trucks and cars > >in the USA for months, not to mention the algae bloom on Lake Meade > >a few years ago. > > Well, you would have to find a way to keep the bloom there > permanently, which might not be easy, and I am sure it would violate > National Park rules. It might mess up the generators, too. But let's > check the numbers. > > Lake Meade, on the Colorado River, has a surface area of 620 km^2. > That's 620,000,000 square meters. It is arid, and solar energy > reaching the ground in North America arid places is about 500 W at > peak, or 1.5 kWh/m^2/day. > > This is outdoors, so we are talking about natural algae, not a bred > or domesticated species or genetically altered version. (Most > domesticated species are inherently weak, and cannot survive in the > wild.) Also, production will be seasonal. I believe natural algae > photosynthesis efficiency is . . . what? 2% overall? So that comes to: > > 18,600,000 kWh or 18.6 GWh. This is 86% of the output of a typical > U.S. nuclear reactor (900 MW running 24 hours = 21.6 GWh). That's an > impressive amount of energy to be sure, but the U.S. consumes 384.7 > million gallons/day of gasoline for transportation. See: > > http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html > > According to an on-line energy converter, that comes to > 14,080,020,000 kWh, so it is too low by a factor of 800. > > http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm > > This estimate seems wrong to me. I have double checked these numbers, > but I do not find the error, but this seems to indicate it would take > 651 nuclear reactors to supply liquid fuel for automobiles. That's > ~200 more generators of all types than the U.S. presently possesses. > Looking at it another way, the Annual Energy Review Diagram 1 shows > that in the U.S. nuclear plants contributes 8.15 Quads per year. > There are about 100 nuclear plants. Transportation consumes 26.52 > quads, so if you could magically convert nuclear electricity into > transportation energy, it would take 325 reactors. Taking into > account the comparative inefficiency of internal combustion engines, > perhaps it would take twice as many, after all. > > Lake Meade is the largest man-made body of water, and we would need > 800 more like that, all filled with noxious gunk. > > You can see from this how horribly inefficient internal combustion > gasoline based transportation is. Compared to other major energy > consuming technology, such as lightbulbs and power generators, > automobiles are stuck about 50 to 100 years behind the times. Rather > than trying to supply these ridiculous machines with liquid fuel, it > makes far more sense improve the efficiency of the machines, and > reduce or eliminate their need for liquid fuel. > > - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
I wrote: Lake Meade, on the Colorado River, has a surface area of 620 km^2. That's 620,000,000 square meters. It is arid, and solar energy reaching the ground in North America arid places is about 500 W at peak, or 1.5 kWh/m^2/day. I believe natural algae photosynthesis efficiency is . . . what? 2% overall? So that comes to: 18,600,000 kWh or 18.6 GWh. This is 86% of the output of a typical U.S. nuclear reactor . . . I could be wrong about that 2%. I am sure that algae grows better in the heated, CO2 enriched ponds next to fossil fuel plants, that Jones Beene discussed. In Chapter 16 of my book, I computed that plants grown under ideal conditions in the Japanese food factories convert as much as 15% of the light energy into food. This is light in a narrow wavelength of PAR, and the atmosphere is enriched with extra CO2. I doubt that a heated outdoor pond -- even one supercharged with CO2 -- is as good as the food factory, so I suppose algae is somewhere between 2 and 15%. It would be way better per square-meter than using Lake Meade or some other unheated natural body of water. However, if you want to tap solar energy, I think it would be more efficient and cost-effective to make a 620 km^2 solar-electric generator plant collection space. This is ~20% efficient, so it would be equivalent to ~8 U.S. nuclear plants. You could put ~100 km^2 near Las Vegas, and another ~200 km^2 near Los Angeles, and you would eliminate their daytime demand for electricity, which is high because of air conditioning. Transportation consumes 26.52 quads, so if you could magically convert nuclear electricity into transportation energy, it would take 325 reactors. I meant convert it into gasoline directly. You can use the nuclear electricity in railroad commuter trains or plug-in hybrid cars, and these are far more efficient than gasoline-powered internal combustion engine-only cars. I suppose ~200 standard U.S. nukes that produce 16 quads per year would be roughly enough for a fleet of hybrid plug-in cars and trucks. You still need liquid fuel for long distance transportation, so you use ~200 nukes for electricity plus fuel from the algae grown at the ~250 existing fossil fuel plants (nuke equivalent; actually we have more than 250). You might use waste heat from the nuke plants, but there is no ready source of enriched CO2 next to them. No fossil fuel, and they tend to be far from cities, so no garbage or sewage either. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jones Beene wrote: That is an artificial distinction. You definitely do NOT need, nor even want "tanks". There are tanks in most of the prototypes now on line, such as this one: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/worlds_first_ca.php In fact there are already plans and suggestions from NREL that almost every power plant in the USA which now burns coal or natural gas could and should be piping CO2 into an adjoining algae pond. In the U.S. outdoors it is too cold in winter for algae to grow naturally. (I have several ponds and streams, and I am quite familiar with the stuff.) You need to keep it warm, and exposed to sunlight. Therefore, a growing pond would have to be covered or heated with waste heat from the generator plant. I said "tanks" but I had in mind covered ponds or the plastic bags now being used for this application. There is plenty of waste heat at plants, not to mention CO2, so that is a promising technology. But you cannot have ponds thousands of hectares wide in natural conditions that are heated and that produce algae year-round in natural conditions (that is, without massive infusions of man-made heat or CO2). Algae grown at fossil fuel generator plants is probably a great idea, but it cannot begin to supply all of the liquid fuel we need for transportation (14,080 GWh/day). Naturally, it could if we were to reduce liquid fuel demand by a factor of 5 or 10, which we could easily do with plug-in hybrid cars. In a plug-in hybrid world, something like algae from fossil fuel plants would fit in perfectly, because it would reduce CO by half. That is to say, assuming the algae recovers all of the CO2 from the fossil fuel plants, it would end up using the same oxygen twice before finally converting it to CO2. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Frederick Sparber wrote: Jones Beene did a Google satellite view of the area where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California last year. Let me amend that: my statement applied to plant life grown outdoors on land in North America, not in water. However, the huge algae blooms in water in rivers and in the ocean are caused by pollution, so let us hope we eliminate them in the future. I suppose they might be harvested in the meanwhile, but the long-term goal should be to get rid of them. Enough Algae Bloom biofuel potential to run all the trucks and cars in the USA for months, not to mention the algae bloom on Lake Meade a few years ago. Well, you would have to find a way to keep the bloom there permanently, which might not be easy, and I am sure it would violate National Park rules. It might mess up the generators, too. But let's check the numbers. Lake Meade, on the Colorado River, has a surface area of 620 km^2. That's 620,000,000 square meters. It is arid, and solar energy reaching the ground in North America arid places is about 500 W at peak, or 1.5 kWh/m^2/day. This is outdoors, so we are talking about natural algae, not a bred or domesticated species or genetically altered version. (Most domesticated species are inherently weak, and cannot survive in the wild.) Also, production will be seasonal. I believe natural algae photosynthesis efficiency is . . . what? 2% overall? So that comes to: 18,600,000 kWh or 18.6 GWh. This is 86% of the output of a typical U.S. nuclear reactor (900 MW running 24 hours = 21.6 GWh). That's an impressive amount of energy to be sure, but the U.S. consumes 384.7 million gallons/day of gasoline for transportation. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html According to an on-line energy converter, that comes to 14,080,020,000 kWh, so it is too low by a factor of 800. http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm This estimate seems wrong to me. I have double checked these numbers, but I do not find the error, but this seems to indicate it would take 651 nuclear reactors to supply liquid fuel for automobiles. That's ~200 more generators of all types than the U.S. presently possesses. Looking at it another way, the Annual Energy Review Diagram 1 shows that in the U.S. nuclear plants contributes 8.15 Quads per year. There are about 100 nuclear plants. Transportation consumes 26.52 quads, so if you could magically convert nuclear electricity into transportation energy, it would take 325 reactors. Taking into account the comparative inefficiency of internal combustion engines, perhaps it would take twice as many, after all. Lake Meade is the largest man-made body of water, and we would need 800 more like that, all filled with noxious gunk. You can see from this how horribly inefficient internal combustion gasoline based transportation is. Compared to other major energy consuming technology, such as lightbulbs and power generators, automobiles are stuck about 50 to 100 years behind the times. Rather than trying to supply these ridiculous machines with liquid fuel, it makes far more sense improve the efficiency of the machines, and reduce or eliminate their need for liquid fuel. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jed Rothwell wrote: As I said in a previous message, my remarks only apply to plantlife grown outdoors in North America. I said: "Growing algae in tanks is another matter." That is an artificial distinction. You definitely do NOT need, nor even want "tanks". In fact there are already plans and suggestions from NREL that almost every power plant in the USA which now burns coal or natural gas could and should be piping CO2 into an adjoining algae pond. The cost of earthmoving to create large ponds is well known and de minimis. Most power plants are located far removed from urban areas with plenty of buffer land which is perfect for such ponds. Hot water is a plus for algae, allowing full year-round growing. If every power plant could convert even half of its normal CO2 emissions into algoil, then this is a huge step forward towards eliminating Arab oil, and might actually benefit the consummer in several ways. 1) less direct CO2 emission - near neutral net emission 2) self-sufficient production of transportation fuel in the USA 3) lower net cost of electricity, when the algoil is sold a profit. It is no coincidence that the huge recent sale of power-plants in Texas, alluded to by Richard, will coincide with this shift towards algoil production by power companies (formerly oil drillers). Jones
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jones Beene wrote. > > > Fred, > > ... chances are, the biofuel skeptic will chose to opine that > "Albuquerque" must be on Mars, since earthlings without a spell-checker > could never get there from here > Not hard to find on a map of Bernalillio County NM, Jones, once you figure out how to spell "Burn-ah-Leo". My spell checker offered Bengali and Bernoulli. :-) http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=bernalillo%20county%20nm&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl Fred
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Plenty of available nitrogen (NOx - SOx) and mineral ash from coal-fired power plants, plus recycle of potassium and phosphate and iron etc., from burning of the algae residues, Steven. Fred - Original Message - From: Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: 4/2/2007 8:57:38 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza Can someone help clarify: What is the algae's food source? Surely there's more to this recycling equation than just supplying the little critters CO2. How difficult or easy will it be to supply all the required nutrients to make an economical go of this? Most of these articles seem to skim over the little fiddly bits. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com > > Frederick Sparber wrote, in a message about algae: > > >Jones Beene wrote: > > > >Advanced biofuels, on the other hand, like butanol and algoil are > >here to stay. > > > > > Sure, as soon as we can grow them on Mars, I suppose. Here on > > planet Earth we barely have enough room to grow enough food. > > As I said in a previous message, my remarks only apply to plantlife > grown outdoors in North America. I said: "Growing algae in tanks is > another matter." > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jed Rothwell wrote. > > To: > Date: 4/2/2007 8:47:38 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza > > Frederick Sparber wrote, in a message about algae: > > >Jones Beene wrote: > > > >Advanced biofuels, on the other hand, like butanol and algoil are > >here to stay. > > > > > Sure, as soon as we can grow them on Mars, I suppose. Here on > > planet Earth we barely have enough room to grow enough food. > > As I said in a previous message, my remarks only apply to plant life > grown outdoors in North America. I said: "Growing algae in tanks is > another matter." > Jones Beene did a Google satellite view of the area where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California last year. Enough Algae Bloom biofuel potential to run all the trucks and cars in the USA for months, not to mention the algae bloom on Lake Meade a few years ago. Fred > > - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Can someone help clarify: What is the algae's food source? Surely there's more to this recycling equation than just supplying the little critters CO2. How difficult or easy will it be to supply all the required nutrients to make an economical go of this? Most of these articles seem to skim over the little fiddly bits. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com > > Frederick Sparber wrote, in a message about algae: > > >Jones Beene wrote: > > > >Advanced biofuels, on the other hand, like butanol and algoil are > >here to stay. > > > > > Sure, as soon as we can grow them on Mars, I suppose. Here on > > planet Earth we barely have enough room to grow enough food. > > As I said in a previous message, my remarks only apply to plantlife > grown outdoors in North America. I said: "Growing algae in tanks is > another matter." > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Frederick Sparber wrote, in a message about algae: Jones Beene wrote: Advanced biofuels, on the other hand, like butanol and algoil are here to stay. > Sure, as soon as we can grow them on Mars, I suppose. Here on planet Earth we barely have enough room to grow enough food. As I said in a previous message, my remarks only apply to plantlife grown outdoors in North America. I said: "Growing algae in tanks is another matter." - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Fred, ... chances are, the biofuel skeptic will chose to opine that "Albuquerque" must be on Mars, since earthlings without a spell-checker could never get there from here
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
http://www.aps.com/general_info/newsrelease/newsreleases/NewsRelease_358.html November 30, 2006 Phoenix, AZ - Algae bioreactor system connected directly to smokestack of APS' Redhawk 1,040 megawatt power plant recycles greenhouse gases into renewable biofuels PHOENIX, Ariz. and Cambridge Mass. - Arizona Public Service Company (APS) and GreenFuel Technologies Corporation have announced that they have successfully recycled the carbon dioxide (CO2) from the stack gases of a power plant into transportation grade biofuels. The announcement was made at the Platts Global Energy Awards ceremonies today in New York. Using GreenFuel's Emissions-to-Biofuels algae bioreactor system connected to APS' 1,040 megawatt Redhawk power plant in Arlington, Ariz., GreenFuel was able to create a carbon-rich algal biomass with sufficient quality and concentration of oils and starch content to be converted into transportation-grade biodiesel and ethanol. "We estimate that this process can absorb as much as 80 percent of CO2 emissions during the daytime at a natural gas fired power plant," said GreenFuel CEO Cary Bullock. "Unlike typical agricultural biofuel feedstocks such as soybeans or corn which have a limited harvest window, algae multiply every hour can be harvested every day." - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l Sent: 4/2/2007 4:31:32 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza Jones Beene wrote: Advanced biofuels, on the other hand, like butanol and algoil are here to stay. > Sure, as soon as we can grow them on Mars, I suppose. Here on planet Earth we > barely have enough room to grow enough food. > > - Jed http://www.pnm.com/news/2006/073106_biomass.htm "Albuquerque: PNM and Western Water and Power Production have signed a 20-year agreement to deliver renewable energy from a new 35 megawatt biomass power plant. The plant will go into service in early 2009 and will be located in Torrance County, near Estancia, N.M. The plant will be sited on 50 acres adjacent to Tagawa Greenhouses, which will utilize waste heat from the facility to heat the greenhouse and potentially increase production". More. http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18138/page1/ "Relatively high oil prices, advances in technology, and the Bush administration's increased emphasis on renewable fuels are attracting new interest in a potentially rich source of biofuels: algae. A number of startups are now demonstrating new technology and launching large research efforts aimed at replacing hundreds of millions of gallons of fossil fuels by 2010, and much more in the future. Algae makes oil naturally. Raw algae can be processed to make biocrude, the renewable equivalent of petroleum, and refined to make gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and chemical feedstocks for plastics and drugs. Indeed, it can be processed at existing oil refineries to make just about anything that can be made from crude oil. This is the approach being taken by startups Solix Biofuels, based in Fort Collins, CO, and LiveFuels, based in Menlo Park, CA. Alternatively, strains of algae that produce more carbohydrates and less oil can be processed and fermented to make ethanol, with leftover proteins used for animal feed. This is one of the potential uses of algae produced by startup GreenFuel Technologies Corporation, based in Cambridge, MA." http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-powerplants_x.htm "Even though it's early yet, and may be a long shot, "the technology is quite fascinating," says Barry Worthington, executive director of US Energy Association in Washington, which represents electric utilities, government agencies, and the oil and gas industry. One key is selecting an algae with a high oil density about 50% of its weight. Because this kind of algae also grows so fast, it can produce 15,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre. Just 60 gallons are produced from soybeans, which along with corn are the major biodiesel crops today. Greenfuel isn't alone in the algae-to-oil race. Last month, Greenshift Corporation, a Mount Arlington, N.J., technology incubator company, licensed CO2-gobbling algae technology that uses a screen-like algal filter. It was developed by David Bayless, a researcher at Ohio University." http://www.greenfuelonline.com/press_releases.htm
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jones Beene wrote: Advanced biofuels, on the other hand, like butanol and algoil are here to stay. > Sure, as soon as we can grow them on Mars, I suppose. Here on planet Earth we > barely have enough room to grow enough food. > > - Jed http://www.pnm.com/news/2006/073106_biomass.htm "Albuquerque: PNM and Western Water and Power Production have signed a 20-year agreement to deliver renewable energy from a new 35 megawatt biomass power plant. The plant will go into service in early 2009 and will be located in Torrance County, near Estancia, N.M. The plant will be sited on 50 acres adjacent to Tagawa Greenhouses, which will utilize waste heat from the facility to heat the greenhouse and potentially increase production". More. http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18138/page1/ "Relatively high oil prices, advances in technology, and the Bush administration's increased emphasis on renewable fuels are attracting new interest in a potentially rich source of biofuels: algae. A number of startups are now demonstrating new technology and launching large research efforts aimed at replacing hundreds of millions of gallons of fossil fuels by 2010, and much more in the future. Algae makes oil naturally. Raw algae can be processed to make biocrude, the renewable equivalent of petroleum, and refined to make gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and chemical feedstocks for plastics and drugs. Indeed, it can be processed at existing oil refineries to make just about anything that can be made from crude oil. This is the approach being taken by startups Solix Biofuels, based in Fort Collins, CO, and LiveFuels, based in Menlo Park, CA. Alternatively, strains of algae that produce more carbohydrates and less oil can be processed and fermented to make ethanol, with leftover proteins used for animal feed. This is one of the potential uses of algae produced by startup GreenFuel Technologies Corporation, based in Cambridge, MA." http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-powerplants_x.htm "Even though it's early yet, and may be a long shot, "the technology is quite fascinating," says Barry Worthington, executive director of US Energy Association in Washington, which represents electric utilities, government agencies, and the oil and gas industry. One key is selecting an algae with a high oil density about 50% of its weight. Because this kind of algae also grows so fast, it can produce 15,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre. Just 60 gallons are produced from soybeans, which along with corn are the major biodiesel crops today. Greenfuel isn't alone in the algae-to-oil race. Last month, Greenshift Corporation, a Mount Arlington, N.J., technology incubator company, licensed CO2-gobbling algae technology that uses a screen-like algal filter. It was developed by David Bayless, a researcher at Ohio University." http://www.greenfuelonline.com/press_releases.htm
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Terry Blanton wrote: On 3/31/07, Taylor J. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Iranians are almost certain to mine the straits of Hormuz if their oil fields are attacked, I'm a lot more concerned about the rocket propelled torpedo. Did anybody listen to the Glen Beck interview of Jerry B Jenkins and Joel Rosenberg? I emailed Glen inquiring about an archived audio. I'm old enough to remember questioning Russian and Iran becoming allies. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
On 3/31/07, Taylor J. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Iranians are almost certain to mine the straits of Hormuz if their oil fields are attacked, Ocean mines are no longer a threat. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Hi All, Just an afterthought: When is "two queens" a winning hand? Answer: When they are the major shareholders in British Petroleum and Roayal Dutch Shell. Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
leaking pen wrote: This may make wood alchohol production useful again, as you can now break down both the lignin AND the cellulose. Hi All, Methanol from coal should be a crash priority of the US government. The Iranians are almost certain to mine the straits of Hormuz if their oil fields are attacked, and the Oil Gang is thus guaranteed a financial killing; but, as Jones points out, most of us will be waiting in long lines. Of course, methanol can be made from wood and from the methane coming out of oil wells and land fills -- almost any organic feed stock can be turned into menthanol. The safety and practicality of methanol as been shown for years at the Indianapolis 500. Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
This may make wood alchohol production useful again, as you can now break down both the lignin AND the cellulose. On 3/30/07, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: leaking pen wrote: > Theres direct cellulose conversion now? Yup. Only this year has the Rumpelstiltskin effect come into fruition - with at least three companies moving from pilot plants to full production. One leading contender is called Dyadic. They are a bit tight-lipped, but the plant pictured here has been in operation for several months now : http://www.dyadic-group.com/pdf/DyadicAd.pdf Here is an story on them last year from Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_51/b4014081.htm BTW in Grimm's fairy tale, Rumpelstiltskin spins straw into gold. There are various ways to do this with biomass. Cellulose ethanol generally exhibits a net energy content three times higher than corn derived ethanol based on the weight of input raw material. The economics of this are staggering. Dyadic, started doing this commercially a few months ago by converting Distiller's Grain - since it is in effect "free" as a low value co-product of corn fermentation. Their enzyme process and those of other competitors will work on many kinds of biomass, but the enzymes need to be tailored to specific raw materials, like corn stalks or saw grass. There are literally millions of acres in the mid-west where wheat straw is left standing in the field, after harvest benefiting no one. The US Department of Agriculture says that wheat straw hemicellulose can be easily hydrolyzed enzymatically by using 'Viscostar' from Dyadic, and that alone could provide several billion gallons of new cellulose ethanol with zero effect on food - since it is now unused straw from growing wheat. Same with rice straw and cotton stems and other waste crops. Of course there is massive biofuel potential in forests, especially in Canada. None of this has any effect on food cost - as does corn. But hey, you have to learn to crawl before you can run, and that is where we are now in the process of dumping Arab oil in favor of energy self-sufficiency. Thank heavens these far-sighted (and lucky) scientists and inventors neglected to read what's-his-name... Jones -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
leaking pen wrote: Theres direct cellulose conversion now? Yup. Only this year has the Rumpelstiltskin effect come into fruition - with at least three companies moving from pilot plants to full production. One leading contender is called Dyadic. They are a bit tight-lipped, but the plant pictured here has been in operation for several months now : http://www.dyadic-group.com/pdf/DyadicAd.pdf Here is an story on them last year from Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_51/b4014081.htm BTW in Grimm's fairy tale, Rumpelstiltskin spins straw into gold. There are various ways to do this with biomass. Cellulose ethanol generally exhibits a net energy content three times higher than corn derived ethanol based on the weight of input raw material. The economics of this are staggering. Dyadic, started doing this commercially a few months ago by converting Distiller's Grain - since it is in effect "free" as a low value co-product of corn fermentation. Their enzyme process and those of other competitors will work on many kinds of biomass, but the enzymes need to be tailored to specific raw materials, like corn stalks or saw grass. There are literally millions of acres in the mid-west where wheat straw is left standing in the field, after harvest benefiting no one. The US Department of Agriculture says that wheat straw hemicellulose can be easily hydrolyzed enzymatically by using 'Viscostar' from Dyadic, and that alone could provide several billion gallons of new cellulose ethanol with zero effect on food - since it is now unused straw from growing wheat. Same with rice straw and cotton stems and other waste crops. Of course there is massive biofuel potential in forests, especially in Canada. None of this has any effect on food cost - as does corn. But hey, you have to learn to crawl before you can run, and that is where we are now in the process of dumping Arab oil in favor of energy self-sufficiency. Thank heavens these far-sighted (and lucky) scientists and inventors neglected to read what's-his-name... Jones
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Theres direct cellulose conversion now? I'm behind on the technology, obviously. On 3/30/07, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: leaking pen wrote: > I for one never understood CORN being used. grow something with a > higher fruit yeild per acre, and sugar yeild per pound. The decision for growing corn is not 'ordered' at even a regional level but is made at a much lower level - the individual farmer. From the perspective of the farmer - all the variables for corn are known through years of experience - and if the price is right, he will grow it. Much higher yields for cellulose are available with other crops, but from the farmer's perspective, it is too risky to grow these, as the variables are not well-known - and the price he can secure is not firm. Things change however - in a farmer's-cooperative-association - where the decision is based on how much total fuel they can sell from the available crops - and the risk/reward is shared. That systemic change is expected to happen soon with state encouragement in selected areas, and it is unlikely that corn will be the choice. As for sugar - that product may be irrelevant now that cellulose can be converted, and the net yield of sugar (beets are used in Europe) is always going to be 50-75% less per acre than raw cellulose. Jones -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jones Beene wrote: As Pimentel has pointed out ... Utterly meaningless. The guy is an antiquated and misguided zealot . . . Because he does biology, and presents quantitative, reality-based arguments, I suppose. I agree that in the new era of fact-free touchy-feeling "truthiness" this kind of thing is unacceptable. Policy can be as crazy as you like as long as it feels good, and looks good in TV advertisements featuring yeoman farmers standing proudly in the sunset. with zero credibility among the decision makers on either side of the aisle- as witnessed by the massive changes already underway. You mean the massive mistakes now underway. Billions of dollars being thrown away on a technology that cannot work even in principle, and that will certainly result in the deaths of millions of innocent people by starvation, and the destabilization of Mexico, China and many of other countries, not to mention a drastic increase in food prices here in the U.S. Yet another Bush administration triumph, along with Afghanistan, Iraq and hurricane Katrina. The "decision makers" also pay attention to food producers and consumers. These people also have political power. The Coca-Cola Company, for example, does not appreciate it when the government pays other people a huge subsidy to waste Coca-Cola's raw materials. People have come to realize that a huge giveaway program to the oil industry -- massive, subsidized waste and grotesque inefficiency -- is not in their interest. They have been complaining in recent months. I predict they will put a stop to this madness before half the U.S. food crop is burned up every year as a gift to OPEC. Advanced biofuels, on the other hand, like butanol and algoil are here to stay. Sure, as soon as we can grow them on Mars, I suppose. Here on planet Earth we barely have enough room to grow enough food. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
leaking pen wrote: I for one never understood CORN being used. grow something with a higher fruit yeild per acre, and sugar yeild per pound. The decision for growing corn is not 'ordered' at even a regional level but is made at a much lower level - the individual farmer. From the perspective of the farmer - all the variables for corn are known through years of experience - and if the price is right, he will grow it. Much higher yields for cellulose are available with other crops, but from the farmer's perspective, it is too risky to grow these, as the variables are not well-known - and the price he can secure is not firm. Things change however - in a farmer's-cooperative-association - where the decision is based on how much total fuel they can sell from the available crops - and the risk/reward is shared. That systemic change is expected to happen soon with state encouragement in selected areas, and it is unlikely that corn will be the choice. As for sugar - that product may be irrelevant now that cellulose can be converted, and the net yield of sugar (beets are used in Europe) is always going to be 50-75% less per acre than raw cellulose. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
I for one never understood CORN being used. grow something with a higher fruit yeild per acre, and sugar yeild per pound. On 3/30/07, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Recent negative comments on Vortex on this subject are short-sighted and counter productive, despite the fact that ethanol itself is not a desirable transportation fuel. It is all about infrastructure, 'stepping stones', stop-gap solutions, and the ramping up of domestic farm production with what we have now - in anticipation of what we will have in two to three years time. The Agriculture Department said that US farmers intend to plant 90.5 million acres of corn this summer, the highest level since 1944, when the USA was in effect feeding most of the War-ravaged World. ... and up from 78.3 million acres year-ago levels, which was already high historically - an increase of over 15% year to year. Much of this will go into ethanol/butanol. It is not clear what percentage of that will also employ corn cellulose, which can double the yield per acre planted. In reality, the corn to ethanol process is only viable today because of Federal subsidies and tax breaks. These are the result of political support of farm belt congressional representatives and politically powerful farming organizations and major agricultural corporations. Many observers have noted that when "push comes to shove" in the USA, the farm lobby is more powerful than the oil lobby. In fact a great deal of allow farm land is owned by big-oil. These subsidies are not unlike supports given to oil producers in the past - but still the trend to ethanol would be alarming - except for two extremely bright spots in alternative energy R&D, closely related to corn-to-ethanol which do make excellent sense: Algoil (biodiesel from algae) and cellulose-to-butanol (and cross-over technologies). We are only one to two years away from a major shift to these lab-proven technologies, however, and no further breakthroughs are required - just implementation of what we have (and sorting out of overlapping patent and IP rights) ... Therefore - the most valuable outcome of our current National fascination with the conversion of corn to ethanol is that it, and the infrastructure which is derived from it, may prove to be the direct stepping-stone along the efficient "real path" leading us to a sustainable carbon-neutral energy future, one that will provide us with increased home-based energy supplies and significantly reduce our input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - but *without* ethanol itself, in the longer time-frame. That 'real path' to self sufficiency is - and remains - under the same name: bio-fuel but it is not ethanol per se: it is cellulose-to-butanol -- or as an even better alternative: algoil. These are being produced now in pilot-plants and can take-over the entire infrastructure from ethanol easily. Here is some information which is more authoritative than DoA: the corn growers association: http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2007/march/031507a.asp Highlights: 1) Three billion gallons of new ethanol production capacity will come online in 2007. This is almost as much as total production in 2004. 2) NCGA President McCauley: "The industry is a lot closer to manufacturing ethanol from corn cellulose than many people think. Corn cellulose will become as important to the ethanol industry as corn starch already is." 3) The switch to Butanol. Butanol is a significantly better fuel than ethanol, and in principle (and in labs now) it can be 100% substituted using special fermentation yeasts... although for political expediency butanol is being plugged as 'complementary, not competitive". BP announced that it will invest $500 million into butanol in a partnership with DuPont and UC Berkeley to develop the new technology for butanol. Other oil companies are on-board because butanol is also being made as we speak from petroleum AND from coal. IOW it is the only transportation fuel which makes great economic sense to both the farmer, the oil driller, and the coal miner. With those three lobbies, its ultimate success is all but guaranteed. In most ways, butanol is superior to gasoline, as it is cleaner, safer, and less toxic. It is more expensive than gasoline now - but that is partly a function of low demand, which can change overnight - once the switch is mandated - at the pump. Unlike fuel ethanol, or even the 15% blend - with butanol zero changes to an auto engine are required to sue butanol. With more efficient hybrid autos, and with cellulose-to-butanol from the farm belt and Algoil from lake and offshore aquaculture (and flooded deserts) the USA can become self-sufficient in transportation fuel before the end of the decade. All that is required in political will-power and the active participation of big-oil - instead of active hindrance. We may need to be self-sufficient very soon as a practical matter - if the Hawks in DC and the UK decide to take-out the Iranian oil fie
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jed Rothwell wrote: As Pimentel has pointed out ... Utterly meaningless. The guy is an antiquated and misguided zealot with zero credibility among the decision makers on either side of the aisle- as witnessed by the massive changes already underway. As for developing improved ethanol, if we were to redirect the money we spend doing that to improved automobile efficiency and plug-in hybrids, we could easily cut our consumption to 20% to 50%, saving far more than ethanol can every supply. Of course hybrids are a big part of the solution. It is not "either/or", and it is definitely NOT about "improving ethanol". We should be focused precisely on the twin goals of fueling advanced hybrids with butanol, biodiesel, or algoil -- ...which fuels are more like 'anti-ethanol' than 'improved ethanol' -- and we should be heavily taxing Arab oil, at the point of entry, and oil company profits via the elimination of all allowances and incentives, in order to accomplish these twin goals. Ethanol will gradually fade from view and go out of use, in the next 5-7 years, under the weight of its own inefficiency, and with no need for sham arguments. Advanced biofuels, on the other hand, like butanol and algoil are here to stay. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza
Jones Beene wrote: It is all about infrastructure, 'stepping stones', stop-gap solutions, and the ramping up of domestic farm production with what we have now - in anticipation of what we will have in two to three years time. As Pimentel has pointed out, if we were to convert every scrap of new plant growth in the U.S. into fuel -- every leaf, branch and food crop -- this would supply less than half of our energy needs. Our entire food crop would not supply 20% of the automobile fuel we need. Plantlife grown in natural conditions in North America does not capture enough energy, period. All the technology in the world will not change this fact. Growing algae in tanks is another matter. A 25-gallon tank of fuel has as much energy as one adult consumes in a year. In a world in which thousands of children die every week from starvation, for the U.S. to convert food into automobile fuel is unspeakable. It is inhuman. It is like gathering up the corpses of those dead children and burning them for fuel. Of course we did not kill them directly, but our irresponsible decisions and our lunatic disregard for basic economics and physics contributed to their deaths. As for developing improved ethanol, if we were to redirect the money we spend doing that to improved automobile efficiency and plug-in hybrids, we could easily cut our consumption to 20% to 50%, saving far more than ethanol can every supply. - Jed
