People seem more angry and frustrated than ever, including blacks. I question whether the civil rights legislation of the 60's made things better or worse. Far better to let society develop organically from below. (And no, I don't mean that slavery was okay. Even that could have been made to wither on the vine through embargoes of southern cotton instead of all that bloodshed and misery.)
Algae grows extremely fast. Some strains can double in mass every few hours in direct sunlight. Using about the same area that we have dedicated to growing corn, for algae farming, we could replace all petro products with 100% renewable and carbon-neutral algae fuels. But algae can be grown in closed systems in the ocean. It doesn't require arable land or fresh water.
So did Exxon fund your research? Kidding. But seriously, has anyone attempted to make this a reality? Government? Existing energy companies? Venture capitalists? And I don't know why Exxon wouldn't want to get in on it. If anybody can bring it to market, they can. I know, I know, why cut their own throat. But if there's money to be made, they could ease into it. Hasn't at least one of the majors gotten into bio fuels, you know, with corn?
It has been coming for a long time. It was just a matter of getting the price down to competitive levels, identifying the most productive strains, and engineering better bioreactors and processing equipment. They have also been working on genetics and hybridization to improve yields. The price has come down from around $35 a gallon when I started on this, to about $5 a gallon. In particular, Exxon-Mobil is now running public education spots about the coming fuel source. Algae produces about 50 times more fuel, than does corn, per acre year.
I feel like I've seen that! Did you and the Exxon researchers collaborate on this, or perhaps review the same research? Doesn't everything except solar have some environmental downside? Even windmills kill birds, etc. There must be something that depends on algae. I did see your reference to a closed area.
Not a closed area, rather a closed system. In the case of ocean bioreactors, they will likely be little more than giant, floating, algae-water filled baggies connected in a large network of supports. You need methods for circulation and aeration, as well as ways to charge and harvest the system. So it gets complicated. But the basic requirements aren't horrible. There are always downsides. But it is THE most elegant solution I've seen in over 40 years of work and research. Firstly, ancient algae is responsible for much of today's crude oil. But there is no need to wait a million years. The algae oils can be harvested and made directly into quality fuels. Perhaps the biggest cost driver on a batch basis is the need for nitrogen fertilizer. When I ran the numbers for a 500 acre farm, I had to purchase nitrogen by the ton; many tons. But as it turns out, this can be produced as a byproduct of the generators needed to run the farm. I solved that one myself. The diesel generators burning algae fuel can be made to produce enough oxides of nitrogen to produce the required fertilizer. You just react the exhaust stream in a water scrubber. So the net effect is, that problem goes away. After you take out the oil used for fuels, the biomass remaining is a high-quality feed that can be used for cattle. If we produced enough fuel to replace petro, the residual algae mass would probably feed all of the cattle in the US. Retired oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico can be used as hubs and processing centers for many thousands of acres of algae bioreactors surrounding each of them.
This doesn't take algae away from anything. It can be farmed like food crops. In fact it has to be farmed. Wild strains tend towards significantly reduced yields. This is largely a factor of contamination and nutrient limits. It must be grown in a closed system to protect it from bacteria, viruses, invasive species, and parasites. And it is fed ideal quantities of CO2 and fertilizers to maximize the growth and yields.
Back in 2006, someone pointed me to The Aquatic Species Program, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf which was the DOE study of algae as a potential fuel source, back in the 80s. [thanks to none other than Jimmy Carter. This is probably his greatest contribution to humanity!] They showed it to be viable but fuels were just too cheap. That is no longer the case. I looked at the numbers, did a lot of research, and after a couple of months I was sold. It was the first total solution to the petro problem I had ever seen. And we know it works. It is just a matter of price. And we're almost there. I started a new company and put together a crack team of experts, including the nation's foremost expert on bio diesel. It was still too soon but we made a lot of progress. Solar definitely has a downside, Firstly, they use lead and cadmium in solar cells. They require lots of land. They have high losses. And they currently can't be recycled. The power stops when the sun goes down. And they have reduced yields due to weather. Beyond that, solar cells cannot replace petroleum. And for cases where it is practical for small cars, the batteries are another expensive and toxic nightmare. Algae is far more environmentally friendly than any other option. In fact, algae is a biological mechanism that uses solar energy to convert CO2 and water directly into fuel.
Algae 1) Can also be used to produce hydrogen for fuel. 2). Can used to produce biodegradable plastics 3) Can be used for waste and even toxic waste remediation [one early fuel company spun off as a water purification company using algae system, for fracking] 4) Can remove radioactive waste from water or sludge, for proper management. 5) Can be used to scrub industrial CO2 emissions, and then be used to produce fuel 6) Large open blooms can be created simply to absorb atmospheric carbon. Not good for the ocean but it can be controlled. The algae then dies and sinks, trapping the carbon forever in human terms. 7) Can be used for food for humans and animals. Some forms of algae are sold as health foods due to their high nutrient content. Perhaps most striking to me is that a fuel source doubles as a food source. THAT is elegance!
I think that life in a hotter, more extreme, more changeable climate will be more expensive too. Just a matter of when we will have to pay.
True if that comes to pass, it may. So the question is, How much of your paycheck are you willing to give up?, 30%, 50%, more?
It’s not about how much we are willing to give up but how much survival costs. I don’t know what it will cost.
Easy to say except what if we do nothing and all the doom and gloom never happens, or we spend all those recourses and we are still in the same boat? And if things get better how to prove those thing would have happened.
For me the doom and gloom is already here: everyone is crazy for electric cars, zillions of them. But as HereWeGo notes, all those batteries have to go somewhere... onto landfills already clogged with plastic? So yeah, I'm interested in this algae source. It sounds too good to be true, no offense to HereWeGo, but at this point we should give it a try. I don't know what I can do to help. Invest in an algae farm, I suppose, but we have a glut of petroleum now and so prices aren't going up, so I dont know what pressure can be brought to bear against it. Vote for Warren I suppose, and tell Big Oil, "You guys are done"? I doubt even she believes that to be realistic.
The cost of algae fuels are down from about $35 a gallon 13 years ago, to about $5 now. So it is almost price competitive. And it is entirely compatible with the existing energy infrastructure.
https://modernfarmer.com/2018/06/could-algae-replace-grain-in-cattles-diet/ Note the farmer's perspective. They see it as a potential food source with other benefits that can be "siphoned off". I see it as a fuel source that doubles as a food source. Either way, I get to keep eating steak and driving a real car.
music went to crap politics went to crap I got out of highschool i guess it was my overly dramatic way of saying " the 80's rule"
