Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming.

From: Ed Earl Ross (edearl_at_satx.rr.com)
Date: 01/26/05 

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:55:50 GMT

Ed Earl Ross wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Ed Earl Ross wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Ed,
>>
>>>
>>> At least, the government is recommending some biodiesel use instead
>>> of betting everything on H2. Though, it is likely this use of
>>> biodiesel passed because sulfur has been removed from petroleum
>>> diesel to stop acid rain. As a result, petroleum diesel does not
>>> lubricate as well, making engines wear faster. Adding a little
>>> biodiesel improves diesel lubrication, without acid rain.
>>
>>
>>
>> If it were about lubrication and there isn't a more economical
>> synthetic additive that would do the job...
>>
>>>
>>> IMO, land crops, such as soybeans, are a lousy choice, too. I'm
>>> betting on algae for biodiesel.
>>>
>>> Farms that now produce spirulina algae for human consumption get 10x
>>> faster growth than any land plant. It costs about $5000 per ton to
>>> grow and harvest--too much cost per ton for biodiesel production.
>>> However, spirulina isn't the right algae species for oil production,
>>> it contains little oil. The reason I mention spirulina costs is for
>>> comparison purposes. Commercial mass-production costs of spirulina
>>> are well established.
>>>
>>> Some diatom algae produce as much as 50% oil by weight, compared to
>>> 8% for spirulina. Unfortunately, there isn't much on the web about
>>> the growing diatoms for oil.
>>>
>>> Diatom growth may be sustainable at 30x land crop growth rates (3x
>>> better than spirulina). In addition, algae for oil need not be clean
>>> enough for human consumption, eliminating some costs such as hygienic
>>> plastic pond liners. Comparing diatoms to spirulina, growth rates are
>>> higher and pond construction costs are lower. These factors are
>>> encouraging. With some 100,000 species of diatom, it seems likely one
>>> will be found with very good oil production properties.
>>>
>>> My WAG is that farming diatoms or another algae to make biodiesel
>>> will be economically viable, sooner or later.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've left the algae angle on the shelf for now. If it could be made
>> economical at least it can be done with what may seem a reasonable
>> amount of land mass. (Did you said something about doing this in the
>> Ocean in the past?) Last I heard there was a potential 7% solar
>> efficiency, heating value to the fuel. Not great. Solar thermal,
>> (full packing), and EVs would see some ten times better utilization of
>> real estate. Ten times less real estate means ten times less equipment
>> area, (cost?).
>
>
> You may be right. However, EVs are not popular. IMO, to become popular
> they need bit more distance per charge, much faster charging, and higher
> top end speed. Other than the fact that no one buys them, they are a
> great solution for commuting. Mass transit is too. Unfortunately, they
> are not a long haul solution. A petroleum alternative is required for
> trucks, trains, airplanes and ships, if nothing else.
>
>> So say we can get 7%, full time production, and use the Arizona numbers.
>> http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/
>> horizontal flat, annual average, say 5.5kwh/m^2/day or 140kwh/m^2/year
>> at 7%. This is fuel, so about a half a mmbtu/m^2/year or five square
>> meters will produce a barrel of oil a year. (Check my number! I'm
>> doing this on the fly.)
>
>
> A report titled "A Look Back at the US Department of Energy's Aquatic
> Species Program" estimates less than 0.1% of land (200,000 acres =
> 40,468 hectare) in the US is required for algae to produce sufficient
> biodiesel.

The above paragraph is incorrect.

The report cited 200,000 hectares per quad of oil by algae. The US
uses about 95 quads of oil, and about 25% of the world's oil.

95 quads * 0.1% = 9.5% of suitable US land to produce biodiesel.

USA total land area = 915+M hectare

200,000 * 95 = 19M hectares

> Solar uses many m2 of space, and the 7% efficiency of algae takes more
> than either solar thermal or PV. Nonetheless, land isn't an issue. There
> is enough land for both solar electric and algae biodiesel, for the
> foreseeable in most parts of the world.
>
> The algae being studied typically like sea water or brackish water. In
> many countries, heretofore unused land can be used, for example desert
> near the sea. Elsewhere, land has been irrigated for so long it cannot
> grow conventional crops, and farmers need crops that can survive their
> salty land.
>
> There is also the possibility of growing the algae in equatorial waters.
> There are never hurricanes and many days of doldrums. The sun shines
> brightly for more days of the year, than anywhere else in the world.
> Unfortunately, I can find almost nothing on the web about this method of
> growing algae.
>
> A more reasonable comparison of solar electric vs algae for biodiesel
> would compare total installation and maintenance costs, rather than the
> area used for collection. I have no figures, but suspect the total costs
> will be similar--more land for algae and higher cost /m2 for solar
> electric. Do you have any figures?
>
>> So say we want to replace the next decade of growth in demand with
>> this oil. I'll round to 3.5^9 barrels a year or going on 2^10 meters^2
>> over the next decade. About 77, fully utilized, miles on a side, per
>> decade, just to keep up with new demand. I don't know, but this sounds
>> like a huge undertaking for 10 million barrels a day.
>
>
> Winning the oil endgame will be difficult, any way you cut it. It will
> require many technologies. IMO, biodiesel will be important, but only
> time will tell.
>
>>>>> Humbly--Ed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best, Dan.
>>
>>
>>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: But There Aint No Global Warming.
    ... >> I've left the algae angle on the shelf for now. ... >> amount of land mass. ... Last I heard there was a potential 7% solar ... The report cited 200,000 hectares per quad of oil by algae. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: But There Aint No Global Warming.
    ... it is likely this use of biodiesel ... >> IMO, land crops, such as soybeans, are a lousy choice, too. ... >> betting on algae for biodiesel. ... Last I heard there was a potential 7% solar ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: But There Aint No Global Warming.
    ... it is likely this use of biodiesel ... >> IMO, land crops, such as soybeans, are a lousy choice, too. ... >> betting on algae for biodiesel. ... Last I heard there was a potential 7% solar ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Fox News "Hydrogen Fuel May Not Be So Clean"
    ... > of oil per square meter per anum. ... US oil consumption is currently around 8L per person per ... > square meters of land is needed. ... Algae is at least 10x more productive than any land plant. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Oil/energy and the ending of modern society?
    ... there isn't enough land. ... "More recent studies using a species of algae with up to 50% oil ... of the US could be utilized to produce enough biodiesel to replace all ...
    (talk.origins)