Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tac on February 27, 2011, 05:01:15 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110227/ap_on_bi_ge/us_growing_fuel
snippets:
"Joule Unlimited has invented a genetically-engineered organism that it says simply secretes diesel fuel or ethanol wherever it finds sunlight, water and carbon dioxide."
"Joule claims, for instance, that its cyanobacterium can produce 15,000 gallons of diesel full per acre annually, over four times more than the most efficient algal process for making fuel. And they say they can do it at $30 a barrel."
:D :D :D
-
If this is true, it could be a game changer.
-
If this is true, it could be a game changer.
Gotta be hopeful for the future.... :pray
-
And they say they can do it at $30 a barrel."
until they realize they have the consumber by the testicles and can charge $100+ per barrel...
-
Not sure that this is such a "breakthrough".
I remember reading about biofuels from algae at least 10-12 years ago. Problem then, and now (unless they have made humongous strides) is that it takes a HUGE amount of water acreage to make a small amount of fuel.
There is just not that many places where company can set up a couple hundred million acres of algae ponds. You'd need someplace with lots of flat land, and perfect climate conditions, to hot the ponds evaporate in summer, to cold they freeze in winter.
EDIT: just read where they are claiming 15,000 gallons of diesel per acre per year. That is a big improvement over previous algae attempts if it's true.
Now my question is why don't we have more diesel powered cars in the US. In Europe you can get a 45mpg diesel full size Jaguar. In the US about the only diesels available are the Volkswagon TDI or BMW's. I had a cousin who drove a Ford Focus diesel in the UK getting 60+ mpg, I cannot conceive why Ford won't sell that option here, and put the silly Prius to shame.
-
Not sure that this is such a "breakthrough".
I remember reading about biofuels from algae at least 10-12 years ago. Problem then, and now (unless they have made humongous strides) is that it takes a HUGE amount of water acreage to make a small amount of fuel.
There is just not that many places where company can set up a couple hundred million acres of algae ponds. You'd need someplace with lots of flat land, and perfect climate conditions, to hot the ponds evaporate in summer, to cold they freeze in winter.
shreck they can do it all in florida. whole damn place is nothing but flat land, hot temperatures, 95% humidity and full of swamps. XD
As for the amount of land needed.. hmm.. thing is this breakthrough is that it doesn't consume the biomass to produce the fuel..the biomass itself secretes the fuel and does so constantly.
15000 gallons per acre per year.. is 1250 gallons per month. And thats their initial amount, no doubt if its viable there will be advances in squeezing a lot more fuel per acre.
Read the article :)
-
shreck they can do it all in florida. whole damn place is nothing but flat land, hot temperatures, 95% humidity and full of swamps. XD
As for the amount of land needed.. hmm.. thing is this breakthrough is that it doesn't consume the biomass to produce the fuel..the biomass itself secretes the fuel and does so constantly.
15000 gallons per acre per year.. is 1250 gallons per month. And thats their initial amount, no doubt if its viable there will be advances in squeezing a lot more fuel per acre.
Read the article :)
I was editing my post to reflect that as you wrote. And don't call me shreck. :lol
-
*points at the censorship bot*
i type h eck it posts shreck. :headscratch:
:P
-
We have naturally occurring algae in the thousands of lakes we have. Too bad producing oil in them would be an environmental disaster of a massive scale.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110227/ap_on_bi_ge/us_growing_fuel
snippets:
"Joule Unlimited has invented a genetically-engineered organism that it says simply secretes diesel fuel or ethanol wherever it finds sunlight, water and carbon dioxide."
"Joule claims, for instance, that its cyanobacterium can produce 15,000 gallons of diesel full per acre annually, over four times more than the most efficient algal process for making fuel. And they say they can do it at $30 a barrel."
:D :D :D
this would explain the push to tax co2............. :noid
-
Let's see if I'm doing this right...
15000 gallons per acre per year.
640 acres per square mile. <---( I live in the city so an acre is lost on me as far as a unit of measure is concerned.)
So 9,600,000 gallons of fuel per square mile per year.
Or 228,571 barrels per square mile per year.
According to CIA.gov https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html) the US consumes 18,690,000 (bbl/day) as estimated in 2009.
6,821,850,000 barrels per year.
10% of that would be 682,185,000 barrels. Divide that by 228,571 barrels per square mile/year = 2,985 square miles to produce 10% our yearly oil consumption. (I picked 10% because it is round, it is significant, it is feasible, and it is easy to multiply and divide by 10 :D.)
The state of Delaware is 1954 square miles. So we would need an area roughly 1 1/2 times the size of Delaware to support 10% of the yearly US oil consumption.
Possible?
-
The method of production will likely be increased once the system is up and running. From the article they are using solar-panel like setups to give the bacteria its sunlight...
and we know from other algae-fuel efforts that if they use a tower-grid setup they can exponentially increase the surface area exposed to sunlight where the algae can grow.
laymans terms they can put several 'layers' of the algae in the same 1 acre.. a 10 story building setup would mean 10 layers.. aka production is up 10X per acre.
-
According to a fairly good source 406.4 million acres (or 635,040 square miles) were used for farming purposes in 2007. For the sake of the argument lets look at what it take to produce 100% of the United States oil need for a year.
At 6,821,850,000 barrels of year you would need 29,845 square miles of fuel producing farmland. At 100% production that would still only represent around 4.7% of the annual farmland production total. Granted there is a lot more involve, most importantly that a lot of crude oil is used for other purposes. Certainly many of them not capable of using diesel or ethanol but think of what the price of crude oil would do.
If you offset the major uses, like fuel for automobiles, the cost per barrel of regular crude oil would plummet.
I truly hope we see the benefits this in the next five years....
Strip
-
You are thinking in a single plane format. Try seeing the algae farm as a multi-floor building (i.e. the vertical farm concept).
-
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j1414q2u5w25h788/fulltext.html
Theoretical calculations. It doesn't read like they actually have the genetically engineered cyanobacteria they base all the calcs on
We calculate efficiencies for this direct, continuous solar process based on common boundary conditions, empirical measurements and validated assumptions wherein genetically engineered cyanobacteria convert industrially sourced, high-concentration CO2 into secreted, fungible hydrocarbon products in a continuous process. These innovations are projected to operate at areal productivities far exceeding those based on accumulation and refining of plant or algal biomass or on prior assumptions of photosynthetic productivity. This concept, currently enabled for production of ethanol and alkane diesel fuel molecules, and operating at pilot scale, establishes a new paradigm for high productivity manufacturing of nonfossil-derived fuels and chemicals.
[...]
It is clear from this and other recent analyses focused on life cycles and energy balances (Stephens et al. 2010) that a very compelling case can be made for photosynthesis as a platform technology for renewable production of fuels. More specifically, an engineered cyanobacterial organism for direct continuous conversion of CO2 into infrastructure-compatible, secreted fuel molecules surpasses the productivities of alternatives that rely on the growth of biomass for downstream conversion into product.
I didn't slowly read thru everything, but the rest of the report looks the same. Theoretical calculations.
-
From their own website:
"We're currently achieving ethanol production at the rate of 10,000 gallons/acre/year in the lab, approximately 40% of our ultimate target."
So.. its being done. Or its altogether a lie.
-
It would be interesting to see Moray give a thought on this.
Anyway, my bio education as well as agricultural experience rather sais no to this. It is too much energy per square, since the max is the perfect catch through photosynthetis. These numbers are too high.
-
Now my question is why don't we have more diesel powered cars in the US. In Europe you can get a 45mpg diesel full size Jaguar. In the US about the only diesels available are the Volkswagon TDI or BMW's. I had a cousin who drove a Ford Focus diesel in the UK getting 60+ mpg, I cannot conceive why Ford won't sell that option here, and put the silly Prius to shame.
From what I understand it mainly has to do with the different ways the EU and the US handle diesel emissions. The Europeans use urea injection to clean up the the emissions where the epa mandates that vehicle emissions control must be passive with a life span of 50k miles iirc.
That and Americans don't seem to embrace diesel technology they still think of diesel powered vehicles as slow, stinky, and smoky.
-
until they realize they have the consumber by the testicles and can charge $100+ per barrel...
:aok
-
From what I understand it mainly has to do with the different ways the EU and the US handle diesel emissions. The Europeans use urea injection to clean up the the emissions where the epa mandates that vehicle emissions control must be passive with a life span of 50k miles iirc.
That and Americans don't seem to embrace diesel technology they still think of diesel powered vehicles as slow, stinky, and smoky.
sadly your right with this whole post, but to me the most important part is bolded. it is proven that Diesel, without and emission restrictions (I.e no catalytic converters), burn cleaner then cars with a catalytic converter.
Volkswagen offers a TDI engine in some of their models...for extra money...which should not be the case when fuel economy comes to mind, but the gas engines help big business oil companies.
back to the OP,I only saw mention of diesel in that article. and if all the company can make is diesel we as the consumer could have an issue.... at $30 a barrel for diesel with this technology that is how much cheaper then for a barrel of diesel now? the taxes on diesel would be enormous, or the tables would shift and the prices on regular 85 octane fuel would be the price of diesel. Granted, that would help the food prices a little, considering the farmers that use the diesel for theyre tractors and the trucks that bring the product of the farms to market use diesel and both the farmer and truck driver would be spending less, therefore, in theory, the food prices go down, but the everyday consumer of regular gas would be spending just as much in the end. no?
The technology is great, dont get me wrong, but it needs to level the ground across the whole field, not just the diesel, to win me over completely.
-
MaSonz, are you forgetting they are also creating ethanol?
It takes very little effort to convert most cars to ethanol on the production line.
Strip
-
The technology is great, dont get me wrong, but it needs to level the ground across the whole field, not just the diesel, to win me over completely.
1) It's renewable
2) It's non-regionable
3) It's carbon neutral
4) It's Cheap
5) It won't require a huge change in infrastructure.
6) It won't require the huge environmental risks like deep sea drilling, or normal oil drilling.
7) Because it can be produced anywhere, the need to ship the stuff will be drastically reduced.
-
Diesel engines can run on almost any type of combustible oil. Rudolph Diesel first used peanut oil to fuel his invention. Diesels are more efficient than gasoline, alcohol, or gasohol fueled engines.
The big down fall of modern diesel engines is cost. A diesel option usually costs the consumer anywhere from 3k to 10k dollars more when compared to a gasoline powered vehicle. They are usually more expensive to maintain, and with diesel prices becoming closer to and sometimes greater than gasoline prices it becomes difficult to justify the expense of a diesel powered vehicle.
-
Refiners have some flexability on what they produce. If they don't need to produce diesel anymore, I'm sure the would adjust and refine more gasoline out of the crude.
-
Refiners have some flexability on what they produce. If they don't need to produce diesel anymore, I'm sure the would adjust and refine more gasoline out of the crude.
I thought Diesel was the aftermath of the crude after the gasoline was extracted? Its been a while my memory isn't reliable :old:
-
Refiners have some flexability on what they produce. If they don't need to produce diesel anymore, I'm sure the would adjust and refine more gasoline out of the crude.
To a point. You can still only get so much out of a barrel of crude. You would split the difference meaning less diesel, a little more gasoline, and a little more bunker oil, and paving tar. The division of a barrel of oil has to do with it's specific gravity. Gasoline is more easily refined from sweet light crude. heavier oils don't produce gasoline as easily as they produce other heavier petroleum based products such as fuel oil and tar.
-
I thought Diesel was the aftermath of the crude after the gasoline was extracted? Its been a while my memory isn't reliable :old:
Oil refining and the production of diesel as well as other fuels and petro-chemicals has more to do with specific gravity than anything. The actual by products are tar, asphalt, and coke. Think of a barrel of crude like a layer cake. Each layer is a different product and some layers are bigger than others depending on the type of crude being used. You have your real light layer LPG, then your next gasoline, then kerosene, then diesel, then fuel oil, then lubricating oils, paraffin wax, asphalt, tar, and finally coke. So diesel is actually one of the first things refined from a barrel of crude.
-
Nobody mentioned buying any biotech stock?
-
Nobody mentioned buying any biotech stock?
:rofl
-
Oil refining and the production of diesel as well as other fuels and petro-chemicals has more to do with specific gravity than anything. The actual by products are tar, asphalt, and coke. Think of a barrel of crude like a layer cake. Each layer is a different product and some layers are bigger than others depending on the type of crude being used. You have your real light layer LPG, then your next gasoline, then kerosene, then diesel, then fuel oil, then lubricating oils, paraffin wax, asphalt, tar, and finally coke. So diesel is actually one of the first things refined from a barrel of crude.
That makes alot of sense thanks for the info
-
since we've moved to diesel discussion.......
http://www.greasecar.com/
-
Through distillation, gasoline comes before diesel. The boiling point of diesel is almost twice as much.
According to the commodity traders, we are on a fine line of ruining out of gas If an extra 250,000 barrels of day of gasoline get introduced through modern chemistry; that's a lot of excess over a 7 day week, which commodity traders seem to trade per week.
-
You are thinking in a single plane format. Try seeing the algae farm as a multi-floor building (i.e. the vertical farm concept).
I see what you are saying but I don't think it would work well or be cost effective. First a 10 story building can cast a 20 story shadow. Any space behind the building will be deprived of the prime direct sunlight the algae would need to grow, rendering it nearly useless. Look at solar energy farms, they are no more than 1 story tall to avoid blocking their own sun.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2009/4/16/1239889471494/solar-farm-001.jpg)
Second the algae need water and water needs to be pumped if you want it to reach 10 floors.
-
Why can't they just use humans as bio-batteries? It seemed to work well for the machines in matrix. :headscratch:
-
Simple as it is, we are going to run out of energy. That's because we use too much :D
-
Location, location, location!
Kotrenin the problem with your argument is that you assume this is going to be built in the middle of a flat spot.
You could easily build these going up the side of a mountain, get advantage of stacking effect. Get the advantage of their being more acres on a slope. And not worry about blocking anything. Or it could be built on the north side of an Island where it shades only water.
If you build it up the side of a mountain you could probably build catch basins to catch snow/rain, filter it and setup a gravity flow system with no need for pumps.
Near the ocean you might need to use a seawater algae, in which case you just need enough solar cells to power the pumps, not a deal breaker.
There is a LOT of waste land out there that is not suitable for farming, or development.
Those are prime locations for alternative energy production, be it Wind, Solar, or Algae driven.
-
True dat Ghosth, I'm just wondering about the cost of infrastructure, short term versus long term. $30 a dollars a barrel? It's not a chia pet. I think there's going to be a lot involved.
Job creation will be a nice side effect though.
And don't think I'm against this. I just want to make sure this is thought through before we dive head first into the algae pool. :P
-
I see what you are saying but I don't think it would work well or be cost effective. First a 10 story building can cast a 20 story shadow. Any space behind the building will be deprived of the prime direct sunlight the algae would need to grow, rendering it nearly useless. Look at solar energy farms, they are no more than 1 story tall to avoid blocking their own sun.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2009/4/16/1239889471494/solar-farm-001.jpg)
Second the algae need water and water needs to be pumped if you want it to reach 10 floors.
The shadow issue is a non-issue when you can build the farm in the middle of a metropolitan area which is already devoid of anything needing to grow, or in any other location where water is available, but the land itself is not suitable for farming. Algae does not need much, if any, in the way of UV in order to propogate.
You make the building the water supply tower for the area as well, when you build it in the middle of, or near a metropolitan area.
There are experimental vertical farms in the works now.
-
Through distillation, gasoline comes before diesel. The boiling point of diesel is almost twice as much.
According to the commodity traders, we are on a fine line of ruining out of gas If an extra 250,000 barrels of day of gasoline get introduced through modern chemistry; that's a lot of excess over a 7 day week, which commodity traders seem to trade per week.
Hmmm, what exactly do commodity traders have to do with any of this? :rofl
-
1) It's renewable
It needs to source CO2 from the atmosphere. If only from industrial waste and you still have an open ended circuit that outputs to open air.
industrial co2 > joule system > biodiesel > vehicle exhaust
-
It needs to source CO2 from the atmosphere. If only from industrial waste and you still have an open ended circuit that outputs to open air.
industrial co2 > joule system > biodiesel > vehicle exhaust
I don't follow.
Unless you mean to say we're going to run out of CO2 :P
-
They take carbon from industrial waste. I don't see them mentioning ambient CO2. Not that they must mention it at this stage, because obviously people will be all over it once this Joule scheme works, but it's something that must be done. Otherwise you only double the time a given carbon spends in the "renewable" cycle.
Mine coal > burn for E > exhaust ... captured by Joule > bacterial conversion to biodiesel > burn in cars etc > exhaust ... into nature.
^ ^
Arrows point to number of times a carbon is used. Still a polluting cycle
A microbio acquaintance says alkanes more expensive than articles seems to pretend, and that if the process works there'd be lots of oxygen byproduct. Can't speak for his credibility but that's his expectation.
-
Yes moot, but right now the emission of CO2 from coal fueled electric generation plants is just blowing into the atmosphere. Roughly two thirds of all the CO2 emissions in the U.S. are from those plants.
So capturing it and rerouting it to use as fuel to propel transportation would should serve to cut CO2 emissions. It is not a perfect solution, but, in theory, it could be a step in the right direction.
Not that it will ever happen, but it is fun to speculate about.
-
Yep it's an improvement. Just noting the scheme as proposed isn't quite green :) If it'd work, plenty of people would be all over it to plug it back onto itself for real renewability.
Another reason I mention it is.. One of the old wise people I worked for once noted that it's not enough to give people cheap energy. That usually means not less pollution but that they'll consume even more. Unless you also supply a de-polluting solution, cheap energy, or not so indirectly, a scheme like this one that's popularized as 'green', the net result is more pollution.
So I expect plugging this Joule cycle back on itself is a Must.
All that's missing is an ambient CO2 capture scheme. If I were in Joule' PR dep I'd point this out, e.g. "A working Joule scheme leaves only an ambient CO2 capture solution to be devised for the world to go carbon neutral"
-
The problem is requiring plenty of sun, carbon dioxide, and water on cheep land? Answer: not many places.
You would think a place like Arizona would be ideal, only problem is the night temperatures. A good solution would be closer to a large body of water. Florida may seem like a good spot; only thing is hurricanes usually blow everything a way. Besides, any land near water is usually expensive.
-
Mexico coast?
-
I saw the post regarding how much diesel is produced per acre. I wonder if anyone has done the calculation to determine how many acres they would have to convert to the "farm" to replace just half of the millions of barrels of diesel we use each day.
Oh and BTW, the idea to use land not suitable for farming or other uses, keep in mind that they still have an environment and critters that live there. Anyone remember the snail darter minnow? Think EPA and all of those environmental impact studies that would have to be completed for each acre converted to diesel production. Using the desert to create that diesel just ain't gonna happen. Same for the ocean, flipper needs the room to play. Swamps? Not a chance there are lots of gators and swamp cougars that need protection. Lakes? Nope they are needed for the snail darter, trout, bass, snails and other aquatic "stuff" that live in them and they are also a reservoir for fresh water for the cities too.
-
Desert is a mostly unharvested area to consider.
-
Well the desert is neither uninhabited, empty nor available to use to park massive solar farms without repercussions. They happen to be one of the more fragile ecosystems in the country and do not recover well or fast.
Now as to what I posted earlier about the differing agency opinions here is a supporting article from the Tucson newspaper, "affectionately" referred to locally as the Arizona Daily Red Star. This is the only "real" newspaper in the city.
http://azstarnet.com/news/science/environment/article_b11e1389-8d4e-549d-9a6a-52354ed4143b.html
Two government agencies responsible for environmental concerns are already having "words".
-
My gut tells me that this is one of those countless "too good to be true" deals. If you do the math on what we consume even their 15,000 gallon a year per acre figure is pretty weak. It would still take an awful lot of land and water to even make a dent in the market.
While I'm encouraged that people are seriously studying alternate energy production, let me say that if this outfit was selling stock or futures I would definitely not be buying.
Desert is a mostly unharvested area to consider.
Umm... last time I checked it takes water to grow algae? You plan to make water just magically appear in the desert?
-
"Umm... last time I checked it takes water to grow algae? You plan to make water just magically appear in the desert?"
The same infrastructure that would be used to ship the fuel out would be used to ship the water in.
"If you do the math on what we consume even their 15,000 gallon a year per acre figure is pretty weak."
Perhaps...but if you think about it, one acre of the stuff at current tech level can fuel 39 vehicles (avg 14gal/tank being fueled three times a month). IF (and IF) the system can be scaled down to 'personal' kits for the home you'd need a single digit fraction of that land area to have your own personal fuel generator at home.
Or perhaps it could go the way of satellite tv when it first started.. it was too big for each home to have their dish so communities would build one of those big 1-story dishes and people would hook up to it... so perhaps each community would have its own fueling lot.
I hope this tech does take off.. that it does what it says and that the big oil magnates dont try to buy it off and make it vanish.