permaculture

[sustain_ability@123mail.org]

Excellent arguments, to which I answer with the following quote (incl.
comments):
<http://neubranderinc.com/blog/2006/01/15/algal-biodiesel/>

"...
1/15/2006
Algal biodiesel
Filed under: General, Technology, Politics, Business, Economics —
nobrainer @ 3:51 pm

The rapidly growing global demand for oil combined with all number of
supply issues has increased gas prices over the last year. This we all
know. Fortunately Americans are responding to this as any economist
would predict. As the prices rise the demand for alternatives also
rises. Some people are responding reasonably by directly altering their
behavior. Andy I, for example is a big proponent of biodiesel.
Unfortunately others are trying to alter the behavior of others via the
government. I’ve gone on and on here about such things. Some proposals
are good and others are completely horrible.

Today some information about algal biodiesel came my way from fark
(where else?). I’ve read about it before to some extent. This article in
particular focused on how Dr. Isaac Berzin, an MIT rocket scientist,
believes algae can be combined with coal burning power plants to reduce
carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions while creating biodiesel and
ethanol.

    For his part, Berzin calculates that just one 1,000 megawatt power
    plant using his system could produce more than 40 million gallons of
    biodiesel and 50 million gallons of ethanol a year. That would
    require a 2,000-acre “farm” of algae-filled tubes near the power
    plant. There are nearly 1,000 power plants nationwide with enough
    space nearby for a few hundred to a few thousand acres to grow algae
    and make a good profit, he says.

Initially this looks good — so good I would expect that oil companies
would buy this technology then bury it to prevent it from seeing the
light of day. We all know those loonies who believe those bullshit
conspiracy theories. I almost had to smack someone who believe a
pharmaceutical company would bury a cure for diabetes that it bought for
$30 million. “It’s all about the money.” Exactly, and having sole
possession of something so radically advanced would bring in a tidy
profit. But I digress. There are some questions and observations about
these numbers worthy of being presented.

    * This technology “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.” No word on if any
    dollar-per-gallon subsidy exists for this since the fuel doesn’t
    come from corn or soybeans. This could be bad news for the Iowans
    investing in farm grown biodiesel. I am still loathe to get our food
    and fuel from the same source. Hell, we have a lot of land, but not
    that much. According to the CIA, the US has about 430 million acres
    of arable land. Assuming 300 million Americans and max production,
    each person could get about 90 gallons of biodiesel per year. As it
    is in this country, we use about 20 million barrels (not gallons)
    per day. That equates to just about 1,000 gallons of oil per person
    per year. Nine percent ain’t bad, but that is assuming maximum
    capacity.
    * So agri-biodiesel really doesn’t look that good. It’s not useless,
    but it ain’t that grand. Let’s say we do get some of these 2000 acre
    farms set up, a hundred of them. I’m going to combine those 40
    million gallons of biodiesel and 50 million gallons of ethanol and
    say that they can substitute for about 2 million barrels of oil. For
    a hundred such facilities, we can replace roughly 3 percent of our
    oil use. So with widespread use this could be somewhat doable.
    * I’m amused by the arbitrary size of the “farms” used. 2000 acres
    is exactly the same size as the proposed maximum footprint for
    drilling in ANWR. Here 2000 acres is written off as almost nothing.
    When it comes to drilling, 2000 acres is a tragedy.
    * These “farms” though, aren’t like corn fields. You can’t just
    knock down the trees and till the soil. We’re talking about 2,000
    acres of “rows of fat, clear tubes.” Glass tubes? Plastic tubes?
    2000 acres of glass will take a lot of energy to produce. 2000 acres
    of plastic will require a lot of oil for all that polymer. So this
    seems like it would be a rather large capital investment.

So this is a technology to keep your eye on. Remember that all these
numbers are just estimates and that I’m working with numbers that may or
my not be correct to start with. But I hope it adds a little depth to
your understanding of what we’re looking at.

collapse Agent Orange Says:
January 16th, 2006 at 6:17 pm

Land….you want land….take a trip down to Mexico and see how much unused
land there is. As corn is a pretty rigid crop, I am sure it could handle
the soil conditions down there, especially as it would be produced
solely for fuel and not human consumption. As for the useage that you
calculated, I know from speaking to AndyI that his car gets much better
mileage than a standard fuel car. I know that it will not make that much
of a difference in the calculation (54 mpg vs 28mpg) but it is a valid
point. And the tubes….well how big are they? Maybe we can find an
already used good that could be recycled for this purpose…..say tennis
ball cans!
Reply to this comment
collapse nobrainer Says:
January 16th, 2006 at 6:47 pm

This is true. And maybe Andy I can provide the info before I look it up.
Are comparable diesels always more efficient, and by how much? I mention
this because if it’s a matter of simply driving an efficient vehicle,
well we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion if people were
already driving more efficient vehicles.
...".

George (Canada)

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:54:57 -0800, "Saor Stetler" <saor@ycbtal.net>
said:
>  From Plan b:2.0 by Lester Brown (earthpolicy.org)
> 
> Another perhaps more promising option for producing ethanol is to use 
> enzymes to break down cellulosic materials, such as switchgrass, a 
> vigorously growing perennial grass, or fast-growing trees, such as 
> hybrid poplars. Ethanol is now being produced from cellulose in a small 
> demonstration plant in
> Canada. If switchgrass turns out to be an economic source of ethanol, as 
> some analysts think it may, it will be a major breakthrough, since it 
> can be grown on land that is highly erodible or otherwise not suitable 
> for annual crops. In a competitive world market for crop-based ethanol, 
> the future belongs to sugarcane and switchgrass.
..[snip]..
-- A huge part of the illusion surrounding the cheap oil era is that the only 
alternative to modernity is the stone age.

http://www.mogiljansky.tk/ (please ignore the yahoo email address)
sustain_ability@123mail.org

Referrals from new 123mail.org users - help me pay my bills:
<http://www.123mail.org/mail/?STKI=810944> Thank You!

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class