New energy focus on algae?

[golfballs]

Hey GS, what do you think of this?

bad link

 

[volinbham]

Here's the problem with algae - that's what they were making Soylent out of before the oceans started dying. Then it was people - Soylent Green is people. Don't you understand? It's people.

If we use algae for fuel it just speeds up the transition to Soylent Green.

 

[possumslayer]

Feed Your ADHD: Batboy Named Algae Czar

Yeah right.

Krauthammer MOCKS Obama

In one moment off the teleprompter when BHO was campaigning against McLame, he said under his environmental plan energy costs would skyrocket.

For once in his life, maybe the only time I can remember, Barry wasn't lying. His energy czar said that Americans should be paying the same a Europeans for gasoline. Give Obama four more years in office and we will be paying $8 or $9 a gallon as they are.

If algae based fuel production were all that promising then private companies would be investing in it, instead our genious in chief is throwing our money at it just as he has with solar and wind programs that did nothing other then squander away our national treasure.

But then that is his real purpose from the beginning, to destroy this country as we know it.

Alinskites can destroy but can they build? And what would they build to replace our society and culture?

I can just hear the Obots now, gas prices are going down before long, dear leader Barry is going to get gas from pond scum so we don't have to keep paying those evil blood sucking big oil companies that cause all the polution that's causing all the climate change that making people starve in Bangladesh.

this is a 5 yr old story!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[possumslayer]

Red algae cures herps
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

this is a 5 yr old story!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Some people had it right five years ago and some still don't have it right.

Here's the problem with algae - that's what they were making Soylent out of before the oceans started dying. Then it was people - Soylent Green is people. Don't you understand? It's people.

If we use algae for fuel it just speeds up the transition to Soylent Green.

It would seem so, reminds me of an old episode 0f 'the twilight zone.'

FWIW, I didn't go to the movies for years after watching Solent Green.

Socialism and the Hegelian Dialectic [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces

Examples of such issues are, but not limited to; -Environmental issues -Taxation -Gun control -Certain “rights” -Aspects of the Constitution On those issues, within certain arguments, or debates, two sides argue, an agreement is reached, and eventually the agreement becomes the focal point of furthering the argument and reaching a new agreement. The fact that such agreements seem to be increasingly restrictive upon freedom and liberty should not be overlooked.

So, what can we attribute this to? In a phrase, the Hegelian dialectic. What is the Hegelian dialectic? It is, simply, a series of theses (accepted idea) opposed by antitheses (opposing idea), resulting in a syntheses (new idea). This synthesis then becomes the thesis that is opposed by an antithesis, resulting in a new synthesis, and on and on until a final, ultimate, “perfect” synthesis is realized. Now, to understand where Hegel was coming from, it is important to note that Hegel was a devout socialist. So much so, in fact, that his work, his dialectic, was put into practice by such well-known socialists as Marx and Engels.

”…the State ‘has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges." -Georg Hegel

Hegel envisioned the same control over people, by the state, that Marx and Engels were guilty of. So, how does this “dialectic” apply to now, today?

Think about an issue. Any issue that people are concerned about. Then think about the history of that issue, as in, the evolution of the issue into today’s specific arguments. Take gun control, for instance. Over 200 years ago, the Framers of the Constitution drafted the Second Amendment. The idea of gun ownership, namely the freedom to do so, went largely unchallenged in America until the 1900's when New York passed the Sullivan Act, requiring small firearms to be registered. In the 1930's, gun control became a national issue with two laws, both signed into law by FDR. While the regulations involved were uncontroversial by today’s standards, involving gun dealer licensing and regulating machine gun ownership, it introduced the concept of national gun control. Fast forward to the 1960's, and we see gun control becoming a national issue with two prominent sides on the debate, particularly in 1968 with the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and MLK, jr. Continue on to the Reagan attempted assassination and on up to today’s restrictive gun control laws.

At each point, there were a theses, or accepted idea of the limitation on gun control, and an antithesis, proposing ever more restrictive control over firearms. The syntheses from these conflicts are seen in the laws passed at those points. Neither being as liberal as the theses, nor as restrictive as the antitheses, but an accepted position somewhere in the middle. And each new law, or syntheses, became the starting point, or theses, for the next round of debate on the issue. And at every point, those syntheses further eroded the rights of gun ownership in America.

The Gun control act of 1968 is pattterned after a 1930s nazi gun control law in Germany.

The need to immediately end the human introduction of additional CO2 into the atmosphere isn't there but this administration behaves as if it is and emergency that we do so.

 

[gsvol]

 

[gsvol]

 

[gsvol]

 

[gsvol]

Where is Tennesse Tradition when you really need him?

What is the CO2 emission (aka greenhouse gas) rate of
algae vs fossile fuel rate of CO2 emissions?

Is there some huge nonsequiter in this whole discussion?

 

[gsvol]

 

[gsvol]

Soylent Green (1973) - Memorable quotes

Det. Thorn: Turn the air conditioning way up!
Shirl: Way up! We'll make it as cold as winter used to be!


Natural Born Conservative: Ends of the Green Agenda

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), reported that gasoline prices have risen from an average price of $1.61, in the week ending December 29, 2008, to $3.72, as of the week ending February 27, 2012 (see chart above). So with gasoline prices on a tear having risen by 131% just since December 29, 2008, biofuel enthusiasts have once again arisen from the sludge, this time proclaiming that algae biofuel is the answer to our energy needs.

According to Marine Corps Times, in 2009 the U.S. Navy paid $424.00 per gallon for 20,055 gallons of biodiesel made from algae, which set a world record at the time for the cost of fuel. Are you kidding me? In the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression, the Navy thought that paying $424.00 per gallon for algae biodiesel while petroleum based diesel was selling for an average of $2.50 per gallon was somehow smart?

Then, in December of 2011, according to Defense News, the U.S. Defense Department signed a contract to buy 450,000 gallons of biofuel – the largest purchase ever by the federal government – to power the U.S. Navy's "green" carrier strike group. The blend of used cooking oil and algae will be mixed with traditional fuels to help power the carrier strike group during military exercises this summer in the Pacific Ocean. The $12 million purchase works out to about $26.00 per gallon.

More recently, on February 27, 2012, House Armed Services Committee member Randy Forbes had harsh words for Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, saying he was focusing too much on alternative fuel development and not enough on sailors and ships. Forbes says biofuel costs four times as much to manufacture as fossil fuel, and that's something the Navy can't afford now. "That's why I said 'Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, you're not the Secretary of Energy, you're the Secretary of the Navy,'" stated Forbes.

Although, in the second purchase, no breakdown was provided for the cost of algae biofuel by itself, it’s obvious that the cost per gallon has dropped dramatically over a two year period. But it’s doubtful that this would have occurred without massive government stimulus through agency purchases such as by the U.S. Navy, as well as loan guarantees and grants from the U.S. Department of Energy. But with the price of petroleum based diesel fuel currently selling at around $4.00 per gallon, does it make sense for our military to be purchasing fuel which costs six-and-one-half times more? Well, let’s just hope we don’t get involved in major war anytime soon.

The above goes on to some critical analysis of the pro-algae academic conjecture linked below.

Algae and Energy Independence

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the numbers to see that the costs far far far outweigh the return on any venture of any meaningful scale when it comes to producing algae based fuel production.

It may stir the imagination and line the pocket of regime insiders but as an alternative on a massive scale anyone can see that this is pure unadulterated folly.

Besides that, does using algae produced fuel lessen CO2 emmissions?

We have enough oil reserves here in America that we could be an oil exporter rather than a slave to Saudi Arabia, what is it? Is a gun being held to the heads of our government officials? Are they being bribed on a massive scale? Perhaps they want to see the downfall of our nation in favor of some other form of government?

I'm open to intelligent answers.

 

[TennTradition]

I haven't seen specific numbers, but I would think biodiesel from algae would have to have a smaller net CO2 output than traditional fuels (on time scales we care about).

 

[KiffinKiller]

It worked on battlestar galactica

the remake was surprisingly amazing.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

the remake was surprisingly amazing.

I loved it, im a sci fi nerd though

 

[golfballs]

mods, merge with the gs cartoon thread. TIA :hi:

 

[YorkVol]

Ok, I haven't posted in this thread because I am somewhat confused about the actual topic, though I do enjoy the cartoons a little.

Anyway, if this thread is about algae I just wanted to drop this in. A few years ago, ecologists working on the project to clean up the Chesapeake Bay built some water raceways along the Susquehanna River and routed part of the river water through them. They allowed algae to grow in these raceways and found the algae would pull several nutrients, most importantly phosphorus and nitrogen, that were found in excessive levels in both the river and the bay. The water coming out of the raceways was cleaner and exceeded the standards needed to help clean the bay.

The problem was that those raceways were only good for part of the year as they would freeze up in the winter. Last year, a University of Maryland ecological engineer named Patrick Kangas started a project at Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant last year that was designed to grow algae year round. He built some similar raceways on the south side of the river and used the ambient water that is used to cool the reactors. Since the water stays at higher temps year round it is perfect for growing algae. That algae also scrubs the phosphorus and nitrogen out of the river water so this appears to be a viable solution to some of the pollution that enters the Chesapeake.

Also, since the algae grows rapidly and potentially year round, it can be used as fertilizer as well as bio fuel. Will it produce enough to solve the fuel/energy problems? Probably not, but in my view, this is a good cooperative effort to help solve some of the environmental issues in the area and a good example of how we can approach these challenges.


Dr. Patrick Kangas' Algae Project Aims to Produce Bio-fuel while Cleaning up Bay - Environmental Science and Technology (ENST)

 

[TennTradition]

Very interesting.

 

[KiffinKiller]

I loved it, im a sci fi nerd though

well written...thought i can be confusing to the average viewer. Once they incorporate all along the watchtower it gets out of control.

 

[n_huffhines]

good grief, GS has outdone himself.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

well written...thought i can be confusing to the average viewer. Once they incorporate all along the watchtower it gets out of control.

Starbuck being a spirit was random

 

[gsvol]

I haven't seen specific numbers, but I would think biodiesel from algae would have to have a smaller net CO2 output than traditional fuels (on time scales we care about).

I'll take that as an educated guess.

A couple of other questions;

1. Why would a biodiesel emit less CO2 than a fossil based fuel? What makes you think that?

2. What emissions could we expect from the algae ponds themselves? Since I believe most climate scientists believe that water vapor in the atmosphere is is 97% of all greenhouse gas, then couldn't we expect a good bit of evaporation into the atmosphere from these ponds (on production scales we care about)?

3. Looking at the big picture, would a massive algae production impact and cause more climate change (that evidently we should greatly fear, according to the enviro lobby) than burning fossil fuels?

Ok, I haven't posted in this thread because I am somewhat confused about the actual topic, though I do enjoy the cartoons a little.

Anyway, if this thread is about algae I just wanted to drop this in. A few years ago, ecologists working on the project to clean up the Chesapeake Bay built some water raceways along the Susquehanna River and routed part of the river water through them. They allowed algae to grow in these raceways and found the algae would pull several nutrients, most importantly phosphorus and nitrogen, that were found in excessive levels in both the river and the bay. The water coming out of the raceways was cleaner and exceeded the standards needed to help clean the bay.

The problem was that those raceways were only good for part of the year as they would freeze up in the winter. Last year, a University of Maryland ecological engineer named Patrick Kangas started a project at Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant last year that was designed to grow algae year round. He built some similar raceways on the south side of the river and used the ambient water that is used to cool the reactors. Since the water stays at higher temps year round it is perfect for growing algae. That algae also scrubs the phosphorus and nitrogen out of the river water so this appears to be a viable solution to some of the pollution that enters the Chesapeake.

Also, since the algae grows rapidly and potentially year round, it can be used as fertilizer as well as bio fuel. Will it produce enough to solve the fuel/energy problems? Probably not, but in my view, this is a good cooperative effort to help solve some of the environmental issues in the area and a good example of how we can approach these challenges.


Dr. Patrick Kangas' Algae Project Aims to Produce Bio-fuel while Cleaning up Bay - Environmental Science and Technology (ENST)

Actual topic (imo);

Going off half cocked and full tilt into enacting a costly and corrupt green energy policy that in the end will be nonsustainable.

I remember reading about various projects meant to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, incuding the one you mention.

I'm all for inovative and/or traditional methods of cleaning up the environment and/or becoming more energy efficient.

What I mainly object to is placing a burden of national debt on my grandchildren that will be impossible to pay and debilitating just to service while selling the citizenry pie in the sky, pig in a poke, green energy boondoggles while stealing billions for politically connected cronies.

 

[YorkVol]

I'll take that as an educated guess.

A couple of other questions;

1. Why would a biodiesel emit less CO2 than a fossil based fuel? What makes you think that?

2. What emissions could we expect from the algae ponds themselves? Since I believe most climate scientists believe that water vapor in the atmosphere is is 97% of all greenhouse gas, then couldn't we expect a good bit of evaporation into the atmosphere from these ponds (on production scales we care about)?

3. Looking at the big picture, would a massive algae production impact and cause more climate change (that evidently we should greatly fear, according to the enviro lobby) than burning fossil fuels?











Actual topic (imo);

Going off half cocked and full tilt into enacting a costly and corrupt green energy policy that in the end will be nonsustainable.

I remember reading about various projects meant to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, incuding the one you mention.

I'm all for inovative and/or traditional methods of cleaning up the environment and/or becoming more energy efficient.

What I mainly object to is placing a burden of national debt on my grandchildren that will be impossible to pay and debilitating just to service while selling the citizenry pie in the sky, pig in a poke, green energy boondoggles while stealing billions for politically connected cronies.

I agree with that part. I'm a fan of alternative energy but have no problem with the market driving the development.

 

[2ironVol]

Here's the problem with algae - that's what they were making Soylent out of before the oceans started dying. Then it was people - Soylent Green is people. Don't you understand? It's people.

If we use algae for fuel it just speeds up the transition to Soylent Green.

Where's Charlton Heston when you need him?

 

[TennTradition]

I'll take that as an educated guess.

A couple of other questions;

1. Why would a biodiesel emit less CO2 than a fossil based fuel? What makes you think that?

2. What emissions could we expect from the algae ponds themselves? Since I believe most climate scientists believe that water vapor in the atmosphere is is 97% of all greenhouse gas, then couldn't we expect a good bit of evaporation into the atmosphere from these ponds (on production scales we care about)?

3. Looking at the big picture, would a massive algae production impact and cause more climate change (that evidently we should greatly fear, according to the enviro lobby) than burning fossil fuels?

1) I don't know about CO2 emissions / Watt of energy output. But, my point was about net output, not just output at point of source. The carbon that the algae fixes in biodiesel comes largely from CO2 in the air/water. So, the CO2 gets taken from the air/water over a period of time, gets transformed into oxygen + cell mass + "oil", this oil gets processed into usable biodiesel, and then it is burned to give off the CO2 again. Thus, a large amount of the CO2 being released is just replacing CO2 that was pulled from the environment to make the fuel in the first place. This happens on a timescale of months, rather than the eons associated with fossil fuels. It is the imbalance in the timescale it took to form fossil fuels vs. the timescale it takes to burn them that presents concerns over CO2 footprint. It is the apparent NET footprint that is concerning.

2) First, even if you didn't grow the algae in the oceans, the ponds we would make on land would be a literal drop in the bucket compared to our oceans. So, I don't see any impact there, really. However, taking it a step further, addition of water to the atmosphere isn't a huge concern because we sit at approximate equilibrium between water and water vapor already here on earth given how much liquid water is on the surface. While there are regions near the earth surface at near-0% relative humidity, the average local humidity across the entire globe is much, much higher (very near 100% over the oceans most of the time, for example). Thus, increasing the local humidity near an algae pond wouldn't be a huge impact on the GLOBAL average humidity...or at least I don't see a path where it would.

3) Massive algae ponds could potentially have local climate impacts. For example, you could become more humid locally. This would make air conditioning more difficult, for example, in nearby towns. But, it wouldn't be any different than living by a big lake. If you do build ponds, you would have some of the same negative environmental impacts as hydroelectric dams. If you grew and harvested algae in the oceans, then I'm not sure. I'm not sure what the environmental impacts of sea-based farming would be. There will surely be environmental impacts. The business of weighing them isn't easy.

 

[gsvol]

1) I don't know about CO2 emissions / Watt of energy output. But, my point was about net output, not just output at point of source. The carbon that the algae fixes in biodiesel comes largely from CO2 in the air/water. So, the CO2 gets taken from the air/water over a period of time, gets transformed into oxygen + cell mass + "oil", this oil gets processed into usable biodiesel, and then it is burned to give off the CO2 again. Thus, a large amount of the CO2 being released is just replacing CO2 that was pulled from the environment to make the fuel in the first place. This happens on a timescale of months, rather than the eons associated with fossil fuels. It is the imbalance in the timescale it took to form fossil fuels vs. the timescale it takes to burn them that presents concerns over CO2 footprint. It is the apparent NET footprint that is concerning.

2) First, even if you didn't grow the algae in the oceans, the ponds we would make on land would be a literal drop in the bucket compared to our oceans. So, I don't see any impact there, really. However, taking it a step further, addition of water to the atmosphere isn't a huge concern because we sit at approximate equilibrium between water and water vapor already here on earth given how much liquid water is on the surface. While there are regions near the earth surface at near-0% relative humidity, the average local humidity across the entire globe is much, much higher (very near 100% over the oceans most of the time, for example). Thus, increasing the local humidity near an algae pond wouldn't be a huge impact on the GLOBAL average humidity...or at least I don't see a path where it would.

3) Massive algae ponds could potentially have local climate impacts. For example, you could become more humid locally. This would make air conditioning more difficult, for example, in nearby towns. But, it wouldn't be any different than living by a big lake. If you do build ponds, you would have some of the same negative environmental impacts as hydroelectric dams. If you grew and harvested algae in the oceans, then I'm not sure. I'm not sure what the environmental impacts of sea-based farming would be. There will surely be environmental impacts. The business of weighing them isn't easy.

Interesting.

1. But doesn't CO2 produced from fossil fuels cycle back out of the atmosphere (primarily into the oceans) within five or six years?

2. It's going to take a heck of a lot of area to produce algae based fuels that would even make a dent in petroleum use.

3. Perhaps ocean based farm might work but wouldn't there be a huge danger of damage from tropical storms?