Numbers Just Aren't There To Continue With Internal Combusti

[ArameFarpado]

Em Segunda, 5 de Janeiro de 2009 16:03, Bret Cahill escreveu:

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill

hybrid on the highway??

hybrid only gain in city trafic (stop and go), on the higway they loose to
normal cars.

 

[Michael Coburn]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:18:18 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gk0j759j4c@news3.newsguy.com...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:58:42 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:

.................
I'm not sure how Big Oil continues to distract everyone from the
8000 lb gorilla but everything including vehicle cost and
infrastructure is small spuds when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

Hybrids were introduced for reasons that won't be nearly as
important as the fact that they can be powered from the grid,
either by batteries or road electrification.

Bret Cahill

If there is going to be a 1000% increase in the price of oil and gas
then the output of current algae based biofuel methods would be
insanely profitable.

Has anyone seen any real evidence of anything close to 2,000 gallons/
acre year?

That's $20,000/acre when berry crops fetch more than that.

A 1000 percent increase above $2 per gallon (that will be the price by
summer) would be $200 per gallon or $400K per acre if 2000 gal/acre.

1000 percent would be 10X, which would be $20/gallon. or $40K per acre
per year for a 2000 gal/acre algae farm.

Actually it would be $30 a gallon because the price is currently $1.50.

Of course, price of oil would not go to $20/gallon (let alone
$200/gallon), since this would bring the economy to a grinding stop,
killing consumption, thus reducing the price again. That's good, since a
10X increase in the price of palm oil would surely mean that end of our
remaining rain forests and any remaining natural habitat for that matter
(see notes below on the food-fuel link).

Ah, but there is no need for that because at $10 a gallon the area
surrounding the Sea of Cortes would be able to profit from algae
biodiesel and algae ethanol. That land is virtually worthless as it is.
Why mess up the rain forests?

That claim of 2000 gal/acre is less than half the current projected
yield of competent boireactors. So if we go with your 1000% claim then
I want very much to "invest" in bioreactors surrounding the Sea of
Cortes

You forget one (free market) effect : bottom food prices and fuel prices
are linked (now that we grow corn for ethanol and palm oil for
biodiesel).

If the price of oil goes up 10X, then also palm oil and soybean oil
would go up 10X. And Ethanol would go up 10X, which would cause the
price of corn to go up 10X as well. In fact, ALL agricultural products
to go up about 10X in price, since bottom price of food is linked to the
price of oil (since we can convert food to oil).

So the yield per acre of food farming will go up 10X, which then means
that algae farming has to compete against 10X farm yields. So farmers
can then get 10X for growing berries (or tomatoes in a 'green house' or
so). Why would they switch to algae in a boireactor ?

They wouldn't. But that's the real point. The algae stuff will work fine
at $10 a gallon but the corn won't. This is the land rent effect. It is
not understood by most people. The cost of good farmland will become a
very real obstacle to growing fuel on it as opposed to food. We see the
stats on this all the time. The land needed to grow the fuel is just
insufficient and it is land that has other uses (LIKE FOOD). The land
around the Sea of Cortes cannot grow corn and it is almost free. It can
grow algae. And the other part of the puzzle is that the cost of fuel to
grow food crops is very high (plow it, plant it, harvest it). The cost
of fuel to grow algae is very small. some of these systems are run by
solar power completely. That subtracts from the gallon per acre and I
know that. But the point is that algae will win this race in a free
market. I do not know what the price of food will be when the price of
petroleum based diesel is $10 a gallon, and it may well be that farmers
will grow their own fuel. But they will get better returns from food
than form fuel. This was one of the big distortions from the oil
hucksters about people starving because the farmers were raising fuel as
opposed to food. The blame is on the oil suppliers and speculators that
created the $145 oil prices. Food prices will be what they will be and a
part of the price is the fuel to produce the food. Considering the land
rent and the price of food if people are actually starving, corn and
soybeans is a pretty stupid way to make fuel.

And this does not require a total destruction of the American way of
life or the centralized big brother crap associated with everything
needed for the electric car. I am all for hybrids as a way to move
toward nuclear power. But make no mistake. That is where you are
going.

Not necessarily.

Energy storage is easier at installations than in vehicle batteries.

But if worse comes to worse it's nice to know there's a plan B.

But from whence does this energy come? I am talking about the energy
that must get put INTO the grid (if cars are electric). I am not
suggesting that algae be used for that at all. That would be stone
cold stupid. But I do not see the really big problem as the batteries.
I see it as the amount of power that must be supplied by the grid and
ask where the hell that power will come from.

Wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, biomass burning, you name it. Whatever
works in an area. Also, don't forget the power (and low cost) of
increased energy efficiency in all areas of energy use.

That's gonna take a lot of conservation. In 20 years we may make that,
but it ain't gonna be easy.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[BradGuth]

On Jan 7, 4:31 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:27:39 -0800, BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 7, 8:37 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a
natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is
concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the
impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with
electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they
agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy
per unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store
hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you
have something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when
C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

You forgot the container.

I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near
the Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling
around.)

You probably mean CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) rather than LNG
(Liquid Natural Gas).
CNG is used fairly widely here in California, mostly for public
transportation.

It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is
practical, unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar
nonsense.

Agreed. But there are also hybrids. As you know, San Francisco
MUNI just turned to diesel-hybrids for their busses. I actually
wonder if that was such a good idea, as SF still has a great net
of electric trolley bus wires. And these are by far the most
energy efficient, and cleanest (if not also very comfortable) of
any city bus system.

I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean
(100K miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate
pressure.

What's the efficiency for butane/propane in an ICE ?

But gasoline still wins.

Depends on what you optimize for.

If you optimize for some semblance of a western civilization
lifestyle, then ground transportation must be powered from the
grid.

The $10/gallon thingy just ain't gettin' it.

Bret Cahill

Lower cost of transportation, Peak Oil, Global Warming, Energy
independence, Energy security, trade deficit, national debt,
food-fuel price link leading to destruction of prestine rainforests
and nature preserves...

Isn't going to get the attention of Congress.

There are probably many more reasons why it makes sense to move away
from oil, and towards the grid for our ground transportation. Simply
stipulating a number for gas prices is in my opinion at least
misleading

We know it's true and we know it'll get the attention of Congress.

and grossly undervaluing the very profound and often unrecognized
grip that fossil fuels and oil specifically has on our western way of
life.

One of which is how they manage to keep so many distracted from the
100% certain fact of the impending triple digit inflation of fuel
prices.

Currently, without fossil fuel (and oil specifically) our western
civilisation is not sustainable. If we want our grand children and
great grant children to live a lifestyle that is at least as good as
we live, then we better start making changes right now. So this ship
(our civilisation) is heading for the cliffs and without change there
will be an immense price to pay for future generations.

I'll worry about us before them and me before us.

Let's just see if we get to die from natural causes instead of some geo
war.

Bret Cahill

How about a thorium reactor in most every backyard, or in the center of
downtown wherever?

Thorium is failsafe-inclusive at merely 10% the all-inclusive birth-to-
grave cost of conventional nuclear energy that's anything but failsafe.
Problem is, you have to understand and appreciate what "all- inclusive"
represents, and not hardly 0.0001% of Americans do.

I am not a scientist.  I can make some very big mistakes like my
misunderstanding the Dimitrov stuff on photosynthesis.  But I have never
counted myself as stupid and believe that I can explain science to the
unscientific pretty well given half a chance.  So lay it on us about the
thorium and what this "all inclusive" might be.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

This isn't going to be my best work, but you can always web search for
"thorium reactor" and loads of thorium related information, as I've
done.

The element of thorium is 3 to 4 times more available than uranium.

It's a whole lot safer and cheaper element to refine for reactor fuel
usage.

Thorium reactors are less spendy to operate and service once
everything is taken into account.

Thorium reactors are essentially failsafe, each load of fuel lasts
much longer than uranium, their overall facility end-of-life is at
least double that of conventional reactors, and final tear down (if
ever) and clean up isn't such a toxic big deal.

Storage of spent thorium fuel is not a technological gauntlet of
spendy and complex regulatory options, as is conventional nuclear fuel
and multiple waste byproducts.

That should get you started. You can do your own research, and report
back.

~ BG

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message news:gk3mdr26du@news1.newsguy.com...

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:18:18 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gk0j759j4c@news3.newsguy.com...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:58:42 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:

.................
I'm not sure how Big Oil continues to distract everyone from the
8000 lb gorilla but everything including vehicle cost and
infrastructure is small spuds when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

Hybrids were introduced for reasons that won't be nearly as
important as the fact that they can be powered from the grid,
either by batteries or road electrification.

Bret Cahill

If there is going to be a 1000% increase in the price of oil and gas
then the output of current algae based biofuel methods would be
insanely profitable.

Has anyone seen any real evidence of anything close to 2,000 gallons/
acre year?

That's $20,000/acre when berry crops fetch more than that.

A 1000 percent increase above $2 per gallon (that will be the price by
summer) would be $200 per gallon or $400K per acre if 2000 gal/acre.

1000 percent would be 10X, which would be $20/gallon. or $40K per acre
per year for a 2000 gal/acre algae farm.

Actually it would be $30 a gallon because the price is currently $1.50.

Don't want to nit-pick here, but 1000% (10X) of $1.50 is $15 a gallon.

Of course, price of oil would not go to $20/gallon (let alone
$200/gallon), since this would bring the economy to a grinding stop,
killing consumption, thus reducing the price again. That's good, since a
10X increase in the price of palm oil would surely mean that end of our
remaining rain forests and any remaining natural habitat for that matter
(see notes below on the food-fuel link).

Ah, but there is no need for that because at $10 a gallon the area
surrounding the Sea of Cortes would be able to profit from algae
biodiesel and algae ethanol. That land is virtually worthless as it is.
Why mess up the rain forests?

It's not the land alone. It's the infrastructure, water supply, etc.
If oil goes up 10X then agricultural products go up 10X as well. Did we agree on that ?
If so, then the rest of the notes below.

That claim of 2000 gal/acre is less than half the current projected
yield of competent boireactors. So if we go with your 1000% claim then
I want very much to "invest" in bioreactors surrounding the Sea of
Cortes

You forget one (free market) effect : bottom food prices and fuel prices
are linked (now that we grow corn for ethanol and palm oil for
biodiesel).

If the price of oil goes up 10X, then also palm oil and soybean oil
would go up 10X. And Ethanol would go up 10X, which would cause the
price of corn to go up 10X as well. In fact, ALL agricultural products
to go up about 10X in price, since bottom price of food is linked to the
price of oil (since we can convert food to oil).

So the yield per acre of food farming will go up 10X, which then means
that algae farming has to compete against 10X farm yields. So farmers
can then get 10X for growing berries (or tomatoes in a 'green house' or
so). Why would they switch to algae in a boireactor ?

They wouldn't. But that's the real point. The algae stuff will work fine
at $10 a gallon but the corn won't. This is the land rent effect. It is
not understood by most people. The cost of good farmland will become a
very real obstacle to growing fuel on it as opposed to food. We see the
stats on this all the time. The land needed to grow the fuel is just
insufficient and it is land that has other uses (LIKE FOOD). The land
around the Sea of Cortes cannot grow corn and it is almost free. It can
grow algae.

OK, but that does not change the picture too much.
Sure enough, good farmland will become expensive when oil is expensive.
But bad farmland can be converted for agricultural use, using infrastructure (like green houses etc).
Currently for example, it is profitable to grow tomatoes in greenhouses in the winter in Holland (even with heaters and lights on
during the winter).
Now compare that to algae.
Both need water, both need fertilizer, and more importantly, both would need some sort of greenhouse.
Need a bioreactor for algae, need a greenhouse for tomatoes.

So if profit/acre for tomatoes goes up 10X (with all other agricultural products) then it would be far smarter to grow tomatoes in
green houses on the cheap land around the Sea of Cortes than building a bioreactor with algae.

Besides that, algae farming requires enhanced CO2 (at least if you want the 2,000 - 4,000 gallons/acre/year).
Tomato plants don't need that.
So I'd say invest in tomato farming, not in algae, when the price of oil increases 10X.
The same can be said about many other food products.
So algae farming cannot get a foot on the ground here. Always competing with food prices.
And food always will cost more than fuel, because people would rather not starve to death in their cars.
That's my point.

And the other part of the puzzle is that the cost of fuel to
grow food crops is very high (plow it, plant it, harvest it). The cost
of fuel to grow algae is very small. some of these systems are run by
solar power completely.

Don't need enhanced CO2 ? And no nutrients ? And what's the cost of the bioreactor per acre ?

That subtracts from the gallon per acre and I
know that. But the point is that algae will win this race in a free
market. I do not know what the price of food will be when the price of
petroleum based diesel is $10 a gallon, and it may well be that farmers
will grow their own fuel. But they will get better returns from food
than form fuel.

Yes indeed. So they won't grow their own fuel. They will grow food.

This was one of the big distortions from the oil
hucksters about people starving because the farmers were raising fuel as
opposed to food. The blame is on the oil suppliers and speculators that
created the $145 oil prices. Food prices will be what they will be and a
part of the price is the fuel to produce the food. Considering the land
rent and the price of food if people are actually starving, corn and
soybeans is a pretty stupid way to make fuel.

A lot smarter than growing algae, since algae cannot be profitable with the current 'bioreactor' concepts.
It's simply way too expensive.

Did you check out Dimitrov's report yet ?
http://www.nanostring.net/Algae/CaseStudy.pdf
Very valid claim that algae farming would become profitable only when oil hits close to $1000/barrel.
That was calculated assuming that there is no food-price-oil-price link.
I claim there is (an almost 1-to-1 price link) which means that growing food (in greenhouses) will always be more profitable than
growing algae for fuel.

Unless....
If growing algae requires only absolutely dirt-cheap infrastructure (plastic tubing on the desert floor or so) and still gets
2000-4000 gallons/acre/year and does NOT require enhanced CO2 levels, then MAYBE it could become profitable.

And this does not require a total destruction of the American way of
life or the centralized big brother crap associated with everything
needed for the electric car. I am all for hybrids as a way to move
toward nuclear power. But make no mistake. That is where you are
going.

Not necessarily.

Energy storage is easier at installations than in vehicle batteries.

But if worse comes to worse it's nice to know there's a plan B.

But from whence does this energy come? I am talking about the energy
that must get put INTO the grid (if cars are electric). I am not
suggesting that algae be used for that at all. That would be stone
cold stupid. But I do not see the really big problem as the batteries.
I see it as the amount of power that must be supplied by the grid and
ask where the hell that power will come from.

Wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, biomass burning, you name it. Whatever
works in an area. Also, don't forget the power (and low cost) of
increased energy efficiency in all areas of energy use.

That's gonna take a lot of conservation. In 20 years we may make that,
but it ain't gonna be easy.

As a manager, I should say "If it were easy, I'd do it myself" )

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[Les Cargill]

Michael Coburn wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:21:33 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
snip
Looks like the Les Cargill virus

AGCTAGTCGTACTATAAGGATAACAGCTAGTCGTACTATAAGGATAACAGCTAGTCGTACTATAAGGATAAC

Now you're infected!

--
Les Cargill

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:11:56 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:20:24 -0500, "Jack" <furgfurgfurg@yahoo.com
wrote:

Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be
anything else since car companies will never build one
voluntarily.
Surely there's a fortune in it for anyone who can produce them.


The fact that nobody is producing them proves that there's no fortune.

John



It proves no such thing. It mainly proves
there are significant barriers to entry.

Like mining diamonds on Mercury.

John

 

[Bret Cahill]

One problem is that at 2,000 gallon/acre-year, it would require much
more than land the entire states of Sonora and Baja combined.

Also the area surronding the Sea of Cortez isn't completely vacant and
without other uses.

Finally it's unlikely the money would ever reach the people because of
all the corruption in Mexico. Most would lose the land and get little
in return.

If we want to get away from the corpocracy of the oil bidness, why not
do the same with the automakers and restructure them for a thriving
after market drive train industry.

Regulate the design of the engine / drive train compartment so
everything can be interchangeable. All they need to do is provide the
chassis, body and some seats.

Letting those guys near an engine plant is like letting a crack addict
near cocaine.


Bret Cahill

 

[Michael Coburn]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:13:07 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gk3mdr26du@news1.newsguy.com...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:18:18 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gk0j759j4c@news3.newsguy.com...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:58:42 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:

.................
I'm not sure how Big Oil continues to distract everyone from the
8000 lb gorilla but everything including vehicle cost and
infrastructure is small spuds when compared to the impending
1000+% increase in fuel prices.

Hybrids were introduced for reasons that won't be nearly as
important as the fact that they can be powered from the grid,
either by batteries or road electrification.

Bret Cahill

If there is going to be a 1000% increase in the price of oil and
gas then the output of current algae based biofuel methods would be
insanely profitable.

Has anyone seen any real evidence of anything close to 2,000
gallons/ acre year?

That's $20,000/acre when berry crops fetch more than that.

A 1000 percent increase above $2 per gallon (that will be the price
by summer) would be $200 per gallon or $400K per acre if 2000
gal/acre.

1000 percent would be 10X, which would be $20/gallon. or $40K per acre
per year for a 2000 gal/acre algae farm.

Actually it would be $30 a gallon because the price is currently $1.50.

Don't want to nit-pick here, but 1000% (10X) of $1.50 is $15 a gallon.

OK, fine, At $15 a gallon the capital investment needed for algae
production is quite profitable. The land costs are zilch. All the costs
are in the short 15 year capital depreciation-amortization of the
reactors. You build 100 reactors they are expensive (even plastic bags).
But when you build 20k reactors the price per reactor goes way the hell
down. That is especially true in a depression. And BTW, Mexico is
running out of oil regardless of what happens elsewhere.

Of course, price of oil would not go to $20/gallon (let alone
$200/gallon), since this would bring the economy to a grinding stop,
killing consumption, thus reducing the price again. That's good, since
a 10X increase in the price of palm oil would surely mean that end of
our remaining rain forests and any remaining natural habitat for that
matter (see notes below on the food-fuel link).

Ah, but there is no need for that because at $10 a gallon the area
surrounding the Sea of Cortes would be able to profit from algae
biodiesel and algae ethanol. That land is virtually worthless as it
is. Why mess up the rain forests?

It's not the land alone. It's the infrastructure, water supply, etc. If
oil goes up 10X then agricultural products go up 10X as well. Did we
agree on that ? If so, then the rest of the notes below.

But that is the point. I am already computing those costs. The
production costs and land costs are MUCH higher for food type
agriculture. The big deal on the algae is the capital costs and the
short depreciation.

That claim of 2000 gal/acre is less than half the current projected
yield of competent boireactors. So if we go with your 1000% claim
then I want very much to "invest" in bioreactors surrounding the Sea
of Cortes

You forget one (free market) effect : bottom food prices and fuel
prices are linked (now that we grow corn for ethanol and palm oil for
biodiesel).

If the price of oil goes up 10X, then also palm oil and soybean oil
would go up 10X. And Ethanol would go up 10X, which would cause the
price of corn to go up 10X as well. In fact, ALL agricultural products
to go up about 10X in price, since bottom price of food is linked to
the price of oil (since we can convert food to oil).

So the yield per acre of food farming will go up 10X, which then means
that algae farming has to compete against 10X farm yields. So farmers
can then get 10X for growing berries (or tomatoes in a 'green house'
or so). Why would they switch to algae in a boireactor ?

They wouldn't. But that's the real point. The algae stuff will work
fine at $10 a gallon but the corn won't. This is the land rent effect.
It is not understood by most people. The cost of good farmland will
become a very real obstacle to growing fuel on it as opposed to food.
We see the stats on this all the time. The land needed to grow the
fuel is just insufficient and it is land that has other uses (LIKE
FOOD). The land around the Sea of Cortes cannot grow corn and it is
almost free. It can grow algae.

OK, but that does not change the picture too much. Sure enough, good
farmland will become expensive when oil is expensive. But bad farmland
can be converted for agricultural use, using infrastructure (like green
houses etc).

Then you will add a lot of capital costs. You will have the land costs
(less than prime land but still costly) in addition to the fuel costs of
the farming. Those costs do not intrude on the Sea of Cortes algae farm.

Currently for example, it is profitable to grow tomatoes in
greenhouses in the winter in Holland (even with heaters and lights on
during the winter).
Now compare that to algae.
Both need water

The seawater is free.

, both need fertilizer

Algae can get enough stuff from the seawater and needs little is any
fertilizer.

and more importantly, both would

need some sort of greenhouse.
Need a bioreactor for algae, need a
greenhouse for tomatoes.

The bioreactors are MUCH MUCH cheaper than the greenhouses and the water
and sun are free.

So if profit/acre for tomatoes goes up 10X (with all other agricultural
products) then it would be far smarter to grow tomatoes in green houses
on the cheap land around the Sea of Cortes than building a bioreactor
with algae.

No water for tomatoes. Cannot get nutrients for tomatoes from seawater.
All of this has to do with land econ. You would be really dumb to try to
grow tomatoes in the desert surrounding the Sea of Cortes. And you would
be equally dumb to grow algae on good farmland. The land is as nature
gives it to you. Trying to fight nature is really stupid and costly. I
chose the Sea of Cortes because some university nit wanted to construct a
canal across the top of Sonora to get the sea water to the Arizona
desert. Why take the mountain to Mohammad.

Besides that, algae farming requires enhanced CO2 (at least if you want
the 2,000 - 4,000 gallons/acre/year).

According to what I have seen the 2000 gal per year does not require the
enhanced CO2. That enhanced stuff is to do more than that, up to 4000
gallons. By many accounts the seawater has been sucking up CO2 and that
is a minor CO2 enhancement (I have no idea whether that particular claim
is valid but it isn't really necessary). The acidification of the sea is
also part of the CO2 problem from what I am reading.

Tomato plants don't need that.
So I'd say invest in tomato farming, not in algae, when the price of oil
increases 10X. The same can be said about many other food products. So
algae farming cannot get a foot on the ground here. Always competing
with food prices. And food always will cost more than fuel, because
people would rather not starve to death in their cars. That's my point.

It don't fly because it is not a choice between the two. The algae and
the tomatoes do not compete. Let me put it this way: That land
surrounding the Sea of Cortes is now sitting there doing absolutely
nothing. If there was fresh water then you would be able to do lots of
stuff and growing tomatoes might be one of these (like California). There
isn't any fresh water so that won't work. If there was a use for that
land other than algae farms it would probably already be being used. The
land is free.

And the other part of the puzzle is that the cost of fuel to grow food
crops is very high (plow it, plant it, harvest it). The cost of fuel
to grow algae is very small. some of these systems are run by solar
power completely.

Don't need enhanced CO2 ? And no nutrients ? And what's the cost of the
bioreactor per acre ?

Right. No CO2, No nutrients that are not taken from the seawater. The
cost of the bioreactors and pumps amortized over 15 years is the real
problem and the fuel prices must be $10 a gallon or it won't fly. That
is for easily harvested ethanol. The biodiesel has higher harvesting
costs. But $15 should make that work also.

That subtracts from the gallon per acre and I know that. But the point
is that algae will win this race in a free market. I do not know what
the price of food will be when the price of petroleum based diesel is
$10 a gallon, and it may well be that farmers will grow their own fuel.
But they will get better returns from food than form fuel.

Yes indeed. So they won't grow their own fuel. They will grow food.

Not necessarily. The proposition of doing winter canola for fuel
improves the soybean crop and allows the farmer to shoot Exxon the rod.
That last part makes a big difference

This was one of the big distortions from the oil hucksters about people
starving because the farmers were raising fuel as opposed to food. The
blame is on the oil suppliers and speculators that created the $145 oil
prices. Food prices will be what they will be and a part of the price
is the fuel to produce the food. Considering the land rent and the
price of food if people are actually starving, corn and soybeans is a
pretty stupid way to make fuel.

A lot smarter than growing algae, since algae cannot be profitable with
the current 'bioreactor' concepts. It's simply way too expensive.

Did you check out Dimitrov's report yet ?
http://www.nanostring.net/Algae/CaseStudy.pdf Very valid claim that
algae farming would become profitable only when oil hits close to
$1000/barrel. That was calculated assuming that there is no
food-price-oil-price link. I claim there is (an almost 1-to-1 price
link) which means that growing food (in greenhouses) will always be more
profitable than growing algae for fuel.

Unless....
If growing algae requires only absolutely dirt-cheap infrastructure
(plastic tubing on the desert floor or so) and still gets 2000-4000
gallons/acre/year and does NOT require enhanced CO2 levels, then MAYBE
it could become profitable.

But that is the claim for the Sea of Cortes proposition
And I have read Dimitrov over and over and actually talked with the dude
at UT about his ethanol algae stuff and he is in agreement with
Dimitrov. I am painfully aware of the photosynthesis limitations. I am
assuming 8% efficiency. The point is that all the factors needed to
produce the fuel from the algae do exist surrounding that salt water.
The PAR radiation is higher than Arizona and the water is there and it
does not freeze in the winter as does Arizona. Only plastic is needed
and no greenhouse OR proper bioreactors can be used to enhance the
yield. There are some tricks to capture the non PAR stuff using some of
it to drive the pumps and some of it can be converted to PAR
frequencies. Those costs are manageable in large volumes. The reason
for the short capital depreciation (primarily solar pumps) is that in 15
- 20 years the fleet will be nuclear powered (electricity from the grid).

And this does not require a total destruction of the American way
of life or the centralized big brother crap associated with
everything needed for the electric car. I am all for hybrids as a
way to move toward nuclear power. But make no mistake. That is
where you are going.

Not necessarily.

Energy storage is easier at installations than in vehicle batteries.

But if worse comes to worse it's nice to know there's a plan B.

But from whence does this energy come? I am talking about the energy
that must get put INTO the grid (if cars are electric). I am not
suggesting that algae be used for that at all. That would be stone
cold stupid. But I do not see the really big problem as the
batteries.
I see it as the amount of power that must be supplied by the grid
and
ask where the hell that power will come from.

Wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, biomass burning, you name it.
Whatever works in an area. Also, don't forget the power (and low cost)
of increased energy efficiency in all areas of energy use.

That's gonna take a lot of conservation. In 20 years we may make that,
but it ain't gonna be easy.

As a manager, I should say "If it were easy, I'd do it myself" )

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[Michael Coburn]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:18:26 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:

One problem is that at 2,000 gallon/acre-year, it would require much
more than land the entire states of Sonora and Baja combined.

Horse manure. The amount of fuel required is a lot less than what is
currently used. The hybrids will be coming on line. You must remember
that the project is designed to eliminate imperialism costs. It is not
to totally replace oil. The advent of hybrids and then electric
automobiles is the only way to do that. The life span of the algae
biofuels is 20 years. After that it is jet fuel only.

Also the area surronding the Sea of Cortez isn't completely vacant and
without other uses.

Of course not. Just 90% of it.

Finally it's unlikely the money would ever reach the people because of
all the corruption in Mexico. Most would lose the land and get little
in return.

I am not in the business of helping the Mexican people fix their
government. The oil revenues are dwindling because the Mexican oil
fields are running dry. No matter who gets the proceeds, the sale of
algae biofuels creates proceeds.

If we want to get away from the corpocracy of the oil bidness, why not
do the same with the automakers and restructure them for a thriving
after market drive train industry.

I have no idea what that is supposed to be about. That is your stuff.

Regulate the design of the engine / drive train compartment so
everything can be interchangeable. All they need to do is provide the
chassis, body and some seats.

And you want them to do it with electricity. And at the same time you
tell me that I can't produce enough liquid fuel with algae. Very nice.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[Bret Cahill]

One problem is that at 2,000 gallon/acre-year, it would require much
more than land the entire states of Sonora and Baja combined.

Horse manure.  The amount of fuel required is a lot less than what is
currently used.  

So basically the poor don't get personel transportation.

The hybrids will be coming on line.

Two weeks ago automakers were talking 1.6 liter engines. Unless you
are talking about a semi rig or bus, those are for conventional drive
trains.

 You must remember
that the project is designed to eliminate imperialism costs.  It is not
to totally replace oil.  The advent of hybrids and then electric
automobiles is the only way to do that.  

Write your congressman and 2 senators and demand that automakers don't
get any federal funding unless they go hybrid.

The life span of the algae
biofuels is 20 years.  After that it is jet fuel only.

Also the area surronding the Sea of Cortez isn't completely vacant and
without other uses.

Of course not.  Just 90% of it.

Coyotes, birds, rabbits and the greatest endurance animal on earth:
the desert pronghorn.

The Sonoran antelope can run 40 mph for hours.

Finally it's unlikely the money would ever reach the people because of
all the corruption in Mexico.  Most would lose the land and get little
in return.

I am not in the business of helping the Mexican people fix their
government.  

It might be difficult doing business there.

The oil revenues are dwindling because the Mexican oil
fields are running dry.  No matter who gets the proceeds, the sale of
algae biofuels creates proceeds.

If we want to get away from the corpocracy of the oil bidness, why not
do the same with the automakers and restructure them for a thriving
after market drive train industry.

I have no idea what that is supposed to be about.  That is your stuff.

Regulate the design of the engine / drive train compartment so
everything can be interchangeable.  All they need to do is provide the
chassis, body and some seats.

And you want them to do it with electricity.  And at the same time you
tell me that I can't produce enough liquid fuel with algae.

BINGO! You got it.


Bret Cahill

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message news:gk5lab2akv@news5.newsguy.com...

........................

Has anyone seen any real evidence of anything close to 2,000
gallons/ acre year?

That's $20,000/acre when berry crops fetch more than that.

A 1000 percent increase above $2 per gallon (that will be the price
by summer) would be $200 per gallon or $400K per acre if 2000
gal/acre.

1000 percent would be 10X, which would be $20/gallon. or $40K per acre
per year for a 2000 gal/acre algae farm.

Actually it would be $30 a gallon because the price is currently $1.50.

Don't want to nit-pick here, but 1000% (10X) of $1.50 is $15 a gallon.

OK, fine, At $15 a gallon the capital investment needed for algae
production is quite profitable. The land costs are zilch. All the costs
are in the short 15 year capital depreciation-amortization of the
reactors. You build 100 reactors they are expensive (even plastic bags).
But when you build 20k reactors the price per reactor goes way the hell
down. That is especially true in a depression. And BTW, Mexico is
running out of oil regardless of what happens elsewhere.

I know what you are saying, and I also felt like this for a long time.
I just don't see the profitability that you see, or to put it differently : I think that other farm use of cheap land would be more
profitable that growing algae.
Let me run an example in detail, and see if I can validate this statement a bit more concrete.
That may clear up the difference in perspective that we seem to have.
Don't have time now, but I will do this soon.

..........................
Besides that, algae farming requires enhanced CO2 (at least if you want
the 2,000 - 4,000 gallons/acre/year).

According to what I have seen the 2000 gal per year does not require the
enhanced CO2. That enhanced stuff is to do more than that, up to 4000
gallons. By many accounts the seawater has been sucking up CO2 and that
is a minor CO2 enhancement (I have no idea whether that particular claim
is valid but it isn't really necessary). The acidification of the sea is
also part of the CO2 problem from what I am reading.

Do you have a link to an algae (pond?) pilot project that did not use enhanced CO2 and still got 2000 gallon/acre/year of oil (with
little nutrients and without heliostats or other high-tech stuff) ?

Rob

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:03:06 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill

I went to a gas station this morning. In less than 5 minutes, I tanked
up for about $26, enough to last a couple of weeks. Or more than
enough to drive from the coast to Nevada non-stop at 80 mph. Yesterday
I bought pizza for five people, $45 with the tip.

So explain to me... what's not working?

John

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:24:30 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:03:06 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


I went to a gas station this morning. In less than 5 minutes, I tanked
up for about $26, enough to last a couple of weeks. Or more than
enough to drive from the coast to Nevada non-stop at 80 mph. Yesterday
I bought pizza for five people, $45 with the tip.

So explain to me... what's not working?

---
The suicidal guilt trip Jim's leftist weenie enemies want to lay on us?

JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:47:30 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:24:30 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:03:06 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


I went to a gas station this morning. In less than 5 minutes, I tanked
up for about $26, enough to last a couple of weeks. Or more than
enough to drive from the coast to Nevada non-stop at 80 mph. Yesterday
I bought pizza for five people, $45 with the tip.

So explain to me... what's not working?

---
The suicidal guilt trip Jim's leftist weenie enemies want to lay on us?

JF

Every once in a while when I get into my car, I'm astonished at what a
cool thing it is. It's warm and dry and secure, has a nice sound
system, hauls lots of people and stuff day or night, starts and stops
instantly, waits patiently for weeks at a time when I don't need it,
can go around the block or across the country on a moment's notice.
And it's a blast to drive. Louie XIV's finest carriage was torture
compared to my Volkswagen.

This is not a problem that needs to be fixed.

John

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Jan 6, 3:42 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:

zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:e89201a5-2382-4891-88cd-bdfa5b2a364f@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 6, 10:19 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:





On Jan 6, 9:30 am, John J <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

tg wrote:
The problem is that there is too much vested interest at all levels of
the ICE-based auto model, and hybrids now don't depart far enough---
they are basically bad electric cars.

Or are they just bad petrol cars?

The wheelmotor platform, which is the optimal implementation of the
electric car, would destroy the whole auto economy, but it isn't going
to happen even in 20 years without some kind of intervention.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060724.006/pml-builds-640hp-electric-mini

Optimal? The article says 'four hours of power' then it reverts to
petrol behavior. What they do not mention is the performance for the
petrol mode. They call it 'normal mode', a fudging of terms. What's it
really mean? Can I drive from Paris to Madrid at 'normal' (nominal) speeds?

Petrol mode just means that there is a generator supplying
electricity, which is the case in series hybrids of all kinds.

My statement "The wheelmotor platform is the optimal implementation of
the electric car" has nothing to do with whether this particular thing
works well or not, and it doesn't mean that developing better
batteries isn't necessary. Think in terms of trading their sports car
performance (or Tesla's) for a bit more mileage though.

If you have the control systems and software they describe, and it is
possible to get maximal regenerative braking with supercapacitor
storage, you maximize the amount of energy from the energy source that
gets converted into *motion*, which is the whole point eh.

There are lots of other advantages besides eliminating transmission
losses, like the weight that goes with all the mechanical parts, and
the fluids as well. You will have nice handling and stability, and if
you have an 'engine problem', you will be able to swap it out like
changing a tire. Well, if you are pretty strong of course, but you get
the idea.

But my point is that there is no incentive for any auto company to
build something along these lines because it cuts into their profit
system, and dealer repair business and so on, and so some entity---
maybe a DARPA or maybe Bill Gates or some consortium---has to create a
new 'car company' to develop and market based on this concept.

  Well, Darpa certainly isn't going to do it. Since they work with
battlefield technology.

It seems that the military is actually a leader in adopting electric propulsion and hybrid electric

They alwayshave been. But the people with real ENGIINERING brains
are the one still the ones who are the world leaders in GPS, Laser-
Guided Phasors,
Holograms, RISC, Fiber Optics, Parallel Processors, Post GM
Robotics,
and Phalanx Techonolgy.
Since the miltary are still where they've always been with regard
to real Engineers.
They are superficial idiot in regrards to HIGHWAY Technology.




vehicles :http://www.mlive.com/businessreview/oakland/index.ssf/
2008/07/vehicle...

Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:46:37 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Every once in a while when I get into my car, I'm astonished at what a
cool thing it is. It's warm and dry and secure, has a nice sound
system, hauls lots of people and stuff day or night, starts and stops
instantly, waits patiently for weeks at a time when I don't need it,
can go around the block or across the country on a moment's notice.
And it's a blast to drive. Louie XIV's finest carriage was torture
compared to my Volkswagen.

Every once in a while I get into my truck and I remember why I
switched to cycling and public transportation. It's dusty and the
radio is mostly static, which is a good thing because there isn't
anything on the radio anyway. The trucks in _Wages of Fear_ would be
more fun to drive.

Ah, a car hater. I've heard they exist, but I can't begin to
understand that mentality.

Hey, do you know why a man gets excited by a woman dressed in leather?

Because it makes her smell like a new truck.

I'm looking for a cheap E bike.

This is not a problem that needs to be fixed.

Is there _any_ problem you ever fixed?

About $200 million worth, so far. And you?

John

 

[Bret Cahill]

Every once in a while when I get into my car, I'm astonished at what a
cool thing it is. It's warm and dry and secure, has a nice sound
system, hauls lots of people and stuff day or night, starts and stops
instantly, waits patiently for weeks at a time when I don't need it,
can go around the block or across the country on a moment's notice.
And it's a blast to drive. Louie XIV's finest carriage was torture
compared to my Volkswagen.

Every once in a while I get into my truck and I remember why I
switched to cycling and public transportation. It's dusty and the
radio is mostly static, which is a good thing because there isn't
anything on the radio anyway. The trucks in _Wages of Fear_ would be
more fun to drive.

I'm looking for a cheap E bike.

This is not a problem that needs to be fixed.

Is there _any_ problem you ever fixed?


Bret Cahill

 

[Eeyore]

Michael Coburn wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:58:29 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
rc wrote:

The automakers are victims of circumstances.

You mean US automakers. And the failure to innovate isn't
'circumstances'.

Right. If the USA had decent government run pension and health care
systems like the civilized countries then the "Big Three" would not have
a "Legacy Cost" problem and manufacturing of automobiles would be an
American mainstay.

Very likely.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:29:44 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

This is not a problem that needs to be fixed.

Is there _any_ problem you ever fixed?

About $200 million worth, so far.

And yet you have managed to hang a lower profile than a illegal alien
drug smuggling coyote.

How do you _manage_ to stay out of the public record?

Every [legal] billionaire on the planet would like to know.

And you?

About 13 figures a year and climbing.

Cool. How about some links to your public record?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:48:21 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

This is not a problem that needs to be fixed.

Is there _any_ problem you ever fixed?

About $200 million worth, so far.

And yet you have managed to hang a lower profile than a illegal alien
drug smuggling coyote.

How do you _manage_ to stay out of the public record?

Every [legal] billionaire on the planet would like to know.

And you?

About 13 figures a year and climbing.

Cool. How about some links to your public record?

Cahill v Florida, 915 F2d 696, (CA 11 1990)

And _no_ I'm _not_ going to do your breathing for you. You need to
get your ignorant triffling fanny down to the law liberry or subscribe
to WestGroup and git yerself some law book larnin'.

Anyway we're all settin' on the edges of our chairs and holding our
breath waiting for some documentation that you have done anything more
than type utter nonsense yer entire life.

Oh, I'm just a circuit designer, and I've already posted some public
(free!) links to my stuff.

Are/were you an attorney? Engineers and lawyers are natural enemies:
we make stuff, you destroy stuff.

John