Biodeisel from algae.

[Rdutch 0]

http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/solazyme/30888/

Pretty interesting. Cheveron has partnered with Solazyne to research and refine this idea.
They brought a car to the sundance film festivel, fueled by algae biodeisel.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/23/solazyme-will-drive-algae-biodiesel-fueled-car-at-sundance/


Interested by this I looked around and found a ton of information about this, One article described plans to produce mile long farms in the desert, where algae would be grown in long plastic bags on racks. The plastic bags allow the algae to grow, while keeping unwanted algae from contaminating the crop. The alge grows faster in warm sunny conditions. This would eliminate the strain on farmland usually used to produce food, by using desolate desert land. The algae reproduce at an extremely high rate and are easy to grow. the only drawback is the high amount of water used. A good idea would be to use solor concentration power plants where mirrors concentrate the sunlight on a boiler to produce steam to turn power producing turbines.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/28751.pdf
If Seawater was pumped from the ocean to be used in the plants, the byproduct would be freshwater, which could be used for the farms, with excess available for local towns.

With enough interest we could potentially make hundreds of fuel algae farms. That could produce millions of gallons of high quality oil, electricity, and fresh water.

The initial startup cost would be very high, but would pay for itself in no time.

Billvon if you read this, whats your thoughts on this.

Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!

[KelliJ 0]

It's still a greenhouse gas producer and the engine is still a stinky, noisy, shaky powerplant.
But at least they are trying and it is renewable.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Chevron has partnered

Time to instantly disregard it...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,475]

> It's still a greenhouse gas producer . . .

Actually it's a greenhouse gas USER. Green algae converts sunlight, water and CO2 to carbohydrates and (in this case) hydrocarbons.

>and the engine is still a stinky, noisy, shaky powerplant.

You mean a diesel? Perhaps - but truckers, railroads and peaker plants get quite a lot of use out of them.

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

> It's still a greenhouse gas producer . . .

Actually it's a greenhouse gas USER. Green algae converts sunlight, water and CO2 to carbohydrates and (in this case) hydrocarbons.

>and the engine is still a stinky, noisy, shaky powerplant.

You mean a diesel? Perhaps - but truckers, railroads and peaker plants get quite a lot of use out of them.

You are absolutely correct, the algae does consume CO2.
The engine still produces greenhouse gases regardless.
The emmisions still include CO, CO2, particulate matter, NOx, etc. the same as most any other IC engine.
Never said diesels don't have their place, just that they are stinky, noisy and shaky.
Then there is the rare asshat who modifies the diesel engine in his pickup so every time he goes past half throttle a large plume of black smoke is emitted from the exhaust.
But, since it is renewable, it is a step in the right direction until H2 fuel cells become more widespread.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

H2 cells are a great way of removing local pollutants from the congested cities, but whether or not they are greenhouse gas producers depends entirely upon how the fuel cells are charged. The usual source of hydrogen is through electrolysis of water, which requires electricity, which currently is still produced largely through burning hydrocarbons. The other way I have heard of involves using natural gas directly, which still yields carbon dioxide.
Perhaps we can produce the hydrogen using power made in power plants that burn biodeisel produced from the algae. That way we can put the plants in Canada or somewhere where no-one will notice the local pollutants. This will of course require the carbon credits earned in the desert to be transferred to the power plant.

[TheAnvil 0]

That's cool! Hadn't seen that. What an interesting concept.

Vinny

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mnealtx 0]

My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cells are still below parity for energy used to make them vs energy produced by them. Is that still true?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

I would argue that diesels are not all that rattely and stinky.. I have a Cummins diesel in my Dodge 4x4...

. AND


I bought a used Diesel Bugly as a commuter....I took it on a little test drive on sunday.... 52 MPG at 70 MPH up to the Canadian border and back..on bio-diesel.

Aint ya proud of me Bill...

[mnealtx 0]

I've heard that the common-rail injection that Cummins went to has helped with the rattle-shake thing, as well as providing better fuel economy, better performance and less noise.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

It purrs real nice

I can get 27 MPG on the freeway at 60 MPH... on the flat down herre at sea level...

Using it to commute in traffic though it gets about 19 MPG..... but parking it in underground parking structures.... eeeesh..they make the parking spaces so tight it is reallly hard .. plus it is LONG and the distance between rows is not much longer than the truck....so with the new job.. I decided I needed something a little more convenient in the urban jungle.

The bugly is very very smooth and quiet. It has the 1.9 Turbo Diesel...and I think the sulpher smell that comes out of a lot of cars with catalytic converters smells FAR WORSE than the smell of bio-diesel exhaust.

[mnealtx 0]

Full box quad cab, I'm betting it takes 40 acres to turn around in!

27mg on the highway....outstanding for a truck! I'm hoping to find something like a used TDi Jetta or similar.... I need a car that will get GOOD mileage.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

The TDI does hold its value well... I got a 2000 with 90k on it... just broke in....And I got it for $7800.... essentially Kelly trade in value.

I think handing them cash might have helped on that

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I think handing them cash might have helped on that

Ya think?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cells are still below parity for energy used to make them vs energy produced by them. Is that still true?

All machines are below parity energy out/energy in. From what I have learned the big problem with locomotive fuel cells is a) cost of production b) weight and c) endurance.
The Greater Vancouver Regional District has ordered a new fleet of fuel cell buses, but I don't know whether this is still experimental/support of local business (Ballard Power) or whether they actually think the economics work. Vancouver and Chicago used three each about ten years ago; at that time they were deemed to be uneconomical.

[Amazon 7]

I would think in Vancouver it would be far easierr to produce the electricity needed. Much of the power in the Pacific NW is hydro and very little fossil fuel is used here.

In Chicago I am fairly sure most of the power comes from fossil fuels... coal found in IL. I also remember there being several nuclear plants that add to the grid there as well to produce the electricity.

I believe that the rates for electricty are far higher in the east than they are here in the NW and SW Canada.

The economics favor cheaper sources of electricy when generating the hydrogen needed.

[mnealtx 0]

I *am* cognizant of the fact that there are always losses in any machinery, thanks.

I recalled reading something a few years back about the disparity in regards to the fuel cells, and didn't know if that was still the case.

Regardless, thank you for the info. Hopefully the technology will continue to mature and improve to provide a reasonable alternative.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I would argue that diesels are not all that rattely and stinky.. I have a Cummins diesel in my Dodge 4x4...

. AND


I bought a used Diesel Bugly as a commuter....I took it on a little test drive on sunday.... 52 MPG at 70 MPH up to the Canadian border and back..on bio-diesel.

Aint ya proud of me Bill...

You should get one of these
You'd be the envy of the green crowd!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcn8ZkvKKc&feature=related

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I would think in Vancouver it would be far easierr to produce the electricity needed. Much of the power in the Pacific NW is hydro and very little fossil fuel is used here.

In Chicago I am fairly sure most of the power comes from fossil fuels... coal found in IL. I also remember there being several nuclear plants that add to the grid there as well to produce the electricity.

I believe that the rates for electricity are far higher in the east than they are here in the NW and SW Canada.

The economics favor cheaper sources of electricity when generating the hydrogen needed.

True enough. Even in BC however electricity is produced on the margin via fossil fuels. To add a few buses is one thing, to fundamentally change our energy dependence toward electricity without adding massive hydro-electric capacity will probably not do much on the CO2 front. With the integration of the North American grid it could just mean selling less to Cali who then find new sources using fossil fuels.
There have been some rumblings about a new BIG hydro project in northern BC, but the crown corp BC Hydro after making big profits for the last fifty years selling power to Cali seems to not have any money (something about politicians raiding the kitty every four years).

[billvon 2,475]

>You are absolutely correct, the algae does consume CO2.
>The engine still produces greenhouse gases regardless.

Yep. The _net_ effect, though, is zero.

>The emmisions still include CO, CO2, particulate matter, NOx, etc. the
>same as most any other IC engine.

Agreed.

>Never said diesels don't have their place, just that they are stinky, noisy
>and shaky.

I think 80's circa diesels were like that, but the more recent VW diesels I've driven in the past few years aren't even noticeable as diesels. They've come a long way.

[billvon 2,475]

> My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cells are still below parity for
>energy used to make them vs energy produced by them. Is that still true?

Basically, yes. The problem right now is that we don't have a source of hydrogen, so we have to make it out of oil (which is better used as gasoline) or electrolysis (which uses electrical power we could be using to run other things.)

About the only ways hydrogen makes sense is:

-via a direct catalytic water-to-hydrogen converter powered by sunlight

-via thermal dissociation of water in a high temperature gas nuclear reactor (like the PBMR)

-via conversion of coal. Problem is that coal is almost entirely carbon, so it's not super efficient. The 'easy' way to do it produces carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane and some hydrogen, and you still have to vent the CO2.

[Amazon 7]

California has the ability to do far more with wind and solar energy that we up here in the cloudy northern world do not have. As time goes on there are economies of scale that would come into play as well.

Newer technology is more efficient and the fans at Byron could produce even more( does that mean everyone would need to land in more windy conditions there???)

If they put up wind farms in every mountain pass where the winds are faster and more common.. as well as all the rooftops that could be retrofitted with solar... theere would be less need to ship so much electric south. Think of what 2 million BillVon houses in California would do for the grid in conservation alone.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Yep. The problem with wind (solar too, but less so) is that it is not so predictable. Here in Alberta I can tell you with reasonable certainty that the wind will be above ten knots for X% of the time year over year. The problem is the system for putting power on the NA grid for auction needs to know how much I can give them tomorrow.

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

I think 80's circa diesels were like that, but the more recent VW diesels I've driven in the past few years aren't even noticeable as diesels. They've come a long way.

Yep, they sure are. I drove one a couple months ago and was pleasantly surprised.
Now if the rest of the manufacturers would take note.

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

> My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cells are still below parity for
>energy used to make them vs energy produced by them. Is that still true?

Basically, yes. The problem right now is that we don't have a source of hydrogen, so we have to make it out of oil (which is better used as gasoline) or electrolysis (which uses electrical power we could be using to run other things.)

About the only ways hydrogen makes sense is:

-via a direct catalytic water-to-hydrogen converter powered by sunlight

-via thermal dissociation of water in a high temperature gas nuclear reactor (like the PBMR)

-via conversion of coal. Problem is that coal is almost entirely carbon, so it's not super efficient. The 'easy' way to do it produces carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane and some hydrogen, and you still have to vent the CO2.

Hydrogen production is the key to it's viability as an alternative fuel. There are ways to produce it that don't pollute, but we are in a catch-22 situation of demand and supply. There is limited supply because there is limited demand because there is limited supply.....
Hydrogen by itself is not the answer. I doubt any single alternative fuel will be.