Gas Prices Be Wildin'

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Users who are viewing this thread

Reading up on algae biofuel and how it's made and harvested, part of the process of allowing the algae to bloom quickly involves piping in massive amounts of CO2. Unless you cover acres and acres of land, how do you keep the CO2 from escaping into the atmosphere?
 
Introducing blue algae into areas where it didn't exist beforehand does what to the ecosystem? I know there are severe dangers involvling toxic shellfish, but in terms of harvesting existing oceanic blooms, how could that be at all economically feasible?

I wasn't saying it should be introduced to habitats where it doesn't already exist, I just know that it is naturally occurring in oceans and fresh water lakes. It can even be found in damp soil. Obviously, all of these places aren't going to be feasible to harvest, but some might be.

While I don't know the practicalities of scaring up blue algae in vast quantities, I doubt that it's clear that biofuel can never replace petroleum-based fuel. It probably isn't feasible as a complete replacement right now, from what I've read, but technology is improving at an exponential rate. The changes we'll see in the next 50 years will be greater than those we saw in the last 50 years. To say nothing of 100 or 200 years from now.
 
Reading up on algae biofuel and how it's made and harvested, part of the process of allowing the algae to bloom quickly involves piping in massive amounts of CO2. Unless you cover acres and acres of land, how do you keep the CO2 from escaping into the atmosphere?

Can you cite your source? As a plant, algae absorbs CO2 and converts it to hydrocarbons. In theory (yes, emphasis on theory) its cultivation should be a net sink of carbon dioxide (at least until it is processed and burned as fuel).
 
Reading up on algae biofuel and how it's made and harvested, part of the process of allowing the algae to bloom quickly involves piping in massive amounts of CO2. Unless you cover acres and acres of land, how do you keep the CO2 from escaping into the atmosphere?

You can't keep high concentrations of co2 in the water because it becomes carbonic acid. That's one of the main drivers behind ocean acidification, and why shellfish are starting to have a hard time making calcium carbonate shells.
 
Last edited:
Reading up on algae biofuel and how it's made and harvested, part of the process of allowing the algae to bloom quickly involves piping in massive amounts of CO2. Unless you cover acres and acres of land, how do you keep the CO2 from escaping into the atmosphere?

Your problem is that you're assuming we would need to pump co2 into the algae like it was extra work. We could instead use the blue green algae as filters (and generating energy) of our already existing co2 emitting sources, like the exhaust from coal fire plants.
 
Interesting (and long) read on, among other things, the surface area needed to mass produce blue algae-based biofuel, and the sustainability of a food supply chain.

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Ene...els-May-Never-Hold-the-Key-to-the-Future.html

The depletion of world rock phosphate reserves will restrict the amount of food that can be grown, a situation that can only be compounded by the production of biofuels, including the potential large-scale generation of diesel from algae. The world population has risen to its present number of 7 billion in consequence of cheap fertilizers, pesticides and energy sources, particularly oil. Almost all modern farming has been engineered to depend on phosphate fertilizers, and those made from natural gas, e.g. ammonium nitrate, and on oil to run tractors etc. and to distribute the final produce. A peak in worldwide production of rock phosphate is expected by 2030, which lends fears over how much food the world will be able to grow in the future, against a rising number of mouths to feed [1]. Consensus of analytical opinion is that we are close to the peak in world oil production too.

One proposed solution to the latter problem is to substitute oil-based fuels by biofuels, although this is not as straightforward as is often presented. In addition to the simple fact that growing fuel-crops must inevitably compete for limited arable land on which to grow food-crops, there are vital differences in the properties of biofuels, e.g. biodiesel and bioethanol, from conventional hydrocarbon fuels such as petrol and diesel, which will necessitate the adaptation of engine-designs to use them, for example in regard to viscosity at low temperatures, e.g. in planes flying in the frigidity of the troposphere. Raw ethanol needs to be burned in a specially adapted engine to recover more of its energy in terms of tank to wheels miles, otherwise it could deliver only about 70% of the "kick" of petrol, pound for pound.

In order to obviate the competition between fuel and food crops, it has been proposed to grow algae to make biodiesel from. Some strains of algae can produce 50% of their weight of oil, which is transesterified into biodiesel in the same way that plant oils are. Compared to e.g. rapeseed which might yield a tonne of biodiesel per hectare, or 8 tonnes from palm-oil, perhaps 40 - 90 tonnes per hectare is thought possible from algae [2], grown in ponds of equivalent area. Since the ponds can in principle be placed anywhere, there is no need to use arable land for them. Some algae grow well on salt-water too which avoids diverting increasingly precious freshwater from normal uses, as is the case for growing crops which require enormous quantities of freshwater.

The algae route sounds almost too good to be true. Having set-up these ponds, albeit on a large scale, i.e. they would need an area of 10,000 km^2 (at 40 t/ha) to produce 40 million tonnes of diesel, which is enough to match the UK's transportation demand for fuel if all vehicles were run on diesel-engines [the latter are more efficient in terms of tank to wheels miles by about 40% than petrol-fuelled spark-ignition engines], one could ideally have them to absorb CO2 from smokestacks (thus simultaneously solving another little problem) by photosynthesis, driven only by the flux of natural sunlight. The premise is basically true; however, for algae to grow, vital nutrients are also required, as a simple elemental analysis of dried algae will confirm. Phosphorus, though present in under 1% of that total mass, is one such vital ingredient, without which algal growth is negligible. I have used two different methods of calculation to estimate how much phosphate would be needed to grow enough algae, first to fuel the UK and then to fuel the world:

(1) I have taken as illustrative the analysis of dried Chlorella [2], which contains 895 mg of elemental phosphorus per 100 g of algae.

...continued at link...
 
"I don't take money from oil companies." - Barack Obama 2008

Just a flat-out fucking liar.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/05/us-politico-obama-bp-idUSTRE64420A20100505


Obama biggest recipient of BP cash
Wed May 5, 2010 5:15pm EDT

POLITICO (Washington) - While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they've taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company's political action committees - $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.
 
Maybe not today, but perhaps when we get to the future...

dq5Rl.jpg

You mean when we get back to the future?

: O
 
Blame Iran and speculators for the high prices.

Why would I blame accurate speculators and our own self-imposed sanctions on Iran? That doesn't make sense. ;]

Besides the government takes complete responsibility for this nonsense, we shut down 80% of our drilling. I'll get into the other reasons later too.
 
Bump.

He says he doesn't take any money from oil companies in this ad, by the way.

What a fucking liar. I mean, he's just a blatant liar. There is no other way to say it, is there? Can any Obama supporters defend this stuff, outside of "all politicians are liars"?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...3/14/exxon-chevron-bp-greased-obamas-campaign

When gas prices soared under former President Bush, a former Texas oilman, bloggers and pundits suggested that he was in the pocket of his Big Oil donors. So as gas prices soar again to Bush-era levels, can the same be said of Democrat Barack Obama? [See a slide show of the 10 Cities With the Highest Gas Prices.]

The facts of the 2008 election show that he was the favorite of Exxon, Chevron, and BP. Exxon donated $117,946 to Obama and $73,326 to McCain. Chevron pumped $77,875 into Obama's warchest and $61,313 to McCain. BP gave $71,051 to Obama but just $36,649 to McCain.
 
Looking at how the GOP is going with their presidential hopefuls, I'd say Obama will be a 2 term President.
 
Why would I blame accurate speculators and our own self-imposed sanctions on Iran? That doesn't make sense. ;]

Besides the government takes complete responsibility for this nonsense, we shut down 80% of our drilling. I'll get into the other reasons later too.

As of today the price per barrel of crude was 110$ source and on january 23rd source the EU decided to put sanctions against Iran. Iran accounts for 5% of the world's oil at 4.1m b/d vs 84.7b/d source in December of 2011 the price was just about 100$ per barrel. I can do the math for you if you'd like, but that's a 10% increase. Twice as much as the amount of oil decrease. But I guess I was never a business major, so maybe you can explain it better?

There is actually the most drilling rigs running in our countries' history (sadly) http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-16/us-oil-boom/52053236/1
 
Bump.

He says he doesn't take any money from oil companies in this ad, by the way.

What a fucking liar. I mean, he's just a blatant liar. There is no other way to say it, is there? Can any Obama supporters defend this stuff, outside of "all politicians are liars"?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...3/14/exxon-chevron-bp-greased-obamas-campaign

So are you voting for Ron Paul?

E: I am disappointed in Obama, but I would never vote for any of the republican candidates for other reasons. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't vote at all.
 
Last edited:
There is actually the most drilling rigs running in our countries' history (sadly) http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-16/us-oil-boom/52053236/1

the us exports more oil the we import, no wonder it is so expensive

this way, everyone in the world has to have their petroleum transported by enormous super tanker around the world (using fuel) to get to the desired port, where they can use large pumps (using fuel) to pump the petroleum onto large trucks (using fuel) that can deliver it to your local mom and pop gas station!

makes perfect sense!!
 
the us exports more oil the we import, no wonder it is so expensive

this way, everyone in the world has to have their petroleum transported by enormous super tanker around the world (using fuel) to get to the desired port, where they can use large pumps (using fuel) to pump the petroleum onto large trucks (using fuel) that can deliver it to your local mom and pop gas station!

makes perfect sense!!

Talk to the oil industry. I'm just sharing what I have learned. Maybe Obama should tell the oil industry how to run things, that won't upset anyone right? ;]
 
There is no way that any biofuel can ever fully replace petroleum. One of the best things about petroleum, and one of the most overlooked is that it lies beneath the surface of the earth. The amount of land, and the environmental impact, necessary to convert to a biofuel-based transportation system would take resources away from feeding the population. Plus, the recovery of massive amounts of biofuel would cost literally hundreds of billions, if not dozens of trillions, of dollars. No private companies would invest in such a massive overhaul, because either the length of the ROI would bankrupt the companies, or they would have to charge a lot of money to their customers in order to shorting the ROI period. That doesn't even include the taxes associated with the cost of fuel, and how the biofuel companies get a fraction of their profits compared to what is received in the form of local, state, and federal taxes.

As for the government funding it, we simply don't have the money at this point, and the federal loan program for green energy can't even prop up some companies of a year with $500 million loans, let alone revamp an entire economy.

Biofuel such as algae is a great idea, but in terms of practicality, it's a pipe dream. It's easy for a President to flap his gums about converting to alternative fuels, but the reality of such an overhaul is completely unrealistic.

Petroleum is a limited, finite resource that will be gone forever in our granchildren's lifetimes. The damage done to the earth by it's extraction, refinement and use is unparalleled.

Biofuel is infinite in it's supply sources, less damaging in it's refinement, and less polluting in it's use. It can be made locally, with no need to ever buy it from another country.

It is also far less expensive to produce and would already be our fuel source were it not for the economy-crushing subsidization of the oil industry by our government.

It's a moot point anyway, since internal combustion engines will likely cease to be produced at some point in this century as electricity from solar replaces the energy world as you now know it.
 
Back
Top