backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by fibreoptik.. on Oct 23 at 4:04 PM


GreenFuel experimented with growing algae in tubes and bags at its Arizona pilot farm. While most of its competitors are sticking to these methods, GreenFuels has developed a closely-guarded greenhouse technologies which grows algae at higher yields and an automated system to harvest the crop. It will be debutting this setup at a commercial scale plant in Spain, to be complete in 2011.  (Source: PetroAlgae)
Algae company's harvest will make biodiesel, nutritious livestock feed

Many in the alternative fuels industry agree that algae is where the mid-range future of the biodiesel industry lies.  While fuels such as ethanol and cellulosic ethanol may prevail in the short term, algae is seen as the final stepping stone before full synthetic gasoline production.  This value is due to algae's ability to grow rich long chain hydrocarbons.  When algae is genetically engineered, it can produce large amounts of oil that is essentially diesel grade. 

The big question with algae tech is not whether it will arrive, but when it will arrive.  DailyTech had previously followed Cambridge, Mass. based GreenFuel Technologies' effort to bring its specially bred algae to the market.  The company, founded by MIT graduates, had built a pilot farm in Arizona, previously.  By growing algae in tubes, it found that algae would get optimal sun exposure.  Its only problem was that it grew too much algae, blocking out light, and eventually killing part of the crop.

Now GreenFuel is taking its experience and has become the first algae company to announce a profitable business deal and the construction of a commercial scale growth facility.   Spain's Aurantia, a leading alternative energy investment firm, has agreed to pay GreenFuels $92M to build a 100 hectacre (250 acre) algae farm.  The farm will produce 25,000 tons of biomass yearly.

GreenFuel, which recently celebrated its 7th anniversary, already has a 100 square-meter prototype greenhouse operating at the site in Spain.  GreenFuel ditched the growing tubes, opting for a top-secret tubeless proprietary growing process, one which includes automated harvesting.  Thus far the company has declined to reveal the secretive workings of this new design.

It has, however, announced its intention to scale the production up quickly.  It plans to have a 1,000 square-meter installation online by the end of the year.  The full farm is scheduled to be completed by 2011. 

The plant will take carbon dioxide emissions from the nearby Holcim cement plant near Jerez, Spain and use it to increase algae yields.  This will cut down on Holcim cement plant near Jerez, Spain, almost 10 percent of the factory's output.  This will help the factory meet tougher emissions standards.

The developers are in the process of selecting which strains of algae to grow.  Certain strains are optimized for biodiesel production; bred to produce extra oil.  Other strains produce extra nutrients like protein and make for more nutritious animal feed.

CEO Simon Upfill-Brown acknowledges that the field is full of overly optimistic visions, but insists his company is firmly grounded in reality and a series of successful trials.  He states, "Some people are making clearly outrageous claims. We're at the stage where we can say we are pretty comfortable and very optimistic that we're getting all the way there in phases."

One trouble spot for the upcoming farm is falling gas prices.  With gas low, it may be harder for the farm's biodiesel production to be economically competitive.  This was cited as the resaon for rival Imperium Renewables' delay of its plan to launch a smaller algae farm in Hawaii.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Symbiotic relationship?
By isorfir on 10/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By InvertMe on 10/21/2008 11:29:12 AM , Rating: 4
It's not 100% necessary to add the additional carbon dioxide. It just increases yield.

But in any event your comment holds no merit. Anyone who makes anything relies on others to provide them materials.

Your comment is like saying Car makers shouldn't rely on tire manufactures to make tires for them because they might go out of business and then the car manufacture couldn't make any more cars.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By isorfir on 10/21/2008 11:48:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not 100% necessary to add the additional carbon dioxide. It just increases yield.

But my question is, is it that yield that makes it profitable? If it is, then they are slaved to the cement producers output.
quote:
But in any event your comment holds no merit. Anyone who makes anything relies on others to provide them materials.

Not really, your example of a car manufacturer could easily make their own tires, it's just less expensive if they buy them from tire making specialists.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By FITCamaro on 10/21/2008 12:36:06 PM , Rating: 4
If it is we can just build a plant in DC near the capitol building. The amount of CO2 from the hot air of all those politicians together could probably quintuple the yield.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By PhoenixKnight on 10/21/2008 8:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
While we're at it, we should research a way to use some sort of bacteria or algae to turn all the bullshit from DC into a usable fuel.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By fibreoptik on 10/23/2008 4:01:51 PM , Rating: 1
Zing! nice 1 FIT :) lol


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By Oregonian2 on 10/21/2008 1:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why you were de-pointed by someone, you make a very good point and inquiry as to whether the cement factory enhancement of yield was crucial to the project being profitable (as opposed to it being functional which the other person seems to be focused on). If their scheme is wildly profitable, then it wouldn't matter. If it is projected to be just slightly profitable, then it may make all the difference in the world.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By Oregonian2 on 10/21/2008 1:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - It occurred to me that the other comment may have assumed that they could have gotten the enhanced CO2 from some other source at the same price if they couldn't get it from the cement plant. I would assume the cement plant would at worst "give" the CO2 for free if not actually pay the algae folk to scrub their emissions for them which is what they would have had to do otherwise if they needed to reduce their emissions by other means. An alternative source would be unlikely I think, particularly once the algae plant has been sited and built.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By teldar on 10/21/2008 2:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
But other companies do NOT rely on the byproducts of a particular plant in a particular place for something. I think the question had merit. Yes, other companies rely on products from someone, but how common is it to rely heavily on the product of one plant from one particular place?


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By d0gb0y on 10/21/2008 11:40:03 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
It’s nice that they are turning carbon dioxide into something useful


Wow, imagine a use for that evil carbon dioxide... What, it increases plant growth? How strange. I thought it was a heat generating poison we have to eliminate.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By isorfir on 10/21/2008 11:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't say it was evil, just a byproduct not being utilized.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By Spuke on 10/21/2008 1:44:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I didn't say it was evil, just a byproduct not being utilized.
He wasn't talking about you in particular. It's just that we, as a whole, are fed BS about CO2 being a pollutant when it's really not. It seemed like a sarcastic comment to me about how a supposed pollutant is used to enhance the growth of algae. If it is indeed a pollutant, we shouldn't be using it at all.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By InvertMe on 10/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By Schrag4 on 10/21/2008 4:12:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
At least that how I understand the concernse about the amount of carbon being put into the world.


...And by "put into the world" you mean "RE-released into the atmosphere, where it originally came from", right? Nobody's putting any carbon into the "world", it's all already here, and always has been. In fact, every last drop of oil originated as carbon that was in the atmosphere at one point, when the earth was much greener than it is now.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By on 10/21/2008 4:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
Oxygen is a pollutant in sufficient quantities. Hence the bends.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By cscpianoman on 10/21/2008 7:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
The bends are primarily caused by dissolved nitrogen in the blood coalescing into bubbles with a quick lowering in surrounding pressure. There is some oxygen dissolved in the blood, but most of it is attached to hemoglobin. Excess oxygen causes reactive oxygen species and free radicals, which leads to DNA, protein and cell membrane damage, which can ultimately lead to cancer or inflammation/cell necrosis.

Sorry, for being a nerd, but I couldn't let this one slip by.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By on 10/21/2008 9:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
ugh... yes i meant nitrogen.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By fibreoptik on 10/23/2008 4:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
Umm... yeah... he meant to say whatever it was that you said :p


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By on 10/21/2008 1:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
You need to expand your logic and thinking beyond the Bible. Not everyting is good / evil or black /white.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By Spuke on 10/21/2008 1:51:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You need to expand your logic and thinking beyond the Bible.
You need to expand your maturity level into adulthood by not childishly imitating another members name.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By bhieb on 10/21/2008 2:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
Imitation is the highest form of flattery, so Fit should feel proud that he has become a beacon of conservative logic so fierce the libs would seek to flatter him.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By FITCamaro on 10/21/2008 2:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
:)

I'm hardly the biggest conservative on here though.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By Spuke on 10/22/2008 1:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Imitation is the highest form of flattery
When you can't create, imitate.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By bhieb on 10/21/2008 12:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong but the CO2 foot print of the cement plant is shifted more than straight up reduced. The algae use it to make diesel which at some point is burned releasing CO2, hence no reduction per se.

Except that no conventional diesel is burn instead so I guess it does reduce it overall, just not as direct as the article points out.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By Doormat on 10/21/2008 12:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
Its a closed cycle from the algae's point of view - it takes in CO2 from the environment, and then its put back in the environment when its burned.

From the cement plant's POV, its just postponing the placement of CO2 into the atmosphere - it goes through a conversion process that allows it to be used as fuel.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By Schrag4 on 10/21/2008 4:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think the argument would go, however, that for every gallon of fuel created by this algae, that's one less gallon of fuel created by oil sucked up from underground, so you could argue that it's reducing the amount of sequestered carbon that we're bringing out of the ground and releasing. So, yeah, it IS postponing the release of the cement plant's carbon, but that cement plant's carbon is then eventually used to power vehicles instead of oil-originated fuel.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By bobny1 on 10/22/2008 8:21:17 AM , Rating: 2
True. But the difference is that combined with hybrid technology it cuts or prolongs even further the amount of CO2 that returns to the atmosphere. Allowing planet Earth to do its natural refine process.


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By Spuke on 10/22/2008 1:56:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Allowing planet Earth to do its natural refine process.
So "planet Earth" wouldn't do the "natural refine process" without this delay?


RE: Symbiotic relationship?
By BurnItDwn on 10/21/2008 1:36:38 PM , Rating: 1
They have more options than to just set up at factories and hope the factories don't go out of business.
They have a LOT of possible options here ...
I see one of these as being likely, but again, they have a lot of options ...

They could manufacture the plants in their own factory, then ship them to various factories around the world and install and set them up.

They could license their tech out and various companies can assemble/fab locally ...

They could mfg it, then have contractors handle installing.


Diesel prices are somewhat higher than gasoline...
By Amiga500 on 10/21/2008 11:22:28 AM , Rating: 2
I think it is mainly due to refining limitations, here for example, petrol/gasoline is down to around £1/litre, where as diesel is still around £1.20/litre.

I remember when it was about £0.60/litre. :-(




By Spoelie on 10/21/2008 11:41:39 AM , Rating: 3
Actually it's the other way around, gasoline needs more refining and has a higher production cost than diesel.

As for the price, diesel is usually higher because of higher demand (generators, home heating, transportation industry like ships and trucks, cars in non-US markets, ... run mostly on diesel) and higher (environmental) taxes.


By bobsmith1492 on 10/21/2008 12:23:36 PM , Rating: 1
Still, if more refinery capacity is allocated to gas than diesel, less diesel is available, driving price up...

Which would, naturally, cause refineries to produce more diesel, decreasing the price until a balance is achieved.

So then why does diesel cost more?

It's probably taxed more because of how allegedly dirty it is, not to mention the latest permitted sulfur regulations drove up refining costs.


RE: Diesel prices are somewhat higher than gasoline...
By bhieb on 10/21/2008 12:32:12 PM , Rating: 3
I think your both wrong they don't NOT refine part of a barrel of crude. It isn't like they take the gas part of the crude and just chunk the rest out. If a barrel is refined it is refined into all parts from tar > diesel > gas > propane.

I could be wrong, but that is my understanding.


RE: Diesel prices are somewhat higher than gasoline...
By bhieb on 10/21/2008 12:47:53 PM , Rating: 3
More specifically crude oil can only make so much gas, and so much diesel and they are exclusive.

A barrel of crude refines into roughly 9.1 gallons of diesel and 19.5 gallons of gas (barring some mixes and such). It is not like they can choose to put 10 gallons of gas into diesel or vice versa, they are completely different hydrocarbon fuels. So going in, at any given # of barrels refined there will be less supply of diesel, and if demand is the same for both, diesel will always cost more.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/no...


By FITCamaro on 10/21/2008 1:46:47 PM , Rating: 3
Interesting. So lets do an analysis here:

$80 a barrel
2.60 for gas (regular)
2.90 for diesel
18.4 cents per gallon federal tax on gas
24.4 cents per gallon federal tax on diesel
16 cents per gallon state tax (SC) on gas and diesel

$77.09 would be the total cost of the gas and diesel from one barrel.

$6.70 in taxes on gas
$3.68 in taxes on diesel

$77.09 - $6.70 - $3.68 = $66.71

So on an $80 barrel of oil the oil companies, make around $13. Now from that they have to pay shipping costs, refining costs, payroll, payroll taxes, and corporate taxes(over 30% alone). Yes they're just greedy SOBs...


RE: Diesel prices are somewhat higher than gasoline...
By bhieb on 10/21/2008 1:57:11 PM , Rating: 3
Not quiet they do produce and sell several other goods such as asphalt tar, propane, kerosene, JetA ... And they are in the top 100 (if not top 10) every year so they aren't doing too bad. Hey and most of them are probably in the top 5% of income tax returns that pay 95% of the taxes so I guess we should be happy.

Won't be too long and we can milk some more forced charity out of em too if the Dems get their way.


By FITCamaro on 10/21/2008 2:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but I'm just talking about the sale of fuel for automotive consumption. Which is all you hear about from the Democrats about how evil these companies are.

I'm not saying that they don't make a lot of money. They deal in insanely huge volumes. If you make a penny per unit but sell 50 billion units you're still making money hand over fist. But to the Democrats they want to make it half a penny because how dare they make that much money.


By bhieb on 10/21/2008 2:40:08 PM , Rating: 5
True and I agree 100%. Not just these companies though all wealthy are evil. Hence the sliding scale for income tax, it is what I like to call "forced charity". Assuming the country needs x$ to run and you cannot get enough from the poor/middle class, why not rape the rich they have extra.

Just wait till they succeed and there are no jobs because there are no employers. Good old socialism reminds me of my favorite movie line.

"Everyones special Dash. That's just another way of saying no one is" - Incredibles

Just a friendly reminder from Disney that true 100% equality would result in nothing special. No one to be the boss/employer, no one to be the worker.


By SectionEight on 10/22/2008 9:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
The sum of those products' selling costs does not equal the price of a barrel of crude oil, especially at $140 a barrel. Ever care to look at the stocks of petroleum related companies during the summer? The integrated companies (produce and refine crude) were up a bit. The ones that only produce and then sell it on the open market skyrocketed. The companies that only refined had lost up 75% of their value. The integrated oil companies make so much profit because a) they are huge, and b) they buy and sell crude on the open market just like everyone else. If a well they own from the 90s still produces crude that is profitable at $10 a barrel, why refine it and make ~8-10% profit when you can sell it on the open market for $140 a barrel?


By FITCamaro on 10/21/2008 5:22:25 PM , Rating: 3
Please tell me what oil fields any US oil company owns.


By rcsinfo on 10/21/2008 2:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
Actually a modern refinery can do exactly that. The process of converting heavy hydrocarbons into light is called "cracking".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_catalytic_crack...


RE: Diesel prices are somewhat higher than gasoline...
By bhieb on 10/21/2008 2:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
Aw, good to know. Makes sense though.


By rcsinfo on 10/21/2008 2:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
If you are interested in the whole process, the show "Modern Marvels" did a really great episode on gasoline. Its worth checking out if you can find the episode.


By bhieb on 10/21/2008 4:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
LOL I think I have that recorded, and have just not watched it. Wonder how much on average though they "steal" from say gas to make diesel or vice versa. My guess is that they breakdown the less profitable stuff as needed into either/or depending on demand.


By JediJeb on 10/21/2008 4:51:13 PM , Rating: 1
I believe you can also use catalyst to "crack" the diesel and increase your gasoline yield. All you are doing is breaking down the heavier molecules into the smaller ones of gasoline. ( for example. Of the straight chain hydrocarbons you can take one 30 carbon length hydrocarbon found in diesel and make three 10 carbon length hydrocarbons found in gasoline.)

So if the demand for gasoline is higher and you produce more of it, there is less diesel and heating oil for those markets driving the price up. This is what they are talking about when the say they are switching the refineries over to heating oil production in the winter. They are doing less "cracking" and improving the kerosene range yield. If they do not use the catalyst then they are doing a simple distillation of the crude which will give unaltered percentages of each fraction from the crude.


By phxfreddy on 10/21/2008 5:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
Wooot .60 is still high!


...at least partial fail...
By Motoman on 10/21/2008 11:27:36 AM , Rating: 2
So I applaud the technology and techniques in use...certainly we need to get to a renewable source of vehicle fuels.

I am both intrigued and dismayed at the same time about putting these "farms" in the desert...first, you're not taking over arable land that *should* be used for growing food, which is good. Secondly, you're not clear-cutting forest or other valuable natural resources to create new farmland, which is also good. But...now you've got to pump water out to the middle of the desert - where there already isn't enough water, and places like Phoenix and Las Vegas are quickly demonstrating the folly of trying to supply water to desert locales. And I supposed there's a desert tortoise or something around there that gets displaced too, so on and so forth, so you're going to get the hippies all frothy again.

It has always been my position that any renewable fuel made from plant matter needs to meet 2 basic criteria - it doesn't require a dedicated crop, and it has a positive energy ratio (output produces more energy than it took to produce it). The first of these criteria is to ensure we aren't diverting food crops to fuel, and that we aren't clearcutting to create new farmland. The second is to ensure that it's an equitable energy transaction.

The algae farm thing kind of sort of doesn't violate the first criteria - but it kind of sort of does. It's impact is, I'm sure, a lot smaller than taking over existing corn fields or clearcutting more rainforest, but it's not exactly ideal either. I'll give them the second criteria at the moment, unless I hear otherwise.

How would you do the algae thing ideally? Well, obviously algae grows naturally in darn near any body of water. So, build plants by big lakes? Harvest from many lakes and transport to a facility? Naturally-occuring algae may not be as fit for purpose anyway. And if you harvest from a natural lake, you're upsetting the ecosystem there (except in extreme cases of runaway algal growth).

Hmmm...so color me conflicted I guess. Where's my fuel-from-poulty-offal plant at?




RE: ...at least partial fail...
By InvertMe on 10/21/2008 11:34:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But...now you've got to pump water out to the middle of the desert - where there already isn't enough water, and places like Phoenix and Las Vegas are quickly demonstrating the folly of trying to supply water to desert locales.


There is a big differnce here though. This water doesn't need to be potable. You can use waste water which I am sure there are many sources of that. I am thinking this would make the whole irrigation process cheaper and maybe even profitable if people are paying you to take contaminated water away.


RE: ...at least partial fail...
By Proteusza on 10/21/2008 11:39:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and it has a positive energy ratio (output produces more energy than it took to produce it).


Remember that its actually impossible to create energy, but at best you could hope that most of the energy comes from the sun. Certainly you would probably have to feed energy into this system in order for it to convert molecules into oil, hopefully that energy is mostly provided by the sun.


By theapparition on 10/21/2008 3:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
His point was perfectly clear.

No, you can't create energy. But fuels by denfinition store energy. A positive net energy fuel takes less energy to liberate the stored energy. Negative is the reverse.

Water is a perfect example of a positive energy fuel. It takes more energy to liberate hydrogen than you'll ever get from burning that hydrogen. Net affect.....pretty much a waste of time.

I'm not big on bio-fuels, but hopefully, this will show some promise.


RE: ...at least partial fail...
By Aragonphx on 10/21/2008 11:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
I had to reply to this. You don't know anything about the water supply in Phoenix and just assume because it is a desert that we don't have enough water when that could not be farther from the truth. Phoenix is planning for a 100 year supply under conditions of significant growth, long term drought, and global climate change.
Phoenix recycles in some form 90 percent of its wastewater, delivering it for use in agriculture, energy production, urban irrigation, aquifer recharge and riparian wetland maintenance.

http://phoenix.gov/WATER/drtmain.html


RE: ...at least partial fail...
By bhieb on 10/21/2008 12:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
Think you missed the point. It is not that Phoenix does not have enough water or that they don't do a good job of recycling it (in fact far better than most). However artificially irrigating a desert is not a good use of fresh water. Even if you recycle 100% of waste water the dry air evaporates far more than you think.

Irrigation in a desert environment is basically creating a micro ecosystem that should not exist. This is done purely for the comfort/convenience of humans. Not that it is bad and I love LV and Pheonix, just an inefficient use of resources.

Just fly over Lake Meade and look at the water line if you think recycling plans are keeping up with growth. I don't think it will ever run dry, but it is certainly struggling to keep up until growth slows down.


RE: ...at least partial fail...
By walk2k on 10/21/2008 1:12:52 PM , Rating: 3
RTFFAQ

quote:
Because GreenFuel’s algae farm is a closed system, overall water use is minimal and evaporation losses are limited.


RE: ...at least partial fail...
By bhieb on 10/21/2008 1:22:09 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, but I was referring to the concept of irrigating Phoenix/LV not this project. Hence the response to the poster about Phoenix.

I apologize if I gave the impression that a closed system would not be effective, obviously it can be much more efficient. This project certainly looks like the best compromise for bio fuel, very little environmental impact and as long as the output > input then cover the Sahara with em.


RE: ...at least partial fail...
By Reflex on 10/21/2008 7:41:37 PM , Rating: 3
One thing here is the concept that deserts are 'wasted' land. They are just as essential globally as rain forests, tundra or arable farmland. They simply serve a different purpose.

In an ideal scenerio, algae production is distributed regionally to avoid transportation waste. No single land type should be abused. Whether or not one is useful for farms is not a measure of whether or not it is a necessary part of the biosphere.


RE: ...at least partial fail...
By Spuke on 10/21/2008 2:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if you recycle 100% of waste water the dry air evaporates far more than you think.
If you recycle 100% of waste water then there is no evaporation of waste water.


RE: ...at least partial fail...
By bhieb on 10/21/2008 2:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
I assume when he said Phoenix recyles 90% of its waste water. He meant waste water (run off, sewage, grey water..), and not evaporated water since I doubt Phoenix has a way to capture that.

But since this project is a closed loop it obviously is not the same.


RE: ...at least partial fail...
By FITCamaro on 10/21/2008 12:38:14 PM , Rating: 1
This system largely reuses a lot of the water involved in the process. So its way better than ethanol which wastes an obscene amount of water for nothing.


RE: ...at least partial fail...
By walk2k on 10/21/2008 1:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should read the FAQ before you pretend to internet-know so much about the process.

http://www.greenfuelonline.com/contact_faq.html

Also I found this particularly entertaining:
quote:
output produces more energy than it took to produce it
Uh yeah, just change the first law of thermodynamics, sure we'll get right on that.


RE: ...at least partial fail...
By bhieb on 10/21/2008 1:35:22 PM , Rating: 1
Why are you so hostile, take a deep breath and relax. He wasn't pretending to know everything. Just the opposite most of his comment was presented as questions open for debate/comment (weird place for it too huh in the comments section /sarcasm). He simply stated a concern about the logistics involved in irrigation in a desert environment.

A simple "according to the FAQ" it is a closed system would have sufficed you don't have to be a prick.

Very few people read every link to every outside source on every page. In fact you don't or you would not be back here so soon trolling around, because I'm sure there are links on greenfuelonline.com that, by your standard you should read and links on those sub pages that you should read, and links on those sub sub pages you should read. So follow your own advice and we'll see you back in 200 years or so when your done with all that.


By ChronoReverse on 10/21/2008 1:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
Taken out of context it does sound absurd but the energy input is obvious the human factor whereas the energy we get out is acquired from the Sun. This is, after all, basically a method to harvest solar energy.


RE: ...at least partial fail...
By Jim28 on 10/21/2008 2:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be such a tool!

All and I mean all of our current energy production methods harvest more energy from those processes than it took to establish those processes. (Otherwise economical power generation is not possible.) Obviously energy is not created. However if you put in more/equal energy into a process in order to release the potential energy of the fuel in the resultant reaction, then you have achieved nothing.

I will try laymans terms so you can get it. If a power plant generates 100MW, but in turn requires 90MW to function, then it does not make sense. A typical desired ratio is at least 2/1 output/input more desireable of course is 5/1 and 10/1. I forgot the actual numbers for typical processes today. Been a long time since my thermo classes. To be honest I don't miss thermo!


The next PETA
By DigitalFreak on 10/21/2008 11:27:29 AM , Rating: 3
The new PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Algae




RE: The next PETA
By FITCamaro on 10/21/2008 12:39:34 PM , Rating: 3
They're abusing the rights of that algae to live a free life in a lake, ocean, or cess pool!!!


RE: The next PETA
By ziggo on 10/21/2008 2:39:34 PM , Rating: 5
I can see the "free range algae" stations and bumper stickers now.


Wat?
By PlasmaBomb on 10/21/2008 11:30:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This will cut down on Holcim cement plant near Jerez, Spain, almost 10 percent of the factory's output.


Huh?




RE: Wat?
By bobsmith1492 on 10/21/2008 12:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
The anti-grammar force is strong with this one... the whole article, that is.


RE: Wat?
By menace on 10/21/2008 2:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many in the alternative fuels industry agree that algae is where the mid-range future of the biodiesel industry.

Yeah. Take out the adjectives and prepositions and the first sentence of this article reads:

"Many agree that algae is where the future". Take out the "where" and it makes more sense.

Or better "Many... agree that the mid-range future of the biodiesel industry rests upon algae production"


RE: Wat?
By Spivonious on 10/21/2008 4:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
You expect good writing from Dailytech? LOL


Good news
By InvertMe on 10/21/2008 11:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
This is the first bio-fuel that actually makes sense to pursue. I am glad to see the technology advancing and being actually implemented.




RE: Good news
By PhoenixKnight on 10/21/2008 1:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
This does look like a very promising technology. What's even more impressive is that this is, quite possibly, the only environmental article on DT in which there are no heated arguments going on in the comments. For once, the liberals and conservatives here are pretty much on the same side.


RE: Good news
By InvertMe on 10/21/2008 1:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think most of the conservatives here only have a problem with inefficient renewable energy sources. I am sure - if - lets say solar technology jumped in efficiency by 20 fold and prices cut by 50+% that they would be singing the praises of solar as they were getting new panels attached to their homes.

My hopes are no major road blocks show up in this technology. That it is as promising as it looks.


This has better potential
By William Gaatjes on 10/21/2008 3:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen from water is the cleanest way and the best way to store locally. However, we want to use sunlight. But we cannot store solar power generated electricity that easy and efficiëncy is not that high. The rf way of John Kanzius to split water into oxygen and hydrogen is another way. But maybe MIT chemist Daniel Nocera might have the best answer.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21536/




Irony
By rippleyaliens on 10/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Irony
By William Gaatjes on 10/21/2008 3:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
Please, just press the link in my post and read the article.

You would be amazed.


Genetic engineering = ecocide
By Ictor on 10/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Genetic engineering = ecocide
By ziggo on 10/21/2008 6:23:11 PM , Rating: 3
"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

My best attempt at translation:

Genetic Modificaiton/Engineering is dangerous

Evolution is a lie

People responsible for genetic modification shall be cast into hell for their abominations.
(I am unsure if this is an enviromentalist hell for sins against the earth threat, or a christian hell for sins against god threat.)


RE: Genetic engineering = ecocide
By Ictor on 10/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Genetic engineering = ecocide
By FITCamaro on 10/22/2008 7:35:37 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that nearly every food crop we have has been genetically engineered of sorts by man for the past few thousand years right? Farmers have been "breeding" the best strains of plants since there has been farming. Now we're just taking it to the next level and it has yielded marvelous benefits.


RE: Genetic engineering = ecocide
By Ictor on 10/22/2008 8:50:42 AM , Rating: 1
Yes I read this by Richard Dawkins inspired nonsense before. Everything is genetic modification the wolf changing in a chihuahua, pittless grapes etc. If everything is genetic modification what then "modified" the wolf, the wild grape? They existed long before modern man appeared. I will answere that question for you: it's the same evolutionairy process that changed a mutant monkey in us human beings. So what science is saying, hidden behind the pointing to things, happening in nature due to symbiotic relationships, is the belief that genetic modification is the speed up version of the evolutionary process that changed mutant apes into us human beings. Science can't say this because 70% of world population doesn,t believe it and they have not one convincing piece of evidence.


RE: Genetic engineering = ecocide
By Spuke on 10/22/2008 2:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's the same evolutionairy process that changed a mutant monkey in us human beings.
Which IS genetic modification...LOL!


RE: Genetic engineering = ecocide
By Ictor on 10/22/2008 2:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
Genetic modification can leap missing links then.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki