backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 70 comment(s) - last by drmo.. on Sep 9 at 5:28 PM

Algaeus Plug-in hybrid  (Source: Autoblog Green)
Algaeus claims 150 mpg on renewable algae-based fuel

Toyota and Sapphire are working together on a new project involving a Prius powered by gasoline created from algae. To promote the Prius, dubbed Algaeus, the vehicle along with other green automobiles will go on a cross-country road trip lasting ten days.

The Algaeus is a plug-in hybrid that runs a fuel that is algae-based and renewable. The cross-country trip is in part to celebrate the launch of a film called FUEL that shows green energy solutions. The special hybrid automobile claims to be able to get 150 miles to a gallon of fuel. The tour kicked off yesterday in San Francisco and is set to end in New York on September 18 with stops in other major cities along the way.

The Algaeus is based on a 2008 Toyota Prius that has an additional battery pack, a plug, and an advanced energy system. The engine of the Algaeus has not been modified to support the algae-based fuel according to Sapphire Energy. The fuel mixture is claimed to be a complete drop-in replacement for conventional gasoline and is made from a mixture of hydrocarbons refined directly from algae-based Green Crude extracted through a proprietary process to create a high-octane gasoline.

Sapphire will be providing Algeaus with all the fuel it needs for the cross-country trek, but it isn’t specific on how exactly the fuel will be delivered. A tanker truck may be following the fleet of green vehicles. The special management system used in the Algaeus and the plug allow the car to run as an electric vehicle in the city and a hybrid on the highway. Sapphire doesn't offer an all-electric driving distance for the vehicle.

Toyota recently set a milestone with 2 million hybrids sold.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
How about
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2009 11:49:14 AM , Rating: 5
Instead of spending all our time and money to develop expensive batteries that require even more strip mining and burning tons of energy for refinement and transportation, we focus on developing this fuel. If we can grow all our fuel here in the US, why don't we? Fuel economy is great. But wouldn't it be better if it doesn't matter how good your fuel economy is as far as the environment is concerned (to these green people anyway)?

Bring on these algae based fuels I say. High octane, environmentally friendly fuel is good for any kind of car that runs on "gas". Hybrid or not.




RE: How about
By marvdmartian on 9/8/2009 11:55:49 AM , Rating: 5
Chances are, it's because the farmers special interest groups are too strong, which is why we continue to use food crops for creating alternative fuels.

I agree with you, and feel that there's enough land to grow non-food crops for alternative fuel production, that we should discontinue utilizing food crops. Might even push the research for alternative fuels along at a faster pace.


RE: How about
By ebakke on 9/8/2009 2:36:39 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Chances are, it's because the farmers special interest groups are too strong, which is why we continue to use food crops for creating alternative fuels.
Slight correction: The special interest groups aren't too strong, the politicians are too weak and seek only re-election.


RE: How about
By Screwballl on 9/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: How about
By drmo on 9/8/2009 12:12:43 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, it is hydrocarbon based, but it is has zero net carbon production, because the algae uses up as much carbon dioxide as is produced during combustion. Also, this can be combined with existing fossil fuel burning power plants as a means of carbon sequestration (the algae uses up the CO2 from the power plant). Also, if the fuel production got to the point of producing more than was needed, then the stored fuel would a form of longer-term carbon sequestration.

http://www.greencrudeproduction.com/news.html


RE: How about
By foolsgambit11 on 9/9/2009 1:10:30 AM , Rating: 3
What about other pollutants? CO2 isn't the only thing coming out of a normal car's tailpipe. The CO2 may be balanced by algae creation, but are the other pollutants? Is the fuel at least cleaner, with respect to these other pollutants?

I was hoping for a white paper or something at your link, but all I got was a list of extracts and hype without much meat. Important questions that need answering to truly evaluate the viability of this process include:

1. What is the overall energy efficiency for production, compared with other renewable sources, especially after refining and distribution?

2. What pollutants are released through the burning of the fuel, and in what amounts?

3. How much fuel can be produced per year per acre?

4. What is the cost of implementation, now and in the near future?

5. Is the production process self-sustaining, or are there additional nutritional needs for the algae besides CO2 and sunlight? (You can't make a cell from carbon dioxide alone.)

This and other questions must be answered in order to evaluate the long-term viability of algae-based fuel production. The efficiency question is perhaps the most convoluted of them, though - sunbeam to skid marks, how efficient is this process compared to other options?


RE: How about
By Starcub on 9/9/2009 8:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
There's been talk of producing fuel from algea using carbon emmissions from CSS power plants. Dr Chu I think talks about it on a program that's popular on fora.tv.


RE: How about
By nafhan on 9/8/2009 12:52:24 PM , Rating: 4
If it makes you feel better, think of this as solar power. Algae is used to combine solar energy with carbon pulled from the air to create, basically, crude oil. The oil is solar energy stored chemically rather than electrically.


RE: How about
By Motoman on 9/8/2009 1:14:48 PM , Rating: 4
...so are fossil fuels, if you want to think about it that way.


RE: How about
By cfaalm on 9/8/2009 3:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, with the difference that fossil fuel takes a longer cycle to renew so it is hardly as renewable as the fuel from algae. You cannot "roll your own" with fossil fuel like you can with fuel from algae, which I think is the big advantage.


RE: How about
By Schrag4 on 9/8/2009 4:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Much of the carbon in fossil fuels was in our atmosphere at one point in time millions of years ago, so much so that we had carbon levels something like 10x what they are now. So, I don't think releasing carbon in-and-of-itself is a bad thing. However, I would prefer that we switch to something like this in hopes that we never run out of fuel.


RE: How about
By Spuke on 9/8/2009 3:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...so are fossil fuels, if you want to think about it that way.
Yes but solar energy is more carbontally correct.


RE: How about
By foolsgambit11 on 9/9/2009 12:53:20 AM , Rating: 2
Of course, just about everything is solar energy, if you really want to go back - the plants that turned into crude oil were powered by the sun, the animals that turned into crude oil were powered by the plants that were powered by the sun. Wind and water turbines, and hydroelectric dams, are all the result of solar power. Even nuclear is solar powered (though not our sun) because the radioactive elements were forged in a star.

And then, if you go back far enough, you get to the big bang (or whatever the initial state was, if there was one), when energy itself came into being.


RE: How about
By invidious on 9/8/2009 12:08:55 PM , Rating: 5
I don't understand why this is being done with a Prius. If the idea is to show that this algea fuel is a replacement to gasoline why dont they just go across country in a conventional gasoline powered vehicle. Many people will write this off on their pre-existing bias against the Prius or assume it is only working because the battery is doing most of the work.


RE: How about
By Alexvrb on 9/8/2009 10:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The butanol guys did just this, actually. They took an existing car (I believe a 92 Buick Park Avenue with the buick 231) and drove it all over on pure butanol. No modifications performed, and it ran fine - probably better than it did on 87 octane. Unlike ethanol, butanol has almost as much energy as gasoline. Very close. Still, if we can make a type of crude from algae and then refine it into a gasoline replacement, I'd prefer that over butanol produced by using food crops. Algae in tubes is probably a lot more space and water efficient.

However, I think LS9's custom bacteria could potentially be an even better solution, depending on the possible yields of their bacteria vs this algae. The biggest differece is that LS9's microbes produce oil that can be refined in existing refineries just like crude. It can then be made into gasoline, diesel, various lubricants, polymers, etc. From what the article says, the algae "green crude" is not as flexible, and instead of making pure gasoline, they refine it into a "gasoline substitute".

We'll see. Either way, I'm glad to know there's true spirited competition in the field of high-quality, sustainable biofuels. Even if it was produced in a more eco-friendly fashion, ethanol is inferior as a fuel, and needs to go. It's still good for drinking, though...


RE: How about
By Starcub on 9/9/2009 8:05:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Many people will write this off on their pre-existing bias against the Prius...

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. What idiot want to drive a car that gets 150MPG?


RE: How about
By tjr508 on 9/8/2009 12:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
Why do that when we have a virtually unlimited supply of natural gas.

/Oh, NM, politics.


RE: How about
By ebakke on 9/8/2009 2:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
When reason is being ignored, politics is likely to blame.


RE: How about
By drmo on 9/8/2009 5:15:59 PM , Rating: 1
I think many would say that human-caused global climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions is "reasonable". Many of these people are highly educated scientists. So it is not just politics, it is just that government will probably force a solution on us, because government exists to control people's behavior.


RE: How about
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2009 5:22:49 PM , Rating: 3
I'll say global warming is real too if you base my ability to have a job around saying its real.


RE: How about
By adiposity on 9/8/2009 6:03:43 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like the opposite of the scientists that oil companies hire.

-Dan


RE: How about
By drmo on 9/8/2009 6:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, almost half of petroleum geologists surveyed believe in human caused global warming.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/09011...


RE: How about
By JediJeb on 9/8/2009 6:11:07 PM , Rating: 3
Gotta agree with you Fit. I always remember the guy I saw give a presentation on global warming that was so proud of his graphs showing the relationship of CO2 levels to Global Temperature. Both went up, and both went down, but what he failed to see in his own graphs was that temperature levels began to rise just before the CO2 levels began to rise, and that Global Temperature began to fall just before CO2 levels began to fall. He pointed at his graphs and said " see rising CO2 causes rising Temperatures" which was the total opposite of what the graphs show.

Seeing that presentation made me very sceptical of the whole global warming issue. But I do believe we need cleaner energy that is renewable, not to "cure" global warming but to prevent overall polution and have sustainable energy for the future.

As to the post near the begining of this thread, I doubt very much that a farmers lobby has anything to do with it, as farmers have almost no clout with government anymore. Stores like Walmart and the end producers probably have more say about what the government does concerning farmers as they want to keep the prices on what a farmer produces as low as possible so their profit margin can be higher. I know a lot of farmers and not any of them would I say make enough clear money at the end of the year to be classed higher than the lowest end of middle class, most probably clear less than $20k at the end of the year unless they also work outside the farm.


RE: How about
By drmo on 9/8/2009 6:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
Many of the scientists have no personal stake in the global warming debate. Back in 1997, over half of the world's Nobel laureates (in a variety of subjects) signed a call to action to halt global warming: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/97100...
Personally, I don't understand the science well enough to make an informed decision, but you should not assume that everyone who supports global warming has a personal stake in it. They are truly concerned scientists who understand the science better than most of us.


RE: How about
By Spuke on 9/8/2009 7:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
signed a call to action to halt global warming:
Can you cite a statistic that's universally accepted by the scientific community and not someone's free website? A free website is not what I would call an impartial third party. I would even accept a community recognized group. To give an example, if I wanted fuel economy figures for a US made car, I would got to fueleconomy.gov and get the EPA's numbers (universally accepted by the auto industry). I would NOT go to joebobgreatgasmileage.com to get them. Hope this helps.


RE: How about
By ebakke on 9/9/2009 12:04:20 AM , Rating: 2
Dude. Don't diss Joe Bob like that!


RE: How about
By foolsgambit11 on 9/9/2009 1:41:27 AM , Rating: 2
There are definitely some questionable sources used by DT readers, but I don't think this was one of them. ScienceDaily is in the same league as DailyTech as far as sourcing goes. The story linked to did originate at a pretty biased source, I'd say (the Union of Concerned Scientists, an activist group fighting against climate change), but the facts are legit.

Unfortunately, there isn't an official website devoted to Nobel Laureates' positions on various scientific issues. But, fortunately, there is an equivalent for where to go if you want to get the best science about climate change available - it's an international, UN-sponsored organization that produces reports on our current understanding of climate change every 6 years or so, in addition to updates as necessary. Maybe you've heard of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Their 2007 report was a big hit.

http://www.ipcc.ch/


RE: How about
By drmo on 9/9/2009 2:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
"ScienceDaily is in the same league as DailyTech as far as sourcing goes."

That is false. Most of the articles are adapted directly from Universities or scientific societies (the geologists link is from U of Illinois, Chicago). Universities also often point people to their site (because it serves as a way to showcase their work, and is reputable, readable, and accurate). Sorry, but it is in a much different league than Dailytech.


RE: How about
By drmo on 9/9/2009 10:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
You can look it up yourself, the news story is correct. Here is another one from AAAS (the publishers of Science):
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change...

Argue about as much as you want, but generally, scientific groups agree that human caused climate change is real.

The other news story was from a journal article in Eos published by the American Geophysical Union, which I don't have access to (NOT a free website, since that seems so important to you, but I'll let you buy the article and read it). The Nobel laureate story was a news story that was covered by many sites, and regardless of who prompted the petition (we all know UCS has an agenda), the Nobel scientists signed it, not to mention the IPCC Nobel prize.

Other articles:
How about here (from the publishers of Nature):
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090528/full/news.2...
Or an article on carbon climate change:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/ab...


RE: How about
By Spuke on 9/9/2009 2:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Argue about as much as you want, but generally, scientific groups agree that human caused climate change is real.
I'm not arguing. The problem is that DTers post "sources" to support their arguments all day. Are these sources good? Are they impartial or unbiased? I want good, supported, reliable, impartial information. I know we all like to feel we're important but just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. And just because you cite a group of people that agree with you doesn't make it so either. I appreciate you posting those links. I will look at them and see what they have to say.


RE: How about
By Spuke on 9/9/2009 2:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NOT a free website, since that seems so important to you, but I'll let you buy the article and read it
I missed this part. Now you're just being an a$$hole. With this attitude, why would I want to learn from you?


RE: How about
By drmo on 9/9/2009 5:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I thought you were being an a$$hole by saying that a free website wasn't good enough.


RE: How about
By drmo on 9/9/2009 5:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
I apologize, I was being a bit a$$holey.


RE: How about
By drmo on 9/9/2009 10:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
Can you cite any scientific group that has come out against human caused climate change?

But since you like the EPA so much:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofkn...


RE: How about
By Spuke on 9/9/2009 2:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you cite any scientific group that has come out against human caused climate change?
I don't need to. YOU made the assertion, YOU have to back it up. The EPA was an example but, somehow, I don't think you are that dumb.


RE: How about
By drmo on 9/9/2009 5:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
I just cited several, so there you go. AAAS, UCS, EPA, IPCC, UGS. I found several in just a few minutes on the web supporting human caused climate change. I even used your example of a reputable source. Sure, there are a few individual scientific articles that suggest other things can play a role, but the scientific community in general is in agreement.

Now, I'm asking you to cite any scientific group that says the opposite. For some reason, citing your own opinion does not seem a good enough source. I doubt you'll find one; I could not. Just a few random, poorly made websites, run apparently by individuals.


RE: How about
By MarcLeFou on 9/8/2009 12:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'd tend to agree with your point that all electric is impractical vs solutions like these, however, I can say I don't really like the idea of fuel in the first place.

Not because of environmental reasons (as the algae absorbs carbon while growing and stores it and that's why they're good as a fuel source = net pollution close to zero - in theory) but because I'd rather avoid giving power to a select few companies to control the fuel supply in the world. Distribution systems and patents on the tech to efficiently refine algae would make sure that would happen.

We can already see where that lead us with petroleum. So, on an ideological basis, I much prefer electricity compared to fuel and I'd keep these alternative energy sources for power production to replace coal and petrol based power plants.

The obvious argument against it would be that we'd simply shift the power from oil companies to utility companies, however, I feel we're not that far away (meaning a decade of two away) from having means to generate our own power through small scale solar arrays, geothermal energy, small scale wind turbines, etc given the current pace of green electricity tech advancement. That would negate some of the power of the utility companies.

Realistically however, we're still far away from having a feasible all electric vehicle in battery tech, power generation and power grid support so this is probably a pipe dream but, depending on how long the transition away from gas actually takes, it might happen.


RE: How about
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2009 1:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah how dare those oil companies make a few cents per gallon of profit on gas. Because thats all they make.

If each oil company invests in this tech and starts selling fuel based off it, each one is going to try to make the best fuel that performs the best and is made the cheapest. Of course thats assuming the government lets them. But we have bureaucrats, not scientists, determining how our fuel is produced.


RE: How about
By Alexstarfire on 9/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: How about
By bodar on 9/9/2009 12:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd rather avoid giving power to a select few countries to control the fuel supply in the world.


Fixed.

This has the power to positively impact world politics, plain and simple.


RE: How about
By adiposity on 9/8/2009 3:44:50 PM , Rating: 3
Algae is clearly the best "solar" power solution. No infrastructure change required, no giant batteries, and we can use existing combustion engines...um...hello?

-Dan


RE: How about
By mindless1 on 9/9/2009 4:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
We already went that route with corn... look at the fail that was.

Where are you going to grow this fuel? Farming is either labor, which the anti-illegal alien troops are against, or CO2 intensive which the green heads don't like.

If we're going to harvest the energy of the sun for fuel, better to just make electricity from solar cells which require MUCH less maintenance and energy refining than crops.

Not that I advocate the solar farm, nuclear is the only real answer.

As for battery expense, the central issue here is that we are not really technologically ready for wide scale deployment of electric cars. On that point I agree it makes sense to keep looking at efficient ICE vehicles but I think they've gone the wrong route.

They're building these electric cars as if they should cruise on battery power but they could instead give them only enough of a battery pack to even out the irregularities of an ICE as the sole powerplant.

If you leverage the strength of an electric engine for acceleration so you can keep a smaller ICE engine running in it's optimal efficiency zone, have it shut off every time you decelerate via full extension of the gas pedal (unless the battery pack is low on charge) let alone brake or stop, suddenly it becomes much more efficient without the cost and weight of a huge battery pack.

I don't know that it's really environmentally friendly though, we could formulate gas differently if we wanted to, but essentially this oil we drill is mother nature doing a green version of what they propose, taking life and turning it into gasoline.

Imagine that, drilling for oil is in some ways a green thing to do because it's there already. Kinda why that's what we've been doing all along unless it spills somewhere, at least till we develop a battery suitable for putting in an automobile without the concerns you mention.


too funny
By Screwballl on 9/8/2009 11:49:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sapphire will be providing Algeaus with all the fuel it needs for the cross-country trek, but it isn’t specific on how exactly the fuel will be delivered. A tanker truck may be following the fleet of green vehicles.


so lets offset the fuel savings of such a trip by having a gas guzzling tanker truck follow us...




RE: too funny
By InvertMe on 9/8/2009 1:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
Where else would they get the Algea fuel from? It's not like you can just get it at the pump.


RE: too funny
By tjr508 on 9/8/2009 1:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
They could conduct their experiments in-house like real researchers do rather than AW around the country.


RE: too funny
By InvertMe on 9/8/2009 1:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
In house research would not put the product "out there". The whole point is to get these cars seen driving around. Doing that driving in a lab doesn't quite acomplish the same goal.


RE: too funny
By Schrag4 on 9/8/2009 2:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
People like Al Gore need to fly their private jets all over the world to educate all of us stupid people about how we should be using less fuel. The net effect is less fuel used overall, in theory. That's why his house uses 12x as much electricity as his neighbors too, for some reason. Anyway, do what they say, not what they do, and the world will be saved.


RE: too funny
By adiposity on 9/8/2009 3:46:24 PM , Rating: 1
Personal hypocrisy, while amusing, has nothing to do with arguments someone makes. So why bring it up?

Can you say "Ad hominem"?

-Dan


RE: too funny
By Spuke on 9/8/2009 7:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personal hypocrisy, while amusing, has nothing to do with arguments someone makes.
Are talking about Al Gore making arguments or the poster?


RE: too funny
By Schrag4 on 9/9/2009 10:17:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure he was saying that Al Gore's arguments may be sound, even if Al Gore doesn't believe them himself.

Tell you what. My immediate family will use less energy than Al Gore's immediate family. Then I can call myself a better environmentalist than Al Gore (the self-proclaimed ultra-environmentalist). I think that's fair.


RE: too funny
By Spuke on 9/9/2009 2:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm pretty sure he was saying that Al Gore's arguments may be sound, even if Al Gore doesn't believe them himself.
If that's the case, then I disagree with the poster. If you're going to tell me how to live then you better damn well be living that way already!!


RE: too funny
By cruisin3style on 9/8/2009 3:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
conditions in a lab are not equal to conditions on roads (where cars are often used)


Ignore the man behind the curtain....
By marvdmartian on 9/8/2009 11:52:54 AM , Rating: 1
(Wizard of Oz reference, for those that missed it)
LOL Yeah, pay attention to the super-green car getting (allegedly) 150mpg.....but ignore the tanker truck behind it, getting 10mpg on it's diesel engine!

I think if I were doing this, I would have pre-positioned some fuel along the route, and quietly refueled the vehicle as needed.




By ClownPuncher on 9/8/2009 2:37:52 PM , Rating: 3
Who gives a shit?


RE: Ignore the man behind the curtain....
By FishTankX on 9/8/2009 5:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
If I were doing this, I would've hitched a 50 gallon barrel in the trunk, that would've given the prius about a 4000 mile range which would've been more than enough to get across the country.

However, you could theoretically also power a tanker F-150 with said algae fuel, so they could've done it green if they wanted.


RE: Ignore the man behind the curtain....
By Spuke on 9/8/2009 7:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I were doing this, I would've hitched a 50 gallon barrel in the trunk
I think a 50 gallon barrel of fuel would've exceeded the cars GVWR not to mention killing the cars gas mileage with the extra weight.


RE: Ignore the man behind the curtain....
By FishTankX on 9/8/2009 8:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
The prius has to be able to support five passengers if I'm not mistaken

If there is only one person driving then adding the extra fuel barrel in the back seat would add roughly the same weight as three passengers or about five hundred pounds

this should be well within the vehicles capabilities as normally it has to be able to carry five passengers plus maybe a hundred pounds

the weight of four extra passengers alone would probably add up to six hundred pounds alone

thus I think fifty extra gallons of fuel wouldve been well within reach
and cheaper than a tanker truck not to mention give it enough fuel to complete the. Tour even with worse gas mileage


By Spuke on 9/9/2009 3:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
this should be well within the vehicles capabilities as normally it has to be able to carry five passengers plus maybe a hundred pounds
I found some info. GVWR of the 2010 is 3979 lbs and the base weight is 3042 lbs. So you could load up to 937 lbs in there. That's quite a bit!


By foolsgambit11 on 9/9/2009 1:48:25 AM , Rating: 2
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain..." Close, though.


Keep our own money
By download7 on 9/8/2009 12:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't it be nice to grow this algae on our own land and keep all the fuel profits in house, imagine the boost the the economy that would have.




RE: Keep our own money
By HotFoot on 9/9/2009 3:50:30 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Actually, this makes me wonder what the extra value could be sold as. Free-market says this home-grown product has to be as cheap or cheaper than the import from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, but really, if what you want is the strongest economy, would a higher price be worth paying if you know the money stays at home?

The same argument could be made for the clothing industry, I suppose, but it's more obvious with fuels. I guess, based on how poorly the national clothing industry has fared in the last couple decades, consumers overwhelmingly have decided that origin of manufacture has little to no value.


RE: Keep our own money
By Starcub on 9/9/2009 8:38:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Free-market says this home-grown product has to be as cheap or cheaper than the import from...

There's no such thing as a free market; moreover, it would be silly to do things based on financial cost alone. In this case, the drivers are energy security and carbon footprint.

quote:
I guess, based on how poorly the national clothing industry has fared in the last couple decades, consumers overwhelmingly have decided that origin of manufacture has little to no value.

What choice do they have, most everything is made in China nowadays.


RE: Keep our own money
By HotFoot on 9/9/2009 11:52:12 AM , Rating: 2
Things wouldn't have all been shifted to 3rd world sweatshop factories if consumers actually cared enough to pay extra for stuff made closer to home, under 1st-world working conditions. The point is, this didn't happen, and movements like fair-trade for coffee, etc. are met with near-religious indignation that the system interferes with free markets.

At this point, though, you have a point. A year ago I was shopping for some household items (new shower curtain, etc.) and the ONLY place I could even find in my area that carries them is Wal-mart. There's not as much choice out there as they used to be, so the person who decides there's extra value in made-here products has to pretty much fight against the system to find them.


RE: Keep our own money
By Spuke on 9/9/2009 3:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Things wouldn't have all been shifted to 3rd world sweatshop factories if consumers actually cared enough to pay extra for stuff made closer to home,
Price matters. Either make it cheap so "everyone" buys it or keep it expensive so only a few can buy it. Since public companies are required by law to make an effort at turning a profit, they could either move the product upmarket or take it overseas to keep it cheap. Either way, someone's going to complain about it. The way you guys complain about the cost of things (cars and gas for example), I seriously doubt ANY of you would be cool with paying more for clothing.


By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/8/2009 1:05:58 PM , Rating: 3
I had been under the impression biodiesel is the easiest fuel to derive from the algae oils- due to the viscosity and ignition characteristics. Seeing that they are running an unmodified engine on algae-derived fuel, how does this fuel stack up to the comparable algae-diesel?




By FITCamaro on 9/8/2009 1:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
I would also like to know this.


What %?
By Souka on 9/8/2009 5:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
I probably overlooked it, but what percent (%) is the Algae in the fuel? 1%? 100%?

I ask because "Bio-diesel" that is sold at the various gas stations in my area (Seattle) are a joke... they're 5% bio...95% petroleum.... Perhaps when they're 51% bio-based, then you can call it BIO-diesel...but not at %5...come on!




RE: What %?
By Starcub on 9/9/2009 8:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
Good point. "Green crude" also implies that it can be used to replace, at least to some extent, conventional oil for non-fuel use as well.


By Captain Orgazmo on 9/8/2009 2:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think "Algae-powered" is about the best description I have heard for the driving characteristics of a Prius.

Hmmm... Strangely enough, I just had this thought about how fun it would be to ride a chariot pulled by a small herd of cheetahs.




Algae Nazi
By aguilpa1 on 9/8/2009 5:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
It must be green algae, not blue, not red, but green to be truly ...green.




"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki