I think what tends to trip us up, whether planning to change what exists because we conclude that it must change, or simply hanging on to what exists because the alternative is too troubling or costly to actually undertake, is our lack of understanding of the systemic nature of the processes involved and their interrelatedness. What I am talking about is learning to think about systems, which the vast majority of people fail to do, even if they understand the absolute requirement when dealing with natural processes.
The aglae process sounds simple, but it will be what we have to change that causes yet another unintended consequence that will bite us on the nether parts when we aren't looking.
YoHo1975 wrote: Wow, Just Wow, have you read ANY of the articles on this?They are predicting lower land utilization by far. (As if coal doesn't cost for land utilization.)They DO have a pilot program. The Coal Fired reactor at MIT and they're building one for a 1000 MW unit in the southwest. Read the article.And that's not even discussing the Cyanobacteria stuff that I just linked.Read the articles first.
Wow, Just Wow, have you read ANY of the articles on this?
They are predicting lower land utilization by far. (As if coal doesn't cost for land utilization.)
They DO have a pilot program. The Coal Fired reactor at MIT and they're building one for a 1000 MW unit in the southwest. Read the article.
And that's not even discussing the Cyanobacteria stuff that I just linked.
Read the articles first.
I DID read the article. And I'll tell you right now - IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
You're dealing with living organisms here, and as we all know life does not conform to the templates of demand and expectation we thrust upon it. Just because an organism can exist on a small scale and produce minute amounts of oil as excrement doesn't mean you can ramp that up to a scaleble facility capable of producing the desired product.
The admission that jump out at me from the article is this:
"One of the challenges researchers have faced is that while some types of algae can produce large amounts of oil--as much as 60 percent of their weight--they only do this when they're starved for nutrients. But when they're starved for nutrients, they lose another of their attractive features: their ability to quickly grow and reproduce."
This is another case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. I predict the attempts to rectify this opposing tendency will prove both costly and fruitless.
Example: If only we could get the lard from the cow without killing it. Oh wait, we can use lyposuction! Problem is, the cost of using lyposuction to get the lard without killing the cow will outweigh the value of the lard.
However, I do not wish to stymie any further research into algaediesel. You and GP-dude go ahead and invest in algaediesel, I'll invest in CTL diesel, and we'll see who laughs last.
wsherrick wrote:According to a post here an acre of pond scum can produce 15,000 gallons of oil.... The daily consumption of Petroleum in the United States is 20,687,000 Barrels per day at current consumption rates. It would take 57,947 acres of water each producing 15,000 gallons of algae oil per day every day to meet that demand. And that's at 100% efficiency.Doesn't look too practical to me.
...
The daily consumption of Petroleum in the United States is 20,687,000 Barrels per day at current consumption rates.
It would take 57,947 acres of water each producing 15,000 gallons of algae oil per day every day to meet that demand. And that's at 100% efficiency.
Doesn't look too practical to me.
90 square miles of pond sounds practical enough. Problem is, the poster never said an acre of pond can produce 15000 gallons of oil in a day. More likely in a year, wouldn't you guess?
Norman Saxon wrote: GP40-2 wrote: Norman Saxon wrote:So you object to the term "clean coal" So do the majority of the American people.Prove it. You're always making these nutjob claims, and you never back them up. Show me a mainstream poll where a majority of Americans oppose clean coal technology. Norman Saxon wrote:Biodiesel is a fraud - it takes more energy to produce biodiesel than what is derived from it..Not according to MIT, private investors, and other companies willing to spend hundreds of millions in investment in algae derived fuel oil.You're off on a tangent. I am refering to the current real practice of producing biodiesel aka from food crops such as soybeans and rapeseed. You are refering to a theoretical construct without even a pilot site as evidence of viability. The scientific world is full of these theoretical constructs, most of which will never see the light of day in terms of real world production. I read where some group claims to have found a way to convert CO2 into CO (which would then be burned in a gas stream). Great ideas if they can work in the real world. Until then, it's nothing but Buck Rogers stuff. Norman Saxon wrote:...it cannot be produced in any appreciable quantities, and attempts to do so only result in severe impacts on other aspects of the economy aka food prices...15,000 gallons fuel oil produced per acre of algae sounds pretty appreciable to me... and I don't think algae is considered a food source for most Americans.And where do you plan on operating your algae-to-diesel facilities? The same nutjobs you align yourself with regarding your inane opposition to coal will also, and just as adamantly (if not more so), oppose turning their local wetland reserve into an algae-to-diesel site.Let's do a little math here. A typical CTL plant will produce 1.7 million gallons per day of liquid fuels at a cost equivalent of $35 bbl of oil. It will take up maybe 400 acres of pre-designated industrial land (not precious wetlands!), and use 36,000 acre-feet of "brown" water per year, usually from wastewater plant effluent.How does your algae-to-diesel facility stack up against that in terms of production, cost of product, land use, water use, etc for that same 1.7 million gallons per day equivalent?Give us some real numbers if you dare.Oh, and by the way that CTL plant also produces 1 MWH of electricty for the market as a byproduct. Norman Saxon wrote:...Coal - the lifeblood of the rail industry, without which most would be bankrupt. Downsized perhaps, but not bankrupt. This is plenty of other cargo that generates more profit for the RR's than hauling dirty coal. So are you saying we should blindly support coal mining, an industry that produces massive environmental destruction, just because the RR make some revenue off it?The only fraud here is after 28 pages, you are still arguing the absurd idea of clean coal and coal mining.You keep harking to this imaginary "massive environmental destruction", yet give no thought to the massive environmental destruction that would be associated with algae-to-diesel farms. Unintended consequences are the Achillies Heel of the environmental movement (responsible for the deaths of at least 50 million people over the last three decades, with much more on the way due to Al Gore's cult), yet most persons of reasonable intelligence can spot this ecodisaster coming down the pike a hundred miles out! For the record, coal makes up 40% of railroad ton miles. For an industry that barely makes 10% ROI, if that much, a loss of 40% of your business will definitely put you under. Perhaps you believe that the railroads can make it up hauling unit trains of algae!
GP40-2 wrote: Norman Saxon wrote:So you object to the term "clean coal" So do the majority of the American people.
Norman Saxon wrote:So you object to the term "clean coal"
Prove it. You're always making these nutjob claims, and you never back them up. Show me a mainstream poll where a majority of Americans oppose clean coal technology.
Norman Saxon wrote:Biodiesel is a fraud - it takes more energy to produce biodiesel than what is derived from it..Not according to MIT, private investors, and other companies willing to spend hundreds of millions in investment in algae derived fuel oil.
Norman Saxon wrote:Biodiesel is a fraud - it takes more energy to produce biodiesel than what is derived from it..
You're off on a tangent. I am refering to the current real practice of producing biodiesel aka from food crops such as soybeans and rapeseed. You are refering to a theoretical construct without even a pilot site as evidence of viability. The scientific world is full of these theoretical constructs, most of which will never see the light of day in terms of real world production. I read where some group claims to have found a way to convert CO2 into CO (which would then be burned in a gas stream).
Great ideas if they can work in the real world. Until then, it's nothing but Buck Rogers stuff.
Norman Saxon wrote:...it cannot be produced in any appreciable quantities, and attempts to do so only result in severe impacts on other aspects of the economy aka food prices...15,000 gallons fuel oil produced per acre of algae sounds pretty appreciable to me... and I don't think algae is considered a food source for most Americans.
Norman Saxon wrote:...it cannot be produced in any appreciable quantities, and attempts to do so only result in severe impacts on other aspects of the economy aka food prices...
And where do you plan on operating your algae-to-diesel facilities? The same nutjobs you align yourself with regarding your inane opposition to coal will also, and just as adamantly (if not more so), oppose turning their local wetland reserve into an algae-to-diesel site.
Let's do a little math here. A typical CTL plant will produce 1.7 million gallons per day of liquid fuels at a cost equivalent of $35 bbl of oil. It will take up maybe 400 acres of pre-designated industrial land (not precious wetlands!), and use 36,000 acre-feet of "brown" water per year, usually from wastewater plant effluent.
How does your algae-to-diesel facility stack up against that in terms of production, cost of product, land use, water use, etc for that same 1.7 million gallons per day equivalent?
Give us some real numbers if you dare.
Oh, and by the way that CTL plant also produces 1 MWH of electricty for the market as a byproduct.
Norman Saxon wrote:...Coal - the lifeblood of the rail industry, without which most would be bankrupt. Downsized perhaps, but not bankrupt. This is plenty of other cargo that generates more profit for the RR's than hauling dirty coal. So are you saying we should blindly support coal mining, an industry that produces massive environmental destruction, just because the RR make some revenue off it?The only fraud here is after 28 pages, you are still arguing the absurd idea of clean coal and coal mining.
Norman Saxon wrote:...Coal - the lifeblood of the rail industry, without which most would be bankrupt.
You keep harking to this imaginary "massive environmental destruction", yet give no thought to the massive environmental destruction that would be associated with algae-to-diesel farms. Unintended consequences are the Achillies Heel of the environmental movement (responsible for the deaths of at least 50 million people over the last three decades, with much more on the way due to Al Gore's cult), yet most persons of reasonable intelligence can spot this ecodisaster coming down the pike a hundred miles out!
For the record, coal makes up 40% of railroad ton miles. For an industry that barely makes 10% ROI, if that much, a loss of 40% of your business will definitely put you under. Perhaps you believe that the railroads can make it up hauling unit trains of algae!
http://cns.utexas.edu/communications/2008/04/biofuel_microbe.asp
One more, this one quite recent and references a peer reviewed article.
Some of the wording makes me think that the MIT group may in fact be using a true algae.
MichaelSol wrote: wholelephant wrote: At least this is an antidote to the curse of modernism. Sometimes the older, less fashionable ways are better. There are many analogies. After 50 years, the B-52 remains the preferred heavy bomber primarily because of cost effectiveness and the fact that, ultimately, after four or five successors, it still does the best job, and has functionally returned to being the backbone of the heavy bomber fleet. Fortunately, they kept enough around to make "going back" feasible.The A-10 is a more modern example. It wasn't sexy, it wasn't fast, and the services didn't want it. During the first week of the Gulf War, 100% of the battlefield requests for air support were for "air support"; during the second week, as commanders began to see A-10's in action and it's superiority over far more "modern" and "advanced" aircraft, 90% of the requests became for "A-10 support". They had to see it work first, but then it's ability to do the job was paramount, even as the executive class wanted to buy something else and had been engaged on an active program to scrap the planes because they were "too old". Once again, a fortuitous set of circumstances permitted the services to "go back" to using that tough little plane as the primary front line support aircraft.
wholelephant wrote: At least this is an antidote to the curse of modernism. Sometimes the older, less fashionable ways are better.
At least this is an antidote to the curse of modernism. Sometimes the older, less fashionable ways are better.
There are many analogies. After 50 years, the B-52 remains the preferred heavy bomber primarily because of cost effectiveness and the fact that, ultimately, after four or five successors, it still does the best job, and has functionally returned to being the backbone of the heavy bomber fleet. Fortunately, they kept enough around to make "going back" feasible.
The A-10 is a more modern example. It wasn't sexy, it wasn't fast, and the services didn't want it. During the first week of the Gulf War, 100% of the battlefield requests for air support were for "air support"; during the second week, as commanders began to see A-10's in action and it's superiority over far more "modern" and "advanced" aircraft, 90% of the requests became for "A-10 support". They had to see it work first, but then it's ability to do the job was paramount, even as the executive class wanted to buy something else and had been engaged on an active program to scrap the planes because they were "too old". Once again, a fortuitous set of circumstances permitted the services to "go back" to using that tough little plane as the primary front line support aircraft.
They laughed when Paul MacCready built the Gossamer Condor with old-fashioned wire bracing rather tham "modern" cantilever construction.
Outside wire bracing is much lighter than internal cantilever construction and thus the Gossamer Condor could fly much slower with much less power.
Guess who laughed last.
True enough, and I stand bemusedly corrected as to my expectations.
Sounds like they are referring to Cyano. Though in fact, they may be referring both to it and micro-Algae. Choosing the right organism for the job. on a case by case basis.
I'd have to do a lot more research then is appropriate for a Sunday to learn more.
YoHo1975 wrote: Firs of all, here's a link to an article on the MIT project.http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/alg-all.html I'm about to make a specific quote from the article, but before I do that, I'll preface it by saying that I doubt many of you have the first clue about how Algae works. To be fair, the only reason I know anything about it is because another Avocation of mine beyond Train/MR is Tropical Reef keeping where the growth of algae is ver fundimental. In any case, the quote.
Firs of all, here's a link to an article on the MIT project.
http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/alg-all.html
I'm about to make a specific quote from the article, but before I do that, I'll preface it by saying that I doubt many of you have the first clue about how Algae works. To be fair, the only reason I know anything about it is because another Avocation of mine beyond Train/MR is Tropical Reef keeping where the growth of algae is ver fundimental. In any case, the quote.
The article is a little problematic to me, because it talks in terms of "algae" but most likely is referring to Cyanobacteria, which are a bacteria, not an algae, even though commonly referred to as "blue green algae" by people that don't know the difference. No matter what they are called, the "blue greens" are, however, the most important phylum of life forms ever to evolve on this planet and it would be interesting if they again proved their worth.
One more:
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/aqx_p/2569?gclid=CNbG1s-Wn5MCFRJIagodrHF1ww
Research at leading universities suggests that algae could supply enough fuel to meet all of America's transportation needs in the form of biodiesel... using a scant 0.2% of the nation's land. In fact, enough algae can be grown to replace all transportation fuels in the U.S. on only 15,000 square miles, or 4.5 million acres of land. That's about the size of Maryland.
Research at leading universities suggests that algae could supply enough fuel to meet all of America's transportation needs in the form of biodiesel... using a scant 0.2% of the nation's land.
In fact, enough algae can be grown to replace all transportation fuels in the U.S. on only 15,000 square miles, or 4.5 million acres of land.
That's about the size of Maryland.
And yes, I know none of this is peer reviewed.
And an older USAToday version
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-powerplants_x.htm
As an aside, Just imagine the Salton sea in Southern California being useful for something again. Heck, the effluent runoff from mexico would be an advantage.
Another less rosey, but still compelling article
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18138/page1/
tattooguy67 wrote:Hi everybody, please forgive me if this has been asked already( i looked in the search area and did not see it) or is kinda dumb, what i am wondering is this, with the price of oil going up so much, the fact that we have a buttload of coal in this country, and also the fact that steel is much better now and so are manufacturing techniques would it be possible or feasible for steam locomotives to make economic sense? please let me know your thoughts on this, thanks much.
Maybe the better question might be "should steam make a comeback?"
Who are we trying to make happy here: nostalgists? railfans? the coal industry? EACH HAD BETTER BELLY UP TO THE BAR with their share of the R&D if it's for their benefit. Otherwise the decision is going to be made by the pursestrings, and I doubt they will be tickled pink.
The story gets even better. Algae double in mass every couple of hours, so they can be harvested and easily converted into biodiesel
Algae doubles in mass every couple of hours. It's true. So yes, actually you would get very sustainable numbers out of acreage devoted to it.
Oh and as for available acreage. I'll ignore the barren land issue, because I'm not sure what to do with that beyond point to wastewater treatment.
As for available Acreage, according to the CIA world fact book at cia.gov, the united states has 664,707 sq Km of water.
That translates to 164,252,676.5 acres. I don't know if that includes the 12 mile territorial claim or just lakes and rivers. That doesn't include man made water sources.
Algae grows from the Artic to the tropics quite robustly. The most dead salt water to the most pure fresh. Oceans, rivers, seas. Waste treatment etc etc etc. The nitrogen cycle is unstoppable. 70% of the earth is covered in water. There would be exactly 0 problem finding space to grow enough. You could do it in the open ocean if you wanted to.
And what I like best is that the MIT study is looking at it as cleaning the exhaust of their coal plant.
82% reduction in CO2 on sunny days, 50% on cloudy and a constant nitrogen Oxide reduction of 85% (The nitrogen cycle is your friend.)
I like it because Coal is here to stay, and this makes it significantly cleaner and essentially uses Solar as the input. When the plant switches to Biofuel, the CO2 emissions will still get scrubed, the Nitrogen emissions still get scrubed. It's perhaps the most efficent solar power installation possible.
MichaelSol, you can't find valid numbers for this technology, because it is a new technolgy. That's why some of (if not THE) smartest minds in the country are trying to figure it out.
Coal won't go anywhere any time soon, but but both internal and external combustion could significantly benefit from such biofuels.
Heck, even ignoring the Algae aspect, BioDiesel has an advantage as a recycling method. Converting used cooking oil is not as energy efficent, but has the side advantage of being a recycling method which when taken together makes the costs look more attractive.
Anyway, here's another article on the State of New York's Algae plans.
http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/algae-to-convert-carbon-dioxide-into-biofuel/
wsherrick wrote:I did some searching to see how much pond scum it would take to supply the United State's daily need for oil.According to a post here an acre of pond scum can produce 15,000 gallons of oil. That's approximately 357 barrels of oil. For discussion sake let's assume that is accurate.Let's assume a 100% efficiency rating in the harvesting and production of this stuff into fuel.The daily consumption of Petroleum in the United States is 20,687,000 Barrels per day at current consumption rates. It would take 57,947 acres of water each producing 15,000 gallons of algae oil per day every day to meet that demand. And that's at 100% efficiency.Doesn't look too practical to me.
I did some searching to see how much pond scum it would take to supply the United State's daily need for oil.
According to a post here an acre of pond scum can produce 15,000 gallons of oil. That's approximately 357 barrels of oil. For discussion sake let's assume that is accurate.
Let's assume a 100% efficiency rating in the harvesting and production of this stuff into fuel.
GP40-2 wrote:I emailed a fellow engineer who works for Allegheny Power Systems to get some more info about the fluid bed combustion plants. His report was the cost to generate power from a fluid bed plant is over 30% greater that current plants, and the fluid beds have reliability problems. He said the power industry in general is not sold on this technology at all. Not exactly a ringing endorsement from a P.E. of all the "benefits" you guys claim.
Well, in another addition to the "consistency", or lack thereof, of some of your posts, it is interesting to me that you will take an email from a P.E. as gospel, but not a published and peer-reviewed engineering paper from a well-known and well-respected P.E. like H.F. Brown.
I gather these opinions are not based on qualifications of the writer so much as personal vindication for your prejudices, and that seems to be the only illumination offered by your comment.
The industry is acutely aware of DOE's 2002-2003 large scale application of fluidized bed technology in the JEA Large-scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project in Jacksonville, Flroida. The project was plagued with technical problems, but of the sort to be expected from the scale-up of any new technology. Compared to other high efficiency installations, the rate of return was indeed lower, but this was due to shut-down costs associated with modifications to the experimental designs.
From the final report:
"The JEA Large Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project has demonstrated the successful commercial operation of a 300 MW class CFB boiler firing both domestic coals and petroleum coke, and coal/coke blends. The operating data summarized in Section 5 of this report confirms that the Unit 2 CFB boiler is capable of routinely supporting full load operation of Unit 2 while achieving stack emissions below permit limits [ed. without the expensive catalytic converter technology necessary on the oil-fired and coal-fired alternatives]. The performance test results in Section 7 of this report confirm that the as-tested full load boiler efficiencies on various fuels were at or above the design values developed by FW, and are competitive with the boiler efficiencies achieved by other commercially available boiler technologies of this size."
The project was undertaken when "in 1996, the municipal power company serving Jacksonville, Florida, committed to the community to reduce pollutants from its Northside Station by at least 10 percent when it replaced two of the plant's obsolete and inefficient oil- and gas-fired units. JEA (the utility was originally called the Jacksonville Electric Authority) chose atmospheric fluidized bed technology to meet its pledge and at the same time generate significantly more power from the refurbished facility.
"The Energy Department contributed more than $74 million to the project as one of the original projects under its Clean Coal Technology Program. The federal funding went to install one of the two combustors." The results were so successful that JEA converted a second boiler to the new technology entirely with its own funding.
As a result of the overall success of that large scale experiment, "today, more than $6 billion in domestic sales and nearly $3 billion in overseas sales have resulted from the U.S. public and private investment in circulating fluidized bed technology research, development and demonstration," according to the DOE. POWER magazine called the development of fluidized bed coal combustors "the commercial success story of the last decade in the power generation business. ... The success [is] perhaps the most significant advance in coal-fired boiler technology in a half century." As a result, today, "every major U.S. boiler manufacturer offers an atmospheric pressure fluidized bed system in its product line."
Unit 10 at TVA's Shawnee Fossil Plant No. 6 is a fully commercial fluidized bed coal-fired plant. Notwithstanding the presence of nine standard boiler plants, and of what is still thought of as an evolving experimental design, "in 2006 alone, Shawnee generated 9.4 million MWh--its highest since 1977--while ranking in the top 25% of plants nationwide for lowest cost of production.
"Shawnee is no one-trick pony. The plant routinely ranks in the top 10% nationally for availability and reliability, and long runs extend beyond Unit 6. Unit 2 recently had a record run of 569 days, Unit 4 ran for 407 days, and Unit 5 ran for 522 days. Shawnee also set a 10-unit continuous-run record in 2006, when it ran all 10 units for 45 consecutive days and topped a mark set in 1961. This is no small feat for a plant completed in 1957, the last year the Dodgers played at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn."
"Shawnee is the lowest total production cost plant in the TVA fossil system and posts the second-highest net margin in TVA's fossil fleet."
Is there a perfect solution to providing a cost-effective motive power for the rail industry that meets all of society's needs as well? Until low-cost nuclear power is a significant factor to support the feasibilty of full-scale electrification, probably not. But until then, difficult choices have to recognize that oil is now the second highest-cost operating alternative next to electrification, and with the most significant and nearly unsolvable pollution problems. In that event, other feasible alternatives have to be considered and particularly when they are demonstrably far more cost effective, and becoming increasingly so with each passing day, both as a matter of national economy and of national security.
GP40-2 wrote:Funny how so many private investors and large energy companies won't invest a dime into "clean" coal, but will invest large sums into algae derived fuel oil.
Let me suggest that the notion that huge sums of investment dollars are flowing into Kelp as an energy source, and that it has dried up for development of clean coal energy, is just plain false, to the point of being bizarre.
My own particular preference is for nuclear power, but this thread wasn't about preferences, but presumably realistic investment decisions made on the ground, now and in the near future in response to rapidly rising oil costs, combined with the fact that the Diesel-electric engine is the worst polluter of the bunch, and in its essential toxic details, the most lethal to life and the most difficult to control.
GP40-2 wrote:.... we would not have to use any of our current farmland to grow the stuff. The best place for algae ponds is the reuse of barren land and waste water treatment plants.
I do find it no small irony that one of the labored arguments against steam -- Water !! -- would be part of a prospective solution using "barren land" which exists primarily because there is ... No Water! And, as to the "Anything But Steam" nature of these arguments, no one is jumping up raising questions on this one about "infrastructure" and "labor costs" with the idea of thousands of acres of scum ponds scattered here and there in necessarily remote and waterless locations, and the thousands of brand new processing plants scattered about because the costs of transportation of dead vegetable matter on a BTU content basis is extremely high compared to coal, or oil for that matter, not to mention the highly seasonal nature of such production in most areas, and including the innoculation factor against toxic algae and "blooms" because algae is not like corn: it is, in fact, difficult to control and harvest; subject in large mono-cultures to the same kind of disease propogation and die-off as other large mono-cultures without constant herbicide, pest control and constant genetic modification that is as labor intensive as other forms of farming.
And, as a matter of fact, coal-fired plants are happy users of effluent from waste water treatment plants, providing an economic return for that important environmental activity.
The irony, of course, is that the external combustion technologies can be more easily converted to using the biofuel products than the internal combustion alternatives, and so the idea that there is an "argument" regarding locomotive steam-based technologies and biofuels is, in fact, a completely false one in regard to the open chamber combustion approach.
They are not incompatible, and the "choice" of coal is made only based on cost, not feasibility, and if you were really, really sincere about converting to a technology that could easily use such fuels, you would not be adamant at all about switching to the technology that could do it.
But you are, because it can burn coal, and that seems to be your hang-up.
GP40-2 wrote:Or, it it that you, norm saxon, and michaelsol's real agenda here is to find a way to use more coal, and a return to coal fired steam is just a vehicle for that to take place. I'm starting to wonder about the connection you three have with the coal industry with your obvious bias towards coal and your collective hatred of any bio fuel that could replace coal in a more environmentally friendly way.
Good grief. I've stuck with the numbers. If something comes out better on the numbers, fine, but exactly why would my agenda to be "to use more coal"? The fact is, the combined operating costs of steam locomotion would be cheaper than diesel right now by a substantial margin. It wasn't that way in 1950s. Those are simply facts and, unless you are particularly enamored of continuing to send dollars to prop up foreign dictators and continuing to bleed our economy, the obstinate desire to do so by defending ever-higher priced and increasing oil consumption is simply unconscionable.
And why would my agenda be different than virtually the entire American Electric Power industry which includes the environmental regulatory agencies? If you will look around, you will see a good deal more electric power being effectively and reliably generated every day from coal than from kelp which generates exactly zero.
"Collective hatred of any biofuel?" Isn't this just a little over the top? America is currently working through its first genuine biofuel committment, and it is turning out to have all sorts of unintended negative consequences, not the least of which are greater farm and waterway pollution, higher food prices and, ironically, a requirement for greater amounts of oil energy than is produced, yielding a net increase in CO2. Where were you then? Cheerleading biofuels just because you like the sound of the idea?
Perhaps a skepticism is not just in order, but fully justified. You will not be the first nor the last who has found the "magic solution" in the early stages of a supposedly bright idea that later turns out to be pretty dull.
The point is this: you can't generate any numbers. Railroads do, in fact, live in the here and now and the feasible. All your ranting and raving is not an economic analysis, and at the bottom line, you are providing no relevant information to this thread because its nothing upon which anyone can actually make an investment decision. There's nothing there but a series of false assumptions based on non-existent data. Kelp.
Hwy guys will you all please COOL YOUR JETS. This thread has degenerated into an ongoing series of personal attacks and counter attacks. Nothing that has been said in the 572 messages that have been posted has swayed the steam advocates from their belief in the superiority of steam power and their advoacy of its return. Conversely, none of the "anything but steam" crowd has been persuaded to move from their position that a return to steam is neither economically desirable nor even feasible.
Opinions are like a-- holes; we all have one. The arguments presented here have not changed any opionions but have only reinforced previously held ones. Bergie, I think the time has come to shut this thread down if for no reason other than to stop some of these guys from continuing to make fools of themselves!
Mark
GP40-2 wrote: wsherrick wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: selector wrote: GP40-2 wrote:Algae uses atmospheric CO2 to produce the oil that makes up 50%-60% of their weight. Burning it just replaces the CO2 that it took out of the air to grow. It is a relatively CO2 neutral process.I think there is a danger in thinking this way. We keep trying to defer the inevitable, and in so doing we tell ourselves that we have the next best thing to a perpetual motion machine. Such things are the stuff of fancy, and I feel it is fanciful to think that we can rely on algae to provide significant amounts of our enery. The fly in the algae goop is that we use such ideas to increase our footprint on the planet, and within a couple of decades we will be wondering what the next panacea is...and who owns it.As we lever energy production and consumption (because that is what we are talking about), we increase the numbers of those who rely on it. At some point, I hope, this solution will really be neutral and we'll find a happy balance between our proclivity for procreation and our penchant for living like there is no tomorrow. That means there will come a time when Nature will impose a stasis that does not yet exist. She will insist that our birth rate matches the death rate one for one, and that is the only way we will be able to sustain ourselves energy-wise while we occupy the confines of this planet. IOW, as our numbers continue to rise due to our cognitive advantage over Nature, She will nevertheless impose her own rules on us. We'll need to supply something more than just sunshine. We currently take out something from the equation more than just energy needs. It's called garbage, or waste. We create thousands of tonnes of it every single day. Until we can feed a lot more of what we ship to dumps to the algae, the algae is going to be a short-term solution, if at all. I'm not sure quite what to make of this post.One of the things that is an advantageof Algae is that we can grow it practically anywhere with any quality water. And it will feed on at least a portion of our garbage. As for the CO2 neutrality of it. Well, The refining process of course may create some, I don't know, but the growth itself versus consumption will largely be neutral as the added energy to grow it is solar. and waste already produced. In general, seaweed/Kelp has always been the futurist's dream creating foodstuffs and energy. Floating Kelp farms would replace oil derrecks etc etc. It's not a panacea, nothing is, but it has the potential to be less environmentally costly and more landuse friendly than most any other option. We're not looking for an end game, merely the next step. Way off topic.The Anything But Steam mentality is raging full strength. The idea that energy can be grown in a field or a pond in any appreciable amounts to supply a growing, dynamic economy is ridiculous on it's face. Since we have people posting here who refuse to accept the solid evidence that a proven technology (steam) can be adapted for current use which can use any existing fuel economically and then postulate that pond scum or sea weed can produce the billions of gallons of fuel needed to support the current rate of economic production and consumption is amazing to me. Viva the status quo!!!Again, where are your numbers to support your supposition? How many tons of algae does it take to replace the typical production of an oil well or coal mine. How much energy has to be put into producing it? How much fertilizer? What is the cost of harvesting it and converting it so it can be burned? How quickly can you replace a crop after it is harvested? How long does it take to grow? This from people who have stated that building a water tank for modern steam is prohibitive and impossible?!What Selector is trying to say is the status quo is not sustainable forever and that there are not enough reasources to sustain the entire human population consuming at a First World level. He is trying to say that there has to be a point of equalibrium somewhere. He is correct in the area that economies must grow to remain dynamic and that takes energy and a lot of it and banking on the idea that these alternative means of energy production will be able to supply the need is unfounded at the least. wsherrick, it is obvious you are a sad, bitter old man, reliving your childhood fantasies. You have no vision for the future, only to resurrect failures from the past. Your "solution" involves more coal mining, the single most environmentally destructive action ever to occur in this country. Your mentality is to use more coal, and the faster the better, because you have deluded yourself into thinking it can be clean and cheap. Most likely because you do not have live with the effects of King Coal on a daily basis. In your viewpoint, any one who dares to think outside the box is the problem, while the real problem is your retro-think where the cure is worse than the disease.
wsherrick wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: selector wrote: GP40-2 wrote:Algae uses atmospheric CO2 to produce the oil that makes up 50%-60% of their weight. Burning it just replaces the CO2 that it took out of the air to grow. It is a relatively CO2 neutral process.I think there is a danger in thinking this way. We keep trying to defer the inevitable, and in so doing we tell ourselves that we have the next best thing to a perpetual motion machine. Such things are the stuff of fancy, and I feel it is fanciful to think that we can rely on algae to provide significant amounts of our enery. The fly in the algae goop is that we use such ideas to increase our footprint on the planet, and within a couple of decades we will be wondering what the next panacea is...and who owns it.As we lever energy production and consumption (because that is what we are talking about), we increase the numbers of those who rely on it. At some point, I hope, this solution will really be neutral and we'll find a happy balance between our proclivity for procreation and our penchant for living like there is no tomorrow. That means there will come a time when Nature will impose a stasis that does not yet exist. She will insist that our birth rate matches the death rate one for one, and that is the only way we will be able to sustain ourselves energy-wise while we occupy the confines of this planet. IOW, as our numbers continue to rise due to our cognitive advantage over Nature, She will nevertheless impose her own rules on us. We'll need to supply something more than just sunshine. We currently take out something from the equation more than just energy needs. It's called garbage, or waste. We create thousands of tonnes of it every single day. Until we can feed a lot more of what we ship to dumps to the algae, the algae is going to be a short-term solution, if at all. I'm not sure quite what to make of this post.One of the things that is an advantageof Algae is that we can grow it practically anywhere with any quality water. And it will feed on at least a portion of our garbage. As for the CO2 neutrality of it. Well, The refining process of course may create some, I don't know, but the growth itself versus consumption will largely be neutral as the added energy to grow it is solar. and waste already produced. In general, seaweed/Kelp has always been the futurist's dream creating foodstuffs and energy. Floating Kelp farms would replace oil derrecks etc etc. It's not a panacea, nothing is, but it has the potential to be less environmentally costly and more landuse friendly than most any other option. We're not looking for an end game, merely the next step. Way off topic.The Anything But Steam mentality is raging full strength. The idea that energy can be grown in a field or a pond in any appreciable amounts to supply a growing, dynamic economy is ridiculous on it's face. Since we have people posting here who refuse to accept the solid evidence that a proven technology (steam) can be adapted for current use which can use any existing fuel economically and then postulate that pond scum or sea weed can produce the billions of gallons of fuel needed to support the current rate of economic production and consumption is amazing to me. Viva the status quo!!!Again, where are your numbers to support your supposition? How many tons of algae does it take to replace the typical production of an oil well or coal mine. How much energy has to be put into producing it? How much fertilizer? What is the cost of harvesting it and converting it so it can be burned? How quickly can you replace a crop after it is harvested? How long does it take to grow? This from people who have stated that building a water tank for modern steam is prohibitive and impossible?!What Selector is trying to say is the status quo is not sustainable forever and that there are not enough reasources to sustain the entire human population consuming at a First World level. He is trying to say that there has to be a point of equalibrium somewhere. He is correct in the area that economies must grow to remain dynamic and that takes energy and a lot of it and banking on the idea that these alternative means of energy production will be able to supply the need is unfounded at the least.
YoHo1975 wrote: selector wrote: GP40-2 wrote:Algae uses atmospheric CO2 to produce the oil that makes up 50%-60% of their weight. Burning it just replaces the CO2 that it took out of the air to grow. It is a relatively CO2 neutral process.I think there is a danger in thinking this way. We keep trying to defer the inevitable, and in so doing we tell ourselves that we have the next best thing to a perpetual motion machine. Such things are the stuff of fancy, and I feel it is fanciful to think that we can rely on algae to provide significant amounts of our enery. The fly in the algae goop is that we use such ideas to increase our footprint on the planet, and within a couple of decades we will be wondering what the next panacea is...and who owns it.As we lever energy production and consumption (because that is what we are talking about), we increase the numbers of those who rely on it. At some point, I hope, this solution will really be neutral and we'll find a happy balance between our proclivity for procreation and our penchant for living like there is no tomorrow. That means there will come a time when Nature will impose a stasis that does not yet exist. She will insist that our birth rate matches the death rate one for one, and that is the only way we will be able to sustain ourselves energy-wise while we occupy the confines of this planet. IOW, as our numbers continue to rise due to our cognitive advantage over Nature, She will nevertheless impose her own rules on us. We'll need to supply something more than just sunshine. We currently take out something from the equation more than just energy needs. It's called garbage, or waste. We create thousands of tonnes of it every single day. Until we can feed a lot more of what we ship to dumps to the algae, the algae is going to be a short-term solution, if at all. I'm not sure quite what to make of this post.One of the things that is an advantageof Algae is that we can grow it practically anywhere with any quality water. And it will feed on at least a portion of our garbage. As for the CO2 neutrality of it. Well, The refining process of course may create some, I don't know, but the growth itself versus consumption will largely be neutral as the added energy to grow it is solar. and waste already produced. In general, seaweed/Kelp has always been the futurist's dream creating foodstuffs and energy. Floating Kelp farms would replace oil derrecks etc etc. It's not a panacea, nothing is, but it has the potential to be less environmentally costly and more landuse friendly than most any other option. We're not looking for an end game, merely the next step.
selector wrote: GP40-2 wrote:Algae uses atmospheric CO2 to produce the oil that makes up 50%-60% of their weight. Burning it just replaces the CO2 that it took out of the air to grow. It is a relatively CO2 neutral process.I think there is a danger in thinking this way. We keep trying to defer the inevitable, and in so doing we tell ourselves that we have the next best thing to a perpetual motion machine. Such things are the stuff of fancy, and I feel it is fanciful to think that we can rely on algae to provide significant amounts of our enery. The fly in the algae goop is that we use such ideas to increase our footprint on the planet, and within a couple of decades we will be wondering what the next panacea is...and who owns it.As we lever energy production and consumption (because that is what we are talking about), we increase the numbers of those who rely on it. At some point, I hope, this solution will really be neutral and we'll find a happy balance between our proclivity for procreation and our penchant for living like there is no tomorrow. That means there will come a time when Nature will impose a stasis that does not yet exist. She will insist that our birth rate matches the death rate one for one, and that is the only way we will be able to sustain ourselves energy-wise while we occupy the confines of this planet. IOW, as our numbers continue to rise due to our cognitive advantage over Nature, She will nevertheless impose her own rules on us. We'll need to supply something more than just sunshine. We currently take out something from the equation more than just energy needs. It's called garbage, or waste. We create thousands of tonnes of it every single day. Until we can feed a lot more of what we ship to dumps to the algae, the algae is going to be a short-term solution, if at all.
GP40-2 wrote:Algae uses atmospheric CO2 to produce the oil that makes up 50%-60% of their weight. Burning it just replaces the CO2 that it took out of the air to grow. It is a relatively CO2 neutral process.
Algae uses atmospheric CO2 to produce the oil that makes up 50%-60% of their weight. Burning it just replaces the CO2 that it took out of the air to grow. It is a relatively CO2 neutral process.
I think there is a danger in thinking this way. We keep trying to defer the inevitable, and in so doing we tell ourselves that we have the next best thing to a perpetual motion machine. Such things are the stuff of fancy, and I feel it is fanciful to think that we can rely on algae to provide significant amounts of our enery. The fly in the algae goop is that we use such ideas to increase our footprint on the planet, and within a couple of decades we will be wondering what the next panacea is...and who owns it.
As we lever energy production and consumption (because that is what we are talking about), we increase the numbers of those who rely on it. At some point, I hope, this solution will really be neutral and we'll find a happy balance between our proclivity for procreation and our penchant for living like there is no tomorrow. That means there will come a time when Nature will impose a stasis that does not yet exist. She will insist that our birth rate matches the death rate one for one, and that is the only way we will be able to sustain ourselves energy-wise while we occupy the confines of this planet. IOW, as our numbers continue to rise due to our cognitive advantage over Nature, She will nevertheless impose her own rules on us. We'll need to supply something more than just sunshine. We currently take out something from the equation more than just energy needs. It's called garbage, or waste. We create thousands of tonnes of it every single day. Until we can feed a lot more of what we ship to dumps to the algae, the algae is going to be a short-term solution, if at all.
I'm not sure quite what to make of this post.
One of the things that is an advantageof Algae is that we can grow it practically anywhere with any quality water. And it will feed on at least a portion of our garbage. As for the CO2 neutrality of it. Well, The refining process of course may create some, I don't know, but the growth itself versus consumption will largely be neutral as the added energy to grow it is solar. and waste already produced.
In general, seaweed/Kelp has always been the futurist's dream creating foodstuffs and energy. Floating Kelp farms would replace oil derrecks etc etc. It's not a panacea, nothing is, but it has the potential to be less environmentally costly and more landuse friendly than most any other option. We're not looking for an end game, merely the next step.
Way off topic.
The Anything But Steam mentality is raging full strength. The idea that energy can be grown in a field or a pond in any appreciable amounts to supply a growing, dynamic economy is ridiculous on it's face. Since we have people posting here who refuse to accept the solid evidence that a proven technology (steam) can be adapted for current use which can use any existing fuel economically and then postulate that pond scum or sea weed can produce the billions of gallons of fuel needed to support the current rate of economic production and consumption is amazing to me. Viva the status quo!!!
Again, where are your numbers to support your supposition? How many tons of algae does it take to replace the typical production of an oil well or coal mine. How much energy has to be put into producing it? How much fertilizer? What is the cost of harvesting it and converting it so it can be burned? How quickly can you replace a crop after it is harvested? How long does it take to grow? This from people who have stated that building a water tank for modern steam is prohibitive and impossible?!
What Selector is trying to say is the status quo is not sustainable forever and that there are not enough reasources to sustain the entire human population consuming at a First World level. He is trying to say that there has to be a point of equalibrium somewhere. He is correct in the area that economies must grow to remain dynamic and that takes energy and a lot of it and banking on the idea that these alternative means of energy production will be able to supply the need is unfounded at the least.
GP-40 is that all you have? Just call me names and insulting other people who support their ideas with facts. You are the one with the personal issues not me buddy. All the proof I need of that is to look at your rantings which appear all over this Forum. Maybe you need to smoke some more of that, "algae."
Algae for fuel? How would that work? And if its used as a fuel, would'nt it still give off some sort of pollution?
Color me intrigued. At the very least, any bio-fuel is going to spend it's growth period Soaking up CO2 and nice carbon neutral Sunlight. If it's Alga based, then it becomes really intriguing. I'm thinking not just intentional use of waste water plants and such, but ALgea spikes in natural environments and such. Heck, San Francisco's been fussing about the amount of Macro Algea that's been growing in the bay (they blame it partly on the fish keeping hobby, which is bull, but that's neither here nor there) Dredge it up and turn it into fuel. The best part is that if you can manage to reach a critical volume of fuel, then you can essentially turn every single diesel loco in the fleet into an environmentally friendly unit with just a filter swap. Plus, it's soaking up pollutants and cleaning the water. Good stuff.
Plus, you can pull a lot of the refinments needed for T2-T3 out which, at least in the 16-710, have robbed it of some efficency.
erikem wrote:An idea that intrigues me is producing diesel from oils found in algae - and growing the algae in the CO2 rich environment of te stack gases from a coal fired power plant. Not sure of the burning qualities relative to petroleum based or CTL based diesel fuel, but it does sound a lot more sane than dedicating farmland to diesel fuel production.
selector wrote:Fifteen thousand gallons of bio-fuel? I wonder how much CO2 that would yield when oxidized?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.