Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab(pnnl.gov)
pnnl.gov
Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab
http://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=1029
13 comments
it is not sure it is positive.
It's certainly very negative. The advantage is you can use things like solar, hydro or geothermal energy to heat the system. Even turning 1000MW of geothermal energy into only 100MW of crude oil can be worthwhile since you can't run an internal combustion engine on geothermal energy.
It's certainly very negative. The advantage is you can use things like solar, hydro or geothermal energy to heat the system. Even turning 1000MW of geothermal energy into only 100MW of crude oil can be worthwhile since you can't run an internal combustion engine on geothermal energy.
But is it better than turning that geothermal energy into electricity and transmitting it to a battery in an electric car?
Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a need for oil. Just wondering what the efficiencies are for each route, and whether this process means that we don't even need electric cars any more (doubtful, but I thought I'd ask)
Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a need for oil. Just wondering what the efficiencies are for each route, and whether this process means that we don't even need electric cars any more (doubtful, but I thought I'd ask)
Gasoline has tremendous energy density compared to other forms of storage. If you need that energy to be portable (like in a car or truck), you may still want to use petroleum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Right, but that doesn't mean anything when we're only getting ~16% efficiency in our ICE.
Gasoline is still way ahead. It still has ~40x the density of batteries. Even at 16%, it's still going to be about 6x as efficient as batteries, even if batteries + electric motors are at 100% efficiency.
A Toyota Camry car carries 17 gallons of fuel, which, at 6 lbs per gallon, is about 100 lbs. At 28 mpg, that's enough to travel 476 miles. The Tesla S carries a 900 lb battery which is enough to travel about 250 miles. In miles per lb, that's 4.7 for the Toyota, and 0.28 for the Tesla.
Obviously, there are a lot of other considerations than just miles per lb, but gasoline's energy density and portability are stellar.
A Toyota Camry car carries 17 gallons of fuel, which, at 6 lbs per gallon, is about 100 lbs. At 28 mpg, that's enough to travel 476 miles. The Tesla S carries a 900 lb battery which is enough to travel about 250 miles. In miles per lb, that's 4.7 for the Toyota, and 0.28 for the Tesla.
Obviously, there are a lot of other considerations than just miles per lb, but gasoline's energy density and portability are stellar.
Good thing we have been doing better than that for some time now.
>The MAN S80ME-C7 low speed diesel engines use 155 grams (5.5 oz) of fuel per kWh for an overall energy conversion efficiency of 54.4%
>The efficiency of a combined cycle gas turbine system can exceed 60%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Fuel_economy
In fact, it's shameful how underutilized diesel engines are in this world. Same with stirling engines.
>The MAN S80ME-C7 low speed diesel engines use 155 grams (5.5 oz) of fuel per kWh for an overall energy conversion efficiency of 54.4%
>The efficiency of a combined cycle gas turbine system can exceed 60%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Fuel_economy
In fact, it's shameful how underutilized diesel engines are in this world. Same with stirling engines.
If you're allowed any scientific process regardless of engineering challenge and economics, thermally crack the crude down to hydrogen and pure carbon coke deposits, sequester the carbon for carbon credits, and pipe the H2 into fuel cells for near 100% efficiency.
It means a lot. The Tesla Model S (a reasonable sedan) needs 85kwh to reach a 300+ mile range, and the drivetrain is probably about as efficient as electric cars will ever be. So realistically, we need 85-100kwh of power on board a reasonable car.
A single gallon of gasoline is ~33kwh of power. At 30mpg (easy for a sedan), 10 gallons (330kwh) is sufficient for a 300 mile range. So the Tesla is ~4 times as energy efficient as internal combustion, and unlikely to get any better.
A single gallon of gasoline is ~33kwh of power. At 30mpg (easy for a sedan), 10 gallons (330kwh) is sufficient for a 300 mile range. So the Tesla is ~4 times as energy efficient as internal combustion, and unlikely to get any better.
Cars and trucks can easily be powered electrically, if the need arises (by frequently changed batteries, by induction, or as in trolley buses or trains)
I think planes, rockets and various military applications (e.g an infanterist carrying a zillion gadgets that have to be powered for hours) are the only examples of cases where this process might be beneficial.
I think planes, rockets and various military applications (e.g an infanterist carrying a zillion gadgets that have to be powered for hours) are the only examples of cases where this process might be beneficial.
It's basically time-shifting. Either you can turn this geothermal energy into electricity and have the consumer charge their car at home over a long period of time (hours) or you can turn it into a full tank of gasoline over a long period of time (hours), ship it to the consumer to fill their tank in a short period of time (minutes).
Either way, it takes a long time. The difference is the impact to the consumer of converting it to something useful for them (gas), or having them convert it to something useful (a charged battery). The consumer doesn't notice the gasoline taking a long time, to them it takes minutes.
Either way, it takes a long time. The difference is the impact to the consumer of converting it to something useful for them (gas), or having them convert it to something useful (a charged battery). The consumer doesn't notice the gasoline taking a long time, to them it takes minutes.
Sure, that's better in the few scenarios when it is reasonable to do so. But electric engine technology is still very limited, and we're a long way from replacing all internal combustion engines with electrical. I doubt we'll seeing transatlantic passenger flights in electric airplanes any time soon.
The other huge advantage with oil is that it is a very efficient, stable and easy to transport store of energy. Transporting and storing 1MWh worth of energy using batteries is a serious undertaking compared to transporting and storing the equivalent in oil.
The other huge advantage with oil is that it is a very efficient, stable and easy to transport store of energy. Transporting and storing 1MWh worth of energy using batteries is a serious undertaking compared to transporting and storing the equivalent in oil.
I'm petty sure I'm being pedantic, but to be clear: Electric engines (motors) are great. Highly efficient, simple, powerful, scalable both ways, and reliable. If you've got electricity available and want things to move, they're the way to go.
It's the batteries that are sub par, in many ways.
It's the batteries that are sub par, in many ways.
That's exactly why diesel locomotives have always been diesel generators connected to massive electric motors; the best of both worlds.
not just locomotives. the biggest earth-movers in the world are all electric vehicles powered by onboard generators.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/10/worlds-largest-dumptruc...
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/10/worlds-largest-dumptruc...
Because you know what happens when you try to pass immense torque through a transmission? Bad things. Its why Elon fought for so long for a 2-speed transmission on the Roadster before giving up and opting for a lower top speed. Electric motors have a ridiculous amount of force they can put out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Timeline
"Subsequent to completion of production car number one at Hethel, the company announced problems with transmission reliability. The development transmission, with first gear enabled to accelerate 0 to 60 mph (0 to 97 km/h) in 4 seconds, was reported to have a life expectancy of as low as only a few thousand miles. Tesla Motors' first two transmission suppliers were unable to produce transmissions, in quantity, that could withstand the gear-shift requirements of the high torque, high rpm electric motor. In December 2007, Tesla Motors announced plans to ship the initial Roadsters with the transmissions locked into second gear to provide 0 to 60 mph (0 to 97 km/h) acceleration in 5.7 seconds. The first production car was not delivered with this interim solution; P1 has both transmission gears enabled. According to the plan, the initial transmissions were to be swapped out under warranty when the finalized transmission, power electronics module (PEM), and cooling system became available. The EPA range of the car was also restated downward from 245 to 221 miles (394 to 356 km). The downward revision was attributed to an error in equipment calibration at the laboratory that conducted the original test"
DISCLAIMER: Tesla's final solution was a single-speed gearbox, combined with software and energy management upgrades. The electric motor will now run as high as 14K RPMs to achieve it's 125mph top speed while retaining it's 4 second 0-60 time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Timeline
"Subsequent to completion of production car number one at Hethel, the company announced problems with transmission reliability. The development transmission, with first gear enabled to accelerate 0 to 60 mph (0 to 97 km/h) in 4 seconds, was reported to have a life expectancy of as low as only a few thousand miles. Tesla Motors' first two transmission suppliers were unable to produce transmissions, in quantity, that could withstand the gear-shift requirements of the high torque, high rpm electric motor. In December 2007, Tesla Motors announced plans to ship the initial Roadsters with the transmissions locked into second gear to provide 0 to 60 mph (0 to 97 km/h) acceleration in 5.7 seconds. The first production car was not delivered with this interim solution; P1 has both transmission gears enabled. According to the plan, the initial transmissions were to be swapped out under warranty when the finalized transmission, power electronics module (PEM), and cooling system became available. The EPA range of the car was also restated downward from 245 to 221 miles (394 to 356 km). The downward revision was attributed to an error in equipment calibration at the laboratory that conducted the original test"
DISCLAIMER: Tesla's final solution was a single-speed gearbox, combined with software and energy management upgrades. The electric motor will now run as high as 14K RPMs to achieve it's 125mph top speed while retaining it's 4 second 0-60 time.
I think you mean 4 second 0-60 time. A 4 second 1/4 mile would be a world record.
Thank you! Corrected.
Yes - if you don't have an electric car. Or if you're somewhere in Siberia at -40 degrees C where a) batteries stop working and b) you're 500km away from a power line.
If you don't have an electric car, it's probably cheaper to buy one than to pay for the gas made by this method, no?
That may work for cars, but not airplanes. And oil is also an important lubricant and plastic feedstock.
And a feedstock for herbicides, pesticides, (some) fertilizers, or on a meta level above those, its a feedtock for "human food".
Of course you could eat the algae straight, or feed it to hogs and then eat hogs, but variety being the spice of life its a perfectly valid alternative tech to turn sunlight into food.
Of course you could eat the algae straight, or feed it to hogs and then eat hogs, but variety being the spice of life its a perfectly valid alternative tech to turn sunlight into food.
Wonder if this could be done in space? A few months ago I read about the idea of solar energy being captured in space, and I struggled with the question of how to transport that energy to where we'd like to use it.
If the algae could grow in space, and this process could occur in space, then we could wastefully convert solar to oil in space, and spacecraft could use that oil in space.
Lot of if's and speculation there, but it's an interesting line of thought.
If the algae could grow in space, and this process could occur in space, then we could wastefully convert solar to oil in space, and spacecraft could use that oil in space.
Lot of if's and speculation there, but it's an interesting line of thought.
> I struggled with the question of how to transport that energy to where we'd like to use it
Lasers
Lasers
Thus spoke our prophet:
Let me tell you one of my pet peeves: space solar power. Okay, the stupidest thing ever. If anyone should like space solar power, it should be me. I got a rocket company and a solar company. I should be really on it, ya know. But it's like, super obviously, not going to work because, ya know, if you have solar panels - first of all, it has to be better than having solar panels on Earth, so then you say, okay, solar panel is on-orbit, you get twice the solar energy - assuming that it is out of Earth's shadow - but you've gotta do a double conversion. You've gotta convert it from photon to electron to photon, back to electron. You've got to make this double conversion, so, okay, what's your conversion efficiency? Hmm. All in, you're going to have a real hard time even getting to 50%. [The solar cells are better.] It does not matter, put that cell on Earth then. See, that's the point I'm making. Take any given solar cell, is it better to have it on Earth, or is it better to have it on orbit? What do you get from being in orbit? You get twice as much sun - best case - but you've got to do a conversion. You've got to convert it the energy to photons - well, you have incoming photons that go to electrons, but you - you've gotta do two conversions that you don't have to do on Earth, which is you've got to turn those electrons into photons and turn those photons back into electrons on the ground, and that double conversion is going to get you back to where you started, basically. So why are you bothering sending them to bloody space. "I wish I could just stab that bloody thing through the heart." BTW - electron to photon converters are not free and nor is sending stuff to space. Then it obviously super doesn't work. Case closed. You'd think. You'd think case closed, but no. I guarantee it's gunna come up another ten times. I mean, for the love of God.
From: http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/elon-musk-panel-bta-2012-...
Let me tell you one of my pet peeves: space solar power. Okay, the stupidest thing ever. If anyone should like space solar power, it should be me. I got a rocket company and a solar company. I should be really on it, ya know. But it's like, super obviously, not going to work because, ya know, if you have solar panels - first of all, it has to be better than having solar panels on Earth, so then you say, okay, solar panel is on-orbit, you get twice the solar energy - assuming that it is out of Earth's shadow - but you've gotta do a double conversion. You've gotta convert it from photon to electron to photon, back to electron. You've got to make this double conversion, so, okay, what's your conversion efficiency? Hmm. All in, you're going to have a real hard time even getting to 50%. [The solar cells are better.] It does not matter, put that cell on Earth then. See, that's the point I'm making. Take any given solar cell, is it better to have it on Earth, or is it better to have it on orbit? What do you get from being in orbit? You get twice as much sun - best case - but you've got to do a conversion. You've got to convert it the energy to photons - well, you have incoming photons that go to electrons, but you - you've gotta do two conversions that you don't have to do on Earth, which is you've got to turn those electrons into photons and turn those photons back into electrons on the ground, and that double conversion is going to get you back to where you started, basically. So why are you bothering sending them to bloody space. "I wish I could just stab that bloody thing through the heart." BTW - electron to photon converters are not free and nor is sending stuff to space. Then it obviously super doesn't work. Case closed. You'd think. You'd think case closed, but no. I guarantee it's gunna come up another ten times. I mean, for the love of God.
From: http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/elon-musk-panel-bta-2012-...
I always saw it as a very long-term solution. Once we have the lunar colonies, orbital space stations, asteroid mining, and the economic infrastructure to make interplanetary travel routine, we could begin building out SSP as a practically unlimited source of power. But, for the foreseeable future I have to agree with Musk. Considering how expensive launching stuff to orbit is right now almost any sort of terrestrial solar power coupled with an energy storage mechanism (e.g. pumped hydro, heat reservoirs for solar thermal) would be more cost-effective.
Isn't the point of solar in space, well, space? You get less efficiency, but you are not going to run out of deserts nearly as fast. So the ultimate scale is not limited.
Are we really running out of deserts anytime soon? Isn't the issue more the capital and labor intensity of harvesting energy from sunlight, and transporting that energy to places that actually need it?
Space exacerbates those two issues.
Space exacerbates those two issues.
Can't we skip the conversion and use giant optical lenses to focus sunlight onto panels on earth? ;)
No, that doesn't work since the sun is not a point source.
Maybe it doesn't work for lenses but it seems it would work for mirrors: http://www.academia.edu/5185260/SUNBEAMS_FROM_SPACE_MIRRORS_...
Thanks for the good link!
Ok, here they produce 1-sun intensity by having a 10 km mirror at 1000 km height, focusing on a 10 km terrestrial array.
That's a similar angular diameter, 1/100, as the sun, so from the receiver's point of view it can appear as powerful as the sun. I'm surprised that the numbers work out like that.
Maybe you could create a huge "death ray" constellation with 10x solar intensity and whose ground track (all sats in the same ground track) was filled with liquid cooled solar panels. Over the ocean it would just kill everything in its path.
Ok, here they produce 1-sun intensity by having a 10 km mirror at 1000 km height, focusing on a 10 km terrestrial array.
That's a similar angular diameter, 1/100, as the sun, so from the receiver's point of view it can appear as powerful as the sun. I'm surprised that the numbers work out like that.
Maybe you could create a huge "death ray" constellation with 10x solar intensity and whose ground track (all sats in the same ground track) was filled with liquid cooled solar panels. Over the ocean it would just kill everything in its path.
I think you'll find radiation to be an interesting additional challenge to add to the mix. That and the relative lack of local oxygen. I get what you're saying though, its a heck of a lot more rational to design and airdrop an algae plant on Mars than to expect oil wells to produce on Mars.
> I think you'll find radiation to be an interesting additional challenge to add to the mix.
Not as much in near-Earth orbit where we enjoy much of the Earth's magnetic field's protection. Astronauts come back with an elevated risk of cancer but not tremendously so.
> That and the relative lack of local oxygen.
Grow some photosynthetic algae too, which'll convert sunlight to oxygen.
Not as much in near-Earth orbit where we enjoy much of the Earth's magnetic field's protection. Astronauts come back with an elevated risk of cancer but not tremendously so.
> That and the relative lack of local oxygen.
Grow some photosynthetic algae too, which'll convert sunlight to oxygen.
I can't tell if you're joking, but photosynthesis rearranges carbon dioxide and water into sugars, releasing some of the oxygen from the water molecules.
And when you burn the algae sourced synthetic kerosene and algae sourced O2 in your rocket engine (or whatever you're doing with it) you'll run out of water. And its dumb to ship unprocessed water up into space if you can use cheap earth based refineries to ship the same weight of highly refined fuel. Keep those heavy refineries at the bottom of the gravity well unless you have a really good reason to hoist them up.
So that was the origin of my idea that this isn't going to scale in space "in general". I'm told Europa has a lot of water, other than the whole lack of sunlight thing, I could see Europa as the "fuel tank of the solar system" in the future. Maybe it could be economically viable to mine comets and turn them into fuel while they're near the sun? Or mine icy asteroids?
I think you're going to overall have more trouble finding water in space than energy.
So that was the origin of my idea that this isn't going to scale in space "in general". I'm told Europa has a lot of water, other than the whole lack of sunlight thing, I could see Europa as the "fuel tank of the solar system" in the future. Maybe it could be economically viable to mine comets and turn them into fuel while they're near the sun? Or mine icy asteroids?
I think you're going to overall have more trouble finding water in space than energy.
>> how to transport that energy to where we'd like to use it
I've always thought that a rectenna[1] would be the most efficient way to send power from orbit down to Earth.
I've always thought that a rectenna[1] would be the most efficient way to send power from orbit down to Earth.
The problem is that algae is biomass. Thanks to conservation of mass, whatever amount of biomass you bring down from space needs to come from somewhere, and space is famously devoid of mass, let alone anything for algae to consume. That means that the problem of algae farms in space becomes one putting algae food into orbit.
I'm not sure how effective launching literally tons of material into space will be.
I'm not sure how effective launching literally tons of material into space will be.
Tons is an understatement.
You're forgetting the one plausible energy source, however: the gravitational energy that the biomass has in outerspace. If you could figure out how to capture the energy of millions of tons of material moving from orbit to the Earth's surface, that might be able to provide the large majority of the energy needed to bring it up there in the first place.
I wonder how efficient we could make space elevators.
You're forgetting the one plausible energy source, however: the gravitational energy that the biomass has in outerspace. If you could figure out how to capture the energy of millions of tons of material moving from orbit to the Earth's surface, that might be able to provide the large majority of the energy needed to bring it up there in the first place.
I wonder how efficient we could make space elevators.
[deleted]
Nuclear. You want to generate a lot of heat and you don't have geothermal energy handy, you go nuclear.
You could make the whole facility mechanical - the heat from the reactor is used to heat the algae and use steam-driven pumps to create the pressure. Eliminate the electrical middleman.
You could make the whole facility mechanical - the heat from the reactor is used to heat the algae and use steam-driven pumps to create the pressure. Eliminate the electrical middleman.
You need a fair amount of hydrogen gas to run a hydrocracker, which is basically what this is. Industrially you get the hydrogen from natgas. Yeah yeah you can get methane from the output of a hydrocracker and hydrogen from methan but depending on the process its net overall hydrogen negative (think about it, how are you going to split a long chain hydrocarbon that has two H ends into two little ones thus a net of 4 H ends without a continuous input of hydrogen?)
So yeah you're mostly right but never going to get away from maybe 5% to 10% capacity driving steam turbines to electrolyze water and run the (insecure, of course) SCADA and hotel load for the humans running the plant etc.
A likely plant would look like two nuke generating plants backing each other up and 18 nukes cooking algae into diesel, roughly.
So yeah you're mostly right but never going to get away from maybe 5% to 10% capacity driving steam turbines to electrolyze water and run the (insecure, of course) SCADA and hotel load for the humans running the plant etc.
A likely plant would look like two nuke generating plants backing each other up and 18 nukes cooking algae into diesel, roughly.
That's actually a cool idea. A nuclear plant that generates petroleum products! There might be power left over to feed into the grid, too.
I'm sure environmentalists would have a field day with this concept.
I'm sure environmentalists would have a field day with this concept.
We just need cheaper and safer nukes (LFTR!)
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/federal-lab-say...
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/federal-lab-say...
The algae farms should make it carbon-neutral, at least.
Forget the energy content; there are already tons of uses for petroleum that don't require burning it for fuel.
So just get rid of the internal combustion engine...Surely that energy could be used in a more efficient way - such as filling up batteries for electric cars, and then power 10x more electric cars than oil-based cars.
Using algae to make ethanol seems a much easier way to go and uses little energy eg. algenolbiofuels.com
The algae->oil part of the process necessarily loses energy, so it all comes down to the process of turning sun into algae. Which is not itself very efficient, but may be cheaply scalable.
I think if you just care about renweable EROI and not about storage in convenient petrol form then wind and solar are still the winners.
I think if you just care about renweable EROI and not about storage in convenient petrol form then wind and solar are still the winners.
"storage in convenient ... form"
If you can't store it, you can't use it, so it doesn't matter how green it is, it won't be used.
The ideal transportable liquid fuel is diesel with gasoline a very close second. Some peculiar and temporary engineering and economic issues make gasoline ideal for passenger cars but in a very long run perspective the whole world is going diesel, its just the future has arrived a little quicker for some parts of the world than others. A common sci fi (and tech) theme.
Originally the diesel engine was developed by the Diesel bros (no kidding) to run on nut oil not crude oil. The Diesel bros had a political axe to grind about farms having self sufficient tractors much like they had self sufficient ox drawn plows. To say things didn't turn out that way would be an understatement, but there's no scientific reason it won't work that way in the future.
The primary problem with nut based biodiesel is you can't scale the production up to reasonable economic levels by shoving entire walnut trees thru a pipeline... but you can pump algae thru a pipeline...
So that's the big pix of why people are trying to turn algae into diesel.
If you can't store it, you can't use it, so it doesn't matter how green it is, it won't be used.
The ideal transportable liquid fuel is diesel with gasoline a very close second. Some peculiar and temporary engineering and economic issues make gasoline ideal for passenger cars but in a very long run perspective the whole world is going diesel, its just the future has arrived a little quicker for some parts of the world than others. A common sci fi (and tech) theme.
Originally the diesel engine was developed by the Diesel bros (no kidding) to run on nut oil not crude oil. The Diesel bros had a political axe to grind about farms having self sufficient tractors much like they had self sufficient ox drawn plows. To say things didn't turn out that way would be an understatement, but there's no scientific reason it won't work that way in the future.
The primary problem with nut based biodiesel is you can't scale the production up to reasonable economic levels by shoving entire walnut trees thru a pipeline... but you can pump algae thru a pipeline...
So that's the big pix of why people are trying to turn algae into diesel.
Sure, but people use nonstorable electricity just fine, so I disagree with your first sentence.
Biogas rather than biodiesel might appear as a farm fuel in the future, either from manure or wood gasification. But not while underground gas is still cheap enough to flare.
Biogas rather than biodiesel might appear as a farm fuel in the future, either from manure or wood gasification. But not while underground gas is still cheap enough to flare.
Ah I think you're correct. I reread your post and I got stuck circular. Yes fixed installations would almost certainly continue not to use liquid fuels just like now. Probably direct solar like you say. And just like now, the transport industry would continue to heavily rely on liq fuels. I'd worry about practical engineering issues with biogas either leaking out (especially if pressurized) or oxygen contamination leaking into the flammability limit range.
If you unleash a chemist and tell him to do anything he wants to make the best energy store, you end up with a liquid hydrocarbon, they really are awesome by both mass and volume energy density and working temp range and corrosion resistance and shelf stability and a bunch of other parameters, even if cost is not an issue. True, weird corner cases like solid rocket boosters do end up with weird fuel components, but they're weird, so that's OK.
If you unleash a chemist and tell him to do anything he wants to make the best energy store, you end up with a liquid hydrocarbon, they really are awesome by both mass and volume energy density and working temp range and corrosion resistance and shelf stability and a bunch of other parameters, even if cost is not an issue. True, weird corner cases like solid rocket boosters do end up with weird fuel components, but they're weird, so that's OK.
Science fiction story just popped into my head:
The story starts with people terraforming a planet and turning it into a giant algae-growing factory, for the purpose of creating oil from it. Whole plots with interesting characters occur. Then, suddenly, towards the end, those people abandon the whole project to go fight a war in their own galaxy. Then, the story ends with the shocking twist ... somehow you find out the abandoned algae factory is Earth. :)
The story starts with people terraforming a planet and turning it into a giant algae-growing factory, for the purpose of creating oil from it. Whole plots with interesting characters occur. Then, suddenly, towards the end, those people abandon the whole project to go fight a war in their own galaxy. Then, the story ends with the shocking twist ... somehow you find out the abandoned algae factory is Earth. :)
...and then in the sequel they show up millions of years later when the war is over, only to find that sentient creatures have evolved and have almost entirely used up the oil reserves :)
BRILLIANT!
In Larry Niven's "Known Space" stories, one bit of backstory is that billions of years ago the Slaver empire colonized planets with yeast to feed to their livestock -- giant bioengineered slugs. In his "World of Ptavvs" he describes a survivor coming out of stasis on earth, long after the fall of the Slaver empire, very confused about what happened to his planet...
Somebody needs to come up with a better way of converting solar energy into a transportable liquid. I'm guessing this is as good as it gets for now.
Phonons. Phonon pipelines, phonon tanks... Investors please form an orderly line for me to fleece you go millions.
Srsly though. Liquids are extremely good at this kind of density storage trade off, it's the reason petroleum won over electric cars in 1900 ( look it up, electric cars aren't new, we just decided about a. Hundred years ago we liked oil more.)
Srsly though. Liquids are extremely good at this kind of density storage trade off, it's the reason petroleum won over electric cars in 1900 ( look it up, electric cars aren't new, we just decided about a. Hundred years ago we liked oil more.)
Right, it was my understanding anyway that it was pretty simple to turn any kind of biological into oil, but the issues were energy efficiency, and scaling the process up.
Well, I wouldn't call it simple. The term to google for is hydrocracker or cracker in general (uh, cracker in petroleum chemistry, specifically). For the first 50 years or so from 1890 to WWII they only did it thermally and since WWII its been all about exotic catalysts.
Its not viable to thermal crack other than weird situations (Like I don't care if its net energy positive, we need feedstock to produce methane to produce ammonia to produce fertilizer so if you want to eat next winter, get crackin' today said the Kaiser to .. somebody .. in WWI). If its ridiculously expensive to thermally crack and crude is cheap, its simpler to just refine more crude and kill the market price of asphalt by dumping it on the market. So thats how we get blacktop roads, which seems to be a stupid use of valuable crude, yet... So this is a gross generalization but you can't thermally crack as a primary energy source, you've gotta cat crack. Unfortunately catalytic cracking is still something of an art or craft rather than a science because its horrifically complicated. Since day one there has been slow continuous incremental improvement, to the point that in 2010-ish its finally reasonable to finally start cat cracking algae on an industrial scale, or at least kinda sorta.
The problem with cat cracking is the catalysts are sensitive to trace contaminants so just pitching in crap from a field is an excellent way to destroy the catalyst. It is almost exactly like how carbon monoxide kills people, in that "stuff" gets stuck in the important parts which jams the whole works up and then nothing works ever again. On the other hand algae grown in glass tubes can have all its inputs controlled to not destroy the catalyst... more or less... plus or minus required trace elements... some of which kill some catalysts...
The best HN analogy I can provide is its kind of like 3D FPS games in the early 90s, no one suddenly shockingly invented out of whole cloth "the 3d chip" and that's how we got endless WWII sequels, its more like the smooth and gradual ramp up in performance from 1800s punch card unit record equipment up to the present day, where a phase change or whatever happened in the market in 1990 where suddenly the state of the art in 1990 made 3D FPS video games a reasonable application. But nothing really "new" happened in 1990 other than a century of computational performance gains continued as usual. Its the market that shifted after a certain performance level was achieved.
True, you can point to the days before and after the bipolar transistor demonstrated amplification and say the world changed on a certain date. But smooth growth in computer performance or cat cracker performance means there is no such sudden change date for FPS video games or algae based feedstock for hydrocrackers. And thats why we've been hearing about algae crackers as a "new" thing for about two decades and probably have to keep hearing about them being "new" for at least another couple decades because it becomes commonplace for people to run their cars on algae based biofuel.
The difference in the situations makes it an interesting HN topic more so than the trivia about someones recent lab experiment.
Its not viable to thermal crack other than weird situations (Like I don't care if its net energy positive, we need feedstock to produce methane to produce ammonia to produce fertilizer so if you want to eat next winter, get crackin' today said the Kaiser to .. somebody .. in WWI). If its ridiculously expensive to thermally crack and crude is cheap, its simpler to just refine more crude and kill the market price of asphalt by dumping it on the market. So thats how we get blacktop roads, which seems to be a stupid use of valuable crude, yet... So this is a gross generalization but you can't thermally crack as a primary energy source, you've gotta cat crack. Unfortunately catalytic cracking is still something of an art or craft rather than a science because its horrifically complicated. Since day one there has been slow continuous incremental improvement, to the point that in 2010-ish its finally reasonable to finally start cat cracking algae on an industrial scale, or at least kinda sorta.
The problem with cat cracking is the catalysts are sensitive to trace contaminants so just pitching in crap from a field is an excellent way to destroy the catalyst. It is almost exactly like how carbon monoxide kills people, in that "stuff" gets stuck in the important parts which jams the whole works up and then nothing works ever again. On the other hand algae grown in glass tubes can have all its inputs controlled to not destroy the catalyst... more or less... plus or minus required trace elements... some of which kill some catalysts...
The best HN analogy I can provide is its kind of like 3D FPS games in the early 90s, no one suddenly shockingly invented out of whole cloth "the 3d chip" and that's how we got endless WWII sequels, its more like the smooth and gradual ramp up in performance from 1800s punch card unit record equipment up to the present day, where a phase change or whatever happened in the market in 1990 where suddenly the state of the art in 1990 made 3D FPS video games a reasonable application. But nothing really "new" happened in 1990 other than a century of computational performance gains continued as usual. Its the market that shifted after a certain performance level was achieved.
True, you can point to the days before and after the bipolar transistor demonstrated amplification and say the world changed on a certain date. But smooth growth in computer performance or cat cracker performance means there is no such sudden change date for FPS video games or algae based feedstock for hydrocrackers. And thats why we've been hearing about algae crackers as a "new" thing for about two decades and probably have to keep hearing about them being "new" for at least another couple decades because it becomes commonplace for people to run their cars on algae based biofuel.
The difference in the situations makes it an interesting HN topic more so than the trivia about someones recent lab experiment.
Gasification is a fascinating process I was just recently aware of. Some guy got his truck to run on a certain type of oak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYGKn12Weu4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYGKn12Weu4
Scalability is a fascinating process, too. But oak trees aren't scalable.
There are lots of ways to generate local "renewable" energy optima from waste products. Unfortunately, none of them scale.
There are lots of ways to generate local "renewable" energy optima from waste products. Unfortunately, none of them scale.
There are also practical engineering problems with making a "rolling coke/charcoal oven" reliable enough to last 250K miles with about the same maint as a gasoline car. There are certain economic balances that have to be achieved, if the maint cost is going to be X times a gas car maint and lifespan will be Y times shorter that has certain capital cost requirements which probably are not possible to meet.
Also this is something of an enviro-slur but renewable ideas are typically horribly polluting but the small scale types handwave past it. A gasoline engine can output exhaust cleaner in some ways than its input air, especially WRT hydrocarbons in smoggy areas, but a coke/charcoal oven is just beyond filthy polluting, which scales pretty well to one dude and his one car but is a non-starter for 100M American cars. The interstate would be unimaginable.
Also this is something of an enviro-slur but renewable ideas are typically horribly polluting but the small scale types handwave past it. A gasoline engine can output exhaust cleaner in some ways than its input air, especially WRT hydrocarbons in smoggy areas, but a coke/charcoal oven is just beyond filthy polluting, which scales pretty well to one dude and his one car but is a non-starter for 100M American cars. The interstate would be unimaginable.
I believe the guy was only using what was available around him. Oak apparently provided the best bang.
Who knows what else that we could use that would scale.
Who knows what else that we could use that would scale.
As somebody who works in the fuel industry. We easily can keep about 3-5 liters of fuel at ~15,000 psi for injector testing in about ~1kw to 2kw watts of power (with 350F heating). So not super far off.
And this boys and girls:
""Cost is the big roadblock for algae-based fuel," said Douglas Elliott, the laboratory fellow who led the PNNL team's research. "We believe that the process we've created will help make algae biofuels much more economical."
Is why we won't run out of 'oil' at any time. Even at $500/barrel equivalent there is a point where if you must have 'crude oil' you can make it for a price. Of course at that point its a 'renewable resource' which is kind of funny.
I am glad the PNNL guys have gotten this down to a continuous process. The NASA folks who were showing it at Yuri Day a few years ago were still making algae in batches.
""Cost is the big roadblock for algae-based fuel," said Douglas Elliott, the laboratory fellow who led the PNNL team's research. "We believe that the process we've created will help make algae biofuels much more economical."
Is why we won't run out of 'oil' at any time. Even at $500/barrel equivalent there is a point where if you must have 'crude oil' you can make it for a price. Of course at that point its a 'renewable resource' which is kind of funny.
I am glad the PNNL guys have gotten this down to a continuous process. The NASA folks who were showing it at Yuri Day a few years ago were still making algae in batches.
>>Is why we won't run out of 'oil' at any time. Even at $500/barrel equivalent there is a point where if you must have 'crude oil' you can make it for a price. Of course at that point its a 'renewable resource' which is kind of funny.
Well, yes. We won't run out of oil in the ground either. The Earth actually has enough reserves to last us for thousands of years.
When people say we will "run out of oil" what they actually mean is that we will run out of cheap, easily affordable oil (i.e. oil that can be extracted and transported to refineries easily). I mean, do you know what would happen to gas prices if we had to pay $500/barrel?
So yeah, we will probably always use petroleum, since it has a lot of byproducts used in other industries. But using oil as a fuel? That is going to have to stop soon because of price pressure alone.
Well, yes. We won't run out of oil in the ground either. The Earth actually has enough reserves to last us for thousands of years.
When people say we will "run out of oil" what they actually mean is that we will run out of cheap, easily affordable oil (i.e. oil that can be extracted and transported to refineries easily). I mean, do you know what would happen to gas prices if we had to pay $500/barrel?
So yeah, we will probably always use petroleum, since it has a lot of byproducts used in other industries. But using oil as a fuel? That is going to have to stop soon because of price pressure alone.
Cars, ships, and trains may be electrified, but I don't think planes will ever be electrified. A huge advantage of fossil fuels over batteries is energy density, and energy density is very important for planes.
> Cars, ships, and trains may be electrified, but I don't think planes will ever be electrified.
Since we've already flown electric planes that statement is, in a weird way, actually true. They've already been "electrified."
Since we've already flown electric planes that statement is, in a weird way, actually true. They've already been "electrified."
Planes can absolutely be electrified. We just need to find a more dense energy storage medium than Li-ion/Li-poly batteries. Lithium-air batteries have energy density comparable to gasoline, so they might work if we can figure out how to make them rechargeable. A fuel cell could potentially work as well.
>I mean, do you know what would happen to gas prices if we had to pay $500/barrel?
Hmm, I truly wonder if we would actually still run around like headless chickens still denying the viability of electric or if we would actually see it as a viable alternative. It seems people will fervently argue a side no matter how glum/impractical/uneconomical the situation is.
Hmm, I truly wonder if we would actually still run around like headless chickens still denying the viability of electric or if we would actually see it as a viable alternative. It seems people will fervently argue a side no matter how glum/impractical/uneconomical the situation is.
> Even at $500/barrel equivalent there is a point where if you must have 'crude oil' you can make it for a price.
Sorry, but this is just ignorant nonsense. EROEI is what counts here, not raw "profits".
If your $500/barrel price point was calculated using inputs that require total energy investment equivalent to 2 barrels of oil @ $150/barrel... this is a stupid way of burning perfectly good and relatively cheap natural oil in order to get half the amount of expensive, artificial oil. You are basically engaging in a price arbitrage scheme between yesterday's oil market and tomorrow's oil market (and betting your shirt that you can safely surf the wave ahead of the price adjustments).
The only reliable way to make a profit out of this is to secure government grants, subsidies, or some other type of funding that lets you hedge your looses. Wait... PNNL, NASA.... never mind.
Sorry, but this is just ignorant nonsense. EROEI is what counts here, not raw "profits".
If your $500/barrel price point was calculated using inputs that require total energy investment equivalent to 2 barrels of oil @ $150/barrel... this is a stupid way of burning perfectly good and relatively cheap natural oil in order to get half the amount of expensive, artificial oil. You are basically engaging in a price arbitrage scheme between yesterday's oil market and tomorrow's oil market (and betting your shirt that you can safely surf the wave ahead of the price adjustments).
The only reliable way to make a profit out of this is to secure government grants, subsidies, or some other type of funding that lets you hedge your looses. Wait... PNNL, NASA.... never mind.
My claim is that the energy equation is independent of oil availability. We aren't going to "run out of energy" as some people postulate. Knowing that is helpful sometimes.
You might want to check the EROEI numbers for algae fuels, the NASA paper suggests that they are lower than they are for oil. They make that claim based on lower transportation costs (feedstock is made 'onsite' of the refinery), and a simpler refining process. None of the drilling or pipeline investment but the "farming" aspect (moving the water around) offsets that pretty much.
[1] http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/OMEGA/
You might want to check the EROEI numbers for algae fuels, the NASA paper suggests that they are lower than they are for oil. They make that claim based on lower transportation costs (feedstock is made 'onsite' of the refinery), and a simpler refining process. None of the drilling or pipeline investment but the "farming" aspect (moving the water around) offsets that pretty much.
[1] http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/OMEGA/
Your original claim was that because of economic laws ($500/barrel argument) we will never run out of petrol. (ergo, will be able to find a way to violate laws of physics, because we want to).
If you now want to change your argument and discuss why and how is this technology going to solve our energy problems, I am all ears.
If you now want to change your argument and discuss why and how is this technology going to solve our energy problems, I am all ears.
Thanks for the clarification, I'm guessing I worded it poorly.
First, a nit pick, I said "oil" (not petrol) but petrol is a product made from oil and mentioned in the article so its not a big deal.
My claim is that we can make "petrol" out of the air if we want [1]. It does not violate any laws of physics (or thermodynamics). Using petrol to make petrol this way is not effective since the translation leaves you will less petrol than you started with. Using power supplied by a nuclear reaction (as an example) to make petrol this way will convert locally generated nuclear power into transportable "chemical" aka "petrol" power. As most of the energy in the fischer-tropsch process is heat you can use concentrated solar just as easily. the electrical energy used is primarily in running the cooling pumps. Given that "oil" (and from oil, petrol) can be made out of renewable feedstock (CO and H2), I claim we won't ever "run out".
The economic principle I was alluding too was substitution, where an equally effective good at lower cost replaces a good at higher cost in the market. If petrol is $10/liter, cars powered by electricity will replace cars powered by petrol. That is an economic substitution of equal function at a lower cost.
On the Algae process. At least the NASA version required much less heat and cooling the the fischer-tropsch process and in the NASA case no arable farmland (you can grow algae in clear tubes bolted to the sides of buildings if you want). Providing yet another alternative to acquiring long chain hydrocarbons that are more cost effective to create than using a nuclear reactor connected to a Fischer-Tropsch reactor. The challenge of algae systems has been capturing a low marginal cost of additional oil from a process that was not continuous (you want to make a gallon you pay the cost of running the cycle for 1,000 gallons regardless). If however you can make a gallon for the marginal cost of producing an extra few gallons of algage scum, then you can amortize your costs more effectively and carry less risk. Both of these things encourage adoption and production.
Is that clearer? And for the record I don't think I've changed my argument at all here, just filling in the bits which you might have missed.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process
First, a nit pick, I said "oil" (not petrol) but petrol is a product made from oil and mentioned in the article so its not a big deal.
My claim is that we can make "petrol" out of the air if we want [1]. It does not violate any laws of physics (or thermodynamics). Using petrol to make petrol this way is not effective since the translation leaves you will less petrol than you started with. Using power supplied by a nuclear reaction (as an example) to make petrol this way will convert locally generated nuclear power into transportable "chemical" aka "petrol" power. As most of the energy in the fischer-tropsch process is heat you can use concentrated solar just as easily. the electrical energy used is primarily in running the cooling pumps. Given that "oil" (and from oil, petrol) can be made out of renewable feedstock (CO and H2), I claim we won't ever "run out".
The economic principle I was alluding too was substitution, where an equally effective good at lower cost replaces a good at higher cost in the market. If petrol is $10/liter, cars powered by electricity will replace cars powered by petrol. That is an economic substitution of equal function at a lower cost.
On the Algae process. At least the NASA version required much less heat and cooling the the fischer-tropsch process and in the NASA case no arable farmland (you can grow algae in clear tubes bolted to the sides of buildings if you want). Providing yet another alternative to acquiring long chain hydrocarbons that are more cost effective to create than using a nuclear reactor connected to a Fischer-Tropsch reactor. The challenge of algae systems has been capturing a low marginal cost of additional oil from a process that was not continuous (you want to make a gallon you pay the cost of running the cycle for 1,000 gallons regardless). If however you can make a gallon for the marginal cost of producing an extra few gallons of algage scum, then you can amortize your costs more effectively and carry less risk. Both of these things encourage adoption and production.
Is that clearer? And for the record I don't think I've changed my argument at all here, just filling in the bits which you might have missed.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process
Ok, I get what you mean. I was aware of the Fische-Tropsch process, though I would lie if I say I understand how it works. In the proper context, I understand why you are excited about this new technology hinted in the article.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I do not think either of these will fix the energy problems we are facing. I do believe Fischer-Tropsch could play a part on the solution, and this new technique would be even better at it. Namely, a EROEI neutral-ish way to concentrate a diffuse energy source into a highly packed storage medium for strategic purposes (i.e. transportation, since carrying around the fuel is kind of a hard requirement)
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I do not think either of these will fix the energy problems we are facing. I do believe Fischer-Tropsch could play a part on the solution, and this new technique would be even better at it. Namely, a EROEI neutral-ish way to concentrate a diffuse energy source into a highly packed storage medium for strategic purposes (i.e. transportation, since carrying around the fuel is kind of a hard requirement)
Per wikipedia, EROEI for tar sands is 3:1, and they're profitable. :( EROEI for biodiesel is 1.3:1 - and substantially replacing petroleum would take a lot of farmland. So until there's a biodiesel process that ups the EROEI (this algae process might be it), we're stuck.
By contrast, global oil production is around 20:1. It used to be 100:1, back in the 1950s.
By contrast, global oil production is around 20:1. It used to be 100:1, back in the 1950s.
"We aren't going to "run out of energy" as some people postulate."
Why?
Why?
Because we have ways of making energy that have enough fuel for 'forever' [1]. Solar energy is just nuclear energy where the reactor happens to be 1 AU away and only useful when the planet is blocking access to it.
[1] in the literal sense forever here is 1000's of years, the exemplar is a either a breeder reactor (demonstrated) so thorium reactor (proposed)
[1] in the literal sense forever here is 1000's of years, the exemplar is a either a breeder reactor (demonstrated) so thorium reactor (proposed)
Its a way to convert one sort of energy to another. E.g. solar to petro. Its sensible, has a place in our economy, and is not ignorant, though the article didn't make this all clear.
I agree. It might be sensible, but we do not know per the article information.
Doing some very, very rough estimates, I figured we would might be able to take 20 barrels of algae slurry, "cook" them (@ 350°C & 3000 PSI) for a thousand hours and get one barrel of petrol. Little or no mention of other inputs/processes involved.
My point is, we will be able to do this if we have to, but it will not be cheap, and even if we have the money we may not have other resources to do it at large scale. Like... to make it available for all motorists in the world to drive happily ever after. It is more likely that this will be an strategic resource that governments will use to fulfill needs that cannot be fulfilled any other way (like (military) aviation... you cannot just stick a Mr.Fusion in the tale of a plane and go to the infinity and beyond).
Doing some very, very rough estimates, I figured we would might be able to take 20 barrels of algae slurry, "cook" them (@ 350°C & 3000 PSI) for a thousand hours and get one barrel of petrol. Little or no mention of other inputs/processes involved.
My point is, we will be able to do this if we have to, but it will not be cheap, and even if we have the money we may not have other resources to do it at large scale. Like... to make it available for all motorists in the world to drive happily ever after. It is more likely that this will be an strategic resource that governments will use to fulfill needs that cannot be fulfilled any other way (like (military) aviation... you cannot just stick a Mr.Fusion in the tale of a plane and go to the infinity and beyond).
EROEI only matters if this is your only source of energy. At $500/barrel it would make sense to use solar power for the energy intensive bits. Nothing says your conversion plant has to run day and night.
You say that like solar power is free. To calculate the EROEI, you have to include the energy from solar.
Not free, but much cheaper than $500 for each 1.7 mwh, or barrel of oil. Solar is already cheaper than that even in cloudy Britain. EROEI is sort of irrelevant to the question of whether we'll ever "run out of oil." It might be that we'll stop using oil as a primary energy source, but that doesn't mean it'll go away.
EDIT: You might recall that the point you dismissed as "ignorant nonsense" was that we would be able to produce oil at $500/gallon, not that we would use it as a source of energy.
EDIT: You might recall that the point you dismissed as "ignorant nonsense" was that we would be able to produce oil at $500/gallon, not that we would use it as a source of energy.
Thanks for answering the question I was going to ask.
However, if you move the process out into the desert and use concentrated solar power to provide the heat then you have a solar power process running at 50% efficiency to produce a stable portable store of energy, which makes a lot more sense.
However, if you move the process out into the desert and use concentrated solar power to provide the heat then you have a solar power process running at 50% efficiency to produce a stable portable store of energy, which makes a lot more sense.
[deleted]
Something to keep in mind, and the source of much misunderstanding in alternative fuel discussions... there are really three different systems involved! Energy capture, energy storage, and energy conversion (converting stored energy to work).
Energy capture: Fossil fuel has the unpleasant problem that the energy was captured long ago, over very time-consuming (millions of years) natural processes. So it carries two flaws: burning it destabilizes the atmosphere, and it's a fixed resource that will eventually run out. In the long game (>100 years, when humans could be around for millions more), nuclear fission has the same problem. So the only really stable, long-term sources of energy are solar (including indirect solar like wind) and geothermal (including indirect gravitational energy like tidal).
Energy storage: This is where liquid and gas fuels have a huge win and battery storage has a huge lose. It's probably impossible for batteries to achieve the density and convenience of gasoline and other liquids. They're safe, easy to handle, etc. Even though electric motors are several times more efficient than combustion motors, liquid fuel storage efficiency more than makes up for it. Plus it requires no change to existing infrastructure.
Energy conversion: This is more about how it's used. We want vehicles, right? So we have to consider the operational goals and constraints of vehicles.
Energy capture: Fossil fuel has the unpleasant problem that the energy was captured long ago, over very time-consuming (millions of years) natural processes. So it carries two flaws: burning it destabilizes the atmosphere, and it's a fixed resource that will eventually run out. In the long game (>100 years, when humans could be around for millions more), nuclear fission has the same problem. So the only really stable, long-term sources of energy are solar (including indirect solar like wind) and geothermal (including indirect gravitational energy like tidal).
Energy storage: This is where liquid and gas fuels have a huge win and battery storage has a huge lose. It's probably impossible for batteries to achieve the density and convenience of gasoline and other liquids. They're safe, easy to handle, etc. Even though electric motors are several times more efficient than combustion motors, liquid fuel storage efficiency more than makes up for it. Plus it requires no change to existing infrastructure.
Energy conversion: This is more about how it's used. We want vehicles, right? So we have to consider the operational goals and constraints of vehicles.
> Energy conversion: This is more about how it's used. We want vehicles, right?
No.
A small amount of energy is used for vehicles, but far far far more is used for fixed installations. Vehicles get all the press though.
No.
A small amount of energy is used for vehicles, but far far far more is used for fixed installations. Vehicles get all the press though.
If we're talking about stable long-term energy sources that aren't yet ready/cost effective, then nuclear fusion is another option.
Nuclear fusion isn't an option because it's not technologically feasible at positive EROEI (that may change someday, but it's basically science fiction now).
Positive EROEI on numerous forms of solar is already there and in production. It just can't beat fossil fuel on a cost/power basis. That's an economics problem, not a technical problem.
Positive EROEI on numerous forms of solar is already there and in production. It just can't beat fossil fuel on a cost/power basis. That's an economics problem, not a technical problem.
One of the main problems humanity would have in recovering from a collapse of civilization would be the absence of fossil fuel reserves that we used to bootstrap civilization the first time round. Could this process be run in a low-tech manner to synthesise the oil necessary to get us back up running again?
At the risk of overgeneralizing our particular species/planetary history, the point you raise has been suggested as an explanation for the Fermi Paradox by Ugo Bardi and John Michael Greer.
If another life-bearing planet eventually evolves an intelligent species, than it certainly evolved an equivalent of our phytoplankton, zooplankton, and plants, the precursors of fossil fuels
As the intelligent species develops it eventually discovers its planet's equivalent of fossil fuel. But it does not understand that this extremely power-dense source has no true substitute, until it is too late.
If another life-bearing planet eventually evolves an intelligent species, than it certainly evolved an equivalent of our phytoplankton, zooplankton, and plants, the precursors of fossil fuels
As the intelligent species develops it eventually discovers its planet's equivalent of fossil fuel. But it does not understand that this extremely power-dense source has no true substitute, until it is too late.
If you find this idea interesting, you may want to check Greer's online sci-fi novel: Star's Reach - A Novel on the Deindustrial Future. http://starsreach.blogspot.com/
The idea is, agrarian societies 300-odd years ago were very "evolved" forms of human environments. Current industrial civilization is the first raw, buggy attempt of a different kind of human ecology... and we have a bumpy ride ahead of us (much like men after the latest Ice Age had to learn this agriculture thing over centuries/milenia to get it right)
The idea is, agrarian societies 300-odd years ago were very "evolved" forms of human environments. Current industrial civilization is the first raw, buggy attempt of a different kind of human ecology... and we have a bumpy ride ahead of us (much like men after the latest Ice Age had to learn this agriculture thing over centuries/milenia to get it right)
Thanks for the suggestion, I will check it out.
Doesnt this take away from the real issue of fossil fuels? Pollution, increased CO2 and climate changes.
Lets say this could scale and be economical tomorrow. Does anyone think the oil companies would let that happen or let their price per gallon at the pump decrease.
Lets say this could scale and be economical tomorrow. Does anyone think the oil companies would let that happen or let their price per gallon at the pump decrease.
> Doesnt this take away from the real issue of fossil fuels? Pollution, increased CO2 and climate changes.
No. Any CO2 released when these fuels are burned has to come from the algae. The algae gets it from the air. So CO2 is cycled, but not added to the atmosphere.
No. Any CO2 released when these fuels are burned has to come from the algae. The algae gets it from the air. So CO2 is cycled, but not added to the atmosphere.
For my understanding, the problem with the fossil fuels is that they are trapped in the ground and we are releasing the carbon that was trapped in the ground into the atmosphere.
That is true for fossil fuels. But for oil produced from algae, the carbon came from the atmosphere or the immediate surface environment, so it's not introducing any "new" (or long-sequestered) carbon.
Assuming you get the energy for the process to make it from renewable sources, how 'green' would the useful energy in terms of fuel be at the end?
As green as it gets, since the CO2 that is released from burning the fuel has been taken out of the atmosphere by the algae a short time before that. The only issue is to take care of the byproducts and algae production process, which can create local pollution issues - cheaper not to do it, but nothing that hasn't been done before in sufficient scale.
Don't forget capex... need the plant to depreciate slowly enough / be ecologically profitable enough that the ecological value of the biofuel produced exceeds the coal burned to make the concrete and steel to make the plant.
Its not just bulk concrete but SCADA control systems and catalysts and exotic stuff like that.
Without crude oil, its an open question if the high capex algae plant will win, or just have humans sow and harvest and press sunflower seeds into sunflower oil which works perfectly well in Diesel engines and the "plant" doesn't really have a capex (a wood press and some cloth filters?). Of course its not as if only capex has an environmental cost, a couple thousand human ag laborers has a certain environmental impact too, even if (especially if?) you treat them inhumanely.
During the recent ethanol bubble, some stills never refined enough EtOH to make up their cost of production much less the ecological costs of building the plant. If it takes 100K barrels of diesel equiv to make an ethanol bubble era plant, and the plant only refines 10K barrels of EtOH before the bubble crashes, that's a net loss of 90K barrels from the planet not a gain to the planet of 10K barrels. Those numbers are kind of made up, but not as much as you'd think.
Its not just bulk concrete but SCADA control systems and catalysts and exotic stuff like that.
Without crude oil, its an open question if the high capex algae plant will win, or just have humans sow and harvest and press sunflower seeds into sunflower oil which works perfectly well in Diesel engines and the "plant" doesn't really have a capex (a wood press and some cloth filters?). Of course its not as if only capex has an environmental cost, a couple thousand human ag laborers has a certain environmental impact too, even if (especially if?) you treat them inhumanely.
During the recent ethanol bubble, some stills never refined enough EtOH to make up their cost of production much less the ecological costs of building the plant. If it takes 100K barrels of diesel equiv to make an ethanol bubble era plant, and the plant only refines 10K barrels of EtOH before the bubble crashes, that's a net loss of 90K barrels from the planet not a gain to the planet of 10K barrels. Those numbers are kind of made up, but not as much as you'd think.
And it sounds like this particular process is less reliant on dangerous chemical catalysts and produces less byproducts, so it's a plus in that regard.
> As green as it gets
The massively polluted by oil derivative combustion atmospheres of L.A., Mexico City and Beijing beg to differ.
The massively polluted by oil derivative combustion atmospheres of L.A., Mexico City and Beijing beg to differ.
I think the original question was more in terms with carbon footprint, which would be indeed neutral (as long as it happens to have a positive EROEI, which is not even mentioned in the article).
Of course local pollution is a concern, but it will always be wherever there are high concentration of people around.
Of course local pollution is a concern, but it will always be wherever there are high concentration of people around.
If there's one book I would encourage people to read on this subject: http://www.withouthotair.com/ .. written by a Cambridge Theoretical Physicist. Free download.
It simply puts real numbers against various different ways of getting our energy, and in terms of EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested).
It simply puts real numbers against various different ways of getting our energy, and in terms of EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested).
I don't understand the introduction:
"0:15 as part of an effort to reduce use of traditional fuels like oil
0:19 which contribute to climate change"
How would using algae as a source of oil not contribute to climate change? You'd still burn it in all the old familiar ways.
How would using algae as a source of oil not contribute to climate change? You'd still burn it in all the old familiar ways.
Because in the process of creating the oil algae uses carbon dioxide. The net cycle is 0.
I don't see any posts about it and I'm naturally curious. Can someone explain why this doesn't impact our understanding of where the crude oil of nature comes from?
Oil is a wonder molecule that is used as an input in thousands of industrial processes. Burning it to extract energy is just the use case people understand. Which is unfortunate.
If you are going to say something like that you should at least say "extract energy".
Good point. Fixed that.
I'm still against it. Burning caloric mass for energy when so much energy is around us is just plain ignorant. We need to move to solar and wind power.
The energy content in algae comes from the sun, so this is solar energy, just being captured in the form of liquid hydrocarbons instead of electricity.
I understand that... but aren't you still going to have smoggy cities with biofuels? Even if they are net carbon neutral, they suck up carbon while being produced and then are burned in cars driving in the city, thus creating smog in the city... smog which has all kinds of health problems.
Yes, cars still pollute, although the bad smog we're seeing in eg. China has more to do with unclean combustion and no or poor filtering than is has to do with hydrocarbon fueled cars per se.
The reason a scalable carbon-neutral liquid hydrocarbon solution is attractive is that it's a drop-in solution to CO2 emissions. Battery-powered cars are neat and might well be the way of the future, but it's a very long play. Even if we had the money to replace all cars on the face of the planet with Priuses, there are some very significant constraints on the production on batteries in the form of rare earth minerals. Also, even if you did that, there's still trucks, ships and airplanes to address, never mind that most of the planet's electricity isn't exactly cleanly produced. The carbon-neutral liquid hydrocarbon solution on the other hand would be applicable without any of those constraints.
The reason a scalable carbon-neutral liquid hydrocarbon solution is attractive is that it's a drop-in solution to CO2 emissions. Battery-powered cars are neat and might well be the way of the future, but it's a very long play. Even if we had the money to replace all cars on the face of the planet with Priuses, there are some very significant constraints on the production on batteries in the form of rare earth minerals. Also, even if you did that, there's still trucks, ships and airplanes to address, never mind that most of the planet's electricity isn't exactly cleanly produced. The carbon-neutral liquid hydrocarbon solution on the other hand would be applicable without any of those constraints.
[deleted]
> Burning caloric mass for energy when so much energy is around us is just plain ignorant.
No it isn't. What the algae does is exactly it: harness all that "energy around us", which is scattered around and hard to get, in a more efficient manner.
No it isn't. What the algae does is exactly it: harness all that "energy around us", which is scattered around and hard to get, in a more efficient manner.
Burning the resulting synthetic petroleum is still highly inefficient; you're only going to get 1-5% total efficiency with most of the energy being converted to waste heat.
I could see this being used to generate fuel on-site at remote airports or places where its difficult to truck liquid fuel, but electricity is still going to be the way to go. Its just too easy to move it (with HV transmission lines) compared to large amounts of liquid fuel.
I could see this being used to generate fuel on-site at remote airports or places where its difficult to truck liquid fuel, but electricity is still going to be the way to go. Its just too easy to move it (with HV transmission lines) compared to large amounts of liquid fuel.
You can't beat the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels for many applications. Sorry.
and with the Mexican government stepping away from restrictions of foreign investment in their oil fields will technology like this ever take off or need too?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/north-america-to-dr...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/north-america-to-dr...
LOL no Mexicos Hubbert peak was about a decade ago. Cantarell is bouncing along empty, Chicontepec is useless, economically unviable for geological reasons. And they don't have much else worth mentioning. (edited to add, duh I'm obviously talking about geological petroleum reserves not some kind of racial/cultural commentary)
Its kind of like guano "production" from a century ago... Once its removed and shipped out, its gone, and all the money in the world isn't going to make shippable product appear out of thin air.
You're talking about two different scales. MX will never pump more oil than they did at peak a long time ago. That doesn't mean fat stacks of cash can't be made on the downslope or political intrigue can't be useful. For example, petroleum revenue declines are already causing a financial / political crisis in MX so transferring the blame from PEMEX to "vague groups of rich foreigners" is a wise political move as its always better for a local to blame the foreigners than the other locals. So the Cantarell tank is almost empty, almost entirely pumped out; better to blame Exxon than the CEO of PEMEX, at least if you're the leader of MX, at least on paper (the actual guys running MX are the drug gang leaders, which is a whole nother topic... take away petroleum revenues and legalize weed in the USA at the same time and MX would make Somalia look rich which is a crisis not just for MX but their neighbor to the north, which as a real political issue is why the USA will never legalize weed until long after the oil downslope is all resolved in MX... intentionally collapsing a neighboring country with a completely permeable land border is almost as dumb as the idea of the war on some drugs)
Its kind of like guano "production" from a century ago... Once its removed and shipped out, its gone, and all the money in the world isn't going to make shippable product appear out of thin air.
You're talking about two different scales. MX will never pump more oil than they did at peak a long time ago. That doesn't mean fat stacks of cash can't be made on the downslope or political intrigue can't be useful. For example, petroleum revenue declines are already causing a financial / political crisis in MX so transferring the blame from PEMEX to "vague groups of rich foreigners" is a wise political move as its always better for a local to blame the foreigners than the other locals. So the Cantarell tank is almost empty, almost entirely pumped out; better to blame Exxon than the CEO of PEMEX, at least if you're the leader of MX, at least on paper (the actual guys running MX are the drug gang leaders, which is a whole nother topic... take away petroleum revenues and legalize weed in the USA at the same time and MX would make Somalia look rich which is a crisis not just for MX but their neighbor to the north, which as a real political issue is why the USA will never legalize weed until long after the oil downslope is all resolved in MX... intentionally collapsing a neighboring country with a completely permeable land border is almost as dumb as the idea of the war on some drugs)
What's the case for marijuana being more than 5% of Mexico's economy?
(I read a little bit that suggests that is a reasonable estimate of the maximum size of the U.S. market; the numbers are wishy-washy because use is not especially well characterized. U.S. tobacco consumption is ~7% of the Mexican economy, for the sake of establishing some sort of scale.)
(I read a little bit that suggests that is a reasonable estimate of the maximum size of the U.S. market; the numbers are wishy-washy because use is not especially well characterized. U.S. tobacco consumption is ~7% of the Mexican economy, for the sake of establishing some sort of scale.)
One problem with weed and mexico and percentages, is are you talking about dollar figures, which doesn't mean much, or land area indirectly under cartel control, which given news reports is more like 95% than 5%, which has indirect economic effects (every beheading results in $X lower tourism revenue, etc).
In comparison, 5% of the american economy would be bigger than waste services but smaller than non-durable manufacturing aka toilet paper and the like. Needless to say those guys in the USA don't control significant territory or intentionally behead people other than crazy industrial accidents. If the drug biz is 5% in MX it certainly has more impact than most other 5%-sized biz sectors.
In comparison, 5% of the american economy would be bigger than waste services but smaller than non-durable manufacturing aka toilet paper and the like. Needless to say those guys in the USA don't control significant territory or intentionally behead people other than crazy industrial accidents. If the drug biz is 5% in MX it certainly has more impact than most other 5%-sized biz sectors.
So you think lower marijuana revenues would exacerbate drug violence and help consolidate cartel power? Because you said the impact of marijuana legalization on Mexico makes it politically untenable, and I don't see the case for that when I look at the relative size of those revenues and make some arrogant guesses as to how they are distributed.
The 5% figure is a ballpark estimate for marijuana, not drugs in general.
The 5% figure is a ballpark estimate for marijuana, not drugs in general.
This article is a reminder of why our planet is doomed. This is probably as good as it gets today in terms of renewable fuels. The competition? Dig a deep hole and attach a hose. We are so screwed.
I wonder what it the energy ROI of the whole process. It is not mentioned in the article, so it is not sure it is positive.