Yes, I do realize that. What you need to realize is that no matter how much people wish that wind, solar, wave, and bio-fuels were viable alternatives to fossil fuels that physics "does not give one single fuck about your ideology".
I have grown very tired of seeing my tax dollars spent on companies that promise solar panels, electric cars, windmills, and so much more that claim to provide a better world for us all but don't deliver. We have something that can give us this better world but the government has only stood in the way of developing the technology further. That is nuclear power. We've tried bio-fuels, wind, and solar but the technology just is not ready yet. Stop dumping my tax money down that black hole. Let's try something that has been shown to be viable in the past, nuclear power.
Electric cars might be a technology that will provide one more piece of the puzzle that reveals freedom from fossil fuels. The problem is that these electric cars are not really powered by electricity, they are powered by coal. Until we can build more nuclear power plants our cars will continue to be powered by fossil fuels in one form or another.
Nature does not give a fuck. Physics does not give a fuck either. If you want to see us come out of the other side of this problem with air we can breath and not up to our chins in sea water then we need to place our efforts into a solution that actually has the possibility of working. Wind and solar are just too expensive. Bio-fuels would just create an environmental disaster that would dwarf anything else we could do to the environment with fossil fuels. If we agree that fossil fuels are bad then we are left with nuclear power. The only other alternative is starvation, resource wars, and just general suckage and death.
From what we know of how we treat the environment, our current methods and technologies for energy production, distribution, and consumption are hugely wasteful , non-renewable, and incredibly toxic to the biosphere (erm, yes, that thing we currently have ONLY ONE of).
I respectfully disagree. Nuclear power has been shown to be cheap, safe, reliable, and have a very small carbon footprint. With the use of thorium fuel, reprocessing of "spent" fuel (you know, recycling?) we will have enough energy for all of humanity until the sun consumes the atmosphere.
I won't disagree that the climate is changing. I'm just having difficulty to both believe that this is all caused by human activity and giving a damn. Assuming that we did cause the acidification of the oceans and so forth because of our burning of fossil fuels we could all make that stop in a matter of decades if we make a real and concerted effort to switch to nuclear power.
Peoples ONLY argument against "doing something now to stop the madness" is "but that will cost a lot of money".
I believe that we could do something now and not have to cost us a lot of money. I have come to believe that the people pushing the AGW into politics are doing so to enrich and empower themselves. It seems entirely too convenient that a large majority of those trying to "save the planet" have chosen to lobby the government for funding rather than trying to offer products and services that compete with fossil fuels in an open market.
We can do this without destroying the economy. The reason that so many believe that reducing our carbon footprint will destroy the economy is that the "solutions" proposed by the "greenies" are very expensive. That is because these "green" people are not "green" through and through. These people are "watermelons", they are all "green" on the outside but in their hearts they are "red" communists.
We can both reduce our carbon output and improve our economy but we must first put an end to the proposed solutions that have shown themselves to be not viable. Bio-fuels of just about every form does not work, solar panels won't work, wind does not work, there's just not enough moving water to fulfill our modern power needs. What has been shown to work is nuclear power. I have come to believe that this is not popular among the "watermelons" and their useful idiots is because it would actually work and provide real wealth and freedom.
I'm not saying that AGW is true or false. I'll just say that for the sake of argument that it is true. If so then the only viable solution available to us in the hear and now is nuclear power.
And the thing to keep in mind is that by the time YOU personally wake up and smell the coffee, we're ALL completely screwed, you CANNOT stop a trainwreck of this magnitude.
What concerns me is that if we don't start developing our nuclear power infrastructure we are all screwed, AGW or not. We're going to run out of economically viable fossil fuels at some point. Wind, solar, and bio-energy just cannot compete with nuclear and coal on price and availability. Barring some massive, paradigm shifting, new technology we are screwed. I foresee resource wars that will consume the world long before we have to worry about climate change. Nuclear power happens to be a solution all of us should be able to agree upon to avoid both unpleasant possible futures.
I'm open to the idea of both sides of the AGW argument. Where I have an issue is the government mandates to "fix" the problem but really only serve to take money from my pocket and move it to the pockets of charlatans. These people will claim to have the solution to all of our energy needs but only if the government gives them large quantities of my money. If these people really had the solution to cheap and clean energy then they should be able to convince me to give them my money with out having to have the force of the government as an intermediary.
I don't know if AGW is real or not. I don't really care that much anymore to find out. What bothers me more right now is all the government waste in subsidies to companies that have taken my money but produced nothing in return. I'll accept that all government grants run the risk of failure but I'm no longer willing to provide government funding when billions of dollars have been spent on hundreds or thousands of solar panel, electric car, and windmill companies that produced no products or technologies that are viable.
I say we put our money into a technology that is proven to have a very low carbon footprint, is clean, reliable, safe, and creates real (not fictions of accounting) jobs and money. Let's build some nuclear power plants. Electric cars might be another way to reduce our carbon footprint but only if the electricity does not come from coal. Nuclear power works. Electric cars can work but we need to take off the government subsidy training wheels and let people see the real cost of these cars in the sticker price.
It might be true that we needed government subsidies in the past to bootstrap "green energy" but I believe that is no longer true. There are large numbers of people willing and able to develop green energy now. It is a real and honest business now. Take away the training wheels and see if they can keep moving on their own now. Subsidies now are, I believe, only holding back technological development now since these subsidies also come with conditions that inhibit the freedom they need to compete.
For the sake of argument I'll agree that AGW is real. If that is the case then we need to remove the government from the equation and let the free market figure out the best way to reduce our carbon output. I'll play along because I know that any technology that reduces carbon output has the benefit of also producing jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign sourced energy.
I don't think we as a species are totally fucked, but I do think a whole lot of people are going to die before this all settles out.
I agree. I estimate that more than seven billion people will die before this all settles out. I say that because this is something that will take a lifetime to play out.
Even if this "carbon bomb" does go off it will take decades, if not centuries, for the planet to warm to a point where it makes any significant effect on our lives. In that time a lot of things of much greater significance could happen.
For example, we could have a volcanic eruption that spews up so much debris that we could be thankful we had so much CO2 in the air. With the cooling effect of the dirt in the air reflecting the sun back into space we might just need the CO2 to offset the effects.
Another example, we could have an earthquake release all kinds of methane from the ocean floor that was trapped in clathrates. The massive release of these gasses could suffocate entire countries. The global warming from the methane, water vapors, and CO2 from the inevitable fires and methane decomposition could completely dwarf any damage we could have done.
I got bigger things to worry about right now. Such as, are these little green spots on my bread safe to eat or do I have to make a trip to the grocer for a fresh loaf to make my sandwich?
So you are losing freedoms when the power coming from your plug is generated by solar, wind, waves, biomass? But you have freedom when it is generated by nuclear or coal?
I have freedom when I'm not taxed to support an industry that cannot be profitable in a free market. My freedom to keep my money and spend it as I wish is reduced when the government takes it and gives it to a corporation that I would not willingly otherwise give to them in exchange for their services.
Electricity produced from coal and nuclear increases my freedom because I willingly give them my money for cheap and reliable energy. Wind and solar power only reduces my freedom so long as it is purchased with money taken from me by the force of government to purchase a product that I could have bought at a lower price in a free market.
You might claim the report above is incomplete, not peer reviewed, yadda yadds, but it seems the "debate is over" as so many claim is also nonsense. It is also irrelevant. So long as my taxes go towards subsidizing expensive energy that I don't want then my freedom to seek a source of energy that is both carbon neutral and cheap is diminished. I would much rather see my money go towards nuclear power but the government has seen to it that I am not free to do so.
Can you give me any record when once in history every singel place in the USA had no wind?
Also irrelevant. So long as my tax dollars go towards an industry that does not provide a service I desire at a price I am willing to spend my freedom has been reduced. I want nuclear power. I want to see my energy domestically sourced, reliable, cheap, safe, and clean. Wind is domestically sourced, clean, and safe but it is not cheap or reliable. It might be true that the wind always blows somewhere but getting that electricity from a wind farm off the Atlantic coast to my office in the American Midwest is not going to be cheap.
I believe that wind power might someday become as cheap and reliable as coal and nuclear but that will not happen so long as the training wheels of government subsidies stay in place. If you want to see more wind power then you, like myself, should be asking for the subsidies to stop. Not only will I be free to spend my money as I wish but you will be able to be free to prove the viability of wind power.
The problem I have with the global warming scaremongers is the so called "solutions" most of them propose to fix it. Almost every solution proposed involves more government, more taxes, and less freedom. These people are "watermelons", they claim to be all green environmentalists on the outside but on the inside they are red communists. They don't care about saving the world as much as they are in transferring money from my pocket to theirs by government mandate.
People talk about the harm that "big oil" causes to the environment. Those evil evil people want to sell the dirty yucky oil just because they are greedy. I say we should be thankful these people are willing to provide such a necessary service, one that is often dangerous to their own life, limb, and livelihood, and such an affordable price. Oil prices have gone up considerably over the years but we continue to use it because it is much safer, cheaper, and more convenient than the alternatives.
On the other hand we have "big wind", an industry that relies on government mandates to remain profitable. Very few people would buy windmills if it wasn't for the large tax incentives to do so. These people are willing to play along with the lie that windmills will save us from evil oil so long as it allows them to profit from it. Windmills alone do not save on carbon emissions since the wind is unreliable. It takes hours to adjust the output of a large boiler, like those used in coal, nuclear, or combined cycle power plants. When the wind blows the boilers still consume fuel because they need to be kept hot or the power goes out when the wind stops. Wind generated electricity also costs twice as much as traditional power sources.
Solar power has similar problems to wind except the subsidies are higher, meaning more taxes are dumped down that black hole per watt-hour produced. The unreliability of wind and solar can be addressed by using turbines to fill in the times that the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine but those cost just as much to operate as the windmills do. For every watt of generating power on the name plate of a solar power station or windmill we have to add a similar sized turbine to provide backup, or we have to idle the more efficient boilers. Either way we gain nothing from these alternative power sources in net power produced or in CO2 produced. Some calculations show we actually go backwards, more CO2 produced for less energy output. Our electricity costs also go up.
These people are not trying to save the world, they are taking advantage of a crisis to enrich themselves. If these people really wanted to save the world they'd be working on solutions that people would be willing to buy out of their own free will, not because of a government mandate. These people would be interested in driving the oil companies out of business in a free market, not using the armed thugs of the government to make people buy their products.
The United Nations is the worst violator here. They release these "scientific" reports to show that unless we transfer vast amounts of money from the wealthy countries to the poor countries that we are all going to die. Closer to the truth is that the dictators of poor countries of the world are jealous of the wealth of the freer parts of the world and they are willing to lie, cheat, and steal, to get some of it. Go listen to some of the speeches given at these UN "climate change" events, they talk little about building nuclear power plants (the only electric power source proven to be both cheaper and lower carbon output than any fossil fuel) but a lot about taxation. These taxes then go to "big wind" and "big solar" to make electricity that is unreliable, expensive, and not very "green" or to dictators in impoverished nations so that they can continue to kill and enslave their subjects.
I'll go now to your comment on a way out. You see this vicious cycle ending only in war. I see another way. It can end in freedom. If we demand the freedom to choose what we ea
We've been building up a lot of energy in the latent heat in the oceans over the last few decades of global warming. Now that the temperatures are no longer rising that energy is going to get spit back out into space somehow, somewhere. This time it happened in Manhattan.
As long as global cooling continues we are going to see some big storms. The atmosphere is a heat engine. When there is a temperature difference work can get done. This "work" in the atmosphere presents itself as wind and rain. The greater the temperature difference the more work can get done.
I have my theory. Global warming means calmer weather and smaller storms. Global cooling means bigger storms. I'm no meteorologist but trends tell me we are going to see a very cold and dry winter followed by a wet summer with relatively mild temperatures. I also suspect another big hurricane sometime around Christmas this year.
You haven't really addressed why shipping refined algal fuel from shore would be impractical as opposed to other methods.
I did address that, cost. Every step in the process has a cost. That cost may be in manpower, energy, materials, or legal costs like tariffs and taxes. There are other means to produce liquid fuels. There are other means to convert solar power into liquid fuels. Algal fuels have to compete with them to be viable.
I don't really agree with you on how dilute the sun us.
Then we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I've done the math, I've seen others do the math, it's just going to take unfathomable amounts of land to collect enough solar power to keep the world running. Like I said before I may be wrong.
Over the long run, coal and petroleum are a very unreliable source of power.
I agree. This is why I believe that we, meaning the entire human race, need to transition to nuclear power. I believe that solar power and bio-fuels are not viable and will not be in the foreseeable future. Right now nuclear power is cheap, reliable, safe, and domestically sourced. I got no problem with research in algal fuels, I believe it may prove beneficial. The problem I have is too many people placing the eggs of our economic future all in the bio-fuels basket. Despite what can be argued as centuries of research in bio derived energy we have not yet found one that can replace nuclear and fossil energy.
You've worked on a solar car, so you must be aware that if you tried to run a modern car on the kind of engines they had when they first started building horseless carriages, the inevitable conclusion would be that a car is impossible if you didn't think engines could improve.
It's because of what I learned that I have become intimately aware of how much energy it takes to move a mass down a smooth and flat roadway. Add in things that are not so flat and smooth, like agriculture, sea travel, air travel, and more, we are going to need some massive advances in harnessing solar power, and massive amounts of land, to make enough fuel to drive all of this from solar power.
Even if we could convert 100% of the sun's power that we collected into useable fuel it's going to take a lot of land and infrastructure to make it work. We have other means to produce liquid fuels so not only does algal fuels have to become energy positive to compete but it must also do so at a lower cost of these other sources.
We already have other means to produce liquid fuels that do not rely on fossil fuel or algae. Algae has to beat them out to be viable. One obstacle is how dilute solar power is. No technology is going to change the amount of energy the sun places onto the surface of Earth. Just the cost of the land places a limit on the price of algal fuels.
The algae run on solar power but the pumps, lights, computers, and so on will need electricity. It's possible to use the algae to power a generator but something has to bootstrap the process and/or provide a back up in case there is a problem with the algae. This is going to mean a power line from shore (being coal, nuclear, or whatever) or an on site power source (being wind, solar, nuclear or whatever). If the power needed for the pumps and so on rely on an external energy source (like coal or oil) then that has to be brought in. Buying that fuel, or perhaps using the algae for the fuel, adds cost and reduces the total power output.
Spreading out the algae farms over many square kilometers is a problem. I recall it would take something like the area of Arizona to provide the liquid fuels we require in the USA if it all came from algae. We could put that out in the sea or the Sahara Desert but that distance adds cost and reduces the total energy output.
What I'm saying is that there are other means to get liquid fuels, even if we exclude fossil fuels. Algal fuel is going to have to compete with them. I just don't see algal fuel as competitive. It may be possible to make it work but the level of infrastructure required is massive. One just does not level out square kilometers of desert on the cheap. Even putting it out at sea is going to take a lot of steel, plastic, energy, people, and so on. That will not be cheap.
I have greater confidence in synthetic fuels derived from nuclear power in being profitable. If algal fuel can be cheaper than nuclear power then that would be massively impressive. It's only then that algal fuel could bootstrap itself. Lacking that it will always rely on nuclear power to keep the lights on and the pumps running.
Cost. It's the same reason that ethanol brewers don't burn their own ethanol for distillation. This heat can be obtained more cheaply with coal or natural gas. Barring some technological breakthrough in the production of algal fuels I find it very unlikely that it would be able to compete with coal, nuclear, and natural gas in the production of the electricity required to keep the lights on, the computers running, and so on.
Waste water only comes into it when you need a local source of water on land and you don't want to waste fresh water. At sea, there's an abundance of seawater.
I was under the impression that the waste water was desirable because it contained nutrients that the algae needed. If it needs only seawater and sunshine then that certainly simplifies the logistics. Putting the algae farm next to a dried up oil rig at sea would allow the use of the existing pipes to pump the bio-diesel to shore, simplifying the logistics further.
As for the losses at every stage of the process, those exist in all other forms of power. Heck, they exist in everything. Citing their existence isn't really an argument for anything. Hard numbers and comparisons to other options would be a good argument.
I mention the losses because I know that the energy source, the sun, is inherently dilute and unreliable. With something like nuclear, coal, petroleum, wind, and others the losses are minimal compared to the energy density of the source. That is why these energy sources have been shown to be profitable. I've seen some of the numbers with other means to collect solar power, like photovoltaics and ethanol, and the numbers are not good. People are even arguing whether or not ethanol is energy positive. I see the same argument over algal fuels.
I've seen people do the math on how much area would be needed to provide the fuels needed for our transportation and it's a lot. I just don't see this being viable without some other source of energy to help the process along. It's quite possible someone will prove my concerns to be unfounded.
Having worked on a solar car project in college we were made very much aware of how dilute solar power is. What algal fuels does is soak up solar power to drive algae growth, then take the algae and process it into a liquid fuel, with that fuel getting entered into the existing liquid fuel distribution system. Unlike the solar electric car I was working on the algae farm does not have to fit on the roof of the vehicle it powers.
Given that the power the sun provides is dilute there is going to have to be some other source of power to drive the processing of the algae into fuel. I highly doubt anyone is going to put up photovoltaics to drive this processing since that would only subtract from the area the algae could use. Even at sea this area is going to be valuable since each square foot of solar panels is going to have to be supported by some floating structure. The algae pond might just need a big plastic bag that floats on the water but that can't be done with photovoltaics. This power is going to have to come from something else.
Out at sea, as you propose, the ability to tap into a land based power grid may be difficult. Not impossible but certainly expensive. Then there are losses in the processing of the algae into fuel. I have no idea of how much is lost in each step but just the distances that have to be crossed in getting the algae fuel to shore where it is wanted will add to those losses.
This sea based algae farm is going to need the waste water carried by ships or brought by pipes to it. Even if it was attached to shore there is going to be considerable distances that have to be crossed, even if only to get from one side of the farm to the other because the power from the sun is so dilute.
I have to wonder if this would only come to the point, after all the losses are added in, where this becomes less of a means to collect the power of the sun and more of a means to convert the power of coal, nuclear, or wind into liquid fuel. All it's own that is not a bad thing. Right now liquid fuels are much more expensive than electricity, comparing Joules to Joules, which could make this process beneficial. What I have to ask, would this process be profitable?
There are other ways to convert coal, nuclear, and wind into liquid fuels. One that comes to mind is the Fischer-Tropsch process. One nice thing about algal fuels is that it can eat up waste water in the process, solving two problems in one. The Fischer-Tropsch process also does this, it can be fed sewer water as it's source of hydrogen and carbon to build up its hydrocarbons. The benefit of Fischer-Tropsch is that is does not require the huge tracts of land like algae does.
It just seems to me that anything that relies on solar power is not going to be practical or profitable when other options are available. I believe that nuclear power is going to take over as our primary source of energy as fossil fuels become more expensive and politically toxic. What we need is an efficient means to convert this nuclear power into something that can power our transportation. Algal fuels might be that process but I just don't see that ever happening, only because some other process will prove more profitable.
Did Microsoft go to the press? As I read it they went to the utility board with their ultimatum, lower the fine or we will consume the power as we contracted.
It appears both sides were quite willing to fulfill the contract as written. It appears the details of the contract left a bit of a loop hole for the consumer that the provider did not anticipate. This allowed Microsoft to operate withing the law and the contract to avoid the fine. However, performing as dictated by the contract would make the utility look bad, not make them as much money, and encourage a recurrence of losing both money and face in the future.
This is the attitude that will sign humanity's death warrant. What of the cost of burning fossil fuels? They are only "cheap" economically if you ignore the externalities.
Wow, you totally didn't read what I wrote. I'll try again.
The "externalities" of fossil fuels require us to develop alternatives. Until we create those alternatives we will have to burn fossil fuels. Barring the use of fossil fuels before the alternatives are economically viable means people starve.
Right now bio-diesel from algae is a theory. It might be a very good theory but as of right now I cannot go to the corner filling station and buy bio-diesel. Until I can I'm going to have to fill my truck with gasoline derived from petroleum crude. If you cut off my gasoline before I can get the bio-diesel, and a truck that runs on that bio-diesel, then I will get very upset, then very hungry, then very cold, and then very dead.
Perhaps that is an unlikely scenario. People won't end up dead, at least not those that just want to eat. The people that will end up dead are those standing between the fossil fuels and the very cold and hungry people that need that fuel to eat and stay warm.
There's a lot of people in this world that like to eat and don't like being cold. Until you get that algae farm producing bio-diesel you are going to have to keep the petroleum flowing. Talk about "externalities" all you like but it won't do much good. People aren't going to pay attention to ice caps melting away in fifty years if they don't have breakfast in the morning.
Perhaps I am wrong, I just don't care enough to argue any more. What you have not addressed is the cost. Until these alternatives are demonstrably cheaper than fossil fuels these technologies will remain in the realm of science fiction and wishful thinking.
Of course algae competes with food for land. Anywhere that has enough sunlight and a firm enough foundation to place an algae factory is also suitable for a greenhouse to grow tomatoes. I'll concede that it does not compete for water, fertilizers, and pesticides since something that is not used as food does not have the same safety constraints as something that is used for food.
I'll admit that I did not read the entire PDF you linked to but I did read enough to find that the process described does not free us from the use of fossil fuels. They point out that even in a desert environment there is a need to provide heat to the algae to keep it alive and productive. There was also a need for a CO2 source, they describe using the exhaust from a coal fired power plant to provide the highly concentrated CO2 required. I would assume in a production environment that waste heat from the coal fired plant would be used to keep the algae warm.
Also, your example of a municipal sewage plant that is "powered by poop" makes considerable mention of the use of sunlight. Seems to me that the plant is largely powered by the sun. I saw no mention of energy actually being extracted for use outside of the plant. While the process described may not need an external energy source (excepting solar heating) to process the sewage it cannot be called an "energy source" since no energy leaves the plant.
Both the algae bio-diesel and the sewage treatment examples you gave rely on photosynthesis to provide the energy needed. If there is enough sun for that photosynthesis then there is enough sun for photosynthesis for food crops. Since they both require the sun to work they are not energy sources, the sun is the energy source. These processes make use of the sun in interesting ways but deriving work from the sun is a trivial task any more. The hard part is getting the sun to do work for us at a cost competitive with fossil fuels.
This gets back to my point from an earlier post. We will continue to burn fossil fuels so long as it remains cheaper than the alternatives. Right now the only energy sources we have that are competitive with fossil fuels are nuclear, hydroelectric, and maybe wind. There might come a day when algae and "poop" can provide energy as cheap and abundant as fossil fuels. Until that day comes we'll need to keep digging up coal and drilling for oil to maintain our standard of living.
To be fair, not every bio fuel candidate is a food source...
To be fair there is a very high correlation between bio-fuels and food. Any plant based fuel source is going to compete with food for land, water, fertilizers and pesticides. I've seen the claim of bio-fuels being derived from agricultural, meat processing, and food "waste" but that stuff is rarely "wasted". I grew up on a farm and we knew that the manure from the cattle had to go to the fields or the crops would not grow. We knew that the corn stalks, straw, and other "waste" had to remain in the field or the top soil would wash away. Even rotten fruit, animal bones, and other nasty bits of organic material no one would want to eat can be, and is, used as fertilizer.
I seen claims that algae can be grown in factories out in the desert where the algae soaks up the sun in transparent pipes. The water can be drawn from the ocean or from city sewage so as not to deplete fresh water sources. Even this competes with food since that same algae can be used to produce oil for food just as easily as it can for fuel. Change that process slightly so that instead of just squeezing out the oils the algae proteins are extracted and one could produce a nutritious, and perhaps a bit unappealing in raw form, food source.
Nor does every heating option require fossil fuels. For starters , simple wood burning stoves have worked for ages.
While the wood is not food many trees produce fruits that we eat. That land used to grow trees can be used to grow food crops. Even wood for fuel competes with food.
This brings up the history I've read on how civilizations have ended when food competes with fuel. A harsh winter comes along. The people are looking for anything to keep them warm. The trees they relied upon for apples, dates, olives, whatever, start to look real tempting for firewood. They cut down the trees and burn the wood. Spring comes and there's not enough trees to feed them any more. By next winter large numbers starve or freeze to death. The next spring the people that remain, if there are any, move on and leave a desert behind. We've seen this happen many times in history, we don't need to see it repeated again.
There is one bio-fuel source I can support and that is municipal sewage. Using human waste as fertilizer carries the hazard of spreading disease. There are methods that are currently used now to treat the waste and dispose of it in relatively safe means but we still see wildlife getting harmed by our treated waste. If we use this waste for synthesizing fuels any bacteria, virus, prion, hormone, enzyme or whatever that exists in the waste will be destroyed in the creation of the fuel or consumed when the fuel is burned.
The municipal sewage is not an energy source in itself. Much of the energy that is contained in the finished fuel product will have to come from some other source. The sewage is mostly a feedstock to derive the carbon and hydrogen atoms so that a valuable fuel (like jet fuel or heating oil) can be made from a less valuable fuel (like nuclear, coal, or natural gas).
I realized this post ran very long, and probably few people will even read it. However I wrote it so I'll post it.
There's two basic reasons on why we are burning fossil fuels in the quantities that we do. The first is because of the physical properties of these fuels. These fossil fuels are energy dense, easy to store and transport, and can be handled safely by humans with only minor precautions.
The second reason we burn so much fossil fuels is because it is cheap. The article you link to states that we can replicate fuels with similar physical properties to fossil fuels but it says next to nothing about the cost. If the replacement fuels cost twice what the fossil fuels cost it might not mean economic ruin but it will certainly reduce our standard of living. The problem lies in that as of right now these replacement fuels don't cost twice as much but more like ten times as much.
There's another issue with bio-fuels specifically. With bio-fuels we place a very direct connection between our food and our fuel. A drought could place us in the very unfortunate position of choosing between starving to death and freezing to death. I read my history and civilizations have collapsed because of being forced into that situation.
I agree that we don't have to give up economic prosperity to avoid the burning of fossil fuels. What I disagree with is the severity of the supposed pollution that the burning of fossil fuels cause and the means by which many propose we shift away from fossil fuels to alternatives.
The only technology that we have right now that can compete with fossil fuels on cost is nuclear power. Wind power might get there as could bio-fuels and synthetic fuels given some investment in technology and infrastructure. Until we build enough windmills and nuclear power plants we are going to have to continue burning coal. If we shut off the coal power tap now we will never have enough power at a low enough cost to build that infrastructure. We can't build nuclear power plants without burning coal or erect windmills without burning diesel fuel.
People need to come to the realization that the transition away from fossil fuels is going to take decades. In the mean time, as we build these nuclear power plants, we need to keep digging up coal and drilling for natural gas. If we don't keep digging for coal then we just will not have the resources to transition to its replacement. If we don't keep digging for coal we will place ourselves in the position of choosing between starving to death or freezing to death.
It does not matter to me why solar power costs so much, I'm just upset that the federal government is dumping my tax dollars on companies that cannot produce a viable solar panel. Drop the subsidies on energy and let the market decide on how our electricity is produced.
Solar power is expensive and unreliable. I have to wonder if there would be any market for solar power (outside of spacecraft and other small niches) if there weren't any government subsidies for it. The Chinese can only dump these panels on us because the government is paying people to buy them. Get rid of the subsidies and the problem will solve itself.
On wind power: Perhaps I'm mistaken. I recall an entity that wanted to build a wind farm but the shortest path to a population center meant crossing a national park or something. Someone brought up the possibility of birds running into the wires, an eyesore concern, "negative waves" coming off the wires, or something and so the wind farm was not built. If I cared enough I'd likely be able to find the news article.
On reprocessing: Of course no private entity stepped up to build a uranium fuel reprocessing plant. If no one is able to build a new nuclear power plant then who is going to buy the reprocessed fuel? No permits to build a plant means no market for uranium fuel. Also, new nuclear power plant designs can burn the "spent" fuel from the old designs without the reprocessing step. This means that even if the federal government allowed new plants to be built then there still would not be a market for reprocessed fuel. The point is that we have this stockpile of "spent" fuel because Carter instated the reprocessing ban. Lifting the ban doesn't help because now we don't need to reprocess the fuel any more. The government created the problem with the ban on reprocessing and it's only making the problem worse by not allowing new nuclear reactors to get built now.
On the Department of Energy: My "beef" is not with the Department of Energy specifically, it's with the federal government in general. The Department of Energy gets special attention today because of this ban on nuclear power plant permits, the ethanol subsidies (making the news because of the drought in the Midwest), the solar power subsidies, and because of the subsidies to a foreign electric car company. All these subsidies cost us real money and produce no real benefit. The Department of Energy did ban the fracking for natural gas but the federal government is doing its best to stop the construction of any new oil wells. While oil wells produce crude petroleum they also produce vast quantities of natural gas. If we can't drill for oil then we can't drill for natural gas either, they both come from the same hole.
The federal government is shutting down coal mines, holding up nuclear power plants, and denying permits for oil drills and pipelines. It seems like every week we hear about another solar power company going out of business because of mismanagement, fraud, and/or because they can't make a panel that works. We've dammed up every river worth a dam. Where are we supposed to get our electricity?
Wind power might actually pan out as cheap and viable if only the federal government would let someone run the wires from where the wind blows to where the people need the electricity. Since the wind blows when it wants we'll still need some sort of storage or backup. Natural gas seems to be booming despite the best efforts of the federal government to stop that too. If we add pumping stations to the hydro dams we got we could store the electricity when the wind blows. Wind, pumped hydro, and natural gas might make for a nice mix for our electricity, each complementing the others. Problem is that at some point we're going to run out of natural gas. Can we build enough dams and windmills to power our world? Can we do it cheap enough to maintain our standard of living?
The problem of nuclear waste is a creation of the federal government. They decided that we cannot recycle the "spent" fuel from current reactors. The so called "spent" fuel still contains large amounts of usable fuel, it's just tainted with the fission products of the fuel that was used up. The fuel waste problem would actually be solved with new, more efficient, nuclear reactors designed to use the "spent" fuel from the old reactors.
We supposedly have a Department of Energy to solve these problems. What are they doing for us?
It's just so frustrating seeing the government foul things up for us. The energy problems we have now are all political. The government is causing more problems than it's solving. Don't get me wrong, we need government. I think the government has just gotten too big. To get a power plant built or a pipeline run a person would have to satisfy dozens of different agencies that often have conflicting goals. We need to trim down the size of government, getting rid of the Department of Energy is as good of a place to start as any.
A high level of "gun crime" in a nation with a high level of gun ownership is a surprise to you? That's like being surprised about the high level of automobile accidents in a nation with a high level of automobile ownership. Yes, weapons are weapons and yet you equate gun ownership with "gun crime" instead of all crime.
The claim made in the article is that possession of nuclear weapons reduces all war, not just nuclear war. What has happened in the USA is that places with high gun ownership rates has seen a reduction in all violent crimes. Property crimes are higher in places of high gun ownership but total crimes are lower. My theory is that thieves are more likely to steal from an unoccupied home if there is a high probability that the home owners are also gun owners but thieves do not fear an unarmed homeowner and therefore do not wait for a home to be unoccupied.
This same theory carried over to wars between nations. When the stakes have risen in a full scale war with nuclear weapons a nation will be more reluctant to participate in it. Instead they will be more sneaky and instead participate in small scale skirmishes where the risks of deadly retaliation is less.
Go look again at the rates of gun ownership and crime but this time take off your "gun crime" blinders and look at total crime rates. Again, this same blindness can be applied to the ownership of nuclear weapons. Certainly the risk of nuclear war is zero if we had no nuclear weapons but we cannot un-invent the nuclear bomb just as we cannot un-invent the firearm. We are all safer because of nuclear weapons and firearms since we are much more capable of killing those that would try to kill us.
When the aggressor has the advantage, be it from a firearm or a nuclear weapon, the risk of the one with the advantage is low. When both sides are equally armed the risks taken on by the aggressor becomes much higher.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I do realize that. What you need to realize is that no matter how much people wish that wind, solar, wave, and bio-fuels were viable alternatives to fossil fuels that physics "does not give one single fuck about your ideology".
I have grown very tired of seeing my tax dollars spent on companies that promise solar panels, electric cars, windmills, and so much more that claim to provide a better world for us all but don't deliver. We have something that can give us this better world but the government has only stood in the way of developing the technology further. That is nuclear power. We've tried bio-fuels, wind, and solar but the technology just is not ready yet. Stop dumping my tax money down that black hole. Let's try something that has been shown to be viable in the past, nuclear power.
Electric cars might be a technology that will provide one more piece of the puzzle that reveals freedom from fossil fuels. The problem is that these electric cars are not really powered by electricity, they are powered by coal. Until we can build more nuclear power plants our cars will continue to be powered by fossil fuels in one form or another.
Nature does not give a fuck. Physics does not give a fuck either. If you want to see us come out of the other side of this problem with air we can breath and not up to our chins in sea water then we need to place our efforts into a solution that actually has the possibility of working. Wind and solar are just too expensive. Bio-fuels would just create an environmental disaster that would dwarf anything else we could do to the environment with fossil fuels. If we agree that fossil fuels are bad then we are left with nuclear power. The only other alternative is starvation, resource wars, and just general suckage and death.
Once you rephrase your question in a way that does not insult your own intelligence then I might feel the desire to respond.
From what we know of how we treat the environment, our current methods and technologies for energy production, distribution, and consumption are hugely wasteful , non-renewable, and incredibly toxic to the biosphere (erm, yes, that thing we currently have ONLY ONE of).
I respectfully disagree. Nuclear power has been shown to be cheap, safe, reliable, and have a very small carbon footprint. With the use of thorium fuel, reprocessing of "spent" fuel (you know, recycling?) we will have enough energy for all of humanity until the sun consumes the atmosphere.
I won't disagree that the climate is changing. I'm just having difficulty to both believe that this is all caused by human activity and giving a damn. Assuming that we did cause the acidification of the oceans and so forth because of our burning of fossil fuels we could all make that stop in a matter of decades if we make a real and concerted effort to switch to nuclear power.
Peoples ONLY argument against "doing something now to stop the madness" is "but that will cost a lot of money".
I believe that we could do something now and not have to cost us a lot of money. I have come to believe that the people pushing the AGW into politics are doing so to enrich and empower themselves. It seems entirely too convenient that a large majority of those trying to "save the planet" have chosen to lobby the government for funding rather than trying to offer products and services that compete with fossil fuels in an open market.
We can do this without destroying the economy. The reason that so many believe that reducing our carbon footprint will destroy the economy is that the "solutions" proposed by the "greenies" are very expensive. That is because these "green" people are not "green" through and through. These people are "watermelons", they are all "green" on the outside but in their hearts they are "red" communists.
We can both reduce our carbon output and improve our economy but we must first put an end to the proposed solutions that have shown themselves to be not viable. Bio-fuels of just about every form does not work, solar panels won't work, wind does not work, there's just not enough moving water to fulfill our modern power needs. What has been shown to work is nuclear power. I have come to believe that this is not popular among the "watermelons" and their useful idiots is because it would actually work and provide real wealth and freedom.
I'm not saying that AGW is true or false. I'll just say that for the sake of argument that it is true. If so then the only viable solution available to us in the hear and now is nuclear power.
And the thing to keep in mind is that by the time YOU personally wake up and smell the coffee, we're ALL completely screwed, you CANNOT stop a trainwreck of this magnitude.
What concerns me is that if we don't start developing our nuclear power infrastructure we are all screwed, AGW or not. We're going to run out of economically viable fossil fuels at some point. Wind, solar, and bio-energy just cannot compete with nuclear and coal on price and availability. Barring some massive, paradigm shifting, new technology we are screwed. I foresee resource wars that will consume the world long before we have to worry about climate change. Nuclear power happens to be a solution all of us should be able to agree upon to avoid both unpleasant possible futures.
I'm open to the idea of both sides of the AGW argument. Where I have an issue is the government mandates to "fix" the problem but really only serve to take money from my pocket and move it to the pockets of charlatans. These people will claim to have the solution to all of our energy needs but only if the government gives them large quantities of my money. If these people really had the solution to cheap and clean energy then they should be able to convince me to give them my money with out having to have the force of the government as an intermediary.
I don't know if AGW is real or not. I don't really care that much anymore to find out. What bothers me more right now is all the government waste in subsidies to companies that have taken my money but produced nothing in return. I'll accept that all government grants run the risk of failure but I'm no longer willing to provide government funding when billions of dollars have been spent on hundreds or thousands of solar panel, electric car, and windmill companies that produced no products or technologies that are viable.
I say we put our money into a technology that is proven to have a very low carbon footprint, is clean, reliable, safe, and creates real (not fictions of accounting) jobs and money. Let's build some nuclear power plants. Electric cars might be another way to reduce our carbon footprint but only if the electricity does not come from coal. Nuclear power works. Electric cars can work but we need to take off the government subsidy training wheels and let people see the real cost of these cars in the sticker price.
It might be true that we needed government subsidies in the past to bootstrap "green energy" but I believe that is no longer true. There are large numbers of people willing and able to develop green energy now. It is a real and honest business now. Take away the training wheels and see if they can keep moving on their own now. Subsidies now are, I believe, only holding back technological development now since these subsidies also come with conditions that inhibit the freedom they need to compete.
For the sake of argument I'll agree that AGW is real. If that is the case then we need to remove the government from the equation and let the free market figure out the best way to reduce our carbon output. I'll play along because I know that any technology that reduces carbon output has the benefit of also producing jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign sourced energy.
I don't think we as a species are totally fucked, but I do think a whole lot of people are going to die before this all settles out.
I agree. I estimate that more than seven billion people will die before this all settles out. I say that because this is something that will take a lifetime to play out.
Even if this "carbon bomb" does go off it will take decades, if not centuries, for the planet to warm to a point where it makes any significant effect on our lives. In that time a lot of things of much greater significance could happen.
For example, we could have a volcanic eruption that spews up so much debris that we could be thankful we had so much CO2 in the air. With the cooling effect of the dirt in the air reflecting the sun back into space we might just need the CO2 to offset the effects.
Another example, we could have an earthquake release all kinds of methane from the ocean floor that was trapped in clathrates. The massive release of these gasses could suffocate entire countries. The global warming from the methane, water vapors, and CO2 from the inevitable fires and methane decomposition could completely dwarf any damage we could have done.
I got bigger things to worry about right now. Such as, are these little green spots on my bread safe to eat or do I have to make a trip to the grocer for a fresh loaf to make my sandwich?
So you are losing freedoms when the power coming from your plug is generated by solar, wind, waves, biomass? But you have freedom when it is generated by nuclear or coal?
I have freedom when I'm not taxed to support an industry that cannot be profitable in a free market. My freedom to keep my money and spend it as I wish is reduced when the government takes it and gives it to a corporation that I would not willingly otherwise give to them in exchange for their services.
Electricity produced from coal and nuclear increases my freedom because I willingly give them my money for cheap and reliable energy. Wind and solar power only reduces my freedom so long as it is purchased with money taken from me by the force of government to purchase a product that I could have bought at a lower price in a free market.
This is just nonsens.
No, it's not.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jan/09/wind-turbines-increasing-carbon-emissions
You might claim the report above is incomplete, not peer reviewed, yadda yadds, but it seems the "debate is over" as so many claim is also nonsense. It is also irrelevant. So long as my taxes go towards subsidizing expensive energy that I don't want then my freedom to seek a source of energy that is both carbon neutral and cheap is diminished. I would much rather see my money go towards nuclear power but the government has seen to it that I am not free to do so.
Can you give me any record when once in history every singel place in the USA had no wind?
Also irrelevant. So long as my tax dollars go towards an industry that does not provide a service I desire at a price I am willing to spend my freedom has been reduced. I want nuclear power. I want to see my energy domestically sourced, reliable, cheap, safe, and clean. Wind is domestically sourced, clean, and safe but it is not cheap or reliable. It might be true that the wind always blows somewhere but getting that electricity from a wind farm off the Atlantic coast to my office in the American Midwest is not going to be cheap.
I believe that wind power might someday become as cheap and reliable as coal and nuclear but that will not happen so long as the training wheels of government subsidies stay in place. If you want to see more wind power then you, like myself, should be asking for the subsidies to stop. Not only will I be free to spend my money as I wish but you will be able to be free to prove the viability of wind power.
The problem I have with the global warming scaremongers is the so called "solutions" most of them propose to fix it. Almost every solution proposed involves more government, more taxes, and less freedom. These people are "watermelons", they claim to be all green environmentalists on the outside but on the inside they are red communists. They don't care about saving the world as much as they are in transferring money from my pocket to theirs by government mandate.
People talk about the harm that "big oil" causes to the environment. Those evil evil people want to sell the dirty yucky oil just because they are greedy. I say we should be thankful these people are willing to provide such a necessary service, one that is often dangerous to their own life, limb, and livelihood, and such an affordable price. Oil prices have gone up considerably over the years but we continue to use it because it is much safer, cheaper, and more convenient than the alternatives.
On the other hand we have "big wind", an industry that relies on government mandates to remain profitable. Very few people would buy windmills if it wasn't for the large tax incentives to do so. These people are willing to play along with the lie that windmills will save us from evil oil so long as it allows them to profit from it. Windmills alone do not save on carbon emissions since the wind is unreliable. It takes hours to adjust the output of a large boiler, like those used in coal, nuclear, or combined cycle power plants. When the wind blows the boilers still consume fuel because they need to be kept hot or the power goes out when the wind stops. Wind generated electricity also costs twice as much as traditional power sources.
Solar power has similar problems to wind except the subsidies are higher, meaning more taxes are dumped down that black hole per watt-hour produced. The unreliability of wind and solar can be addressed by using turbines to fill in the times that the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine but those cost just as much to operate as the windmills do. For every watt of generating power on the name plate of a solar power station or windmill we have to add a similar sized turbine to provide backup, or we have to idle the more efficient boilers. Either way we gain nothing from these alternative power sources in net power produced or in CO2 produced. Some calculations show we actually go backwards, more CO2 produced for less energy output. Our electricity costs also go up.
These people are not trying to save the world, they are taking advantage of a crisis to enrich themselves. If these people really wanted to save the world they'd be working on solutions that people would be willing to buy out of their own free will, not because of a government mandate. These people would be interested in driving the oil companies out of business in a free market, not using the armed thugs of the government to make people buy their products.
The United Nations is the worst violator here. They release these "scientific" reports to show that unless we transfer vast amounts of money from the wealthy countries to the poor countries that we are all going to die. Closer to the truth is that the dictators of poor countries of the world are jealous of the wealth of the freer parts of the world and they are willing to lie, cheat, and steal, to get some of it. Go listen to some of the speeches given at these UN "climate change" events, they talk little about building nuclear power plants (the only electric power source proven to be both cheaper and lower carbon output than any fossil fuel) but a lot about taxation. These taxes then go to "big wind" and "big solar" to make electricity that is unreliable, expensive, and not very "green" or to dictators in impoverished nations so that they can continue to kill and enslave their subjects.
I'll go now to your comment on a way out. You see this vicious cycle ending only in war. I see another way. It can end in freedom. If we demand the freedom to choose what we ea
We've been building up a lot of energy in the latent heat in the oceans over the last few decades of global warming. Now that the temperatures are no longer rising that energy is going to get spit back out into space somehow, somewhere. This time it happened in Manhattan.
As long as global cooling continues we are going to see some big storms. The atmosphere is a heat engine. When there is a temperature difference work can get done. This "work" in the atmosphere presents itself as wind and rain. The greater the temperature difference the more work can get done.
I have my theory. Global warming means calmer weather and smaller storms. Global cooling means bigger storms. I'm no meteorologist but trends tell me we are going to see a very cold and dry winter followed by a wet summer with relatively mild temperatures. I also suspect another big hurricane sometime around Christmas this year.
You haven't really addressed why shipping refined algal fuel from shore would be impractical as opposed to other methods.
I did address that, cost. Every step in the process has a cost. That cost may be in manpower, energy, materials, or legal costs like tariffs and taxes. There are other means to produce liquid fuels. There are other means to convert solar power into liquid fuels. Algal fuels have to compete with them to be viable.
I don't really agree with you on how dilute the sun us.
Then we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I've done the math, I've seen others do the math, it's just going to take unfathomable amounts of land to collect enough solar power to keep the world running. Like I said before I may be wrong.
Over the long run, coal and petroleum are a very unreliable source of power.
I agree. This is why I believe that we, meaning the entire human race, need to transition to nuclear power. I believe that solar power and bio-fuels are not viable and will not be in the foreseeable future. Right now nuclear power is cheap, reliable, safe, and domestically sourced. I got no problem with research in algal fuels, I believe it may prove beneficial. The problem I have is too many people placing the eggs of our economic future all in the bio-fuels basket. Despite what can be argued as centuries of research in bio derived energy we have not yet found one that can replace nuclear and fossil energy.
You've worked on a solar car, so you must be aware that if you tried to run a modern car on the kind of engines they had when they first started building horseless carriages, the inevitable conclusion would be that a car is impossible if you didn't think engines could improve.
It's because of what I learned that I have become intimately aware of how much energy it takes to move a mass down a smooth and flat roadway. Add in things that are not so flat and smooth, like agriculture, sea travel, air travel, and more, we are going to need some massive advances in harnessing solar power, and massive amounts of land, to make enough fuel to drive all of this from solar power.
Even if we could convert 100% of the sun's power that we collected into useable fuel it's going to take a lot of land and infrastructure to make it work. We have other means to produce liquid fuels so not only does algal fuels have to become energy positive to compete but it must also do so at a lower cost of these other sources.
We already have other means to produce liquid fuels that do not rely on fossil fuel or algae. Algae has to beat them out to be viable. One obstacle is how dilute solar power is. No technology is going to change the amount of energy the sun places onto the surface of Earth. Just the cost of the land places a limit on the price of algal fuels.
The algae run on solar power but the pumps, lights, computers, and so on will need electricity. It's possible to use the algae to power a generator but something has to bootstrap the process and/or provide a back up in case there is a problem with the algae. This is going to mean a power line from shore (being coal, nuclear, or whatever) or an on site power source (being wind, solar, nuclear or whatever). If the power needed for the pumps and so on rely on an external energy source (like coal or oil) then that has to be brought in. Buying that fuel, or perhaps using the algae for the fuel, adds cost and reduces the total power output.
Spreading out the algae farms over many square kilometers is a problem. I recall it would take something like the area of Arizona to provide the liquid fuels we require in the USA if it all came from algae. We could put that out in the sea or the Sahara Desert but that distance adds cost and reduces the total energy output.
What I'm saying is that there are other means to get liquid fuels, even if we exclude fossil fuels. Algal fuel is going to have to compete with them. I just don't see algal fuel as competitive. It may be possible to make it work but the level of infrastructure required is massive. One just does not level out square kilometers of desert on the cheap. Even putting it out at sea is going to take a lot of steel, plastic, energy, people, and so on. That will not be cheap.
I have greater confidence in synthetic fuels derived from nuclear power in being profitable. If algal fuel can be cheaper than nuclear power then that would be massively impressive. It's only then that algal fuel could bootstrap itself. Lacking that it will always rely on nuclear power to keep the lights on and the pumps running.
Once again, why?
Cost. It's the same reason that ethanol brewers don't burn their own ethanol for distillation. This heat can be obtained more cheaply with coal or natural gas. Barring some technological breakthrough in the production of algal fuels I find it very unlikely that it would be able to compete with coal, nuclear, and natural gas in the production of the electricity required to keep the lights on, the computers running, and so on.
Waste water only comes into it when you need a local source of water on land and you don't want to waste fresh water. At sea, there's an abundance of seawater.
I was under the impression that the waste water was desirable because it contained nutrients that the algae needed. If it needs only seawater and sunshine then that certainly simplifies the logistics. Putting the algae farm next to a dried up oil rig at sea would allow the use of the existing pipes to pump the bio-diesel to shore, simplifying the logistics further.
As for the losses at every stage of the process, those exist in all other forms of power. Heck, they exist in everything. Citing their existence isn't really an argument for anything. Hard numbers and comparisons to other options would be a good argument.
I mention the losses because I know that the energy source, the sun, is inherently dilute and unreliable. With something like nuclear, coal, petroleum, wind, and others the losses are minimal compared to the energy density of the source. That is why these energy sources have been shown to be profitable. I've seen some of the numbers with other means to collect solar power, like photovoltaics and ethanol, and the numbers are not good. People are even arguing whether or not ethanol is energy positive. I see the same argument over algal fuels.
I've seen people do the math on how much area would be needed to provide the fuels needed for our transportation and it's a lot. I just don't see this being viable without some other source of energy to help the process along. It's quite possible someone will prove my concerns to be unfounded.
Having worked on a solar car project in college we were made very much aware of how dilute solar power is. What algal fuels does is soak up solar power to drive algae growth, then take the algae and process it into a liquid fuel, with that fuel getting entered into the existing liquid fuel distribution system. Unlike the solar electric car I was working on the algae farm does not have to fit on the roof of the vehicle it powers.
Given that the power the sun provides is dilute there is going to have to be some other source of power to drive the processing of the algae into fuel. I highly doubt anyone is going to put up photovoltaics to drive this processing since that would only subtract from the area the algae could use. Even at sea this area is going to be valuable since each square foot of solar panels is going to have to be supported by some floating structure. The algae pond might just need a big plastic bag that floats on the water but that can't be done with photovoltaics. This power is going to have to come from something else.
Out at sea, as you propose, the ability to tap into a land based power grid may be difficult. Not impossible but certainly expensive. Then there are losses in the processing of the algae into fuel. I have no idea of how much is lost in each step but just the distances that have to be crossed in getting the algae fuel to shore where it is wanted will add to those losses.
This sea based algae farm is going to need the waste water carried by ships or brought by pipes to it. Even if it was attached to shore there is going to be considerable distances that have to be crossed, even if only to get from one side of the farm to the other because the power from the sun is so dilute.
I have to wonder if this would only come to the point, after all the losses are added in, where this becomes less of a means to collect the power of the sun and more of a means to convert the power of coal, nuclear, or wind into liquid fuel. All it's own that is not a bad thing. Right now liquid fuels are much more expensive than electricity, comparing Joules to Joules, which could make this process beneficial. What I have to ask, would this process be profitable?
There are other ways to convert coal, nuclear, and wind into liquid fuels. One that comes to mind is the Fischer-Tropsch process. One nice thing about algal fuels is that it can eat up waste water in the process, solving two problems in one. The Fischer-Tropsch process also does this, it can be fed sewer water as it's source of hydrogen and carbon to build up its hydrocarbons. The benefit of Fischer-Tropsch is that is does not require the huge tracts of land like algae does.
It just seems to me that anything that relies on solar power is not going to be practical or profitable when other options are available. I believe that nuclear power is going to take over as our primary source of energy as fossil fuels become more expensive and politically toxic. What we need is an efficient means to convert this nuclear power into something that can power our transportation. Algal fuels might be that process but I just don't see that ever happening, only because some other process will prove more profitable.
Did Microsoft go to the press? As I read it they went to the utility board with their ultimatum, lower the fine or we will consume the power as we contracted.
It appears both sides were quite willing to fulfill the contract as written. It appears the details of the contract left a bit of a loop hole for the consumer that the provider did not anticipate. This allowed Microsoft to operate withing the law and the contract to avoid the fine. However, performing as dictated by the contract would make the utility look bad, not make them as much money, and encourage a recurrence of losing both money and face in the future.
This is the attitude that will sign humanity's death warrant. What of the cost of burning fossil fuels? They are only "cheap" economically if you ignore the externalities.
Wow, you totally didn't read what I wrote. I'll try again.
The "externalities" of fossil fuels require us to develop alternatives. Until we create those alternatives we will have to burn fossil fuels. Barring the use of fossil fuels before the alternatives are economically viable means people starve.
Right now bio-diesel from algae is a theory. It might be a very good theory but as of right now I cannot go to the corner filling station and buy bio-diesel. Until I can I'm going to have to fill my truck with gasoline derived from petroleum crude. If you cut off my gasoline before I can get the bio-diesel, and a truck that runs on that bio-diesel, then I will get very upset, then very hungry, then very cold, and then very dead.
Perhaps that is an unlikely scenario. People won't end up dead, at least not those that just want to eat. The people that will end up dead are those standing between the fossil fuels and the very cold and hungry people that need that fuel to eat and stay warm.
There's a lot of people in this world that like to eat and don't like being cold. Until you get that algae farm producing bio-diesel you are going to have to keep the petroleum flowing. Talk about "externalities" all you like but it won't do much good. People aren't going to pay attention to ice caps melting away in fifty years if they don't have breakfast in the morning.
IOW, you are wrong on all three counts.
Perhaps I am wrong, I just don't care enough to argue any more. What you have not addressed is the cost. Until these alternatives are demonstrably cheaper than fossil fuels these technologies will remain in the realm of science fiction and wishful thinking.
Of course algae competes with food for land. Anywhere that has enough sunlight and a firm enough foundation to place an algae factory is also suitable for a greenhouse to grow tomatoes. I'll concede that it does not compete for water, fertilizers, and pesticides since something that is not used as food does not have the same safety constraints as something that is used for food.
I'll admit that I did not read the entire PDF you linked to but I did read enough to find that the process described does not free us from the use of fossil fuels. They point out that even in a desert environment there is a need to provide heat to the algae to keep it alive and productive. There was also a need for a CO2 source, they describe using the exhaust from a coal fired power plant to provide the highly concentrated CO2 required. I would assume in a production environment that waste heat from the coal fired plant would be used to keep the algae warm.
Also, your example of a municipal sewage plant that is "powered by poop" makes considerable mention of the use of sunlight. Seems to me that the plant is largely powered by the sun. I saw no mention of energy actually being extracted for use outside of the plant. While the process described may not need an external energy source (excepting solar heating) to process the sewage it cannot be called an "energy source" since no energy leaves the plant.
Both the algae bio-diesel and the sewage treatment examples you gave rely on photosynthesis to provide the energy needed. If there is enough sun for that photosynthesis then there is enough sun for photosynthesis for food crops. Since they both require the sun to work they are not energy sources, the sun is the energy source. These processes make use of the sun in interesting ways but deriving work from the sun is a trivial task any more. The hard part is getting the sun to do work for us at a cost competitive with fossil fuels.
This gets back to my point from an earlier post. We will continue to burn fossil fuels so long as it remains cheaper than the alternatives. Right now the only energy sources we have that are competitive with fossil fuels are nuclear, hydroelectric, and maybe wind. There might come a day when algae and "poop" can provide energy as cheap and abundant as fossil fuels. Until that day comes we'll need to keep digging up coal and drilling for oil to maintain our standard of living.
To be fair, not every bio fuel candidate is a food source...
To be fair there is a very high correlation between bio-fuels and food. Any plant based fuel source is going to compete with food for land, water, fertilizers and pesticides. I've seen the claim of bio-fuels being derived from agricultural, meat processing, and food "waste" but that stuff is rarely "wasted". I grew up on a farm and we knew that the manure from the cattle had to go to the fields or the crops would not grow. We knew that the corn stalks, straw, and other "waste" had to remain in the field or the top soil would wash away. Even rotten fruit, animal bones, and other nasty bits of organic material no one would want to eat can be, and is, used as fertilizer.
I seen claims that algae can be grown in factories out in the desert where the algae soaks up the sun in transparent pipes. The water can be drawn from the ocean or from city sewage so as not to deplete fresh water sources. Even this competes with food since that same algae can be used to produce oil for food just as easily as it can for fuel. Change that process slightly so that instead of just squeezing out the oils the algae proteins are extracted and one could produce a nutritious, and perhaps a bit unappealing in raw form, food source.
Nor does every heating option require fossil fuels. For starters , simple wood burning stoves have worked for ages.
While the wood is not food many trees produce fruits that we eat. That land used to grow trees can be used to grow food crops. Even wood for fuel competes with food.
This brings up the history I've read on how civilizations have ended when food competes with fuel. A harsh winter comes along. The people are looking for anything to keep them warm. The trees they relied upon for apples, dates, olives, whatever, start to look real tempting for firewood. They cut down the trees and burn the wood. Spring comes and there's not enough trees to feed them any more. By next winter large numbers starve or freeze to death. The next spring the people that remain, if there are any, move on and leave a desert behind. We've seen this happen many times in history, we don't need to see it repeated again.
There is one bio-fuel source I can support and that is municipal sewage. Using human waste as fertilizer carries the hazard of spreading disease. There are methods that are currently used now to treat the waste and dispose of it in relatively safe means but we still see wildlife getting harmed by our treated waste. If we use this waste for synthesizing fuels any bacteria, virus, prion, hormone, enzyme or whatever that exists in the waste will be destroyed in the creation of the fuel or consumed when the fuel is burned.
The municipal sewage is not an energy source in itself. Much of the energy that is contained in the finished fuel product will have to come from some other source. The sewage is mostly a feedstock to derive the carbon and hydrogen atoms so that a valuable fuel (like jet fuel or heating oil) can be made from a less valuable fuel (like nuclear, coal, or natural gas).
I realized this post ran very long, and probably few people will even read it. However I wrote it so I'll post it.
There's two basic reasons on why we are burning fossil fuels in the quantities that we do. The first is because of the physical properties of these fuels. These fossil fuels are energy dense, easy to store and transport, and can be handled safely by humans with only minor precautions.
The second reason we burn so much fossil fuels is because it is cheap. The article you link to states that we can replicate fuels with similar physical properties to fossil fuels but it says next to nothing about the cost. If the replacement fuels cost twice what the fossil fuels cost it might not mean economic ruin but it will certainly reduce our standard of living. The problem lies in that as of right now these replacement fuels don't cost twice as much but more like ten times as much.
There's another issue with bio-fuels specifically. With bio-fuels we place a very direct connection between our food and our fuel. A drought could place us in the very unfortunate position of choosing between starving to death and freezing to death. I read my history and civilizations have collapsed because of being forced into that situation.
I agree that we don't have to give up economic prosperity to avoid the burning of fossil fuels. What I disagree with is the severity of the supposed pollution that the burning of fossil fuels cause and the means by which many propose we shift away from fossil fuels to alternatives.
The only technology that we have right now that can compete with fossil fuels on cost is nuclear power. Wind power might get there as could bio-fuels and synthetic fuels given some investment in technology and infrastructure. Until we build enough windmills and nuclear power plants we are going to have to continue burning coal. If we shut off the coal power tap now we will never have enough power at a low enough cost to build that infrastructure. We can't build nuclear power plants without burning coal or erect windmills without burning diesel fuel.
People need to come to the realization that the transition away from fossil fuels is going to take decades. In the mean time, as we build these nuclear power plants, we need to keep digging up coal and drilling for natural gas. If we don't keep digging for coal then we just will not have the resources to transition to its replacement. If we don't keep digging for coal we will place ourselves in the position of choosing between starving to death or freezing to death.
The Department of Energy did *NOT* ban the fracking for natural gas...
I forgot a "not" up there.
Hyperbole? Perhaps.
It does not matter to me why solar power costs so much, I'm just upset that the federal government is dumping my tax dollars on companies that cannot produce a viable solar panel. Drop the subsidies on energy and let the market decide on how our electricity is produced.
Solar power is expensive and unreliable. I have to wonder if there would be any market for solar power (outside of spacecraft and other small niches) if there weren't any government subsidies for it. The Chinese can only dump these panels on us because the government is paying people to buy them. Get rid of the subsidies and the problem will solve itself.
On wind power:
Perhaps I'm mistaken. I recall an entity that wanted to build a wind farm but the shortest path to a population center meant crossing a national park or something. Someone brought up the possibility of birds running into the wires, an eyesore concern, "negative waves" coming off the wires, or something and so the wind farm was not built. If I cared enough I'd likely be able to find the news article.
On reprocessing:
Of course no private entity stepped up to build a uranium fuel reprocessing plant. If no one is able to build a new nuclear power plant then who is going to buy the reprocessed fuel? No permits to build a plant means no market for uranium fuel. Also, new nuclear power plant designs can burn the "spent" fuel from the old designs without the reprocessing step. This means that even if the federal government allowed new plants to be built then there still would not be a market for reprocessed fuel. The point is that we have this stockpile of "spent" fuel because Carter instated the reprocessing ban. Lifting the ban doesn't help because now we don't need to reprocess the fuel any more. The government created the problem with the ban on reprocessing and it's only making the problem worse by not allowing new nuclear reactors to get built now.
On the Department of Energy:
My "beef" is not with the Department of Energy specifically, it's with the federal government in general. The Department of Energy gets special attention today because of this ban on nuclear power plant permits, the ethanol subsidies (making the news because of the drought in the Midwest), the solar power subsidies, and because of the subsidies to a foreign electric car company. All these subsidies cost us real money and produce no real benefit. The Department of Energy did ban the fracking for natural gas but the federal government is doing its best to stop the construction of any new oil wells. While oil wells produce crude petroleum they also produce vast quantities of natural gas. If we can't drill for oil then we can't drill for natural gas either, they both come from the same hole.
The federal government is shutting down coal mines, holding up nuclear power plants, and denying permits for oil drills and pipelines. It seems like every week we hear about another solar power company going out of business because of mismanagement, fraud, and/or because they can't make a panel that works. We've dammed up every river worth a dam. Where are we supposed to get our electricity?
Wind power might actually pan out as cheap and viable if only the federal government would let someone run the wires from where the wind blows to where the people need the electricity. Since the wind blows when it wants we'll still need some sort of storage or backup. Natural gas seems to be booming despite the best efforts of the federal government to stop that too. If we add pumping stations to the hydro dams we got we could store the electricity when the wind blows. Wind, pumped hydro, and natural gas might make for a nice mix for our electricity, each complementing the others. Problem is that at some point we're going to run out of natural gas. Can we build enough dams and windmills to power our world? Can we do it cheap enough to maintain our standard of living?
The problem of nuclear waste is a creation of the federal government. They decided that we cannot recycle the "spent" fuel from current reactors. The so called "spent" fuel still contains large amounts of usable fuel, it's just tainted with the fission products of the fuel that was used up. The fuel waste problem would actually be solved with new, more efficient, nuclear reactors designed to use the "spent" fuel from the old reactors.
We supposedly have a Department of Energy to solve these problems. What are they doing for us?
It's just so frustrating seeing the government foul things up for us. The energy problems we have now are all political. The government is causing more problems than it's solving. Don't get me wrong, we need government. I think the government has just gotten too big. To get a power plant built or a pipeline run a person would have to satisfy dozens of different agencies that often have conflicting goals. We need to trim down the size of government, getting rid of the Department of Energy is as good of a place to start as any.
Rant over.
Once we get a device thinner than "fits in a pocket" size we get to where we can fit *TWO* in a pocket!
Attorney General Eric Holder? Is that you?
A high level of "gun crime" in a nation with a high level of gun ownership is a surprise to you? That's like being surprised about the high level of automobile accidents in a nation with a high level of automobile ownership. Yes, weapons are weapons and yet you equate gun ownership with "gun crime" instead of all crime.
The claim made in the article is that possession of nuclear weapons reduces all war, not just nuclear war. What has happened in the USA is that places with high gun ownership rates has seen a reduction in all violent crimes. Property crimes are higher in places of high gun ownership but total crimes are lower. My theory is that thieves are more likely to steal from an unoccupied home if there is a high probability that the home owners are also gun owners but thieves do not fear an unarmed homeowner and therefore do not wait for a home to be unoccupied.
This same theory carried over to wars between nations. When the stakes have risen in a full scale war with nuclear weapons a nation will be more reluctant to participate in it. Instead they will be more sneaky and instead participate in small scale skirmishes where the risks of deadly retaliation is less.
Go look again at the rates of gun ownership and crime but this time take off your "gun crime" blinders and look at total crime rates. Again, this same blindness can be applied to the ownership of nuclear weapons. Certainly the risk of nuclear war is zero if we had no nuclear weapons but we cannot un-invent the nuclear bomb just as we cannot un-invent the firearm. We are all safer because of nuclear weapons and firearms since we are much more capable of killing those that would try to kill us.
When the aggressor has the advantage, be it from a firearm or a nuclear weapon, the risk of the one with the advantage is low. When both sides are equally armed the risks taken on by the aggressor becomes much higher.