alt.energy.renewable

On Mar 18, 1:58=A0pm, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> Fran wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 3:41 am, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> >> Fran wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/pdf/algae_salton_sea.pdf
> >> This looks like a rough guess, 'with a lot of ifs', homework assignment=
.
> >> Directed at a very vertical condition that exists in the Salton Sea.
> >> They even say, 'Achieving such low costs and high productivities will
> >> require a substantial R&D effort and success.' Meaning, a lot of work
> >> and luck.
>
> > I've never heard scientists or serious economists talk about luck as a
> > variable.
>
> '..effort and _success_..'
> What would you call it?
> (squirming goes here...)
>

Exactly what it blandly says. No squirming needed.


> > Self-evidently, it's going to take substantial money and
> > effort, but as Briggs pointed out in the overview, while the estimated
> > capital costs were $US308 billion, or service at $US46 billion, they
> > were spending $150 billion importing crude. And even these figures
> > assumed $80,000 per hectare, rather than the $40k which was more
> > reasonable.
>
> You are not getting this. First, it is a very limited vertical
> application. Second, the numbers have been _assumed_. Third, the last
> thing we need is another methane burner in the desert.
>


???

> > I take it as read that if the government can spend most of half a
> > trillion in four years *abroad* keeping an army and mercenaries in the
> > field in Iraq to earn the right to buy oil, then they can afford to
> > spend 308 billion *at home* for actual oil, especially when this is
> > set off against the cost of the actual 150 billion buying the stuff.
>
> Same goes for a known technology, CTL. So, what is your point?
>


That this would be far cheaper and more sustainable and
environmentally friendly than any other method.

> > You don't have to be an economist to work out that if cutting off the
> > supply of money to your political and military enemies would be worth
> > doing at a loss to yourself, then doing it at a profit while
> > generating local employment makes even more sense.
>
> You really need to stay on topic and quit introducing herrings.
>
> >> I have yet to see anyone do a pilot on even the meager proportion of a
> >> few acres. If you know of one, please do post. The world could use a
> >> realistic cost analysis for _today's_ world.
>
> > I'll look that up. IIRC, there was a Milwaukee brewery some years back
> > that was looking at this. I'll try to find it. I also recall a project
> > in South Australia using sewage treatment as an input.
>
> Waste as an input puts no dent in 175 quad of demand. But you are
> welcome to show otherwise. Your problem is that you
> don't understand the
> magnitude of a thousand barrels a second.
>

Well at the time of writing the Briggs paper, total US demand was 19
quads, including, presumably, its own fossil oil. 19 quads. Now,
allowing that there are 42 US gallons per barrel and 7.5 billion
barrels per quad that works out at a mere 107.5 barrels per second for
the US to replace the lot at the then consumption. Don't forget the
starches either since not all consumtion is diesel.

Plainly, I think something rather better than producing all this oil
is needed. It would be better if consumption were cut through the
transfer of signifcant traffic from the individually passenger
vehicles to rail or buses, increased car pooling, more use of electric
vehicles or hybrids etc.

But you shouldn't fluff the figures.

Fran