alt.energy.renewable

Fran wrote:
> On Mar 18, 1:58 pm, 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.

So you agree they will need some luck.

>>> 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.

> ???

Did you bother to read your own citation?

>>> 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.

If it were cheaper and viable, this would be a big business now. I've
yet to hear a plan for real production much less a reasonable pilot
plant. Sasol would be out of business. The evidence does not support
your claim.

http://www.sasol.com

>>>> 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.

You are making stuff up again. (i.e., lying)
http://lakeweb.com/money/USEnFlow02-quads.pdf

> 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.

Mere? And you need to do your math over.

> Don't forget the
> starches either since not all consumtion is diesel.

Meaningless without numbers.

> 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.

If you didn't know, this is my blog:
http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/
http://lakeweb.com/money/Hirsch.pdf

When do we start?

> But you shouldn't fluff the figures.

Cheeky. If you are going to call me a lier you had better point it out
explicitly. I give you at least that much curtsy.