alt.energy.renewable

>
> On Mar 19, 1:34 am, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>> 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.

>> So you agree they will need some luck.
>
> No, I don't.

Read what they wrote again.

>>>> 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 did, but I wondered why that was *the last thing* we needed.

Methane has peaked in North America.

>> 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
>>
> First, we need to understand exactly how much biodiesel would be
> needed to replace all petroleum transportation fuels.

Oil production has peaked. Declines could reach 5 to 10 quads/year in
twenty years. To keep economies growing like they have been will require
another 75 quads in twenty years.


> So, we need to
> start with how much petroleum is currently used for that purpose.

Oil is an international market. 'Purpose' is a meaningless term.



>>> 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.

> Oops ... I obviously messed up an operation somewhere. Make that 5.3
> barrels or roughly 220 US gallons per second.

Oil is an international market. The world demands 1000 barrels a second.
5 barrels has no meaning in the real world.

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

>> Meaningless without numbers.
>
> The numbers vary...

There is no production of oil from algae today that has any meaning.
There is no plan for the future. There are no economic studies because
no one has figured out how to eliminate contamination in an open system.

So, the number is zero.

>>> 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?
>
> This blog link now seems to be non-functional

No, that junk news reader called google is non functional. All you had
to do was look at the URL to see that.

http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/http

http://lakeweb.com/money/Hirsch.pdf

>>> 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
>
> I don't know where you got you thousand barrels a second figure from.

Divide 85 mb/d by seconds in a day. It is grade school math.


> Perhaps you meant to describe *world consumption*, but as we were
> discussing the US...

You are, not me. It is not applicable as oil trades in an international
market. We all live on the same planet.