alt.energy.renewable

On Mar 6, 8:05=A0am, Gordon Richmond wrote:
> >Gordon Richmond wrote:
> >>> "I guess this proves that biodiesel from algae is the next big thing.
> >>> The obfuscation campaign from the oil company shills are starting
> >>> before the pilot plants are even done growing the inital batches."
>
> >> What a breathtakingly stupid assertion. Why would the oil companies sup=
press it, when they
> >> could just as easily buy into it and exploit it, if it worked so damn w=
ell?
>
> >Oil companies would suppress it because they wouldn't be the ones
> >exploiting it.
>
> >Oil and farm companies have formed their own distinctly separate
> >communities, cartels, networks and political groups. Biofuels would
> >be exploited by the farm community and not the oil companies.
>
> >Anthony
>
> I repeat: energy companies have deep pockets. Algae "farming", if it ever =
gets off the
> ground, will be much more of an industrial-style process than farming conv=
entional
> bio-fuel crops. Oil companies have both the expertise and the capital requ=
ired to buld
> large-scale algae farms. If they thought there would be money in it, they =
would be in the
> game already. It's not like there is any secret to the process.
>

Indeed, Virgin Fuels and BP and DuPont are looking actively at this.
They are talking up the prospects.

> Oil companies are already invested into things like solar cells, and stora=
ge batteries,
> and are looking seriously at unconventional sources of fossil fuel, like m=
ethane hydrates
> and oil shales. What makes you so certain that they haven't already looked=
at "algal oil"
> and decided that even the "best case" scenario is uncompetitive?
>


> Remember there's an elephant in this particular "room". That is the manufa=
cture of
> synfuels from coal via some variant on the F-T process. It' a known proces=
s, it works, and
> it IS working right now.

I was reading just the other day that a Dutch company is looking at
using solar concentrators to heat waste biomass (eg sawdust, decaying
plant matter) and algae to about 2000F to make syngas and using FT to
make the downstream fuels that might be needed.

> Conventional crude is still cheaper at the present time. Once the
> price of conventional crude is sustainably higher than that of F-T synfuel=
, you will see a
> vast expansion of synfuel capacity, such that the crude price will plateau=
at that level
> for a long time. Unless bio-fuels can, without subsidies, beat that price,=
they are never
> going to be big players in the marketplace


I don't favour *subsidies* but I would like to see existing subsidies
to conventional fuels removed. Being able to freely pollute the air
and the water is a subsidy. If they can't *not* pollute, they should
pay an appropriate fee in restitution, so that R & D into non
polluting and sustainable fuels can proceed, or so that someone can
clear up the mess, or so that people who are harmed can be compensated
and so that the polluters are not unfairly advantaged over people
shouldering the extra expense of processes that are non polluting or
less pollluting.

I'd also make companies bear the cost of wars or other diplomacy
pursued to secure assets on their behalf. If energy security involves
spending 150 billion per year occupying the middle east or 300 million
per year supporting Israel or spying on the populace and if taxpayers
have to bear the cost of rehabilitating or supporting people
incapacitated by military service or deprived of the primary
breadwinner's income, then these costs should attach to the fuel and
be passed on to consumers. Hey, it's only fair. Right now, they are
getting a free ride, in part by putting their hands into the pockets
of people who don't approve of the policy and who may prefer public
transport or cleaner sources of energy.

This may partly explain why the proportion of crude oil imported by
the US has tripled since the 1980s -- from about 20% to about 60%. It
may also help explain why the US economy is in such a mess, and why if
the price of oil continues increasing steadily in real terms in price,
sunk costs in the transport fleet will inhibit rapid defensive
measures and probably undermine the competitiveness of US business.

None of this amounts to a conspiracy of course (although here and
there some people are doing very well out of it all). But for all the
difference it makes, it might as well be.

Fran
Fran