AutoblogGreen

The overall carbon dioxide balance would be zero, but only if they could maintain the growth without external energy inputs (watering, gathering, maintainance), or if all these energy inputs will be neutral.

Reply

↓↑report

That update is an important clarification. Glad Sapphire reads this site. The carbon in this case--or algae based biofuel--is from the sky. So when you burn the fuel, you're only returning to the sky what you took.

in contrast, the carbon from fossil fuel comes from the ground, so when you burn fossil fuels youre introducing more carbon in the sky.

Reply

↓↑report

So, when we convert to electric cars, we can use this technology to turn CO2 back into dinojuice, and pump it back into the ground, to replace the stuff we've already burned up over the last 150 years?

Reply

↓↑report

This is great but it's not what people think, no biofuel can possibly replace the 21million barrel a day habit we (US) petroleum junkies have developed over the last century. This might just provide enough to act as the range extender fuel in PHEVs but our first step is to go on a crash energy diet. Don't forget all the plastics, clothing industrial chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, aviation fuel, ect.

Reply

↓↑report

The biggest misconception about oil is that we are running out. Oil wells that were considered "tapped out" previously have recently been reopened and found to be full. Why? Because life goes on and life dies and life becomes fossils and fossils become fuel. That, to me, is the sickest part of oil. When driving down the street, keep in mind that the oil your gasoline was produced from might have been a TRex at some time long long ago.

I really hope Sapphire gets this up and running as soon as possible. Having another gasoline source to relieve the pressure on the market and remove OPEC from the equation would be a god send!

Reply

↓↑report

Yeah it's carbon neutral...but what about the other crap it throws into the atmosphere? CO neutral? Formaldahyde neutral? NOx neutral?

Reply

↓↑report

Duncan is right, this blog post is pathetic.

Dave, you are right to be skeptical of bio fuels, especially corn, but I think that algae is our best in terms of being able to grow massive quantities without major problems.

TvLover you must have learned geological science from TV sitcoms.

Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources because they take millions of years to form, and reserves are being depleted much faster than new ones are being formed.
The total fossil fuel used in the year 1997 is the result of 422 years of all plant matter that grew on the entire surface and in all the oceans of the ancient earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

Reply

↓↑report

TvLover: That's not exactly how it works on several fronts. First, the term "DinoJuice" is a joke and not meant to be taken literally. Most petroleum comes from ancient algae. Areas with a lot of animal life tend to have a lot more plant matter, and that tends to turn into coal. Secondly, reservoirs refill because they repressurize over time and the more viscous residual oil or oil in low-porosity strata has time to diffuse into the tapped reservoir. Kerogen conversion to oil isn't a rapid process in most situations.

That said, peak oil scaremongering *is* wrong. But not for the reasons you described.

And while I cheer Sapphire on, I'll note that farming bacteria for fuel hasn't worked out particularly economically in the past. Here's hoping that they can do better, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Reply

↓↑report

This could be could and bad.
Good in the sense that it woudl relieve pressure off the market and stop those from reaping millions of dollars in profit from america
Bad - in the sense that clean techonology will not be invented as fast as long as people know that gas will always be here. we need people to think that there is a sense of urgency to get off of fossil fuel

Reply

↓↑report

CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, Esq.
586-216-4505
O’Bryan Baun Cohen Kuebler
248-258-6262
401 S. Old Woodward, Suite 450
Fax: 248-258-6047
Birmingham, Michigan 48009

ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN AN ELECTRIC-CENTRIC WORLD

The recent North American Automobile Show in Detroit, Michigan displayed a wide range of innovative -- even exotic -- concept cars, many considered “green”, with some even configured as pure electric plug-ins. The shear variety of these electric cars persuaded me to start thinking “what if”: what if this electric car future comes to fruition. Where do we obtain the electrical energy to power all of these plug-in vehicles? How do we get there from here?
It is an interesting discussion, considering pure electric “plug-in” models using new and perhaps-to-be developed lithium-ion batteries or other exotic variants thereof, especially when one analyzes the entire vehicle market that is likely to exist in the not-too-distant future. This futuristic vehicle universe is marching inexorably forward to one that is dominated by battery-driven vehicles or those fueled by ethanol [ perhaps cellulosic], bio-diesel, methanol, or powered by fuel cells or a hybrid of the foregoing. Yet this begs the question previously posed: if the market becomes dominated by the battery pack/pure electric option, how will we generate the substantial magnification in electricity production that will be required to power this brave new electricity dominated transportation world? Correspondingly, where will we obtain the fuel/energy and what mix of fuels will we use to do so? It goes without saying, but it will be noted anyway: an increase in consumption demands an equivalent increase in capacity.
A few potential facts to consider. Imagine 100 million -- even 200 million or more – new automobiles on the road in the United States that are manufactured as pure electric “plug-ins”, designed to run off an electrical charge contained within battery packs. As an aside, this may ultimately be the best approach to take for environmental reasons once the bugs in the power systems are fixed and the infrastructure to re-charge the batteries is finalized [some suggest the appropriate infrastructure might simply be an extension cord; so why would we delay achievement of a reduced-carbon world by spending many billions of dollars in order to create a hydrogen infrastructure when the infrastructure for pure electric cars – extension chord – already exists with minimal cost]. Now, add to that another 300 million electric cars in India, 400 million electric cars in China, and another 600 million electric cars world-wide. World-wide demand for electricity will be astronomical, not merely beyond comprehension. Then imagine draining billions or more kilowatts per day from the electrical grid to recharge the battery packs, most such charging taking place at the same time [at night at home after work or during work hours at “hitching posts” established in parking places]. To meet such an incomprehensibly large electricity demand and drain on the power grid, additional electric “base-load” generating capacity will be required that is measured in many gigawatts [one billion kilowatts], perhaps even terawatts [one thousand gigawatts].
The International Energy Agency [IEA] projects that 20 trillion dollars – yes, with a “T” – of new worldwide investment will be required to the meet world’s energy demand by 2030, only twenty two years away. This is a staggering figure – even a frightening one – especially one realizes that this estimate does not even consider the major escalation of demand for electricity that arises from an electric-centric personal transportation system. Presently, the world consumes in the neighborhood of approximately 18.5 TW [terawatts; 18,500 gigawatts (GWe)/18,500,000 megawatts(MWe)] with virtually no all-electric vehicles on the highways. By 2030, estimates anticipate that the total world-wide demand for electricity will escalate dramatically to between 30 and 35 TW, and that enormous demand for electricity does not include a large population of vehicles whose motive power is provided by electricity drawn from battery packs.
By 2030, if most automobiles are manufactured to run on an electric/battery system [the best solution for reducing atmospheric pollutants caused by petro-fuel operated internal combustion engines] and we incorporate a rapidly growing population of automobile-using Chinese and Indians, significantly more production of electricity will be required. The expansion of electrical generating capacity to meet the inevitable increase in demand for electricity can not be allowed to be based upon the increased use of fossil fuels or nuclear power. It makes virtually no sense to reduce pollution that is created by automobiles, and then create pollution in another form by generating the power necessary to operate electric vehicles through the combustion of carbon-based fuels or by creating nuclear waste. Exchanging one source of pollution for another is a non-starter; it equates with rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Although alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, micro-hydro and tidal power must become more significant contributors to the world-wide electrical grid, they individually and collectively are grossly incapable of meeting the increase in demand for electricity that surely will be created by the rise of an electric-centric transportation system. Once again the question is posed: “how do we get there from here and what do we use to do so?” Coal? Nuclear? Wind? Solar? Hydro? All of these listed sources of energy/fuel that are used to generate electricity today have their peculiar pluses and minuses. None, however, can meet the challenge of generating substantially more electricity in a carbon-neutral and/or environmentally benign way. Let us take a look.
“CLEAN” COAL
First, let us consider coal, or more euphemistically today, “clean coal”, because this source of energy is our most abundant and cheap. Yet bluntly stated, there is no more dubious moniker than that of “clean” coal. There is no such thing as “clean” coal. A more apt and accurate description is “less dirty” coal. The ameliorative moniker now used is nothing more than a dubious deflection of focus brought to you by the coal lobby and their political allies. There is nothing “clean” about coal extraction. Using coal as the fuel of choice to generate the tremendous increase in electricity that will be needed to power this brave new automotive world will force utility companies to burn additional billions of tons of this carbon-based material each year. Obviously, doing that will produce additional billions of tons of carbon dioxide that wafts up smokestacks and into an atmosphere that is already overburdened with excess tons of carbon dioxide and perched perilously close to the brink of disaster [read “Global Warming” and “Climate Change”]. And this atmospheric decay presently exists in a world that is bereft of pure “plug-in” electric vehicles. Now, imagine what a massive increase in coal usage – “clean” or otherwise – will do for global warming. Even if it is assumed that technological improvements will assure that “carbon sequestration” is marginally successful, the costs incurred to achieve such sequestration will contribute substantially to the cost of the end product. And it is not even known whether carbon sequestration will be environmentally safe [gaseous migration; ground water contamination, etc.] when employed on a massive scale. What if an earthquake strikes and fractures the substrate where the carbon dioxide gas is stored? Will the gas escape its confines and be released into the surrounding area? Then what?
Another word about carbon sequestration [otherwise known as “Internal Gasification Combined Cycle” with carbon capture and sequestration]. The cost incurred to employ this relatively new technology will be a substantial addition to coal’s economic equation and viability. Moreover, adopting this process is not too dissimilar to our ancestor’s use of horses to provide the primary mode of transportation in the 1800's who then fretted about where to dispose all of the manure. Carbon sequestration is tantamount to addressing an 18th century issue in a world where we should be endorsing and providing 22nd century solutions.
The notion of “sequestering” carbon provides us with the delusional sense of “feel good” security, lending the false perception that something “green” is being done to remedy a bad situation. The concept of carbon sequestration acts only to promote environmental devastation from surface mining, it encourages burning more fossil fuel and it aids and abets a massive increase in the production of carbon dioxide in the first instance because it can be conveniently “swept under the rug”. Carbon sequestration promotes the production of the very greenhouse compound that industry seeks to avoid. Inevitably, more pollution is created, and more environmental damage is sustained, not less.
And look at some of the other costs – some hidden, some apparent – that will be borne from a massive increase in the use of coal to generate electricity to power automobiles. Particularly, the environmental damage caused by surface mining. Few industrial scale activities in this world are as comprehensively “dirty” as surface coal mining. The coal industry is already scalping mountain tops in West Virginia to access coal seams, causing an environmental catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude. This practice takes majestic scenery and creates “crew cuts” more suitable for parking lots and airplane tarmacs than viewing. Open-pit strip mines are no less destructive. Add in the imposed costs of reclamation, the ancillary costs attributable to mine “run-off’ that damages the fecundity of natural waterways as a consequence of the mining activity, and the lost revenue from foregone nature/outdoors and sporting activities. The damage to environmental aesthetics should alone be sufficient to give us pause. Simply put, and irrespective of the environmental utility that might be gained from carbon “sequestration”, there is nothing “clean” about extraction and transportation of coal, and the environmental damage caused by those activities.
Imagine how many mountain tops will have to be removed – how many open pit mines will have to be opened and dredged – to utilize coal in the quantities needed to power millions of all-electric cars. All of this activity will, in an exponential manner, affect the biological viability of watersheds: mineral runoff, acidification of water, siltation and sedimentation of the waterways will all contribute to the destruction of the benthic aquatic life that exists at the beginning of the food chain and is essential to maintaining a diverse ecosystem.
Amelioration efforts are focused on containment. However, the sheer magnitude of the expanded mining activity that will inevitably be necessary to address the expanded use of this source of fuel to power all-electric cars will contribute additional adverse elements to the environment irrespective of our best efforts to achieve containment. Even if carbon sequestration is successful, a viable method must still be created – and a location found – to dispose of the billions of tons of “fly” ash that results from the burning process in an environmentally benign manner. One example: let us assume that 100 ppm of waste is presently produced by burning one billion tons of coal. Now, even if this waste by-product is reduced to 10 ppm by adopting amelioration programs, but ten billion tons of coal must now be burned to meet expanded electrical energy needs, the same net volume of waste is created. Nothing net is accomplished, yet environmental disruption has occurred on a much grander scale by realizing that “accomplishment”.
“Sequestration” also presents other potential problems. First, pumping pressurized carbon dioxide deep into the earth’s crust may induce seismicity. In other words, on the vast scale that this enterprise suggests will be necessary given the potential enormous utilization of coal to meet future electricity demand, a large volume of carbon dioxide deposited within the earth below may induce earthquakes. This potential problem must be addressed and solved. Second, dissolution of the surrounding substrate where the carbon dioxide is “stored” may occur. If any water is present within the layers of the earth where the carbon dioxide is to be sequestered, that carbon dioxide may mix to form a weak acid solution [carbonic acid]. Such acidification may dissolve the surrounding substrate and cause other problems that have not been studied, let alone being fully understood. Finally – and admittedly a remote concern – if the temperature of the substrate changes within the substrate where the carbon dioxide is stored [i.e., increases because of a change in the quantum/rate of the radioactive decay in the surrounding rock] , the temperature of the stored gas may increase. Gases expand when heated. Such expansion may cause a failure of the storage system with residual consequences that can only be hypothesized.
NUCLEAR POWER
Now, turning to nuclear power as a solution; well, not hardly. If the viability of the earth’s future [hence our own] is something that might be of concern, this source, at best, must be considered only as a back-up player. Granted, the risk that a nuclear reactor might fail today is fairly small on a per plant basis. However, with more nuclear power plants constructed to meet the growing demand for electricity, the risk that just one reactor will fail increases along with the increase in facility existence. And if that risk comes to fruition, the consequences are catastrophic as we have seen with the disaster at Chernobyl, U.S.S.R., in 1986.
Now for the opaque but tangible costs of nuclear power. Start with those attributable to mining the uranium-bearing ore. The environmental damage and disruption as similar to that which exists with coal extraction. And do not forget the security threat that always swirls around nuclear power. That threat owes its existence not only to the mined product [remember “yellow cake”, the precursor nuclear fuel material derived from a process that concentrates raw uranium ore], but even more so to the operational threats associated with global terrorism. Imagine Mr. Al-Queda getting his idle hands on even a minuscule amount of processed uranium, even spent uranium intended for storage, let alone a pound or two of plutonium. Additional opportunity for nuclear proliferation in the age of al-Queda is something that must be avoided at all costs.
Then consider the various disposal issues and the costs associated with disposal, including containment and transportation. First, “where”? Yucca Mountain? A storage facility sited along a fault zone of all places. That seems at first blush to be an excellent spot to place for “eternity” one of the most deadly materials known to humankind. And who wants to, or is going to, wait around for a million years or so biding time for the stuff to decay. A moment of sobriety and candor: our quasi “civilization” has only been around for a little more than 6,000 years or 1/200th of that time. And do not forget the costs associated with decommissioning depleted reactors, the radiated wasteland on which the facility was situated, and the threat of proliferation from expanded production – hence availability of – radioactive materials. Theft, dirty bombs, a whole scenario of nightmares to occupy the imagination. Security does cost, and it is exceedingly expensive as witnessed by the budgets submitted by the Department of Homeland Security. Such costs must be visited on the progenitor thereof.
NATURAL GAS
This source of energy has a fairly substantial potential, especially if technology is developed to commercially utilize methane hydrates [methane contained within marine sediments and ice crystals in deep marine locations],. However, although natural gas is considered to be a “cleaner” fossil fuel alternative than either coal or petroleum-based hydrocarbons, it still emits greenhouse gases when burned. Additionally, even if the larger hydrate reserves can be economically tapped and exploited, costly problems arise. First, it is doubtful that greater utilization of natural gas reserves will be sufficient to generate enough electricity to power a transportation system that is dominated by all-electric vehicles. Moreover, natural gas is still a finite resource. Burning it to generate electricity still emits the very greenhouse gases [albeit, less than coal on a per unit basis] that must not be discharged into the atmosphere. Moreover, the drilling, pumping, and transportation activities that are necessary to extract and use natural gas as a fuel to generate electricity all require vast capital expenditures and their own consumption of energy [despite its high net energy ratio].
Another problem: transporting natural gas is a very dangerous proposition, it being a highly flammable and extremely explosive compound. This hazard presents its own -- and rather large – security risk. Many LNG [“Liquid Natural Gas”] ships navigating into harbors surrounded by major populations [Boston, New York, Baltimore, etc.] is a terrorist’s dream come true. Finally, even with large domestic reserves of natural gas, this commodity is imported and we again suffer from dependency on foreign sources. Expanded use of natural gas to help support an electric-centric transportation system can only exacerbate this dependency.
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
Now for the so-called “renewables”. The “green” sources of energy to be discussed following include solar, wind, tidal and micro-hydro. Each of these power sources possess their own unique advantages and disadvantages. Let us now address them separately.
MICRO-HYDRO
Hydro-electric power is a large and potentially larger source of reliable “base-load” electrical power. However, it has serious environmental considerations to contend with. Large scale hydro systems disrupt ecosystems on a grand scale, and in some instances, are accused of creating ecological disasters and threatening endangered species [recall Tellico Dam, Tennessee; snail darter]. Such environmental disruptions have been witnessed at the Aswan High Dam that spans the Nile River in Egypt. This dam has been accused of increasing the rates of malaria and parasitic infestation such as liver flukes and schistosomiasis. The Three Gorges Dam located on the Yangtze River in China is another example. The loss of sediments that would otherwise naturally flow down the river and become deposited along the river bank during periodic flooding episodes is already being observed. This loss of soil replenishment contributes to poor, unproductive soils. As a consequence, the land will no longer be able to support the production of the same quantity of biomass per acre. In turn, the production of proteins which are essential to a balanced diet, and which a constantly growing population demands, will steadily decline. Exchanging a food source for energy is not an option that should be readily adopted.
Do not forget our own Hoover Dam that spans the Colorado River. The government recently discharged billions of gallons of water from behind the dam to allow accumulated sediments to flush out in order to rebuild sand bars that occur naturally in free-flowing rivers. Such sand bars are necessary to sustain the diversity of the natural ecosystem. Their re-creation by this release of water was a necessary component of the effort to restore native species of flora and fauna that have become endangered and/or were threatened by the absence of natural accretion and avulsion of accumulated river sediments. This action was more recently taken on the Glen Canyon Dam that spans the Colorado River.
No less a concern, an increase in mercury contamination of apex fish has been noted in flooded watersheds that are created by the impounded waterways. This contamination begins when plankton feast on decaying submerged vegetation; it ultimately works its way into and up the food chain to the point where humans ingest the contaminated fish and become ill. This dangerous situation is most critically established in Native populations located in areas that surround hydro-power watersheds found in the James Bay region of northern Quebec, Canada [e.g., Hydro-Quebec’s Le Grande project most notably]. There, symptoms from mercury poisoning, including mental degradation and cognitive loss, were documented in many instances.
Moreover, increased siltation and sediment accumulation behind the dams are serious problems. Sediment accumulation causes it’s own down-stream consequences; i.e., the concomitant loss of alluvial plain and enhanced erosion of the out flow/delta areas that do not periodically receive the sediments that are necessary to replenish them. This loss of delta habitat, particularly the marsh areas, reduces larval fish populations and causes the decline of other aquatic life. This loss ultimately inhibits the stability of mammalian and avian populations that depend on such habitat for food sources and nesting sites. The entire ecosystem becomes less fecund. The economic benefits derived from delta food sources [fish] and recreational use [hunting] are lost forever. These losses cannot be disregarded; they must be added to the cost side of the equation when the energy calculation is finally tallied. Our own Colorado River provides a lucid example. So much water has been diverted by major dams on this river system that the massive wetlands that once existed in the Sea of Cortez, and occupied the apex of the Baja Peninsula, have largely disappeared. Dried up and withered away. Bird life has vanished. The sea life that relies on the delta’s estuary [“swamp”] for its very existence and survival has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. Here is where a vast breeding and nurturing ground once existed for fish, invertebrates, etc.
The sea is not as fecund as it once was; certainly it is not as commercially productive of the protein necessary to sustain our terrestrial population. That sea life continues to be assaulted from all directions and it is dying off at an alarming rate. A recent [2003] PEW Ocean Commission report estimates that a substantial percentage of the commercially-recoverable biomass in the ocean will have vanished by 2020. [http://pewtrusts.org/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/protecting_ocean_life/env_oceans_final_report.pdf]. Further harm must not be visited on this resource by constructing more major hydro-power projects which will inevitably destroy additional vital delta wetland habitat.
Another assault on sea life occurs when the barriers created by dams -- such as those in Maine and in the western states of Oregon, Idaho and Washington [e.g., Grand Coulee Dam which blocks the natural flow of the Columbia River], prevent salmon and other species of anadromous fish [e.g., eels, shad, etc.] from migrating upstream during their annual spawning runs. If fish can not readily access their spawning grounds, spawning does not occur. Ergo, there are no fish. And species which survive on fish are decimated. The chronic affects of this blockage are highlighted by the declining and now paltry annual runs of salmon. Indeed, many environmentalists forecast that salmon runs in the western rivers will become “extinct” in the not-too-distant future. The consequence: salmon runs that are essentially non-existent, coupled with another permanent loss of protein that is essential for a growing population. Efforts to mitigate the effects of such blockage, such as capturing adult salmon and smolts, and barging them around the barrier, or building “fish ladders” so the fish can swim around the barrier, have been largely unsuccessful. The cost to make these efforts is also high.
We also see recent efforts to tear down aging dams in the Maine. The efficacy of maintaining large dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers is also being re-considered. So, while dams are being torn down in the Atlantic/Northeast, and we consider removing them in the Pacific/Northwest, we should not find ourselves too reliant on massive hydro-electric projects to produce the electricity that a large population of plug-in vehicles will require. All of the stated environmental problems may be, and perhaps should be, avoided by using other sources of electrical generating capacity.
Major dams also have another flaw; they disrupt the natural ecosystem of the waterway. The water contained behind the dam at depth is extremely cold; just above freezing in many cases. Taking a relatively shallow river system, with relatively warm water, which is populated with aquatic species that are compatibly adapted to that thermal level, and then creating a cold water environment via waterway impoundment, preordains trouble. All of the warm-water species that can not adapt to this new cold water environment will inevitably die off and be replaced by non-native species. The long term cumulative effects of such acute thermal species displacement has not been fully analyzed; therefore, such effects can not be fully comprehended. In 1999, the Bureau of Reclamation began addressing this issue by monitoring the downstream effects caused by temperature change below the Glen Canyon Dam.
Mega-hydro projects, irrespective of their tremendous up-front capital costs, are quite costly in terms of their deleterious impacts on the environment and ecosystem. This source of energy creates almost as many problems as it contributes to benefits in the form of production of electricity. This is particularly so in the water parched regions of the Southwestern United States, where disputes over usage allocation has lead to regional bickering and local water wars.
Enter “small” or “micro-hydro” power. Micro-hydro is a much smaller version of larger hydro-electric power projects such as exists at Hoover Dam. In this process, the power project’s infrastructure essentially shunts or diverts naturally flowing river water around cataracts [drops in the level of topography which creates rapids and waterfalls] through sluices into which turbines and generators are placed, rather than by creating barrier dams which substantially block the natural flow of river water thereby creating an impoundment. Adopting micro-hydro as a source of power to generate electricity is a far better course of action than building “scalable”or large dams. Micro-hydro plants ameliorate the large scale environmental disruptions that are caused by building and operating large dams, and they leave intact the natural flow, hence the natural ecosystem, of the affected river system. Micro-hydro has it’s place in the energy equation, but it’s full potential is constrained because of limited domestic venues [rivers] and limited diversion areas [cataracts]. Canada has vast resources to develop micro-hydro. Unfortunately, most of these potential sites are located in very remote and environmentally sensitive regions. Of equal importance, these potential sites will require transmission lines into poorly accessible areas, resulting in disruption of forest lands to build transmission lines along these natural waterways and increasing the project’s up-front costs.
World-wide, micro-hydro projects sited near cataracts and falls located on rivers of the South American rain forest, such as the Iguacu, have the potential to produce tremendous quantities of electricity. However, disruption of the environment, including construction of transmission lines that will have to be placed in, and will run through, virgin rain forests, must be at the forefront of strategic considerations. And, such extra-jurisdiction projects will not provide the United States with energy security that can only be derived from domestic sources.
For all hydro-electric power projects, whether major or micro, it is worth noting the recent effects of heretofore unobserved weather patterns on regional precipitation levels. These strange weather patterns may be associated with, or implicated in, climate change and global warming. Perhaps it is too obvious to mention, but the volume of a waterway and its flow rate is always subject to and depends upon the quantity of precipitation that falls in a particular region over time. More succinctly put, the volume of a waterway is susceptible to droughts. Global warming has been charged as a suspected culprit in several recently experienced droughts. Witness the snow pack -- or more accurately the recent lack thereof -- in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States. A sharp drop in snow precipitation over the past decade in Utah, Montana, Colorado and Wyoming, has resulted in a co-extensive reduction in snow melt and runoff during the summer months. This phenomenon has caused a corresponding precipitous reduction in the volume of water running into the Colorado River drainage. Consequently, Lake Mead [which was created by the construction of Hoover Dam] is already down almost one hundred feet from maximum pool and it is presently at only 52% of its maximum capacity. If the mountain snow pack continues to melt at present rates, or that rate accelerates and the snow pack disappears [perhaps an ominous sign of global warming], that fact will profoundly effect our ability to generate electricity using hydro-power as the source of energy. Another prime example of such extreme lack of precipitation: the drought that plagued the southeastern United States in 2007, where impoundments in northern Georgia [Lake Lanier] virtually dried up. One more highlight: the level of Lake Okeechobee in Florida has dropped dramatically. Witness too the evaporation of the Aral Sea in Kazakhstan. Such situations will become more common place and more exacerbated should global warming proceed unabated. Thus, micro-hydro power is hostage to the same environmental variants as its larger counterpart [i.e., sufficient water flow, drought conditions, etc.].
SOLAR
Solar. For all of solar power’s positive attributes and benefits, the most obvious drawback it suffers from is its marriage to the sun; the sun must shine for the power system to work. Granted, somewhere in the world the sun is usually shining. However, to generate the quantities of electricity that will be needed for “base-load” or on-demand/all-the-time electrical power, solar arrays will have to be constructed over a vast expanse of geography. The entire system must then be tied together in a unified grid which implicates almost impossible to overcome geopolitical issues and conflicts.
The geographical areas that these solar arrays will displace are enormous and may be environmentally unsustainable. To employ solar power on the grand scale that will be needed to generate and supply sufficient electricity to power an electric-centric transportation system, will require the confiscation of thousands of acres of natural [and perhaps environmentally-sensitive] areas and their transformation into thousands of acres of solar arrays. In other words, solar power has a rather large “footprint”. Unfortunately, large footprints that are created by such expansive conversion activity produce their own adverse consequences, including the disruption of natural ecosystems that exist in the adjacent areas.
Another considerable problem associated with solar power – indeed its major flaw – is that it requires good constant weather with minimal cloud cover to be a viable energy option. Won’t find that in Seattle, Washington. Solar power will not work efficiently or effectively without it. With global warming stoking ever-larger and more frequent storms, the presence of cloud cover may be increasing, with a corresponding decrease in solar utilization rates. In sum, solar for “base-load” purposes is not sufficiently consistent and reliable. At least fifty percent of each day is unproductive on location. Although solar power is not a good “base-load” source of electricity, its criticism here lies only in the context of the potential role it might play in an electrical infrastructure that is dedicated to, and is capable of, providing reliable electric generating capacity in an amount that is sufficient to power a rather large population of “plug in” vehicles. No comment is made with regard to the efficacy of using solar-generated electricity for other purposes such as residential, commercial or industrial lighting, heating or cooling. For those purposes, solar power is eminently viable and its use should be expanded. In the context of providing “base-load” power in sufficient quantities to operate many electric vehicles, however, solar power’s potential is more circumscribed.
Even with developing technologies that are being tested to enhance the production of electricity [concentrated solar thermal using mirrors to focus and intensify light], better and more efficient photovoltaic cells [so-called “thin film” technology and CIGS composition panels], and interesting thermal storage techniques that attempt to employ at night the solar heat that is produced during the day [by using molten sodium or other salts to store heat, then generating electricity at night by using a heat exchanger to produce steam to drive the turbine and generator], solar power is still mainly a source that is inextricably dependent upon daytime, sunny weather. In bad weather solar power is quite limited; at night it produces little if nothing.
Lastly, even on a larger scale, expansion of solar power will be concentrated in sunny zones in the United States, particularly those states located in thinly populated areas of the southwest. Accordingly, transmission lines to these remote regions must be constructed to utilize this source, requiring an additional and rather significant outlay of capital.
WIND
As with solar power, ditto for wind power. For all of its proclaimed benefits, wind power is still an environmentally dependent source; i.e., it requires wind. As most weekend sailors observe, wind is not a regular and consistent visitor. Wind turbines work only when the wind is blowing, and they work well only when the wind is blowing hard.
Placement of wind turbines in particular zones ameliorates this flaw to some extent [i.e., natural vortexes, passes/gaps in mountain zones, prairies where daily thermal changes produce wind, etc.]. Inevitably, however, this dependency on variable wind patterns advances and supports the conclusion that wind turbines are not a viable source of base-load electric power; that wind power is not capable of producing the quantities of consistently reliable electricity that will be needed to power the new electric transportation society.
As with the sun and solar power, the wind usually blows somewhere in the world. But the same unified grid and geopolitical considerations to meet electric energy needs on a massive scale will have to be addressed and overcome to make wind power a more consistent and reliable contributor. None of the major players “share” oil revenue. No one should expect that others will “share” their wind power. Such “globalization” of natural power does little to enhance energy security, one of the key goals of any nation’s energy policy.

Other drawbacks. As with solar power, wind power possesses a large “footprint”. To produce electricity in the quantities that are required to power an electric-centric automobile fleet, many wind turbines will have to be established on a large wind “farms”. A vast geographic areas will therefore have to be appropriated and dedicated to wind “farms” to assure that electricity will be produced on the commercial scale needed to allow “plug-in” vehicles to become the preferred mode of transportation.
Wind power also suffers from aesthetic considerations. Wind turbines are aesthetically unappealing, as evidenced by the vociferous objections rising from the throats of land owners who protest the installation of large wind farms that obstruct their view of the natural country side. Indeed, riparian activists [including one prominent senator from Massachusetts] protest against offshore wind “farms” that are slated to be situated off some of the Nation’s most pristine coastlines, claiming them to be “eye sores”. These objections must be addressed and assuaged. Moreover, large wind turbines are accused of presenting dangers to avian life; they may interfere with bird migration and cause injury or death to birds should they fly into the path of a spinning turbine blade.
TIDAL/DEEP CURRENT
The oceans and moon; tides aplenty. Here we have a potentially consistent and reliable source of semi “base-load” electric power, with tides occurring two times [incoming and outgoing] every 24 hour period. However, tidal peaks may vary in terms of frequency [time between tidal flow and time during the day in which the tides move] and in velocity [strength], depending on the orbit of the earth and moon and the gravitational pull produced by the moon and the alignment of the moon with other planets, the sun and the earth. Peak tidal periods, hence peak electrical generation from tidal sources, may not coincide with peak electrical use and need. So, this option is somewhat variable. Nevertheless, tidal power presents a potentially large source of electric generating capacity that must be fully developed and utilized if a truly electric-centric automobile future is to be realized.
With similar potential, electricity generated by the new generation of kinetic turbines that can be situated in deep current zones must be considered. Deep currents, such as those which exist in larger rivers, fjords, bays or straights [e.g., the Gulf Stream where it passes through the Straights of Florida and between the Greater Bahama Bank, Bimini and adjoining islands and the east coast of Florida], must be considered as a consistent and reliable “base-load” source of electricity.
Deep currents generally flow with a predictable consistency and have been stable for thousands of years. Forming the structure of the global thermal “conveyor belt” that flows throughout all five oceans [Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, Antarctic], this source of potential energy can be relied upon for the indefinite future. Yet concerns have recently arisen and have been expressed that global warming may eventually disrupt this thermal conveyor system with catastrophic effects. The disruption results when polar ice melts in response to global warming and the resulting fresh water runs off into the ocean and reduces the salinity of the surrounding ocean water. Reduction in salinity occurs when the ice melt [predominantly fresh water] mixes with the salty ocean water. Reduction in salinity in turn leads to changes in water density [less dense], thereby altering the current’s flow.
This above doomsday scenario aside, huge technical hurdles presently exist and are associated with the following: working in deep waters [atmospheric pressure]; servicing turbines and associated electrical equipment at depth; the corrosive effects of salt water on metal turbine systems; inward and outward flow of the current depending on the direction of prevailing winds which will actually push currents to a degree thereby reducing the overall efficiency of the system because water will not impact the turbine blades in the most efficient position.
Lastly, the short-term and long-term affects of wide-scale use of current turbines on sea-life on a macro level [fish migration] and micro level [plankton displacement and mixing] have not been adequately studied. Accordingly, potential environmental damage can not be deduced with any true degree of accuracy until after such systems have been installed and their actual impacts appropriately studied and assessed.
GEOTHERMAL – HEAT MINING
ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS/HOT DRY ROCK
Not to despair. There is one true alternative solution to this complex problem. The answer lies with deep-well [hot rock] enhanced binary geothermal power systems using the heat source that lies beneath our feet. Generally, as a well is drilled deeper into the earth’s crust, and the closer it gets to the earth’s mantle, the surrounding substrate becomes progressively hotter to varying degrees. This is known as the thermal gradient. Although this gradient is variable at different locations due to variations in geology such as volcanic areas [e.g. the “Ring of Fire” subduction zones abutting tectonic plates of the Pacific Ocean; Yellowstone Park’s geothermal “hot zone”], thermal capacity typically increases the closer one gets to the earth’s core [estimated to exceed 7,500 degrees Fahrenheit]. This heat is the product of several factors, including that which is created by the massive pressures produced by the enormous weight of the layers of the earth’s substrate at depth, and that which is generated from the slow decay of radioactive elements found in all rock including the magma core. This thermal energy at depth radiates or migration upward toward the cooler surface in a process of thermal conduction [heat invariably is attracted to cool]. The same forces of heat and pressure that now provide potential geothermal energy also “cooked” the carbon-based deposits of decaying plant and animal life that were laid down over millions of years [e.g., diatoms] and created the fossil fuels [petroleum/natural gas] that are now consumed. This thermal energy is continually regenerated by radioactive decay; it is a process that has been going on for several billion years and will probably continue to work its magic for another several billion years.
Geothermal [in Greek: “geo” = earth/“therme” = heat] energy is the most logical choice for establishing “green” “base-load” power. Estimates suggest that 50,000 times more energy exists in the upper 6 - 10 miles of the earth’s crust in the form of heat [geothermal energy] than is contained in the entire global reserves of petroleum, coal and natural gas combined. In perspective, simple math suggests that this heat source could annually provide enough electricity for 350 trillion [yes, with a “T”] people. Clearly, this is not an inconsequential source of energy; it is more than sufficient to generate the quantities of electricity to power an electric-centric transportation system. Best of all, this “fuel” [heat] is free; no futures, no hedge funds, no cartels, no monopolies, no wild price spikes and swings, no unfriendly governments and no supply issues to contend with.
A sustainable and replenishable source of energy exists at depths of five miles beneath the earth’s surface and it contains at least five times the energy needed to power this brave new electric world, on an annual basis. Going deeper still, there is much more potential energy available. As drilling technologies advance, access to these deeper and hotter zones can be attained. The thermal energy that will be derived from these deeper zones will be available to operate binary geothermal power systems that are capable of meeting the forecasted escalation in demand for electricity.
The potential energy in these deep zones is present all over the United States, at every location [at variable depths]. These deep zones are sufficiently hot to generate binary geothermal power. To access this tremendous source of energy, developers must drill to depths of five miles or more. It may seem like an insurmountable distance. However, technology presently exists in the petroleum well-drilling industry to do so on a vastly expanded scale. Today, companies are drilling oil wells to depths of five miles; a piece of cake. Imagine the windfall of economic activity for these drilling companies [Schlumberger, eat your heart out] if deep well binary geothermal power is ramped up to the level of a Manhattan Project or Apollo Program.
A deep well geothermal system is also referred to as an “enhanced geothermal system” [EGS] or “hot dry rock” geothermal system [HDR], as opposed to a “hydrothermal” system which is a more limited resource. A hydrothermal system exists where a naturally occurring superheated water reservoir is located relatively close to the earth’s surface. These reservoirs are located mostly in the western United States and near subduction zones where tectonic plates meet and where volcanic and seismic activity is prevalent.
With a concerted deep drilling mind-set, exploration to discover thermal zones is not an issue. It is already known and accepted that if a well is drilled deep enough, hot zones will be located and those hot zones will maintain sufficient temperatures to operate a binary turbine and generate electricity. Technology to drill to the depths required to access heat on such a grand scale is the limiting factor. However, as stated above, technology presently exists to drill up to extremely deep; the ability to drill even deeper will become increasingly greater as the technology moves forward. More to the point, however. The cost to drill that deep on a universal scale will be enormous. But the cost incurred by doing nothing will be much greater. The unit cost to drilling deep wells should also decline as technology improves and more drilling is conducted. Not so with excessively expensive nuclear power plants. The potential environmental damage from this source of energy alone is too much to risk. And, the environmental damage associated with excessive coal use – if this is the preferred source of “base-load” energy – will be enormously costly. Here is where government intervention and financial assistance is crucial. The need to drill to these great depths, as well as the need to absorb the up-front capital expenses to do so, is a matter of national security – perhaps even economic and national survival. Only the government has the ability to undertake such a project. The government should take the lead on this vital matter of national security no less than it does when it annually spends north of 550 billion dollars on the military budget. Once the deep hot zones are located, the manufactured wells can be leased to private businesses for a fee to fully develop their electrical energy potential.
The most significant advantage that geothermal power has over other forms of “green” or sustainable/renewable energy is that it is considered to be a “base-load” source of electricity. That means electricity is produced “on demand”, all of the time if need be. When electricity is needed, it can be generated. That is not the case for solar, wind, or tidal systems, all of which are subject to the vagaries of their source of power be it the sun, wind, or gravitational pull. Geothermal power is also reliable, possessing operating/generating capacities that reach a peak of 98 percent. Coal and nuclear power, in contrast, have variable operational capacities of between 75 - 95 percent. And, geothermal power is consistent; the heat needed to generate electricity is available day and night, in all weather conditions, 24/7, 365 days per year, with very little adverse impact on the environment. Consistent, available, scalable, reliable, renewable, clean, vast quantities, safe and secure. What is not to love?
This source of energy truly is a substantial resource even without considering energy potential of deep conventional geothermal resources [“DUGR”] – which are part of EGS. DUGR’s are not addressed here because they involve reservoirs with extremely high temperatures and pressures. If included in the mix, DUGRs expand the potential available energy from an estimated 2,400 - 9,600 Exajoules [EJ; 1 joule = 6.2415 x 10(18) electron volts] to as much as 74,000 EJ, excluding super-critical volcanic geothermal systems located within national parks. That is a lot of potential energy.
DEEP WELL BINARY SYSTEM
What is a deep well “binary” geothermal system? Simply described, it is a system whereby a well is drilled deep into the earth’s crust until a thermal [“hot”] zone is reached where the temperature of the surrounding rock exceeds that which is necessary to “boil” an inorganic liquid that has a lower boiling point than water. Although hotter temperatures are always preferable at all depths because greater potential efficiency can be attained by the geothermal system as the temperature increases, any well that can produce temperatures that exceed 225 degrees Fahrenheit contains sufficient thermal energy to generate binary geothermal electric power. Once the required temperature zones are reached, fracture zones are created in the rock substrate using various techniques which include instigating hydrostatic pressure [pumping pressurized water deep into the hot zone which causes expansion of the surrounding rock and creates multiple cracks which collectively form the subterranean water reservoir]. The fracture zone that is created is now permeable. Water is injected into this permeable fracture zone with an “injection” well, that water is heated by the hot rock which surrounds and is contained within the permeable reservoir, and the resulting hot water is then pumped to the surface via a “production” well. The hot water then enters into a heat exchanger which superheats an inorganic working fluid, thereby causing it to expand into a gas. The “steam” created by the gaseous expansion of the inorganic working fluid drives a turbine which in turn spins the generator that produces electricity.
More specifically, the binary system employs a second or “working” fluid in place of super heated water [“steam”] to drive the turbine and spin the generator. The working fluid typically consists of an inorganic liquid that is derived from hydrocarbons such as isobutane or isopentene, or a combination of different fluids of similar chemical composition [another reason to conserve petroleum – this use is better than burning it up in internal combustion engines]. These inorganic liquids are more “volatile” than water, they have different vapor pressures, and they possess far lower boiling points than water. The hot water obtained from the injection well is pumped to the surface through a combination of natural hydrostatic pressure caused by the weight of the earth as affected by gravity, and electric pumps which use residual or “parasitic” electric power that is obtained from the geothermal electric generation process. This hot water passes through a heat exchanger where heat is transferred from the hot water to the working fluid. The working fluid heats up, begins to expand and forms “steam”. This inorganic steam turns a turbine in a process that is similar to the system that is based on water-steam. The turbine in kind turns a generator which produces the required electricity.

Two technologies commonly used today to produce electricity in a “binary” plant are the Rankine Cycle [named after its Scottish inventor, William Rankine] and more recently, the Kalina Cycle [named after its Russian inventor, Aleksandr Kalina].
There are many advantages to deep well binary geothermal energy: efficiency, availability of a large resource, environmental and economical. Let us explore a few.
AVAILABILITY/RELIABILITY: NATIONAL SECURITY ENHANCEMENT
One huge advantage of employing a binary geothermal power system over a direct water-vapor system [dry steam or flash steam system] is that a binary system is not limited to near-surface thermal zones where the reservoir water is extremely hot, such as those zones that are found in the western United States [e.g., the “Geysers, located in California] or other “hot zones” near the “Ring of Fire”. Such hot zones represent a resource that is much too limited. Because hot zones possess too little thermal energy potential, they alone are incapable of generating and providing the vast quantities of electricity that will be needed to power an electric-centric transportation universe. A binary geothermal power system does not require the reservoir water to be as hot as a dry or flash steam system requires because the hot water in a binary geothermal system is not used to produce its own steam to turn a turbine; rather, the hot water is used to superheat the inorganic working fluid that boils at a lower temperature. The inorganic working fluid’s “steam” turns the turbine. The benefit of using lower water temperatures to produce “steam” and generate electric power translates into a much larger resource – and potentially a vastly more productive one -- that can be accessed across a far greater geographic area, with corresponding economic benefits that are available to a larger pool of localities. Binary geothermal power plants can be developed in any location where the substrate that can be accessed via deep drilling can produce low to medium temperatures that are between 120 - 200 degrees Celsius. This vast heat resource essentially underlies the whole of the earth at various depths, these United States included.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS – RENEWABLE/SUSTAINABLE
The environmental benefits of binary geothermal power are also positive. A binary geothermal system is considered to be a “closed loop” system. Because this type of system is “closed”, none of the fluids [hot water and “working”] are exposed to the environment. Therefore, this system does not discharge any greenhouse gases [carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide] or other harmful substances into the atmosphere. Any such discharges are negligible at best when compared to the atmospheric release of noxious gases that are created when fossil fuels are used as the source of power to generate electricity. A binary deep well geothermal system also maintains a very small “footprint” when compared to the amount of electricity that it can generate. When the footprint of a binary geothermal power plant is compared to the foot print created by large-scale solar power and wind power [both require large surface areas and proper siting to gather their source of energy], binary geothermal’s foot print is insignificant. With a binary geothermal system, the size of the plant is the only space that is used. Therefore, disruption of the surrounding geographic area and damage to the environment is minimized.
Another key advantage of binary geothermal power: with proper management reservoir depletion can be eliminated by calibrating the system so that the injection well continuously replaces the same amount of water that is withdrawn to operate the turbine. This process allows re-injected “spent” [cold] water to reheat in the deep reservoir at the same rate that the reheated reservoir water is withdrawn and pumped back up to the plant. A closed system exists in equilibrium. With continuous utilization techniques, subterranean strata pressures can be maintained so as to limit potential surface subsidence. Concerns about water draw down caused by ancillary evaporation that might occur in an open system are likewise negated in a closed system.
Another advantage of drilling into deep zones: the reservoir to be created will usually be situated far below ground water resources. Therefore, the risk of groundwater contamination caused by pollution from materials trapped in the sediment/rock layers within the reservoir system can be effectively managed. With proper cementing and encasement of the boreholes and production/injection wells, this potential source of contamination can be significantly minimized if not avoided completely. Drilling techniques presently used in petroleum exploration and extraction share a similar concern and may provide a shared solution [i.e., appropriate well casings]. Moreover, some “pools” of oil are located within areas that are close to near-surface aquifers. The risk of contamination of ground water in this situation is significantly greater with oil drilling than with deep well drilling. Contamination with mineralized reservoir water is the greatest threat posed by EGS whereas contamination with raw crude is the greater threat posed by oil production.
Of course, there are problems associated with the development of geothermal energy, as with all forms of energy. A word about a few of the important ones: (1) subsidence; (2) induced seismicity [earthquakes]; (3) thermal depletion.
Subsidence. Subsidence occurs when the land above the reservoir site sinks due to a loss of substrate structure and/or hydrostatic pressure. However, given the anticipated depths at which a reservoir will be created in an EGS project, and with proper construction and operation of the facility, this problem and its adverse effects can be minimized. To do so, the reservoir must be properly managed; the operator must inject the same amount of cool water into the reservoir that it extracts to produce hot water to generate electricity. By injecting the same amount of water that is extracted, the operator maintains a static geologic balance, and the chance of subsidence is significantly mitigated if not eliminated altogether. This unfortunate event is also experienced by the petroleum industry when it extracts oil from subterranean “pools”. When oil is pumped from an underground reservoir the countervailing subterranean pressure that “buoys” the strata above is lost, and this loss of competing pressure causes the surface above to collapse.
Induced Seismicity. Here, micro earthquakes occur and are caused by [“induced”] the activities which create the deep reservoir. Introduction of extremely high hydrostatic pressures into the deep strata to create the fracture zone/reservoir is the culprit. However, because the wells are drilled at such great depths, and the reservoirs consume relatively small geographic zones, these earthquakes are mostly imperceptible and cause no outward damage. The overlying substrate and surrounding earth act as a buffers; they absorb the energy produced by the fracture within the fault zone before it can cause damage at the surface. Once the thermal reservoir is created, the risk of induced seismicity can be minimized by maintaining the thermal reservoir at equilibrium with a constant pressure [i.e., water removed = water injected].
Induced seismicity should be considered an acceptable risk, not only in terms of incidence of occurrence but in terms of potential damage. Proper monitoring and site development can minimize this risk and the associated hazards to a point of insignificance. And, if geothermal power bears this risk, so does underground coal extraction. Certain mining techniques, including underground blasting, may induce seismic events. Sometimes mine-induced seismicity is associated with “coal bumps”, otherwise referred to as “bursts”, “outbursts” or “bounces”. This phenomenon involves the sudden release of geographic strain energy due to underground mining activity, which results in the expulsion of coal from a seam in a catastrophic manner. [see, http://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/mining/pubs/pdf/cmsab.pdf]. Therefore, this risk is a “wash”.
Thermal Depletion. This situation occurs when the hot water contained within the thermal reservoir is extracted through the production well at a rate that is faster than the spent [cooled] water used to heat the working fluid in the binary system is returned to the thermal reservoir via the injection well to be reheated by the surrounding hot rock which surrounds the thermal reservoir. However, with diligent adherence to proper operation, whereby the rate of water removal [thermal discharge] is equal to the rate of water injection [thermal regeneration/recharge] within the thermal reservoir, this problem can be totally eliminated. The EGS plant can therefore operate in perpetuity as a “renewable” and sustainable operation and as long as the earth’s core produces sufficient heat via radioactive decay.
Other considerations, too specific and technical for analysis and discussion here, include: scaling [mineral build-up in the system caused by deposits of dissolved minerals within the reservoir that crystalize when the fluid becomes fully saturated]; permeability of the reservoir substrate and flow rate through the reservoir and up toward the surface [i.e., maintenance of hydrostatic pressure caused by overlying strata – the same pressure that causes the “gusher” when drilling for oil and allows water and magma to flow upward to the earth’s surface]; thermal “evaporation” [where convection from the production well transfers heat to cooler surrounding substrate while the heated water flows upward to the earth’s surface, resulting in a loss of the thermal energy that is used to heat the working fluid within the heat exchanger, thereby depressing the overall efficiency of the system].
In sum, EGS is a much simpler, more efficient, and potentially cheaper and vastly more productive system than one based on �

Reply

↓↑report

Alage will give us time to go on to other forms of cleaner fuels right now we need to use anything we can to get us away from the Middle East.

Reply

↓↑report

Could you explain all that again Chris...

Reply

↓↑report

Ok, so then what's next? How long before this is brought to market? Will this power all gas engines exactly the same with no power loss and no long term issues? What will the 91 oct do for smaller engines? Will this be bought and sold as regular gas and end up at you local gas station? Is the infrastructure in place to produce, sell and distrubte this nationwide or how long will it take, etc?

Innovations are awesome, we need them. But we also need a purchaseable product soon.

Reply

↓↑report

Saying this is carbon neutral is like saying corn Ethanol is carbon neutral. There are likely very large energy inputs ( heat the water) that goes into this.

I bet it is better than Corn Ethanol (what isn't?) but it won't be carbon neutral.

Tell me energy in vs energy out.

Like the optimistic number for Ethanol:

1.0 units in = 1.3 units out.

Reply

↓↑report

There was no mention of the details of the process involved, but there are 3 possibilities:
1. They have an algae that directly produces long chain alkane hydrocarbons like Octane, possibly developed through genetic engineering. Considering the toxicity of such hydrocarbons, that is unlikely but not impossible. The only energy needed is sunlight and enough to separate the fuel from the growing algae and purify it.
2. The algae produces oils that can easily be converted to alkanes, requiring a bit more energy to process, but still fairly efficient.
3. The algae produces biomass that is run through a thermal pyrolysis process to produce synthesis gas that is then processed into hydrocarbon fuels. This is much more energy intensive, but can still produce more useful energy than is needed for processing.

Of course, eventually the details will get out.

Reply

↓↑report

Kuebler: You've written a very long laundry list of reasons why the EV revolution can't work, but offer no alternative. Are you proposing to just "stay the course" and keep the current system unchanged? Did you realize that the current petroleum based system is even less sustainable? Could it be a misguided effort to support the auto industry in your home state? Didn't you realize that the "Detroit 3" have already started down the plug-in course?

Your arguments are wildly overblown and a bit hysterical, and conveniently ignores the far greater efficiency of electrical power systems. You've also overlooked the fact that reduced demand for petroleum fuels means less demand for electricity to run the refineries that make petroleum fuels.

Efficient and affordable power storage is being developed for EVs, and that is just what intermittent power sources like solar, wind, and tidal energy need to start supplying major baseline power. Even with relatively low efficiency solar conversion, there is enough sunlight falling on the roofs of most nations to provide all their power needs, including transportation - the only remaining holdup is high prices for solar collectors.

Reply

↓↑report

im confused what Duncan is trying to say in his first post? Can someone educate me here on why this blog post is so pointless? I thought it was somewhat interesting but never knew that algae was the very few plants to be carbon neutral (i remember reading something about it needs CO2 from the air to live).

Reply

↓↑report

"Sapphire turns microorganisms, sunlight, and CO2 into renewable gasoline" says it all, and you don't need to be a scientist to figure that burning the stuff can hardly free more CO2 than our friendly micros put in there.

Reply

↓↑report

Hey CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, Esq.,

Thanks for the five page post in the comments section - right on topic with the blog post on algae-derived gasoline.

Next time, you may want to state your name, educational credential, and occupation after your post. You see, I prefer my science to come from scientists and after seeing that you're a Michigan lawyer, that pretty much invalidates anything you write. Best wishes.

Reply

↓↑report