Alternative Power sources - biodiesel from algae

Author

biodiesel from algae

Viator

2005-12-23, 11:21 pm

People nowadays are saying that algae is a great organism
to use to create biodiesel, because some algae are 50% oil
and they grow very quickly in hot environments. However
I'm curious what countries like those in Europe are doing to
develop this new prospect, what with their overwhelming
dependence on diesel fuel (less so in the US) and especially
Germany's offering biodiesel at filling stations. Anybody know?
Thanks.

Dan Bloomquist

2005-12-23, 11:21 pm

Viator wrote:
> People nowadays are saying that algae is a great organism
> to use to create biodiesel, because some algae are 50% oil
> and they grow very quickly in hot environments. However
> I'm curious what countries like those in Europe are doing to
> develop this new prospect, what with their overwhelming
> dependence on diesel fuel (less so in the US) and especially
> Germany's offering biodiesel at filling stations. Anybody know?
> Thanks.

You may want to join this group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oil_from_algae

They have done a good job of ferreting out as much information on the
topic as would seem possible. Not much more than these backyard
experimenters have taken this very seriously.

As nuclear and solar are the only sustainable abundant source of energy,
it should be taken seriously. The trouble with algae in the longer term
is the sequestration rate of carbon from the atmosphere. In the shorter
term carbon can come from electrical producers.

Hope this helps.

Best, Dan.

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney

Ron

2005-12-25, 4:21 pm

Off subject, but what about just using peat that makes lakes and bogs
shallow. Using it would create more lakes for recreation and water
storage. Possibly also allowing opportunity for mini hydro plants.

I would guess that peat resources are vast, especially in the Nordic
countries. The same is true of the northern U.S. and Canada and other
parts of the world.

Would appreciate any references.

Algae groing is a great way to go though. It has the same problem as
peat, which is a lot of drying.

Ron Wagner

Ron Wagner

Ron

2005-12-25, 4:21 pm

Biomass is abundant and naturally sustainable. It together with
insulation and all forms of conservation of energy would be sufficient
to meet all of mankinds needs without nuclear. We have no way possibe
of disposing safely of nuclear waste.

Solar , wind , geothermal, and hydro make it all the more possible.

It is all a matter of will, and economics , and politics.

The harder we work for the best alternative energy sources the harder
the big companies will try to monopolize the possibilitiles.

Ron Wagner

G. R. L. Cowan

2005-12-25, 4:21 pm

Ron wrote:
>
> Biomass is abundant and naturally sustainable. It together with
> insulation and all forms of conservation of energy would be sufficient
> to meet all of mankinds needs without nuclear. We have no way possibe
> of disposing safely of nuclear waste.
>
> Solar , wind , geothermal, and hydro make it all the more possible.
>
> It is all a matter of will, and economics , and politics.
>
> The harder we work for the best alternative energy sources the harder
> the big companies will try to monopolize the possibilitiles.
>
> Ron Wagner

Big *money*, not big companies, is the influence to be wary of.
Ron Wagner appears unwary. The difference is, big money gets to
its mouthpieces not just through corporate earnings, but through
*taxation*.

People who lie about the effectiveness of nuclear waste storage to date,
and advocate every competitor to fossil fuel energy *except* nuclear,
appear to be singing for their public petrodollar supper.

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

JoeSP

2005-12-25, 6:21 pm

"Viator" <x660y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135392843.489542.117860@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> People nowadays are saying that algae is a great organism
> to use to create biodiesel, because some algae are 50% oil
> and they grow very quickly in hot environments. However
> I'm curious what countries like those in Europe are doing to
> develop this new prospect, what with their overwhelming
> dependence on diesel fuel (less so in the US) and especially
> Germany's offering biodiesel at filling stations. Anybody know?
> Thanks.
>

It always looks incredibly easy on the surface, before you know any of the
obstacles. Why not just genetically engineer trees with gas pumps in the
trunk? Plenty of biofuel alternatives exist, and have existed for decades,
but nothing has appeared so far which can compete with cheap hydrocarbons
flowing out of a well. If and when they run out, we may be forced to adopt
some of those alternative fuels on a large scale.

More important than energy supply may be carbon emissions. Biofuel will
continue to emit carbon into the amosphere like fossil fuels. The answer to
that may come from hydrogen.

Falk Willberg

2005-12-25, 7:21 pm

JoeSP schrieb:
....
> Biofuel will
> continue to emit carbon into the amosphere like fossil fuels.

Yes. But most of this carbon was taken from the atmosphere only a few years
before. Fossil fuels emit carbon that was in the atmosphere some million
years ago. (IMO we emit carbon that was concentrated in 250.000 years in
one! year.)

> The answer
> to that may come from hydrogen.

And, how do you think, hydrogen can be produced? You need energy to produce
hydrogen. If you burn fossil fuels to produce that energy you will emit
carbon.

Falk (Who's car is running on straight vegetable oil)

Amanda Angelika

2005-12-25, 11:21 pm

In news:RJErf.6563$km.3910@edtnps89,
JoeSP <olegp@telus.net> typed:
> "Viator" <x660y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1135392843.489542.117860@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> It always looks incredibly easy on the surface, before you know any
> of the obstacles. Why not just genetically engineer trees with gas
> pumps in the trunk? Plenty of biofuel alternatives exist, and have
> existed for decades, but nothing has appeared so far which can
> compete with cheap hydrocarbons flowing out of a well. If and when
> they run out, we may be forced to adopt some of those alternative
> fuels on a large scale.

I wouldn't be to sure about that Hydrogen Peroxide costs pennies per gallon
and there aren't many gasoline powered cars capable of 0 - 450mph in 3.4
seconds, a max acceleration of 7.5 Gs

http://www.swissrocketman.com/ete25.html
--
Amanda

bsr3997@my-deja.com

2005-12-26, 3:21 am

Time for a reality check.

I went to my medicine cabinet and got out the Hydrogen Peroxide. It
was a 16 oz. bottle (473 ml) purchased for 79 cents in 1998. Granted,
you shouldn't have to pay $.79*16=$12.64 a gallon, but I'm sure it is
more than "pennies per gallon". Then I read the ingrediants. Turns
out it is 3% H2O2 and 97% deionized water. Suspecting something more
concentrated was needed I went to the web site.

First thing it says is that the first stage is (Hydrogen Peroxide
90%)producing 2500 lbs of thrust, while the second stage is (JP-4 or
JP-10) producing another 1700 lbs. Some how I suspect that JP stands
for Jet Propelent or something other than H2O2. Let's read further and
see if it tells what reactions are going on.

Doesn't tell us too much but does mention a catalyst and adjusting the
stochiometric ratio of propellants. My guess at this point is that the
H2O2 is decomposed and the excess oxygen is used to burn the fuel. It
also appears this car is really a 560 lb Go-kart. I hit the "Home
Page" link to see if there is more there.

All kinds of neat stuff there. One that catches my eye is the H2O2
concentrator. Why the need for a concentrator? Well it appears there
are "very strict regulations" about transporting the concentrated
stuff. Care to guess why? Anyway, you can get a handy dandy little
unit that allows you to convert dilute H2O2 to 90% H2O2 at a rate of 3
lbs/hr (about 1.5 Liters) while using about 2 killowatts of electric
power. That Go-kart had a 33 Liter tank for its 3.4 second run.

Clicking on "easy kit" gives more info. It appears dilute means 60%
H2O2. It also gives some info on the energy produced by decomposition
for the two concentrations.

I don't know about you, but I think I've seen enough to be sure that
there wont be many Hydrogen Peroxide powered cars roaming the streets
any time soon.

Bruce

Amanda Angelika wrote:
> In news:RJErf.6563$km.3910@edtnps89,
> JoeSP <olegp@telus.net> typed:
>
> I wouldn't be to sure about that Hydrogen Peroxide costs pennies per gallon
> and there aren't many gasoline powered cars capable of 0 - 450mph in 3.4
> seconds, a max acceleration of 7.5 Gs

> http://www.swissrocketman.com/ete25.html
> --
> Amanda

bsr3997@my-deja.com

2005-12-26, 3:21 am

Ron wrote:
> Off subject, but what about just using peat that makes lakes and bogs
> shallow. Using it would create more lakes for recreation and water
> storage. Possibly also allowing opportunity for mini hydro plants.
>
> I would guess that peat resources are vast, especially in the Nordic
> countries. The same is true of the northern U.S. and Canada and other
> parts of the world.
>
> Would appreciate any references.
>
> Algae groing is a great way to go though. It has the same problem as
> peat, which is a lot of drying.
>
> Ron Wagner
>
> Ron Wagner

Why bother drying it? Run the algae through some process that releases
the oil into the water and skim the oil off the top. If the process
kills the algae it can be left in the water to feed the next crop.
Better yet would be a process that would release the oil without
killing the algae. That should produce the next crop quicker. Just
milking the microbes ;)

Bruce

Dale Farmer

2005-12-26, 5:21 am

bsr3997@my-deja.com wrote:

> Time for a reality check.
>
> I went to my medicine cabinet and got out the Hydrogen Peroxide. It
> was a 16 oz. bottle (473 ml) purchased for 79 cents in 1998. Granted,
> you shouldn't have to pay $.79*16=$12.64 a gallon, but I'm sure it is
> more than "pennies per gallon". Then I read the ingrediants. Turns
> out it is 3% H2O2 and 97% deionized water. Suspecting something more
> concentrated was needed I went to the web site.
>
> First thing it says is that the first stage is (Hydrogen Peroxide
> 90%)producing 2500 lbs of thrust, while the second stage is (JP-4 or
> JP-10) producing another 1700 lbs. Some how I suspect that JP stands
> for Jet Propelent or something other than H2O2. Let's read further and
> see if it tells what reactions are going on.
>
> Doesn't tell us too much but does mention a catalyst and adjusting the
> stochiometric ratio of propellants. My guess at this point is that the
> H2O2 is decomposed and the excess oxygen is used to burn the fuel. It
> also appears this car is really a 560 lb Go-kart. I hit the "Home
> Page" link to see if there is more there.
>
> All kinds of neat stuff there. One that catches my eye is the H2O2
> concentrator. Why the need for a concentrator? Well it appears there
> are "very strict regulations" about transporting the concentrated
> stuff. Care to guess why? Anyway, you can get a handy dandy little
> unit that allows you to convert dilute H2O2 to 90% H2O2 at a rate of 3
> lbs/hr (about 1.5 Liters) while using about 2 killowatts of electric
> power. That Go-kart had a 33 Liter tank for its 3.4 second run.
>
> Clicking on "easy kit" gives more info. It appears dilute means 60%
> H2O2. It also gives some info on the energy produced by decomposition
> for the two concentrations.
>
> I don't know about you, but I think I've seen enough to be sure that
> there wont be many Hydrogen Peroxide powered cars roaming the streets
> any time soon.
>
> Bruce

Hydrogen Peroxide is extremely dangerous stuff. A hydrogen peroxide
fueled torpedo, having a fuel leak leading to an explosion was what
sunk that russian sub a couple years ago. The UK experimented
with it as a torpedo fuel in the 60s, which they abandoned as too
f*ing dangerous.

--Dale

Dan Bloomquist

2005-12-26, 2:21 pm

Ron wrote:
> Biomass is abundant and naturally sustainable.

This claim still remains unsubstantiated. Show your numbers.

> It together with
> insulation and all forms of conservation of energy would be sufficient
> to meet all of mankinds needs without nuclear.

Moving to sustainable, including nuclear, is something that won't happen
with a snap of the fingers.

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

> We have no way possibe
> of disposing safely of nuclear waste.

This claim still remains unsubstantiated.

> Solar , wind , geothermal, and hydro make it all the more possible.
> It is all a matter of will, and economics , and politics.

Relative to the immensity of current demand and future demand, this is
just easy to say. To do it is something else.

> Ron Wagner

Best, Dan.

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney

Dan Bloomquist

2005-12-26, 2:21 pm

JoeSP wrote:

> More important than energy supply may be carbon emissions. Biofuel will
> continue to emit carbon into the amosphere like fossil fuels...

Didn't you claim biofuels were not carbon neutral before? Didn't you
ignore all the explanations of why that was false? Will you continue
this claim out of ignorance and belief?

Best, Dan.

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney

Maximust

2005-12-26, 7:21 pm

JoeSP

2005-12-27, 3:21 pm

"Maximust" <maxi_must@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15_rf.651938$x96.125234@attbi_s72...
> Viator wrote:
>
>
> Never went into any kind of reasonable production. It is merely a paper
> from the
> university of New Hampshire. You'll have better luck filling your car with
> water.
>
>

Around 1971 or 1972 as I recall, there was a poster floating around in
connection with an environmental campaign that urged everyone to switch to
the Wankel rotary engine. The rationale was apparently because it polluted
less than conventional engines.

Unconsidered, apparently before so much money was spent, was the fact that
the engine used 25% more fuel than conventional engines at that time. I
bring up this example because this posting reminds me of the way do-gooders
often suggest such ideas as the "perfect solution" without due
consideration. I suggest a thorough search of all available data before such
suggestions are made. There are often a lot more cons than pros to some of
these ideas, once all the facts are in.

LinkBot