How to Replace Oil

This is something I have wondered about. We hear all this hubbub about CO2 emissions. Why not start putting the emissions through biofilters -directing the emissions through algae/bacteria filled rooms which will strip out the CO2 and create more fuel as a biproduct ?

 

I drive a hybrid, have solar panels, get my heat and cooking from natural gas, and my electricity from wind and solar.

That's about the limit of current technology.

 

There is no huge environmental reason oil shouldn't continue to be used as a lubricant. As for biofuels, there is a lot of potential but not sure how scalable some of the ideas currently are. Algae, for instance, in not sustainable and has a high negative environmental impact, mainly because it requires massive amounts of phosphorous which is increasingly limited supply, but also because the carbon output needed to create the optimal temperatures for algae farming comes from fossil fuels. We have a local research center that has studied numerous biofuels and they acknowledge at least that algae isn't the large-scale solution. They are more Team Switchgrass last I heard something out of them.

Of course, if someone had a magic wand and waved it around such that we converted instantly to green energy, there would be massive negative environmental impacts just in that alone, beginning with the extinction of the manatee inside a generation. The heat from those evil power plants has been utilized to warm the pools and streams where they overwinter, leading to their recovery. Without it, they are toast because they are very sensitive to water temperatures.

 

Ah, okay, fair enough. I should have qualified all of this to mean wrt energy. However, energy accounts for the vast majority of petroleum use. Beyond that, many of those chemical feedstocks are used for plastics, which can be made from algae oils. I have stated that the chemical derivatives are some of the most valued products from algae oils. And with thousands of strains of algae, we can't even guess at the potential yet.

So far you have taken three unqualified pot shots without doing any homework to learn about this, which is obvious from your assertions.

Petroleum products consumed in 2015
Product Annual consumption (million barrels per day)
Finished motor gasoline1 9.178
Distillate fuel oil (diesel fuel and heating oil)1 3.995
Hydrocarbon gas liquids (HGL) 2.549
Kerosene-type jet fuel 1.548
Still gas 0.683
Petroleum coke 0.349
Asphalt and road oil 0.343
Petrochemical feedstocks 0.331
Residual fuel oil 0.259
Lubricants 0.138
Miscellaneous products and others2 0.089
Special napthas 0.052
Finished aviation gasoline 0.011
Kerosene 0.006
Waxes 0.006
Total petroleum products
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_use

 

Not true. Firstly, the biggest demand is for nitrogen, not phosphorous. And the alleged peak phosphorous claims are not accurate [see the link below]. Beyond that, there is an infinite source of nitrogen for free. In order to generate the electricity needed to run an algae farm, diesel generators burning algae fuel can be tuned to produce as much nitrogen is needed for the algae growth, in the form of oxides of nitrogen, as well as generating the required CO2. In this case, the energy cost of production becomes a benefit. The cost of the nitrogen is in the energy spent to run the generators. And it is emissions free.

When you calculate the net yield from an algae farm, the energy cost of production is included. This isn't run on fossils fuels.

The biggest problem is not heating anything, rather keeping temperatures low. That is one big reason why the thermally stable ocean water is ideal. These will be run as closed systems. It is a requirement for purity.

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/04/01/phosphorus-essential-to-life-are-we-running-out/

 

Another huge advantage of ocean-based farms is that it eliminates the cost of land and taxes. Because the cost of algae fuels are highly dependent on the cost per square foot of the bioreactor, the cost of land becomes significant.

For the same reason, many highly advanced systems are just pipe dreams. When you calculate the allowable cost in energy and dollars per area of reactor, many approaches can easily be ruled out. They will NEVER be cost effective. It isn't possible. Only those designs having a very low cost per unit area can work. It is elementary math. But it's manageable at some price not too far above where we are now. DARPA said they expect to produce fuels from algae for $3 a gallon. They actually want to produce fuel in the battlefield. Battlefield diesel can cost up to $100 a gallon!!!

And of course one would expect to use a marine [salt-water] algae, so any concerns about water demands evaporate for ocean farms. It takes a lot of water to grow algae. The water is the source of hydrogen used to build the hydrocarbon chains for the oil. I don't remember the molecular structure, but it may take 20 water molecules to make every oil molecule.

 

We also have petrochemical uses of crude. I don't think algae is going to make asphalt and natural gas. Basically it comes down to...if they could of...they would of. Nothing really replaces crude on the scale the humans use it.

 

Actually, most believe that oil is from dead algae (phytoplankton and macroalgae). Coal is from land/marsh plants.

 

It is true, it has been stated repeatedly that it has a phosphorous consumption problem, and at 3,000 gallons of water per liter of fuel, algae is nothing but a novelty. That is 36K gallons of water per week for me alone that would be needed to get back and forth to work

 

The main hurdle is cost. They cost several times the amount that fossil fuels cost.

 

I'm sure you are.

 

I haven't heard anyone at Mobil or Exxon or BP or DARPA talk about phosphorous problems, and they are all working on this. And I provided a link that says the problem is overstated. We are not running out of phosphorous. What we are doing is dumping our renewable supply of phosphorous into the ocean.

The water consumption is irrelevant if farmed in the ocean.'

In a closed system for power production, all of the nutrients and water are preserved, and it is emissions free.

 

With algae we don't need natural gas. Obviously the economics of supplies will determine the source of choice. But by far petro is used mainly for power - both for transportation power and electrical power generation.

We can get hydrogen from algae. MIT was working on that as long as ten years ago.

Just as an interesting bit of trivia, I am sure I read once that there was a time when we pumped hydrogen into homes in some areas, before natural gas was generally available.

We know there is a universe of chemicals hidden in the world of algae - for everything from industry to medicine. People are only now starting to realize the potential. The value of some strains like Spirulina have been known for decades.

 

Yes, but down from about $30-50 a gallon when I first started learning about this. Some sources are claiming they can now make biodiesel for $5 a gallon.

DARPA says it's doable for $3 a gallon.

 

Additionally! Phosphorous is not used for the production of carbohydrates or lipids. So it must be used for the biomass, which is preserved.

It is renewable. We get it back from the algae itself.

 

It looks like the Chinese have made a big breakthrough in the production of H2 from algae



Here is another approach.

 

One thing many experts miss is the amount of power that must be generated onsite to grow and process the algae. A realistic range is 40-50% of the algae processed. So in practice. currently we expect to use 50 out of every 100 gallons of fuel produced, to power the farm for the next harvest.

The beauty of this is that this solves the nitrogen and carbon problems. We get it back from the last batch through the diesel engines. Ironically, the nitrogen comes as oxides of nitrogen from the atmosphere, and the high compression in the engines, as exhaust gases. We then react that with water to form nitric acid - acid rain, also known as fertilizer.

We also get back half the water in a highly purified form - due to the high temperature and pressures in the engines. [correction: more like 25% of the water in practice]

 

I've seen the commercials....Maybe one day....but who knows when? Or even if?

 

I've been researching it since 1980 and I can attest that it's not nearly as promising as it appears on the first take, The solution is multiple renewables and massive conservation, Tungsten hydrides are the only way to make it really safe as a vehicle fuel tank, and the are heavy.

A certain amount of petroleum combustion is okay, some electric and some hydrogen fills it out. Mostly the design of our commodifications on a society wide need complete re thinking.

Our gov is too corrupt and obsessed with control to take this on. Time for our lawful and peaceful revolution.

 

Which is why more and more multinational corporations are investing in this now.

Cite your evidence. There are challenges but naysayers are a dime a dozen and overpriced at that.

I agree that there were many wild and crackpot claims made by arm-chair scientists in the early days.

 

Golly gee, shucks, [sigh] - lies down and dies.

It happens when we make it happen. This isn't complicated. It is a simple choice. Wait until it eventually becomes competitive, or skip a war or a trip to Mars and make it happen now with a Manhattan Project approach.

Why rush? If you don't believe in science, there is no argument that is worth my time to make. Billions of lives might depend on it. But oh well. Right?

It is the silver bullet and the only one.

And I saw it two years before DARPA or any oil or energy companies did. I get the golden wienie award. But in fact this is in a sense the culmination of a life of work. My entire life has been directed towards helping to solve the energy problem. This is the first and only solution I have ever seen. There was a time when I had almost lost all hope. I saw no silver bullet and we were running out of time. Then someone beat me over the head until I took a look at algae. In about two weeks I was all but obsessed.

Now it is just a choice to follow either science, or populism run amok.

 

If it were currently viable then algae would be our source of fuel...

Of course I believe in science...show me the viability of algae fuel.

No...It's time for algae to prove its viability above fossil fuels. I will gladly buy algae-fuel at the gas station.

 

One interesting observation: Hard righties will often oppose this due to, what can only be interpreted as, an emotional attachment to oil. There is also reasonable skepticism. But cynicism is not skepticism.

 

It is viable, It just isn't cost competitive. BIG difference.

I was talking about why? Why should we rush and not just wait for market forces?

Do you believe the use of fossil fuels are driving climate change? That is the science that matters.

It is CO2 neutral. That is why this is important. It is also important to end the reliance on oil before serious disruptions in the supply lead to WWIII. Very small disruptions to the supply can throw the world into chaos. So there are political reasons to do this beyond environmental ones.

But you are correct. It won't happen until it is at least competitive at the pump. You can buy algae fuel if you want to but you will pay more. We can wait for market forces, or drive the change to ensure the security of the nation and the world as quickly as possible.

 

I believe this vehicle used Hydrogen, not for fuel but for lift.