Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Microbes to Convert Coal to Methane and Algae Fuel are Both Close to Industrial Scaleup
Next Big Future ^ | Apr. 3, 2009 | Brian Wang

Posted on 04/04/2009 4:15:52 PM PDT by decimon

>

Biofuels technologies appear capable of someday producing 200,000 barrels of jet fuel a day—enough to supply the needs of the U.S. Air Force—from algae grown on less than 800,000 acres. [10-11 gallons per day or 3650-4000 gallons per year] “It’s not crazy to imagine that by the year 2050 we (the United States) could become an oil exporter again,” Briggs said. 80 million acres would replace the current oil demand of the United States. 3% of total land in the United States. Other estimates are 1-2% or less as the processes are improved. Light pipes allow for deeper algae ponds and over ten times more efficient land usage.

>

(Excerpt) Read more at nextbigfuture.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Science
KEYWORDS: algae; energy; naturalgas

1 posted on 04/04/2009 4:15:52 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney

Coal bug ping


2 posted on 04/04/2009 4:17:12 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I should have indicated that the excerpt does not address the title.


3 posted on 04/04/2009 4:19:13 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon
When you look at it the right way...

You'd be talking about a small part of our desert territory in Nevada and Arizona, deserts are the optimal area for this sort of farming. We should be able to stop importing oil in a year or two.

4 posted on 04/04/2009 4:22:52 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Now, if they could grow the algae in seawater........


5 posted on 04/04/2009 4:28:23 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

They need a microbe that eats oil slicks and shit$s gold..


6 posted on 04/04/2009 4:33:24 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: decimon
Biofuels technologies appear capable of someday producing 200,000 barrels of jet fuel a day—enough to supply the needs of the U.S. Air Force—from algae grown on less than 800,000 acres.

1250 square miles? Yeah that is practical. [/sarcasm]
8 posted on 04/04/2009 4:42:21 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the occupation media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
If private enterprise came up with this you can bet it gets blocked by the enviro wackos.

Sea weed is an endangered specie and all that plus you might bring up a Dolphin and you can't kill those microbes!

9 posted on 04/04/2009 4:47:20 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (I'd rather the world hate us then laugh at us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PA Engineer
1250 square miles? Yeah that is practical. [/sarcasm]

1250 square miles in total. Not that much in terms of farm land.

10 posted on 04/04/2009 4:56:28 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PA Engineer

The numbers seem off by a factor of 10. You could produce nearly that much liquid fuel growing switchgrass on that much land mass.

The whole point of algea is to decrease land mass needed for growth.

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to run down the numbers.


11 posted on 04/04/2009 5:13:07 PM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Does anyone honestly believe that the American socialists, communists and democrats will let this country become energy independent? Not on your life! Where would be the crisis to not waste in that?


12 posted on 04/04/2009 5:16:24 PM PDT by ArchAngel1983 (Arch Angel- on guard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Nevada is 110,540 square miles. The federal govt owns 86% of it. Any bets as to what land they would take for this project?


13 posted on 04/04/2009 5:19:24 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Nevada is 110,540 square miles. The federal govt owns 86% of it. Any bets as to what land they would take for this project?

Grow it on the girls in Reno?

14 posted on 04/04/2009 5:28:41 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Converting coal to methane is sort of like converting gold to lead.


15 posted on 04/04/2009 5:30:07 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Yeah but where you gonna get the grass to feed the girls from Reno.


16 posted on 04/04/2009 5:39:52 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Yeah but where you gonna get the grass to feed the girls from Reno.

Harry's stash?

17 posted on 04/04/2009 5:55:07 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
“Converting coal to methane is sort of like converting gold to lead.”

This makes no sense at all. Methane is natural gas. You can burn it in an internal combustion engine and send it through pipes. Both properties make it much more valuable than coal.

If you don't believe me, look up the price per BTU of both.

18 posted on 04/05/2009 12:10:31 PM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

Why do they drill for gas instead, then? Because it’s more economical.


19 posted on 04/05/2009 3:45:44 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Nope, gas is much more expensive than coal.

There are numerous reasons that gas is drilled for. Why has industry chosen the more expensive fuel?

1. It is much cleaner to use natural gas, after you burn coal, you have a lot of dirty residue to deal with.

2. Gas does things than coal doesn’t such as running through an automatic valve to heat your water and burning in an open flame to cook your food without filling your house with carcinogens.

3. NG is much easier to get where you want, put in a pipe and you’re good. Coal is dirty and heavy, the only reasonable way to get it where you want it is to transport it by train, cheaper than NG but not convenient. And speaking of convenience, coal can’t be reasonably extracted in a populated area, you could have a gas well a quarter mile from your house and never know it. A strip mine makes quite the clatter.

Granted in our political environment, we won’t see coal gasification plants but NG has gotten expensive enough to warrent consideration. We should be investing billions in coal to liquid but that is another discussion.

Coal is the least desirable fuel for many reasons but has one advantage that can’t be denied, we’ve have lots of it. Finding more flexible ways to use it is a good thing.


20 posted on 04/05/2009 7:14:21 PM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

You sound like one of these politicians who’s convinced he knows how to do things better than the free market. If turning coal into gas were “much cheaper” than drilling for it, that’s what we’d do. The reality is that the only reason coal is “cheap” is that the demand for coal is very much less than the demand for gas relative to the supply. If we got our gas from coal, our coal supply would be exhausted in just a few years. Back in the 50’s, there was a lot of talk about the fact that our coal supply was going to be exhausted in less than 50 years. Now they say that we have more than a 200 year supply of coal. The reason is simple. We don’t use much coal anymore. During the 50’s, we used it for just about everything. I’m content to let the markets decide these things. Free markets are what made this country great. And the free market is what decided that we should get our gas by drilling, not by converting coal to gas. Use our coal to do things that gas cannot do as efficiently.


21 posted on 04/05/2009 7:42:26 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I don’t know where you get your facts.

Back in the 70’s, the country made a major move towards coal, not away. There is currently tremendous government pressure to move away from coal based on stricter air quality controls and limitations on construction of new coal fired plants. Obama is trying to execute the industry outright with Carbon credits. Regardless, a large percentage of electricity is still produced by coal which was previously produced with petroleum.

Coal is the only fuel that we have an abundance of. We currently import both oil and NG.

The only thing that coal can do that gas cannot do efficiently is provide coke and coal tar.

I didn’t say that turning coal to gas is much cheaper than drilling for it. What I said is that NG is a better fuel than coal which is true. I said that NG is getting expensive enough that coal gasification is becoming attractive which is true. You said “Converting coal to methane is sort of like converting gold to lead.” which is just plain not true.

It is fair that you wouldn’t take my word for it, but do me a favor, look into the facts.


22 posted on 04/06/2009 5:43:32 AM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant; dangerdoc
Converting coal to methane is sort of like converting gold to lead.

In 2008 the average price per BTU of energy was:

$2.07/BTU for Coal

$9.11/BTU for Natural Gas

$10.96/BTU for Petroleum (mixed types, averaged prices)

$20.08/BTU for Distillate Fuel Oil

Cost of Fossil-Fuel Receipts at Electric Generating Plants
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec9_15.pdf

23 posted on 04/06/2009 6:33:07 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: thackney

You can’t measure it simply by the btus. And how much does it cost for NG produced from coal?


24 posted on 04/06/2009 7:56:13 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
You can’t measure it simply by the btus.

How would you measure it?

You statement seemed to claim coal was far more valuable than Natural Gas. A generating station needs to produce heat to turn the turbine to turn the generator. It is a heat engine.

And how much does it cost for NG produced from coal?

The purchaser is not going to care how the gas was produced. Pipeline quality Natural Gas has the same value regardless of the source.

25 posted on 04/06/2009 8:16:37 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: thackney

All I was trying to say is that it’s not economical to convert coal to NG. Otherwise, the market would do it.

We don’t need a cheerleading squad for coal gasification. Just let the market decide how to do these things.


26 posted on 04/06/2009 3:26:27 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

What you said was “Converting coal to methane is sort of like converting gold to lead.”

My point was methane is a more desirable product. I have never called for the government to spend a dime or that any company procede with such a venture. You on the other hand have attempted to create a number of straw men and then knock them down.

How about this, converting coal to gas is like converting silver to gold.

As for it not being economical that is where American ingenuity comes in. We have a NG shortage, we became a NG importer a few years back. If we can meet that energy need with domestic sources such as coal gasification, it makes us more secure and financialy stronger.

I’m not a left winger trying to stop coal mining, I think we need to be mining more and finding more uses for it.

“We don’t need a cheerleading squad for coal gasification. Just let the market decide how to do these things.”

We also don’t need another anti-coal hit squad. Do you think that the current government want us to have more reliable affordable energy? If someone is working on another practical use for coal, they need to be cheered on. If they are successful, they will do more good for this country than every one of us tapping away at our keyboards combined.


27 posted on 04/06/2009 4:59:13 PM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

I’m not anti-coal. Like I said, let the market decide.


28 posted on 04/07/2009 3:25:08 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson