A Revolution in Energy is Coming (1 Viewer)

[Sand]

I keep track of lots of stuff. I figured I'd throw this out since I have never seen so many nascent technologies that I believe have the capability of causing a dislocation in the energy supply of the world. Call me crazy, but in 20 years I don't think we will be worried about peak oil - its usage will have decreased substantially. We won't be worried about increasing CO2 emissions - most new energy won't produce CO2. I don't think I've been this excited about the future of the human race as now. Have a look at what's out there that has promise:

Minor technologies:

Wave Disc Engine: Prototypes are already built and work as advertised. 30% lower vehicle weight, 60% greater fuel efficiency. Can use natural gas, hydrogen, ethanol, gasoline, etc. Spartans are kicking ### here.

Resurgence of Coal: Big knock on coal are the huge CO2 emissions. This is a demo to produce green crude - they need land, sun, and huge amounts of CO2! Match made in heaven. So now the waste product from goal burning will be crude oil.

There are many more out there. Note no mention of the current darlings. Wind is a dead end. Solar is also a dead end until the BOS component cost can come way down - at this point this is what keeps solar from being the big dog.

Major dislocations - from almost there to way out there:

Thorium nuclear power plants: This is being actively researched in China and India and appears to be on the upswing in the US. Why should the US care? Look at the chart - the US has the largest recoverable reserves of thorium in the world. It has been demonstrated in the 60's by US govt. researchers. It is a passive reactor that can't melt down. It can also use the other 97% of nuclear fuel rods left after they can't be used anymore in conventional systems. Cheap energy for nearly forever if we can build it.

Hot fusion: Very promising, with both the National Ignition Facility close to breakeven and these folks with what looks like just some practical engineering design challenges to conquer. If these work the world will see a huge, very quick dislocation in the energy supply of the world.

Cold Fusion: You thought this went away when it couldn't be reliably reproduced the first time this came on the scene? Not so. 3800 people attended the last conference. In fact, in the article linked, the leader in the field states flatly that "There's nothing about the science that would prevent a commercial object from coming into existence." And one company, Brouillin, just got a Chinese patent for their reactor. Great stuff.

Cavitation: Not sure what to make of this one, which is why I tagged it onto the end. Using cavitation forces this group claims to be able to bring systems to market in a year. They say a 25MW reactor would be the size of a desk. And it can transmute metals. And do microsurgery.

I don't which of these will be the thing, but it looks like in the not too distant future we're going to see a massive shift in energy production in the world. I have watched many of these skeptically over the years, but (IMO) it looks like many are real and they are all coming.

Oh, and to the naysayers.

 

[timschochet]

Great stuff, Sand! Thanks for posting this.

It's always so easy to forget, when we are in the midst of discussing our political problems (especially in an election year) that often times change is right around the corner that will make our current issues seem moot and irrelevant. The stuff you posted is really exciting and certainly sheds a new light on things.

 

[timschochet]

Wind is a dead end. Solar is also a dead end until the BOS component cost can come way down - at this point this is what keeps solar from being the big dog.

I'm nowhere near as up on this as you, but everything I read tells me the same thing. And that's why it was distressing to hear Obama refer to wind and solar last night. Not that Romney was any better- while giving lip service to nuclear power (never any specifics) he called for more drilling.

 

[NCCommish]

Lots of good stuff but I disagree on wind and solar. Both technologies have come a long way and there is plenty of work being done with both. They can certainly be part of the solution.

 

[Sand]

Wind is a dead end. Solar is also a dead end until the BOS component cost can come way down - at this point this is what keeps solar from being the big dog.

I'm nowhere near as up on this as you, but everything I read tells me the same thing. And that's why it was distressing to hear Obama refer to wind and solar last night. Not that Romney was any better- while giving lip service to nuclear power (never any specifics) he called for more drilling.

Just like ethanol was, solar and wind are "the thing" right now. Wind is just too local and the energy used to make the turbines makes the energy balance a non-starter. Solar has tremendous potential. But it seems all the research and headlines are about the prime item - the panels. What makes solar a costly bear right now are all the supporting systems that have to go into the system. Until significant effort is put into the "boring" parts it will remain too expensive.

 

[Brady Marino]

Thorium nuclear power plants: It is a passive reactor that can't melt down.

Explain this to me like I'm a hippie.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Wind is a dead end. Solar is also a dead end until the BOS component cost can come way down - at this point this is what keeps solar from being the big dog.

I'm nowhere near as up on this as you, but everything I read tells me the same thing. And that's why it was distressing to hear Obama refer to wind and solar last night. Not that Romney was any better- while giving lip service to nuclear power (never any specifics) he called for more drilling.

Until these other sources come online and even after, domestic oil is very viable. I say we sell high on our oil while the alternatives are coming online.Solar efficiency keeps getting better. I can'rt see solar power plants, bur can see solar used to enhance power in homes and offices.

 

[NCCommish]

Thorium nuclear power plants: It is a passive reactor that can't melt down.

Explain this to me like I'm a hippie.

Essentially Thorium can not maintain a nuclear reaction by itself. You can start one with it but you have to constantly feed it neutrons to keep it going.

 

[Sand]

Thorium nuclear power plants: It is a passive reactor that can't melt down.

Explain this to me like I'm a hippie.

Conventional nuclear reactors - if something goes wrong it requires active power to bring the control rods down to stop the reaction. It also requires power to keep the water flowing to cool the reactor off. If power goes away = a bad thing for conventional. We found that out recently.Passive reactors - this one is a molten salt reactor. The fuel is dissolved into a solution, reactions happen, and heat is extracted. The failsafe here is a salt plug (made of the same solution) that is actively cooled. So, when the power goes off the plug melts and lets the solution out and into a designed holding tank that spreads the heat out, stops the reactions, and allows for a graceful stop to the plant.So one requires power and water to keep from melting down. The other requires power to keep the reactor going.

 

[mon]

Thorium nuclear power plants: It is a passive reactor that can't melt down.

Explain this to me like I'm a hippie.

Essentially Thorium can not maintain a nuclear reaction by itself. You can start one with it but you have to constantly feed it neutrons to keep it going, dude.

fixed

 

[Jobber]

Thanks for the links. This is much more interesting than politics.

Oh, and I am by far the dumbest person in this thread.

 

[Black Box]

Thorium nuclear power plants: It is a passive reactor that can't melt down.

Explain this to me like I'm a hippie.

Essentially Thorium can not maintain a nuclear reaction by itself. You can start one with it but you have to constantly feed it neutrons to keep it going, dude.

fixed

I chuckled.Good thread, thanks

 

[NCCommish]

Thorium nuclear power plants: It is a passive reactor that can't melt down.

Explain this to me like I'm a hippie.

Essentially Thorium can not maintain a nuclear reaction by itself. You can start one with it but you have to constantly feed it neutrons to keep it going, dude.

fixed

Thanks my bad

 

[joetrow]

Good stuff. Heterotrophic algae and possibly thorium is where I'm putting my educational emphasis. Biggest concern I see with renewables is that oil companies can and will price them out if they start to lose their dominance of the energy markets. At $100 a barrel a lot of these things make sense, but at $20 a barrel do any of these things make sense?

I do think algae will become green gold though. You could clean waste-water with algae, reduce runoff from farms while allowing them to produce their own bio-fuels, clean co2 emission (although I don't think algae ponds are the way to do this)... its ####### endless, and not only economical but also beneficial to the environment. And, as long as the government doesn't interfere, I don't think as a whole it can be monopolized by big businesses. They may be able to monopolize massive algae ponds, but that's the least efficient way to produce algae because of light penetration problems and the space required. Localized production of bio-fuels and other products synthesized from oil using oils derived from heterotrophic algae is where its at IMO. I'm betting my future on it.

 

[Thunderlips]

The Powers That Be don't want free and cheap energy. They want to have something to sell you. It's going to take an monumental "socialist" shift in the mindset of Americans to get free and cheap energy.

 

[NCCommish]

Good stuff. Heterotrophic algae and possibly thorium is where I'm putting my educational emphasis. Biggest concern I see with renewables is that oil companies can and will price them out if they start to lose their dominance of the energy markets. At $100 a barrel a lot of these things make sense, but at $20 a barrel do any of these things make sense?

I do think algae will become green gold though. You could clean waste-water with algae, reduce runoff from farms while allowing them to produce their own bio-fuels, clean co2 emission (although I don't think algae ponds are the way to do this)... its ####### endless, and not only economical but also beneficial to the environment. And, as long as the government doesn't interfere, I don't think as a whole it can be monopolized by big businesses. They may be able to monopolize massive algae ponds, but that's the least efficient way to produce algae because of light penetration problems and the space required. Localized production of bio-fuels and other products synthesized from oil using oils derived from heterotrophic algae is where its at IMO. I'm betting my future on it.

I really like the work being done in algae. They have been at it for a while and it looks like they are on the verge of some good stuff.

 

[beer 302]

I would suggest strapping you, Grue, BnB, Ned and a few others to treadmills/bikes ala Lance Armstrong in the ESPN commercial and we could alleviate the US's dependance on foreign power altogether.

 

[rascal]

Wave Disc Engine: Prototypes are already built and work as advertised. 30% lower vehicle weight, 60% greater fuel efficiency. Can use natural gas, hydrogen, ethanol, gasoline, etc. Spartans are kicking ### here.

Where did you here that prototypes are built and work as advertised? Last I heard that were having problems in developing a car sized engine/generator.

 

[roadkill1292]

The Powers That Be don't want free and cheap energy. They want to have something to sell you. It's going to take an monumental "socialist" shift in the mindset of Americans to get free and cheap energy.

We call that the "FavreCo Theory" after a discussion some months ago about thorium as a possible fuel for automobiles in the future.Really interesting stuff going on out there. I'll join the others who really like algae as a prospective fuel.

But you have to give real credit to the slender handful of guys who looked behind the facade of the Fleischmann-Pons debacle, saw a glimmer of enormous potential and have kept pounding away at cold fusion (low energy nuclear reactions, to be precise) in the decades since. Theirs is the trickiest of fields but if they break through then everything changes.

 

[Brony]

Cold Fusion: You thought this went away when it couldn't be reliably reproduced the first time this came on the scene? Not so. 3800 people attended the last conference. In fact, in the article linked, the leader in the field states flatly that "There's nothing about the science that would prevent a commercial object from coming into existence." And one company, Brouillin, just got a Chinese patent for their reactor. Great stuff.

I've lost all faith in this one. Mainly due to Elisabeth Shue's performance in The Saint.

 

[rascal]

Cold Fusion: You thought this went away when it couldn't be reliably reproduced the first time this came on the scene? Not so. 3800 people attended the last conference. In fact, in the article linked, the leader in the field states flatly that "There's nothing about the science that would prevent a commercial object from coming into existence." And one company, Brouillin, just got a Chinese patent for their reactor. Great stuff.

I've lost all faith in this one. Mainly due to Elisabeth Shue's performance in The Saint.

Shut your blasphemous mouth

 

[glumpy]

 

[17seconds]

Thanks for the links. This is much more interesting than politics.

Don't come back because it'll get there within a page or 2.

 

[Brady Marino]

Good explainations on Thorium. So what's stopping a mass movement of extracting this stuff and putting this in existing/building new reactors for it?

 

[quickhands]

If we can harness KA.....its a wheel ya know.

 

[roadkill1292]

Good explainations on Thorium. So what's stopping a mass movement of extracting this stuff and putting this in existing/building new reactors for it?

From what I've read, even though it's fairly scalable, startup and construction costs are still pretty high. We'll learn a lot from the Indians' efforts in the next decade.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

the future of wind energy or a bunch of hot air?

 

[roadkill1292]

the future of wind energy or a bunch of hot air?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsHUALU--Wc

That's pretty cool. I wonder what the helium costs? Overall, it seems pretty cost efficient, especially if it really does generate twice the power. What am I missing?

 

[Dragons]

I love reading about this stuff. Thanks for posting.

 

[spreagle]

Forget the energy production side of things, energy conservation side like PHOLED displays and lighting is much better. Payoff is immediate and not pie-in-the-sky.

 

[Ryan99]

Cavitation: Not sure what to make of this one, which is why I tagged it onto the end. Using cavitation forces this group claims to be able to bring systems to market in a year. They say a 25MW reactor would be the size of a desk. And it can transmute metals. And do microsurgery.

This one's BS as far as I can tell. They go as far as referencing zero point energy. Let me tell you definitively, as a scientist, that what's in that link is not science.

 

[Mister CIA]

Television activated.

 

[Mr. Soup Nazi]

Cold Fusion: You thought this went away when it couldn't be reliably reproduced the first time this came on the scene? Not so. 3800 people attended the last conference. In fact, in the article linked, the leader in the field states flatly that "There's nothing about the science that would prevent a commercial object from coming into existence." And one company, Brouillin, just got a Chinese patent for their reactor. Great stuff.

I've lost all faith in this one. Mainly due to Elisabeth Shue's performance in The Saint.

Shut your blasphemous mouth

Best post in the thread. I'm still in love with Daniel san's girl.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

the future of wind energy or a bunch of hot air?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsHUALU--Wc

That's pretty cool. I wonder what the helium costs? Overall, it seems pretty cost efficient, especially if it really does generate twice the power. What am I missing?

Less than 5% total cost I read

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Thanks for the links. This is much more interesting than politics.

Oh, and I am by far the dumbest person in this thread.

Not anymore.The large scale stuff in the OP is way beyond my ken. But some of the other stuff - solar and wind - are easier to wrap my few remaining brain cells around. I think solar, especially, will continue to make termite-like inroads on a grass roots level even if the big corporations are concentrating on sexier energy sources.

 

[Ryan99]

Solar is the only long term (I mean long term) solution. That's where almost all the energy on our planet comes from anyway, so it makes sense to go to the source (the other source is gravity, I can explain this further if anyone is interested).

 

[roadkill1292]

Resurgence of Coal: Big knock on coal are the huge CO2 emissions. This is a demo to produce green crude - they need land, sun, and huge amounts of CO2! Match made in heaven. So now the waste product from goal burning will be crude oil.

I just now got around to reading this link and it was pretty interesting. This company claims that its algae oil is ready upon harvesting to be shipped to the refinery. Previously I had thought that refining costs were the biggest roadblock to algae oil use because it was of a different makeup.This one facility will have an estimated capacity of 1 million barrels per year. And we currently import about 3 billion barrels per year. If my math is correct, and their costs are in line with traditionally produced crude, we could damn near build our way to oil independence with a few thousand of these facilities. Really interesting development, I'm gonna start following this company's progress.

Oh, and I would like to hear more of Dr. Ryan's thoughts on what's in the near future for solar. He's right in that we can't ignore it, there's so much of it if we can just figure out how to use it.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Solar is the only long term (I mean long term) solution. That's where almost all the energy on our planet comes from anyway, so it makes sense to go to the source (the other source is gravity, I can explain this further if anyone is interested).

no thanks

Disagree, gb. 'Splain, Ryan

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Resurgence of Coal: Big knock on coal are the huge CO2 emissions. This is a demo to produce green crude - they need land, sun, and huge amounts of CO2! Match made in heaven. So now the waste product from goal burning will be crude oil.

I just now got around to reading this link and it was pretty interesting. This company claims that its algae oil is ready upon harvesting to be shipped to the refinery. Previously I had thought that refining costs were the biggest roadblock to algae oil use because it was of a different makeup.This one facility will have an estimated capacity of 1 million barrels per year. And we currently import about 3 billion barrels per year. If my math is correct, and their costs are in line with traditionally produced crude, we could damn near build our way to oil independence with a few thousand of these facilities. Really interesting development, I'm gonna start following this company's progress.

Oh, and I would like to hear more of Dr. Ryan's thoughts on what's in the near future for solar. He's right in that we can't ignore it, there's so much of it if we can just figure out how to use it.

I'm in, roadie. Point the way and I'll follow.

 

[Ryan99]

Solar is the only long term (I mean long term) solution. That's where almost all the energy on our planet comes from anyway, so it makes sense to go to the source (the other source is gravity, I can explain this further if anyone is interested).

no thanks

Disagree, gb. 'Splain, Ryan

Well, there's actually three (I forgot about nuclear, which is actually more important than gravitational right now I believe). The sun is obvious, sun rays add energy to the earth. Nuclear materials were present when the earth was formed (the materials themselves were formed in stars, if you have an interest in this I suggest reading about star death) and contribute energy by decaying. The other source of energy was from the dust cloud collapsing to from the earth. Objects have gravitational potential energy, and when the object falls, that potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy, and when the object hits the ground and stops the energy has been transformed into heat (some of it may have gone into breaking chemical bonds between atoms, if the object broke apart for instance).So, before the earth was formed, there was a big dust cloud. As the cloud collapsed under the effects of gravity, the particles accelerated, then collided. This heated the particles up. This is why the core of the earth was melted rather than solid metal. The core is still 'molten', but I think the general consensus is that the reason its still hot is because of radioactive decay.

 

[Ryan99]

Oh, and I would like to hear more of Dr. Ryan's thoughts on what's in the near future for solar. He's right in that we can't ignore it, there's so much of it if we can just figure out how to use it.

I'm not a PhD, just a graduate student in physics. Also I'm not an energy researcher; if you follow this stuff I'm sure you know more about the technology than I do. I just meant that ultimately all the energy comes from the sun, and every step you add in between reduces efficiency, so eventually we need to be directly harvesting solar to get the best efficiency. The 'energy cycle' of fossil fuels, for instance, is something like the plants use the sun's energy to grow, animals use the plants energy to grow, animals die and turn into fossil fuels, we burn them and get the sun's energy out (but only a very, very small fraction of what went in). At every step you lose maybe 90% of the energy that went in.The only thing about short term solar that I know is from a guy in my group who does quantum mechanics. I'm not real up on solar panels, but apparently they can only absorb photons at a certain energy, so most of the light that hits them isn't absorbed ... that's why they're so inefficient. My buddy's thesis was on designing a material that, due to quantum effects, can make use of more than one "energy band" at a time, increasing efficiency. This is all purely conceptual right now as far as I know, although the theoretical work has all been done and it should work.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I thought we gave up on cold fusion after this happened?

 

[Sand]

Wave Disc Engine: Prototypes are already built and work as advertised. 30% lower vehicle weight, 60% greater fuel efficiency. Can use natural gas, hydrogen, ethanol, gasoline, etc. Spartans are kicking ### here.

Where did you here that prototypes are built and work as advertised? Last I heard that were having problems in developing a car sized engine/generator.

Here. When they talk about good sized engines and bulking up into the MW range I figured a car engine size was easy.

Good explainations on Thorium. So what's stopping a mass movement of extracting this stuff and putting this in existing/building new reactors for it?

Mass extraction isn't a big deal - just mining. Gotta design and build new reactors. The science to prove the reactions is there, but the engineering to get all the systems working together properly isn't. Still very developmental. And one of the reasons this is so frustrating. Imagine if we would have kept working on this (instead of uranium based). Uranium was chosen due to its breeder capabilities for weapons. If we had developed thorium over the last 40 years we would have an incredible energy supply and we would be able to offer up this type of technology to the Iranians, for example - since it isn't a breeder reactor getting weapons material out would be very tough. I blame everyone from about Ford on up for this debacle.

 

[BassNBrew]

Solar is the only long term (I mean long term) solution. That's where almost all the energy on our planet comes from anyway, so it makes sense to go to the source (the other source is gravity, I can explain this further if anyone is interested).

no thanks

Disagree, gb. 'Splain, Ryan

Well, there's actually three (I forgot about nuclear, which is actually more important than gravitational right now I believe). The sun is obvious, sun rays add energy to the earth. Nuclear materials were present when the earth was formed (the materials themselves were formed in stars, if you have an interest in this I suggest reading about star death) and contribute energy by decaying. The other source of energy was from the dust cloud collapsing to from the earth. Objects have gravitational potential energy, and when the object falls, that potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy, and when the object hits the ground and stops the energy has been transformed into heat (some of it may have gone into breaking chemical bonds between atoms, if the object broke apart for instance).So, before the earth was formed, there was a big dust cloud. As the cloud collapsed under the effects of gravity, the particles accelerated, then collided. This heated the particles up. This is why the core of the earth was melted rather than solid metal. The core is still 'molten', but I think the general consensus is that the reason its still hot is because of radioactive decay.

You seem to have forgotten about God. I would suggest more prayer for oil or another energy source.

 

[Sand]

the future of wind energy or a bunch of hot air?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsHUALU--Wc

Good one. I forgot about that one - haven't heard of anything there in a bit.

 

[roadkill1292]

Good stuff. Heterotrophic algae and possibly thorium is where I'm putting my educational emphasis. Biggest concern I see with renewables is that oil companies can and will price them out if they start to lose their dominance of the energy markets. At $100 a barrel a lot of these things make sense, but at $20 a barrel do any of these things make sense?

I do think algae will become green gold though. You could clean waste-water with algae, reduce runoff from farms while allowing them to produce their own bio-fuels, clean co2 emission (although I don't think algae ponds are the way to do this)... its ####### endless, and not only economical but also beneficial to the environment. And, as long as the government doesn't interfere, I don't think as a whole it can be monopolized by big businesses. They may be able to monopolize massive algae ponds, but that's the least efficient way to produce algae because of light penetration problems and the space required. Localized production of bio-fuels and other products synthesized from oil using oils derived from heterotrophic algae is where its at IMO. I'm betting my future on it.

This is a pretty interesting viewpoint. Why are algae ponds the least efficient method of production? What ways are better and how do they lend themselves to more localized production? That would be pretty sweet to have production and refinement going on everywhere.

 

[Ryan99]

Good stuff. Heterotrophic algae and possibly thorium is where I'm putting my educational emphasis. Biggest concern I see with renewables is that oil companies can and will price them out if they start to lose their dominance of the energy markets. At $100 a barrel a lot of these things make sense, but at $20 a barrel do any of these things make sense?

I do think algae will become green gold though. You could clean waste-water with algae, reduce runoff from farms while allowing them to produce their own bio-fuels, clean co2 emission (although I don't think algae ponds are the way to do this)... its ####### endless, and not only economical but also beneficial to the environment. And, as long as the government doesn't interfere, I don't think as a whole it can be monopolized by big businesses. They may be able to monopolize massive algae ponds, but that's the least efficient way to produce algae because of light penetration problems and the space required. Localized production of bio-fuels and other products synthesized from oil using oils derived from heterotrophic algae is where its at IMO. I'm betting my future on it.

Like, interfere by enforcing patent law? You better believe that the genetics of these GMOs will be patented. If we're very, very lucky the major breakthroughs will come from academia and the research will be publicly available.

 

[joetrow]

Good stuff. Heterotrophic algae and possibly thorium is where I'm putting my educational emphasis. Biggest concern I see with renewables is that oil companies can and will price them out if they start to lose their dominance of the energy markets. At $100 a barrel a lot of these things make sense, but at $20 a barrel do any of these things make sense?

I do think algae will become green gold though. You could clean waste-water with algae, reduce runoff from farms while allowing them to produce their own bio-fuels, clean co2 emission (although I don't think algae ponds are the way to do this)... its ####### endless, and not only economical but also beneficial to the environment. And, as long as the government doesn't interfere, I don't think as a whole it can be monopolized by big businesses. They may be able to monopolize massive algae ponds, but that's the least efficient way to produce algae because of light penetration problems and the space required. Localized production of bio-fuels and other products synthesized from oil using oils derived from heterotrophic algae is where its at IMO. I'm betting my future on it.

This is a pretty interesting viewpoint. Why are algae ponds the least efficient method of production? What ways are better and how do they lend themselves to more localized production? That would be pretty sweet to have production and refinement going on everywhere.

I'll prefix by saying all the info I have is from reading google scholarly articles and documentaries, and lots of pipe-dreams, so no real world experience.Land requirement is a big one. Maximum depth of these algae pools isn't very great because of light penetration limitations. Where as with non-photosynthetic algae they can be grown in vats

. The lipid content in the heterotrophic algae is much greater, I don't recall exactly how much but in the neighborhood of 20% (I think it was ~50% lipid content vs ~30%, using the same strain of mixotrophic algae, multiple studies). You have much better control cultivating the algae, and, as long as proper techniques are used, no chance of cross-contamination. The only knock I've seen against heterotrophic algae is that you need to feed it, but if you use waste products there is the potential to actually be compensated for obtaining the feedstock.Reasons I think that localized production will/could be optimal are low/no shipping costs, the ability to source waste feed without creating demand, smaller capital requirements, and I think people would be inclined to favor locally produced fuels over those produced elsewhere. Smaller capital requirements is the big one for me though. It doesn't seem like it would be practical to build one ginormous building to then ship in (and probably pay for) waste and ship out fuel to fuel a state when compared to multiple production facilities sized to efficiently fuel communities utilizing that communities waste. It would at least be harder to get caught with your pants down (big debt with low fuel prices) if a smaller facility was used.

 

[Dragons]

Good stuff. Heterotrophic algae and possibly thorium is where I'm putting my educational emphasis. Biggest concern I see with renewables is that oil companies can and will price them out if they start to lose their dominance of the energy markets. At $100 a barrel a lot of these things make sense, but at $20 a barrel do any of these things make sense?

I do think algae will become green gold though. You could clean waste-water with algae, reduce runoff from farms while allowing them to produce their own bio-fuels, clean co2 emission (although I don't think algae ponds are the way to do this)... its ####### endless, and not only economical but also beneficial to the environment. And, as long as the government doesn't interfere, I don't think as a whole it can be monopolized by big businesses. They may be able to monopolize massive algae ponds, but that's the least efficient way to produce algae because of light penetration problems and the space required. Localized production of bio-fuels and other products synthesized from oil using oils derived from heterotrophic algae is where its at IMO. I'm betting my future on it.

This is a pretty interesting viewpoint. Why are algae ponds the least efficient method of production? What ways are better and how do they lend themselves to more localized production? That would be pretty sweet to have production and refinement going on everywhere.

I'll prefix by saying all the info I have is from reading google scholarly articles and documentaries, and lots of pipe-dreams, so no real world experience.Land requirement is a big one. Maximum depth of these algae pools isn't very great because of light penetration limitations. Where as with non-photosynthetic algae they can be grown in vats

From what I'm reading, "local production" will mean local to refineries, not local to the fuel's use. This is less helpful, as it will still require large production near refineries, not spread out across the country.Awhile back I thought I remember reading about algae pooping out diesel, not crude oil, but the article linked above indicates it will refine just as well as crude.

 

[Sand]

Like, interfere by enforcing patent law? You better believe that the genetics of these GMOs will be patented. If we're very, very lucky the major breakthroughs will come from academia and the research will be publicly available.

Universities are just about as aggressive with IP as for profits. They need the revenue.