›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Humanity to Peak Oil and Global Warming: "WE GOT THIS"

WindUpBirdWindUpBird
edited November 2012 in Science
University of Michigan figures out how to convert tanks of algae directly to crude oil in 10 minutes. 65% of the biomass is returned as crude oil.

Good job, science. A+++, would consider doing PhD work in this field again, provided this discovery doesn't end my grant prospects.
Post edited by WindUpBird on
«13456

Comments

  • Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
    Broken link.

    Also, holy shit.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited November 2012
    Also, really glad to see that I was right, and algal fuel is the future of biofuel.

    Think about it: This means zero infrastructure needs to be changed. We build a set of bioreactors half the size of Maine and build a reaction vessel, and that's it. That's enough crude oil for America EVERY YEAR, and it's all usable by our cars, power plants, and plastics manufacturers. All the carbon in the oil comes out of the air, so there's no net carbon emissions. Convert non-arable land to bioreactor farms, and we'll actually be a net producer of oil. We'll be the new Saudi Arabia.

    Also, need to get the atmospheric CO2 levels down? Just make oil and then stockpile it instead of burning it. Boom.

    THIS IS THE FUTURE YOU WERE PROMISED
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • ErwinErwin
    It is really a brand new day! :D
  • AprecheApreche
    Doesn't help global warming that much. You still have to set it on fire at some point. Though, a lot less will be burned because we can make the oil anywhere, and less exhaust from tankers moving oil all around the world. That's assuming this makes it all the way.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    What you're missing is that the carbon to make the fuel comes from the air.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited November 2012
    What you're missing is that the carbon to make the fuel comes from the air.
    Ding ding ding.

    There's no net carbon emissions here, no matter how much oil you burn. If you stockpile oil (in salt domes, let's say), you're actually pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere, without putting it back in.

    Scott needs to read up on the carbon cycle.

    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • SquadronROESquadronROE
    Wow. I'm glad to hear that you're willing to contribute to the mass murder of algae. Algae are alive, Nine. They deserve rights.
  • AprecheApreche
    What you're missing is that the carbon to make the fuel comes from the air.
    Ding ding ding.

    There's no net carbon emissions here, no matter how much oil you burn. If you stockpile oil (in salt domes, let's say), you're actually pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere, without putting it back in.

    Scott needs to read up on the carbon cycle.

    There are other things released into the air when you set oil on fire besides carbon.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited November 2012
    Not at optimized burns, and not when your fuel source isn't contaminated (like coal) with inorganic sulfur. It's negligible.

    The bigger deal is that the electric car is over, and we have stopgap until our grid is 100% renewable.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • ErwinErwin
    edited November 2012
    If anything, I think we might increase the percent of Nitrogen in the atmosphere. I am not sure what kind of changes in our environment that would produce though.
    Post edited by Erwin on
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    If anything, I think we might increase the percent of Nitrogen in the atmosphere. I am not sure how dangerous that could be.
    We need bioreactors fixing gaseous nitrogenous compounds. Problem solved.

  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited November 2012
    There are other things released into the air when you set oil on fire besides carbon.
    Even so, carbon dioxide is by far the biggest deal of all anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and hence carbon-neutral energy is a pretty big deal.

    Of course, there's also the environmental footprint of cultivating the algae to consider.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • no fun girlno fun girl
    If anything, I think we might increase the percent of Nitrogen in the atmosphere. I am not sure what kind of changes in our environment that would produce though.
    plant a fucktonne of clover and peas?
  • ErwinErwin
    If anything, I think we might increase the percent of Nitrogen in the atmosphere. I am not sure what kind of changes in our environment that would produce though.
    plant a fucktonne of clover and peas?
    I would be the prefect place to celebrate St. Patrick's Day.
  • Dr. TimoDr. Timo
    Wow, global warming -> boiling oceans -> all algae turns to crude -> peak oil averted!!
  • muppetmuppet
    Internal combustion engines all over the world =/= optimized burns.

    This is good, but this is still an intermediate solution to energy.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    Wow, global warming -> boiling oceans -> all algae turns to crude -> peak oil averted!!
    Badabing, badaboom.
    Internal combustion engines all over the world =/= optimized burns.

    This is good, but this is still an intermediate solution to energy.
    Not really. Gasoline is the most energy-dense storage solution we have. Our transportation will never run on anything else, unless we're willing to give up airplanes and ships for small-load dirigibles.
  • muppetmuppet
    I'll remain quietly optimistic until after they've managed to weather the oil industry's inevitable assault on this technology. They'll be flexing their trillions of dollars and legions of bought politicians to make sure they get sole control of this, if they allow it to see the light of day at all, and make sure profits are unaffected.

    But, maybe not. I won't be holding my breath.

    I agree, gasoline is as energy dense as we know how to be right now. It's still a shit solution. It seems pretty archaic to power everything with fire and controlled explosions that belch tons of shit into the atmosphere, whether or not you're going to offset some of the emissions somewhere else at a later time. We've won when you can stand next to an arbitrary interstate highway or downtown city intersection and take a deep breath without regretting it.
  • Jack DraigoJack Draigo
    Got a better solution than fire?
  • muppetmuppet
    Well first it depends on how you define "fire" but no, right now there's no drop-in solution. That doesn't mean that what we have is ideal. If we were limited to what we can currently imagine, we'd still be clubbing our dinner over the head every night and pissing wherever was convenient.
  • GregGreg
    I'm actually against this. It introduces the risk of a genocide against orcs in the name of clean energy.
  • Linkigi(Link-ee-jee)Linkigi(Link-ee-jee)
    edited November 2012
    Additionally, what about finding/making a useful algae that will float near the surface of seawater? Anchor some barriers around that shit, and we can farm the fucking ocean. Awww yeah.

    (Actually, farming the ocean would be damn hard, but I would be amazed if some enterprising soul couldn't figure it out)
    I'm actually against this. It introduces the risk of a genocide against orcs in the name of clean energy.
    HERESY -BLAM-
    Post edited by Linkigi(Link-ee-jee) on
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited November 2012
    Bioreactors are better because they won't mess with ocean chemistry. Algal blooms kill millions of fish annually by making water hypoxic.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • Dragonmaster LouDragonmaster Lou
    Well, until we have practical cold fusion or antimatter, gasoline is as good as it gets.

    Ok, I'm exaggerating, but this solution alleviates the more immediate problems while buying us time to come up with better solutions. Arguably, the problem of finding worthwhile replacements for internal combustion engines is a much, much harder problem than finding an alternative fuel source for said engines.
  • muppetmuppet
    This is good, but this is still an intermediate solution to energy.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    I'd agree to all of that.

    Don't forget the usefulness of sequestration to oil for geoengineering, though!
  • SquadronROESquadronROE
    Why did people do this instead of just researching Nuclear Power? That works in Civilization.
  • JasonJason
    This is why I rarely worry about doomsayer futurist predictions. People like Norman Borlaug exist as a resource. Now to find the lab that stops global warming....
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    This is why I rarely worry about doomsayer futurist predictions. People like Norman Borlaug exist as a resource. Now to find the lab that stops global warming....
    They've done it, though. As long as you are producing oil and not burning it, the atmosphere sees a net-loss of carbon dioxide!

    You can also do this with other microbes to break down sulfur and nitrogen greenhouse gases.
  • Jack DraigoJack Draigo
    That's it! I'm buying a Hummer and giving a Prius an anal exam on the highway!
Sign In or Register to comment.