Marine algae get the green light from Shell

[Stephen Eisel]

Marine Algae (clicky)

SHELL is to become the first major oil company to produce diesel fuel from marine algae.

Algae are a climate-friendly way to make fuel from carbon dioxide. They produce an oil that can readily be converted to diesel, and can be fed CO2 directly from smokestacks. Unlike biofuels such as corn, they don't use up soil or water that could otherwise be used to grow food, which can pump up food prices.

[Steve Hoffert]

Diesel or ethanol from corn is a terrible waste of resources and energy. Plus ethanol has a much lower energy content than gasoline. The only way this becomes profitable is if the government subsidizes its production at the cost of rising food prices to the people. Can anyone say Fascism?

[Stephen Eisel]

It certainly beats twiddling our thumbs....

[Steve Hoffert]

When producing an energy source consumes more than the end product we're better off doing nothing. This whole corn ethanol project is a huge corporate subsidy instead of any real progress such as increasing the efficiency of the the automobile itself.

If you run ethanol in an e85 gm product your gas mileage will plummet. We should be investing our time and money in lighter stronger electric vehicles which are much more efficient even when considering generation costs for electricity.

I work with this stuff everyday. My plants convert sewage into methane that we reuse to create heat and sometimes power. My operation as far as solids handling is considered carbon neutral. We are constantly looking for ways to improve the efficiency of our operation so that each KW goes further. The government is looking for ways to screw us and make the corporations richer

I like the idea of using algae for creating a fuel. I hate the idea of using corn because of its inherent inefficiency. I like the idea of doing more with less. I hate the idea of finding some technological fix so we can keep driving SUV's.

I think we may have the same goals but we approach point B in a different way.

[Stephen Eisel]

I like the idea of using algae for creating a fuel. I hate the idea of using corn because of its inherent inefficiency. I like the idea of doing more with less. I hate the idea of finding some technological fix so we can keep driving SUV's.

agreed..

[Danielle Masters]

I like the idea of using algae for creating a fuel. I hate the idea of using corn because of its inherent inefficiency. I like the idea of doing more with less. I hate the idea of finding some technological fix so we can keep driving SUV's.

Good points. I also wish automakers would hurry up and make some fuel efficient family vehicles. We would love to replace our SUV but going to a mini-van makes little sense when they are just as fuel in-efficient. We have been looking at European models, mainly people movers which seat seven (what we need), but they don't market them hear. Ford S-Max was the European car of the year, it's seats seven and isn't available in the US. Volkswagen has the Touran, a car about the size of the Jetta yet seats seven. Both those cars get over 30 miles per gallon. I'd like to see some innovation in making vehicles, not just holding our breath waiting for something to replace oil, because it's not going to happen.

[Stephen Eisel]

Corn shortages are pushing up the price of beef... just sayin

[dl meckes]

Using food for fuel has got to be one of the most irrational ideas known to humankind - especially a food that is as dense a resource user as corn (as Steve Hoffert points points out).

There are other organic candidates that could and should be used, but no, corn or soya seem to be the only thing anyone can concentrate on.

Other candidates could be equally subsidized if that's what people think they want to do...

[Steve Hoffert]

Using food for fuel has got to be one of the most irrational ideas known to humankind - especially a food that is as dense a resource user as corn (as Steve Hoffert points points out).

There are other organic candidates that could and should be used, but no, corn or soya seem to be the only thing anyone can concentrate on.

Other candidates could be equally subsidized if that's what people think they want to do...

Sugar beets, for example, produce over twice the ethanol and are easier on the land than corn. The fact remains that the overall efficiency of the drive train in the vehicles we drive is less than 15%.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtm

This doesn't take into account fuel refining and distribution costs.

I truly believe conservation is our only hope. Reduce the excesses of our lifestyle. Limit our driving and use electric vehicles for most purposes. Live in energy efficient housing, use renewable energy and eat food that requires less energy to create. Solar energy either from wind or photo cells and an efficient means of storage would go a long way to help but are just not affordable currently.

Maybe instead of spending a trillion dollars on death we could use this money for R & D to create a better society. We should be moving towards Utopia but instead it's beginning to look like the world depicted in Soylent Green.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
Amen, Mr. Hoffert!

We were watching one of the Presidential debates and they were trying to get Ron Paul to take the Iowa Pledge to support ethanol. He would not. But he did bring up that American farmers were being blocked from growing hemp. While Canadian farmers can grow it. Hemp is another possible "better" bio fuel source as is switchback grasses. By our tax dollars funding ethanol because Iowa is the first state on the road to the White House, we are blocking the free market from searching out the "best" biofuel.

Regarding the War for Oil, please see graph below:


(Via Matthew Yglesias)

[Lynn Farris]

One of my favorite episodes of the West Wing was "King Corn" where the one candidate knows that ethanols is a bad idea and all of his advisors are telling him to take the ethanol pledge if he wants to get elected. So he does. Shows how special interest groups in these important primary states can control quite a bit.

http://www.nbc.com/nbc/The_West_Wing/hot_topics/52_kingcorn.shtml

Several links here to the ethanol growers.

What makes me irritated is when we got married 30 years ago, we had a diesel rabbit that got 50 miles to the gallon. Now we can't find a car that can get that kind of gas mileage. We don't even have to invent something new - we can go back to what we had - and that would be doing a lot better.

[Stephen Eisel]

Does this count government subsidies?

[Stephen Eisel]

http://www.energy.gov/news/3150.htm

[Stephen Eisel]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20071220/bs ... 20issues01

Energy Policy: First, Congress comes up with legislation that has no provisions for developing new sources of domestic energy. Then, the House passes a bill that cuts off a potential oil bonanza. When does rationing begin?

Earlier this week, the House passed its $515 billion 2008 omnibus appropriations bill that wisely included funding for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq, as well as the usual largess that Washington uses to return favors.

Yet it has no funds for rule changes that are needed for the commercial oil shale industry to go forward.

"Without these regulations," writes the Heritage Foundation's Nick Loris, "commercial production of oil shale is impossible."

Milking oil from shale and sand is still in an adolescent stage. But continued improvements in technology are encouraging.

In fact, the potential of oil shale to be an abundant energy source is almost breathtaking. According to estimates, more than 2 trillion barrels of oil are trapped beneath the ground in America's Big Sky country.

[Stephen Eisel]

from the above article...

If full-scale production begins within five years, the U.S. could completely end its dependence on OPEC by 2020," Loris wrote Tuesday in a WebMemo.