I'm still waiting for Hollywood to turn this book (read in my youth) into a movie:
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/d/ger ... ant-59.htm
So Dies Peak Oil
Only if CO2 led to global warming.D Tibbets wrote:I fail to see what is remarkably new here. This is basically what algae does. You need the sunshine, and surface area to produce given amounts of product. Perhaps they have tweaked the efficiency of the bacteria somewhat, or modified the environmental limits the bacterial can tolerate, otherwise nothing new.
As far as environmental hazards. If the bacteria escaped into the seas, you might get algae blooms worse than currently, and even a resetting of global CO2 levels to slightly(?) lower levels. In a worse case scenario this might actually lead to runaway global cooling.
Dan Tibbets
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Figure 200 W/sq m - 24 hours a day (i.e. about +/- 1 Kw/sq m when the sun shines).JohnP wrote:Does anyone have time to calculate how much energy you can harvest from sunlight from 10,000 square miles, given the few-percent efficiency of photosynthesis? Keeping in mind sunlight is available about half the day at most.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Multiplied by conversion efficiency.MSimon wrote:Figure 200 W/sq m - 24 hours a day (i.e. about +/- 1 Kw/sq m when the sun shines).JohnP wrote:Does anyone have time to calculate how much energy you can harvest from sunlight from 10,000 square miles, given the few-percent efficiency of photosynthesis? Keeping in mind sunlight is available about half the day at most.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon,MSimon wrote:Only if CO2 led to global warming.D Tibbets wrote: .... In a worse case scenario this might actually lead to runaway global cooling.
Sorry, the two do not necessarily equate. IF the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is practically peaked out, then adding more will not do much harm, but removing some may.
This very long term graph suggests that we may be at a point where losing any more CO2 may do nasty things to Earth, including starting another ice-ball.
It is interesting to note that the changes in CO2 level being gnashed about these days equate to about the thickness of the line on this graph. Hardly a significant issue in the grand scheme of things!
This graph illustrates exactly why the global warming promulgators are criminals against humanity. It is well-known by historians that ancient civilizations (Egypt, Rome, etc.) did far better during warmer times and that they were crashed by global cooling (both Egypt and Rome). There has never been a period where humanity has benefited from global cooling.
As the graphs show, we actually have too little amospheric CO2 and need to get busy producing lots more of it.
As the graphs show, we actually have too little amospheric CO2 and need to get busy producing lots more of it.
What are these solar figures?
Just yesterday I was looking up actual solar figures here:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/ns ... /13729.txt
Granted, these are for flat plate thermal collectors, and you would need to know more about the efficiency of algae. But 2% sounds low. Photosynthesis should be close to or beat PV panels.
The data above are 30-year max, min and averages and include panel angles and the effects of weather. I used the Elkins, WV data (about 39 deg north) and even in January I get 3 kW/m^2 per day. Annual average is around 4.2 kW/m^2 per day.
And the "waste heat" is not necessarily wasted. Whatever the organisms don't use should be useful in processing the product (pre-heating at least). My panels can boil water at stagnation, and two of these 48 square ft panels crank out an average of 60,000 BTU/day, average, even in January.
Will photosynthesis to produce biomass work? Heck yes. Consider that 60,000 BTU is about what I get from burning 7.5 pounds of seasoned oak, which is produced from photosynthesis. Supposedly algae is more efficient in using sunlight by some modest integer multiple. The only real question is the utility of the resulting biomass.
So the real question in this case is if this outfit really has the bugs it claims, and if so how do the numbers work out.
Just yesterday I was looking up actual solar figures here:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/ns ... /13729.txt
Granted, these are for flat plate thermal collectors, and you would need to know more about the efficiency of algae. But 2% sounds low. Photosynthesis should be close to or beat PV panels.
The data above are 30-year max, min and averages and include panel angles and the effects of weather. I used the Elkins, WV data (about 39 deg north) and even in January I get 3 kW/m^2 per day. Annual average is around 4.2 kW/m^2 per day.
And the "waste heat" is not necessarily wasted. Whatever the organisms don't use should be useful in processing the product (pre-heating at least). My panels can boil water at stagnation, and two of these 48 square ft panels crank out an average of 60,000 BTU/day, average, even in January.
Will photosynthesis to produce biomass work? Heck yes. Consider that 60,000 BTU is about what I get from burning 7.5 pounds of seasoned oak, which is produced from photosynthesis. Supposedly algae is more efficient in using sunlight by some modest integer multiple. The only real question is the utility of the resulting biomass.
So the real question in this case is if this outfit really has the bugs it claims, and if so how do the numbers work out.
Dan,
Cyanobacteria are not anaerobes. They produce oxygen. They probably caused a huge die-off of existing life when they first started cranking out oxygen, because it was undoubtedly toxic to the strict anaerobes that existed then. It is a waste product for them but they tolerate fair amounts, and IIRC utilize the Krebs cycle at night.
Any cyanobacteria used for fuel production would want to be in a water medium, though. Dry them on the desert floor in hot sun and they should die. The context of the question is what would happen if they were spilled.
Some species can live in rock crevices, where sunlight is attenuated and there is almost no UV.
The original mention of E. coli was a red herring. They are "facultative" anaerobes. They can stand and utilize some oxygen, but typically live as anaerobes. Most strict anaerobes are killed almost instantly by very low levels of oxygen.
Cyanobacteria are not anaerobes. They produce oxygen. They probably caused a huge die-off of existing life when they first started cranking out oxygen, because it was undoubtedly toxic to the strict anaerobes that existed then. It is a waste product for them but they tolerate fair amounts, and IIRC utilize the Krebs cycle at night.
Any cyanobacteria used for fuel production would want to be in a water medium, though. Dry them on the desert floor in hot sun and they should die. The context of the question is what would happen if they were spilled.
Some species can live in rock crevices, where sunlight is attenuated and there is almost no UV.
The original mention of E. coli was a red herring. They are "facultative" anaerobes. They can stand and utilize some oxygen, but typically live as anaerobes. Most strict anaerobes are killed almost instantly by very low levels of oxygen.
You're using a straw-man here. Most global warming "promulgators" are not going to claim life as a whole will do worse in the very long term with higher temperatures.kurt9 wrote:This graph illustrates exactly why the global warming promulgators are criminals against humanity. It is well-known by historians that ancient civilizations (Egypt, Rome, etc.) did far better during warmer times and that they were crashed by global cooling (both Egypt and Rome). There has never been a period where humanity has benefited from global cooling.
As the graphs show, we actually have too little amospheric CO2 and need to get busy producing lots more of it.
Regardless of how the balance of life works out over many millenia, in the sort term dramatic swings in climate (whether the swing finally ends up in a better place) will cause much suffering in the "short"-term. Sure, maybe life was more prolific in Jurassic era, but then again, more than a few people would be less than thrilled about a United States that looked like this:
(Just to be clear-- no one is claiming AGW is going to send us back to Jurassic temps)
The problem with the above picture is that it reflects plate tectonics, etc., not the amount of liquid water available, at least at these magnitudes. Unless you claim the melting of all of the glaciers would result in a sea level rise of up to several thousand feet.
Dan Tibbets
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
Unfortunately not. Regular terrestrial stalked and woody plants average about 3% (IIRC). The best I have seen for algae is about 8% and that was for specifically bred strains.Tom Ligon wrote:What are these solar figures?
Just yesterday I was looking up actual solar figures here:
Granted, these are for flat plate thermal collectors, and you would need to know more about the efficiency of algae. But 2% sounds low. Photosynthesis should be close to or beat PV panels.
Wiki wrote:Plants usually convert light into chemical energy with a photosynthetic efficiency of 3–6%.[26] Actual plants' photosynthetic efficiency varies with the frequency of the light being converted, light intensity, temperature and proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and can vary from 0.1% to 8%.[27] By comparison, solar panels convert light into electric energy at an efficiency of approximately 6–20% for mass-produced panels, and up to 41% in a research laboratory.[28]
The hit in efficiency might not be too bad since the storage problem is solved (liquid fuel) and the value of the output (liquid fuel) is higher than the value of electricity.KitemanSA wrote:Unfortunately not. Regular terrestrial stalked and woody plants average about 3% (IIRC). The best I have seen for algae is about 8% and that was for specifically bred strains.Tom Ligon wrote:What are these solar figures?
Just yesterday I was looking up actual solar figures here:
Granted, these are for flat plate thermal collectors, and you would need to know more about the efficiency of algae. But 2% sounds low. Photosynthesis should be close to or beat PV panels.
Wiki wrote:Plants usually convert light into chemical energy with a photosynthetic efficiency of 3–6%.[26] Actual plants' photosynthetic efficiency varies with the frequency of the light being converted, light intensity, temperature and proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and can vary from 0.1% to 8%.[27] By comparison, solar panels convert light into electric energy at an efficiency of approximately 6–20% for mass-produced panels, and up to 41% in a research laboratory.[28]
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.