"World’s first renewable gasoline"

[chadrcr]

Originally Posted by blaSSt

Great! Who's gonna donate the 500-800 mile pipeline to the site! Needs to be 120" in diameter and will only cost about $3million per mile. Is everyone along the route ready to give right of way? We will need recompression pumping stations about every 150 miles to keep it going. They will cost $50million each.



Good Idea. By now surely we can stack it 10 high. Therefore, get all ten of the furnaces at work going to the site donated by chadrcr. Of course our pipeline grows to 300" in diameter. cost blooms to about $6million per mile and the pumping stations are about $100million each.

Now we get to build a structure 10 stories high and 80 acres across. That 52 million square feet. Probably $100/sq ft.

So now we are up to about $10billion investment for 170,000 bbl oil/year. Lets take 25 years to recoup our investment. We've made 4.25 million barrels! Only invested $2,352 per barrel. Not counting operational costs. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it!

Originally Posted by gtahvit

Blasst you are killing me.

I appreciate your particular skill of playing devil's advocate. How bout you give us your answer as to how we should reduce or eliminate our dependency on foreign oil. Or your idea of a reasonable technology/alternative fuel source. I can't believe you are content to just do nothing.

blasst;
Can you use your deep thinking and math skills FOR finding ways to accomplish things, or do they only work to come up with EXCUSES not to do something? Sorry to be negative, dont want to take YOUR spotlight.

[blaSSt]

I admit that I have seemed pessismistic with my points. I hope everyone understands it will take a LOT to begin to solve the problem. Ethanol can contribute, but it will never be more than 5% of the solution. There is no 'one' solution. We only have two energy sources capable of economically meeting todays demands - Fossil Fuels and Nuclear. Everything else is miniscule and worth developing.

1. Responsible conservation.

I say responsible because we do not need to return to the stone ages. We should encourage and reward (tax breaks?) true conservation.

2. Develop domestic energy. Will help with a 20-50 year transition.

With todays technology ANWR the size of Delaware would only need to use land about the size of a medium airport. About 0.02% of the land yielding between 5.6 billion and 16.7 billion barrels worth that lies beneath the coastal plain.

California off shore - Nearly 11 billion barrels of undiscovered oil and 19 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered gas in the region may be recoverable using existing technology.

Oil shale, tar sands, etc.

3. Crank up Nuclear Power.

Fossil fuels account for 70% of electricity production in the U.S. 80% of power in France is generated by Nuclear. With todays breeder technology this could be feasible in the US.

4. Develop alternative sources.

Ramp up Ethanol to 5% of auto fuel demand. (a huge task) Solar, Wind, Hydrogen, etc will always be limited to less than 2% by their very nature. Keep getting better at these. As prices go up more of these will become competitive.

I'm sure I can think of more.

[Mr. Wyndham]

I 100% agree with you!

(Imagine if/when they finally are able to develop Nuclear fusion technology on a commercial scale. Can someone say "Problem just about solved"?)

[chadrcr]

Originally Posted by blaSSt

I'm sure I can think of more.

NOW, you are on the right track.... use your scary math stuff...and do that fusion thing.

no, not CONfusion...

[GTAHVIT]

What an absolute breath of fresh air!

I am in complete agreement. Nuclear power and drilling our own oil reserves should be the priority. These are the most immediate soluitons to our problem.

Thanks for the reply.

Now, I guess the real question is how to we get the Gov off their asses, and the greenie weenies to realize we can do this with minimal impact to the environment.

[DGthe3]

my turn to play devils advocate . . .

Nuclear is great, but what do you do with the waste? Sure its alot less than the ash comming from coal, but America doesn't have a solution to store the waste it currently produces. Increase that by 5x and you will have more serious problems than greenpeace protesting ANWR. Speaking of which, the public opinion of nuclear isn't that high (however misguided). Those who know about nuclear power know its extremely safe, but the public typically cares about what happens when something goes wrong not how likely that event is.

As far as drilling your own reserves, what do you do when they run low after a couple decades of fueling America?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

As far as drilling your own reserves, what do you do when they run low after a couple decades of fueling America?

I'll let someone else tackle the Nuclear issue...I don't know enough about our policies, or waste volumes to answer...

But this (^), I would hope that any drilling would be done under the mindset that this is a temporary relief/solution. Simply done to give us time to shift to something new.

[Muscle Master]

Move over biodiesel and watch out ethanol, there's a new biofuel on the block. California-based Sapphire Energy has announced that it has created a process that nets ASTM certified 91-octane gasoline from little more than algae, sunlight and waste water.

While several other companies produce bio-fuel in a similar fashion, Sapphire's process is a unique technique that produces a uniform product that can be used in gasoline engines without any modifications. Sapphire stresses that their fuel is not ethanol or biodiesel.

According to EcoGeek.org, the company launched a year ago and set off to answer one nagging question: "Why is the biofuel industry spending so much time and energy to manufacture ethanol — a fundamentally inferior fuel?"

Unlike the production of ethanol, Sapphire's production process doesn't use land for fuel crop instead of food crop and virtually eliminates any emissions in the creation process. The end product is a green liquid that is virtually identical to gasoline.

And just to silence any naysayers, Brian Goodall — an employee of Sapphire Energy — just completed a cross-Atlantic flight in a plane powered by the company's biofuel.

Analysts have been wary about the commercial future of 'Green Crude', but a couple of landmark deals could be changing that outlook. Sapphire just landed a $50 million backing from three venture capitalists and GreenFuel Technologies — a similar company — will be setting up a multi-million dollar facility in Europe.

With companies like General Motors investing millions in ethanol companies, we wonder how long it will take before automakers jump on the algae-derived gasoline bandwagon.

fuel out of algae, interesting

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

fuel out of algae, interesting

j.k.

Threads merged. It definitely is interesting.

[GTAHVIT]

Response in bold.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

my turn to play devils advocate . . .

Nuclear is great, but what do you do with the waste? Sure its alot less than the ash comming from coal, but America doesn't have a solution to store the waste it currently produces. Increase that by 5x and you will have more serious problems than greenpeace protesting ANWR. Speaking of which, the public opinion of nuclear isn't that high (however misguided). Those who know about nuclear power know its extremely safe, but the public typically cares about what happens when something goes wrong not how likely that event is.

OK, Look, Nuclear is everywhere. The U.S has 10 nuclear aircraft carriers. And umpteen nuclear submarines. France is producing far more nuclear energy per capita and per acre then we ever will. They seem to be managing the waste problem. Fallout. Very real concern. However, we've come so far in the last few decades at treating radiation that the risk isn't anywhere near what it used to be. Albeit, still very serious. Without nuclear power we are left with limited energy sources. Eventually, they will all be consumed and we will have to use Nuclear power. Geothermal is a great idea but unproven.

We will have to go nuclear eventually. I don't see another technology that is viable any time in the near future..

As far as drilling your own reserves, what do you do when they run low after a couple decades of fueling America?

AGH!!! I'm sorry, responses like this are infuriating. We're running out of oil now. We need to insert competition into the market to bring gas prices back in line so we can get our economy back on track. And, most importantly, buy some time for new fuels and technologies to be matured without paying through the nose for gas all the while. Yes, Oil is a limited resource. Not new news. So, we're either going to use what we have or we just sit on it? This argument ends up in one place; if we don't want to use anymore gas than we have to; it's back to rationing and mass transit, bikes , walking etc. If the only goal is conservation of oil, then we should stop using it now.

[Silverado]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

my turn to play devils advocate . . .

Nuclear is great, but what do you do with the waste? Sure its alot less than the ash comming from coal, but America doesn't have a solution to store the waste it currently produces. Increase that by 5x and you will have more serious problems than greenpeace protesting ANWR. Speaking of which, the public opinion of nuclear isn't that high (however misguided). Those who know about nuclear power know its extremely safe, but the public typically cares about what happens when something goes wrong not how likely that event is.

As far as drilling your own reserves, what do you do when they run low after a couple decades of fueling America?

LOL...well, we seem to be pretty good at hitting Mars, so why not barrel it up, and launch one shot a month or so towards Mars? If it misses, it's headed further out anyway....

Or, since either McCain or Obama will be letting all the Mexicans in here legally, how about we just ship the waste down to Mexico and bury it or stack the barrels up on their southern border to keep the central americans from coming in....

Sure, there are issues dealing with the waste, I won't deny that, but we don't really have to worry about them. We also don't have to worry about the environmental issues that come up when talking about drilling our own oil. The tree-huggers and our own government won't ever let any of that happen.

And, you want to talk about costs? With all the survey requirements, permits, studies, etc that the government makes a company go through, they will be $10B into it before they ever get to pump a barrel of oil to a refinery. Who knows what a new nuclear plant costs now. Our own government has done a fantastic job of blocking our own progress (no, not the Bush administration, our government as a whole....this has been going on for over 30 years).

If they could just get out of the way of progress (of course, what's the opposite of "pro"..."con", so what's the opposite of "progress"...), maybe the brilliant people and the hard working people of this country could get some shit done.

Why won't we drill our own oil? Crap, we're letting Cuba drill our oil for themselves, why shouldn't we do it? Cuba is drilling less than 3 miles off the coast of Florida and taking the oil and the profits with them. That's our oil, but our own regulations won't let us go after it.

Does drilling our own oil get us foreign oil independent forever? No. It does however suddenly make their oil worth less. If we would start drilling our own, prices would come down just so they could sell it. Oh, and if we stopped buying so much of it from them, it wouldn't take long before they were knocking on our doors begging us to buy it. Sure China's buying a lot now....but, that won't continue forever (even less time if we would start taxing their imported crap properly...different topic for a different thread). Their economies would crumble. They wouldn't be able to support terrorists either. See, drilling our own oil has national security implications as well.

[chadrcr]

I like the nuclear waste border idea.....two birds/one stone!

Since we have used nuclear power safely in the military...... a few years now, 50+ . That should be utilized in promoting continued nuclear development, as well as, pursuing additional alternatives.

Anwar oil? give me a break, less than 1% of us have or ever will see the area; make some extensive videos etc.... and drill it. Pay some illegals to go build a new pipeline.... whatever it takes. I hate the tree hugging people keeping 'everyones' trees safe..... cause then 'we' can not get to them to 'hug' them anyway....(the trees)
3¢

[DGthe3]

While the US navy has used nuclear power without incident for decades, the reactor designs are completely different from what is required for a power station. Plus the notion of risk changes a little bit when you are sitting in the biggest target (extremely well defended, still a target though) on the ocean vs your own back yard. Ontario has about 50% of its power generated through our CANDU reactors. It works very well and I have no complaints. But for a nation like the US to start relying on nuclear power, there is going to be lots and lots of waste produced with no where to put it. It could be sent into space sure, although the bill from Nasa might get a tad expensive. The problem is the fact that nuclear waste stays hot for thousands of years. We have no way of building anything that can hold it for that long. The best proposal I have heard is to bury it in an old salt mine. The salt will encase the containers, there is no water, and its geologically stable (I think its in the south west someplace).


Hmm, seems like I've help send this a little off topic.
Worlds First Renewable Gasoline"

[chadrcr]

Andrews Texas wants to store some nuke waste....