The Coming Climate Change

[Mariss Freimanis]

xyzdonna,

Memory need not serve. From the wiki page, scroll down to "Yields of common crops". Algae is the last item in the list. There are two entries, actual and theoretical for algae, 819 gal/acre/yr and 5,000 gal/acre/yr respectively. The theoretical number is footnoted:

** Algae yields are projected based on the sustainable average biomass yields of the NREL's aquatic species program, and an assumed oil content of 60%. Actual oil content was much less.**

I get two interesting conclusions from the footnote:

1) "Assumed oil content of 60%". One can assume anything; what matters is reality. The second sentence gives an inkling of reality, "Actual oil content was much less.".

2) Your good UNH professor went a good deal further into unreality. He suggested 15,000 gal/acre/yr. That would make the oil content 180%!! Now that is truly miraculous.

Mariss

[jhowelb]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Hi WYLD, My my, aren't we vitriolic and uptight! Take a look at the last century, I can remember when cars came from the factory getting about 10 or 12 MPG. Now those same vehicles get 18 to 20. It's called advanced technology, the result of research and development that yields new and improved results. The numbers from Wikipedia are good, I've validated them from other sources. Also, when you're dealing with biological phenomena the potential for improvement is enormous. Biological entities are incredibly efficient at converting sunlight into protoplasm. After all, they've had millions of years to evolve and perfect their metabolism. Perhaps the reason Mariss and Geof put up with me is that they are open minded seekers of the truth, if it's possible they want to know about it. If anyone has an explanation, they will listen, examine, debate, in other words have a dialog. You on the other hand, simplistically think that your way has to be right because it's your way. Marisse, Goef and I are not of that mindset. I can be persuaded by reason, I'm sure they can too, I doubt that you can. Take care, xyzdonna

10 or 12 mpg? I remember my Fathers 55 Chevy getting 21 and 22 mpg.In my driveway this moment is his 65 Olds Dynamic 88 and it will still get 18 mpg around town. (Exactly of which cars do you speak?)

Not the same cars either, these Kleenex boxes will blow off the highway in a mild breeze and mash flat as a pancake under a medium sized pickup.

Again with Wiki and POTENTIAL improvement. Lets see some real improvement and those other sources.

Be careful about placing yourself in association with that August group, I suspect that there is an element of entertainment afoot.

Typical of left wingers, one who is certain of his position is characterized as ignorant, stubborn, bigoted, homophobic or some other derisive terminology.

Face it this subject is far from settled, let alone science!

[307startup]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Hi WYLD, My my, aren't we vitriolic and uptight! Take a look at the last century, I can remember when cars came from the factory getting about 10 or 12 MPG. Now those same vehicles get 18 to 20. It's called advanced technology, the result of research and development that yields new and improved results. The numbers from Wikipedia are good, I've validated them from other sources. Also, when you're dealing with biological phenomena the potential for improvement is enormous. Biological entities are incredibly efficient at converting sunlight into protoplasm. After all, they've had millions of years to evolve and perfect their metabolism. Perhaps the reason Mariss and Geof put up with me is that they are open minded seekers of the truth, if it's possible they want to know about it. If anyone has an explanation, they will listen, examine, debate, in other words have a dialog. You on the other hand, simplistically think that your way has to be right because it's your way. Marisse, Goef and I are not of that mindset. I can be persuaded by reason, I'm sure they can too, I doubt that you can. Take care, xyzdonna

xyzDonna

Vitriol, yes. Uptight no. The efficiency gains you talk about aren't orders of magnitude beyond the efficiency of the past. Rather, small incremental gains. Many automobiles would be far more efficient if they didn't have to haul around an extra 1000 lbs of sound deadening, electrical components or wider/extra rows of seats. Like everything else in America, BIGGER IS BETTER!!! Why eat ONE cheeseburger when you can gorge yourself on THREE...after all, it only cost $2 extra!
As for efficiency of flora...it still comes down to our ability to process & refine based on technology we have and will develop. Again, small incremental gains, not orders of magnitude...no sci-fi rayguns to instantaneously convert algae to oil. Sorry. The only arena in technology that has increased by orders of magnitude are microcomputers and silicon chips. And those are still small incremental gains when you consider without new technologies we will reach a footprint threshold.
On the CNC front, even mills & lathes of today are built MUCH THE SAME as they have always been, not just for convenience of tradition, but because constant refining has made them a known quantity.
Don't question my ability to gather or interpret data. I have had much more responsibility with the information I have had to gather in my lifetime, peoples lives were literally on the line. I take no chances with that obligation. Were that you would THINK before you SPEAK.

[turmite]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Hi WYLD, Biological entities are incredibly efficient at converting sunlight into protoplasm. After all, they've had millions of years to evolve and perfect their metabolism. I can be persuaded by reason, xyzdonna

Donna, I gotta ask.......reason or logic? Logic or faith? I have read all your posts on this thread, your responses to Mariss and others, and it sure seems to me like you are basing your reason on faith? Where is the logic in that?

These biological entities you speak of.......where did they come from and how did they start? I have only had one agnostic that was able to truly articulate himself when I asked this question. Can you?

Mike

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Mariss Freimanis xyzdonna, Memory need not serve. From the wiki page, scroll down to "Yields of common crops". Algae is the last item in the list. There are two entries, actual and theoretical for algae, 819 gal/acre/yr and 5,000 gal/acre/yr respectively. The theoretical number is footnoted: ** Algae yields are projected based on the sustainable average biomass yields of the NREL's aquatic species program, and an assumed oil content of 60%. Actual oil content was much less.** I get two interesting conclusions from the footnote: 1) "Assumed oil content of 60%". One can assume anything; what matters is reality. The second sentence gives an inkling of reality, "Actual oil content was much less.". 2) Your good UNH professor went a good deal further into unreality. He suggested 15,000 gal/acre/yr. That would make the oil content 180%!! Now that is truly miraculous. Mariss

Hi Mariss,
I agree with you, actual oil content would probably be closer to 40% than 60% but that is just a supposition on my part. They might could get it up to 45% or 50% with genetic engineering. But I believe your 819 gal/acre/year rate of production was derived from open pond as opposed to a closed pond system. Anyone who has ever owned a swimming pool knows that it's a lot easier to maintain in the winter months than in the summer as algae grows so much faster and efficiently in the warmer environs. A closed system would have a lot longer growing season. In short, it would be a much more efficient producer of biomass. I can see at least a 3 or 4 fold increase due to a longer growing season.
So let's multiply your 819 figure by 4 to come up with 3276 gal/acre/year. Still far short of the authors' 15,000 but it may begin to make sense at this number. As the dollar declines the folks in the mid-east are making noises about dropping dollars in favor of Euro's. They would be smart to do that, and we can only assume they will, thus further impacting the dollar & making oil more expensive. By the time this administration leaves Washington it's conceivable that they will have managed to half the value of the dollar since taking office. Can you envision oil at $150 ~ $175 a barrel? Oil has no where to go but up. It's immutable in the long run that it will. We're dealing with a finite commodity. At some point biomass will, I think, be economically competitive with petroleum. As I pointed out earlier it's carbon neutral. And who knows, with global warming we may not even have to cover the algae ponds. It may be so warm that they happily grow year round out in the open!
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by turmite Donna, I gotta ask.......reason or logic? Logic or faith? I have read all your posts on this thread, your responses to Mariss and others, and it sure seems to me like you are basing your reason on faith? Where is the logic in that? These biological entities you speak of.......where did they come from and how did they start? I have only had one agnostic that was able to truly articulate himself when I asked this question. Can you? Mike

Hi turmite,
Where did it all come from? From the primordial ooze or the hand of the creator, ah that's the question. From the point of view of this discussion it doesn't matter, the solution must be in our hands. I think the creator (if there is one) has demonstrated amply that she has no intention of stepping in and saving us from our folly. It's up to us my friend. I too can envision an all knowing super-being watching our world to see where it goes. I think she would enjoy the show, seeing what humankind could make and create. How far we might go before destroying ourselves or our habitat with our folly. I wouldn't count on her bailing us out though. I don't think we should base our future on that hope.
xyzdonna

[One of Many]

Does this hold any substantial clues to where this debate is going?........Those with the power to dictate the rules ultimately have the last say and the ability to prevent public exposure to the contrary.


For the record

DC

[jhowelb]

Originally Posted by One of Many Does this hold any substantial clues to where this debate is going?........Those with the power to dictate the rules ultimately have the last say and the ability to prevent public exposure to the contrary. For the record DC

The article you linked to, this forum indeed, the internet as an entity as well as a brand new player in the field, Fox News, all are evidence that the ability o prevent public exposure is shrinking quickly.

as to the power to dictate the rules, again I will refer you to an old song.........

With compromise sway we give in half way
When we saw that rebellion was growing.
Now everything's lost as they kneel by the cross
Where the blood of Christ is still flowing.
Too late for their sorrow they've reached their tomorrow
and reaped the seed they were sowing.
Now harvested by the ringing of revolution

[jhowelb]

Uhmm.........

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by jhowelb The article you linked to, this forum indeed, the internet as an entity as well as a brand new player in the field, Fox News, all are evidence that the ability o prevent public exposure is shrinking quickly. as to the power to dictate the rules, again I will refer you to an old song......... With compromise sway we give in half way When we saw that rebellion was growing. Now everything's lost as they kneel by the cross Where the blood of Christ is still flowing. Too late for their sorrow they've reached their tomorrow and reaped the seed they were sowing. Now harvested by the ringing of revolution

Hi jhowelb,
To use the word Fox and news in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Fox "news" is Rupert Murdochs' right wing propaganda dispenser. Designed to give the non-thinking masses solace and comfort, while the world goes to hell in a hand-basket.

xyzdonna

[Rekd]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Hi jhowelb, To use the word Fox and news in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Fox "news" is Rupert Murdochs' right wing propaganda dispenser. Designed to give the non-thinking masses solace and comfort, while the world goes to hell in a hand-basket. xyzdonna

To be honest, I'm not sure why anyone would trust anything any MSM had to offer without researching the "facts" for themselves.

[jhowelb]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Hi jhowelb, To use the word Fox and news in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Fox "news" is Rupert Murdochs' right wing propaganda dispenser. Designed to give the non-thinking masses solace and comfort, while the world goes to hell in a hand-basket. xyzdonna

EXACTLY the response I anticipated from a coolaid infected, mind dead, left wing loonytoon who would eat up the crap coming from Algore, Al Franken, Barb Streisand, NBC (Nuthin But Crap) and the like.

Again, anyone who disagrees with you must be denigrated and devalued regardless of the truths they bring forth.

Your side no longer has a monopoly and the harder you fight to gain it back the more you are seen for what you really are.