[adamg (OP)]

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html [nofollow]

Is this for real? Because if it is than mankind's salvation has arrived in the form of algea!

-able to produce up to 15,000 barrels of bio-diesel,(carbon neutral renewable fuel)/acre/year!

-Can be fed waste water from human sewers and animal farms

-can produce highly nitrogen rich fetilizers, no petro-chemicals needed!

What does this mean for the UK?

Well according to the CIA world factbook, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html [nofollow]

the UK consumes 1.722 million barrels of petrol/day, (15th in the world, good for you UK).

That is 6.2853 billion barrels/year.

Now the UK is not a terrible sunny spot of land, so let us assume a conservative 5,000 barrels/acre/year, (1/3 of max in sunny climes like the Sonoran Dessert).

so 6.2853 billion barrels/year would require 125,706 acres of land, or 316.1003075687559 square kilometers!

Now according to the CIA world fact book, 23.23% of UK land is arable.

That means that only .5632% of arable land on the emeral isle can replace all the petrol in the UK!

Now imagine what you could do with hybrid-bio diesels, with plug in options, that utilize wind and tidal energy!

Or carbon fiber cars that weigh half as much as current models and reduce consumption even more!

Am I wrong in my glee? Is a hydrogen economy still the future? If so why? With bio-diesel 14 times as energy dense as H2.

Any thoughts?

Adam Andrew Galas

[adamg (OP)]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id [nofollow] /8129979/

Here is the car of the future! Today!

70 mpg and not a hybrid! And a Cd of .06!

Now imagine this vehicle made of carbon fiber, 50% less weight, a 50% smaller engine, at least double the mileage to 140 mpg!

Now add a super efficient hybird system like the upcoming third generation Toyota HSD, with lithium ion batteries and a plug in option. At least double the mileage again to 280 mpg!

And the whole time running on 100% renewable, carbon netural algea based bio-diesel that is grown in the UK!

And here is some more info on the economics of algea bio-diesel!

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/biodiesel.html [nofollow]

At the conservative estimates mentioned above, algea bio-diesel would cost 29.74 Pounds/ barrel! Current oil goes for 40.06 Pounds/barrel and will no doubt increase in the future.

The technology is here! The economics work! Algea can save us all! Surely they are the most wonderfull organisms to ever grace the earth's surface! First they oxyginate the atmosphere, fueling life, now they will fuel our economies!

Adam Andrew Galas

[heikki]

[]

Hi, Adam.

Do you really think that human-kind solve this global energy-problem?

I think that not.

Why?

Many reasons.

1. Our life-style is wrong at many kind.
2. Our mind-thinking basic level is also wrong at many ways.
3. Finance-economy laws wich control us is mainly wrong nature-basic.

Basically human-kind cannot solve this energy-problem because there is not time any more so much. Todays thinking and economy laws dont see that our future because there is no mathematical feedback system of this systems. Also basic physics scient has this same problem but little bit different.

I think that science-peopple and basic science-theoryes live some kind of un-matter dream world and try to make more food, oil, technics, from nothing. It is not possible. Our earth-ball is not so big that it can do and allow that all what we want and dream.

Some scientist talk space and others planets? This is biggest dream-world life error what we thought. We cannot get anything more from nearest planets to our all living nature forms. Todays human-kind dont get help other planets or any other places. Problem is our hands but if we dont realize this problem we cannot correct path direction.

Do we want solve energy-problem? If, then it need to think first, what is our life-style? How nature work? What is food? What is life? And why we dont want to join together all over to world to solve this problem? Why? Technics, science, and that kind of stuff dont solve this problem, if we cant change our life-style ant thinking basic better.

I think that global energy problem cannot solve through todays thinking systems, we need more. I dont know what, and mainly i dont much gare, because it is not my problem. My lifestyle is economy, i dont eat much, i dont have car(no many to buy it), i dont travell much, i dont use much technics, etc. And i try to support life on my life.

Mainly our scient- and economy basic systems dont see nature and understand that these systems lives in nature because nature part nature and cannot eat itself timeles free. Many old theoryes which has born at 1800-1900 centuryes need new nature-basic feedback and new life-theoryes, but how these theoryes can born, because all education systems brain-teaching all students these old-basic theoryes.

Human-kind has forget nature limited resources. Why? I think that one control theory is atom-theory. Other is mathematical economy systems.

But, future is future. I dont know what happend future decades. Hope that good all us.

br. Heikki.


[]

[Hadrian]

How about not using any more energy then you can replace?

What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by heikki

1. Our life-style is wrong at many kind.
2. Our mind-thinking basic level is also wrong at many ways.
3. Finance-economy laws wich control us is mainly wrong nature-basic.

What does it mean to say any of these things are wrong.

Clearly, they are imperfect, because in the real world perfection does not exist; but these things have allowed us to survive this far, and thrive; so they cannot be all wrong.

Clearly, one can say always that the problems of tomorrow will be different from the problems of yesterday, so the solutions for tomorrow must be different from the solutions of yesterday; but none of this is to say that the solutions of yesterday were wrong, only that they need to be improved upon for tomorrow.

George

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Hadrian
How about not using any more energy then you can replace?

What does this mean?

Energy is conserved, and is neither consumed nor replaced.

What we do is increase entropy, but this is unavoidable, since it is a consequence of Newton's second law of thermodynamics.  We, as is all nature, are merely creatures subject to this same law.

It is true that we have been able to accelerate the creation of entropy to a degree that other life has not, but no life can ever reverse the second law, nor can life even exist without creating some acceleration in the creation of entropy, we just do it more successfully than most other life.

George

[Hadrian]

Hey George it was just a thought a sort of printable to live by. If each of us had to created the energy to replace the energy we consumed I bet we use less.

What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.

[Laith]

Maybe it’s good for Britain, but I don’t think it would solve the world’s energy crisis.
The average car consumes carbon 10x as much as it's driver, now we are having trouble feeding the people of the world, and the trouble is increasing with global warming, so wouldn’t using even more land to grow fuel for cars be dangerous?
Thanks to our politicians we will probably end up using land form third world countries even more than we’re using now, and they are the ones in need for food.


Laith

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Hadrian
If each of us had to created the energy to replace the energy we consumed I bet we use less.

We'd use none at all – not least because we'd be stone dead.  We can only live by using energy (or, more accurately, increasing entropy of the environment), so if we in no way increase the entropy of the environment, we would be dead.

George

[heikki]

[/quote]

We'd use none at all – not least because we'd be stone dead.  We can only live by using energy (or, more accurately, increasing entropy of the environment), so if we in no way increase the entropy of the environment, we would be dead.

[/quote]

[]

Hi, a_s.

I think that your opinion is not full. Nature forms life is more than calculating energy-entropy. Energy-calculation is hmm.how i say, mathematical story ot matter behaviour processes. Earth-ball forms matter behaviour processes. I think that you dont understand "energy" meanings enough. Energy itself dont exist. When we eat something food, this food dont transform itself food-matter-particles to energy particles. Then there is no matter-energy transform process. Only food-particles goes round of our body and this particles is our life-"energy".

Hmm. How i says this. "Energy" is mainly biggest missunderstanding word at many area. "Energy" is only calculation method how we describe nature-matter motion and processes.

If we increace enough technical electric-matter flowing processes then other nature-process is without this technical particle-matter-flowing amount.

Oil, what is purpose or hmm. purpose is not good word but, what is purpose or need hmm. need is maybe better word, so, why matter-form, called earth, earth-ball, made oil? What is the oil influence to our earth-ball life motion?

I think that increacing so called energy using we transform lot of important matter-particles from earth-ball biological process history to it's own place to different place and that cause something to earth-ball "life" motion also.    

Or are we that mind that oil under the surface dont has any meanings of earth-ball life-motion?
Or are we that mind that riverbarrage dont has any meanings of water-processes flowing system?
Or are we that mind that increacing technical electric-matter flowing processes dont has any kind of influence of nature electric-matter flowing processes?

What is nature enviromental consumption food-step (m2) of one human? At his lifetime, 70year example?

It is quite easy to calculate how much must one average human eat food, use electricity, oil, cloths, etc at his lifetime. Then it is quite easy to calculate the nature area what this human need. (Land, wateramount, etc.) Then it is quite easy to calculate how much need 10, 100, 1 000000, 1 000 000 000 human. I mean basic life needs calculation only.

Or is it quite easy?

[]

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by heikki
I think that your opinion is not full. Nature forms life is more than calculating energy-entropy. Energy-calculation is hmm.how i say, mathematical story ot matter behaviour processes. Earth-ball forms matter behaviour processes. I think that you dont understand "energy" meanings enough. Energy itself dont exist. When we eat something food, this food dont transform itself food-matter-particles to energy particles. Then there is no matter-energy transform process. Only food-particles goes round of our body and this particles is our life-"energy".

I accept that energy is a complex issue, but the energy we extract from food is chemical energy through the oxidation of carbohydrates and long chain fats etc.  This is, in principle, absolutely no different from the energy obtained by burning oil; but without it, we would be dead.

Yes, the process is complicated, with complex carbohydrates being broken down to glucose, and the oxidation process being mediated by ATP, but beneath all that complexity, there is absolutely no difference between obtaining energy from food, or burning coal or oil.

quote:
Oil, what is purpose or hmm. purpose is not good word but, what is purpose or need hmm. need is maybe better word, so, why matter-form, called earth, earth-ball, made oil? What is the oil influence to our earth-ball life motion?

I'm not sure that the word 'need' has any more meaning in this case.  Need presupposes some objective, and in the absence of specifying such an objective, you cannot define a need.

Does the Earth have an objective, excepting the natural process of all nature, to maximise entropy?

George

[heikki]

quote:

A.
there is absolutely no difference between obtaining energy from food, or burning coal or oil.

B.
I'm not sure that the word 'need' has any more meaning in this case.  Need presupposes some objective, and in the absence of specifying such an objective, you cannot define a need.

C.
Does the Earth have an objective, excepting the natural process of all nature, to maximise entropy?

[]

A.

I think that there is difference and it is also important to notice. If i drink oil or eat firewood it's material "construction" is  not so kind that it keep me alive or our body digestion can handdle or use it.
I think that this "energy"-error basic is that some believe that all energy is same basic-calculation matter process. I mean that entropy-stuff.

Mainly i think that we must start to use life-basic matter-ideas than use entropy-calculation.

I think that when we speak that matter-motion processes which is made technical processes like electricity, oil burning, entropy-principle, that is one matter-behaving area.
Other is life-energy matter-behaving processes which is different and if we calculate only entropy-calculation of these area we go wrong direction.
(I dont mean any kind of un-matter processes but i mean that we dont yet know how matter works actually or what is example smaller material parts construction or mind-funtions. Therefore i think that we need new matter-construction theory which is not atom-theory basic. Atom-theory basic dont has that mind-funtion and therefore it cannot handdle that matter-life-'energy' situation.


B.
Maybe. Still of cource, i can use word need. Why? Hmm. Because i think  that i'm a matter-construction human form, part of nature. And i have mind and needs. Earth-ball is also matter-construction nature form and
it is dubbing of many nature form and matter-construction. Of cource earth-ball needs is not same kind like us, example sea-water. It not has mind that we cannot actually compare, but, can we understand sea-water existing-mind?
 
But, can we says that nature behavings, like water-processes dont has any kind of so called "nature mindwork-process", example when raining. If sky is blue, dont rain. So clouds must "born"  first and after that only can raining. But, why must raining?
I mean that all nature process-things has incluence to round of that process-thing and to time forward.



C.

If i understand you question right, i say, no.

I think that nature-processes dont work maximise principle way. I think that nature processes, like earth-ball whole process, is like life, like all nature living forms life is. And it has some kind of balance funtion. Sun, earth, moon, and space between these, has some kind of balance-function to it's process so that this process work, year by year, to it's own lifetime.
River, lake, clouds, rain, has also some kind on balance-function to it's process to relation to other, like ground.

   
Why nature must work so that it want to maximizing it's behavings?
Including also that entropy-stuff. I dont see any reasons of that.
I think that only human has invent that idea to maximice-theory and use it like nature work so. That is main basic error to our think-logic and therefore, because todays human-kind learn this logic to made all things maximicing principle therefore energy-problem is, like i says, unpossible to solving.
 
We cannot solve energy-problem by increacing energy consumption or maximice some nature-matter using.

But, like i says, these is only my opinion and thoughts, I can be right or wrong, 0%, 50%, or 100%.

I'm sorry my poor english, maybe i use wrong words some places, but i hope that you understand what i mean, and also it is not so important what i wrote, because my wrote and this conversation dont change this world forward-going any kind. It is like small wind which comes, stay a while and goes somewhere. But thanks a_s that to participate this conversation. I think that i have thinking and use my mind and brains to enough to though this issue at some time. Must rest brains also. But i hope that conversation still continue without my participation.  

br.Heikki.

[]

[AlphBravo]

The answer to the energy problem as stated in the TV series the Corporation, (and I just love this one, the Best Euphemism I have heard in a while) but it is from the the Corporate world is to "Benignly reduce the population!"

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by heikki
A.

I think that there is difference and it is also important to notice. If i drink oil or eat firewood it's material "construction" is  not so kind that it keep me alive or our body digestion can handdle or use it.
I think that this "energy"-error basic is that some believe that all energy is same basic-calculation matter process. I mean that entropy-stuff.

Mainly i think that we must start to use life-basic matter-ideas than use entropy-calculation.

I think that when we speak that matter-motion processes which is made technical processes like electricity, oil burning, entropy-principle, that is one matter-behaving area.
Other is life-energy matter-behaving processes which is different and if we calculate only entropy-calculation of these area we go wrong direction.
(I dont mean any kind of un-matter processes but i mean that we dont yet know how matter works actually or what is example smaller material parts construction or mind-funtions. Therefore i think that we need new matter-construction theory which is not atom-theory basic. Atom-theory basic dont has that mind-funtion and therefore it cannot handdle that matter-life-'energy' situation.

I did not say all energy was equally available in all processes.  Clearly, a cow (with the help of some bacteria) can obtain energy from grass, whereas humans cannot obtain energy from grass.  Equally, a diesel powered car can obtain energy from diesel oil, whereas a jet engine requires jet fuel.  But the underlying process of obtaining energy in all these processes is the same, it is through the oxidation of a carbon based fuel, whether it be the oxidation of jet fuel in the combustion chamber of a jet engine, or the oxidation of glucose (derived from cellulose of complex sugars) in the cells of humans or cattle.  All these processes boil down to one or another form of oxidation, and the obtaining of energy from that oxidation process.

If you have any doubt that all these processes depend on oxidation, just try and starve them of oxygen, and you will find that without exception, all these process will fail to extract energy from their relevant fuels.

quote:
B.
Maybe. Still of cource, i can use word need. Why? Hmm. Because i think  that i'm a matter-construction human form, part of nature. And i have mind and needs. Earth-ball is also matter-construction nature form and
it is dubbing of many nature form and matter-construction. Of cource earth-ball needs is not same kind like us, example sea-water. It not has mind that we cannot actually compare, but, can we understand sea-water existing-mind?

Why does the Earth need anything?

You can say that the Earth needs a thing in order to achieve something – but what is the Earth trying to achieve.

You can say that the Earth needs to observe the laws of physics, but that kind of need is something that we are powerless to alter or interfere with in any way – so it really is not a need that should concern is, since we cannot change it.

quote:
 But, can we says that nature behavings, like water-processes dont has any kind of so called "nature mindwork-process", example when raining. If sky is blue, dont rain. So clouds must "born"  first and after that only can raining. But, why must raining?
I mean that all nature process-things has incluence to round of that process-thing and to time forward.

All of this is a legitimate comment about cause and effect, but not about need?

quote:
C.

If i understand you question right, i say, no.

I think that nature-processes dont work maximise principle way. I think that nature processes, like earth-ball whole process, is like life, like all nature living forms life is. And it has some kind of balance funtion. Sun, earth, moon, and space between these, has some kind of balance-function to it's process so that this process work, year by year, to it's own lifetime.
River, lake, clouds, rain, has also some kind on balance-function to it's process to relation to other, like ground.

I think we have discussed elsewhere whether the entire planet can be regarded as a life form, and my own view is that this would be inappropriate; but I will accept that the planet is a complex system, and as such is life like.

But the point is that life is not, and never has been, in balance.  If life was in balance, then life would never change.  Change can only ever come about through imbalance, and the Earth, like all living things, is constantly changing.

quote:
But, like i says, these is only my opinion and thoughts, I can be right or wrong, 0%, 50%, or 100%.

That is the best any of us can do.  None of us have a monopoly on knowledge and truth, we can only push the limits of what we personally understand.

quote:
I'm sorry my poor english, maybe i use wrong words some places, but i hope that you understand

It has been hard going at times, but I have tried my best, and I hope I have understood you correctly; but if somewhere I have misunderstood what you wrote, then I apologise.

George