Ivan Seeking said:
That is all a matter of cost per unit area of algae. If the cost is low enough, say for example by eliminating the cost of land and water, one might produce fuel at a competitive price without any CO2 augmentation at all. There are also other natural and artificial sources, such as the exhuast from cement plants, or the gases produced by rotting vegetation.
The fact is that I achieved what was calculated as ~70% of the required yield per unit area per unit time, on my first attempt, and without any CO2 augmentation, just aeration. Part of what I see as the flaw in popular approaches is the tendency to shoot for theoretical limits. Rather than trying to drive the algae to maximum yields, instead use much less expensive approaches and live with reduced production. The net profit is all that matters.
Interesting.
... As for distribution of energy, there is no option for anything but limited-use cars. Everything else needs fuel. So its not like we can eliminate the transportation fuel infrastructure...
There are already trial programs in place for EV 18 wheelers (80,000 lbs - Port of LA), trains can run electric (not off batteries, yet). NASA has a program for that electric 797. Granted these things are in their infancy, but at $20/$30 gal (if we listen to the Independent article) and with no large production plants in existence yet, then so is 3rd gen biofuel. Another way to view the limitations: algae/cellulosic has the vehicle ~ready to go, it has to prove it can scale up the energy production; where as EVs have the energy ~ready to go, it has to prove it can scale up the vehicle production.
Come on, look at the weight of an electric car compared to the same HP in a diesel car. Look at all of the materials as well as the refining of those materials. Again, follow the money. Energy is largely what drives the cost of production. The Tesla uses something like $40K worth of batteries. We have to look at all of those highly refined materials used in both the motors and batteries, and track those all the way back to raw materials, as well as include the recycling of the materials, and all of the energy [carbon] costs along the way - the cradle to grave energy costs.
I've seen the weight balance between an ICE and EV before (and posted it if I recall). It turns out that the weight balance between a pure EV and an ICE vehicle is roughly a wash, IF the battery capacity is limited to 100 miles (~25kWh). That's with a current battery such as A123's or LG-Chem's. A 100 mi battery, such as the one in the
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/01/2010-nissan-leaf-electric-car-in-person-in-depth-and-u-s-b/", weighs ~200kg, and probably costs $9,000-$14,000. An electric motor can weigh less than half its ICE equivalent in power. Also subtract from the EV budget the usual items found along side the ICE: large radiator and cooling system, exhaust system, fuel system, large transmission, etc.
...Make no mistake, though, as despite clever construction methods, the Leaf's batteries remain heavy, at around 200 kg per car (over 440 pounds). Despite this, Nissan projects that the car's total weight will be similar to that of a comparable gas car because the electric motor is lighter than a traditional internal-combustion engine and because there is no need for a conventional transmission. Of course, there is the added bulk of a power inverter, but on the whole, Nissan believes the car's center-of-gravity will be lower than an I.C. car, so handling might actually be better than the aforementioned Versa.
The Tesla has a 220 mile battery, using laptop cells (lithium cobalt).
Regarding the overall energy budget embodied in a car, somebody did a study on this and it is indeed substantial: it comes out at 15-20% if I recall of the total traveling energy used by the car in its lifetime, but to our point they found the difference in embodied energy by drivetrain (gasoline, diesel, electric) to be very small. No doubt you are skeptical, so I'll look it up and post tomorrow.
Beyond a doubt, the Chevy Volt doesn't even make economic sense today. That is the bottom line when it comes to any option, and every good capitalist knows it.
Agreed. I favor pure EV's, not PHEV's, and battery exchange which I think so configured are economical and practical. Then, without the battery cost up front, a $17,000 car equivalent to a Malibu or a Camry is doable. If its done this way (EV - battery exchange), I believe EV's will win in the market, without exchange I doubt they'll do much in in even 20 years.
Edit: With all the focus on carbon emissions, it's easy to forget about NOx, SOx, and particulate emissions which are a fact of life when burning any kind of hydrocarbon. We're better off if those emissions are out by the power plant (which might not emit any at all), which EVs allow.
More than a few people will try out controversial new things, but very few people will try out something they've little or never heard of.
.
