Can this satisfy the world's energy needs? High-altitude wind power.

[Ivan Seeking]

So the acreage requirements seem roughly the same, but solar/hydrogen/fuel cells require total replacement of the distribution infrastructure and totally new vehicle technology.

That technology and distribution is already well under way as, people have been working on it for decades, and the major auto manufacturers are aleady heavily invested. Also, as mentioned, we can select at will to burn either H2 or petro in existing engines, which seems like an excellent solution to supply transition issues. Finally, the exhaust is almost entirely pure water, so this would make a huge and immediate difference in pollution levels in the cities, which would in turn have a large pay off in reduced health care costs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Consider for example, Ontario, which happens to have easily found estimates.

In the year 2000, Ontario is forecast to suffer in the order of 1,900 premature deaths, 9,800 hospital admissions, 13,000 emergency room visits and 46 million illnesses as a result of air pollution. (Forecasts of doctor’s office visits are not included due to the absence of supporting epidemiological studies.) If air quality conditions remain constant for the next 20 years (i.e., to the year 2020), these illnesses and deaths will increase substantially. This increase is due to an expanding population as well as an aging population which is at higher risk to air pollution impacts.

These health impacts involve about $10 billion in annual economic damages. Loss of life and pain and suffering account for about $4.1 and $4.8 billion of this total. Annual health care costs of air pollution are in the order of $600 million; lost productivity accounts for an additional $560 million in annual damages. These economic damages are expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years.

The ASAP will reduce health and economic damages by about 11% overall, compared to the status quo. The residual damages (i.e., those damages expected even with full implementation of the ASAP) in 2015 are substantial and in total are forecast to be in the order of $10.7 billion annually.

http://www.oma.org/phealth/smogexec.htm

This is for a population of 11.4 million.

These become real dollars in a hydrogen economy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While playing around a little, one thing that I am noticing about the idea of FEGs is that it becomes difficult to build a flying wing and wind turbine that won't interfere with each other. One tends to steal wind energy from the other in almost any configuration.

That is, without the use of more structure.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Magenn Power Air Rotor System (MARS) is an innovative lighter-than-air tethered device that rotates about a horizontal axis in response to wind, efficiently generating clean renewable electrical energy at a lower cost than all competing systems.

Electrical power generated at the floating Air Rotor is transferred down the tether to ground level equipment. Depending on size of the Air Rotor, power is sent to users ranging from campers to large power grids. Helium (an inert non-flammable lighter-than-air gas) sustains the Air Rotor which ascends to an altitude for best winds. No towers or heavy foundations are necessary and sizes range from small "backpack" models to large megawatt generating devices.

Due to design simplicity, low capital & operating costs, and higher efficiency, MARS represents a paradigm shift from the standard wind turbines of today. Magenn Power will start a projected billion-dollar business through sales and licensing of its wind generators. Our first step is the development of a 4 KW prototype which the company will demonstrate in the later part of 2006.

http://www.magenn.com/

I thought of something like this but have no idea how pracital a helium based system could be. I guess helium is cheap though...

One other concern with the flying wing concept: I keep trying to imagine how one might launch and land it. What would be really slick is if the turbines could be powered to enable lift, and then switched from a motor to gen mode for power generation. But obviously this would be no small engineering challenge. And it seems that the wing has to be backwards as compared to its operational mode for this to be easy... Fun problem.

 

[joema]

The numbers that you cite are based on ideal conditions and lab testing conditions and not on data from real algae farms. We don't know how this will scale up...

No, it's based on an actual 1/2 acre pilot plant, not lab testing. See http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/pdf/algae_salton_sea.pdf (PDF).

In addition there is extensive well funded research on biodiesel production from algae: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf (warning: large PDF)

For solar PV production there is plenty of actual data from current large installations. One of the world's largest solar PV arrays is the Springerville Generating Station Solar System (SGSSS) in northeastern Arizona. It covers 44 acres (178,000 m^2), and produces about 7.6 gigawatt hrs per year (7.6E9 watt hrs/yr). That's an average of 42,696 watt hrs per m^2 per year. http://www.greenwatts.com/pages/solaroutput.asp

Scaling that up to provide world energy need would require:

(1.18E17 watt hrs/yr / 42,696 watt hrs/yr/m^2) = 2.76 trillion square meters, or over 1 million square miles -- over 1/3 the continental U.S.

So we have good numbers from solar pilot plants and at least some numbers for an algae pilot plant, but nothing for FEGs except back-of-the-envelope calculations.

As always the actual achievable numbers are significantly less than theoretical numbers, which illustrates the need for caution when comparing energy sources for which we have pilot plant data (solar, wind, biodiesel/algae) to those we have no significant test data for (FEGs, etc).

That doesn't mean FEGs are without merit, or should not be further investigated. But at this point, any output/cost characteristics are very speculative. As the above solar PV plant indicates real-world production numbers are generally much less than theoretical calculations.

As for comparing FEGs to algae farms, we have no idea how large FEGs could be built or how many it would take, or the price, or the total efficiency, so it is premature to state the performance or costs of one approach over the other.

As stated above pilot plant algae farms have been built, unlike FEGs. With algae farms we have some basis for extrapolating larger plant costs and efficiencies. With FEGs we do not.

But just playing with wild guesses of 30 million per 10MW unit...

As stated previously it would take about 1.7 million 10 MW FEGs to provide world energy need. At $30 million each, that's 51 trillion dollars, just for construction costs.

 

[joema]

That technology and distribution is already well under way as, people have been working on it for decades, and the major auto manufacturers are already heavily invested...

Technology and capacity for global hydrogen distribution is essentially nonexistent. There are about 200,000 gasoline filling stations in the US. You'd have to convert most or many of those to hydrogen. That is a titanic undertaking requiring decades.

There is no infrastructure for transporting the gigantic volumes of hydrogen needed just for transportation -- not to mention non-transportation use. Liquid hydrogen has 27% of the energy per gallon as gasoline. Therefore it would take nearly 4x the number of tanker trucks just to move the same energy content.

Whether fuel cells or hydrogen internal combustion engines are used, if you can't get the fuel to the end user, it's irrelevant.

As stated previously, you must distinguish between a technology working on a small scale vs an industrial scale. Some small scale technologies can be readily ramped up. Others cannot.

Solar/wind/Hydrogen/fuel cells or hydrogen internal combustion works fine on a small scale. But that's irrelevant if it can't economically be scaled upward to meet global need within a useful time frame.

There are two discrete energy problems:

(1) Transportation -- roughly 25% of total energy (primarily petroleum),which will exhaust conventional sources within a couple of decades.

(2) Utility/industrial/residential -- roughly 75% of total energy consumption (coal, nuclear, hydro) which will last at least at least 100 years.

For any energy solution, you must be precise about which of these you're addressing, over what time frame, and why.

The transportation energy problem is very difficult due to the limited time frame. Fortunately there are alternative petroleum sources (tar sands, oil shale) that will likely be tapped, albeit at significant environmental cost. Without those it would be apocalyptic when conventional oil runs out.

 

[joema]

...Finally, the exhaust is almost entirely pure water, so this would make a huge and immediate difference in pollution levels in the cities, which would in turn have a large pay off in reduced health care costs.

Existing new internal combustion (IC) engines are so clean the conventional pollution problem is mostly solved. The pollution output of SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles) is incredibly low, and it's possible to get further reductions with incremental improvements to existing technology. You don't need alternative engine technology because of conventional pollution. You need it because the petroleum supply is fast running out.

The cause of health threatening IC emissions is two fold: (1) Industrial non-automotive emissions, and (2) Older vehicles.

In fact most automotive emissions come from a small fraction of the total vehicle fleet -- the older cars. That's because newer cars are so incredibly clean the few older cars contribute much of the pollution.

You could tremendously reduce total conventional automotive emissions almost overnight by just getting rid of the oldest 20% of the vehicle fleet.

 

[russ_watters]

Dunno if I missed some discussion on this, but...

While playing around a little, one thing that I am noticing about the idea of FEGs is that it becomes difficult to build a flying wing and wind turbine that won't interfere with each other. One tends to steal wind energy from the other in almost any configuration.

That is, without the use of more structure.

Because of that, I don't see why you would want to have a wing at all. If you're flying it like a kite, part of the turbine's drag is the lift you need to keep it aloft.

Are you concerned about not having the turbine perpendicular to the wind? I wouldn't be, because as you said, a turbine and wing would steal from each other and the net effect would be the same as not having the wing (actually, probably a little worse with the wing) .

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, it's based on an actual 1/2 acre pilot plant, not lab testing. See http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/pdf/algae_salton_sea.pdf (PDF).

In addition there is extensive well funded research on biodiesel production from algae: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf (warning: large PDF)

That's all great but a half acre is still a lab. We haven't even begun to get into real, practical problems like mold, parasites, disease, infestations, etc. There is no way that this will be problem free. And I seriously doubt that a complete analysis of all hidden energy costs is considered. My only real objection here is that this is new and it will have problems. And it could have serious problems. We are not ready to cover Texas with algae.

For solar PV production there is plenty of actual data from current large installations.

(1.18E17 watt hrs/yr / 42,696 watt hrs/yr/m^2) = 2.76 trillion square meters, or over 1 million square miles -- over 1/3 the continental U.S.

To be fair, you are comparing untested technology to what is probably twenty year old technology. The cutting edge of PV is probably ten times better. But even so, the average Watts per sq meter was a real surprise.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As stated previously it would take about 1.7 million 10 MW FEGs to provide world energy need. At $30 million each, that's 51 trillion dollars, just for construction costs.

Well, we can guess at numbers all day, but you are ignoring the factor of three for the increased wind velocity, for a given weight to power expectation at high atltudes. However, I'm not really trying to pit FEGs against algae farms as I am only looking at both ideas for the first time. But I don't see it as being cut and dried as you seem to.

I think we should proceed immediately with further development of biofuels from algae, by all means! As I think Cliff mentioned, even if 20% of the petro was replaced with bio fuels, that would be huge. We could go for all existing diesel sales, for starters.

However, just to consider the FEG idea on its own merit, it might be cost competitive immediately in which case it won't really matter how much it cost. If I can double my money on an FEG I'll buy one myself. But I think we basically agree: It is very speculative as far as costs, capacity, etc. Also, it seems that the FEG idea has been around for quite some time and tends to come and go in the literature, but it also seems to be an idea that is ripe, or at least could be given modern tether, wing [materials], turbine, and transmission technology. I think it is definitely doable by some means and really it becomes a matter of how and at what cost; which is what caught my interest in the first place. But, the real beauty of it is, at least in part, that we could fly one just about anywhere given ten miles or so of rural, ocean, or lake as a buffer from population centers. And as soon as it flies it becomes a part of the existing electrical distribution system - no plantations to harvest, processing, or distribution of fuel, no miles of solar panels to maintain, no waiting - just hook up to any major transmission line. That is valuable technology.

 

[joema]

Well, we can guess at numbers all day, but you are ignoring the factor of three for the increased wind velocity, for a given weight to power expectation at high atltudes..

I didn't totally ignore it -- I factored in a factor of two improvement.

I agree any reasonable alternative energy source should be closely examined. However unless the technology is economically scalable to a gigantic industrial level within a meaningful timeframe, it will make no real difference. E.g, does hydrogen via solar or wind work? yes. Can you scale it to provide a large % of transportation energy consumption within two decades. No -- totally impossible. If Ralph Nader was absolute dictator over the entire globe it wouldn't be possible.

There are two discrete energy problems:

(1) Transportation energy (primarily currently petroleum). This will be significantly exhausted within 20 yrs, and possibly peak oil will hit within 10 yrs, if not sooner. This is by far the most time critical need. Working on a utility energy solution won't address this more immediate problem.

(2) Utility/industrial/residential energy (power, heating, etc). This comprises about 75% of all energy consumption, but there's sufficient conventional sources for at least 100 years. It may not be clean or desirable, but at least the lights won't go out. Much sooner transportation could grind to a stop, or oil prices disrupt world economy beyond anything yet seen.

If FEGs can be made to work -- fine, use them. Unfortunately too little is known about the viability, especially if used on a huge scale.

I mentioned biodiesel from algae mainly because it's one of the few solutions that (1) uses the existing distribution infrastructure (2) uses existing vehicle/engine technology, (3) solves most of the emission problems, inc'l CO2, and (4) fits within available real estate. Yes there are still unknowns that could preclude its use, but those are UNKNOWNS. By contrast most other alternative technologies have KNOWN problems (even at this early stage) limiting their huge industrial deployment.

We often hear of promising new energy sources. However it's important to separate what's technically feasible on a small scale, vs what can be deployed on the required vast industrial scale. We can't say "somebody will figure that part out" -- that IS a limiting factor even more than the technology itself.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Dunno if I missed some discussion on this, but...
Because of that, I don't see why you would want to have a wing at all. If you're flying it like a kite, part of the turbine's drag is the lift you need to keep it aloft.

Are you concerned about not having the turbine perpendicular to the wind? I wouldn't be, because as you said, a turbine and wing would steal from each other and the net effect would be the same as not having the wing (actually, probably a little worse with the wing) .

In principle it seems to make sense to avoid [design around] sacrificing power for lift.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I didn't totally ignore it -- I factored in a factor of two improvement.

Well, it turns out that 120 tons plus the generator and wing is not a lot of weight on the scale that we are discussing, and we haven't even tried to reduce weight in a proper turbine or generator design made specifically for this application. So it seems that double that number is more likely where we start hitting limits. And we have only been talking about a tinker toy approach - a worst case - as a basis. It is hardly fair to compare this to something that has a few years of actual testing.

As for the rest, I am thinking beyond just the US transportation problem. There is a real movement towards nuclear power again, and this has nothing to do with transportation energy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Btw, we might also run bio-diesel in fuel cells. In fact Bush has already pushed for the idea of petroleum powered fuel cells.

So this could help to make the transition to electric cars while still solving the immediate need for oil.

Oh yes, traditionally, diesel cars really suck, which is why we drive gasoline powered cars.

 

[joema]

Btw, we might also run bio-diesel in fuel cells. In fact Bush has already pushed for the idea of petroleum powered fuel cells.

So this could help to make the transition to electric cars while still solving the immediate need for oil.

Oh yes, traditionally, diesel cars really suck, which is why we drive gasoline powered cars.

That may be true historically, but newer diesels (e.g. VW PDI) are almost like gasoline engines -- very little of the old characteristics.

Re "dirty", newer diesels burning low sulfur fuel can be very clean. Biodiesel largely solves the CO2 problem -- it mostly only emits what the plants absorbed during growth.

While current SULEV and PZEV gasoline engines have reduced traditional emissions (SOx, NOx, etc) to incredibly low levels, you can't greatly reduce CO2 emissions from those. CO2 is the natural by-product of perfect, clean hydrocarbon combustion. That's where biodiesel has a big advantage, plus it's manufactured vs draining a non-renewable resource.

If biodiesel can work in fuel cells that's great, but new technology diesels are already approaching current real world fuel cell overall efficiency, and they're here today and can be immediately manufactured in vast quantities.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, I must admit that this all sounds very promising. Do you have any idea what the cost of these new engines will be as compared to traditional diesel engines? Also, HP to weight ratios, lifespan, maintenance, etc, do we know how they compare in these areas yet?

Would US cities smell like french fries? I know that the veggy oil crowd drive cars that smell like fries. Hydrogen would leave us with cities that smell like clean laundry. In fact it is officially dubbed as the "clean laundry smell".

There is another huge advantage to going diesel over gasoline, I think... IIRC, diesel is much less volatile than gasoline. I don't recall the numbers, but simply filling the tank is one of the larger sources of air pollution. Many states require the vapor return line on the dispensing nozzle, but I see people defeat these all the time.

 

[joema]

Well, I must admit that this all sounds very promising. Do you have any idea what the cost of these new engines will be as compared to traditional diesel engines? Also, HP to weight ratios, lifespan, maintenance, etc, do we know how they compare in these areas yet?

The new PD diesels are already in production starting with the 2004 model year for VW and Audi. HP, hp-to-weight, etc. are generally equal or better. Lifespan and maintenance are probably equal or better than older diesels, but time will tell.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/rr/04jettatdi.htm

The VW PD diesel is just one example of new-tech refinements. Other manufacturers are working on similar technology. Even cleaner, more efficient diesels than these are readily attainable.

There's a tendency to discount existing engine technology in favor of new concepts -- a few decades ago piston engines were thought obsolete and soon to be replaced by Wankels, turbines, flywheels, etc. However continuing technical refinement has produced piston engines with very low emissions, and very good power, drivability and reliability.

Would US cities smell like french fries? I know that the veggy oil crowd drive cars that smell like fries.

I don't really know how it would smell. Although biodiesel from waste vegetable oil gets a lot of press, it can't have a major influence on the energy situation -- there's just not enough of it.

...I don't recall the numbers, but simply filling the tank is one of the larger sources of air pollution. Many states require the vapor return line on the dispensing nozzle, but I see people defeat these all the time.

Yes, in fact a key difference between SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles) and PZEV (Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles) is the PZEVs have lower evaporative emissions. When tailpipe emissions get this clean, the evaporative emission component becomes a greater factor.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Now are you going to tell me that we have diesel lawn mowers coming?

Turns out that lawn mowers and weed eaters are huge offenders in the cities; so much so that some cities have begun to ban gasoline powered yard equipment.

 

[Cliff_J]

Until the US finishes its switch from diesel with the highest sulfur content to the lowest, a clean diesel is going to have the extra premium added to it. And the price has yet to really stabilize on regular diesel fuel post-katrina, so the oil companies may even step this up higher if the refining costs are higher to remove the sulfur.

The veggie oil crowd fail to mention that the unprocessed oil has a lot of containiments in it that are harmful for the components needed to make the injection system in a diesel engine work. That's one of the big reasons to run it through the transestification process into biodiesel, is to remove the glycerine that would leave behind deposits in the engine and add particulate matter in the exhaust.

In the 80s GM took their 5.7L gas engine and converted it to run on diesel. It was a pretty good seller in the heartland because farmers could purchase diesel fuel without paying road tax (for farm use and as a business expense) and drive their vehicles with it (practice has since been regulated). Here was an educated customer base, they use diesel in their tractors, yet GM ended up with a bad reputation for the motor as it aged. It would commonly break a head bolt or two and the cause was excess moisture in the fuel system that would cause an injection timing issue. Similar problems exist with biodiesel since its more prone to moisture.

To add insult to injury, the diesel fuel stations, used to only filling up trucks that have oversized fuel filtration systems, vary in quality. I've read some anecdotes of VW drivers who complain about the lack of refueling stations and having to pull their little car in next to giant trucks, and then also having to take them in for filter changes after a bad fill-up on a trip.

Even the new pickup truck diesels from GM/Ford have stepped up in usability, they are very quiet and aside from the RPM range drive similar to a gasoline engine. However, they are a $5000 premium over the gasoline engine, and how much of that is profit or additional cost is a big question. It seems in Europe the small 4cyl fuel-miser diesel is produced in large enough quantities that its price is comparable to the larger gas engine with performance of the smaller gas engine. It could happen stateside, but as joema pointed out the distribution infrastructure is going to be a problem.

And repeating my second point in this post, diesel's premium price would require a large shift in mileage to offset its higher cost for the economic viability to work out. Otherwise the US is stuck in a chicken-egg problem and political whims aren't going to change that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Regarding the solar farm linked earlier, I come up with an average peak output of just less than 20 watts per sq meter.

This off-the-shelf panel
http://www.kyocerasolar.com/pdf/specsheets/kc125g.pdf
is 0.9 sq meters and is rated as having a 125 watt peak output.

 

[joema]

Regarding the solar farm linked earlier, I come up with an average peak output of just less than 20 watts per sq meter.

This off-the-shelf panel
http://www.kyocerasolar.com/pdf/specsheets/kc125g.pdf
is 0.9 sq meters and is rated as having a 125 watt peak output.

That panel is crystaline, which works for small applications but can't be scaled to thousands of square miles -- the manufacturing process is similar to a semiconductor wafer. You'd need to use amorphous or some totally new technology capable of industrial scale production, which are typically much less efficient. Amorphous cells are about 6% efficient.

You also can't count peak power, but only average power (solar insolation) based on the climate. In southern Arizona, you have about 6000 watt hrs per square meter per day: http://www.windsun.com/Solar_Basics/Solar_maps.htm#Map1

Even your above crystaline solar panel won't produce 15% efficiency unless it's brand new and the sun is straight overhead. Unlike the AC output of a conventional power plant, solar cell output must be buffered or converted to AC, which costs more efficiency.

All things considered, you're lucky to get over 10% efficiency using crystaline cells, and probably 4% efficiency from amorphous cells.

10% efficiency is about 600 watt hrs per square meter per day in southern Arizona, and 4% is is about 240 watt hrs per square meter per day. In any other climate output will be much lower.

On top of the above losses, if you convert it to hydrogen via water electrolysis, you take another 50% hit (at least) in conversion and transport losses.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You also can't count peak power, but only average power (solar insolation) based on the climate. In southern Arizona, you have about 6000 watt hrs per square meter per day: http://www.windsun.com/Solar_Basics/Solar_maps.htm#Map1

Not true. If I can show a panel with six times the peak power as compared to the peak power for the panels used, then we would expect a much higher average total power value accordingly. I was comparing peak power to peak power.

Even your above crystaline solar panel won't produce 15% efficiency unless it's brand new and the sun is straight overhead. Unlike the AC output of a conventional power plant, solar cell output must be buffered or converted to AC, which costs more efficiency.

Obviously. You seem to be going out of your way to shoot down a perfectly fair comparison. This was just one example of the improvements made in solar technology. And we haven't even looked at the truly new technology coming such as paint-on solar panels.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Modern switching technology [power transformation] runs as high as ninety-five percent efficient.

 

[turbo]

Here's a page of links that might keep you busy for a while.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Solar_Hydrogen

 

[joema]

Regarding the solar farm linked earlier, I come up with an average peak output of just less than 20 watts per sq meter.

This off-the-shelf panel
http://www.kyocerasolar.com/pdf/specsheets/kc125g.pdf
is 0.9 sq meters and is rated as having a 125 watt peak output.

...If I can show a panel with six times the peak power as compared to the peak power for the panels used, then we would expect a much higher average total power value accordingly. I was comparing peak power to peak power.

Your above two statements illustrate the difference between a real world output figure and a laboratory figure. A small crystalline solar array can be 15% efficient (if new). However that's meaningless since you CANNOT manufacture hundreds of square miles of crystalline semiconductors. It's physically impossible, and will always remain so because of how they're made.

To cover hundreds of square miles you must use much lower efficiency technology such as amorphous cells, or even lower efficiency paint-on cells (assuming it's ever debugged sufficiently for mass deployment).

Re peak power, what counts is the actual delivered power over a period of time. That in turn depends on climate, location, cell technology, cell aging characteristics, etc.

You seem to be going out of your way to shoot down a perfectly fair comparison. This was just one example of the improvements made in solar technology...

As stated above, it's not an illustration of solar technology improvement. The large solar farm has lower areal efficiency NOT because the technology was less advanced -- it's because you MUST use lower efficiency technology to cover large areas. You cannot cover a large area with high efficiency crystalline cells -- they are manufactured in semiconductor plants like integrated circuits are.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I had a talk with a thirty year or so commercial aviation insider - with a world class company - and the idea of a flying wing was well received.

Hey buddy, that's a lot of wings!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

joema, if you're still around, I'm convinced.

Biodiesel, and bio from algae seem to offer a practical solutions to our energy demand today. Current petro prices makes it price competitive, which seems to have been the biggest issue. When it costs a buck or two more per gallon than regular diesel, forget it. But now I have seen it selling cheaper than regular diesel; at the pump, and right around here. Also, it looks like diesel hybrids are ready to market in the US. This is exciting stuff!

Prices for crude may drop for a time, but the demand from India and China for oil can only mean one thing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One thing that I don't like [in the long run anyway] is the application of photobioreactors for biodiesel production to industry, to reduce CO2 emissions. This only delays the emissions. It does reduce CO2 emission to the extent that it replaces fossil fuel usage in autos, but if autos are already using alternative fuels, it gets industry off the hook while still allowing the emissions though through a more convoluted path. Instead, ideally, carbon from industry [not produced by biofuel usage] should be trapped for long term storage. Maybe algae bioreactors can be used to mediate this process?

For example, does anyone know if plant oils can be used to make plastics?

edit: photobioreactor appears to be the proper name

 

[Ivan Seeking]

By chance, in the news...

AUDI MAKES HISTORY AS DIESEL-POWERED R10 TDI WINS MOBIL 1 TWELVE HOURS OF SEBRING

Audi is the first diesel-powered car to win a race in the American Le Mans Series.

Sebring, Fla. - Audi Sport North America made history Saturday as the diesel-powered Audi R10 TDI of Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish and Rinaldo Capello won the Mobil 1 Twelve Hours of Sebring. The new prototype is the first diesel car in the world to win a major sports car race. [continued]

http://www.americanlemans.com/News/Article.aspx?ID=1872

The guy who told me about it still hadn't stopped laughing in disbelief.

 

[Astronuc]

Solar power energizing rural China
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/06/19/PM200606195.html

With 20 million people waiting to get on the electrical grid in China, officials in Beijing have launched a campaign to make sure the newest energy consumers will use renewable sources instead. Rob Schmitz reports.

KAI RYSSDAL: Coal is the energy source of choice in China. A billion and a half tons of it were burned there last year to generate electricity. That's three times more than in the U.S., India, and Russia combined. There are about 120 million people in China living off the power grid. So Beijing is trying to get new electricity consumers to use renewable sources. From the Marketplace Sustainability Desk, Rob Schmitz reports.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ROB SCHMITZ: A sheep, a yurt, a pasture, and a forest. That once summed up Gulinar Sitkan's world here in Sorbastow, a tiny village in the remote mountains of northwestern China, near the border with Kazakhstan. Last year, her world suddenly expanded.

Through a gauze of static interference, Sitkan now sees important-looking officials shaking hands. Soldiers in a foreign war. A beautiful woman holding a soft drink can to her face. The images on her new television change almost too quickly to take it all in, and they're much more stimulating than watching her sheep.

GULINAR SITKAN [voice of interpreter]: My favorite program is the international news, because I can find out what's happening now. Before, it would take months for us to find out about news.​

Sitkan is one of the many Ethnic Kazakhs in this area who, up to a year ago, didn't have electricity. The Chinese government has provided her and hundreds of thousands of others with solar panels.

This is part of China's plan to use more renewable energy. By 2020, China plans to get 15 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. That'll add up to 120,000 megawatts, more than two times the amount of energy the state of California generates.

Douglas Ogden is vice president of the San Francisco-based Energy Foundation. He's working with Chinese officials to help them fulfill that promise.

DOUGLAS OGDEN: You know, you look around globally, there isn't another country that has set that degree of ambitious renewable energy target.​

Gulinar Sitkan adds wood to her potbelly stove. The pink scarf she wears around her head blends in with the bright red carpets that line the walls of this tiny log cabin. A rooftop solar panel provides enough power for her small television and a couple of light bulbs.

The panel was designed and supplied by one of the world's giant oil companies. You heard right. An oil company. Specifically, Shell Oil's subsidiary, Shell Solar, has supplied 40,000 of these panels to ethnic minorities throughout China's Xinjiang province as part of a project that's funded by the Dutch and Chinese governments. Shell Solar's Bo Xiao Yuan says the portability of the panels is ideal for the ethnic minorities who live in China's most remote regions.

BO XIAO YUAN: In these areas, for nomad, they keep moving all year round, so the grid power cannot be available everywhere. It's too expensive.​

After government subsidies, nomads in this area can buy a portable solar panel for around 60 US dollars. That's equal to about a tenth of what a typical nomad here makes from selling sheep's wool and meat in a year.

In a cabin in the next valley over, newlyweds Kowante and Sandokash Rahmat have finished up a day of shearing sheep. Kowante takes his dombra, a Kazakh guitar, from where it hangs on the wall, and unwinds with a song.

It's a traditional Kazakh song about two lovers who meet near an alpine lake. Kowante and Sandokash have a solar panel, too. It was a wedding present from their parents. The first appliance they bought was a tape player, which is loaded with the newest Kazakh pop songs.

They're expecting their first child this summer. Not only will this child know the latest Kazakh hits, but he or she might have a television, and, says Kowante, a computer, too. And with all of this, access to a world they could have only imagined a year ago.

In Sarbastow, northwestern China, I'm Rob Schmitz for Marketplace.

http://www.efchina.org/home.cfm

In March 1999, after a series of meetings and consultations with scientists, policy-makers, business leaders, and analysts in China and the United States, the staff and boards of The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and The Energy Foundation launched the China Sustainable Energy Program. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation joined as a funding partner in 2002.

The China Sustainable Energy Program (CSEP) supports China's policy efforts to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy. The program emphasizes both national policy and regional implementation. The program strives to build capacity in China to analyze energy savings and renewable energy opportunities, and to develop policies to capture those opportunities. The program helps Chinese agencies, experts, and entrepreneurs solve energy challenges for themselves. At the request of Chinese non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the program supports capacity building and technology policy transfer through linking Chinese experts with "best practices" expertise from around the world. When it determines there is an unmet need in the field, the program may convene workshops, commission papers, or take other direct initiatives, in addition to its primary role as a grant-maker.