Petroleum and the future of civilization

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doug50
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ribozyme said:
But if the die off scenarios happen, why should I care about “social justice?” Why should Catholics care about the Gospel’s directive to feed the poor when the means for doing that no longer exist? Why should a liberal like myself care about providing for the vulnerable of society (and the world) if we lack the capability to feed a majority of the world’s population? The material written by John Rawls and John Stuart Mill will simply be pablum in such a scenario. Survivial becomes a zero-sum game - a game that I refuse to play in such a scenario.
Click to expand...
I do worry about this; for a while (early 90s) I worked with MJPC - Ministry for Justice in Population Concerns. This was a group in LA that was determined to make sure social justice concerns did not get subjugated in a mad rush to lower the population at all costs.
Petrus
 
setamericafree.org/

Just came across this Web site … Liberate us from the tyranny of oil.

Interesting.

There are folks out there who what to achieve energy liberation without reverting to the technology of the 1800’s or turning ourselves over to a technocrat totalitarianism or [sarcasm] drawing lots to see which of us population members will be reduced to achieve sustainability.

Using nukes to provide the energy to produce methanol (NOT ethanol) from junk vegetation is the way to go to provide transportation fuel for cars and trucks.

Right now, the United States uses only 104 nuclear power generating stations to produce 20% of its electricity. We can increase the number of applications that use electricity (such as methanol production) and we can start building more nukes.

There was an interesting article on modularity … building power plants in factories rather than on-site … and shipping the nukes to their operating locations by barge and lifting them into place with the newly developed large portable cranes (1000+ ton lifting capacity.).

That makes it faster, cheaper, and easier.

It would be even better if the operating plant itself was built on barges and floated into positions that had been dredged.

Standardized designs, built in controlled conditions in a super factory, could produce electricity in very short time periods.
 
This article was just posted on www.climatechangedebate.org

No link; so am posting it in its entirety.

[Honest … I did not write this article.]

Apologies for posting the whole thing, but it has details that even I had not seen before.

Extremely interesting.
Is oil running out – or in?

Saturday 1st March 2008

Are we being screwed by the oil companies, big time? Do they create false shortages so they can raise prices however they wish?

American or British geologists say the world’s supply of oil was deposited in horizontal reservoirs near the surface in a process that took millions of years. It is a ‘fossil fuel,’ a biological residue derived from crushed animal and vegetative matter and hence in finite supply. In some cases, according to the theory, huge amounts have been concealed between rock formations in the shallower ocean offshore as in the Gulf of Mexico or North Sea or Gulf of Guinea.

Oil and renewable resource are not words that often appear in the same sentence. Since the economies of entire countries ride on the fundamental notion that oil reserves are exhaustible, any contrary evidence would arguably turn the world view upside down. Is ‘peak oil’ a hoax perpetrated by environmentalists and hippies? If oil is not finite then the price should come down, the panic to find alternatives would be over and in the realisation that oil is harmless to the environment the first casualty would be the international banking system, backed up by the cost of the US dollar which in turn is governed by the cost of oil. No one knows if we are using up something much faster than it was created.

Even to say known reserves of ABC will be exhausted by period XYZ at current consumption rates is to deny that new reserves will be discovered during XYZ. But more importantly, we can confidently observe that in nature everything recycles. It is possible but highly improbable that oil is the sole exception. It is more likely that oil is renewable and can be compared to air or underground water. If we can positively establish that the amount of oil being returned to or remaining in the earth equals or exceeds the amount extracted from it by the number of humans using it then any oil “problem” disappears. The sun’s hydrogen is also a finite resource, and at some point in the future our local star is certain to die, and when it does our planet will die with it. But no one lays awake at night worrying over that. To assess the oil reserves we must estimate the starting number of barrels of oil in the ground and how much we have so far used. We will never know either answer. So why do so many environmentalists paint a doom-filled picture?

The evidence is more of oil running in, rather than running out. The Eugene Island case is an example. Production at this oil field deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. Following its 1973 discovery, production slowed from 15,000 barrels a day to about 4,000 in 1989. The field is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago. This means Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth’s surface.

It now looks as though the world contains far more recoverable oil than was believed even 20 years ago. The world’s greatest oil pool, the Middle East, has more than doubled its reserves in the past 20 years, despite half a century of intense exploitation and relatively few new discoveries. It would take a pretty big pile of dead dinosaurs and prehistoric plants to account for the estimated 660 billion barrels of oil in the region.

Just when we thought we were running out of oil, technology came along to extract oil from shale rocks in the mid west and Canada. Brazil recently went from 17th to the rank of 10th biggest oil producer. China has made 10 major new discoveries this year alone. India is finding energy offshore.Russia is a major producer. Last year Mexico made a huge offshore discovery it has yet to tap and NZ found oil off the southeast coast near Southland. New technologies now recover resources from old wells previously thought tapped out, they can create oil from formerly useless resources, like tar sands, and recover oil and natural gas from previously impossible geography, like the deep blue sea miles beneath the surface.
 
Too long; here’s the other half.
The somewhat buried reality is that oil may not have come from dinosaurs or forests smashed under rocks. More and more scientists are now coming to a belief that oil is “a-biotic”, continuing to be replaced by chemical processes in the crust of the earth. Russia is now the world’s largest oil producer and natural gas producer. The Russians have been saying the fossil-caused oil theory is an unscientific absurdity that is unprovable since the early 1950’s, but the idea is still almost unknown in the West. To the Russians, oil supply on earth is limited only by the amount of organic hydrocarbon constituents present deep in the earth at the time of the earth’s formation. They claim oil is formed deep in the earth, formed in conditions of very high temperature and very high pressure like that required for diamonds to form. That oil is a biological residue of plant and animal fossil is seen as a hoax designed to perpetuate the myth of limited supply.

In the 1980s the Russians went to Vietnam and offered to finance a-biotic drilling costs. The company Petrosov drilled Vietnam’s White Tiger oilfield offshore into basalt rock some 17,000 feet down and extracted 6,000 barrels a day of oil to feed the energy-starved Vietnam economy. By the mid-1980’s the USSR emerged as the world’s largest oil producer. To have produced the amount of oil to date that Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar field has produced would have required a cube of fossilized dinosaur detritus, assuming 100% conversion efficiency, measuring 19 miles deep, wide and high. In short, an absurdity. Meanwhile, Western geologists do not bother to offer hard scientific proof of fossil origins. They merely assert it as a holy truth.

The 2003 arrest of Russian Mikhail Khodorkovsky, of Yukos Oil, took place just before he could sell a dominant stake in Yukos to ExxonMobil after Khodorkovsky had a private meeting with “Richard” Cheney. Had Exxon got the stake they would have gotten control of the world’s largest resource of geologists and engineers trained in the a-biotic techniques of deep drilling. Why then the high-risk war to control Iraq? For a century US and allied Western oil giants have controlled world oil via control of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Nigeria. Today, as many giant fields are declining, the companies see the state-controlled oilfields of Iraq and Iran as the largest remaining base of cheap, easy oil. With the huge demand for oil from China and now India, some say it becomes a geopolitical imperative for the United States to take direct, military control of those Middle East reserves as fast as possible. Vice President “Richard” Cheney came to his job from Halliburton Corp., the world’s largest oil geophysical services company.

There is no hard evidence of a lack of crude oil in the world. Global oil use = 31.5 billion barrels per year. One barrel oil = 42 U.S. gallons. One cubic foot = 7.48 U.S. gallons. One cubic mile = 147.2 billion cubic feet. So the volume of oil consumed by mankind annually = (31.5 x 42) / (7.48 x147.2) = 1.2 cubic miles of oil per year. The volume of the earth is 260,000 million cubic miles. If by volume a millionth of the interior of the earth contains oil, there is enough to last 260,000 years. But if 1/250,000 of the earth is oil, which is only about the volume of the Mediterranean Sea, and which does not seem at all unreasonable, at the present rate of consumption we can drive our SUVs around for another million years. You read it right, one million years.

Sources
editorial, “Brazil’s Not Peaking,” Investor’s Business Daily, December 14, 2007. Courtesy: NCPA) resources.alibaba.com/topic/214496/Oil_is_not_a_finite_resource_.htm
www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.
oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm (Wall St Journal 16/4/99)
ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=282528707587055
 
bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aOspOz2AMLLU&refer=home#
Brazil Oil Trapped by 500-Degree Heat, Salt Barrier (Update2)
By Joe Carroll
April 28 (Bloomberg) – Brazil’s plan to become one of the world’s biggest oil exporters hinges on exploiting crude 6 miles below the ocean surface in deposits so hot they can melt the metal used to carry uranium to nuclear plants.
Tapping what may be the biggest oil finds in the Western Hemisphere in three decades will require equipment that can withstand 18,000 pounds per square inch of pressure, enough to crush a pickup truck, pipes that can carry oil at temperatures above 500 degrees Fahrenheit (260 Celsius) and drill bits that can penetrate layers of salt more than one mile thick.
Petroleo Brasileiro SA, the state-controlled oil company, is betting on the Tupi and Carioca fields to become one of the world’s seven biggest crude exporters. Until the tools needed to exploit the reservoirs are invented, the crude will remain locked under the sea, said Matt Cline, a U.S. Energy Department economist.
This is a very, very technically challenging environment where no one's ever done this,'' Cline, who tracks the Latin American oil industry, said in a telephone interview from Washington. These discoveries are in very deep water, and once you get to the seabed they are very deep under the floor, with a layer of salt that is definitely a difficult barrier.’’
Brazil’s oil will be harder to develop than the Gulf of Mexico, where the deepest wells are now in production, Cline said. Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., the two biggest U.S. oil companies, saw diamond-crusted drill bits disintegrate and steel pipes crumple when they attempted to tap deposits beneath the Gulf’s seafloor two years ago.
Uncharted Depth
Pumping oil from the Brazilian finds, parts of which are 32,000 feet (10,000 meters) below the ocean’s surface, will require boring almost twice as far down as the world’s deepest producing offshore well.
The obstacles will discourage development unless crude prices stay high, said Tina Vital, an analyst at Standard & Poor’s in New York. U.S. oil futures, which reached a record at $119.93 a barrel in after-hours electronic trading yesterday, have jumped 81 percent in the past year.
Engineers will have to overcome temperatures that range from near freezing above the ocean floor to temperatures that can melt bismuth, used for transporting uranium rods and for shotgun shells. Layers of salt will also increase the challenge because the crystals absorb seismic waves used to p(name removed by moderator)oint oil deposits.
Seismic Issue
The seismic issue is important because if you don't identify the location of the oil properly, you're going to waste a lot of money when you drill the hole in the wrong spot,'' said Vital, a former Exxon engineer. Brazil pumped 2.13 million barrels of oil a day in the last three months of 2007, more than OPEC members Angola, Libya and Algeria. Tupi, 155 miles (250 kilometers) off Brazil's coast, may begin production by 2012, according to consulting firm Strategic Forecasting in Austin, Texas. The field may have 8 billion barrels of recoverable oil. No start date has been set for Carioca, which Petroleo Brasileiro said will take at least three months to evaluate. A Brazilian regulator said this month the reservoir may have 33 billion barrels. If confirmed by further drilling, the reserves will be triple the size of Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, the largest U.S. field. Record Depth The ocean-depth record for production was set last year by Anadarko Petroleum Corp. The company is extracting natural gas from beneath 8,960 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico, where pressure measures 3,069 pounds per square inch, squeezing joints and tearing at seals. What we do at that water depth in the ocean is similar to NASA’s space program, but they get to do it without any pressure trying to attack them,’’ Kevin Renfro, production engineering manager at Woodlands, Texas-based Anadarko, said in a November interview.
Petrobras hasn’t said how much it spent to sink wells at Tupi and Carioca. Similar drilling by Exxon and Chevron Corp. in the Gulf of Mexico cost $180 million to $200 million for each well.
A big find might not be a good find if it costs so much to develop that it's not commercially viable,'' S&P's Vital said. We don’t have any idea at all yet of all the costs that are going to be involved. Those costs are going to set the floor for oil prices.’’
$50,000 Drill Bits
Chevron, which has the deepest Gulf of Mexico exploration well, including distance below the seafloor, destroyed as many as a dozen $50,000 drill bits at each of the 14 wells in its $4.7 billion Tahiti project.
Exxon Mobil abandoned a Gulf project that would have been the deepest well after pressure and heat shut down the venture in August 2006. The Irving, Texas-based company developed pipes tough enough to withstand temperatures that would shatter regular steel at its Sakhalin-1 project in Russia. The metal may help make Brazil’s offshore fields accessible, Vital said.
``These challenges in the Brazilian offshore area are too great for any one company or even country to be able to digest themselves,’’ Vital said.
 
New York Times
April 28, 2008
**Amid High Oil Prices, Danger Signs in Production **
By JAD MOUAWAD
As oil prices soared to record levels in recent years, basic economics suggested that consumption would fall and supply would rise as producers opened the taps to pump more.

But as prices flirt with $120 a barrel, many energy specialists are becoming worried that neither seems to be happening. Higher prices have done little to attract new production or to suppress global demand, and the resulting mismatch has sent oil prices spiraling upward.

“According to normal economic theory, and the history of oil, rising prices have two major effects,” said Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the International Energy Agency, which advises industrialized countries. “They reduce demand and they induce oil supplies. Not this time.”

A key reason that supply is not rising to meet demand is that… nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/worldbusiness/28oil-WEB.html?ei=5087&em=&en=09dee92a464a0222&ex=1209528000&pagewanted=print
 
Doug50 said:
But as prices flirt with $120 a barrel, many energy specialists are becoming worried that neither seems to be happening. Higher prices have done little to attract new production or to suppress global demand, and the resulting mismatch has sent oil prices spiraling upward.]
Click to expand...
And yet we continue to hear hand-wringing laments that the economy is not growing. At some point we well reach a steady-state economy and population, neither growing nor shrinking. Perhaps we are closing in on that now.
 
Is this true … that drilling in ANWR up in Alaska would take about 2000 acres, but that the ANWR region itself is 18000000 acres … and that Congress failed to pass drilling by one vote?

Is that true?
 
Al_Masetti said:
Is this true … that drilling in ANWR up in Alaska would take about 2000 acres, but that the ANWR region itself is 18000000 acres … and that Congress failed to pass drilling by one vote?

Is that true?
Click to expand...
No. The locations for the rigs, tanks, and roads alone would be a lot more than 2000. That doesn’t include support yards for service companies and employee housing/towns.
 
Just another editorial for the pile

"Eleven billion dollars is not enough.

That, at first blush, seemed to explain how Exxon Mobil Corp. could earn that much money in three months and still see its stock fall 4 percent.

Wall Street expected more, and so did Exxon Mobil investors. At a time of record oil prices, America’s biggest oil company reported an earnings increase that was the smallest among its peers.

The profit is what captures everyone’s attention, but there’s a bigger concern hidden amid the numbers of Exxon Mobil’s earnings.

The company’s worldwide oil production fell 10 percent, to just under 2.5 million barrels a day.

Some of the decline came from Exxon Mobil’s dispute over the seizure of assets by the Venezuelan government, but even excluding those assets, the company’s production declined. Overall production, including natural gas, fell 3 percent.

While Exxon Mobil boosted production from fields in West Africa and the North Sea, the gains weren’t enough to offset declines from aging oil fields, the company said.

The company blamed the decline in part on its contracts with oil-producing countries, which allow those countries to claim a larger share of oil volumes as prices rise. In other words, the higher prices go, the less oil Exxon Mobil gets.

As those countries benefit from higher prices, living standards rise and, as I mentioned last week, their own demand for oil increases. That, in turn, means less oil for companies such as Exxon Mobil over the long term.

The problem isn’t unique to Exxon Mobil.

Other major oil companies also offered a stark production picture. BP’s was unchanged from a year earlier. Shell reported a gain only because it boosted natural gas production, which offset lower oil output. ConocoPhillips reported an increase but attributed it to its 20 percent stake in Russia’s Lukoil.

With national oil companies now holding most of the world’s reserves, companies like Exxon Mobil are left with few places to look for new production.

The public, though, has little concern for Exxon Mobil’s travails. We only care about what we see from our side of the pump, and that means the price and the profits of the company whose name is atop the sign.

Exxon Mobil has reported earnings between $9 billion and $11 billion in almost every quarter since late 2005, and every time it does, the public outcry grows.

Capitalizing on outrage
Politicians are quick to capitalize on that outrage.

“I believe we should impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies and use that money to suspend the gas tax and give families relief at the pump,” Hillary Clinton said in a statement addressing Exxon Mobil’s earnings. A typical family, she claims, would save $70. John McCain already has called for a “gas tax holiday.”

A closer reading of Exxon Mobil’s earnings statement, though, shows Clinton is missing the point.

Her plan, and McCain’s, would essentially lower gasoline prices at the pump. And how will we respond? We’ll drive more. We’re talking about summer, after all. Time to load up the kids in the land yacht and cruise to Destin at 12 miles to the gallon.

As demand rises, it depletes supply even further, and that, in turn, drives prices up in the world market. Shortages aren’t solved by using more.

Barack Obama, by the way, has proposed a broader windfall profits tax on the industry based on crude prices, which the companies don’t control. He’d tax oil over $80 a barrel, Bloomberg News reported, even though futures markets are indicating oil will stay above $100 through 2016.

Using this logic, we should tax pizza places because of soaring cheese prices.

They don’t like it either
As I’ve said before, oil companies don’t welcome the numbers we’re now seeing at the pump. Not only do they cut into refining margins — another reason Exxon Mobil’s profit didn’t grow as much as expected — they make us start buying Priuses in spite of their bean-pod appearance.

So the public and politicians decry Exxon Mobil’s profit while the market frets over a mere 17 percent increase. Both miss the more disturbing numbers, the ones that portend greater problems, not just for the oil companies but for all of us who use their products.

It’s not a question of whether $11 billion is too much or not enough. It’s a question of whether 2.5 million barrels is."

link: chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/5747962.html
 
a few years ago I looked at a Prius but didn’t buy. I’m fortunate to work from home most of the time if I want. A friend of our bought a Prius a couple of weeks ago because her job is a round trip of 100 miles. I personally like the Prius and think it has plent of room with the hatch back and fold down rear seats. The problem for her and myself with a Prius is that we live largely a rural life so unless I go to the city I never, every have to deal with rush hour traffic. 👍 But tha rush hour stop and go traffic is were the Prius shines in few savings. For her and myself a Prius without the hybrid (Yaris) would be the better way to go because with mostly highway driving she (or I) are basically just draging alone that extra weight of the electric motors and batter. I need a Prius without the hybrid.

My problem is that I need a pickup. Right now I have a half ton pickup. I wish i’d bought an ford explored sprot trac cuz if I needed more haul capacity I have a trailer that’d work just fine.

I was listening to Laura Ingram yeaterday and he had some guy from the CATO institute talking about oil and gas prices. They where discussing oil demand and gasoline in reation to Hillary Clinton’s appearence on Bill O’Reily. Hillary wants to lower gasoline costs by ending the tax per gallon and increase the tax on BIG OIL. This CATO guy pointed out that it’s been will documented that if you want to conserve oil and gasoilne the price per gallon must be kept relatively high. Lowering the price per gallon only incurages waste by the motoring public.
 
Doug50 said:
a few years ago I looked at a Prius but didn’t buy. I’m fortunate to work from home most of the time if I want. A friend of our bought a Prius a couple of weeks ago because her job is a round trip of 100 miles. I personally like the Prius and think it has plent of room with the hatch back and fold down rear seats. The problem for her and myself with a Prius is that we live largely a rural life so unless I go to the city I never, every have to deal with rush hour traffic. 👍 But tha rush hour stop and go traffic is were the Prius shines in few savings. For her and myself a Prius without the hybrid (Yaris) would be the better way to go because with mostly highway driving she (or I) are basically just draging alone that extra weight of the electric motors and batter. I need a Prius without the hybrid.

My problem is that I need a pickup. Right now I have a half ton pickup. I wish i’d bought an ford explored sprot trac cuz if I needed more haul capacity I have a trailer that’d work just fine.

I was listening to Laura Ingram yeaterday and he had some guy from the CATO institute talking about oil and gas prices. They where discussing oil demand and gasoline in reation to Hillary Clinton’s appearence on Bill O’Reily. Hillary wants to lower gasoline costs by ending the tax per gallon and increase the tax on BIG OIL. This CATO guy pointed out that it’s been will documented that if you want to conserve oil and gasoilne the price per gallon must be kept relatively high. Lowering the price per gallon only incurages waste by the motoring public.
Click to expand...
You better had hurry up and get that humongous pickup truck 'cause soon they will become extinct. The new CAFE mileage standards are pretty stringent.

[My chest clutched slightly when I read that you want to buy a pickup truck. Well, anyway, maybe you should buy two or three and put the extras up on blocks. Probably can get some good deals on used p/u’s right about now.]

:rotfl:

P.S. I just happen to like that symbol and use it whenever I can.

P.P.S. I was reading somewhere that somebody makes a retro-fit kit for a Prius to make it into a plug-in rechargeable.
 
Al_Masetti said:
You better had hurry up and get that humongous pickup truck 'cause soon they will become extinct. The new CAFE mileage standards are pretty stringent.

[My chest clutched slightly when I read that you want to buy a pickup truck. Well, anyway, maybe you should buy two or three and put the extras up on blocks. Probably can get some good deals on used p/u’s right about now.]

:rotfl:

P.S. I just happen to like that symbol and use it whenever I can.

P.P.S. I was reading somewhere that somebody makes a retro-fit kit for a Prius to make it into a plug-in rechargeable.
Click to expand...
Don’t be a stupid city boy, Al. I own farm and ranch land. I need a pickup. And the guy you’re talking about who retrofits Priuses is out of California. Toyota voids the warrenties of car owners who install the plug-in. I know you’re too polyannish to open this link but here it is anyway.
Bill Reinert, Toyota’s alternative fuel manger on plug-ins

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2558276641904882805
 
Doug50 said:
Don’t be a stupid city boy, Al. I own farm and ranch land. I need a pickup. And the guy you’re talking about who retrofits Priuses is out of California. Toyota voids the warrenties of car owners who install the plug-in. I know you’re too polyannish to open this link but here it is anyway.
Bill Reinert, Toyota’s alternative fuel manger on plug-ins

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2558276641904882805
Click to expand...
Wow!

And I always thought rural boys were more laid back.

Type B personalities.

My goodness.
 
a prius is ideal for someone who does a huge amount of city driving. i guess taxis and pizza delivery drivers would fit that description. but the added costs associated with the hybrid technologies make it cost prohibitive until gas prices get to $9 a gallon or so for the average person as compared to low cost conventional compacts.

another issue is that hybrids have a carbon footprint as large as a hummer when you take into account the amount of energy used to mine the metal and make the battery and other unique parts of the car. the overall amount of carbon produced is equal to some gas hogs. of course people dispute this because they want to think they are superior when they drive around in those lame looking priuses (which sounds very close to pious–no coincidence)

weight is key to efficiency. many can drive mopeds and motorcycles to work. the volkswagon TDI diesels are really cool. i think government mandates on fuel efficiency is the right thing to do. i think the pollution and environmental problems associated with batteries and solar cells outweigh their potential benefits.
 
amazon.com/Black-Gold-Stranglehold-Jerome-Corsi/dp/1581824890

… talks a lot about really deep abiogenic oil and gas.

The next country that may become energy independent might be Hungary … by very deep drilling for natural gas in the Mako Trough … a thin area of the Earth’s crust where is easier to access natural gas coming up from the mantle.

Very deep drilling means deeper than 20,000 feet. A “normal” gas well is generally less than 10,000 feet.

Read more here: messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_…rticleId=31123

The original WSJ article is on a paid site, but this blog has the article and accompanying discussion.

Anyway, yes, it is very possible to drill our way to energy independence.

God put the oil and gas there for us to find and to develop and use. But the deep oil and gas requires some extra intellectual effort to find.
 
As many of you know, I am a big proponent of algae based fuels. This is especially true with the recent advances in making bio-equivalents of gasoline and oil.

Doing some more research, I have found another possible advantage. The algae waste products could be used as fertilizer. This will further reduce the need for oil.
 
algae just clogged up my pond pump. i should put it into my gas maker. next to my bread maker and yoghurt maker.
 
Al_Masetti said:
algae just clogged up my pond pump. i should put it into my gas maker. next to my bread maker and yoghurt maker.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that a 2000 SF algae tank can yield about 10 gallons of Biodiesel a week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top