Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

pnnl.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

#81

Post by grecy »

chaz wrote: post #15
AndrewDucker wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is it better than turning that geothermal energy into electricity and transmitting it to a battery in an electric car? Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a need for oil. Just wondering what the efficiencies are for each route, and whether this process means that we don't even need electric cars any more (doubtful, but I thought I'd ask)

Gasoline has tremendous energy density compared to other forms of storage. If you need that energy to be portable (like in a car or truck), you may still want to use petroleum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Right, but that doesn't mean anything when we're only getting ~16% efficiency in our ICE.

Re: Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

#82

Post by wil421 »

Doesnt this take away from the real issue of fossil fuels? Pollution, increased CO2 and climate changes.

Lets say this could scale and be economical tomorrow. Does anyone think the oil companies would let that happen or let their price per gallon at the pump decrease.

Re: Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

#83

Post by wil421 »

seren wrote: post #2

> The system runs at around 350 degrees Celsius (662 degrees Fahrenheit) at a pressure of around 3,000 PSI, combining processes known as hydrothermal liquefaction and catalytic hydrothermal gasification. I wonder what it the energy ROI of the whole process. It is not mentioned in the article, so it is not sure it is positive.

Gasification is a fascinating process I was just recently aware of. Some guy got his truck to run on a certain type of oak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYGKn12Weu4

Re: Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

#84

Post by ChuckMcM »

crpatino wrote: post #69
ChuckMcM wrote: post #65

And this boys and girls: ""Cost is the big roadblock for algae-based fuel," said Douglas Elliott, the laboratory fellow who led the PNNL team's research. "We believe that the process we've created will help make algae biofuels much more economical." Is why we won't run out of 'oil' at any time. Even at $500/barrel equivalent there is a point where if you must have 'crude oil' you can make it for a price. Of course at…

> Even at $500/barrel equivalent there is a point where if you must have 'crude oil' you can make it for a price. Sorry, but this is just ignorant nonsense. EROEI is what counts here, not raw "profits". If your $500/barrel price point was calculated using inputs that require total energy investment equivalent to 2 barrels of oil @ $150/barrel... this is a stupid way of burning perfectly good and relatively cheap natu…

My claim is that the energy equation is independent of oil availability. We aren't going to "run out of energy" as some people postulate. Knowing that is helpful sometimes.

You might want to check the EROEI numbers for algae fuels, the NASA paper suggests that they are lower than they are for oil. They make that claim based on lower transportation costs (feedstock is made 'onsite' of the refinery), and a simpler refining process. None of the drilling or pipeline investment but the "farming" aspect (moving the water around) offsets that pretty much.

[1] http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/OMEGA/

Re: Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

#85

Post by shortly »

wil421 wrote: post #82

Doesnt this take away from the real issue of fossil fuels? Pollution, increased CO2 and climate changes. Lets say this could scale and be economical tomorrow. Does anyone think the oil companies would let that happen or let their price per gallon at the pump decrease.

> Doesnt this take away from the real issue of fossil fuels? Pollution, increased CO2 and climate changes.

No. Any CO2 released when these fuels are burned has to come from the algae. The algae gets it from the air. So CO2 is cycled, but not added to the atmosphere.

Re: Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

#86

Post by dclusin »

maxerickson wrote: post #76
dclusin wrote: post #72

Oil is a wonder molecule that is used as an input in thousands of industrial processes. Burning it to extract energy is just the use case people understand. Which is unfortunate.

If you are going to say something like that you should at least say "extract energy".

Good point. Fixed that.

Re: Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

#87

Post by maxerickson »

VLM wrote: post #31
Shivetya wrote: post #19

and with the Mexican government stepping away from restrictions of foreign investment in their oil fields will technology like this ever take off or need too? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/north-america-to-dr...

LOL no Mexicos Hubbert peak was about a decade ago. Cantarell is bouncing along empty, Chicontepec is useless, economically unviable for geological reasons. And they don't have much else worth mentioning. (edited to add, duh I'm obviously talking about geological petroleum reserves not some kind of racial/cultural commentary) Its kind of like guano "production" from a century ago... Once its removed and shipped out,…

What's the case for marijuana being more than 5% of Mexico's economy?

(I read a little bit that suggests that is a reasonable estimate of the maximum size of the U.S. market; the numbers are wishy-washy because use is not especially well characterized. U.S. tobacco consumption is ~7% of the Mexican economy, for the sake of establishing some sort of scale.)

Re: Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

#88

Post by toomuchtodo »

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #68
toomuchtodo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly why diesel locomotives have always been diesel generators connected to massive electric motors; the best of both worlds.

not just locomotives. the biggest earth-movers in the world are all electric vehicles powered by onboard generators. http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/10/worlds-largest-dumptruc...

Because you know what happens when you try to pass immense torque through a transmission? Bad things. Its why Elon fought for so long for a 2-speed transmission on the Roadster before giving up and opting for a lower top speed. Electric motors have a ridiculous amount of force they can put out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Timeline

"Subsequent to completion of production car number one at Hethel, the company announced problems with transmission reliability. The development transmission, with first gear enabled to accelerate 0 to 60 mph (0 to 97 km/h) in 4 seconds, was reported to have a life expectancy of as low as only a few thousand miles. Tesla Motors' first two transmission suppliers were unable to produce transmissions, in quantity, that could withstand the gear-shift requirements of the high torque, high rpm electric motor. In December 2007, Tesla Motors announced plans to ship the initial Roadsters with the transmissions locked into second gear to provide 0 to 60 mph (0 to 97 km/h) acceleration in 5.7 seconds. The first production car was not delivered with this interim solution; P1 has both transmission gears enabled. According to the plan, the initial transmissions were to be swapped out under warranty when the finalized transmission, power electronics module (PEM), and cooling system became available. The EPA range of the car was also restated downward from 245 to 221 miles (394 to 356 km). The downward revision was attributed to an error in equipment calibration at the laboratory that conducted the original test"

DISCLAIMER: Tesla's final solution was a single-speed gearbox, combined with software and energy management upgrades. The electric motor will now run as high as 14K RPMs to achieve it's 125mph top speed while retaining it's 4 second 0-60 time.

Re: Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

#89

Post by beat »

robhu wrote: post #67
beat wrote: post #60

Something to keep in mind, and the source of much misunderstanding in alternative fuel discussions... there are really three different systems involved! Energy capture, energy storage, and energy conversion (converting stored energy to work). Energy capture: Fossil fuel has the unpleasant problem that the energy was captured long ago, over very time-consuming (millions of years) natural processes. So it carries two f…

If we're talking about stable long-term energy sources that aren't yet ready/cost effective, then nuclear fusion is another option.

Nuclear fusion isn't an option because it's not technologically feasible at positive EROEI (that may change someday, but it's basically science fiction now).

Positive EROEI on numerous forms of solar is already there and in production. It just can't beat fossil fuel on a cost/power basis. That's an economics problem, not a technical problem.

Re: Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

#90

Post by beat »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #84
crpatino wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even at $500/barrel equivalent there is a point where if you must have 'crude oil' you can make it for a price. Sorry, but this is just ignorant nonsense. EROEI is what counts here, not raw "profits". If your $500/barrel price point was calculated using inputs that require total energy investment equivalent to 2 barrels of oil @ $150/barrel... this is a stupid way of burning perfectly good and relatively cheap natu…

My claim is that the energy equation is independent of oil availability. We aren't going to "run out of energy" as some people postulate. Knowing that is helpful sometimes. You might want to check the EROEI numbers for algae fuels, the NASA paper suggests that they are lower than they are for oil. They make that claim based on lower transportation costs (feedstock is made 'onsite' of the refinery), and a simpler refi…

Per wikipedia, EROEI for tar sands is 3:1, and they're profitable. :( EROEI for biodiesel is 1.3:1 - and substantially replacing petroleum would take a lot of farmland. So until there's a biodiesel process that ups the EROEI (this algae process might be it), we're stuck.

By contrast, global oil production is around 20:1. It used to be 100:1, back in the 1950s.

Post reply on HN