11 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainBUt the government can subsidize it like they do ethanol. Just look at it as another "stimulus".
It is not cost effective. That is my point.
You are on a wild goose chase.
Of course, the first order of business will be to get gas up in price to have algae make more sense.
11 Mar 12
Originally posted by whodeyAlgae will never be anywhere near competitive with fossil fuels, even with subsidies. It is a fantasy. It is beyond silly to even consider it a reasonable alternative.
BUt the government can subsidize it like they do ethanol. Just look at it as another "stimulus".
Of course, the first order of business will be to get gas up in price to have algae make more sense.
12 Mar 12
Originally posted by whodeyA few years back there were a few dedicated RV nuts that converted Deisel pusher RVs to bio fuels, and made it all over the USA, relieving fast food restaurants of their used cooking oil. There isn't enough study to prove how this in the long term effected their engines, but I hear that most fast food places got wise and stopped donating the old oil.
Nope, I tried putting algae in the fuel tank and its a no go. :'(
The most promising idea, to me is using hydrogen as a fuel. Not without problems, but seems to have far more promise than electric.
12 Mar 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOf course, and I agree with the for now. A lot of the things that work, like electric, are still petroleum based.
There are numerous alternatives which work just fine, but they are not used (yet) because oil-based fuel is cheaper (for now).
Coal is easily refined into motor fuel, rather cheaply by today's oil standards. A couple of decades ago, it was considered uneconomical, at oil prices up to $36 per barrel. Like a lot of things that could reduce dependence on oil, the US government has slowed or stopped conversion of coal.
12 Mar 12
Originally posted by Metal BrainI've done quite a bit of looking at solar cells, building them. I've had a feeling that something was missing from the picture. Then a couple of weeks ago I heard of a study which showed that solar cells lose about half their collecting ability after the first year. Why? They just get dirty. Regular cleaning and maintenance will keep them plus 80% efficient. But the labour has to be calculated into the cost.
So does cow manure. Are in favor of that as an energy source too?
12 Mar 12
Originally posted by normbenignFossil fuels are the most cost effective source for hydrogen, so that is not a solution. Electrolysis is the other way to get hydrogen. You separate hydrogen from the oxygen in water, so that is just another way to use electricity.
A few years back there were a few dedicated RV nuts that converted Deisel pusher RVs to bio fuels, and made it all over the USA, relieving fast food restaurants of their used cooking oil. There isn't enough study to prove how this in the long term effected their engines, but I hear that most fast food places got wise and stopped donating the old oil.
...[text shortened]... ng hydrogen as a fuel. Not without problems, but seems to have far more promise than electric.
There has been some work on using solar as a way to separate hydrogen from water in a direct way, but that is not a solution yet. We can only hope that becomes a reality some day.
12 Mar 12
Originally posted by Metal BrainIts a very good energy source. I was recently discussing it with my sister (a farmer) and whether or not it is economically viable to use biogas in Zambia. I think she said it was economically viable, but that she doesn't have the know how, but is considering it.
So does cow manure. Are in favor of that as an energy source too?
http://www.biogassa.co.za/
http://practicalaction.org/biogas_expertise