Thread: Biodiesel production from algae and plants,what the problem?

Wikipedia article "Biodiesel"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Production
states that area slightly larger than Maryland would be sufficient to replace all the
U.S. motor fuels with biodiesel if we grow it from algae.I think such territory could be easily found in some shallow sea and not much larger than territory recently
polluted and devastated by oil in Mexican gulf.Also I would be glad to know what
would be physical limit to plant biodiesel production if we use all genetical engineering possible?I guess estimates for algae take in account flat area covered
by algae,but what if we interbreed algae and some very tall trees to produce biodiesel?Could it reduce area even further?

I've read about artificial algae "trees", and they seem practical enough. Biodiesel farms can also be built on lands that are pretty much useless for anything else, like the sunny deserts in the US southwest. So there'd be no land competition with food production (or housing, industry, recreation, etc), and there'd be no competition for the use of foods, such as corn or sugar cane (from which ethanol is made).

the problem with that is that it stills pollute but If you were to get hydrogen from the algea and then use the hydrogen as fuel. There are a few types of algea (I know in swamps there are) that seperate the hydrogen from the water.

The ideal place to grow algae for biodiesel is in sewage oxidation ponds. They serve to improve the effluent breakdown. They occupy land area already demanded for that other purpose, so do not take valuable acreage. They are in an environment that is already fertilised, so none need be added. The total productivity of biodiesel in that environment should be greater than any equivalent area.

The work to develop such a system is already under way.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10381404

the problem with that is that it stills pollute but If you were to get hydrogen from the algea and then use the hydrogen as fuel. There are a few types of algea (I know in swamps there are) that seperate the hydrogen from the water.

If you propose to use hydrogen in fuel cells and subsequently car needs to have electric motor,there is another problem-electromagnetic pollution.Powerful electric motors will radiate in some unhealthy parts of electromagnetic spectrum,
such as ELF and microwave and if all cars in cities will do that, I'm not sure that
health damage effects will be better than after biodiesel pollution.Also electric motors require big amounts of copper which is rare metal and there might be shortage problems and price skyrocketing on this metal.
Also there is no viable hydrogen storage methods up to date,as I know.
The short to mid range pollution reduction way might be increasing efficiency of
diesels,and use some other less polluting engines,such as Stirling.

Stanely

That belongs on a different thread, since it is a side issue.

Anyway, the simple reality is that EMF from electric motors is too low in energy to be a health issue. Even the massively more powerful fields that come from high tension power lines have not been shown to harm those who live underneath them.

Originally Posted by Topalk

the problem with that is that it stills pollute but If you were to get hydrogen from the algea and then use the hydrogen as fuel. There are a few types of algea (I know in swamps there are) that seperate the hydrogen from the water.

How does it pollute?

It takes CO2 out of the air, then when burned, the CO2 goes in the air again. there is a balance. These methods don't have to be for diesel. Methane is readily made by such processes.

Anyway, the simple reality is that EMF from electric motors is too low in energy to be a health issue.

There is arguing that even cell phones could cause brain cancer.Could you compare it to the power of electric motor?!

Stanley

My latest Skeptic magazine has an item on that. Quite scathing, in fact. Points out that the numerous studies on cell phones show absolutely no harm, and shows the calculations of energy output and the utterly minimal impact it can have on the human brain. In fact, zero.

Simply, cell phones do not and cannot cause harm to their users.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Anyway, the simple reality is that EMF from electric motors is too low in energy to be a health issue.

There is arguing that even cell phones could cause brain cancer.

There's 'arguing' that the world poofed into existence 6000 years ago and that it's flat as a pancake- does the existence or shrillness of such arguments lend them any credibility?

The mobile phones/brain cancer thing is not supported by any scientific evidence, just a load of anecdotes.

Anyway, the simple reality is that EMF from electric motors is too low in energy to be a health issue.

ELF is very dangerous by itself,not necessarily it should carry very high
energy.

http://www.think-aboutit.com/energy/pwr_line.htm

I feel that only truly environmentally safe and non-polluting car is compressed-air
vehicle.Unfortunately you can't go far on it.
So I think they will not develop worth replacement for a good Diesel for a long time.

Stanley

That reference is one of those we described as "nut case"!

The internet is full of references like this. People who get a bee in their bonnet about some issue and then play it up. They are known for cherry picking data and exaggerating anything that supports their idiotic conclusions.

The business of whether cell phones, cell phone towers, high tension transmission wires etc cause health problems has been the subject of a lot of research over the past 30 odd years. Literally dozens of studies have been done. Most result in showing no harm. A few show benefit, and a few show harm. By carefully selecting the studies you report, and exaggerating results, the nutter can 'prove' anything he or she wants to.

If you want to demonstrate something has a real impact, you need to use references that come from reputable journals or institutions. A reputable university, research institute, government department or the like will carry weight. Nut case web sites do not.

The internet is full of references like this.

Exactly.

But how could you prove yourself that government doesn't hide truth about EMF
dangers?Official health sites prefer to tell that there is concerns about EMF exposures and that it may cause health problems.It means neither yes or no.
But maybe they just don't want people to panic?People may demand to install expansive protection and start to think bad about electric companies.
It strange for me that some greenies concerned about hydrocarbon pollution but
not about EMF pollution.It seems to have the same level of credibility.

Stanley

No, not the same level of credibility. Way less, in fact.

Give you an example. Cell phones have been the subject of a lot of concern, with some people thinking they cause brain cancer. But in fact, the radio waves transmitted from cell phones are of a frequency that cannot cause harm to genetic material. Experiments show that the main effect on living tissue is to excite water molecules. Quite simply, cell phone transmissions next to living tissue cause the water molecules in that living tissue to warm up.

This is not something that stays local, because of the flow of blood. A local increase in temperature is immediately 'smoothed out' by cooler blood flowing in, and the warmer blood flowing out.

So how much can a cell phone warm the body? That is easy for researchers to discover. It turns out that the total warming is less than one watt of energy. To put this into perspective, when you carry out vigorous and healthy exercise, your body will warm up to a level representing 100 watts of extra heat energy.

So can a cell phone cause harm to your body? Emphatically, no!

So why are 'greenie' organisations not concerned about EMF? Simple. Such a concern is not in the least credible, and those organisations cannot be seen to be crackpot.