Can we get off an oil based economy?

[Mr. Blue]

I don't think it's even possible at this point for us to get off a petroleum based economy. For my whole life I've heard about new energy technologies, how this or that will save us from doom and nothing has really come of it. This has been going on since the 70's (yeah I'm old) but have we made any real progress?

Whatever we want to blame for our lack of progress in this area, the fact remains there's been a serious lack of progress. I don't really see us moving towards serious energy independence within the next few decades and new technology needs to be discovered for that to even take place.

I personally see a potential for resource wars in the near future (history might look back and say Iraq was the first piece in that puzzle). I think Russia is jockeying for position and it'll be potentially a very tense time.

[SirMoby]

Drilling oil has a way of staying just under the price of new energy tech. Gasoline was pushed to $4.00 here in the USA and ethanol finally become profitable at that price so gasoline came back down. Oil shale was profitable at $120 (I think) so drilling came down. People that invested in these techs lost a shit load of money and will be hesitant to invest again.

The oil economy is larger then the economy of most countries. As it continues to grow it will have more power then mot countries and that includes the oil companies that want drilling rights to our off shore oil.

Unfortunately because oil has grown to such a huge economic force, I think the only way to tame it is by another huge economic force and The USA Government just happens to be a force large enough to do so.


I think that we need to offer huge tax credits for the purchase of lower mileage vehicles. Making hybrids, electronic and whatever else less expensive to American consumers will put a lot of these cars on the road cutting our demand and offer incentives for new tech development. Demand for 10,000 batteries a year is OK incentive for development. Demand for 10,000,000 new batteries a year will get some serious tech breakthroughs.

I think we need to nationalize our off shore oil. I know this is a terrible thought but giving it away to big oil and allowing them to control it is not good for national security. It just means that they can charge whatever they want for it and that's not good for America. I know there's a knee jerk reaction to this but I think it's the only way for us to get the off shore oil and have some control over price.

[Mr. Blue]

Well, I've read a few articles on "new energy" and whether it's even plausible to say one technology can even come close to replacing oil.

Okay, so I'll go over the technologies / ideas, a lot of this is off the top of my head and I'll google a little here and there to pan out my thoughts a little, but I'm not overly enthused with the prospects.

1. Energy conservation. I completely agree with getting more fuel efficient cars on the market. Make Going Green save you green as the motto for this push towards fuel efficiency, but it still doesn't get us off oil/gas. It might delay the inevitable, but the inevitable still is on the horizon.

Also, what do we do with all the pre-existing cars we have? One of the problems with the auto industry now is that no one wants to take the trade in of these older gas guzzling SUVs. So without that trade-in, a lot of people can't afford to buy a new car even with a tax credit. Added to the fact that the credit crunch is on, new car loans are going to be harder to come by.

2. Nuclear power, personally I think we should go nuclear in a big way. France gets 80% of it's electricity from Nuclear. Areas in France actually lobby for Nuclear Power plants to be built in their backyard. The U.S. though has this nuclear stigma, the environmentalists are being obstructionists to this potential energy source. However, nuclear power isn't limitless...its based on a non-renewable energy of Uranium. As a bridge to something else, I think it's worth it.

3. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc, etc, while it sounds great on paper, who actually believes these can replace oil? I read somewhere that it takes more oil to produce a solar panel then what that panel will produce in it's lifetime. While I think they should be explored...I think people are loony to think it can replace oil.

4. More drilling, great, but again, non-renewable. I think we have to do it, but we need to be sane that even if we tapped as much oil as we could...it still has an ending point where we need to have something renewable. And nationalizing it just feels like a mistake to me. Our government is just so inefficient at doing everything, that I still think the private sector will be able to tap those resources more effectively.

5. You mentioned shale, and there's other areas, but you are talking about the price per barrel going way up before that becomes feasible. There will come a point where $20 per gallon of gasoline is a reality. $4 nearly caused a panic, $20 will hurt like a bitch.

6. Coal. Clean coal? A possibility, we have a huge resource of coal, but coal on it's own will have certain environmental repercussions, so it has to be "clean coal" but that basically reduces the potential of the coal. And again...non-renewable.

7. Biofuels, just doesn't make sense to me. I think there's also a potential of creating a cash crop that farmers will make more profit on then say a food crop. Do we create a famine to keep society going?

There's more, but you get the basic gist of where I'm going with this...I don't really see what we have now as a possible long term replacement. So we need some new technology. What though? Cold Fusion? Dean Kamen is working with the old Stirling Engine idea, let's hope he's smart enough to come up with something. Battery Technology has to improve, etc, etc, etc.

Our future depends on new technology, but will it happen in time?

If we do everything possible...I still say we don't get off oil in time. If we don't get off oil, the big countries are going to secure oil in any way possible.

A lot of people think Iraq was for oil, they may say it was corporate greed, etc, but I honestly think it was a war to secure 1/4 of the world's oil. I say we don't leave Iraq and Obama is just getting the intelligence on why we're not leaving anytime soon.

[Independent Harry]

Well, I've read a few articles on "new energy" and whether it's even plausible to say one technology can even come close to replacing oil.

Okay, so I'll go over the technologies / ideas, a lot of this is off the top of my head and I'll google a little here and there to pan out my thoughts a little, but I'm not overly enthused with the prospects.

1. Energy conservation. I completely agree with getting more fuel efficient cars on the market. Make Going Green save you green as the motto for this push towards fuel efficiency, but it still doesn't get us off oil/gas. It might delay the inevitable, but the inevitable still is on the horizon.

Also, what do we do with all the pre-existing cars we have? One of the problems with the auto industry now is that no one wants to take the trade in of these older gas guzzling SUVs. So without that trade-in, a lot of people can't afford to buy a new car even with a tax credit. Added to the fact that the credit crunch is on, new car loans are going to be harder to come by.

2. Nuclear power, personally I think we should go nuclear in a big way. France gets 80% of it's electricity from Nuclear. Areas in France actually lobby for Nuclear Power plants to be built in their backyard. The U.S. though has this nuclear stigma, the environmentalists are being obstructionists to this potential energy source. However, nuclear power isn't limitless...its based on a non-renewable energy of Uranium. As a bridge to something else, I think it's worth it.

3. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc, etc, while it sounds great on paper, who actually believes these can replace oil? I read somewhere that it takes more oil to produce a solar panel then what that panel will produce in it's lifetime. While I think they should be explored...I think people are loony to think it can replace oil.

4. More drilling, great, but again, non-renewable. I think we have to do it, but we need to be sane that even if we tapped as much oil as we could...it still has an ending point where we need to have something renewable. And nationalizing it just feels like a mistake to me. Our government is just so inefficient at doing everything, that I still think the private sector will be able to tap those resources more effectively.

5. You mentioned shale, and there's other areas, but you are talking about the price per barrel going way up before that becomes feasible. There will come a point where $20 per gallon of gasoline is a reality. $4 nearly caused a panic, $20 will hurt like a bitch.

6. Coal. Clean coal? A possibility, we have a huge resource of coal, but coal on it's own will have certain environmental repercussions, so it has to be "clean coal" but that basically reduces the potential of the coal. And again...non-renewable.

7. Biofuels, just doesn't make sense to me. I think there's also a potential of creating a cash crop that farmers will make more profit on then say a food crop. Do we create a famine to keep society going?

There's more, but you get the basic gist of where I'm going with this...I don't really see what we have now as a possible long term replacement. So we need some new technology. What though? Cold Fusion? Dean Kamen is working with the old Stirling Engine idea, let's hope he's smart enough to come up with something. Battery Technology has to improve, etc, etc, etc.

Our future depends on new technology, but will it happen in time?

If we do everything possible...I still say we don't get off oil in time. If we don't get off oil, the big countries are going to secure oil in any way possible.

A lot of people think Iraq was for oil, they may say it was corporate greed, etc, but I honestly think it was a war to secure 1/4 of the world's oil. I say we don't leave Iraq and Obama is just getting the intelligence on why we're not leaving anytime soon.

You may want to check out this video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

Also, as for bio fuels. There are algae based bio fuels that can replenish themselves in days and will not threaten food crops. Also, wind energy geothermal and tidal energy are much more available than you think. Solar needs development, its just that no one is really doing the research.

[Mr. Blue]

Also, as for bio fuels. There are algae based bio fuels that can replenish themselves in days and will not threaten food crops. Also, wind energy geothermal and tidal energy are much more available than you think. Solar needs development, its just that no one is really doing the research.

I'll do a little more research, because I didn't know about algae based bio fuels, but I'm willing to admit that there is possibilities besides oil, I just don't think they'll be in place before the oil runs out and everything goes boom.

[SirMoby]

It seems that energy can be broken down into 2 groups really.


Portable Energy that can be used in vehicles such as cars, plains and buses. This is obviously gasoline and perhaps propane.

Connected Electricity. Nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar, tidal and of course coal are all options here.


Whenever I discuss oil replacements I'm usually talking about portable energy. I think electricity is a totally different discussion.

[SirMoby]

1. Energy conservation. I completely agree with getting more fuel efficient cars on the market. Make Going Green save you green as the motto for this push towards fuel efficiency, but it still doesn't get us off oil/gas. It might delay the inevitable, but the inevitable still is on the horizon.

Also, what do we do with all the pre-existing cars we have? One of the problems with the auto industry now is that no one wants to take the trade in of these older gas guzzling SUVs. So without that trade-in, a lot of people can't afford to buy a new car even with a tax credit. Added to the fact that the credit crunch is on, new car loans are going to be harder to come by.

It may take generations to get us completely off oil but if we had a million cars on the road today that got 60+ MPG we wouldn't feel the pain of high oil prices and wouldn't be transferring so much money into the Middle East economy.

Imagine if in 2001 instead of the government removing the hybrid tax credits and later cutting capital gains taxes that the government instead increased the tax credit to say $10k for vehicles that get double the mileage for similar gasoline powered vehicles.

Today I think we'd have a lot more efficient vehicles on the road. If similar tax credits were offered for refitting as well a new industry would develop to convert those gas guzzlers to more efficient engines so people wouldn't need to trade everything in. Instead you could go spend $5k on having your car refitted, get that back at the end of the year and suddenly you have a car that was getting 18 MPG now getting 40 MPG.

[Mr. Blue]

It may take generations to get us completely off oil but if we had a million cars on the road today that got 60+ MPG we wouldn't feel the pain of high oil prices and wouldn't be transferring so much money into the Middle East economy.

Imagine if in 2001 instead of the government removing the hybrid tax credits and later cutting capital gains taxes that the government instead increased the tax credit to say $10k for vehicles that get double the mileage for similar gasoline powered vehicles.

Today I think we'd have a lot more efficient vehicles on the road. If similar tax credits were offered for refitting as well a new industry would develop to convert those gas guzzlers to more efficient engines so people wouldn't need to trade everything in. Instead you could go spend $5k on having your car refitted, get that back at the end of the year and suddenly you have a car that was getting 18 MPG now getting 40 MPG.

Well, if we started in the 70's we'd probably have delayed the problems for decades until we had better technologies to replace oil, but the powers that be didn't want to pursue that path.

Now, I like the idea of a tax credit for fuel efficient vehicles, but I think there's that feeling of it's a great idea that should have started in the 1970's and doing now, while still be great, is a little late to the game.

[Binky]

It could be that the powers that be are all scratching each others butts to KEEP from developing new forms of energy. There's a lot of money changing hands in the oil industry. Maybe one day we'll actually wise up and begin developing other types of energy and get us of oil. Maybe....:banghead:

[Bill]

No technology exists that can 'replace' oil.

Nonetheless, oil is a finite resource.

And movement to an electricity based economy is necessary for internal economic and military security.

The idea is to stretch out the finite supply of oil, and prepare and develop the tech base needed to switch to more complex alternatives.

Fossil petroleum is a one time resource.

[Mr. Blue]

No technology exists that can 'replace' oil.

Nonetheless, oil is a finite resource.

And movement to an electricity based economy is necessary for internal economic and military security.

The idea is to stretch out the finite supply of oil, and prepare and develop the tech base needed to switch to more complex alternatives.

Fossil petroleum is a one time resource.

I agree with that, the problem becomes stretching out the finite supply. Humans on the whole don't do so well with finite amounts of anything and this is the biggest danger we face in the next 30 years.

[SeedyROM]

To suceed beyond oil as a lubricant/fuel we need to develope cooler running engines made from ceramics and plastic resins. Aluminum engines have proven costly to produce but the reduction in friction is minimal due to forged steel pistons and crankshafts that produce heat which leads to oil consumption and the need to replace the oil to minimize friction wear. Eventually we'll have to rely on plant based oils and non petroleum synthetics. But we'll need cooler running engines to use alternative lubricants.

We have decent alternatives to unleaded gas like natural gas and electric powered cars. Nat Gas kits have been around since the late 1980's but big oil, wallstreet and Detroit auto companies blocked all attempts towards alternative fuels. Now that prevailing technologies are more reliable we'll see Detroit converting slowly, the new competition will push for faster change. So Detroit will follow the lead with similar products or they will buy the competiton.

The cost for electric cars will have to drop considerably or we'll be slow to adopt the change. I like the concept of 20 horsepower engines used to generate power to turn an electric motor. These vehicles can go 600 plus miles on a tank of gas. GM has one in the works, mom and pop shops across the country are converting cars slowly. We also have people converting cars to electric, most have a range of 75 to 100 miles, which is great.

http://leftcoastelectric.com/content/section/1/2/

http://www.electroauto.com/index.html

We have to consume less and push DC and Detroit away from producing higher horsepowered cars. 70% of all engines are stronger than what is needed, yet the speed limits are the same. So we really don't need as much power as the marketing gurus & executives in Detroit think we need. Carter and Reagan pushed for fuel economy standards, Clinton and Bush did not. So we've seen cars produced with 30% more power than they need to be fast and efficent. The selfish have suceeded at feeding the greedheads who are out of touch with the needs of the future.

[SirMoby]

The cost for electric cars will have to drop considerably or we'll be slow to adopt the change.
That's one of the reasons why I'd like to see huge tax credits for this typo of technology. I figure if we're going to cut taxes and borrow $600 Billion a year we might as well cut taxes a little less and put $100 billion into tax credits for new tech.

[SeedyROM]

That's one of the reasons why I'd like to see huge tax credits for this typo of technology. I figure if we're going to cut taxes and borrow $600 Billion a year we might as well cut taxes a little less and put $100 billion into tax credits for new tech.

Tax incentives are part of Obama's plans. They should not be blocked nor delayed too long. eCars are the future.

[Mick063]

Well, I've read a few articles on "new energy" and whether it's even plausible to say one technology can even come close to replacing oil.



2. Nuclear power, personally I think we should go nuclear in a big way. France gets 80% of it's electricity from Nuclear. Areas in France actually lobby for Nuclear Power plants to be built in their backyard. The U.S. though has this nuclear stigma, the environmentalists are being obstructionists to this potential energy source. However, nuclear power isn't limitless...its based on a non-renewable energy of Uranium. As a bridge to something else, I think it's worth it.

6. Coal. Clean coal? A possibility, we have a huge resource of coal, but coal on it's own will have certain environmental repercussions, so it has to be "clean coal" but that basically reduces the potential of the coal. And again...non-renewable.





I'll go ahead and make a solid prediction here. It will be much easier to develop technology to use spent nuclear fuel (an alternative to enriched Uranium) then it will be to develop coal as an energy source that:

1) is clean (with respect to limiting air pollution)
2) will reduce the carbon footprint. Coal is largely carbon. Burn it and carbon goes into the air. Coal is a political issue because it employs Americans and it is a traditional industry. Look at the stink Sean Hannity raised about it the weekend before the election.

The anti nuclear movement drove away some of the best minds in the industry. For example, there was a prototype reactor at Hanford, Washington called Fast Flux Test Facility (http://www.hanford.gov/RL/?page=304&parent=0) (FFTF).

This breeder reactor was designed with the concept of creating more fuel than it uses. A net surplus of fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor). Unfortunately, the liquid sodium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-Cooled_Fast_Reactor)coolant has been drained rendering the facility unusable forever (once the liquified metal cools, the undrained portion becomes hard. Think of it solidifying in your car radiator). FFTF was relatively new when the decision was made to shut it down. There was not enough political support to keep the experimental facility running, and the brilliant minds that conceived the project have gone their different ways.

Breeder reactors are the answer my friends.

By the way...my profession is nuclear operator. I am obviously pro-nuclear.

[TerriZeee]

Fuel Cell cars, like this one (http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/), always seemed the way to go to me. All the advantages of an electric car with the quick fill up of a fossil fuel car.

If only we had spent money putting in a hydrogen refueling infrastructure instead of invading oil rich counties maybe we wouldn't have ended up in this mess.

[Mr. Blue]

I'll go ahead and make a solid prediction here. It will be much easier to develop technology to use spent nuclear fuel (an alternative to enriched Uranium) then it will be to develop coal as an energy source that:

1) is clean (with respect to limiting air pollution)
2) will reduce the carbon footprint. Coal is largely carbon. Burn it and carbon goes into the air. Coal is a political issue because it employs Americans and it is a traditional industry. Look at the stink Sean Hannity raised about it the weekend before the election.

The anti nuclear movement drove away some of the best minds in the industry. For example, there was a prototype reactor at Hanford, Washington called Fast Flux Test Facility (http://www.hanford.gov/RL/?page=304&parent=0) (FFTF).

This breeder reactor was designed with the concept of creating more fuel than it uses. A net surplus of fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor). Unfortunately, the liquid sodium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-Cooled_Fast_Reactor)coolant has been drained rendering the facility unusable forever (once the liquified metal cools, the undrained portion becomes hard. Think of it solidifying in your car radiator). FFTF was relatively new when the decision was made to shut it down. There was not enough political support to keep the experimental facility running, and the brilliant minds that conceived the project have gone their different ways.

Breeder reactors are the answer my friends.

By the way...my profession is nuclear operator. I am obviously pro-nuclear.

Well, there's something rather interesting I didn't know. Was there political opposition or just political non-interest? I'll look up a few more articles on this, thanks for posting it.

[Mick063]

Well, there's something rather interesting I didn't know. Was there political opposition or just political non-interest? I'll look up a few more articles on this, thanks for posting it.

There was a political spectrum. Local people that benefited economically and people in the region that are knowledgeable of the nuclear power industry were for it. Environmentalists were against it. The majority of people were indifferent. The most vocal group won.

Here is a great newspaper article (http://archive.tri-cityherald.com/progress/science/science12.html)about it.

from the article:

The reactor project was to be the research and development cornerstone of the U.S. initiative to develop a commercial breeder reactor. The breeder reactor would be designed to produce more nuclear fuel than it consumed.

FFTF was to serve many purposes associated with the breeder program, but its principal purpose was to produce a nuclear core environment identical to that which would be necessary for a commercial breeder reactor.

The ideal coolant is sodium because it does not slow the fast neutrons that are produced in the fission process, and it has heat transfer properties that can effectively remove the heat generated in the fission process.

While FFTF was not to be a breeder, and it was not to produce electricity. The heat normally used to produce electricity was to be dissipated to the air. The fast (high energy) neutrons generated in the reactor core were to be used to develop and test fuel and materials for the commercial breeder program.



When the author (a director of the project for 7 years) writes that FFTF "was not to be a breeder" one needs to understand the context. A better description would be that FFTF was not to generate electricity (there were no steam turbines). In reality, it was a prototype breeder. The technology is still considered state of the art and the U.S. would be hard pressed to assemble a team of scientists and engineers able to recreate such a project. One of the best arguments for keeping FFTF alive had less to do with the facility and more to do with maintaining a collection of people capable of sustaining the technology.

When people talk about a "Manhatten Project" type effort for energy independence, they don't understand that one existed. It was called Fast Flux Test Facility. People without knowledge of the nuclear industry politically killed the project.

[SirMoby]

By the way...my profession is nuclear operator. I am obviously pro-nuclear.
Cool. A buddy of mine was working at the McGuire plant for a few years but just moved to France to work there for a couple of years.

[SirMoby]

Fuel Cell cars, like this one (http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/), always seemed the way to go to me. All the advantages of an electric car with the quick fill up of a fossil fuel car.

If only we had spent money putting in a hydrogen refueling infrastructure instead of invading oil rich counties maybe we wouldn't have ended up in this mess.
Exactly. We cut taxes and borrowed money like drunken sailors and 8 years later have nothing to show for it. I would have much preferred tax cuts to be focused through tax credits for building a better energy infrastructure.

[ROdger Right]

Exactly. We cut taxes and borrowed money like drunken sailors and 8 years later have nothing to show for it. I would have much preferred tax cuts to be focused through tax credits for building a better energy infrastructure.
and how many years have u been saying that?

[Tickler]

A few random thoughts associated with this topic

- I've been hearing that the power grids are not sufficient to handle the massive additional power requirements that millions of new electric cars would require. Can somebody think of a "new deal" to get these infra-structure upgrades built.

- Seems that Google is going to be moving data centers offshore to use tidal power for electricity & cooling. There seems be some tax & energy saving going along with this concept. I also figure they are sorta going to create their own country, and remove themselves from government controls.

- As far as transportable energy, how about solar plants creating electricity for cracking water to produce Hydrogen & Oxygen, and compressing them for car fuel cell use.

- Also solar can be stored in the form of hot liquids for later use.

- Another item in the mix is creating petro-chemicals from coal. We don't really want to burn it anymore, so let's maybe use it creating organic chemicals.

I guess what I am basically saying that there are attainable options out there, if the will power is there to take advantage of them.:hi:

[SirMoby]

and how many years have u been saying that?
This is the first time I've been able to say 8 years. Check the numbers yourself.

[Cat slave]

I don't think it's even possible at this point for us to get off a petroleum based economy. For my whole life I've heard about new energy technologies, how this or that will save us from doom and nothing has really come of it. This has been going on since the 70's (yeah I'm old) but have we made any real progress?

Whatever we want to blame for our lack of progress in this area, the fact remains there's been a serious lack of progress. I don't really see us moving towards serious energy independence within the next few decades and new technology needs to be discovered for that to even take place.

I personally see a potential for resource wars in the near future (history might look back and say Iraq was the first piece in that puzzle). I think Russia is jockeying for position and it'll be potentially a very tense time.


Yes we can.....uh wrong chant! But we have oil, we have coal, we have
wind, we have solar, we have geothermal, tidal and nuclear but we need to not put all our
eggs in one basket. Use them all. Drill baby drill while we develop all these
other sources of energy. Diversity in energy is the key and throw any one
of them off the table is stupid folly, stupid, stupid. Why? Because everything has a down side....use them all and still use oil, our own friggin
oil.

Then we can stand back and watch China, India and Russia flood themselves
with oil form the ME, choke on the pollution and fall as world powers because
they are so out of control with their populations and suppress independent
success. We can sit over here with all our grand assortment of sources and
rock right along. We can make anything we need right here. We did it for
a very, very long time and that spirit is still alive under the current of the
tsunami of "free" trade and "level playing field" and OMG, the so overused
folly of "global economy". We can make our own right here and we will all
do quite well....unless of course we are undermined by a rogue leadership
with our welfare as a country not even on the list!!!!!

[Smurf-Herder]

I'll do a little more research, because I didn't know about algae based bio fuels, but I'm willing to admit that there is possibilities besides oil, I just don't think they'll be in place before the oil runs out and everything goes boom.

This is the way to go. An extremely rapidly self-renewing resource, with greater output potential than oil from the ground. We literally just build algae farms where we need them - and grow our fuel. Algae are like 50% oil; and under the right conditions can reproduce by up to 100% overnight. They also eat CO2, that we could feed them from existing power plants ... killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.

To paraphrase a line from Field of Dreams:

"Build it ... and they will grow."

First Heavy-Duty Vehicle Powered by 100% Algal Derived Biofuel

CEO Jonathan Wolfson, to Present on Algae-Derived Fuels for Military Use at the Conference Announcing Soladiesel Passed U.S. and EU Specifications - First Cold Weather Optimized Biodiesel

The Demonstration Drive of 100% Algal-Derived Biofuel Was Completed by Former Director of Central Intelligence and Under -Secretary of the Navy R. James Woolsey, Who Arrived at the Conference in an Unmodified 2008 Ford F450 Fueled on Soladiesel Algal Biodiesel.

South San Francisco, Calif. – April 15, 2008 – A recent test of Solazyme biodiesel, Soladiesel, through the Southwest Research Institute (SWRI), by request of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), demonstrated that Soladiesel has superior cold weather properties to any commercially available biodiesel. This makes it more suitable for cold weather climates where military bases have been previously unable to use biodiesel. Solazyme, Inc. is a leading biotechnology company that harnesses the power of microalgae to produce clean and scalable high performance oils, biofuels, and “green” chemicals. Company CEO Jonathan Wolfson will present at the 2008 Worldwide Energy Conference & Trade Show, and will discuss how oils derived from algae can be processed to create high-grade FAME biodiesel, renewable diesel and jet fuels that meet current military specifications. Because of the excellent cold temperature performance and the clean characteristics of the oil, former military fuels specialists note that new algae-based fuels could soon help the DoD to better comply with recently enacted mandates to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and utilize environmentally friendly fuels, including biodiesel.

“The DoD’s requested testing of the Soladiesel fuel showed superior performance especially in terms of its cold temperature properties,” said Wolfson. “Greater performance in cold temperatures means our biodiesel and other algae-based fuels could help the military in remote northern locations like Alaska and North Dakota, as well as in hot climates, while reducing dependence on petroleum. We look forward to continuing to work with the DoD on Soladiesel and other algal based fuels, and are pleased to be presenting at the DESC conference.”

Soladiesel exceeds both the requirements of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) biodiesel standard D6751 and EN 14214, the European standard, which ensures that biodiesel can safely run in any existing diesel engine. A 2008 Ford F450, which was supplied by BioDiesel University, part of the Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, was used to demonstrate Solazyme's biofuel at the DESC conference, running on its original, factory-standard diesel engine with no modifications. The truck is powered by B100; that is, 100 percent biodiesel made from 100 percent algae.

R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence and Under -Secretary of the Navy, who arrived at the Conference in the unmodified Ford F450 powered by Soladiesel said, “While I drive a plug-in hybrid, the military generally doesn't use cars; it drives trucks, ships and planes and today those only run on diesel oil-based fuels. I’m delighted to participate in this worldwide first – I arrived at the DESC Military Energy Conference in a F450 pick-up fueled completely on ASTM compliant B100 made from domestically produced algal oil. Algae are a natural oil producer and can be refined into all kinds of oil-based fuels. This shows we're on our way to growing our own military fuels right in this country."

“Solazyme’s crude algal oils can be blended with petroleum crude in existing oil refineries and are also optimal for refining into biodiesel, renewable diesel and jet fuel,” Wolfson said. “Therefore we anticipate helping to diversify and decentralize the geographic sources of oil, thus making oil supplies more secure. In addition, Solazyme’s oil has a clear, fast path to market because the algal oil was developed for use within the existing trillion dollar energy infrastructure.”

The 2008 Worldwide Energy Conference & Trade Show is being held April 14 – 16 at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City in Arlington, Va. The truck will also be available for rides throughout the day by interested parties. Wolfson’s presentation, titled Fuels Derived from Algae Oil, is scheduled for 9:00 am on April 16, 2008.

http://www.solazyme.com/news080415.shtml

[Smurf-Herder]

Another thing about Algae.

It would save us billions in having to build a new infrastructure - it totally changes the perspective. Using our present infrastructure - we just change the source of our oil. To something self-renewing, that we have in-country.

It also opens up the field of energy production to non-standard players.

Algae - the untimate Green (literally) technology :thumbsup:

[Mr. Blue]

I have to admit this thread has raised some interesting alternatives and I'm slightly more optimistic, even though I have a deep seeded belief that we'll not act on these alternatives in a timely manner and find ourselves in great turmoil as we hit peak oil consumption.

Nothing I'd like more though then America being energy independent...I think at the moment that's one of those areas that leave us most vulnerable.

[wayers57]

Why are none of you mentioning all the plastics, personal care products, rubber products, and resins that are derived from oil. We are totally dependent on it and wind and solat aren't the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the things we take for granted besides our transportation.

[SirMoby]

Why are none of you mentioning all the plastics, personal care products, rubber products, and resins that are derived from oil. We are totally dependent on it and wind and solat aren't the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the things we take for granted besides our transportation.
We require the highest grades of oil for vehicle propulsion and that's where the most and most expensive oil goes. As I stated much earlier in this thread, connected energy is a very different need then portable energy and electricity that's generated at a single source is not portable.

I wouldn't mind the cost of plastics going up 3 times because we could find easy and inexpensive replacements.

That's why I want to separate the connected energy vs. the vehicle energy and then what's left over is a very small amount of petroleum usage that is really not in high demand.

[wayers57]

We require the highest grades of oil for vehicle propulsion and that's where the most and most expensive oil goes. As I stated much earlier in this thread, connected energy is a very different need then portable energy and electricity that's generated at a single source is not portable.

I wouldn't mind the cost of plastics going up 3 times because we could find easy and inexpensive replacements.


That's why I want to separate the connected energy vs. the vehicle energy and then what's left over is a very small amount of petroleum usage that is really not in high demand.

that is not correct, it is actually a 50/50 split. Almost everything we use has an ingredient that is derived from oil.

[Cat slave]

Another thing about Algae.

It would save us billions in having to build a new infrastructure - it totally changes the perspective. Using our present infrastructure - we just change the source of our oil. To something self-renewing, that we have in-country.

It also opens up the field of energy production to non-standard players.

Algae - the untimate Green (literally) technology :thumbsup:

Finally a use for that stuff I have to drag out of my ponds all the time!

[Cat slave]

Why are none of you mentioning all the plastics, personal care products, rubber products, and resins that are derived from oil. We are totally dependent on it and wind and solat aren't the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the things we take for granted besides our transportation.

Thats true and we have oil...we just arent producing from our own soil.
If we use some of everything to power the country a failure in one source
wont take us down. Little here, little there and viola, energy! Over simplified
I know but true.

I would love to see glass make a come back with returnable milk and soda
bottles.

[Mr. Blue]

I would love to see glass make a come back with returnable milk and soda
bottles.

I'm not kidding, milk from a glass bottle still tastes better than the stuff in plastic bottles.

[disrupter]

Can we 'afford' to go extinct?

This is simple. Binary.

Such as our oil based economy exists it must be ended. Period.
Otherwise we go extinct. Period.

there was life & joy before gasoline vehicles, there will be afterwards provided we end it soon enough not to go extinct.

[Tickler]

I have to admit this thread has raised some interesting alternatives and I'm slightly more optimistic, even though I have a deep seeded belief that we'll not act on these alternatives in a timely manner and find ourselves in great turmoil as we hit peak oil consumption.

Nothing I'd like more though then America being energy independent...I think at the moment that's one of those areas that leave us most vulnerable.
I didn't know this was in the pipeline until today.:disbelief:

A micro nuclear reactor in your garden?
On its home page, Hyperion gives additional details about these reactors and their safety. “Small enough to be transported on a ship, truck or train, Hyperion power modules are about the size of a “hot tub” — approximately 1.5 meters wide. Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail. Like a power battery, Hyperion modules have no moving parts to wear down, and are delivered factory sealed. They are never opened on site. Even if one were compromised, the material inside would not be appropriate for proliferation purposes. Further, due to the unique, yet proven science upon which this new technology is based, it is impossible for the module to go supercritical, ‘melt down’ or create any type of emergency situation. If opened, the very small amount of fuel that is enclosed would immediately cool. The waste produced after five years of operation is approximately the size of a softball and is a good candidate for fuel recycling.”
http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=1089

[Smurf-Herder]

I didn't know this was in the pipeline until today.:disbelief:

A micro nuclear reactor in your garden?
On its home page, Hyperion gives additional details about these reactors and their safety. “Small enough to be transported on a ship, truck or train, Hyperion power modules are about the size of a “hot tub” — approximately 1.5 meters wide. Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail. Like a power battery, Hyperion modules have no moving parts to wear down, and are delivered factory sealed. They are never opened on site. Even if one were compromised, the material inside would not be appropriate for proliferation purposes. Further, due to the unique, yet proven science upon which this new technology is based, it is impossible for the module to go supercritical, ‘melt down’ or create any type of emergency situation. If opened, the very small amount of fuel that is enclosed would immediately cool. The waste produced after five years of operation is approximately the size of a softball and is a good candidate for fuel recycling.”
http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=1089

Hey, they each come with a security detail.

Awesome package.

It's like wow ... the 21st Centry is really here.

[Cat slave]

I'm not kidding, milk from a glass bottle still tastes better than the stuff in plastic bottles.


Yes, it absolutely does! And sodas too! Everything is better in glass!

[cajunsnake]

Even though I agree with the ideas that have come forth here, there is one important fact that hasn't been touched...the oil cartel. They make billions every year in profits, all kinds of tax breaks from the government. My point, how do you convince them that they should give all this up to make us fossil fuel free?

I agree with DISRUPTER, there was life and joy before gasoline vehicles, but how many of you...really...would be willing to walk away from that? Not to mention, which has been brought out already, the other things in our lives that are oil based. If they lose money in one area, how much would products cost, for them to make their same bottom line profit. Remember, we are talking about taking away from THEIR life style.

What's the answer, ain't got the foggiest. But I do know to get what we want would mean that we as a people would have to give up our comforts, force those that we've elected to do what we want. THAT is the problem, IMO.


SNAKE