Renewable Energy

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:26 pm

So I learned about Joule Unlimited earlier today, and I'm wondering why this hasn't been made more public.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_Unlimited wrote:Wikipedia's Simplified Explanation[/url]]Joule Unlimited, formerly known as Joule Biotechnologies, is a producer of alternative energy technologies based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Their principal development is termed helioculture, a process that generates hydrocarbon-based fuel by combining non-fresh water, nutrients, photosynthetic organisms, carbon dioxide, and sunlight. The company plans to start building a facility that will be able to produce more than 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year (19,000 m3/km2·a) starting in 2011.

Helioculture uses photosynthetic organisms, but is otherwise distinct from the process that makes fuel from algae. Oils made from algae usually have to be refined into fuel following a batch process, but helioculture produces fuel directly - either ethanol or hydrocarbons - that do not need refining. The Helioculture process also does not produce biomass. This process is enabled by the discovery of unique genes coding for enzymatic mechanisms that enable the direct synthesis of both alkane, olefin, ethanol, and other key molecules. Helioculture allows for brackish water or graywater, nonindustrial waste water from sources such as baths and washing machines, to be used, while traditional biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol require fresh water.

Joule Unlimited claims that its product will be cost competitive with crude oil at $50 a barrel ($310/m3). The company also states that its product could supply all of the transportation fuel for the United States from an area the size of the Texas panhandle.

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:59 am

Whoa.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:31 pm

Until they do it and do it on a moderate scale you can't really believe companies like these.

MfA · Post by **MfA** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:19 pm

Biofuel from biological soup is generally recognized as the next generation of biofuel ... but who can manage to get it to work commercially remains to be seen.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:20 pm

Yeah, lots of big ideas kicking around and a lot of funding sloshing around to back them up, but it's hard to get things into commercial mass production.

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 2:52 am

More on Joule Unlimited

MfA · Post by **MfA** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:15 am

How much energy does it cost to sterilize the water?

(I assume these organisms will have a hard time competing with algae in the bioreactors ... seeing as they are wasting a lot of energy.)

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:02 am

Meikle641 wrote: More on Joule Unlimited

The comments for that article are more informative than most, apparently the writer has a habit of getting overly enthusiastic about this type of technology. I could be wrong, but if I had to bet I'd say this will be vapour-ware.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:14 pm

Awesome if it works

And even if it doesn't it's probably something more research dollars should be going towards.

But that puff piece looks like pre-IPO posturing to me,

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:11 pm

MfA wrote:How much energy does it cost to sterilize the water?

(I assume these organisms will have a hard time competing with algae in the bioreactors ... seeing as they are wasting a lot of energy.)

No idea, but what is just amounts to is storing energy as chemicals. The energy to make it may suck, but depending on what form of oil they make it could be stored for decent periods of time. Using excess power or renewables to help power the plant could be useful for that reason.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong here. Ideally we should try to move away from fossil fuels, but I'm sure they'll always have uses for us for energy.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:39 pm

Meikle641 wrote:Or maybe I'm completely wrong here. Ideally we should try to move away from fossil fuels, but I'm sure they'll always have uses for us for energy.

The short answer: We can't. Seriously, we can't. The amount of technology that is dependent in one or more key fundamental elements such that without fossil fuels production could be eliminated or severely cut to the point of near elimination is ... practically everything.

In fact the opposite can be argued: Fossil fuels are so important to our current technology that using it for energy is a crime. Having a way to create a supply of fossil "fuels" for non energy purposes is a major long term requirement.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:59 pm

tzor wrote:In fact the opposite can be argued: Fossil fuels are so important to our current technology that using it for energy is a crime.

You know, I'm beginning to agree with this.

I had no idea that the world's sulfur supply came from oil. And it comes from oil because it's easier and cleaner to get it from oil than it is to mine it. I didn't know that vitamin supplements are frequently derived from petrochemicals.

And these are just a couple of the things I've learned about in the last few days. Our lifestyle is utterly dependent on fossil fuels and we really don't understand the true extent of it.

What I wish we could see more of is a breakdown of things like plastic back into more biofriendly forms - like having bacteria (or something) that could digest plastic. I think that would not only be good for the planet, but it would help keep fossil fuels in the nature cycle.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:24 pm

We do need to move away from Fossil Fuels for energy.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:31 pm

Teleportation, baby. Believe it.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Why do we need to travel anyway? Let's go 100% virtual. Holographic projectors will allow you to visit anywhere in the comfort of your own home. Visit foreign lands without having to worry about germs.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:04 pm

Transportation, not travel.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:31 pm

Transportation could be accomplished with a Predictive Just in Time technology (PJIT). Knowing what resources and goods will be needed at any given time in the future, the optimal transportation system can be devised so that no matter how slow the system it will arrive just when it is needed. The faster you need to transport things the more energy you need. Teleportation transporters use a whole lot of energy (although not a lot of energy compared to moving things at warp speeds).

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:11 pm

... wow. I am impressed.

And expect stiff resistance from Big Oil, as usual.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:30 pm

While big oil would still resist this, it would split the car companies away - they would still get to produce their gas-based engines with minimal overhaul of their assembly. I think that change would be a huge one, lobby-wise.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:30 am

sigma999 wrote:And expect stiff resistance from Big Oil, as usual.

Ironically, I expect that they will be "leading the way" or in other words getting the head start on monopolies for the next big energy thing. Every major oil producer knows their time will soon be over. The House of Saud, for example, is pouring money to cash in on the solar monopoly.

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:13 pm

I always wondered if the way to encourage companies to do certain things was to make the new ways profitable.

I mean, American already uses its tax code to encourage people to farm, donate to charitable and religious organizations, own a home, have children, and plenty of other things which don't come to mind now. If the American upper classes are so upset about paying the second lowest tax rate in the world, why not tell them they'll get it if they make renewable energy marketable?

Americans in general want out carrots but buck hard against sticks.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:44 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I always wondered if the way to encourage companies to do certain things was to make the new ways profitable.

I mean, American already uses its tax code to encourage people to farm, donate to charitable and religious organizations, own a home, have children, and plenty of other things which don't come to mind now. If the American upper classes are so upset about paying the second lowest tax rate in the world, why not tell them they'll get it if they make renewable energy marketable?

What makes you think there isn't already tax breaks for purchasing renewable energy/energy-efficient products?

(There is, just so you know)

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:05 pm

Or other incentives ... not that I bought my 2010 Prius solely because I can travel back and forth to work on the HOV lane without having to find someone to sit in the passinger seat.

But what are the incentives anyway?

Just robbing Peter to pay Paul. What "crime" has Peter committed, other than the crime of not being Paul. If Peter has committed no crime why are you taking more taxes from him in order that Paul doesn't have to pay his fair share of taxes?

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:55 pm

tzor wrote: But what are the incentives anyway? Just robbing Peter to pay Paul. What "crime" has Peter committed, other than the crime of not being Paul. If Peter has committed no crime why are you taking more taxes from him in order that Paul doesn't have to pay his fair share of taxes?

I think tzor, this is one of the reasons your opinions are so different from everyone else's. Personally I believe that a Free(ish) Market is a very efficient way to distribute resources, it is not a fair one. Compare Britney Spears and a childhood oncologist, if you believe in the Free(ish) Market then you believe that Spears is entitled to more wealth then the oncologist. I disagree, I don't believe that. I call it a Free(ish) Market because we don't have a Free Market, and I don't think we'll ever have a truly Free Market, because of that wealth is not distributed properly, either the government can make a hackneyed attempt to fix it or nothing will get done.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:54 pm

Juton wrote:
tzor wrote: But what are the incentives anyway? Just robbing Peter to pay Paul. What "crime" has Peter committed, other than the crime of not being Paul. If Peter has committed no crime why are you taking more taxes from him in order that Paul doesn't have to pay his fair share of taxes?
I think tzor, this is one of the reasons your opinions are so different from everyone else's. Personally I believe that a Free(ish) Market is a very efficient way to distribute resources, it is not a fair one. Compare Britney Spears and a childhood oncologist, if you believe in the Free(ish) Market then you believe that Spears is entitled to more wealth then the oncologist. I disagree, I don't believe that. I call it a Free(ish) Market because we don't have a Free Market, and I don't think we'll ever have a truly Free Market, because of that wealth is not distributed properly, either the government can make a hackneyed attempt to fix it or nothing will get done.

To be honest, I'm not sure why you are making this argument. The reasons for Britney Spears (I still remember all the parodies I made with her in the WotC boards ... fun times) being rich will remain confusing to anyone who does not understand those words of P.T. Barnum that there really is a sucker born every minute.

My argument is that when you decide that A is bad and that B is good, and you choose to give a tax rebate to B you have in all practical terms created a tax for all those who do not do B, because by the end of the day the books have to blanace and that loss of revenue has to come from someplace; in this case everyplace else.

The fundamental point is that the Federal government has no money. It takes other people's money, either in the form of taxes or through borrowing. So the more "generous" the federal government is, the more "mean" it has to be to everyone else.

The freeish market is far from perfect, but the centrally planned market is guarenteed to fail. The combination of Peter's Principle and Murphy's Law demand it.