Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Blue Petroleum- A True Replacement For Foreign Oil  
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4429 posts, RR: 15
Posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2091 times:

You guys have to see this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110331...ergyalternativeenvironmentresearch

Quote:
ALICANTE, Spain (AFP) – In a forest of tubes eight metres high in eastern Spain scientists hope they have found the fuel of tomorrow: bio-oil produced with algae mixed with carbon dioxide from a factory.
Almost 400 of the green tubes, filled with millions of microscopic algae, cover a plain near the city of Alicante, next to a cement works from which the C02 is captured and transported via a pipeline to the "blue petroleum" factory.

...

"In a unit that covers 50 square kilometres, which is not something enormous, in barren regions of southern Spain, we could produce about 1.25 million barrels per day," or almost as much as the daily export of oil from Iraq, he said.

...

US oil giant ExxonMobil plans to invest up to $600 million in research on oil produced from algae.
Companies, in particular those in the aeronautic sector, have shown keen interest in this research, hoping to find a replacement for classic oil.

This is pretty incredible. An actual replacement for oil that is, in fact, oil. Just derived from an alternative source. No wonder EXXON is interested, it basically would keep the oil industry intact, just with new, artificial oil fields that use Carbon Dioxide as their source. this means a reduction in expensive exploration for oil reserves underground. All investments could be made at the surface, and it also solves one other problem: The issue of "cap and trade".

If this becomes a widespread thing, CO2 emmissions would actually be recycled to produce the oil we need. Although I still feel that the output of CO2 would vastly exceed the amount that is reinvested for oil, so I'm still in favor of emissions reductions, but the more we can find uses for the CO2 that we emit, the better it is for all of us. Plus, no more dependence on foreign oil.

As mentioned above, 1.25 million barrels of oil a day could be produced by one oil field alone. Get a few of these put in place in the united states and our dependence on foreign oil becomes a thing of the past.

What do you think?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7281 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2083 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Thread starter):
What do you think?

I have 3 main questions:

Does the process absorb more CO2 than it ultimately produces?

Is it cheaper or more expensive than normal oil?

When do they think it'll go from the experimental stage to being implemented all around the world?


I hope this works, but I've seen some flops that are propped up in the beginning. We can always hope



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4429 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2060 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
Does the process absorb more CO2 than it ultimately produces?

That depends. If you're talking about the manufacturing process alone, then I would say that yes, it does absorb more than it produced simply because if it didn't, you could harness the emissions of the refinery alone and that would be sufficient to keep the process sustained. The fact that they have to pull CO2 from outside sources says that the system produces less CO2 than it takes in.

If you're talking overall, well, then you have to consider that Blue Petroleum would allow the continued use of gas-powered machinery rather than the current movement to go electric. As a result, our CO2 emissions as a nation would not see a sharp decline. CO2 would be harvested for refining, but weigh that against millions of vehicles using gas and you'll find the harvested CO2 makes only a dent. However, if we can continue to develop more technology that harnesses CO2 as a source of energy then we remove the cap and trade problem, and instead can recycle the CO2 we currently waste into the atmosphere. So i support more projects of this type.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
Is it cheaper or more expensive than normal oil?

I believe it would be cheaper. Consider that you would not have to drill for oil, you would not have to construct rigs in the gulf, you would not be subject to OPEC's pricing, you would not be subject to the costs of importing that oil, you don't need to hire a geologist to find your reserves, etc etc.

I think it would carry a steep upfront cost to switch existing technology over to the new technology, but after that it would become much cheaper. Also consider that this is a completely renewable resource. It means an indefinite supply of oil, and what's the rule of supply and demand?  
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
When do they think it'll go from the experimental stage to being implemented all around the world?

In the article, they state it'll be 5-10 years before this can be mass produced. I expect then, in 15-20 years, you'll see one of these in the USA. 30 years and it'll be global.

[Edited 2011-03-31 10:43:25]

User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3288 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2024 times:

So it sounds like they're able to develop a simulated "crude" base. Here's hoping it will refine just the same.


"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1529 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2019 times:

I wonder what's the catch. Sounds to good to be true.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18712 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2013 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 2):

If you're talking overall, well, then you have to consider that Blue Petroleum would allow the continued use of gas-powered machinery rather than the current movement to go electric. As a result, our CO2 emissions as a nation would not see a sharp decline. CO2 would be harvested for refining, but weigh that against millions of vehicles using gas and you'll find the harvested CO2 makes only a dent.

Given that all carbon in plant life comes from CO2, then 100% of emitted CO2 from the combustion of these fuels will be offset by the production.

The issue is whether the net energy gain is greater than the energy cost. For corn, this is not the case. It takes more energy to grow, harvest, and extract the ethanol than there is in the ethanol itself. But for algae biofuels, this is not the case.


User currently offlinesignol From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2007, 2985 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1998 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 4):
I wonder what's the catch. Sounds to good to be true.

A day early?

signol



Flights booked: none :(
User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1930 times:

There's plenty of other companies that have been researching this exact same thing for quite some time now. But everything seems to point to algae being the main source for petroleum in the near future.

However I'm willing to bet money that in 30 years we'll have some idiotic global freezing scandal just because the algae factories are sucking up too much CO2  Yeah sure  banghead 

[Edited 2011-03-31 13:33:32]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18712 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1910 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 7):

However I'm willing to bet money that in 30 years we'll have some idiotic global freezing scandal just because the algae factories are sucking up too much CO2

Like "losing too much weight," that problem is a lot easier to solve. If we need to add CO2 to the atmosphere, we can start cutting down additional rainforest, digging up and burning landfills, etc.

As far as problems go, that would be a lovely one to have.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2854 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1873 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 4):
I wonder what's the catch. Sounds to good to be true.


The catch is the way the article is written. $600 million investing in R & D giving the idea that is all that is needed to turn 25 square kilometers into production of 1.25 million bbl per day.
There is progress in this area (algae) of research all over the world. The trick is finding the correct genetically modified algae (as in patented) to make this process fast and economical. This is one of the most promising sources of energy to come down the pike so to speak in which with little or no changes on the consumer/end user side with high energy content per pound as in diesel or jet fuel and easily used with current infrastructure.

Okie


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8876 posts, RR: 40
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

While algae sounds promising, most of the literature you read online says there's still a 10-year R&D road ahead for economic viability. I hope these companies are successful, but I guess we're gonna have to wait and see.

On a positive note, there are some big names funding this research.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7917 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1825 times:

Perhaps we'll have to invade Spain soon, rather than Iraq or Libya.

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 7):
However I'm willing to bet money that in 30 years we'll have some idiotic global freezing scandal just because the algae factories are sucking up too much CO2

How so?
If you burn the algae fuel, you'll release the CO2 the algae "sucked up" before. Same when you eat lettuce: you'll exhale the CO2 the lettuce has consumpted to grow.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18712 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1781 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 11):

If you burn the algae fuel, you'll release the CO2 the algae "sucked up" before. Same when you eat lettuce: you'll exhale the CO2 the lettuce has consumpted to grow.

No, you poop some of the fiber out. Same with the algae. Not all of the algae is burnable, only about 50% of it is, so actually a large amount of CO2 will get sequestered.

If we get into a "fridgehouse" effect from lowering the CO2 too much, we can always burn the biowaste.


User currently offlineczbbflier From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 970 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1753 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
you would not be subject to OPEC's pricing,

Oh. My. God.
Are you kidding me? OPEC may not exist anymore as it will be a spent force... but companies like Exxon will charge as much possibly even more... "to recover their R&D costs". This is an oligopoly's perfect scenario.... quite literally, those who control this production will literally control the world. These guys already operate on the verge of criminality in their price fixing, collusion, coercion and questionable practices in third world countries like Nigeria.

Just look at the pharmaceutical companies and the gouging there. You ain't seen nothin' yet.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7281 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 13):

... I never said that... forum error??



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineczbbflier From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 970 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 14):
... I never said that... forum error??

No, my error. Sorry about that. If you click the wrong "Selected Text Quoted" button, the text gets quoted but it gets attributed to that wrong person. How I managed to scroll waaaaay to the top to click your entry, I have no idea.

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 2):
you would not be subject to OPEC's pricing,

A-HA! This is where the quote is!

At any rate, it's not to attack anybody- it's just to highlight a grossly speculative, and in my (cynical) opinion, really pie-in-the-sky-ish thought.  


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Citizens Can't Work For Foreign Govts./Police posted Sat Oct 10 2009 12:19:41 by AmricanShamrok
The Race For Iraq's Oil...Will America Clean Up? posted Sat Jun 27 2009 11:54:44 by OA260
Good Replacement For Windows Media Player / ITunes posted Thu Jan 3 2008 22:29:01 by Bagpiper
What Are You Paying For Heating Oil? posted Sun Jan 14 2007 02:44:35 by Alfa75
Belgium to Charge Toll Fee for Foreign Cars From 2008 posted Wed Jan 10 2007 22:18:34 by Owleye
Flight Training In USA For Foreign Student... posted Tue Aug 15 2006 18:27:53 by Nirmalmakadia
Replacement For The United Nations? posted Tue May 2 2006 15:15:27 by AerospaceFan
America Has Already Decided For Iraq Oil... posted Mon Feb 10 2003 21:13:43 by Flying Belgian
Implications For Foreign Visitors posted Fri Sep 14 2001 01:31:42 by Jm-airbus320
US Blames EU For Turkey Foreign Policy 'drift' posted Thu Jun 10 2010 06:28:09 by L410Turbolet