Seaweed powered cars = the future?

[$5 submissions]

Tired of paying high gas prices due to some BS in the middle east? Sick of putting around burning non-renewable fuel?

The solution might be at your nearest beach. That's right-scientists have turned SEAWEED into fuel. Why seaweed? It doesn't need land that could have been used for food production (like,ahem, corn ethanol). It grows almost as fast as its cousin algae. It doesn't need fertilizer because it sucks it up from the sea.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...d-into-ethanol

The downside: genetic engineering

[bronco67]

I'll put spinach in my gas tank if it doesn't cost me 90 buck to fill 'er up.

[pornmasta]

can you smoke it ?

[TheSquealer]

The "downside" is "genetic engineering"?

Really?

You think that growing, harvesting and turning seaweed into any sort of volume of fuel is somehow going to be an efficient and cheap process?

The downside is giving millions in grants to fund projects to figure out how to make fuel that costs 100.00 a gallon. We're so much better off with ethanol from corn now... can't wait until federal law requires ethanol from seaweed, then subsidizes them so they can actually turn a profit.

[ilnjscb]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Tired of paying high gas prices due to some BS in the middle east? Sick of putting around burning non-renewable fuel?

The solution might be at your nearest beach. That's right-scientists have turned SEAWEED into fuel. Why seaweed? It doesn't need land that could have been used for food production (like,ahem, corn ethanol). It grows almost as fast as its cousin algae. It doesn't need fertilizer because it sucks it up from the sea.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...d-into-ethanol

The downside: genetic engineering

Awesome - they just gave it the ability to digest seaweed, not such a stretch.

[LeRoy]

I'll take you off ignore when that happens ;)

mmkay

[raymor]

That would be awesome if the article were half as cool as the headline. The other downside is the article says:

... National Laboratory (pdf) suggests that the U.S. could supply 1 percent of its annual gasoline needs by growing such seaweed for harvest.

Thousands of miles of seawood farms in hopes of providing 1% of the gas we need. The other 99% would be, well, gas.

There's also this:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

The "downside" is "genetic engineering"?

Really?

You think that growing, harvesting and turning seaweed into any sort of volume of fuel is somehow going to be an efficient and cheap process?

The downside is giving millions in grants to fund projects to figure out how to make fuel that costs 100.00 a gallon. We're so much better off with ethanol from corn now... can't wait until federal law requires ethanol from seaweed, then subsidizes them so they can actually turn a profit.

They did just spend billions of dollars of our money helping solar execs with failing companies leave work full pockets, and those were companies that they KNEW were going to fail no matter how much we subsidized them. Who wants to bet in his next term Obama spends billions of your money so that 1% of our gas can be $100 / gallon seaweed gas?

You know Obama and the fake green scam industry is PISSED that the 1% figure has already been leaked. I bet whoever included the line "could supply up to 1%" in the official report is already fired.

[brassmonkey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

[John-ACWM]

Has to be a cheaper way to produce some sort of fuel.

[eroticsexxx]

Clean nuclear energy is the future of supplying this planet's growing energy needs.

Everything else either wastes space or resources.

Thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactors are safe as there is no risk of meltdown AND they can consume various nuclear-fuel types, including existing stocks of nuclear waste.

The energy problem is solved. Those with interests in oil simply need to get out of the way
- http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...thorium-power/

[ilnjscb]

Not to be a "fake green" but 1% does make a difference. It is like the Manhattan vacancy rates; 1% would drop rates . The strategic petroleum reserve is 10% of one year. It has a long way to go but ethanol works and is a proven fuel.

[Tom_PM]

There are people who would sooner pay $10 a gallon than walk 10 feet.
A lot of countries have seaweed farms already, but for food. Let them experiment with it first.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

I have a supplement site and sell a great deal of Chlorella. It's an algae and so called "super food". Protein rich, nutrient rich, easy to grow and so on.

One might ask "Gee... i've heard all about algae, blue green algae etc and how awesomely incredible it is as a food source that could change the world... But... but... why then isn't it used as a food?"

Answer.. "Because it isn't even remotely close to being financially feasible".

So, it it can't be used to feed the world as people are starving and dying because its cost prohibitive, I really can't see how it suddenly becomes a viable alternative to gasoline so that a nation of fat retards can power their SUV's cheaper than gasoline.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

can you smoke it ?

I'm sure you can if you really wanted to...

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by eroticsexxx

Clean nuclear energy is the future of supplying this planet's growing energy needs.

Everything else either wastes space or resources.

Thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactors are safe as there is no risk of meltdown AND they can consume various nuclear-fuel types, including existing stocks of nuclear waste.

The energy problem is solved. Those with interests in oil simply need to get out of the way
- http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...thorium-power/

Rightly or wrongly, this source of energy is Highly unpopular...

[raymor]

Originally Posted by eroticsexxx

Clean nuclear energy is the future of supplying this planet's growing energy needs.

Everything else either wastes space or resources.

Thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactors are safe as there is no risk of meltdown AND they can consume various nuclear-fuel types, including existing stocks of nuclear waste.

The energy problem is solved. Those with interests in oil simply need to get out of the way
- http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...thorium-power/

Other than pumping relatively clean, highly efficient energy right out of the ground, that's the only other way to go that actually works. Algae gas would be great if the math worked, but the arithmetic just doesn't work.

Unfortunately, due to historical details the slim type of nuclear that fits in a submarine became the industry standard, so for several decades nuclear wasn't as safe and clean as it could be. If we can get some of the better type of nuclear plants online that would really help. It would also drastically reduce our reasons to be involved in the middle east.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

ADG

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

I have a supplement site and sell a great deal of Chlorella. It's an algae and so called "super food". Protein rich, nutrient rich, easy to grow and so on.

One might ask "Gee... i've heard all about algae, blue green algae etc and how awesomely incredible it is as a food source that could change the world... But... but... why then isn't it used as a food?"

Answer.. "Because it isn't even remotely close to being financially feasible".

So, it it can't be used to feed the world as people are starving and dying because its cost prohibitive, I really can't see how it suddenly becomes a viable alternative to gasoline so that a nation of fat retards can power their SUV's cheaper than gasoline.

send me your website please scriptdude333 -at- yahoo

[PR_Glen]

Originally Posted by eroticsexxx

Clean nuclear energy is the future of supplying this planet's growing energy needs.

Everything else either wastes space or resources.

Thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactors are safe as there is no risk of meltdown AND they can consume various nuclear-fuel types, including existing stocks of nuclear waste.

The energy problem is solved. Those with interests in oil simply need to get out of the way
- http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...thorium-power/

probably the easiest route to go right here.. I've felt this way for years. At least for the short term.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

Not to be a "fake green" but 1% does make a difference.

According to the seaweed PROPONENTS, it would take 40,000 square miles of seaweed farms to supply 1%. In other words, you'd have to turn all of Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New Jersey into nothing but a huge seaweed farm to supply just 1% of our gas. That doesn't even count the energy used by such a vast operation, so throw in Connecticut to provide the fuel needed to run the farm. That's to provide 1%.

Either that, or must keeping pumping it from out of the ground in Texas.

[WiredGuy]

So long as my sushi prices don't go up as a result I'm all for it.
WG

[Barefootsies]

I was watching a documentary a few months back looking at algae as the solution.

Right now I think they are grabbing at straws trying to find ONE solution. But it looks like there is going to need to be a combination of fuel sources to be realistic. Corn based ethanol is not it.

You can't pull the current energy/fuel needs of the nation from it's food stuffs.

[Tom_PM]

"Powerfull like a gorilla, yet soft and yielding like a nerf ball."

Now available in seaweed green.

You'd need a lot of relatively calm ocean for seaweed farming. Similar to oyster farm conditions I think. One of those ideas which, while cool and maybe effective, just probably could never launch. Better off working on self-healing batteries or semi-intelligent bio gel packs ala star trek voyager.

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by raymor

Other than pumping relatively clean, highly efficient energy right out of the ground, that's the only other way to go that actually works. Algae gas would be great if the math worked, but the arithmetic just doesn't work.

Unfortunately, due to historical details the slim type of nuclear that fits in a submarine became the industry standard, so for several decades nuclear wasn't as safe and clean as it could be. If we can get some of the better type of nuclear plants online that would really help. It would also drastically reduce our reasons to be involved in the middle east.

That new technology looks really enticing. Have they built plants using this technology?

[raymor]

I just a little research since I got curious. It seems we're currently on generation 3 reactor designs for actual production power stations. The Japanese reactor where they had the problem of the crew aborting the shutdown sequence was a 30 year old gen 2. 85% of current reactors are based on the old naval design, which was made to fit in a sub, not to be safe or clean.

The exciting stuff seems to be Gen IV, including breeder reactors that re-burn the fuel, getting a hundred times as much energy from it and GREATLY reducing waste problems. Rather than having to dispose of high level waste, they use the high level stuff as fuel and produce only low level waste. Only China has a commercial breeder reactor now. North Korea had one planned. The US is in the early discussion stage.

That's sad. We in the US have become so complacent and consumerist we've sent all our money to China and they are now about fifteen years ahead of us in nuclear technology.

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by raymor

That's sad. We in the US have become so complacent and consumerist we've sent all our money to China and they are now about fifteen years ahead of us in nuclear technology.

Actually, the real reason nuke building isn't going as fast as it should be in the US is the huge amount of political reluctance bred by the 3 mile island incident.