Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-20-2013, 07:57 PM   #21 (permalink)
PSmodder lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chino
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 26
Thanked 908 Times in 522 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man View Post
That's (again) when HOT SUMMER comes to the rescue: dessicating solar evaporation!
...reminds me of salt production; fill in hypertonic seawater in shallow pools, allowed to drain & dry, then skimmed off and sent to packaging.

Oilgae added to shallow growth-medium glass-enclosed pools, aggressively proliferate, at harvest levels retract roofs, allowed to sun dry and then skimmed off for the 'refining' processes.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 12-21-2013, 01:30 AM   #22 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 28,566
Thanks: 8,094
Thanked 8,886 Times in 7,332 Posts
That boring machine that's currently spinning a boulder beneath Seattle could tunnel due West from the floor of Death Valley...



...it could be like the Salton Sea all over again.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2013, 01:32 PM   #23 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man View Post
Weeks? Nope, during our LONG HOT summer days, probably only hours for regrowth to begin, with a full pond scum in days!

That stuff is ALIVE ! ! !
That pond scum is also a) not very thick; and b) mostly water.

Comes down to basic physics/chemistry/biology. There's only so much energy in incoming sunlight - about 700 W/m^2. Photosynthesis is not very efficient at capturing the energy - way under 10%. (Most PV panels are better.)

That's not saying this couldn't be a useful process, as part of say a sewage treatment plant. It's just not going to be a replacement for petroleum, because those oil deposits represent millions of years of collection.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2013, 04:47 PM   #24 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
Yep, the mathematical equation: ? = Q×N

...where N is huge (millions of years) and Q (production rate) is small.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2013, 05:47 PM   #25 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 28,566
Thanks: 8,094
Thanked 8,886 Times in 7,332 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by myself
That boring machine that's currently spinning a boulder beneath Seattle could tunnel due West from the floor of Death Valley...
I talked to my brother, who's on standby to go backup the people who will actually stick their head beyond the retracted drill head. The drill head itself is immobilized. Sorry.

Quote:
? = Q×N
Thermal depolymerization implemented as a continuous process, takes about an hour.

Cool Planet could take algae as a feedstock.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 02:18 PM   #26 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard View Post
Thermal depolymerization implemented as a continuous process, takes about an hour.

Cool Planet could take algae as a feedstock.
Sure. The conversion step isn't the problem, it's the growth rate of the algae. Plants in general are not all that efficient as solar energy collectors. Most are under 1% efficient, the best run about 8%. (Per Wikipedia: Photosynthetic efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

PV cells are about 20% efficient, so raising algae specifically for oil is probably a non-starter.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 05:29 PM   #27 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
Well, if the "Greenhouse Effect" really gets it's diabolical act ramped-up, maybe we'll have ALL the oceans ('cept maybe Antartic Ocean) available for algae growth...just look at current-day salt marshes, etc.

Last edited by gone-ot; 12-23-2013 at 12:27 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 11:33 PM   #28 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
Well, that's an option if you want to give up eating seafood :-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2014, 08:55 PM   #29 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 28,566
Thanks: 8,094
Thanked 8,886 Times in 7,332 Posts
Jellyfish. All the way down.

Quote:
Sure. The conversion step isn't the problem, it's the growth rate of the algae.
Algae may be inefficient, but they work for free. I hear the big problem is removing the water from the algae/algae byproduct without major energy expended. Cool Planet used decompression from the high pressure part of the process.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2014, 01:55 PM   #30 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard View Post
Jellyfish. All the way down.
Nope, 'cause the ones on the bottom are all* living off the photosynthesis done by the ones in the top few meters.

*OK, except for those thermal vent critters living of chemosynthesis.

Quote:
Algae may be inefficient, but they work for free.
How is that different from any other plant? Raising algae as a crop isn't all that much different from raising corn, rice, or sugar cane.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com