Electric cars are a pipe dream

[ElectricFetus]

I didn't say we would do it or that we would want to do it, but we could do it.
Look at what we did in WW2 with rationing.
So the point is, we COULD do it.
Which was my only point.
Arthur

Well sure we could do it, it would be a economic depression with everyone sitting around heads between their nees waiting for work and not using oil to get that 2/3 easy!

Always remember that all electric vehicles that need recharging plug into the grid that is mostly powered by oil or coal somewhere. So no matter how green the cars are they get their power from dirty generator plants most of the time.

Again and again even charging off the existing grid total pollution would go down. Lets ask a reference: http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf

"For the nation as a whole, the total greenhouse gases are expected to be reduced by 27% from the projected penetration of PHEVs [73% of driving replaced with electric power]. The key driver for this result is the overall improvement in efficiency along the electricity generation path compared to the entire conversion chain from crude oil to gasoline to the combustion process in the vehicle. Fundamental to this result is the assumption that a PHEV by itself would be more efficient than a conventional gasoline car because of the regenerative braking capability that stores the kinetic energy in the battery during deceleration and because the engine operates at near optimal conditions more of the time than in conventional vehicles. On a regional basis, the greenhouse gas emission improvements could be as large as 40%, as in ERCOT, which has a large penetration of natural-gas plants."

 

[Billy T]

... Biofuels are not a realistic solution unless we make the decision to completely give up on the environment and turn the planet into one giant factory. ...

Would the world or the US be better off if Ohio were returned to a forest? I.e. Why not let some of the tropics grow sugar cane instead of be forest?

 

[adoucette]

Would the world or the US be better off if Ohio were returned to a forest? I.e. Why not let some of the tropics grow sugar cane instead of be forest?

Or why not irrigate vast stretches of desert area to grow biofuels?
You don't have to always trade off forest for crops.

 

[Billy T]

Or why not irrigate vast stretches of desert area to grow biofuels? ...

Fresh H2O is limiting.

 

[adoucette]

Only based on the cost of oil.
As oil reaches $160 per barrel, would it be that limiting of a factor?

 

[ElectricFetus]

Would the world or the US be better off if Ohio were returned to a forest? I.e. Why not let some of the tropics grow sugar cane instead of be forest?

I think the world would be better off if Ohio was kept as cropland and the tropics was returned to forest. Seriously you want to destroy the rainforest to regrow temperate forest on land that has already been destroyed?

Now adoucette argument could work, say we grow thermophilic, halophilic algae in bags on the the desert while pumping in sea water, could be down near the coast of Texas, better yet just grow saline (sea water) algae in bags afloat at sea in the gulf of mexico. We are working on the technology buts it many years away from large scale production.

 

[Skeptical]

With a bit more development, biofuels from algae are the way to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

I have quoted this before, but in such a long thread, it does no harm to remind :

"The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (40,000 km2). This is less than 1⁄7 the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000"

 

[adoucette]

Always remember that all electric vehicles that need recharging plug into the grid that is mostly powered by oil or coal somewhere. So no matter how green the cars are they get their power from dirty generator plants most of the time.

Not really.
In the US we get only 1% of our electricity from oil.
33% comes from Nuclear or Renewables and another 18% comes from very clean burning natural gas.

And while 48% still comes from coal, since most of the recharging would be done at night a higher percent of the power would be from renewables than the average suggests, and the energy provided by our modern coal plants would be a lot cleaner than the same energy from a bunch of IC engines running in the middle of a city at ground level.

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

With a bit more development, biofuels from algae are the way to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

Considering I'm defending my masters thesis on the topic I'm well aware of these developments, today we got 2 football fields worth of pilot plant production of enclosed algae reactors operation in the whole of the world! much theory and laboratory level production has been published but scaling that up into an industry that covers the surface areas of Delaware is a long LONG time away. More so if you want to consider the possibility of algae crops on desert and afloat on shallow seas, which is still as the most theoretical development stages. I'm putting my bets on algae fuel will first start producing high value products like highly unsaturated fatty acids for food and pharmaceutical use, which sell for a few dollars a gram verse biodiesel fuel which sells from a few dollars per kilogram.

 

[Billy T]

I think the world would be better off if Ohio was kept as cropland...

So do I, and that was my point. The world as it was when humans were no more common than moneys was quite different than it is today. Man has transformed much of it drastically, but is not yet thru doing so. Yes, I would rather transform some more forest (if population can not be greatly reduced) than to continue to consume irreplaceable oil, which has much better uses than to be burned for heat.

Seriously you want to destroy the rainforest to regrow temperate forest on land that has already been destroyed?

No, I was not suggesting that Ohio be reforested. All most all of the destruction of the rain forest in Brazil is because rich people in the developed world want tables etc. made from pretty wood. None of it in Brazil is to grow sugar cane, but like Ohio, that may need to change in parts of the tropics if population keeps growing and life styles on average reach 1/3 of current US consumption. If you are for suppressing the economic development of China, India, etc. to at less 1/3 of the US level, you had better start a war with them now. They have the same right to a better life as Americans do.

A single tree, cut down illegally, is worth more than a year's salary and many cutting them don't have any possibility of steady work to earn that, so they cut down a tree, cut it into sections they can haul out and then to cover their crime burn the forest. Later some absentee farmer may properly clear the burnt land, fertialize it (soil there is poor) sow grass seed and raise cattle there. Unlike bulky, low value per ton sugar cane, beef has high value per ton and can be economically shipped to markets. The closest part of the Amazon is more than 500 miles from where any alcohol distillation plants are. They are located near the major cities, more than half in the State of Sao Paulo. Simple economic keeps sugar cane from being grown on burnt rain forest land.

It is like the US's problem with hard drug production in Columbia, etc. - The demand makes the problem. Trying to stop that cutting of valuable wood or the drug production at the source location does not work. Think of the rain forest next time you buy furniture. - If you buy pretty wood, it is you who are helping to destroy the rain forest, not the users of cane alcohol in their cars.

Now adoucette argument could work, say we grow thermophilic, halophilic algae in bags on the the desert while pumping in sea water, could be down near the coast of Texas, better yet just grow saline (sea water) algae in bags afloat at sea in the gulf of mexico. We are working on the technology buts it many years away from large scale production.

I think that has less chance of being economically feasible than cellulosic alcohol, mainly because trillions of living cells in each production unit, which rapidly grow to replace those harvested and processed for their oil, will mutate, "go wild" and no longer be the genetic engineered ones that could make it work. Even, just the sea water introduction will bring wild strains in or require expensive filtration with energy for pumps etc.

If celulosic alcohol can be made economic, the best chance is with the crushed sugar cane, which is already collected from the fields and delivered to the plant - that is a major expense avoided compared to switch grass etc.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I think that has less chance of being economically feasible than cellulosic alcohol, mainly because trillions of living cells in each production unit, which rapidly grow to replace those harvested and processed for their oil, will mutate, "go wild" and no longer be the genetic engineered ones that could make it work.

First the reactors are regularly sterilized the re-seeded with optimized strains so genetic drifting ins controlled, second go wild how, name a detriment, and third genetic engineering may not be required at all.

Even, just the sea water introduction will bring wild strains in or require expensive filtration with energy for pumps etc.

Pasteurization of the water.

If celulosic alcohol can be made economic, the best chance is with the crushed sugar cane, which is already collected from the fields and delivered to the plant - that is a major expense avoided compared to switch grass etc.

Again, for Brazil, For the USA large scale sugarcane production is not an option.

 

[Billy T]

First the reactors are regularly sterilized the re-seeded with optimized strains so genetic drifting ins controlled,(1) second go wild how, name a detriment, and third genetic engineering may not be required at all.
(2)Pasteurization of the water.
(3)Again, for Brazil, For the USA large scale sugarcane production is not an option.

On (1) well out of my field of knowledge, but I was referring to same changes in genetic code that produces evolution. As most will just result in cell death, not new stronger but less productive strains, this may not be a big problem. Although I said "genetic engineering" I did not intend to mean only that. In fact with such fast growing and small cells, I bet simple genetic selection would be more economical. Man has made great improvement in milk production that way and more than year is required to get to the next generation.

On (2) That sounds more expensive than filtration to me (boiling vs pump power)

On (3) I never have suggested Brazil alone could meet current* US and its own needs, which now in include large scale production of polyethylene & soon Polypropylene (or the reverse, at 20,000 tons per year, but I forget which and not sure of volume but posted it earlier.) from sugar cane. Why I speak of "tropical cane alcohol" and allowed that some forests in the tropic would need to be cleared of forest as Ohio was for the crops raised there. Note more than half of Brazil sugar cane is grown, just south of the tropics in the state of Sao Paulo, to be closer to the that big market (S.P. is fourth largest city in the world, if Mexico City is #5 or is #5 if Mexico City is # 4. Difference is less than measurement error with many homeless in both.)

The tall sugar cane intercepts 100% of the sunlight and is one of a few green plants to use the four step photo synthesis process which is more efficient so no other green plant, algae included, will yield as much energy per acre and certainly man-made system are much more costly per acre in installed capital plus need power for pumping, periodic sterilization, and water boiling in Algae's case

--------------
*At least 2/3 of the US's needs should be met by demand reduction, not increased supply. For example near 50% reduction achieved by required telecommuting for all who sit in front of computers 8 hours /day and smaller cars plus free (to user) and expanded mass transit would be first things to do.

 

[Stoniphi]

BP is in process of building a genetically engineered bacteria - based liquid fuel plant in the UK that will be producing butanol - which has a higher energy density (close to gasoline) than ethanol and requires no change in gasoline based engines or gasoline storage/handling facilities to use, unlike ethanol - from waste cellulose that is currently burned or land-filled. There is enough of that such that no expansion of cropland will be needed to accommodate this process. If we switched to this process from the current government - subsidized corn - based ethanol process we would get a lot more fuel for a lot less money without changes to the way we make IC motors. We could also continue to use our current gasoline distribution system without any changes. We would also not have to burn or landfill all of that waste cellulose.

Brazil is eagerly awaiting exploitation of that new big underwater petroleum find off their East coast so they can back off on the ethanol usage.

A new methanol - based fuel cell is in production that is likely to replace batteries in cars due to energy production and weight reduction.

Boys, this technology is progressing rapidly now, it is hard to even guess where it will be in just a few years.

 

[Billy T]

BP is in process of building a genetically engineered bacteria - based liquid fuel plant in the UK that will be producing butanol - which has a higher energy density (close to gasoline) than ethanol and requires no change in gasoline based engines or gasoline storage/handling facilities to use, unlike ethanol - from waste cellulose that is currently burned or land-filled.

That would be great if they can. It is true, butanol would go thur existing pipelines and function in existing IC engines, with at most minor tune up changes. I wish them well, but there are, as they say, "many slips between the cup and the lips."

Brazil is eagerly awaiting exploitation of that new big underwater petroleum find off their East coast so they can back off on the ethanol usage....

Not the reason for PetroBras efforts to develop the new "pre-salt layer" discoveries. It is the old fashion reason - to make money selling oil to less advanced (in car fuel types) countries like the US than Brazil.

I think because sugar cane alcohol is now being used as the feed stock for large scale plastic production, it is not much cheaper per mile driven than gasoline any more. Yesterday, I filled up car with gasoline which was 2.44R$/ L vs. 1.60R$/L. That cost ratio is 1.6/2,44 = 0.66 hardly less than the 0.70 needed to make no difference economically. I thought the convenience of the great range with gas was worth more than this tiny difference (saves me time as will not need to fill up so soon again and probably will clean gum etc that alcohol does not, etc.)

 

[ElectricFetus]

On (1) well out of my field of knowledge, but I was referring to same changes in genetic code that produces evolution. As most will just result in cell death, not new stronger but less productive strains,

At elevated temperatures, salinity, carbon dioxide and high cell density a stronger stain is the first priority. And since many consider total biomass yield more important then lipid content (they just want to pyrolyze the algae) better growth (ergo higher biomass densities) is all that matters, which evolution usually selects for.

I bet simple genetic selection would be more economical. Man has made great improvement in milk production that way and more than year is required to get to the next generation.

Not really, for example genetic modification such as shrinking the Light-harvesting antennas in the chloroplast has been done with genetic modification, this increase cell growth by making the cells more efficient at high cell densities, sure evolution could have done the same after successive breeding but they made a shortcut.

On (2) That sounds more expensive than filtration to me (boiling vs pump power)

In a desert? But sure filtration, irradiation, what ever. The amount of water needing to be replaced is actually quite low for enclosed reactors so its not going to be a major energetics concern, except when considering recycling from harvesting.

On (3) I never have suggested Brazil alone could meet current* US and its own needs, which now in include large scale production of polyethylene & soon Polypropylene (or the reverse, at 20,000 tons per year, but I forget which and not sure of volume but posted it earlier.) from sugar cane. Why I speak of "tropical cane alcohol" and allowed that some forests in the tropic would need to be cleared of forest as Ohio was for the crops raised there.

Again with the cutting down of the rain forest!

The tall sugar cane intercepts 100% of the sunlight and is one of a few green plants to use the four step photo synthesis process

You mean its a C4 plant? So is maize. C4 plants gain some efficiency via more situational efficient carbon fixation, something like 40%, but that certianly not folds of improvement as your implying.

which is more efficient so no other green plant, algae included, will yield as much energy per acre and certainly man-made system are much more costly per acre in installed capital plus need power for pumping, periodic sterilization, and water boiling in Algae's case

Lets do the numbers:

Average daily sunlight in, where, Sao Paulo is ~175 w/m^2, or at the equator in Brazil, about the same as at the equator in Brazil probably because of all the cloud cover in the rainforest!

and sugarcane produces at most 6.1 GJ/ton/yr of total biomass (leaves, stem, everything) or 6.10E+9 w/ton/yr. (1E9 w/GJ)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane

and produces 31.5 tons/acre/yr and this comes to a total production of 4.75E+7 w/m^2/yr (multiplied by above figure, divided by 4046.85642 m^2/acre)
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/Brazil_SR_e3.pdf

Compare that against the 175w/m^2 of sunlight every second on average or 5.52E+9 w/M^2/yr and you get a total photosynthetic efficiency of sugarcane is 0.86%

Lets compare with Algea:

Actual reported values for algae have roughly average around ~7%, but don't just trust me, here is some reading on the topic:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...91a0dad38629615b476b85c282eedd72&searchtype=a
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jctb.503300105/abstract
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/reprint/pp.110.165886v1.pdf

This is why there is so much interest in algae, in enclosed reactors with elevated CO2 concentrations algae real world efficiency can be many time greater then any terrestrial plant, including sugarcane!

 

[Billy T]

At elevated temperatures, salinity, carbon dioxide and high cell density a stronger stain is the first priority. And since many consider total biomass yield more important then lipid content (they just want to pyrolyze the algae)

That is interesting and new to me. I have read of several genetic efforts to get more oil yield etc. But why start with wet algae when much drier wood chips and sawdust (already available in heaps at saw mills) are available to pyrolyze?

genetic modification such as shrinking the Light-harvesting antennas in the chloroplast has been done with genetic modification, this increase cell growth by making the cells more efficient at high cell densities,...

Also interesting and new to me. Are you saying the there are electric field energy capturing antennas? I know some efforts have been made to due this artificially with immediate rectification to DC as new more efficient solar cells.

Again with the cutting down of the rain forest!

I guess you could call any forest "rain forest" but there is little need to cut any "rain forest" down in Brazil - most of that is protected by law but there are criminals cutting individual trees to satisfy the demand for pretty wood and then burning forest to cover the crime as I explained.

All I was stating was that yes, if the world were to switch to sugar cane alcohol for liquid fuel, some of the forest in central America would need to be cleared. AFAIK only in Indonesia (I think that is where) are large forest being cut for crops (date palm oil) now. Africa has lost a lot of its forests for fire wood /cooking. But of course most of the US East of the great plains was forest and cut down for crops, homes, etc. Daniel Boon would not recognize his old hunting grounds. There are still a few wild bears in the Smoky Mountains but none in Ohio now. We both agree Ohio should not be returned to forest, but it could be. It is our choice not to. Why was that cutting OK (need not be undone) and Central Americans cannot do the same cutting of forest to enjoy a better life too?

You mean its a C4 plant? So is maize. C4 plants gain some efficiency via more situational efficient carbon fixation, something like 40%, but that certainly not folds of improvement as your implying.

Yes, C4, and I knew corn was too - why I said "one of the few." Also for a reader not familiar with this, I think saying "more efficient four step photosynthesis process” is more informative than saying a C4 process - that tells them nothing.

In no way did I imply "folds of improvement" with C4. - If cellulosic alcohol is feasible (and economically better than burning for power generation as is currently done in Brazil) then perhaps a two fold increase in alcohol yield per acre may be possible by using the crushed cane for alcohol production. (Note I again said "crushed cane" not "bagasse" for same reason I said four step photosynthesis process, not C4 cycle or C4 process. - I am trying to communicate, not show my knowledge.)

Thanks for "doing some numbers" I will look at your links soon.

... produces 31.5 tons/acre/yr and this comes to a total production of 4.75E+7 w/m^2/yr (multiplied by above figure, divided by 4046.85642 m^2/acre)

From your units you speak of annual energy density captured. Is that the heat released if the cane is burned? or the alcohol energy?

Actual reported values for algae have roughly average around ~7%...

So in whatever energy density you speak of algae is about 10 times better; but does that assume every algae cell is in full sunlight without being shaded by others? I would think that in economically feasible algae system most would not be in full sun light except occasionally, perhaps less than 10% of the time.

PS I just added you to "friends" list. I don't request to be one (mainly as don't see the point) nor accept all who do request that of me. Only those who show some intelligence and are interesting posters - you certainly qualify.

 

[ElectricFetus]

That is interesting and new to me. I have read of several genetic efforts to get more oil yield etc. But why start with wet algae when much drier wood chips and sawdust (already available in heaps at saw mills) are available to pyrolyze?

Again because of the much higher biomass yields per acre, yes removing most of the water is a concern although with hydrous pyrolysis some water is acceptable.

Also interesting and new to me. Are you saying the there are electric field energy capturing antennas?

All I was stating that yes, if the world were to switch to sugar cane alcohol for liquid fuel, some of the forest in central America would need to be cleared. AFAIK only in Indonesia (I think that is where) are large forest being cut for crops (date palm oil) now. But of course most of the US East of the great plains was forest and cut down for crops, homes, etc. Daniel Boon would not recognize his old hunting grounds. There are still a few wild bears in the Smoky Mountains but none in Ohio now. We both agree Ohio should not be returned to forest, but it could be.

If other forest needs to be cut down to regrow it in Ohio it makes little sense, just leave what is undamaged.

It is our choice not to. Why was that cutting OK (need not be undone) and Central Americans cannot do the same cutting of forest to enjoy a better life too?

Because cutting down forest does not need to equate to a better quality of life.

Yes, C4, and I knew corn was too - why I said "one of the few." Also for a reader not familiar with this, I think saying "more efficient four step photosynthesis process” is more informative than saying a C4 process - that tells them nothing.

whatever, I'm not going to nitpick.

In no way did I imply "folds of improvement" with C4. - If cellulosic alcohol is feasible (and economically better than burning for power generation as is currently done in Brazil) then perhaps a two fold increase in alcohol yield per acre may be possible by using the crushed cane for alcohol production.

There is interest even in Brazil for converting the bagasse to ethanol rather then burn it for cogen as they have such a surplus of bagasse even in self powered plants and they can make more selling more ethanol and less electricity. Though if we consider the efficiency of plug-in electrics it might make better sense not to waste the effort, keep burning it for cogen to power cars both with ethanol and electricity.

(Note I again said "crushed cane" not "bagasse" for same reason I said four step photosynthesis process, not C4 cycle or C4 process. - I am trying to communicate, not show my knowledge.)

Oh how kind of you

Thanks for "doing some numbers" I will look at your links soon. From your units you speak of annual energy density captured. Is that the heat released if the cane is burned? or the alcohol energy?

That total energy content in the biomass of the sugarcane, so yes if you were to burn it in a calorimeter. How much of that comes out as ethanol is of course a fraction of that energy.

So in whatever energy density you speak of algae is about 10 times better; but does that assume every algae cell is in full sunlight without being shaded by others?

The assumptions are in enclose reactors with elevated CO2 in full sunlight. One of the challenges with algae, while certianly less expensive then Hydroponics of terrestrial plants (a full greenhouse verse a titanic plastic bag) is the infrastructure required to grow it at those incredible yields, you need a CO2 sources (say a coal or natural gas powerplant, or a cement factory or what ever) and you need to pump in the effluent into acres and acres of plastic bags filled with algae media.

I would think that in economically feasible algae system most would not be in full sun light except occasionally, perhaps less than 10% of the time.

No its in full sunlight, we get increased yields at full lighting with many strains, but we could get better hence the interest in truncating the light collecting antennas to achieve higher efficiency in full light at high cell densities.

PS I just added you to "friends" list. I don't request to be one (mainly as don't see the point) nor accept all who do request that of me. Only those who show some intelligence and are interesting posters - you certainly qualify.

Well I just "keep my friends close, keep my enemies closer"

 

[Billy T]

Again because of the much higher biomass yields per acre, yes removing most of the water is a concern although with hydrous pyrolysis some water is acceptable.

Higher yield / acre may be interesting in some distant day, but now and for decades, there is dry sawdust and wood chips at no capital cost for pumps, growing bags, etc. and no energy cost for pumping both water and CO2. Just do pyrolysis on it and other free for the taking sources. Is a small pyrolysis unit feasible (Truck mounted to go periodically to saw mills?) In Brazil, especially in the NE, there are truck mounted units that go to small farms to process the oil removes from plants and stored by the farmer into diesel fuel.

...
If other forest needs to be cut down to regrow it in Ohio it makes little sense, just leave what is undamaged.

Several times now I have stated I am not suggesting Ohio be re-forested. Stop it with this straw man. I am only saying that poor people in Central America, with children mal-nourished as they are unemployed or poor subsistent farmers and trying to live off of natural forest wild life, fish etc. have the same right to cut their forest down for a better life as early Americans did.

Now that you "HAVE GOT YOURS" (the good life with cleared forest), they want to have the same. - You have no right to tell them: "No - stick with your quasi starvation or go fruit picking at low pay for united fruit so my bananas don't cost me much.

Because cutting down forest does not need to equate to a better quality of life.

Not automatically, but it sure did in the USA. Certainly living in a forest prevents them having what you have.

... There is interest even in Brazil for converting the bagasse to ethanol rather than burn it for cogen as they have such a surplus of bagasse even in self powered plants and they can make more selling more ethanol and less electricity. Though if we consider the efficiency of plug-in electrics it might make better sense not to waste the effort, keep burning it for cogen to power cars both with ethanol and electricity.

It is as always a question of what is more profitable. Bagasse will continue to be burned if that is the more profitable use. I only noted that if any cellulosic alcohol is ever to be economical, it is likely that crushed cane is the best source as there is no expense for the algae farm's growing bags, pumps, etc. nor any expense to grow, harvest and then transport switch grass from the field to the alcohol plant.

Some small alcohol plants may have unused bagasse still but most is converted into electric power. Brazil gets at least 80% of its electricity from hydro-electric dams, which serve as a storage system if the bagasse power were eve to exceed the the gird's needs - I.e. they just release less water. I forget the number but on an annual basis about 5% of Brazil's electric energy is now coming form bagasse. It may be up to 15 or 20% at the harvest / alcohol production peak and near zero at other times with more hydro-power. These dams also do the same storage for wind power, but that is much less than 1% of Brazil's electric energy. Dams, view as a storage battery are very cheap, long term storage system.

...The assumptions are in enclose reactors with elevated CO2 in full sunlight. One of the challenges with algae, while certainly less expensive then Hydroponics of terrestrial plants (a full greenhouse verse a titanic plastic bag) is the infrastructure required to grow it at those incredible yields, you need a CO2 sources (say a coal or natural gas power plant, or a cement factory or whatever) and you need to pump in the effluent into acres and acres of plastic bags filled with algae media.

Quite an economic hurdle compared to sugar cane alcohol, which is already displacing oil as a cheaper liquid fuel. I too think that expense is more likely to be recovered by algae that produces higher value products than fuel. Perhaps drugs, etc. or even food for humans and animals.

I also suspect there will be yet unknown problem when "acres and acres" are covered with growing bags.
For example wild animals, even those ants that survive by cutting green leaves, birds soon learning where they can get a drink in the desert, etc. all cutting holes in the bags, sand blown over the bags, etc.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Higher yield / acre may be interesting in some distant day, but now and for decades, there is dry sawdust and wood chips at no capital cost for pumps, growing bags, etc. and no energy cost for pumping both water and CO2. Just do pyrolysis on it and other free for the taking sources. Is a small pyrolysis unit feasible (Truck mounted to go periodically to saw mills?) In Brazil, especially in the NE, there are truck mounted units that go to small farms to process the oil removes from plants and stored by the farmer into diesel fuel.

And as I have shown in previous posts utilizing waste biomass is great, but it will only provide from some ~30% of are petroleum needs. I'm all for it but we need to have it and many other solutions simultaneously.

Several times now I have stated I am not suggesting Ohio be re-forested. Stop it with this straw man. I am only saying that poor people in Central America, with children mal-nourished as they are unemployed or poor subsistent farmers and trying to live off of natural forest wild life, fish etc. have the same right to cut their forest down for a better life as early Americans did.

You mean same ignorance? There are other ways they can be fed and employed without destroying the rainforest, ways that would actually be more affective.

Now that you "HAVE GOT YOURS" (the good life with cleared forest), they want to have the same. - You have no right to tell them: "No - stick with your quasi starvation or go fruit picking at low pay for united fruit so my bananas don't cost me much.

I'm not saying they should, they could easily increase productivity on existing agriculture land, especially considering the poor quality of rainforest soil.

Not automatically, but it sure did in the USA. Certainly living in a forest prevents them having what you have.

Then get them out of the forest, don't leave them in place and remove the forest. If you want to increase their standard of living start giving them manufacturing jobs, its whats been getting the poor of china out of the country side.

Dams, view as a storage battery are very cheap, long term storage system.

Oh and they are, but for certain places in the world, like the USA most of the hydropower is already in full use.

I also suspect there will be yet unknown problem when "acres and acres" are covered with growing bags.

More like alot ALOT of predictable problems, with questionable cost benefit analysis when they add up. Hence my previous emphasis on high value products to start the industry off.

For example wild animals, even those ants that survive by cutting green leaves, birds soon learning where they can get a drink in the desert, etc. all cutting holes in the bags, sand blown over the bags, etc.

Similar problems haunt existing agriculture and are in fact far harsher to existing agriculture then they would be to an enclose system like algae farms. Don't see existing agriculture give up on production.

 

[Billy T]

I said: They {the poor of central America} "have the same right to cut their forest down for a better life as early Americans did." And you replied:

... You mean same ignorance? ...

Do you realize you are saying that it was ignorance of men like Jefferson etc. to clear the forests in Virginia?