Non fossil fuel propulsion

...from another forum...

Next Big Bio-Fuel - ALGAE - YouTube

 

Maybe the time has come to stop subsidizing fossil fuel.
And start subsidizing algae oil, after all, if you come to think about it, algae oil is pure CO2 reduction.

 

The idea that we are subsidizing fossil fuel is absurd. What we do to encourage fossil fuel production pales compared to what we get from it and how much we subsidize alternatives for less benefit.

Step one to reduce fossil fuel consumption is efficient effective use of energy -particularly fossil fuels. A great example is the mega-tons of natural gas 'flared' at the well as a 'byproduct' of oil production because it is not 'economically viable' to transport it to were it can be used -because bozo echo-nuts politically oppose building pipelines. If we spent half as much as we do subsidizing 'renewables' on eliminating this flare practice we could cut CO2 output four times as much and have money left to invest in efficient use and piping the CO2 back down the holes. Capitalism and economics are not wrong, they just need to recognize all costs, including environmental ones.

Algae is not pure CO2 reduction, it is CO2 cycling.

 

Thats about as silly a statement as I have ever heard.

Name me one case that showed that the flared gas production was economically viable, if there were no objections to a pipeline.

 

Hahahahahaha that's a good one,thanks.

 

Coal is a fossil fuel industry that is under EPA attack. It is certainly not subsidized.

 

It's about -4 F (-22C) here. All the biodiesel has turned into solid gunk ;(

 

Fuel from Seawater

Perhaps I should have posted this here, but I forgot and gave it its own subject thread....here

"Scientists from the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) have successfully flown a radio-controlled airplane that was running purely on fuel derived from sea water."

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/propulsion/fuel-seawater-50139.html

 

"This involved running sea water through the group's E-CEM (electrolytic cation exchange module) Carbon Capture Skid, which removed carbon dioxide from the water at 92 percent efficiency while simultaneously producing hydrogen as part of the process. Using a metal catalyst in a separate reactor system, the CO2 and hydrogen gases were then converted into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel."

They didnt mention what power source they used to do the splitting of seawater.

It would be good if Nuclear powered aircraft carriers could generate fuel for their planes while at sea

 

Or we could just keep moving towards renewable energy which will eventually bring our emissions to a far lower level than any efficiency increase in our fossil fuel use could ever dream of reaching.

And fossil fuels are CO2 production.

 

1. Fossil fuel is renewable energy.


2. CO2 is necessary for life as O2 is.


3. CO2 is less than 4% of our atmosphere which is an acceptable level. Less would impact plant growth. Breathe for the sake of vegetarians everywhere. Vegan is a term for those who can't say words over 3 syllables or diphthongs.

 

No it isn't. When it's gone, it's gone.

A fact of absolutely zero relevance or interest.

The level of CO2 in our atmosphere is causing global warming. There's nothing acceptable about that.

 

These guys have been building ships with non fossil fuel propulsion a long time. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the launch of their first. Their new production is pretty much called for, but their customers might have some used vessels for sale.

Lohring Miller

 

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Even as we converse here new petroleum is being created as organics are buried and transported deeper and deeper into the ground. The Earth is dynamic, not static. The level of CO2 has not been proven to cause global warming. The earth farts CO2 at a far higher volume than that which Man is capable of producing. The plants love it.

 

The rate of production is a tiny fraction of the rate at which we are burning it.

Co2 has been proven to cause global warming.

Human release of co2 amounts for about 5% of worldwide co2 emissions. But prior to the industrial revolution the co2 cycle was in balance, as much was released as was absorbed each year. We have tipped that balance out of whack.

And plants don't love it. Extra co2 doesn't help most species of plants grow any faster, or healthier. Any more than putting an animal in a pure o2 environment would be health. Sure a slight increase can have short term benefits, but over time oxygen toxicity becomes a problem.