Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Feb 24, 2018 5:10 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2890
Location: Trantor
Joule Unlimited

From T'other Boored wrote:
Joule's Helioculture™ platform directly and continuously converts solar energy to infrastructure compatible fuels and chemicals, including fungible diesel and ethanol. The platform combines breakthroughs in genome engineering, process engineering and solar capture and conversion to achieve productivities that will be up to 100X greater than biomass-dependent processes, while avoiding depletion of agricultural land or fresh water. Using sunlight and waste CO2 from industrial emitters or pipelines, with a modular SolarConverter® system that allows ease of scale, Joule targets commercial production of up to 15,000 gallons of diesel and 25,000 gallons of ethanol per acre annually, at stable costs as low as $20/bble and $0.60/gallon respectively, including subsidies.
Image
Joule Prepares for Global Deployment with Appointment of Proven Industry Experts to Lead Commercial Operations

Bedford, Mass. – January 23, 2012 – Joule today announced the appointment of two key executives to manage the company's roll-out of renewable fuel production facilities worldwide. Peter Erich has joined as Executive Vice President, General Manager Commercial Operations, and will lead the team responsible for site development and technology deployment. Paul Snaith has been appointed to build and manage the related partnerships as Head of Business Development & Strategy.

Peter Erich spent more than 20 years at Shell in various senior leadership roles around the world. He served as Vice President, Petroleum Products for Northeast Asia and West Africa; CEO of Global LPG; and as Vice President, Commercial Business for Europe, Russia and Turkey. Following his work at Shell, Mr. Erich was Chief Operating Officer at Nuon, a gas and power company serving more than three million consumers and organizations with 10,000+ employees across the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. Most recently, he held the role of CEO at Puma Energy International, an integrated midstream and downstream oil company operating in the Americas, Baltics, Middle East and Africa.

Paul Snaith held multiple roles at Shell over the course of 24 years, most recently serving as Vice President, Downstream Marketing for Shell Global Solutions and as Managing Director of Shell Research, Ltd. During that time his responsibilities included leading the technology strategy for Shell's biofuels business. His prior positions with the company spanned leadership of product development, sales, marketing and communications across multiple businesses and regions.
Snaith wrote:
"Having researched and evaluated renewable fuel technologies over a number of years, I can attest to the merits of Joule's approach that avoids many of the limitations found with current biofuel processes," said Dr. Snaith. "I look forward to being a part of the team that will take this technology from development to large-scale, global implementation with potentially industry-changing results."

57,000 litres of diesel fuel per acre at $0.17 per litre from CO2, waste water & the Sun :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1622
I've said it looks to be the best alternative every time it comes up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16223
very simply, how does this work ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15524
Location: A Glass Cage Of Emotion
It won't take off. That land is needed for food production, that's this idea's achilles heel, agricultural space.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
binge90 wrote:
It won't take off. That land is needed for food production, that's this idea's achilles heel, agricultural space.


That does seem a drawback but you could cover the Sahara in them and job done. No ones going to miss it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5867
theo wrote:
binge90 wrote:
It won't take off. That land is needed for food production, that's this idea's achilles heel, agricultural space.


That does seem a drawback but you could cover the Sahara in them and job done. No ones going to miss it.



Your problem there is water, and the diesel still emits pollutants


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11335
Location: Celavu, Corsica
theo wrote:
binge90 wrote:
It won't take off. That land is needed for food production, that's this idea's achilles heel, agricultural space.


That does seem a drawback but you could cover the Sahara in them and job done. No ones going to miss it.


Without setting that in deserts, industrial barren grounds are not that scarce in crisis-stricken areas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7582
Main problem is that you are still burning diesel which is obviously undesirable. Sounds interesting though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11335
Location: Celavu, Corsica
Apposite wrote:
Main problem is that you are still burning diesel which is obviously undesirable. Sounds interesting though.


Looks like it produces ethanol too. Diesel fuel could be sold to industrial facilities and filters implementation enforced.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1622
But of course you only release the same carbon you traped in the process. It's a renewable source.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5867
Spell wrote:
But of course you only release the same carbon you traped in the process. It's a renewable source.




not particularly, if you trap carbon from industry then put half of it back into cars then theres no way of trapping that

its better though, short term solution if a solution at all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7582
Spell wrote:
But of course you only release the same carbon you traped in the process. It's a renewable source.


Yeah but it takes a while to get it back out of the atmosphere.

Anyway you are just talking about CO2, burning diesel releases lots of nasty stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2890
Location: Trantor
binge90 wrote:
It won't take off. That land is needed for food production, that's this idea's achilles heel, agricultural space.

Utter cock, land for conventional bio fuels could be used to grow food, Joule's system can be deployed on land unsuitable for agriculture, such as rock and desert, all that's needed is proximity to industrial CO2 emitters such as power stations and waste water such as you find in towns and cities.

Strangely enough, exactly where the demand for fuel is highest


Last edited by Fat Albert on Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2890
Location: Trantor
Apposite wrote:
Spell wrote:
But of course you only release the same carbon you traped in the process. It's a renewable source.


Yeah but it takes a while to get it back out of the atmosphere.

Anyway you are just talking about CO2, burning diesel releases lots of nasty stuff.


I don't know how many times I need to tell you but, here goes again...

Euro VI emission standards mandate exhaust gases from vehicles to be 'cleaner' than, in many locations in Europe, the air that goes in to the engine!

Please stop spreading misinformation, that's Slow Wing's role


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9024
I'd support it as a form of carbon capture. Turn all that anthropogenic excess CO2 into diesel, then we need to store that somewhere no fucker will get at it and burn it.

Let's pump it deep underground.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2890
Location: Trantor
The most fertile periods in this planets history have been when atmospheric CO2 was 8-10 times higher than it's been since the last ice age.

The Jurassic had verdant growth across a much higher percentage of the planet, that's the only reason that the dinosaurs could exist.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it's necessary for all life on earth, the more the better within an order of magnitude.

Most Alarmists & Skeptics agree that a doubling of CO2 will force Global Mean Temperature by ≅1.2º C, the IPCC's alarmist green agenda estimates of positive feedbacks have been discredited by observations, the multi-model mean predictions are now more than 3 standard deviations in error. CAGW has been falsified, there is no net positive feedback.

The human body is capable of some 8,000 processes, and all of them, except two, are negative feedback loops. The two exceptions are heart attacks and orgasms, try sustaining either for any length of time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 76
Fat Albert wrote:
binge90 wrote:
It won't take off. That land is needed for food production, that's this idea's achilles heel, agricultural space.

Utter cock, land for conventional bio fuels could be used to grow food, Joule's system can be deployed on land unsuitable for agriculture, such as rock and desert, all that's needed is proximity to industrial CO2 emitters such as power stations and waste water such as you find in towns and cities.

Strangely enough, exactly where the demand for fuel is highest


You know, I thought carbon input would be the biggest problem. And there you tell us it is actually dependent on fossil fuel burning plants. Let's hope they continue doing that, eh?

Oh dear, I hope you didn't invest too much cash.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 76
Fat Albert wrote:
The most fertile periods in this planets history have been when atmospheric CO2 was 8-10 times higher than it's been since the last ice age.

The Jurassic had verdant growth across a much higher percentage of the planet, that's the only reason that the dinosaurs could exist.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it's necessary for all life on earth, the more the better within an order of magnitude.

Most Alarmists & Skeptics agree that a doubling of CO2 will force Global Mean Temperature by ≅1.2º C, the IPCC's alarmist green agenda estimates of positive feedbacks have been discredited by observations, the multi-model mean predictions are now more than 3 standard deviations in error. CAGW has been falsified, there is no net positive feedback.

The human body is capable of some 8,000 processes, and all of them, except two, are negative feedback loops. The two exceptions are heart attacks and orgasms, try sustaining either for any length of time.


Carboniferous. Stop watching movies for science, the hint is in the name, see?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12374
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
Fat Albert wrote:
Apposite wrote:
Spell wrote:
But of course you only release the same carbon you traped in the process. It's a renewable source.


Yeah but it takes a while to get it back out of the atmosphere.

Anyway you are just talking about CO2, burning diesel releases lots of nasty stuff.


I don't know how many times I need to tell you but, here goes again...

Euro VI emission standards mandate exhaust gases from vehicles to be 'cleaner' than, in many locations in Europe, the air that goes in to the engine!

Please stop spreading misinformation, that's Slow Wing's role


So hang on, he says that burning diesel causes lots of nasty stuff. Which it does. You then say that in order to clean up said nasty stuff we have to legislate against it to force manufacturers to ensure that diesel burnt as a car fuel is "clean" (which is still complete bollocks, it's like saying it's someone is the best actor in Hollyoaks). How, exactly, is that misinformation? It sounds to me like you're actually supporting his argument (and ignoring the fact that there are a huge number of places around the world which don't have Euro VI emissions standards but will happily burn full fat diesel with all the attendant air pollution and health consequences).

And that's also ignoring the massive pollution caused by fuel spills and the huge attendant costs of cleaning them up which will still happen even if this wonder fuel source does come to fruition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7582
Fat Albert wrote:
Apposite wrote:
Spell wrote:
But of course you only release the same carbon you traped in the process. It's a renewable source.


Yeah but it takes a while to get it back out of the atmosphere.

Anyway you are just talking about CO2, burning diesel releases lots of nasty stuff.


I don't know how many times I need to tell you but, here goes again...

Euro VI emission standards mandate exhaust gases from vehicles to be 'cleaner' than, in many locations in Europe, the air that goes in to the engine!

Please stop spreading misinformation, that's Slow Wing's role


We have never had a conversation about Euro emission standard before.

Firstly, air is dirty largely because of the burning of carbon-based fuels. Now you are telling me that burning more will make it cleaner. Don't be absurd. Sure, emissions regulations are getting tighter, which is good. Even Euro IV allows emission of various nasty shit outside of CO2 such as CO, NOx, particulates etc. etc.

On top of that I happen to believe CO2 release on a large scale is a bad idea because of potential climate change effects and ocean acidification.

Let's not forget on top of that that ICE engines are appallingly thermally inefficient.

Lastly we know fudge all about Joule Unlimited's process as far as I can see. All we have to rely on is their marketing bumf, which I treat with as much skepticism as the marketing bumf of an electric car company or a nuclear power company until their claims are examined.

Your position appears to be that you hope ICE's will be used forever because you like things that go vroom-vroom.

It has been quite obvious to many that they won't because they have many drawbacks apart from CO2 emission, including being dirty, noisy and inefficient and in any case the carbon thing is a biggy. Slow Wing is a little over-enthusiastic, sure, but I think he is right about what will happen, just a little early with his predictions.

You remind me of a horse enthusiast who was sure the car would never catch on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 45519
Yeah fuel spills bad.... open cast mining for rare earth minerals for batteries good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7582
bimboman wrote:
Yeah fuel spills bad.... open cast mining for rare earth minerals for batteries good.


I for one am not saying batteries are the answer.

Something like JU's tech may well turn out to be our best option although I don't think so. We could end up using compressed air. Or batteries, possibly very different to the ones we use today. Or supercapacitors. Or some kind of fuel cells.

There's only one thing we can be sure of and it's that the current arrangement is not the future so anything else remotely viable is worth a serious look.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12374
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
bimboman wrote:
Yeah fuel spills bad.... open cast mining for rare earth minerals for batteries good.


Sigh...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21789
Location: Gangly Beehive
Apposite wrote:
Lastly we know fudge all about Joule Unlimited's process as far as I can see. All we have to rely on is their marketing bumf, which I treat with as much skepticism as the marketing bumf of an electric car company or a nuclear power company until their claims are examined.


This is the correct answer. If Joule's claims are true then this is an important step forward, since although it involves us burning carbon that has already been captured once, this is preferable to burning carbon that comes directly out of the ground. If we can use it in power generation then better still, since then we have a fighting chance of closing a systemic loop. Diesel is quite problematic in grid-connected power plants (although Fat Albert disagrees) but ethanol far less so. The big butt is that Joule might not be telling the truth. Bigger lies have been told in search of multi-billion dollar stock valuations. If Joule were more open then billions of dollars of real investment would be flowing in, so either they're being secretive in an attempt to gain an epochal commercial putsch, or their process generates bullshit in addition to diesel. No one in my industry is talking much about it. We'll have to wait and see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7233
Location: Vandean Coast
If it's a work in progress then they might just be trying to protect their intellectual property. There are obviously interested investors as Joule have raised over US$100 million in investment.
The advisory team they have certainly aren't morons and would unlikely want to be associated with a company they knew was a scam.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12374
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
deadduck wrote:
If it's a work in progress then they might just be trying to protect their intellectual property. There are obviously interested investors as Joule have raised over US$100 million in investment.
The advisory team they have certainly aren't morons and would unlikely want to be associated with a company they knew was a scam.


A cursory glance at the history of investing in moonshine, skylarks and bubbles would say otherwise, I fear. Joule may pan out, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2890
Location: Trantor
Apposite wrote:
Firstly, air is dirty largely because of the burning of carbon-based fuels. Now you are telling me that burning more will make it cleaner.
Don't project your prejudice on my words. I said that in some parts of Europe local atmosphere pollution from factors that are nothing to do with transport is worse than Euro emission standards, in those locations what comes out of a modern diesel exhaust is less polluted than the air that goes into the engine. Sure, YOU can ban domestic use of coal & wood for warmth, as long as YOU accept responsibility for the consequential increase in cold weather mortality. Oh and by the way, Euro VI standards mandate virtually zero particulates.
Apposite wrote:
On top of that I happen to believe CO2 release on a large scale is a bad idea because of potential climate change effects and ocean acidification.
You're entitled to 'believe' anything you like, just so long as you dont' try to enforce your 'beliefs' on the lifestyle of the great unwashed and those of us who look at observations and see no evidence of 'dangerous' climate change due to CO2 forcing. As for ocean acidification, I'm sure that you've done your research and realise that increased CO2 is making the ocean less alkaline not more acid and that the oceans teemed with life when atmospheric CO2 was 8-10 times todays concentration which is just 40% higher than pre-industrial levels. Perhaps without realising it, you are spouting eco-propaganda alarmism which has no EVIDENCE to support it.
Apposite wrote:
Let's not forget on top of that that ICE engines are appallingly thermally inefficient.
I'll give you that, sadly it's just way more efficient than anything else yet invented that allows the public the freedom & mobility they so obviously desire.
Apposite wrote:
Lastly we know fudge all about Joule Unlimited's process as far as I can see. All we have to rely on is their marketing bumf, which I treat with as much skepticism as the marketing bumf of an electric car company or a nuclear power company until their claims are examined.
Joule have multiple patents filed, the people who've joined their board are serious players, they have raised $110m of venture capital from private investors and much to my chagrin, they wouldn't take my pittance when I offered some in April of 2011. Meanwhile I suppose you think 'green' energy subsidies from Government, like the $535m in loan guarantees given by Obama to Solyndra, the solar energy company that went bust in the autumn of 2011 blowing that and a load more of private capital remain sound investments!

The rest of your diatribe is more projection, show me an alternative for personal transport that doesn't force negative changes on lifestyle and which costs even close to fossil fuel and I'll be first on the bandwagon, until then you're just another 'I know better than you how you should spend your money and live your life' arrogant twat*.


*Originally I wrote 'fascist', perhaps a bit strong


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12374
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
Are YOU accepting responsibility for the pollution caused outside Europe by burning your amazing wonder diesel?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21789
Location: Gangly Beehive
deadduck wrote:
If it's a work in progress then they might just be trying to protect their intellectual property. There are obviously interested investors as Joule have raised over US$100 million in investment.
The advisory team they have certainly aren't morons and would unlikely want to be associated with a company they knew was a scam.


I very much doubt it's a scam, but they have to face a stiff test of industrial competitiveness in one of the harshest of markets. Many great ideas have sunk without trace simply because they aren't the most profitable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7582
Fat Albert wrote:
Apposite wrote:
Firstly, air is dirty largely because of the burning of carbon-based fuels. Now you are telling me that burning more will make it cleaner.
Don't project your prejudice on my words. I said that in some parts of Europe local atmosphere pollution from factors that are nothing to do with transport is worse than Euro emission standards, in those locations what comes out of a modern diesel exhaust is less polluted than the air that goes into the engine. Sure, YOU can ban domestic use of coal & wood for warmth, as long as YOU accept responsibility for the consequential increase in cold weather mortality. Oh and by the way, Euro VI standards mandate virtually zero particulates.
Apposite wrote:
On top of that I happen to believe CO2 release on a large scale is a bad idea because of potential climate change effects and ocean acidification.
You're entitled to 'believe' anything you like, just so long as you dont' try to enforce your 'beliefs' on the lifestyle of the great unwashed and those of us who look at observations and see no evidence of 'dangerous' climate change due to CO2 forcing. As for ocean acidification, I'm sure that you've done your research and realise that increased CO2 is making the ocean less alkaline not more acid and that the oceans teemed with life when atmospheric CO2 was 8-10 times todays concentration which is just 40% higher than pre-industrial levels. Perhaps without realising it, you are spouting eco-propaganda alarmism which has no EVIDENCE to support it.
Apposite wrote:
Let's not forget on top of that that ICE engines are appallingly thermally inefficient.
I'll give you that, sadly it's just way more efficient than anything else yet invented that allows the public the freedom & mobility they so obviously desire.
Apposite wrote:
Lastly we know fudge all about Joule Unlimited's process as far as I can see. All we have to rely on is their marketing bumf, which I treat with as much skepticism as the marketing bumf of an electric car company or a nuclear power company until their claims are examined.
Joule have multiple patents filed, the people who've joined their board are serious players, they have raised $110m of venture capital from private investors and much to my chagrin, they wouldn't take my pittance when I offered some in April of 2011. Meanwhile I suppose you think 'green' energy subsidies from Government, like the $535m in loan guarantees given by Obama to Solyndra, the solar energy company that went bust in the autumn of 2011 blowing that and a load more of private capital remain sound investments!

The rest of your diatribe is more projection, show me an alternative for personal transport that doesn't force negative changes on lifestyle and which costs even close to fossil fuel and I'll be first on the bandwagon, until then you're just another 'I know better than you how you should spend your money and live your life' arrogant twat*.


*Originally I wrote 'fascist', perhaps a bit strong


OK because some air in some places is dirtier in some ways it means that burning diesel is a good thing? :lol:

And I have never once disputed the widely accepted knowledge that at various times in the past the earth has had very different CO2, ocean pH and temperature regimes. I just don't think we should make changes to these systems unless we understand the impact of those changes.

You appear to think I am in favour of banning the ICE or something. Not true at all. It just seems increasingly obvious to me that we are going to need an alternative and I am in favour of putting more research into improving those alternatives as they clearly fall short of the ICE in lots of ways at the moment.

All I am saying is that I hope we end up doing something smarter than burning things for transport because that has lots of very obvious drawbacks. And we can't really say much about JU because we don't know much about their technology.

As usual you have your knickers in a twist. Bless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16223
backrow wrote:
very simply, how does this work ?

:uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 44769
Quote:
that the oceans teemed with life when atmospheric CO2 was 8-10 times todays concentration which is just 40% higher than pre-industrial levels


What period are you talking about, and which species in particular?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2890
Location: Trantor
It was 10degC warmer for most of the Jurassic & Cretaceous when CO2 was between 5 and 10 times the modern pre-industrial level, as any fule no, CO2 follows temperature, it doesn't drive it

Image
Quote:
Jurassic

Ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, giant marine crocodiles, sharks, rays, cephalopods (e.g. ammonites, belemnites), plankton (dinoflagellates, coccolithophorids)

Land plants abounded in the Jurassic, ferns, ginkgoes, bennettitaleans or "cycadeoids", and true cycads, conifers similar to redwoods, cypresses, pines, and yews.

Early Cretaceous

Many groups of marine organisms continued through from the Jurassic to the Cretaceous. Sharks of all kinds abounded, as well as many species of bony fishes. Mosasaurs, a new type of aquatic marine lizard, were widely distributed predators, with some species that reached over 14 meters in length. Equally dangerous and just as large were plesiosaurs (such as Kronosaurus) and crocodiles, but these were less common. Ichthyosaurs, which dominated Triassic and Jurassic oceans, had all but disappeared by the Early Cretaceous.

Reptiles were not the only marine giants of the Cretaceous. Strange-looking, often gigantic rudistid clams, reminiscent of Paleozoic horn corals, reached up to one meter in length and formed extensive reefs in shallow tropical oceans. Inoceramid clams over three meters long occurred in shallow, warm seas, including environments that were nearly devoid of oxygen. Ammonite cephalopods continued to diversify into amazing sizes and shapes, with some coiled forms over two meters across, and other forms that resembled an extended hook over two meters long.

The Cretaceous was also a high point for the evolution of plankton, at the other end of the size spectrum. Diatoms, a new group of photosynthesizing marine organisms, first appeared in the Early Cretaceous. The beautiful glassy skeletons of this group were far outnumbered by the limey-shelled coccoliths and foraminifera. Many other types of calcareous plankton reached their peaks at this time. These organisms dominated the plankton in most of the world’s oceans well into the succeeding Cenozoic Era, when the seas were much cooler and the patterns of ocean circulation much different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12374
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
So sea monsters and ferns and some trees, basically.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 44769
So in a different era with completely different species that had evolved over a long period of time to suit the conditions, the oceans teemed with life.

OK.

That's not a great way to predict what's going to happen now. The timescale is completely different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 45519
JM2K6 wrote:
So in a different era with completely different species that had evolved over a long period of time to suit the conditions, the oceans teemed with life.

OK.

That's not a great way to predict what's going to happen now. The timescale is completely different.



Yeah but think of it pan fried with black butter and capers!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2890
Location: Trantor
Who else remembers the mocking posts from the old board? 10,000 US gallons of ethanol or diesel NOW per acre from desert land with just waste water, CO2 and the sun at $0.34 per litre. Potentially 25,000 per acre at $0.17 per litre...

Here's some pie lads...

Image

Joule Partners with Audi to Accelerate Development and Commercialization of Sustainable, Carbon-Neutral Fuels
Joule wrote:
Joule today announced a strategic partnership with AUDI AG to accelerate the commercialization of its sustainable transportation fuels, Sunflow™-E and Sunflow™-D, for the global ethanol and diesel markets respectively. Derived directly from sunlight and waste carbon dioxide (CO2), these fuels align perfectly with Audi’s vision for carbon-neutral mobility, and can ultimately achieve the stable costs and scale required for global adoption without depleting vital arable land or crops.
Audi, Joule ink partnership, as Joule heads for scale with $1.28 per gallon advanced fuels
Biofuels Digest wrote:
Joule continues to move out of stealth and into the light with its transformative Sunflow-E and Sunflow-D fuels, made biologically from waste CO2, sunlight and saline water with no intervening biomass step.

Now, Audi joins the party.

In its transition — from Joule Intriguing Yet Undisclosed, to Joule Available At-Scale — Joule critics and fans have been wondering when the testing partners would emerge to validate the fuels – when the lifecycle analysis would emerge. Overall, when the kind of role would be announced that, say, Boeing and numerous airlines have been performing for some time with aviation fuels.

Wonder no more
Audi Backs a Biofuels Startup
MIT Technology Review wrote:
Joule Unlimited, a startup whose engineered microörganisms produce ethanol from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide, announced the commissioning of a new demonstration plant last week that will start producing ethanol within the next few weeks. Today, the company announced a partnership with Audi that will help Joule develop and test its fuels.
Audi Places Its Biofuel Bets On Joule
Forbes wrote:
If there’s a technology that has over promised and under delivered, it’s advanced biofuels. But there are signs that startups are making progress.

Boston-area biofuel startup Joule and Audi today announced a partnership, where the automaker will test and validate Joule’s fuels for the auto industry.

Last week, Joule commissioned a demonstration plant in Hobbs, New Mexico for its radical approach of directly making ethanol from sunlight and CO2 on a fraction of the land used with traditional approaches.
Joule Fuels’ Hobbs demo plant gets ready to roll
Business Weekly wrote:
Joule Fuels said Tuesday that its new SunSprings demonstration plant in Hobbs has come online and will soon begin operations.
SunSprings is designed to convert solar energy into liquid fuel. The company’s technology uses microorganisms that act as living catalysts to produce fuel, instead of converting biomass (such as trees or grasses) into fuel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 45519
Bloomberg reports that Audi will be processing the fuel at an Audi plant from 2014.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7130
I take it this is algae based?

Algae is the fastest growing organism on the planet, and can be used in marginal, desert areas, using poor quality water. It's potential yield is multiple times greater than any other source.

It will be the future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21789
Location: Gangly Beehive
Fat Albert wrote:
CO2 is not a pollutant, it's necessary for all life on earth, the more the better within an order of magnitude.

Most Alarmists & Skeptics agree that a doubling of CO2 will force Global Mean Temperature by ≅1.2º C


An order of magnitude? So a 10x increase in CO2 to ~4,000ppm will be okay? :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Brumbie_Steve, dam0, Deadtigers, feckwanker, Ghost-Of-Nepia, Google Adsense [Bot], Grizz Wyllie, Jensrsa, UncleFB and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group