Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal



Warning: Trying to access array offset on false in /var/www/peakoil.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/random-image-widget/random_image.php on line 138

Warning: Trying to access array offset on false in /var/www/peakoil.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/random-image-widget/random_image.php on line 139
PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Geobioreactors = Sustainable Energy Generation

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.
Post a reply

Geobioreactors = Sustainable Energy Generation

Postby BiGG » Sat 30 Apr 2005, 16:14:56

More great news, it looks like we have the potential for turning currently finite energy reserves into methane "farms" capable of long-term, sustainable energy generation!


Geobioreactors are sites where microbial conversion of underground hydrocarbon deposits (oil, oil shales, and coal) to methane is ongoing. Such Geobioreactors may offer the potential of turning currently finite energy reserves into methane "farms" capable of long-term, sustainable energy generation.

Luca Technologies LLC today announced that its researchers have confirmed the presence of a resident, methane-generating community of microorganisms.........

Luca scientists, employing the tools of modern biotechnology and genomics, have now shown that living methane generating, microbial consortia are present and actively forming methane within some of these hydrocarbon substrates. In addition to demonstrating that methane formation by these microbes can be stimulated by.......
User avatar
BiGG
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby Licho » Sat 30 Apr 2005, 16:46:44

This will be really great for global warming :-)
User avatar
Licho
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon 31 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU
Top

Ah, yes - more "potential"

Postby Dvanharn » Sat 30 Apr 2005, 16:54:27

Will it contribute significantly to the growing gap between gas & oil production and demand? If so, when is it expected to come on line at significant production leverl? Or is it just another cornucopian pie in the sky?

Remember that within the next couple of decades, we will need to add the net production of at least a couple of more Saudi Arabia's just to meet new demand, much less make up for depletion/loss of production.

Dave
Resident Cynic
User avatar
Dvanharn
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Sonoma County, Northern California
Top

Re: Ah, yes - more "potential"

Postby BiGG » Sat 30 Apr 2005, 16:58:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dvanharn', 'W')ill it contribute significantly to the growing gap between gas & oil production and demand? If so, when is it expected to come on line at significant production leverl? Or is it just another cornucopian pie in the sky?

Remember that within the next couple of decades, we will need to add the net production of at least a couple of more Saudi Arabia's just to meet new demand, much less make up for depletion/loss of production.

Dave
Resident Cynic


If you add in all of this I don't think we need Saudi Arabia or anybody else for very much longer the way it looks to me......

Energy Independence: Biomass

World's First Biomass-To-Ethanol Plant

'Tree-power' Great Current Energy Source

Biomass Waste: Replacement For Gasoline

Microbial Fuel Cell
User avatar
BiGG
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby Sys1 » Sat 30 Apr 2005, 17:42:06

That's nonsense because those microorganisms need hydrocarbons to make methane.

At the end, it's not an energy ressource project, it's just an energy conservation project.

Let's think about it just 1 minute :
Our main energy today is hydrocarbons. With hydrocarbons, we got wastes.

Now, we got less and less hydrocarbons. So we suddenly decide to use wastes in geobioreactors to make methane that'll allow us to use less oil... So less wastes to feed the geobioreactors, and at the end less methane... :lol:
User avatar
Sys1
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri 25 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby BiGG » Sat 30 Apr 2005, 18:17:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sys1', 'T')hat's nonsense because those microorganisms need hydrocarbons to make methane.

At the end, it's not an energy ressource project, it's just an energy conservation project.

Let's think about it just 1 minute :
Our main energy today is hydrocarbons. With hydrocarbons, we got wastes.

Now, we got less and less hydrocarbons. So we suddenly decide to use wastes in geobioreactors to make methane that'll allow us to use less oil... So less wastes to feed the geobioreactors, and at the end less methane... :lol:


Geobioreactors are sites where microbial conversion of underground hydrocarbon deposits (oil, oil shales, and coal) to methane is ongoing. Such Geobioreactors may offer the potential of turning currently finite energy reserves into methane "farms" capable of long-term, sustainable energy generation.
User avatar
BiGG
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby aldente » Sat 30 Apr 2005, 19:03:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sys1', 'T')hat's nonsense because those microorganisms need hydrocarbons to make methane.

Let's think about it just 1 minute :
Our main energy today is hydrocarbons. With hydrocarbons, we got wastes.


Can you elaborate the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates? I did a brief online search and found that quote:

It is a question of Hydrocarbons Vs. Carbohydrates. "Fossil Fuels" are complex carbon-based molecules called Hydrocarbons. They take a lot of work to process into usable raw materials and give off deadly toxins as they are broken down. Carbohydrates are simple carbon-based molecules that can be easily broken down into a variety of raw materials for a wide range of industrial uses.
User avatar
aldente
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Geobioreactors = Sustainable Energy Generation

Postby MonteQuest » Sat 30 Apr 2005, 19:49:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', 'M')ore great news, it looks like we have the potential for turning currently [B]finite energy reserves into methane "farms" capable of long-term, sustainable energy generation![/b]


That sentence, in of itself, defies the laws of thermodynamics. How can the conversion of one form of finite energy to another be a sustainable source of energy? If that was the case, then we had better get on to hydrogen!

I read the article and saw no explanation. My only guess is they are talking about currently unrecoverable oil, shale or coal. i.e., capped and abandoned wells. They allude to it here, but it isn't clear.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Oil within the Monument Butte field has a waxy composition that may facilitate the strong real-time methane generation we see at this site," commented Mr. Pfeiffer. "If so, then areas with large accumulations of waxy oil -- for example, the Daqing Field in Northeast China -- could prove to be important sites for the bioconversion of residual oil to methane and the restoration of these 'spent' sites to economic energy production."
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Postby savethehumans » Sun 01 May 2005, 03:51:59

Guess this means they've given up on catching the methane released from the melting Arctic tundra, huh? :lol:

The worse things get, the crazier the things they'll do to "solve" the problem. About the time the Devil's Abode has an Ice Age, maybe they'll give using common sense a try?

Nah. . . . :cry:
User avatar
savethehumans
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Postby Devil » Sun 01 May 2005, 04:24:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('albente', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sys1', 'T')hat's nonsense because those microorganisms need hydrocarbons to make methane.

Let's think about it just 1 minute :
Our main energy today is hydrocarbons. With hydrocarbons, we got wastes.


Can you elaborate the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates? I did a brief online search and found that quote:

It is a question of Hydrocarbons Vs. Carbohydrates. "Fossil Fuels" are complex carbon-based molecules called Hydrocarbons. They take a lot of work to process into usable raw materials and give off deadly toxins as they are broken down. Carbohydrates are simple carbon-based molecules that can be easily broken down into a variety of raw materials for a wide range of industrial uses.


A hydrocarbon is a molecule that contains only carbon and hydrogen. The simplest one is methane CH4 and a complex one may be something like 1,1,1,2-tetraphenylethane C45H36. Most of the fuel HCs are mainly alkanes CH3-(CH2)n-CH3 or simple cyclic compounds, such as the aromat benzene C6H6 (very toxic).

A carbohydrate is essentially a compound containing carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. The simplest one is methanol CH3-OH (toxic). However, the term is usually restricted to molecules that have a 2:1 H:O ratio and can be metabolised by the body to release energy, although there are many other definitions along similar lines. Carbohydrates, as a rule, are not convenient as fuels (think of sugar, for example).
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus
Top

Re: Geobioreactors = Sustainable Energy Generation

Postby BiGG » Sun 01 May 2005, 09:10:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
That sentence, in of itself, defies the laws of thermodynamics. How can the conversion of one form of finite energy to another be a sustainable source of energy? If that was the case, then we had better get on to hydrogen!

I read the article and saw no explanation. My only guess is they are talking about currently unrecoverable oil, shale or coal. i.e., capped and abandoned wells. They allude to it here, but it isn't clear.


It is saying that the term finite is not the case anymore. Energy units will be provided from the constant supply of methane gas produced by the microbes, and these microbes live and thrive in formally “spent” oil fields as well as those still producing. A currently “spent” field is turned back into production simply by cross-inoculation with microbial consortia from active sites.

….. -- microbes that generate methane by metabolizing organic materials including various hydrocarbons.

…. employing the tools of modern biotechnology and genomics, have now shown that living methane generating, microbial consortia are present and actively forming methane within some of these hydrocarbon substrates.

“….. "The hydrocarbon resources available ………. are very large, making the possibility of shifting from oil production to the ongoing farming of clean, natural gas an attractive consideration

….. demonstrated two of those sites to be robust, methane-generating Geobioreactors, and two to be less actively generating methane. Three additional sites are not currently active but may have the potential to be turned into active Geobioreactors through cross-inoculation with microbial consortia from active sites.”

……for the bioconversion of residual oil to methane and the restoration of these 'spent' sites to economic energy production."
User avatar
BiGG
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Repeating the statement doesn't make it true.

Postby rerere » Sun 01 May 2005, 09:46:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', '[')b]turning currently finite energy reserves into methane "farms" capable of long-term, sustainable energy generation!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', '[')b]turning currently finite energy reserves into methane "farms" capable of long-term, sustainable energy generation.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', '[')b]turning currently finite energy reserves into methane "farms" capable of long-term, sustainable energy generation.


Just because you repeat something over and over does not mean it becomes true. Hydrocarbons trapped under the earth, by definition is a finite amount. Sustainable, by definition means you can go back again and again. How can you keep going back to a finite resource? Oh, you can not. Ergo - not a sustainable resourse.

Oh, and Methane is a gas that is 10 times more effective than Carbon Dioxide. Your 'solution' ignores this. But, hey....what does the future matter? Spend now eh?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', '
')Energy Independence: Biomass
World's First Biomass-To-Ethanol Plant
'Tree-power' Great Current Energy Source
Biomass Waste: Replacement For Gasoline
Microbial Fuel Cell


What is interesting is all of the above solutions STILL require a large capitol outlay, moving the material to a central facility, et la. Every plant taken off the land means elements from the soil are removed. Somehow that material needs to be returned to the soil for re-cycling. Yet, where in the plans return the processed biomass back to the fields?

The longer term solution needs to be cheap, run without much technical knowledge, and small enough to work on sub 300 acre farming operations. It looks like your offerings don't match.
User avatar
rerere
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Geobioreactors = Sustainable Energy Generation

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 01 May 2005, 10:30:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', ' ')
It is saying that the term finite is not the case anymore.


Yeah, right. :lol: From another thread.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', '
')
Why not be optimistic? Everywhere I look I see viable answers to the end of oil.

I don’t think there’s going to be a problem at all as just like massive new growth was afforded with oil, the new technologies listed below will not only sustain what we have, but will add dramatically to it!


That's because you lack an understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, EROEI, and scalability.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sun 01 May 2005, 12:06:24, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Geobioreactors = Sustainable Energy Generation

Postby BiGG » Sun 01 May 2005, 11:45:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', ' ')
It is saying that the term finite is not the case anymore.


Yeah, right. :lol: From another thread.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', '
')
Why not be optimistic? Everywhere I look I see viable answers to the end of oil.

I don’t think there’s going to be a problem at all as just like massive new growth was afforded with oil, the new technologies listed below will not only sustain what we have, but will add dramatically to it!


That's because you lack an understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, EROEI, and scalability.


Let me post my reply from the other thread here also ....

No, I don’t think I’m the one lacking anything here and my thermodynamics are not stuck in the past. It appears you are looking only at dissolving oil resources instead of the many viable alternatives replacing it today and tomorrow.

EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) that many here keep talking about in regards to ethanol for instance is completely debunked here Biomass-To-Ethanol

Quoting the article: "Until we developed this new technology, the chemical makeup of biomass prevented it from being used to make ethanol economically," Ingram said. "Biomass is a much cheaper source of ethanol than traditional feedstocks such as corn and cane syrup.

"The new technology will allow ethanol to become economically competitive with fossil fuels for the first time," he said. "Until now, all the world's ethanol has been produced by yeast fermentation, which converts sugars into ethanol, carbon dioxide and other by-products."

"Instead of using corn or grain to make ethanol fuel, they'll be used to feed people," said BCI Executive Vice President Clinton Norris. "With this new technology, we can provide a source of energy by utilizing waste from farm crops -- not the crops themselves. In this way, we're helping solve the problems of hunger and our endangered environmental resources."

All of the new technologies listed in my post before this debunks current EROEI thinking by some here for that matter, hydrogen is made feasible here showing your thinking to be antiquatedMicrobial Fuel Cell

In their paper, the researchers explain that hydrogen production by bacterial fermentation is currently limited by the "fermentation barrier" -- the fact that bacteria, without a power boost, can only convert carbohydrates to a limited amount of hydrogen and a mixture of "dead end" fermentation end products such as acetic and butyric acids.
However, giving the bacteria a small assist with a tiny amount of electricity -- about 0.25 volts or a small fraction of the voltage needed to run a typical 6 volt cell phone – they can leap over the fermentation barrier and convert a "dead end" fermentation product, acetic acid, into carbon dioxide and hydrogen.

And here: Hydrogen production boosted 43%

Dr. Bruce Logan, professor of environmental engineering, and his research group have shown they can boost hydrogen production 43 percent by using a continuous hydrogen release fermentation process. He explains that by using certain industrial wastewater as feedstock, the approach offers an abundant, "green," local source for hydrogen and potentially makes it a cheaper fuel than gasoline.
"Continuous fermentation is not hard to do and the high volumes of gas produced make it a potential source of supply for a wide variety of fuel cell applications besides cars and buses, including home power generation and the micro-fuel cells being developed for consumer products such as laptops, cell phones, smoke alarms, and calculators," Logan adds.

And “scalability” is surly no issue where there is profit to be made just like at every turn in the past. The United States alone could finance this switchover if it came to that even if it puts US with debt much greater then the GDP like we had during & after WWII. Private industry will take care of these issues not even requiring that though. Many people including professionals supposedly in the know claimed we could never overcome the “scalability” of what was required to win the war in Europe & Asia simultaneously but we cranked out a war machine that did just that and we will prevail at cranking out a machine to replace oil.

BTW: I notice you didn't mention anything about "It is saying that the term finite is not the case anymore." . Is that because it proves what you are saying to be incorrect?
User avatar
BiGG
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Geobioreactors = Sustainable Energy Generation

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 01 May 2005, 12:05:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', ' ')No, I don’t think I’m the one lacking anything here and my thermodynamics are not stuck in the past. It appears you are looking only at dissolving oil resources instead of the many viable alternatives replacing it today and tomorrow.

BTW: I notice you didn't mention anything about "It is saying that the term finite is not the case anymore." . Is that because it proves what you are saying to be incorrect?


Stuck in the past? WTF? The laws of thermodynamics have not changed. I take it that you have not read many of my threads. If you think that any conceivable basket of alternatives can replace fossil fuels then you don't have an understanding of thermodyanamics, EROEI, or scalability.

Hydrocarbons are no longer finite? Ok, if you say so. :lol:
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Geobioreactors = Sustainable Energy Generation

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 01 May 2005, 12:20:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', ' ')
And “scalability” is surly no issue where there is profit to be made just like at every turn in the past. The United States alone could finance this switchover if it came to that even if it puts US with debt much greater then the GDP like we had during & after WWII. Private industry will take care of these issues not even requiring that though. Many people including professionals supposedly in the know claimed we could never overcome the “scalability” of what was required to win the war in Europe & Asia simultaneously but we cranked out a war machine that did just that and we will prevail at cranking out a machine to replace oil.


Guess you lack an understanding of the current economic situation as well. The US could finance the world's switchover to alternatives? The US is bankrupt! We borrow 2.9 billion dollars a day just to keep the economy going. Private industry? They are broke too.

For example:

Who’s Picking Up the Tab?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut consider that Government sources have estimated that ‘fixing’ social security will cost somewhere between 1 and 2 Trillion Dollars. It has been clearly stated that the proposed means by which this fix up will be effected is with borrowed monies. Current U.S. fiscal and balance of trade deficits combined, are somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 Trillion [give or take a couple hundred billion either way] annually. Foreigners are counted on to absorb perhaps 75 % of these gross new borrowings each and every year [the entire current account deficit as well as 40 % – 50 % of the fiscal budget deficit]. As former Fed. Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker points out,

“…The United States is absorbing about 80 percent of the net flow of international capital…."

With the above information being undisputed fact, we ask, how could America - let alone anyone borrow an additional 1 – 2 Trillion dollars when existing borrowing, of about 1 Trillion, is already 80 % of global savings? On our planet, such a proposition is sometimes referred to as an oxymoron. In our opinion, the mere proposition that new borrowings of this scale are possible is nothing short of hubris. To believe that such incredulous borrowing plans have any chance of success whatsoever would require overt deception, deceit and temerity – as well as a generous supply of unwitting victims [dare we say the John and Jane Six-Pack American Public?].

Where would anyone go to find such a generous supply of unwitting, uninformed human beings? Answer that, dear reader, and you’ve answered the Fed and Treasury’s latest 2 Trillion dollar dilemma – just remember to smile when your waiter asks, “Will that be cash or Visa?”



http://www.financialsense.com/editorial ... R0429.html
I don't think it is unreasonable to think that this switchover will costs trillions of dollars. Just where do you suppose this money will come from? US printing presses? Get ready for Weimar Germany 1923 inflation. Better buy a wheelbarrow.

"...a machine to replace oil." :lol:
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sun 01 May 2005, 12:52:32, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Geobioreactors = Sustainable Energy Generation

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 01 May 2005, 12:50:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', ' ')EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) that many here keep talking about in regards to ethanol for instance is completely debunked here Biomass-To-Ethanol


See what I mean? This article doesn't even mention EROEI one time! And you claim it completely debunks the criticism. :lol:
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Geobioreactors = Sustainable Energy Generation

Postby BiGG » Sun 01 May 2005, 13:00:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', ' ')No, I don’t think I’m the one lacking anything here and my thermodynamics are not stuck in the past. It appears you are looking only at dissolving oil resources instead of the many viable alternatives replacing it today and tomorrow.

BTW: I notice you didn't mention anything about "It is saying that the term finite is not the case anymore." . Is that because it proves what you are saying to be incorrect?


Stuck in the past? WTF? The laws of thermodynamics have not changed. I take it that you have not read many of my threads. If you think that any conceivable basket of alternatives can replace fossil fuels then you don't have an understanding of thermodyanamics, EROEI, or scalability.


Come on MonteQuest, you act like you want to play but when I eloquently debunk what you have been preaching you start talking in circles and telling me about what “I” don’t understand.

I never said anything about the “laws of thermodynamics changing”, please reread my post where you will see that. I said my thermodynamics aren’t “stuck in the past” so let’s start with a definition for those who may not know what we are talking about …..

Thermodynamics = “the branch of physics that deals with the conversions from one to another of various forms of energy and how these affect temperature, pressure, volume, mechanical action, and work”

…. now when I said “my thermodynamics aren’t stuck in the past, I was referring too the fact that oil isn’t the only form of energy and new technology is replacing it quickly.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ydrocarbons are no longer finite? Ok, if you say so. :lol:


No, apparently you are mistaken and did not read what I wrote correctly, or are purposely trying to twist words around, please reread my quote ….. Lets look at this quote (again) on the subject at hand… modern biotechnology and genomics, have now shown that living methane generating, microbial consortia are present and actively forming methane. I don’t see anything “finite” about that at all.

Quote, notice the “organic” part here: It has long been known that certain microorganisms are "methanogens" -- microbes that generate methane by metabolizing organic materials including various hydrocarbons. While it has also been generally accepted that many of the known methane deposits were produced by such organisms, most of this production was thought to have occurred millions of years ago, when the hydrocarbon deposits were less mature and closer to the surface of the earth. I’m pretty sure “organic” matter is not “finite”.

How about instead of mocking me you actually talk about the subject matter here showing your current thinking to be incorrect?
User avatar
BiGG
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Geobioreactors = Sustainable Energy Generation

Postby BiGG » Sun 01 May 2005, 13:20:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Guess you lack an understanding of the current economic situation as well. The US could finance the world's switchover to alternatives? The US is bankrupt! We borrow 2.9 billion dollars a day just to keep the economy going. Private industry? They are broke too.




The doom here is ridiculous, the United States was “bankrupt” during WWII like I mentioned and we seem to still be moving along quite nicely ever since just like we will be in the future. And private industry is bankrupt also? Tell that to Bill Gates, I’m sure he will buy it! :roll:

Maybe I can put this into simpler terms that will be easier for you to understand. You were not bankrupt when you took out the mortgage on your house anymore than the United States is bankrupt because it borrows money. It’s called investing in the future and our current debt against the GDP is no where near historic highs. It wasn’t a problem then and it is not the end of the world now, like I said, the doomer banter is ridiculous as many of US can see a whole lot more than just the sky is falling.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')...a machine to replace oil." :lol:


Apparently you missed all of the working oil replacements I listed earlier in this thread. Please spend some time reading them, especially the ones completely debunking the things you keep asserting that are untrue. :roll:
User avatar
BiGG
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Geobioreactors = Sustainable Energy Generation

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 01 May 2005, 13:33:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', ' ')Come on MonteQuest, you act like you want to play but when I eloquently debunk what you have been preaching you start talking in circles and telling me about what “I” don’t understand.

…. now when I said “my thermodynamics aren’t stuck in the past, I was referring too the fact that oil isn’t the only form of energy and new technology is replacing it quickly.


See what I mean? You don't understand. What does this have to do with thermodynamics being stuck in the past? Try reading these three threads:

The Laws of Thermodynamics
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic2973.html

Solar vs Fossil; The Future and the Past
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic2059.html+past

EROEI: Energy Returned on Energy Invested
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic3660.html


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', 'N')o, apparently you are mistaken and did not read what I wrote correctly, or are purposely trying to twist words around, please reread my quote …..


Ok, let's do that:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ore great news, it looks like we have the potential for turning currently finite energy reserves into methane "farms" capable of long-term, sustainable energy generation!


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')eobioreactors are sites where microbial conversion of underground hydrocarbon deposits (oil, oil shales, and coal) to methane is ongoing. Such Geobioreactors may offer the potential of turning currently finite energy reserves into methane "farms" capable of long-term, sustainable energy generation.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is saying that the term finite is not the case anymore. Energy units will be provided from the constant supply of methane gas produced by the microbes, and these microbes live and thrive in formally “spent” oil fields as well as those still producing. A currently “spent” field is turned back into production simply by cross-inoculation with microbial consortia from active sites.

In each case you have stated or quoted that finite hydrocarbons can be turned into sustainable (meaning infinite) energy resources. That is balantly false.

Methane is constantly being produced world-wide from fermentation of organic wastes. Landfills are a great example. Biogas is used in China and India to great ends. But to even think that we can tap into a infinte treasure chest of microbial methane that is feeding off of existing hydrocarbon reserves is just plain absurd. It is a energy conversion, not a source of new energy.

Obviously, we can tap these resources, but they cannot replace existing fossil fuels due to EROEI shortfalls and scalability. Remember, peak oil is about energy costing more, not the lack of sources for it. This increase in cost threatens our cilivization because it was built upon cheap, readily available fossil fuels that were assumed infinite. They are not.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top
Next
Post a reply

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron