FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[CookinFlat6]

psst, moderator (56% want replaced), leave RC alone. Come over here to explain this discrepancy

Algae is basically a simple, natural, organic, yet very efficient solar energy process and source. It can provide the negative atmospheric carbon effect we need.

Algae does not need much in terms of nutrients, a positive, it grows easily and there are many types each with different particular features. Where there is an abundance of nutrients, algae will take it up, commonly known as "algal blooms". Unfortunately, these generally go unharvested, and then decompose and release carbon back to the atmosphere. This is a reality of farming, and, with the growing global population, there will be more pressure here.

No link or proof, should we take your ord for it?? oh hold on, here is the New Statesman article you referred us to for proof

Algae Systems is now constructing a pilot plant covering several hectares in Mobile Bay, off the coast of Alabama, which should be operational early next year. If all the component processes work as well as they have in the research lab, the result should be carbon-negative fuels, says company president Matthew Atwood. This fuel should be able to undercut fossil petroleum prices within three or four years, he adds.

However, they will need to solve another problem for algal biofuels: fertiliser. Algae are gorge on expensive nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. At relatively small scales, wastewater from cities and croplands can easily supply these, as in Algae Systems's design. But scale up and there simply isn't enough wastewater to go around. "Human nutrient loading is simply not sufficient," says Stefan Unnasch, an energy analyst and engineer at California consultancy Life Cycle Associates. "You put more in your car every day than into your toilet." Indeed, producing even a tenth of the US's liquid fuel from algae would consume more than the entire US supply of both nitrogen and phosphorus, according to calculations by Ronald Pate, an algal biofuels specialist at Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico (Applied Energy, vol 88, p 3377).

and when you are done on that tell us where the battery in your mobile phone gets its rare earth elements

[CookinFlat6]

Oh no, the moderator (56% want replaced) has connectivity issues, he is unable to explain the discrepancy between algae need for nutrients, and he has forgotten whether he has a mobile phone

watch out girls, he is gonna take the fight to you

[spankyham]

psst, moderator (56% want replaced)

So you need protection from the big bad Ferrari mod

leave RC alone

Why this comment .... hmmm

Come over here to explain this discrepancy

Nothing to explain, if you're wanting to create algae from waste materials that would be one way. I'd place the algae farms as near as possible to some of the greatest carbon polluters on the planet, the electrical power generation plants - plenty of food for them there.

and when you are done on that tell us where the battery in your mobile phone gets its rare earth elements

.
Wish I had a choice. Where do you fill up your car?

[CookinFlat6]

These lies you're referring to, would they be something like posting that "plants hold their carbon forever". Or would they be more like "when plants decompose they don't release carbon into the atmosphere".

A simple carbon cycle

The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is maintained by several processes, including photosynthesis, respiration and combustion.
Green plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by photosynthesis. Living organisms - including all plants and animals - release energy from their food using respiration. Respiration and combustion - burning - both release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
These processes form a carbon cycle in which the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains about the same. The animation should help you to understand how the cycle works. Note that you do not need to know about decomposition and fossilisation.

[CookinFlat6]

Nothing to explain, if you're wanting to create algae from waste materials that would be one way. I'd place the algae farms as near as possible to some of the greatest carbon polluters on the planet, the electrical power generation plants - plenty of food for them there.

.

Researchers may some day find a way to solve the nutrient problem by extracting and reusing nitrogen and phosphorus from the algal residue, but the biggest difficulty to scaling up is more intractable: how do you get your hands on all that CO2? Even if algae-growers could tap every last smokestack in the US, that would only be enough to produce about 75 billion litres of algal biofuel per year, according to Pate's calculations. That's less than 10 per cent of the world's current transport fuel needs. Moreover, tying biofuel production to fossil-fuel-burning industrial smokestacks merely wrings a second round of energy out of CO2. "This just postpones emissions," says Jonas Helseth, director of Bellona Europa, an environmental foundation based in Brussels, Belgium.

and when you are done on that tell us where the battery in your mobile phone gets its rare earth elements

.
Wish I had a choice. Where do you fill up your car?

You dont have a choice to a mobile phone????
You are forced to use your mobile phone and keep those poor slave workers at work???

spanky, you've hit the nail on the head:

[Hammer278]

psst, moderator (56% want replaced)

So you need protection from the big bad Ferrari mod

You must be awesome in your own fake little world.

Also funny now that you've got your hands full with Cookin, the fake wifey and F2004 have dissapeared. Oh well...we only have 24h a day don't we.

[racechick]

Not mentioning slave labour does not mean I'm blasé about it. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

The thread had discussed poor treatment of people and orangutans. I pointed out that you had commented on the orangutans but not the people.

Orang utans I know a lot about and they have been specifically affected by biofuel production to the point of almost extinction, so I mentioned them.

So you are claiming that the palm oil production from the 60's until today for food and glues had no impact on the orangutans but the relatively meager additional biofuel palmoil pushed them to the edge of extinction. That has zero credibility. Sounds to me more like a desperate attempt to discredit biofuels by trying to associate that destructive farming practice with biofuels.

What has happened to the orangutan, largely from the palm oil industry is terrible and cannot be justified. If we cannot treat them with respect we can't expect to learn how to respect humans. It disturbs me when some look at people in slave conditions forced to live in contamination zones and then make inhumane comments like, he's ok, he has a cigarette.

Were do you get your facts from Spanky? Indonesia is home to 90% of the worlds orangutans. My friend has recently been out to work on one of the rescue places for orangutans. There homes are being taken, not in the 60's but now. They are considered pests on the palm oil plantations that are replacing their homes. It is thought around 750 died in 2008 and 2009. Not the sixties.

[CookinFlat6]

not too happy with that censorship, but I cant understand it

[Jabberwocky]

All these biofuel threads are getting out of hand and too numerous... and somewhat tedious to trawl through.

Locked

[What's Burning?]

Wired The Tesla Model S may be the safest vehicle ever tested by the feds. So safe, in fact, that according to the automaker, the all-electric sedan broke the testing equipment at an independent commercial facility.

Most cars get five stars in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s frontal crash protection test and four stars for side impact protection. But the Model S aced them all: front, side, pole, and rollover. And Tesla adds in its announcement that during a previous roof crush test used during validation, the machine failed while applying more than 4 G’s of pressure — the same as stacking four of the electric sedans on top of the car without the roof breaking.

When NHTSA added up all the scores, it totaled a combined five stars across the board — one of the highest ever recorded for a production vehicle.

The reason for the insanely high marks isn’t just the stiff structure, but the electric drivetrain. With no engine up front taking up valuable crumple zone space, Tesla’s engineers were able to maximize the amount of sacrificial space, and with the battery mounted oh-so-low in the floor, that increases rigidity around the occupants. The rear crash test — particularly important given the rear-facing child jump seats — was another high score, with no “permanently disabling injury to the third row occupants” thanks in part to what Tesla calls a “double bumper” to absorb additional impact.

And before you ask, the lithium-ion battery handled it all with aplomb, with no leakage or fire.

[youtube]dz2FMfv-CSc[/youtube]

[darwin dali]

Chapeau

[What's Burning?]

Oi! Not for nothing but the Volvo 240 series wagon back in the 70s could support 7 times its weight in the roof structure test.

[darwin dali]

Oi! Not for nothing but the Volvo 240 series wagon back in the 70s could support 7 times its weight in the roof structure test.

Well yeah and it's also a candidate for the ugliest car thread.

[What's Burning?]

Oi! Not for nothing but the Volvo 240 series wagon back in the 70s could support 7 times its weight in the roof structure test.

Well yeah and it's also a candidate for the ugliest car thread.

LOL that I will fight you tooth and nail on. There's is ugly and then there's is rock star ugly. The 240 series was a rock star.

[darwin dali]

Oi! Not for nothing but the Volvo 240 series wagon back in the 70s could support 7 times its weight in the roof structure test.

Well yeah and it's also a candidate for the ugliest car thread.

LOL that I will fight you tooth and nail on. There's is ugly and then there's is rock star ugly. The 240 series was a rock star.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder