Whom the Gods would destroy . . .

I don't see why a linear extrapolation is better in the short term, but make any assumptions you want for your own purposes. If you make pronouncements about BEV growth, you should expect some questions about your extrapolation method. The difference is, $8.00 on a linear extrapolation, yields $11 on a growth rate matching that of the first year of the linear extrapolation. At twenty-five years, the linear is at $12, the exponential $29. Might make a difference to some people.

You have misread my post if you think, I think you did state any of those things. I was making a extrapolation of my own about what happens when the Chinese are importing all of the world's production of oil, and wondering what you thought the US price was likely to be at that point.

 

Inflation is an exponential quality. Real prices should be exponential, but nominal are anyone's guess.
InflationData: Gasoline Inflation



There are fairly quantities of oil and substitutes at twice this price, so I would not expect the oil cost to double by 2020. Algea based diesel and switch grass get into the game. Price of gasoline will have much to do with the strength of the dollar and fuel taxes. If we really do cut back on the quantity of oil fuel taxes need to go up per gallon, and with inflation I would expect over $7/gallon gasoline in 2020. Much has to do with the global economy.

 

If you are going to switch over to bio-fuels, now you are talking about land area, and yields per acre. If you haven't done the math for that, I recommend it. You won't believe me.

 

OK do the math for me. 20% of our diesel from algea. How much land mass? The probelm is you need $6/gallon an the price is less than $4 for dino diesel today.

 

Yields per acre of algae based biodiesel have not been accurately determined but let's take the most optimistic number and say 3000 gals per acre. Current usage of dino-oil is roughly 20M barrels per day => 20,000,000 * 42 g/b * 365 d/y * 1/3000 g/a * 20% = 20M acres. Call it South Carolina.

To replace all of it we get to cover all of California in algae. When you put it that way....

Let's say algae doesn't work out at that rate, and we need to use soybeans at 100 gals/acre. 20% becomes 600M acres (Texas, California, Montana and Ohio). 100% 3B acres (86% of total US land mass).

 

But it doesn't have to replace all the dino diesel(actaully, I think most fossil fuels started out as plants and algae). Just displacing a fraction can help. Along with increasing fuel economy, and switching oil heating to natural gas, that fraction can go a long way. Algae also doesn't need the use of fertile crop land. Then there are the other avenues of renewable production, like pyrolysis and thermal depolymerization.

A single path approach isn't going to work as a solution.

 

That is less than the acreage used for corn based ethanol IIRC. To put it in perspective, there are about 430 million acres of farm land, but algea doesn't need good farm land to be produced. Even taking it all as farm land that would be less than 5%, and if you killed corn based ethanol well we have more farm land available for crops.

Why would we need to replace all of it. Say 20% algea, 20% M85 and lng from natural gas and biomass, 5% from hybrids and plug ins. Add back in that 5% from not using corn based ethanol and you are using 40% less gasoline on about the same land we are using for fuel. This will put a cap on oil prices getting too high in the long run, as we can continue substituting away.

The only reason algea doesn't work is cost. Since soy and palm oil based fuels are lower some will be devoted to those crops, but as land use gets too high algea can definitely come into play as can electricity.

 

Which is presumably why Austin wanted the math on 20%. So let's use that, and the most optimistic guesses. That's 20 million acres. What are we displacing with all that algae? It shouldn't be arable land (we still need to eat); it shouldn't be forests, or grazing land; it needs to be relatively flat; it needs to get enough rain to avoid importing water. And of course we can't use 100% of any given area, since we need to harvest, collect, process, all that algae.

Anyone got any land near them that they are willing to volunteer for this effort?

Alternatively, we could use water area, say Lakes Michigan and Erie.

 

US oil usage hit a four year low in august. Yet, prices are up significantly in that time frame. Thus, it is clear that the US is not driving the price of oil. It seems unlikely that any further reduction in demand by the US will reduce global demand, and the price will keep rising.

ONLY reason? Then how come we don't have an accurate number for bio-diesel gallons per acre from algae? There could be tons of reasons, and we won't know them until we try it on a large scale. For example, how much water is this all going to tie up?

Cost is already solved. Diesel may be priced at $4.00 a gallon, but it doesn't COST $4.00 a gallon. The cost is much higher. Internalize those externalities and the price of diesel will be higher than algae now. Simple (not easy).

I told you, that you wouldn't believe me, next time do your own math.

 

I'm not up on the latest research, but the original strains used were saltwater. We got plenty of coastline. We could farm them under off shore wind farms. That way we can keep the eyesores together.

Deserts have plenty of sun. Less chance of wild algae getting in. Sealed ponds will lower evaporation loss(may even be needed). I understand there is plenty of area in New Mexico. The radiation might improve fuel economy.

How much space does an algae scrubber for capturing CO2 on a power plant take. Won't reduce the area for algae farming much, but every little bit adds up.

The cooling canals of a power plant will take up acres. Some of that warm water is already being used for aquaculture in Texas. Research into power plant cooling even looked at using the water for algae bioreactors.

http://twri.tamu.edu/newsletters/texaswaterresources/twr-v1n11.pdf
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=coolingpubs

There are probably more potential strains of algae for oil production than species of trees in the forest. Each has its own ideal growth requirements and oil output.

Cost is an issue because most of the algae farming is done in bioreactors. A fancy word for a clear water barrel with circulation. The pumps require more power than you would with an open pond. They are used because it's the easyist way of providing the strains ideal parameters. It also keeps out wild algae that would most likely out compete your crop and ruin the oil yield.

Being enclosed, the reactors lose little water, and can be recycled. The initial lay out of water needs some thought. The cooling canals of the Turkey Point nuclear plant are enclosed from the surrounding marsh, and at a constant warm temperature. They are also inhabited by endangered American crocodiles, so are out as an algae farm, but that doesn't rule out other such systems.

 

Electrification and possible low oil prices make more of an investment likely to be unprofitable. algea costs more than many of the alternatives, but if gas prices rise above a certain level it makes sense. Obama was talking about 17%. I upped that a little assuming corn based ethanol would start going away and we would need more alternatives. I would expect electrification + biofuels to serve the majority of needs in 2050, but in 2020 even 20% is a reach.

The likely areas are the southwest and california. There are large areas that are not suitable to farming in the southwest, but water is available to be pumped into algea pools. Algea can work with waste water and salt water also.

Texas is prime because of access to refineries and energy experts. California to a smaller scale will likely use algea ponds to sequester carbon at power plants to comply with ab32 even though this fuel would be even more expensive.

btw: the DOE thinks it will take less land
A Promising Oil Alternative: Algae Energy

 

I would assume that the US will be happy to sell biofuel and electrified vehicles to the rest of the planet. As I said this will only work on scarcity. Part of the reason for high prices are also the weak dollar. The 2020 price not only depends on supply and demand but also inflation and the strength of the dollar. The highest yielding crop might also be the most expensive.

Algea takes a lot of water, IIRC about 350 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of diesel. But most of that water is reused on the next crop, and the water can be waste water or salt water. Why would there be technical challenges to scale the small agea systems? It is just a matter of money. Well that and trade barriers. THere is a european tarif to protect european biodiesel from less expensive american biodiesel.

But unless you change policies algea based diesel costs more than soy or dino diesel.

I just was pointing out you were not using "the most optimistic" number. The optimistic number is 15,000 gallons/acre/year - much higher than your 3000 gallons/acre/year.

I simply posted the DOE's math to show different asumptions. I was hoping you would realize that algea makes sense.

 

I am sure they would. Currently the US is making less than 5% of the vehicles in the world, and declining. How do you propose to reverse that trend?

I thought we were having a reasonable discussion. Oh well.

We haven't even gotten to my opinion on algae based bio-diesel. Please don't think you know what it is. We are still talking about basic raw numbers.

 

I don't know how you are counting. The world car market is just over 60 million, the US car (not including light truck) market will be around 8 million this year. The bulk of those 8 million are produced in north america - sadly the prius is not, but we can hope for the next generation. Many of the automakers are not based in the US, highest volume is toyota and most toyota's sold in the US are made in the US and Canada.

If american companies generate the fuel saving phevs though we can expect that they will produce most of the ones they sell in europe in europe, and the ones they sell in china in china. Technology will translate though, but not the jobs. I hope the US auto companies make more in china than they lose in Europe.

I'm not sure what the 5% is of. Perhaps it is US made cars by US head quartered companies. I don't think that number will change much, nor do I think it matters.

I was not trying to be unreasonable. If you can grow a corn crop on a 40 acre field, you can scale it to grow on a large number of large farms. Problems may be pests and disease - well and things like the dust bowl. Similarly we are now doing algea on the equivalent of a 40 acre field. The cost is simply high to comericalize it for large scale production, but there are a few commercial ventures starting to be built now. You don't want to spend a lot of money getting a $6/gallon infrastructure going if you think in two years you can figure out how to do it for $5/gallon. The difference maybe that I have visited two of the small scale local operations, and they could easily go comercial with the right subsidies or high diesel prices.

I was only working on one opinion, which is it takes up too much land. I was hoping to convince you that the land problem on biofuels based on soy or corn are not nearly as bad. Biofuels are viable at a price

 

Page 1 of this thread. At 5% we aren't even selling cars to ourselves, to say nothing of the rest of the world.

Ah, pardon me. If by "no problems", you intend "no more problems than we experienced going from 40 acre family farms to huge agri-businesses", then I concur. It probably won't even take the 100 years that that took.

You didn't find that opinion in anything I wrote.

 

That is one of the most worthless group of numbers to measure things by. It appears to be cars but not light trucks, so a CUV is not counted, nor is a camry since it is made by toyota and not ford or GM. It also counts a ford made in mexico and a gm made in canada as not american. I don't know what purposes other than trade wars you would use such misleading statistics. If you care about cars made in the US, you need to include the toyotas, hondas, bmws, vws, made in the USA.

wow, and you wanted an adult discussion?

You said that I didn't understand the land use issues. If you think they are minor compared to corn and soy based biofuels, then we are in agreement.

 

You won't find that opinion in anything I wrote either.

Let me know when you get the site permits for that 10 square mile algae farm, in Austin, and we will talk again about 'no problems'.

 

I think my extrapolations are justified given the circumstances; however, I'm ready and willing to adapt an better forecasting model when I find one that I think I can justify. I'm just looking to find the median/average price for about 10 to 20 years - the lifespan of the vehicle. If the real world data start acting differently - yeah I'll change my forecast model to match it. Because I'm continually looking to make adjustments when necessary I'm not too concern about any error. So far - from what I can tell - gasoline prices have gone through two major cycles which gives me two points to make a line. When get three or four major pricing cycles - I'll have enough data to determine an polynominal or exponential model (e.g. gas price=ax^2+bx+c) - time will tell if there is any rhyme or reason to our future.

Despite all their efforts to do so - China will not be able to corner the world's supply of oil - the distribution of oil is inflexible and so its pricing structure is regionally based. Some oil/gas will never go to China. However with China's big bank account - and China increasing demand for oil - I agree that until China turns more to alternative energy systems that China will end up putting pressure on oil and gas prices in the pacific rim region and the west coast of the USA. China's policy wrt to energy looks alot like the USA's. It's half baked. I think that the USA will remain the biggest oil and gas user in the Atlantic ocean region - so the FSP along the USA mid atlantic states will be more of a factor wrt to oil prices than China for the EU, South America, and Africa. However, for India, Japan, and Australia - China's FSP will be more of a demand factor.

 

Can it be done, and will bureaucracy let it be done are two different issues.

I know someone with a septic system in need of serious work. He can't simply tie into the now existing township water and sewer lines because of the wetlands in the form of a creek between the house and the mains. It isn't a problem with plumbing technology not being up to the task.

A solar power plant project in the past couple years ran afoul of the gopher tortise. A thermal depolymerization plant turning turkey guts and feathers into a fuel oil had to install scrubbers because the neighbors complained about the smell. Don't know how they felt about the four turkey slaughterhouses nearby.

Some of these issues are important, and some BS, but they don't bear on the technical feasibility of the things.

 

Sure, and when he has a site permit, all of those things will be known.