Here in Southwest Florida one of our biggest problem is RED TIDE. There should be a way to harvest the red tide to create renewable oil to clean up our environment and stop the fish kills or use them to harvest fish oil.
There is plenty of sunshine in the Sunshine State. It should be utilized to clean up the algae that causes the Red Tide blooms. I imagine a solar catamaran that scoops up the red tide muck into storage tanks and maybe uses the Carbon Dioxide in the air to be turned into pure oxygen to be used be used later as Bio-Oil.
Biofuel had better use vegetables oil. Vegetables oil can turn into biodiesel. Or engine and generator can run on vegetables oil directly. Our suggestions don't use ethanol and methanol. Ethanol and methanol are containing moisture, which is easy to cause engine and generator failure.
Biofuel isn't new. When I was growing up in the 1950's - 60's, there was a biofuel available in South Africa called Union Spirit, and at a higher octane than regular fuel, it was popular among motorsports enthusiasts (regular fuel was 87 octane, vs, Union Spirit at 100 octane). It was a by-product of the huge sugar cane industry in Natal. It was considered a high-performance fuel, but it had the unfortunate side-effect that if you ran your car on it, then left it standing for a month or two, the evaporating fuel in the engine would leave its sugars behind, which was pretty-much the equivalent of pouring superglue into your engine. When a friend of my brother's took his engine apart, he had to hammer the valves out - and the valve guides came out with them, stuck to the valve stems. By the time I started driving, it had more-or-less disappeared from the market, so I never had any personal experience of it - just as well, because it had been the cheapest fuel on the market, so I would have been a sucker for it.
I think all renewables have an important contribution to make to the whole greenhouse strategy, for each watt that they produce is a watt that doesn't need to generated, at the end of the grid. And kudos too, for efficiencies. But if we wish to eliminate greenhouse gasses altogether...which IS the prescription of climate scientists...then we must reconsider the plentiful, sustainable energy, of 4th gen, new-nuclear. The waterless, low pressure, sodium moderated, Integral Fast Reactors, can not melt down; recycle more than 99% of the own waste as fuel; and can not be used to make a bomb. Whatever renewables, like bio, and efficiencies, can NOT bring to the table, can be generated by these new-nuclear reactors. Humanity need to build 100 IFRs a year until 2050, to replace all fossil fuels....less, if they are bigger. And less, if any of the renewable energies, seriously pick up part the slack. The problem is, that on a growing planet with 70%, of a nine to ten billion world population, to be living in cities...and tens of millions entering the middle class for the first time...global energy usage is expected to double,..or even triple...by 2100. Realize this: We need to eliminate 80% of TODAY'S emissions by 2050. Let's get real. Cut the hype. Be a little humble. This will never get done with a policy of "renewables only". It's dangerously delusional to think this to be possible. Sad to say, the numbers just do not work for such a policy. Environmentalists like myself, are changing their minds on nuclear....4th gen, new-nuclear that is. The hard numbers show that we all must reconsider it. As Mark Lynas writes, and James Hansen supports, a green future needs nuclear power.
Nah, get out of the old man made box if limits. All of life us bio energy and can be harassed, even your orgone energy with NO waste, fire and other detrimental factors ....yawn....
This is definitely the future energy solution that is sustainable and environmentally friendly. The big problem is that it is geared towards the big players with extremely fat wallet.
We are soon to have free electric. A unit the size of a shoe box would run your car with no recharging for 30 to 45 years and this unit would cost about $100.00. We will not need gas or oil. This technology will soon be obsolete.
@@kent8602 *Dream on!* In the UK, diesel was quite a bit cheaper than petrol, but there were very few diesel cars on the market. Then the government got the idea in its collective head that diesel made less atmospheric polution than petrol, so they pushed the idea of diesel cars (which had been improved a lot, with turbo-chargers, and now had similar performance to petrol-driven cars). It was only a couple of years till the predominance of cars on the road were diesels - but that made a big difference to fuel tax income for the government because tax was a proportion of the sales price, and cars were running on a cheaper fuel now - so the diesel tax was increased, and suddenly, diesel was more expensive than petrol. Now, of course, it has been realised that while diesel makes less CO2, it makes more particulate pollution, which is bad for the lungs - so diesels are bad for cities. I don't know what they are going to do about electric cars - but *_something_* - you can be sure! You know the old saying about the two certainties of life - death and taxes! In Holland, when milling was done on an ever greater scale by windmills, they taxed the sail area of the mills, so they were effectively levying a tax on the wind. If they really invented some near-zero cost source of electricity, you can be certain that the tax man would take a great deal of interest in it, and it wouldn't be free for long! As it is, in the UK, most of what we pay for fuel is tax. The latest average fuel prices, as of 4 December 2022, are 159.33p for petrol and 183.39p for diesel, according to the RAC. To the wholesale cost of the fuel itself, they add various fuel duties, sales duties, etc, then they levy VAT (Value-Added Tax) on the total calculated price - so we wind up paying tax on the tax we are paying!
Peanut oil and sunflower seeds oil can regards as biodiesel fuel. Future sustainable development will be biodiesel generator powered atmospheric water generator. We don't hope solar panels and wind energy powered atmospheric water generator.
It had better use vegetables oil. Vegetable oil is more pure than ethanol and methanol. Because vegetables oil is very pure without containing moisture. Ethanol and methanol are containing moisture. Engine and generator need to pure fuel without containing moisture
GREAT IDEA I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN ME IN THIS BIG PROJECT, SO I AM FROM AFRICA AND I AM STUDYING IN AFRICA LEADERSHIP UNIVERSITY,AND I WOULD LIKE DOING INTERNSHIP IN PLACE WITH THIS ENVEROMENT, "REPLACING FOSSIL BY BIOFUEL TO PRODUCE ENERGY "...
Well Alfredo I am glad to hear that. Because I would love to connect myself more with people who want use bio fuels to help benefit their people, especially in regions like Africa Sir. If you would ever like to contact me look me up on Facebook as well as LinkedIn. As well as my other email bmagee@kent.edu
bioenergy future sustainable development will be pyrolysis oil from animal manure such as cow dung dry and pig dung dry and horse dung dry and even sewage sludge from human waste. there was still rubber seed oil as biofuels. vegetable biodiesel oil and pyrolysis oil and rubber seed oil can running on diesel generator and diesel engine and jet engine and aircraft categories engine.
It would suprise me if it would be profitable once you figure the fertility removed through the organic matter leaving the field through baling the corn stover. It would have to be replaced through conventional fertilizers. It sounds unprofitable, but it might pencil out. Mark me down as a pessimist. The algae route sounds like it might be worth while from what little I've looked into it.
@De Snijkant How about you people stop trying to profit from everything....White Greed. Green energy needs to be standard for humanity, not for profits. Only governments should own and operate renewable energy grids.
Combustion is not the answer we're looking for. Not unless it's green hydrogen for the transportation sector due to energy density demands. Even then, that would just be to retrofit the millions of internal combustion engines (ICE's) on the roads today. Solar thermal with insulated graphite solar mass batteries is in my opinion, a viable option for most energy demands regarding grid level energy storage.
We are soon to have free electric. A unit the size of a shoe box would run your car with no recharging for 30 to 45 years and this unit would cost about $100.00. We will not need gas or oil. This technology will soon be obsolete.
@@pelassancho24 Looks like your education taught you what to think but not how to think. Have never smoked weed so I guess you want it passed to you. Sorry your moral compass is broken.
What they fail to realize is that organic corn creates higher quality biofuel, higher sugar content for the yeast to convert. Synthetically grown biofuel source are like comparing organic foods to non organic. Organ looks better, taste better, and is nutrient dense. Non organic crops are not. The cheap easy way always gives less quality.
What about the extra fuel it takes to grow since you have to cultivate it wich takes longer than spraying and the reduced yeilds that are at least half of non organic 🤔
@@kowenkopp5648 There is no fuel to grow food, 🤣How old are you❓As for fertilizer there is mass abundance in organic compost that gets thrown into landfills everyday, from people like you who do not recycle their produce waste, and from landscaping plant waste.
@@Keepskatin think of it this way you are using fuel to make fuel and you can use less fuel and make more non organic fuel or use more fuel and make less organic fuel which would make more sense
@@kowenkopp5648 Why are you attacking me, but agreeing with me at the same time❓ Also don't underestimate my level of intelligence, I am likely smarter than you. That waste can be used to produce nutrient dense, most tasteful crops. It can also be used as a natural gas energy source, or possibly a heat energy source, if it gets hot enough in the compost piles. Don't ever insult a Capricorn's intelligence.
Strip mining the soil to power machines is not a good thing. Doing it for food is already bad enough. Not only that but think about how much fuel would go into the whole process. This can only be an extraction scam for corporate profit
@@davidcanatella4279 Not really - If fuel can be made from renewable biology and is assisted by emissions free nuclear power, there is no net additions of greenhouse gases to the environment. This is assuming, of course, the emissions from the fuel you've created are returned to plants. I do, however, picture your Rube Goldberg idea. Have a good one.
@@daniellarson3068 Nuclear power relies on fossil fuels for mining, transport, backup systems such as emergency cooling, maintenance, construction, and disposal . The ecology can be described as a closed loop with a balance of nutrient recycling and adequate space for the vital functions of a biome. So, burning bio fuel to make civilization’s electricity is literally setting the ecology loop on fire. I suggest asking how much electricity we don’t need rather than how much we can possibly make
@@davidcanatella4279 In the right society, mining, transport, backup systems, etc. can all be done with nukes. You don't have to have diesel generators as backup power. In fact, newer designed plants rely on passive systems for emergencies. It is the only real power source that makes sense to battle global warming. It could be used in the manufacture of dimethyl ether. This fuel wouldn't be used for electricity, but transportation and other industrial processes. After all it's a fantasy to think all the internal combustion engines will be gone in a short time. Benign fuels should be manufactured. Nuclear would provide process heat for manufacturing processes.
Here in Southwest Florida one of our biggest problem is RED TIDE. There should be a way to harvest the red tide to create renewable oil to clean up our environment and stop the fish kills or use them to harvest fish oil.
![[TH]FFWS SEA Spring 2024 Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TK2mu-8yBFU/mqdefault.jpg)
For limited land area, floating solar PV array is a perfect REs solution involving solar farm power generating facilities.
Here in Southwest Florida one of our biggest problem is RED TIDE. There should be a way to harvest the red tide to create renewable oil to clean up our environment and stop the fish kills or use them to harvest fish oil.
Sir What is difference between Global future of bioenergy & Local future of bioenergy.?
There is plenty of sunshine in the Sunshine State. It should be utilized to clean up the algae that causes the Red Tide blooms. I imagine a solar catamaran that scoops up the red tide muck into storage tanks and maybe uses the Carbon Dioxide in the air to be turned into pure oxygen to be used be used later as Bio-Oil.
Biofuel had better use vegetables oil. Vegetables oil can turn into biodiesel. Or engine and generator can run on vegetables oil directly. Our suggestions don't use ethanol and methanol. Ethanol and methanol are containing moisture, which is easy to cause engine and generator failure.
Biofuel isn't new. When I was growing up in the 1950's - 60's, there was a biofuel available in South Africa called Union Spirit, and at a higher octane than regular fuel, it was popular among motorsports enthusiasts (regular fuel was 87 octane, vs, Union Spirit at 100 octane). It was a by-product of the huge sugar cane industry in Natal. It was considered a high-performance fuel, but it had the unfortunate side-effect that if you ran your car on it, then left it standing for a month or two, the evaporating fuel in the engine would leave its sugars behind, which was pretty-much the equivalent of pouring superglue into your engine. When a friend of my brother's took his engine apart, he had to hammer the valves out - and the valve guides came out with them, stuck to the valve stems.
By the time I started driving, it had more-or-less disappeared from the market, so I never had any personal experience of it - just as well, because it had been the cheapest fuel on the market, so I would have been a sucker for it.
I think all renewables have an important contribution to make to the whole greenhouse strategy, for each watt that they produce is a watt that doesn't need to generated, at the end of the grid. And kudos too, for efficiencies. But if we wish to eliminate greenhouse gasses altogether...which IS the prescription of climate scientists...then we must reconsider the plentiful, sustainable energy, of 4th gen, new-nuclear.
The waterless, low pressure, sodium moderated, Integral Fast Reactors, can not melt down; recycle more than 99% of the own waste as fuel; and can not be used to make a bomb. Whatever renewables, like bio, and efficiencies, can NOT bring to the table, can be generated by these new-nuclear reactors. Humanity need to build 100 IFRs a year until 2050, to replace all fossil fuels....less, if they are bigger. And less, if any of the renewable energies, seriously pick up part the slack.
The problem is, that on a growing planet with 70%, of a nine to ten billion world population, to be living in cities...and tens of millions entering the middle class for the first time...global energy usage is expected to double,..or even triple...by 2100.
Realize this: We need to eliminate 80% of TODAY'S emissions by 2050. Let's get real. Cut the hype. Be a little humble. This will never get done with a policy of "renewables only". It's dangerously delusional to think this to be possible. Sad to say, the numbers just do not work for such a policy.
Environmentalists like myself, are changing their minds on nuclear....4th gen, new-nuclear that is. The hard numbers show that we all must reconsider it. As Mark Lynas writes, and James Hansen supports, a green future needs nuclear power.
Nah, get out of the old man made box if limits. All of life us bio energy and can be harassed, even your orgone energy with NO waste, fire and other detrimental factors ....yawn....
This is definitely the future energy solution that is sustainable and environmentally friendly. The big problem is that it is geared towards the big players with extremely fat wallet.
We are soon to have free electric. A unit the size of a shoe box would run your car with no recharging for 30 to 45 years and this unit would cost about $100.00. We will not need gas or oil. This technology will soon be obsolete.
@@kent8602 you selling nuclear reactor for my car
@@kent8602 *Dream on!* In the UK, diesel was quite a bit cheaper than petrol, but there were very few diesel cars on the market. Then the government got the idea in its collective head that diesel made less atmospheric polution than petrol, so they pushed the idea of diesel cars (which had been improved a lot, with turbo-chargers, and now had similar performance to petrol-driven cars). It was only a couple of years till the predominance of cars on the road were diesels - but that made a big difference to fuel tax income for the government because tax was a proportion of the sales price, and cars were running on a cheaper fuel now - so the diesel tax was increased, and suddenly, diesel was more expensive than petrol.
Now, of course, it has been realised that while diesel makes less CO2, it makes more particulate pollution, which is bad for the lungs - so diesels are bad for cities.
I don't know what they are going to do about electric cars - but *_something_* - you can be sure! You know the old saying about the two certainties of life - death and taxes! In Holland, when milling was done on an ever greater scale by windmills, they taxed the sail area of the mills, so they were effectively levying a tax on the wind. If they really invented some near-zero cost source of electricity, you can be certain that the tax man would take a great deal of interest in it, and it wouldn't be free for long!
As it is, in the UK, most of what we pay for fuel is tax. The latest average fuel prices, as of 4 December 2022, are 159.33p for petrol and 183.39p for diesel, according to the RAC.
To the wholesale cost of the fuel itself, they add various fuel duties, sales duties, etc, then they levy VAT (Value-Added Tax) on the total calculated price - so we wind up paying tax on the tax we are paying!
Canadabis eger to sell you crude oil what is your view on it
Peanut oil and sunflower seeds oil can regards as biodiesel fuel. Future sustainable development will be biodiesel generator powered atmospheric water generator. We don't hope solar panels and wind energy powered atmospheric water generator.
who else is being forced to watch this for school
Vegetable oil and biodiesel are pure bio oil fuel without containing moisture.
It had better use vegetables oil. Vegetable oil is more pure than ethanol and methanol. Because vegetables oil is very pure without containing moisture. Ethanol and methanol are containing moisture. Engine and generator need to pure fuel without containing moisture
GREAT IDEA I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN ME IN THIS BIG PROJECT, SO I AM FROM AFRICA AND I AM STUDYING IN AFRICA LEADERSHIP UNIVERSITY,AND I WOULD LIKE DOING INTERNSHIP IN PLACE WITH THIS ENVEROMENT, "REPLACING FOSSIL BY BIOFUEL TO PRODUCE ENERGY "...
Well Alfredo I am glad to hear that. Because I would love to connect myself more with people who want use bio fuels to help benefit their people, especially in regions like Africa Sir. If you would ever like to contact me look me up on Facebook as well as LinkedIn. As well as my other email bmagee@kent.edu
bioenergy future sustainable development will be pyrolysis oil from animal manure such as cow dung dry and pig dung dry and horse dung dry and even sewage sludge from human waste. there was still rubber seed oil as biofuels. vegetable biodiesel oil and pyrolysis oil and rubber seed oil can running on diesel generator and diesel engine and jet engine and aircraft categories engine.
I guess we can't expect this stuff from the oil companies.
we can only hope that we can save the planet
Thorium molten salt reactors, when?
China has one built and running.
Y haces
A
It would suprise me if it would be profitable once you figure the fertility removed through the organic matter leaving the field through baling the corn stover. It would have to be replaced through conventional fertilizers. It sounds unprofitable, but it might pencil out. Mark me down as a pessimist. The algae route sounds like it might be worth while from what little I've looked into it.
@De Snijkant How about you people stop trying to profit from everything....White Greed. Green energy needs to be standard for humanity, not for profits. Only governments should own and operate renewable energy grids.
@@Keepskatin if only you understood how the economy worked 🤦🏻♂️
@@kowenkopp5648 If only you were not so gullible ,and knew how corrupt your economy was.
Combustion is not the answer we're looking for. Not unless it's green hydrogen for the transportation sector due to energy density demands. Even then, that would just be to retrofit the millions of internal combustion engines (ICE's) on the roads today. Solar thermal with insulated graphite solar mass batteries is in my opinion, a viable option for most energy demands regarding grid level energy storage.
You're a typical environmentalist, more about the aesthetic than actual solutions .
We are soon to have free electric. A unit the size of a shoe box would run your car with no recharging for 30 to 45 years and this unit would cost about $100.00. We will not need gas or oil. This technology will soon be obsolete.
Puff puff pass the weed bro
@@pelassancho24 Looks like your education taught you what to think but not how to think. Have never smoked weed so I guess you want it passed to you. Sorry your moral compass is broken.
Bio fuel is worse the fossil fuels, cost more and worse for the environment.
Y
Y
What they fail to realize is that organic corn creates higher quality biofuel, higher sugar content for the yeast to convert. Synthetically grown biofuel source are like comparing organic foods to non organic. Organ looks better, taste better, and is nutrient dense. Non organic crops are not. The cheap easy way always gives less quality.
What about the extra fuel it takes to grow since you have to cultivate it wich takes longer than spraying and the reduced yeilds that are at least half of non organic 🤔
@@kowenkopp5648 There is no fuel to grow food, 🤣How old are you❓As for fertilizer there is mass abundance in organic compost that gets thrown into landfills everyday, from people like you who do not recycle their produce waste, and from landscaping plant waste.
@@Keepskatin think of it this way you are using fuel to make fuel and you can use less fuel and make more non organic fuel or use more fuel and make less organic fuel which would make more sense
@@Keepskatin and that organic waste you mentioned holds a great energy value that most people like you don't understand how it could be used
@@kowenkopp5648 Why are you attacking me, but agreeing with me at the same time❓ Also don't underestimate my level of intelligence, I am likely smarter than you. That waste can be used to produce nutrient dense, most tasteful crops. It can also be used as a natural gas energy source, or possibly a heat energy source, if it gets hot enough in the compost piles. Don't ever insult a Capricorn's intelligence.
Strip mining the soil to power machines is not a good thing. Doing it for food is already bad enough. Not only that but think about how much fuel would go into the whole process. This can only be an extraction scam for corporate profit
Power the process with nuclear power.
@@daniellarson3068 like getting a fan to blow a wind turbine while powering the fan with the wind turbine
@@davidcanatella4279 Not really - If fuel can be made from renewable biology and is assisted by emissions free nuclear power, there is no net additions of greenhouse gases to the environment. This is assuming, of course, the emissions from the fuel you've created are returned to plants. I do, however, picture your Rube Goldberg idea. Have a good one.
@@daniellarson3068 Nuclear power relies on fossil fuels for mining, transport, backup systems such as emergency cooling, maintenance, construction, and disposal . The ecology can be described as a closed loop with a balance of nutrient recycling and adequate space for the vital functions of a biome. So, burning bio fuel to make civilization’s electricity is literally setting the ecology loop on fire. I suggest asking how much electricity we don’t need rather than how much we can possibly make
@@davidcanatella4279 In the right society, mining, transport, backup systems, etc. can all be done with nukes. You don't have to have diesel generators as backup power. In fact, newer designed plants rely on passive systems for emergencies. It is the only real power source that makes sense to battle global warming. It could be used in the manufacture of dimethyl ether. This fuel wouldn't be used for electricity, but transportation and other industrial processes. After all it's a fantasy to think all the internal combustion engines will be gone in a short time. Benign fuels should be manufactured. Nuclear would provide process heat for manufacturing processes.
Here in Southwest Florida one of our biggest problem is RED TIDE. There should be a way to harvest the red tide to create renewable oil to clean up our environment and stop the fish kills or use them to harvest fish oil.