February 24, 2012
— Open Blogger Ash Jogalekar (himself a scientist) reports at his website on a scientific editorial, "The Nonsense of Biofuels", written by Hartmut Michel, who won the Nobel Prize for his own research into biophysics. The gist of Michel's editorial (which is not accessible, Jogalekar's link notwithstanding) is that there just isn't enough efficiency in biophysical processes. Open it up for an extended quote from Jogalekar's post.
All these hurdles lead to a rather drastic lowering of photosynthetic efficiency which gets watered down to a rather measly (but still staggeringly efficient by human standards) 4% or so.It's pretty clear from this description that any kind of efforts to get better efficiency from biofuels will have to overcome enormous protein engineering hurdles. This does not bode well for current studies aimed at such goals. While these are very exciting from an academic standpoint, they will have to lead to a very drastic retooling of the basic photosynthetic apparatus, involving re-engineering numerous genetic pathways and their products, to be of large-scale commercial value. It's all too easy to underestimate the sheer amount of energy that we want to generate from these technologies. I feel the same about the synthetic biology efforts that seek to produce all kinds of valuable industrial chemicals and drugs from engineering bacteria. These efforts are undoubtedly promising, but getting bacteria to do something which they have not evolved to and that too on a scale rivaling the fossil fuel industry is a very long shot indeed. Michel doesn't even seem optimistic about the recent excitement regarding biofuel production from red algae, and reading his prognosis one wonders how much collaborations such as the one between Exxon and Craig Venter are actually going to yield....
The core issue with most "green" forms of energy is that they lack "energy density", as the late SF writer James Hogan put it a few years ago in his essay "Nuclear No-Contest". As Hogan points out:
If the way forward into the future calls for higher energy densities, the notion that we can depend on solar or wind (which is another form of solar) represents a move backward. To get an idea of just how dilute a source solar is compared even to coal, consider a lump of coal capable of yielding a kilowatt-hour of electricity, which would weigh about a pound, and ask how long the Sun would have to shine on it to deposit the same amount of energy that the coal will release when burned. The area of its shadow, which measures the sunlight intercepted, would be about fifteen square inches. In Arizona in July, with a 24-hour annualized average insolation of 240 watts per square meter, it would take 435 hours, or almost three weeks , for this amount of surface to receive a kilowatt-hour of sunshine. For the average location in the U.S., allowing for bad weather and cloud cover, a reasonable estimate would be twice that. But to obtain a kilowatt-hour of electricity, at the ten to twenty percent efficiency attainable today, which appears to be approaching its limit, we'd be talking somewhere between thirteen and seven months....I wonder if the people who talk glibly about attempting to match such feats artificially really comprehend the scale of the engineering that they're proposing. A 1,000-MW solar conversion plant, for example – the same size as I've been using for the comparisons of coal and nuclear – would cover 50 to 100 square miles with 35,000 tons of aluminum, two million tons of concrete, 7,500 tons of copper, 600,000 tons of steel, 75,000 tons of glass, and 1,500 tons of other metals such as chromium and titanium – a thousand times the material needed to construct a nuclear plant of the same capacity. These materials are not cheap, and real estate doesn't come for nothing. Moreover, these materials are all products of heavy, energy-hungry industries in their own right that produce large amounts of waste, much of it toxic. So much for "free" and "clean" solar power.
Once again, it's the Left that's actually anti-science, hopin' and wishin' and planning and dreaming that magic green energy will solve everything. ..fritz..
Posted by: Open Blogger at
10:44 AM
| Comments (109)
Post contains 704 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 24, 2012 10:47 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Tami at February 24, 2012 10:48 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Justamom at February 24, 2012 10:48 AM (Sptt8)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 24, 2012 10:48 AM (4df7R)
This needs to get out- and it needs to get out now.
jwest- I think you're the one who posted the link. How sure are we of its authenticity?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 24, 2012 10:49 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: People for the Ethical Treatment of Algae at February 24, 2012 10:49 AM (jm/9g)
This is why we need immediate investment in algae, which is a plant-like, uh, thing.
Posted by: Barky O'Genius at February 24, 2012 10:49 AM (QKKT0)
From the Hogan piece: "These materials are not cheap, and real estate doesn't come for nothing."
The typical ecotard response: "Industries should GIVE US THE MATERIALS! For FREE! Because we're trying to save GAIA! And you can't own land. Land is FREE! Private property is an EVIL capitalist PLOT!"
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 24, 2012 10:51 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Master-blaster run Bartertown at February 24, 2012 10:51 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: fozzy at February 24, 2012 10:53 AM (FEzSe)
One thing to ask people when they talk about science is...What is science?
Even scientists today have very little idea what the scientific method really is. They're so locked in their own particular field and the practices therein that if those practices don't follow the scientific method, the practitioners themselves are not harmed.
When you ask the layman, science functions in their mind as magic. Using phrases like "believe in science" and excessive focus on the unquantifiable Darwinian evolution or the dictatorial climate science indicates that their scientific understanding is wholly socio-political and shallow even by those standards. They never want to talk about quantum physics.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 24, 2012 10:53 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 24, 2012 10:54 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: mama winger at February 24, 2012 10:54 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: blaster at February 24, 2012 10:55 AM (7vSU0)
Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 24, 2012 02:54 PM (tf9Ne)
How do they control fishermen like me, who pee in the lake?
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2012 10:55 AM (OlN4e)
Algae Farmer. Thanks. I needed an occupation to put down on my tax return.
I am now ... Audit Proof!
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 24, 2012 10:57 AM (4q5tP)
Posted by: Oilman Joe at February 24, 2012 10:58 AM (e8kgV)
Put that on a bumper-sticker and sell it.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 24, 2012 10:58 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Heorot at February 24, 2012 10:58 AM (Nq/UF)
Posted by: blindside at February 24, 2012 10:58 AM (x7g7t)
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2012 02:55 PM (OlN4e)
Isn't urine sterile? You're killing algae!!
Posted by: fozzy at February 24, 2012 10:58 AM (FEzSe)
Posted by: mpfs at February 24, 2012 10:59 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: blindside at February 24, 2012 11:00 AM (x7g7t)
That depends on if you get caught in the aerial photos they take of manure spreading in the fields. In which case you will recive a photo and a fine.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 24, 2012 11:00 AM (tf9Ne)
I thought you wrote we burn animals. LOL.
There is nothing like camping in the wilderness and throwing another poodle on the fire.
Posted by: mpfs at February 24, 2012 11:00 AM (iYbLN)
Gosh, the way he contriadicts the president like that, who would have thought that Ash Jogalekar was a racist?
(But then again, he is a filthy scandi...)
Posted by: Warthog at February 24, 2012 11:00 AM (WDySP)
Thank your God for this gift.
Posted by: Not an Artist at February 24, 2012 11:01 AM (Lo/3Q)
Posted by: fozzy at February 24, 2012 02:58 PM (FEzSe)
Yes, and full of urea, an excellent fertilizer.
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2012 11:01 AM (OlN4e)
He's the Steve Jobs of biotech -- except without the iphone, ipad, mac, or ipod. His string of companies have produced nothing -- except a geyser of cash and some nice yachts for Venter.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 24, 2012 11:02 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Heorot at February 24, 2012 11:02 AM (Nq/UF)
Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 24, 2012 03:00 PM (tf9Ne)
And what if I DON"T hold up a plackard with my name and address on it?
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2012 11:02 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: J Holderen at February 24, 2012 11:02 AM (WkuV6)
Fuckin' science, how does it work?
Posted by: EC at February 24, 2012 11:03 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Berserker at February 24, 2012 11:04 AM (FMbng)
If the IPCC and Obama's "Science Czar" are to be believed: not the way you think.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 24, 2012 11:04 AM (8y9MW)
Hartmut Michel was part of no consensus of like-minded zealots!
Posted by: Bicycle seat post of blinding brilliance at February 24, 2012 02:59 PM
He probably also once met someone who lived next door to someone who's first cousin was in Vlaams Belang.
Posted by: mama winger at February 24, 2012 11:04 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 24, 2012 11:04 AM (ZPrif)
What don't you watch CSI. All they need to do is super zoom and run you through facial recognition.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 24, 2012 11:05 AM (tf9Ne)
Please try to avoid the words, "green" "slippery" or "smelly"
writing stories about Algae. It offensive to the Algae-American community.
thanks for your cooperation,
AAJA
Posted by: saltine at February 24, 2012 11:05 AM (2cfUo)
Posted by: mpfs at February 24, 2012 03:00 PM
Oh, you too? Whew. Thought I was the only one.
Posted by: mama winger at February 24, 2012 11:06 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2012 11:07 AM (OlN4e)
48 Algae will never work. There's no way to keep out the wild algae, which will outcompete your biotech algae since your magic algae are optimized to produce oil, while natural algae are optimized to survive and get the food.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 24, 2012 03:04 PM (ZPrif)
Ah-ha, I've got it! If we just make the oil-producing algae VEGAN, there would be no stopping its reproductive power!
(SCIENCE!...)
Posted by: Warthog at February 24, 2012 11:07 AM (WDySP)
Oh, you too? Whew. Thought I was the only one.
Naw. Poodles don't work so well. I prefer chihuahuas.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 24, 2012 11:07 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: RioBravo at February 24, 2012 11:08 AM (eEfYn)
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at February 24, 2012 11:08 AM (bjRNS)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 24, 2012 11:08 AM (VtjlW)
All anyone has to do is read some of the archived writings of Stephen Den Beste and you will have all you need to fight these "Alternative Fuel" dipshits!
Posted by: McLovin at February 24, 2012 11:08 AM (j0IcY)
48Algae will never work. There's no way to keep out the wild algae, which will outcompete your biotech algae since your magic algae are optimized to produce oil, while natural algae are optimized to survive and get the food.
That's raiiisist!!!!!!!
Algae want jobs too. The man has just been holding us down.
Posted by: AAJA at February 24, 2012 11:09 AM (2cfUo)
And if they succeed in limiting carbon emissions, there will be less CO2, which means less photosynthesis taking place, which means less "bio" for biofuels.
It's hard work being a liberal.....
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at February 24, 2012 11:09 AM (0xqzf)
Posted by: cherry at February 24, 2012 11:10 AM (OhYCU)
Is raisist where you discriminate based on the increase in someone's salary, or the size of their ladder?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 24, 2012 11:10 AM (8y9MW)
56 Is this Ash guy an 'actual scientist' or just a 'scientist'?
Posted by: RioBravo at February 24, 2012 03:08 PM (eEfYn)
Neither, he is a pokemon master.
(He has caught them all...)
Posted by: Warthog at February 24, 2012 11:10 AM (WDySP)
Posted by: cherry at February 24, 2012 03:10 PM (OhYCU)
Was it growing on her Vayjay?
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2012 11:11 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Jay in Ames at February 24, 2012 11:11 AM (UEEex)
--
American algae will never work. That is why we need to import Mexican algae to do the work American algae will not do.
Posted by: RioBravo at February 24, 2012 11:11 AM (eEfYn)
(He has caught them all...)
Wait ... wait ... I thought he worked at S-Mart.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at February 24, 2012 11:12 AM (bjRNS)
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at February 24, 2012 11:12 AM (1iauC)
This plus infinity. I was involved in research trying to optimize protein stability and while computer modeling is definitely improving in this area, these models only work for small proteins (about 100+ amino acids or so) and much more understanding is needed to engineer active, stable enzymes and similar proteins. We don't even understand yet how proteins fold correctly and fools around the globe want to base an entire energy policy off research that is still in its infancy. Talk about relying on "and then a miracle happens" approach.
If people are serious about "going green", the answer is very simple - nuclear energy. The Iranians are investing heavily in this, although for very nefarious, evil purposes -
U.N. sees spike in IranÂ’s uranium production
http://tinyurl.com/7ogq29e
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta, only redeemed by Divine mercy) at February 24, 2012 11:13 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Wyatt's Torch at February 24, 2012 11:13 AM (KPPLJ)
It should be so easy to defeat that lying, socialist jerk in the White House... and don't tell me we need a better candidate. The problem is not the candidate, it's the systematic brainwashing of the electorate (and population in general) to not recognize how rotten these people are.
Americans are not inherently smarter than Russians and Chinese and whoever else you want to name. We had a system in place that kept our overlords in check. They tore that system down, chink by chink (yeah, I said it).
Posted by: BurtTC at February 24, 2012 11:14 AM (TOk1P)
The reason why we can't look to biofuels as a significant source of alternative energy is because of physics at the electron particle level. Physics places strict limits on how energy is transferred, step by step, inside living organisms. The biological pathways inside living organisms, evolved over millions of years, represent the very best in terms of cellular efficiency under the constraints of physics, and unfortunately it doesn't come anywhere near what we would find useful as an energy source. The transfer of energy inside a cell is regulated by various proteins, each using a small bit of energy to transfer the remainder to another protein or molecule, until the pathway reaches its end. Why doesn't a cell simply have one protein able to transfer energy for cellular process you ask? Because one protein isn't physically capable of that magnitude of energy transfer in one step. It has to take "baby steps", handing off energetically rich complexes to another molecule, in a long line of molecules, in succession. The transfer molecules cannot accept or hand off beyond fixed level of energy or else the cellular machinery will literally burn up, killing the larger organism. Certain diet pills work this way, forcing the body to "red line" itself, so to speak.
Posted by: EC at February 24, 2012 11:16 AM (GQ8sn)
--How about making sure your tires are inflated and grabbing a cup-of-shut-the-fuck up.
Posted by: befuddled at February 24, 2012 11:16 AM (xJU23)
Posted by: Anna Puma at February 24, 2012 11:16 AM (rOiO/)
Address to H. Michel's editorial that might work:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201200218/pdf
enjoy....
Posted by: djm1992 at February 24, 2012 11:17 AM (1o4B5)
Thank your God for this gift.
Posted by: Not an Artist at February 24, 2012 03:01 PM (Lo/3Q)
Actually, if modern internal combustion engines achieved 30% efficiency, it would be great.
Posted by: jwest at February 24, 2012 11:18 AM (FdndL)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 24, 2012 11:19 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 24, 2012 03:19 PM (8y9MW)
ItÂ’s real. The numbers track everything IÂ’ve been hearing on democrat internal polling. ItÂ’s hard to understand the happy spin, considering the memo basically says Obama and congressional dems donÂ’t stand a chance in 2012.
Posted by: jwest at February 24, 2012 11:26 AM (FdndL)
Dem pollster warns that voters will scoff at claims of recovery
Link to the Democrat Economic Messaging memo is at Hot Air under that headline.
Posted by: jwest at February 24, 2012 11:31 AM (FdndL)
Even scientists today have very little idea what the scientific method really is. They're so locked in their own particular field and the practices therein that if those practices don't follow the scientific method, the practitioners themselves are not harmed.
When you ask the layman, science functions in their mind as magic. Using phrases like "believe in science" and excessive focus on the unquantifiable Darwinian evolution or the dictatorial climate science indicates that their scientific understanding is wholly socio-political and shallow even by those standards. They never want to talk about quantum physics.
This aspect pisses me off so much. Science is a process, a way of eliminating wrong answers. Good science means having a good process - that's what leads to repeatable results and useful knowledge.
But what happens is that people keep treating science as its results. All they care is that you *believe* in the right "SCIENCE!" dogmas. And they'll call you anti-science for not holding to the right scientific "theology". They treat science as a religion and then complain that you're not part of their One True Religion.
It all comes down to us having God-shaped holes, IMO. Those who reject God end up finding a crappy substitute.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 24, 2012 11:32 AM (sGtp+)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 24, 2012 11:33 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: wth at February 24, 2012 11:34 AM (wAQA5)
Posted by: steevy at February 24, 2012 11:34 AM (vd4t0)
ROFL, that doesn't make sense, but points for effort. Tearing chinks out of a system implies it's getting better, seeing how chinks are gaps/fissures/openings. Maybe you want to add chinks ...
Unless you're being a raaaaaacist and using code to say we need to deport all of our chinks. /coffcoff
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 24, 2012 11:36 AM (v3pYe)
"Top Pentagon Official Now Apologizing At U.S. Mosques For Koran Burning In AfghanistanÂ…"
Weasel Zippers shows a picture of a guy from the Pentagon apologizing to a bunch of camel blankers. Next to the guy is someone in some kind of uniform with some kind of hat?? But the uniform is weird and so is the hat?
Posted by: dagny at February 24, 2012 11:40 AM (u50z0)
Posted by: Avi at February 24, 2012 11:40 AM (Gx3Fe)
Posted by: Sciency Scientist sounding all fucking smart and shit at February 24, 2012 11:41 AM (/ZZCn)
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at February 24, 2012 11:44 AM (rJ/Ef)
Posted by: bergerbilder at February 24, 2012 11:52 AM (j+Izh)
Posted by: befuddled at February 24, 2012 11:59 AM (xJU23)
Dear Scientists Striving to Create Biofuels,
I would like to apologize for Hartmut Michel's insensitive and incorrect remarks.
Love,
Barack Obama
Posted by: President Obama at February 24, 2012 12:02 PM (sWgE+)
Posted by: The Great and Secret Show at February 24, 2012 12:17 PM (NUiBn)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 24, 2012 03:04 PM (ZPrif)
Fence. Moat. Alligators.
You should be thanking me...
Posted by: Barky O'BenDoin', Preznint De Luxe at February 24, 2012 12:30 PM (FcKXR)
Posted by: Presnit SCOAMF Barky at February 24, 2012 01:51 PM (qs9G3)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 24, 2012 02:00 PM (VitMz)
Posted by: Mitt Still Sux at February 24, 2012 02:45 PM (0xy1K)
Posted by: KF at February 24, 2012 05:38 PM (Ig7J7)
Is it even safe?
Is genetically engineering super-efficient organisms with advanced metabolic processes wise from our point of view?
Posted by: Random at February 24, 2012 08:26 PM (ZIkmx)
Posted by: askit at February 27, 2012 06:38 AM (/mGfc)
Posted by: Greg Dohm at February 27, 2012 09:22 PM (dJ1Ju)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2592 seconds, 237 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Tami at February 24, 2012 10:47 AM (X6akg)