Book Reviews
Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:
- Advanced Excel for Scientific Data Analysis Learn to turn Excel into something that rivals Mathematica using VBA, brains, and a heaping helping of fortitude.(Jack Herrington's review.)
- Nagios 3 Enterprise Network Monitoring A great book for anyone using Nagios as more than a casual user.(jgoguen's review.)
- Schneier on Security Schneier argues that security is not something you can buy; it is something you must get.(Ben Rothke's review.)
Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
5342093
story
Comments: 260 +- Science: Company Claims Potential Magnification In Bio Fuel Production on Monday July 27 2009, @02:58PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicbiotech.gif); width:42px; height:65px;
biotech
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicscience.gif); width:62px; height:75px;
science
duanes1967 writes "A company called Joule Biotech claims to have a breakthrough in biofuel production. Their process can create 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year at a cost of about $50 per barrel. 'Algae-based biofuels come closest to Joule's technology, with potential yields of 2,000 to 6,000 gallons per acre; yet even so, the new process would represent an order of magnitude improvement. What's more, for the best current algae fuels technologies to be competitive with fossil fuels, crude oil would have to cost over $800 a barrel says Philip Pienkos, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO. Joule claims that its process will be competitive with crude oil at $50 a barrel. In recent weeks, oil has sold for $60 to $70 a barrel.'"
Related Stories
No man in the world has more courage than the man who can stop after
eating one peanut.
-- Channing Pollock
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
It's always a startup... (Score:4, Insightful)
... begging for money that comes up with these "revolutionary" breakthroughs. Did we not learn anything from the tech boom/bust?
Whenever there is a lot of government money flowing into an industry, there is never a shortage of snake-oil salesmen lining up to grab a piece of it. There really isn't a limit to what they will say they can do.
Re:It's always a startup... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Uhh, Heavily Bought Into By Oil Industry (Score:4, Interesting)
... begging for money that comes up with these "revolutionary" breakthroughs. Did we not learn anything from the tech boom/bust?
Whenever there is a lot of government money flowing into an industry, there is never a shortage of snake-oil salesmen lining up to grab a piece of it. There really isn't a limit to what they will say they can do.
You may want to inform Exxon Mobil that their recent six hundred million dollar investment [gas2.org] is snake oil.
Big oil's investing in this, I wouldn't write it off as snake oil:
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If it is, they likely already know, and consider it worth it to look "green" or to take advantage of some sort of incentive program.
Investment by big oil doesn't mean anything either way.
big oil is not stupidly evil (Score:4, Insightful)
They are greedy. they are in a for-profit business. Once we realize that green investments by most of the big oil companies is not some show to appear green, and really a strategy for them to continue operating refineries it all starts to make sense. If the big oil companies have to buy unprocessed biofuels from New Mexico and Arizona instead of shipping it from the Gulf of Mexico and the Middle East, who cares. As long as the fuel is good and cheap they can build or convert refineries to process it. Ultimately the big oil companies are in the business of refining matter to make it usable in an internal combustion engine.
Given the assumption that big oil wants to survive (and thrive) and continue profiting. The myth that big oil wants to suppress innovation because they have some sort of warped ideology where they hate the Earth and the environment. (sorry, capitalists are nothing like the villains on the Captain Planet cartoon from the 1990s)
While I have no proof, I think an argument could be made where big oil does suppress, or at least has motive to suppress, innovation that makes it easy for any individual or small start up to transport people and materials without the the use of products from big oil's refineries. This sort of conspiracy at least fits big oil serving their own self interests. The other conspiracies where big oil spends a billion dollars on "green" investments as a PR stunt seems far less likely, because it uses money so inefficiently.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They are greedy. they are in a for-profit business. Once we realize that green investments by most of the big oil companies is not some show to appear green, and really a strategy for them to continue operating refineries it all starts to make sense.
This is woefully uninformed. They are in business to turn a profit *this quarter*. There is no commitment to "future shareholders", only current ones, so no the company has little incentive to do anything aside from very short term "investment". Think of it this way, if it boosts PR enough to avoid a public outrage that leads to a windfall profits tax being levied the next time oil gets above $100 a barrel, it will have been worth billions. Considering the current political climate, that is not a far fe
Re:big oil is not stupidly evil (Score:4, Insightful)
If they perceive a shortage of oil, which would lead to inflated prices, it would be in their best interests to determine a way of getting oil. If one path leads to profits now, but bankruptcy in 10 years, that's not good business. The most profitable path is the one that is sustainable for the company.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The parent comment is not insightful as graded. Please downgrade to 1.
Reason is I have worked in the petroleum production business. Oil is here and there in certain strata under the ground. Sometimes like in the East Texas Oil field its a puddle 3,300 feet under the ground. Cheap to extract. Other wells cost upward of 20 million to drill so their associated costs are much higher. Even more so if the well is far offshore. Finally an oil company is in business to produce the stuff. They never ever hoard oil.
Re:big oil is not stupidly evil (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just silly. And wrong. If oil companies only cared about profits in the next quarter, how do you explain expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars on a new oil field? It takes at lest three or four years to bring a new field online, not counting exploration. And how do you explain drug companies researching drugs that won't hit the market for almost twenty years, if ever?
Companies have a commitment to future shareholders in the sense that what people think a stock will be worth in the future is the major determiner for what it's worth today. That's why Intel builds new fabs, drug companies research drugs, and oil companies spend money trying to insure they'll have a product to sell when they start running out of oil.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since this is not happening, I think we can conclude that (gee, wow!) even public companies have some ability to think long-term. Shareholders may want ROI, but don't forget that many of them also want ROI over a long term (this is what the t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mutual funds.
Most of the big mutual funds are designed for 10 - 30 year investments. Mutual fund managers will definitely consider long term plans and returns when they invest, and they have invested heavily in energy companies like Exxon Mobile.
And you don't think... (Score:3, Insightful)
And you don't think part of investing in your own future is buying and destroying any competing technology? Plus, you're ignoring the reality that every business on earth can only operate because sustainability is not a requirement for existence. Essentially, the cost for bringing the earth a little closer to disaster is zero, since the unborn generations to come have no vote in a market system tuned entirely for short term vision.
I do not believe in secret meetings where evil businessmen plot to destroy th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they are the most profitable businesses in the world then they aren't dinosaurs.
By that logic you would have no problem with Steve Jobs owning 60% of the wealth of the country. I mean, if he's rich, he's obviously doing something correctly. There's no way he's corrupt or engaging in anti-competitive business practices. His profit margin proves his innocence!
What a brilliant idea!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Exxon? Investing in something? Never! Heck with what 10 billion a year in research investments, all you have to do is start a website saying you're doing bio-fuel research with a valid mailing address somewhere on the homepage, and more likely than not Exxon will just mail you a check for $2500.
Re:Uhh, Heavily Bought Into By Oil Industry (Score:4, Interesting)
Big Oil is investing in such tech because it will continue to squeeze revenue out of the distribution systems the oil companies have spent many billions creating.
They will do anything to keep people from switching to electrical grid/self-generation systems for their energy needs. They really don't care WHAT they are selling as long as they can do it at a profit and do it from the existing stations. There is an entire industry based simply on the middle-man aspect of distribution. People make money from it, so it remains. But it also cost the consumer more, in the long run.
The electrical grid already exists, is in the public realm for the most part, and the middlemen have no part in it. Granted, the electrical grid needs some improvement in order for everyone to switch to it for ALL our energy needs, but it is not, by any means, impossible.
Biofuels do NOT solve many problems. In fact, they simply create new ones.
And, yeah. Snake oil. Hrmm...now that I think about it...I wonder what the energy storage of a snake is...
Parent
Re:Uhh, Heavily Bought Into By Oil Industry (Score:5, Interesting)
Biofuels solve two major problems, they are carbon neutral and they are not dependent on the middle east. Are the problems they create worse than those?
Parent
Re:Uhh, Heavily Bought Into By Oil Industry (Score:4, Insightful)
Food shortage is another. You need to take into account-- at least in the US-- that biofuels compete with food production. This is partially due to entrenched political interests. Again, in the west, this probably didn't affect you (unless you were, say, in the cattle feed market or a small beer producer), but I've read that the grain shortages (and resulting high prices) in Asia last year were the direct result of a double-whammy of biofuel production and crop disease.
Now, I personally don't think that the two things above rule out biofuels as a viable alternative for the future. We just need to be aware that they are not without their consequences; they solve some problems, and introduce new ones.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. When you burn them you are releasing carbon into the atmosphere, but when you grow the algae they remove an equal amount of carbon from the atmosphere. No net gain of CO2, that's the definition of carbon neutral. Oil is not carbon neutral because burning it releases carbon into the atmosphere which was previously sequestered in the ground.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because some bureaucrat in at NStar is going to shortchange the training and operations budget in the end, and we'll have TMI all over again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We did learn from TMI and Chernobyl. What we haven't done is build any new reactors.
this statement is paradox. the fact that no new reactors have been build definitively proves that _nothing_ has been learned aside from the knee jerk reaction of fear, and that isn't really learned, its instinctual. Congratulations America, you've shown how base and intellectually retarded you have become. Consumer society breeds stupidity, stupidity breeds fear, fear breeds oppression and oppression breeds revolution. fortunately for you consumerism also breeds complacency, and in this rock paper scissors
Re:It's always a startup... (Score:5, Interesting)
... begging for money that comes up with these "revolutionary" breakthroughs. Did we not learn anything from the tech boom/bust?
Are you saying we were supposed to learn that revolutionary breakthroughs are ALWAYS snake-oil?
Parent
Re:It's always a startup... (Score:4, Interesting)
Did we not learn anything from the tech boom/bust?
Invest early?
Sell often?
No seriously, if you could have invested in Google's IPO you would have been a rich man today.
The problem with the tech boom is that people were investing in bad ideas, not good ideas with bad results. You know... Like Pets.com
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Saw that myself.
My inner cynic reminds me that:
Re: (Score:2)
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
We simply need to tax fuel enough to establish a price floor that will encourage alternative investments. The Europeans are already there so now the US just needs to start increasing the tax rate
Why?
Why do you automatically assume that if the Europeans do something it must be right for every place on earth?
If this breakthrough is for real, and it was developed in Cambridge Massachusetts USA, with the tax structure we have today, and nothing like it has appeared out or Europe with all its horrendous taxes, then where is the basis for your euro-centric view?
How will pouring more tax dollars down social rat-holes help solve an energy crisis?
Do I necessarily believe this announcements? No, not yet. Does that mean I should run to Europe and adopt every tax-grab they dream up? Of course not.
Parent
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Btw I said nothing of pouring tax dollars down a social rat-hole, I actually advocated increased taxes in one area with an offsetting credit in another which is tax neutral to some level of consumption and tax positive above that level (ie discouraging the unwanted behavior while not disproportionately affecting the economically disadvantaged.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What part of "Price" do you not understand?
These people created this and the price point at which it becomes economic may be higher or lower than the current price of oil.
So be it.
Price fluctuations are not evil. They are the market adjudication of supply and demand.
Price fluctuation are your friend. Static or legislated prices totally screw up economies. Do we really need to replay the downfall of the soviet union again just to drive home this point.
The amount of fossil fuels left in the ground exceed by
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not save all the time and confusion (Score:5, Funny)
Dubious Maximus (Score:2, Informative)
Variant of algae? (Score:3, Interesting)
As best as I can tell, their process is likely using genetically engineered algae that perform better than the best existing "natural" algae for biofuels production. There aren't really any other candidates for genetically engineered organisms for this particular goal.
The problem is that to be so efficient at biofuels production, such algae are at a severe competitive disadvantage to other less suitable species. Based on what I've seen so far, one of the biggest problems with algae biofuels production has been contamination of bioreactors with species that grow more easily but are not suitable for biodiesel production. If someone engineers algae to be even better at biofuels production, it'll likely make the contamination problem even harder to solve.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As best as I can tell, they've only done this in the lab, probably in closed reactors. So long as they stick with closed reactors, they should do fine. The problem then becomes getting CO2 into the mix; algae normally just gets it from air. But, until you filter it down to one micron, maybe less, air might contaminate your water.
The USDOE already determined that the best you could do with open ponds is to just let the local algaes drift in on the wind... but that doesn't tell us anything about closed reacto
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or to put it another way, the effort to create the fuel is the effort removed from its pursuit of survival, and therefore is at a competitive disadvantage to other naturally occurring organisms.
Not when man is a significant predator.
Any organism that doesn't make enough fuel would be selected against a lot more heavily.
Re:Variant of algae? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ideally, while they are engineering it, they will build in a tolerance/requirement for, say, growth in a high-ph environment. Then, it will have a hard time contaminating us, and we'll have hard time contaminating it.
Parent
If this works (Score:5, Funny)
It isn't Algae... (Score:4, Informative)
It does say that the closest thing out there to what they do are ones that use algae.
When the first cars were built, the closest thing to them was the carriage, but automobiles didn't use horses to power them.
As to the people questioning as to whether they are using genetically engineered organisms, the article clearly states that they are.
Yes, your fuel may soon come from a genetically engineered non-algal microbe.
Sure, fine and all that, but I still want man portable fusion cells... Or maybe pocket antimatter. >^_^
Frankenfuels! (Score:3, Funny)
> Yes, your fuel may soon come from a genetically engineered non-algal microbe.
They'll be banned in Europe. Ain't natural.
Let's do the math... (Score:5, Informative)
- They can actually generate 20,000 gallons per acre per year
- 1 gallon of biofuel will get you the same mileage as 1 gallon of gasoline
US gasoline usage = 378,000,000 gallons/day = 137,970,000,000 gallons/year
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html [doe.gov]
Area needed: 137,970,000,000 gallons/year / 20,000 gallons/acre/year = 6,898,500 acres = 10,779 sq.mi.
Comparative area: Massachusetts is 10,555 sq.mi.
So, we'd need an area slightly larger than MA to generate the needed biofuel. This may seem like alot, but...
Farmland in US: 922,095,840 acres = 1,440,774 sq. mi.
Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/US.htm [usda.gov]
Percent farmland to convert to biofuel: 10,555 sq. mi. / 1,440,774 sq. mi. = 0.73%
This isn't much, if you ask me.
Now, for the financial incentive to do so:
Value of 20,000 gallons of biofuel at $50/barrel: 20,000 gallons = 476 barrels * $50/barrel = $23,000
Corn yield of one acre: 162 bushels/acres (Iowa)
Source: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a1-14.pdf [iastate.edu]
Value of 162 bushels of corn: 162 bushels * $4.77/bushel (Estimated 2008 Calendar Year Average) = $772.74
Source: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a2-11.pdf [iastate.edu]
So, converting one acre of corn farmland to one acre of biofuel farmland will increase the revenue from $773 to $23,000, a nearly 30-fold increase.
So, this looks like it might be worth it depending on the cost of conversion and cost versus revenue. It'll certainly be interesting to watch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those numbers seem to ignore the cost of producing corn vs. oil. What the farmer's interested in is profit, not gross revenue. Still, assuming it costs $50/barrel to produce and sells for, say, $53/barrel, you're still at $1428 profit per acre.
Or if OPEC opens the floodgates and drops the price to $35/barrel, you're out $7140/acre. But I suppose that's what the futures market is for.
Re:Let's do the math... (Score:4, Informative)
gallons, acres, miles, bushels.. ye gods man, don't you know the rest of the world is metric.
Parent
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
5kwh per m^2 per day? At what latitude? If that is on the high side, they are back on the theoretical impossible part of the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg [wikipedia.org]
In southwest texas, 5 KWH per sq M is wildly pessimistic by around a factor of two. In western Washington state, it is wildly optimistic by a roughly equal factor of two.
Taking a wild guess based on my vast real world experience, a marketing weasel might just possibly use the "best obtainable" number available, and maybe round up all figures, giving around "ten" KWH per day and rounding up to about 16 or so MM KWH per year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Don't believe the hype, especially when it's physically impossible.
Oh stop being so down on these guys. They are just trying to do the right thing, which is to ensure suckers don't keep their money. And Green is THE buzzword right now to part venture capitalists from sacks of cash, and if they won't fall for it the Government certainly will.
Every week or two Slashdot has one of these Green Energy Miracle stories. Because so many people want so hard to believe in Green Energy scammers will keep givin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Scan to drive their stock up. Nothing more.
Let's assume for a moment that instead of "Scan" you meant "Scam".
From the company's about page: Founded in 2007 by Flagship Ventures, Joule is privately held and headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Last I checked, "privately held" == "no stock price."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not completely true. Privately held companies do stock issues to raise money. They generally set a price for their stock and then see who will buy it at that price. So a big press release right before an offering might let them set a higher price and sell less stock and make the same money or set a higher price, sell the same amount of stock and make more money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The US has the production capacity of over 2.5Billion gallons a year of BioDiesel [biodiesel.org] with another half billion gallons a year coming online in the next year.
So, if you pay attention, you are frustrated, because it doesn't seem to be coming fast enough, and if you go away for a few years and come back, you don't notice the differences, because they are baked int