Good Biofuel news

[N_Jay]

Interesting stuff to keep watching

http://www.sciencentral.com/articles...e_id=218393098

[robrecht]

Originally posted by N_Jay
Interesting stuff to keep watching

http://www.sciencentral.com/articles...e_id=218393098

Interesting article, thanks. Federally funded research may benefit industry and the country.

[PILOTinginCO]

You know the enviro whackos aren't going to like this... because they will immediately think forests will be leveled so we can have fuel for our cars.

They're just never happy.

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by robrecht
Interesting article, thanks. Federally funded research may benefit industry and the country.

University conducted basic reasearch.

[jdeanski]

N_Jay, Robercht.....be careful or you may have this topic banned too by the.............you know who!

[mainerunr]

hate to say it but thats old news. there's a guy here getting funding to build a biofuel plant using scrap left over after logging operations. first I heard about it was over 3 years ago.

http://www.bizjournals.com/masshight...25/story9.html

my concerns are that trees take a long time to grow and that if we pick up all the crap left behind, it doesnt rot and replenish the soil.

I did however see something about growing algae vertically and converting it into biofuel...and that it yields far better than corn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVJyoYC8O7A

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/sci.../01/algae.oil/

[robrecht]

Originally posted by jdeanski
N_Jay, Robercht.....be careful or you may have this topic banned too by the.............you know who!

That's OK, if someone tries to turn this into another pointless argument about whether the federal government did or did not or should or should not fund this kind of research, the thread should be closed IMHO.

[robrecht]

Originally posted by mainerunr
hate to say it but thats old news.

This part seems new: "One of the challenges in making a biofuel…is the ‘residence time' or the time your molecules spend in the reactor." Current biofuel plants have a "residence time" of five to ten days. Huber notes the "residence time" for this new process is "between two to 120 seconds." Huber says that means a production plant could be much smaller than current biofuel plants."

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by robrecht
This part seems new: "One of the challenges in making a biofuel…is the ‘residence time' or the time your molecules spend in the reactor." Current biofuel plants have a "residence time" of five to ten days. Huber notes the "residence time" for this new process is "between two to 120 seconds." Huber says that means a production plant could be much smaller than current biofuel plants."

Thanks robrecht.
Saved me from pointing out the obvious.

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by robrecht
That's OK, if someone tries to turn this into another pointless argument about whether the federal government did or did not or should or should not fund this kind of research, the thread should be closed IMHO.

Oh god yes.

Because getting people to think deeper about the real value of the things the government spends our money on is so POINTLESS.

(I guess I give people more credit that others here)

[tangotango99]

Originally posted by jdeanski
N_Jay, Robercht.....be careful or you may have this topic banned too by the.............you know who!

I pray you are not banned for posting this.J D you need to be careful, the powers to be may "waterboard" you.

[tangotango99]

Originally posted by PILOTinginCO
You know the enviro whackos aren't going to like this... because they will immediately think forests will be leveled so we can have fuel for our cars.

They're just never happy.

With increasing dvelopment if re-forestation techonology the naysayers will need to tone down the rhetoric machine and allow progress.

[robrecht]

Originally posted by N_Jay


Oh god yes.

Because getting people to think deeper about the real value of the things the government spends our money on is so POINTLESS.

(I guess I give people more credit that others here)

Not going to take the bait, but suffice it to say that of course I did not say that getting people to think deeper is pointless.

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by robrecht
Not going to take the bait, but suffice it to say that of course I did not say that getting people to think deeper is pointless.

Of course.

After all you are the final arbitrator of "pointlessness", and nothing is pointless if you don't declare it, and all is pointless once you do.

I yield to you, oh great one.

[robrecht]

Originally posted by N_Jay


Of course.

After all you are the final arbitrator of "pointlessness", and nothing is pointless if you don't declare it, and all is pointless once you do.

I yield to you, oh great one.

Like I said, not gonna take the bait. Have a nice evening!