Some items of interest in the world of energy research…
There was a major breakthrough this week that could revolutionize solar power technology. Researchers at MIT came up with a way to cheaply and efficiently split water molecules using a catalyst consisting of cobalt and potassium phosphate. Paired with a second electrode that converts the resultant hydrogen ions into hydrogen gas, it opens the possibility for having solar panels that can store energy – in the form of hydrogen gas – for when the sun isn’t shining.
Also this week, my father-in-law (who maintains an alternative energy website) sent me this video of the prospect of using algae as a source of biofuel. One of the benefits of using algae is that it can be grown and harnessed in any type of structure, and in the video, the closed bio-reactor system there can produce significantly more biofuel than what can be produced through conventional farming methods and just needs sunlight and carbon dioxide. There are still some cost barriers to doing this on a large scale, but the improvements in the reactor technology and the price of oil is making that investment seem more and more worthwhile.
Hey, hey. I was just reading about that.
Check out Technology Review’s Energy front page. More innovations than you can shake a stick at:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/?a=f
[Deleted – off topic]
Thanks Lee, I’ll take my original comment to 2 back.
That algae video is pretty fun watching.
However, there seems to be quite a bit of energy being used to circulate that fluid. And intensive algae farming needs a concentrated source of carbon dioxide – like from a fossil fuel power plant.
It’s the coolest design for algae farming out there but we need to see more details.
Necessity is the mother of invention. The ‘just drill now put our eggs all in one basket’ crowd grit their teeth as private enterprise works to solve the energy problem. The irony!
[Deleted – Off topic]
As I have always said relating to energy problems, government isn’t the solution to the problem government IS the problem. Mandates and laws will solve nothing, it is going to be solved by very intelligent men backed by investors. Much as Henry Ford was once a key player in giving man a better means to get from point A to B. No Government subsidy was needed, just men with ideas and a men with money that were tired of riding a horse at 4-5 mph. Capitalism is the mother of invention!
It did not hurt Ford and the other motor companies when they bought up all the public transportation they could with promises to run it more efficiently – and then promptly shut it down so people would have to buy more cars.
Gov’t is not the answer to all questions, but neither is unfettered capitalism. Use the best tool for the job – the rest is just blind ideology.
What public transportation did they buy and shut down? That is pure liberal fantasy.
I think that it will be a long time before the righties embrace anything but oil. They all own oil companies so they HOPE the price of gas goes up and there’s not one single reason to believe otherwise. They don’t make money on alternative energy. The secret to solving this problem is to get the inbred rich righties to buy stock in alternative energy companies and then – presto – the government will like the idea.
1. The public transit referred to is the trolleys and interurbans everywhere till they were shut down.
2. I have heard that the idea GM bought them all is a myth.
3. I believe it is true that being run by the govt. they never would raise the fares enough to keep the systems going smoothly; also when busses were new and could go everywhere that looked more attractive.
Look at hoopla today over 25 cent bus fare increase just to pay for gas. Those trolley lines needed capital upgrades and replacement and they never charged enough to pay for that.
Those trolley systems being owned by the govt. could not have been sold off without lots of public support.
4. Real energy news this week: Obama supports off shore drilling.
but compared to analyzing GOP ads for hidden racism and sex, who wants to talk about Obama favoring offshore drilling now or substantive stuff like that??
Actually there is no news saying Obama supports off shore drilling. There IS news that says he’d consider it if it were very tightly controlled and within the guidelines of a new proposal that was brought forth by five Dems and five republicans and if it could make sense.
Remember it was republican Florida Governor Jeb Bush and republican California Governor Ahhhhhhnold who made the most noise about being against off-shore drilling.
And in 2000, FlipFlop McCain was against it before he was for it.
Republicans had six years where they controlled the White House and the Congress and they did NOT ONE THING about this problem. Now they want to blame anyone but themselves.
Perhaps now we see why WHATADICK Cheney’s secret energy council might not have been such a good idea? Energy prices have more than doubles since the Bushies took the White House.
Not that the righties will care about facts – but the oil companies – owned by people like Monkeyface Bush and WHATADICK Cheney – have said in public that ANY oil that MAY come from ANWR WILL be sold to Japan and/or China. Period.
So tell me again how that helps buoy up our domestic oil supply?
If Monkeyface Bush REALLY wanted oil prices to come down and oh yeah, he doesn’t, all he has to do is let some of the national reserves come onto the market. But he won’t do that because HE OWNS A FUCKING OIL COMPANY! Why would he want to lower the price?
It’s silly.
who wants to talk about Obama favoring offshore drilling now
You mean who wants to advance the wingnut agenda?
Nobody I know.
The algae thing looks really promising, I’ve seen a few things about it over the last couple of years.
#8; First before I get to my point it is important to point out that before the auto companies bought anything relating to public transit it was the federal government’s intervention in the marketplace about 1935 that caused much of today’s problems. I’m guessing here, but I assume you are writing about the National Cities Lines. Prior that case the Congress passed the Public Utilities Holding Act, about 1935, and required the utility companies to sell off the streetcar comapnies they owned. That law was upheld by the Supremes in 1946 and I believe that case was the North American Company vs the S.E.C.
Anyhow I’d love to point out that M.I.T. is not a government institution and it does not have a football team. My main point. Thank you!
TLG
Since it seems to have disappeared into the cyber-ether, I’ll say it again…..
16:
Actually, MIT does have a football team, as well as nearly all of the other standard varsity-level sports as most universities and colleges. They’re nicknamed the Engineers (natch) and their mascot is a beaver (also natch). IIRC, they compete at the NCAA’s Division II level.
http://www.mitathletics.cstv.com
@ 16
Anyhow I’d love to point out that M.I.T. is not a government institution
No. On the other hand, Dr. Nocera’s research was made possible through a government grant.
Seriously: Exxon-Mobile just turned in the most profitable quarter in U.S. history. You would have us believe that Exxon-Mobile is going to fund research that would kill the cash cow that made these recored-breaking profits possible?
Wingnut Energy Plan
Chinese and Indians must ride bicycles forever so rednecks can buy $1 gas forever.
@16 As Research Institutes, both UW and MIT are prmarily funded by the Feds. The only formal differences are:
1. The UW is more successful than MIT in competing for research funds.
2. The UW has a medical school, MIT does not.
3. MIT is a lot more successful in raising endowment. Is a government subsidized endowment a government activity?
4. UW is a full featured University, MIT is not. MIT is next door to Harvard and as a result can maintain balance between science and all else that the UW must maintain on its own.
5. Football at MIT is a STUDENT activity run for MIT students not as an amusement for the Roman masses.
6. As an educational institution, MIT is not under pressure to create pork projects in Tacoma, Woodinville, or Everett. Nor soe MIT take on academic programs to entice the state legislature to fund the ehat and light.
7. Because it lacks pro-sports, MIT’s efforts at athnic diversity are far more meaningful than the efforts at UW.
@16 As Research Institutes, both UW and MIT are prmarily funded by the Feds. The only formal differences are:
1. The UW is more successful than MIT in competing for research funds.
2. The UW has a medical school, MIT does not.
3. MIT is a lot more successful in raising endowment. Is a government subsidized endowment a government activity?
4. UW is a full featured University, MIT is not. MIT is next door to Harvard and as a result can maintain balance between science and all else that the UW must maintain on its own.
5. Football at MIT is a STUDENT activity run for MIT students not as an amusement for the Roman masses.
6. As an educational institution, MIT is not under pressure to create pork projects in Tacoma, Woodinville, or Everett. Nor soe MIT take on academic programs to entice the state legislature to fund the ehat and light.
7. Because it lacks pro-sports, MIT’s efforts at ethnic diversity are far more meaningful than the efforts at UW.
In re energy ..
1. Has anyone seen claculation on the actual limits on energy?
E.g. the Earth has a defined thermal capacity. Are we in danger of approaching that limit?
2. Is Seafair obsolete in the 9/11 post petrol era?
23 – No. We’re not close to that and not likely to get close for a long, long time.
Our problem is that millions of people want to enjoy the American lifestyle and the oil supply just isn’t there to accommodate the demand. Oil production has been held flat at 85 million bpd for three years. Oil producing nations are the fastest growing consumers next to China and India and their reserves are being doled out to the rest of the world at their convenience not ours.
This state of affairs is just fine with me. It’s forcing a change to a new energy regime of efficiency and renewables which should have started in earnest 30 years ago. It’s unfortunate it’s starting so late and is going to mean some rough riding but better late than never I guess.
Seafair boats can go electric with new generations of batteries and/or supercapacitors coming down the pike – soon I hope.
May the ghost of Bill Muncey appear and run your ass over with the old Miss Atlas Van Lines for that one. I still haven’t gotten over the switch to turbines yet, and they day they switch to electric is the day I snap once and for all.