Saturday, June 3, 2017

My point about the biofuel-electric debate

It is driven down to one dimension, the storage cost of charge.  We devote energy into the production of batteries and wires or metal tanks and pipes; priced against the high energy cost of fixing nitrogen and carbon.  High cost fixing but extraordinarily cheap storage.

Biofuel, in my opinion wins, now as there is no scale yet to batteries, and in long term because covalent is orders of more compact than ionic.

So my research proposal is simple, let me make bio fuel, with corn or anything, and give me the energy to do it. In other words, if you subsidies,  then subsidize me and biofuel and you are better off.


Give me lots sun and a source of natural gas and a bunch of carbon extractors, and I ship out compressed co2 and liquid ammonia/. That goes to gulf of Texas which extracts potassium and phosphorus from the ocean and uses very contained sun driven bio reactor.  Now, we are not paying for farmland.  At scale government subsidies will be about 10 buck a gallon, huge. So do it on a small scale and work the capital efficiency problems.  We find we mostly have a labor and sanitation problem.

Yes, you import natural gas and that is negative co2 reduction, but not much worse than current electric battery  subsidies.

No comments: