What if I told you that the United States could generate 100% of its petroleum needs, carbon free, utilizing current technology for a mere $20 Billion investment.
To put that into perspective Snapchat is currently valued at 40 Billion.
How? Simple. An algae farm the size of Rhode Island in the California Desert, near Edwards Air Force base.
Don't believe me? Lets do the math...
Even if my conservative napkin calculation was off by a factor of 4, it would be less than the annual revenue of Exxon, for complete sustainable energy independence.
>>132919860
999
>>132919945
Kek is with me no?
Just burn niggers for fuel.
>>132919860
Wasn't algae biofuel too expensive? If it is a great source of energy it would be cheaper then oil on the free market, if it isn't I don't want to pay more for energy.
>>132919860
Post sources, numbers and calculations OP, otherwise 98% of posters know nothing about algae making fuel and this cannot contribute
>>132919860
NAPKIN or GTFO!
The idea of utilizing algae as a renewable energy source is nothing new. Petroleum was mostly algae to begin with, capturing energy from the sun and being converted into hydrocarbon soup over hundreds of millions of years.
We can simply skip the waiting period by growing algae on a massive scale, with nothing more than seawater, sunlight, some dykes and a lot of room
>>132920529
one sec... typing it out sheesh
>>132920610
I heard about this in 2011, Obama threw some money in the idea. Now oil is at hafe the price it was before, no way ot could be profitable.
>>132919860
please tell me more anon.
I probably shouldve typed this out first, so no sources
I looked into algae as an investor (didn't end up doing it though) 3 or 4 years ago and companies were hoping to produce oil at around $150 a barrel, with the most hyped people claiming they might be able to lower that to $120 a decade from now. It's still interesting tech because with a breakthrough or two could probably lower the cost to around $100 a barrel which would effectively put a cap on oil prices
>>132919860
You meant nuclear, right?
We waste enough time and money on biofuels as it is. Fission will carry us as far as we need until the fucking dyson sphere is a viable form of energy production.
Libs would just demand humane treatment of algae
GIMME ENERGY
>>132919860
This would never work. How could we stop whales from eating our precious algae?
>>132919860
Or we could start using Thorium reactors
>>132919860
This is factually wrong until you can implement it into a not dead meme
Solar is getting really competitive just like batteries, give it 5-10 years and the whole energy market will be different. Algae is simply too difficult to grow and extract, biofuels are a waste of money.
>>132921874
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1/18/1180151/-Seawater-electricity-jet-fuel
>nuclear into hydrocarbons when
Personally I'm a fan of combustion engines due to using fewer heavy metals and it's hard to beat the energy concentration of hydrocarbons compared with batteries
>>132922644
https://archive.is/za0nH
19.63 million barrels per day = 2.7482 million tones per day
Current marine algae strains produce 20g biomass/day under optimal conditions @ 30% lipid content by weight per meter square per day
Lets half that to be conservative for 3.3 g lipids per metre^2/day
2.720000e+12g/3.33=816816816817 m^2 needed
=315374.7361068132
So I done goofed, sorry yall I left out a zero somewhere in my previous calc
Shiiiit. Off by a factor of 30
Bassically now youd have to turn all of death valley into a farm, or develope better algae strains. My bad for the tease i’m gonna do more digging
>>132919860
Yeah, algae farms would work for diesel but what about conventional gas engines?
>>132922418
yup forgot a zero on my napkin ¯\_(ツ)_/¯