"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 20:44:39 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:sNudnfJL8YG0PArVnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@earthlink. com...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 19:54:22 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


Has anyone else heard of this? I found it to be very interesting,
especially the last comment made by the speaker:

http://cc.pubco.net/www.valcent.net/...gro/index.html

Yeah - I was reading an article about it the other day. MIT is
working on an adaptation of this system to increase the effectiveness
of photocells so they can work on cloudy days with infrared energy.

The interesting thing is that both systems produce lipids as part of
the process.

Shades of Soylent Green ;)

Heh ... that crossed my mind as well, and I hadn't thought about that
movie
in years.

Soylent Green is People!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NvLkBA9vsQ

Maybe they used the people as the food for the alga.

"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:
Has anyone else heard of this? I found it to be very interesting,
especially the last comment made by the speaker:

http://cc.pubco.net/www.valcent.net/...gro/index.html

Eisboch


I read a piece earlier this year in the Washington Post that seemed very
similar. I think the technique is called algaculture. If it is really
viable, I'd like to see it developed and brought to market in public
universities via federal and state funding, with the people owning the
patents and technologies.


I have quite a bit of experience working with universities on federally and
state funded research projects and/or major programs. Although it can be a
viable way to develop technology, the academia culture that exists in the
universities does not lend itself to efficiently getting the job done.

Additionally, (and unfortunately) grants or research project funding are
often milked to the hilt because it justifies jobs. Budgets and schedules
are established to maximize the duration of the program rather than to find
the most expedient course to satisfy the project's goals.

In order to get the job done more efficiently and quickly, the carrot of
*profits* has to be introduced. Usually a university is not permitted to
show a profit on a federally funded program, so that's where a corporation,
public or private has the incentive.

Having also participated in major government funded programs managed and run
by large corporations (TRW, Raytheon, Boeing, etc.), I can clearly see the
difference in management attitudes when compared to university run programs.

I've also had the experience of hiring a person from the world of academia
to manage and run a key department within a small business. He has gobs of
talent and knowledge, but simply could not adjust to the concept of a fixed
price contract and a meaningful schedule. It was often a disastrous
experience.

I can think of a couple of major programs however, that were run and managed
by industry, but had specific components of the project researched or
developed by universities. These projects were much more successful in
terms of meeting schedules and within budgets than those managed solely by a
university.

Eisboch

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:22:16 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



I have quite a bit of experience working with universities on federally
and state funded research projects and/or major programs. Although it
can be a viable way to develop technology, the academia culture that
exists in the universities does not lend itself to efficiently getting
the job done.

It may not be efficient, but it is profitable for the government.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/patents-0415.html

wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:22:16 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



I have quite a bit of experience working with universities on federally
and state funded research projects and/or major programs. Although it
can be a viable way to develop technology, the academia culture that
exists in the universities does not lend itself to efficiently getting
the job done.

It may not be efficient, but it is profitable for the government.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/patents-0415.html


I'd rather we follow the Norwegian model for the "next" generation of
energy production, rather than the corporate model. All Norwegians
benefit directly from that country's ownership and control of its oil
assets, and it has helped build and maintain a secure middle class
lifestyle for its citizens. The Norwegian GPF is also a model for the world.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...POL070908A.htm


I see no reason to allow multinational corporations to control our future.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:22:16 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



I have quite a bit of experience working with universities on federally
and state funded research projects and/or major programs. Although it
can be a viable way to develop technology, the academia culture that
exists in the universities does not lend itself to efficiently getting
the job done.

It may not be efficient, but it is profitable for the government.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/patents-0415.html


I'd rather we follow the Norwegian model for the "next" generation of
energy production, rather than the corporate model. All Norwegians benefit
directly from that country's ownership and control of its oil assets, and
it has helped build and maintain a secure middle class lifestyle for its
citizens. The Norwegian GPF is also a model for the world.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...POL070908A.htm


I see no reason to allow multinational corporations to control our future.


Now if we could only get some drilling going in the Gulf or on the mainland.
What's with this Ballken field in Montana/ND I've been reading about?

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:48:51 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:22:16 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



I have quite a bit of experience working with universities on federally
and state funded research projects and/or major programs. Although it
can be a viable way to develop technology, the academia culture that
exists in the universities does not lend itself to efficiently getting
the job done.

It may not be efficient, but it is profitable for the government.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/patents-0415.html


I'd rather we follow the Norwegian model for the "next" generation of
energy production, rather than the corporate model. All Norwegians benefit
directly from that country's ownership and control of its oil assets, and
it has helped build and maintain a secure middle class lifestyle for its
citizens. The Norwegian GPF is also a model for the world.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...POL070908A.htm


I see no reason to allow multinational corporations to control our future.


Now if we could only get some drilling going in the Gulf or on the mainland.
What's with this Ballken field in Montana/ND I've been reading about?

It's the Bakken Shale Field - 400 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
The field is about two miles down and is largely horizontal only about
20 feet or so in height. But, it's huge and with new technology,
recoverable.

Then there is the Haynesville Shale field for natural gas under which
they think is a huge field as big as Bakken, only it's really deep and
will take a while to access.

And the potential field on the OCS off New Jersey which could dwarf
the amount of oil that has ever been produced by the Middle East.

Now that the price is high enough, the world appears to be awash in
oil.

Funny thing about that. :)

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:48:51 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:22:16 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



I have quite a bit of experience working with universities on
federally
and state funded research projects and/or major programs. Although it
can be a viable way to develop technology, the academia culture that
exists in the universities does not lend itself to efficiently getting
the job done.

It may not be efficient, but it is profitable for the government.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/patents-0415.html


I'd rather we follow the Norwegian model for the "next" generation of
energy production, rather than the corporate model. All Norwegians
benefit
directly from that country's ownership and control of its oil assets,
and
it has helped build and maintain a secure middle class lifestyle for its
citizens. The Norwegian GPF is also a model for the world.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...POL070908A.htm


I see no reason to allow multinational corporations to control our
future.


Now if we could only get some drilling going in the Gulf or on the
mainland.
What's with this Ballken field in Montana/ND I've been reading about?

It's the Bakken Shale Field - 400 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
The field is about two miles down and is largely horizontal only about
20 feet or so in height. But, it's huge and with new technology,
recoverable.

Then there is the Haynesville Shale field for natural gas under which
they think is a huge field as big as Bakken, only it's really deep and
will take a while to access.

And the potential field on the OCS off New Jersey which could dwarf
the amount of oil that has ever been produced by the Middle East.

Now that the price is high enough, the world appears to be awash in
oil.

Funny thing about that. :)

Time to short oil futures? 8)

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:08:12 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:48:51 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
om...
wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:22:16 -0400, Eisboch wrote:



I have quite a bit of experience working with universities on
federally
and state funded research projects and/or major programs. Although it
can be a viable way to develop technology, the academia culture that
exists in the universities does not lend itself to efficiently getting
the job done.

It may not be efficient, but it is profitable for the government.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/patents-0415.html


I'd rather we follow the Norwegian model for the "next" generation of
energy production, rather than the corporate model. All Norwegians
benefit
directly from that country's ownership and control of its oil assets,
and
it has helped build and maintain a secure middle class lifestyle for its
citizens. The Norwegian GPF is also a model for the world.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...POL070908A.htm


I see no reason to allow multinational corporations to control our
future.


Now if we could only get some drilling going in the Gulf or on the
mainland.
What's with this Ballken field in Montana/ND I've been reading about?

It's the Bakken Shale Field - 400 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
The field is about two miles down and is largely horizontal only about
20 feet or so in height. But, it's huge and with new technology,
recoverable.

Then there is the Haynesville Shale field for natural gas under which
they think is a huge field as big as Bakken, only it's really deep and
will take a while to access.

And the potential field on the OCS off New Jersey which could dwarf
the amount of oil that has ever been produced by the Middle East.

Now that the price is high enough, the world appears to be awash in
oil.

Funny thing about that. :)

Time to short oil futures? 8)

I instructed our broker to get out of any oil future fund two months
ago.

~~ snerk ~~

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:48:51 -0400, D.Duck wrote:


Now if we could only get some drilling going in the Gulf or on the
mainland. What's with this Ballken field in Montana/ND I've been reading
about?

Do you mean the Bakken Formation that was discovered in 1951? Lots of
oil there, but with current technology most of it will stay there.

We are not going to drill our way out of this. In this country, oil
production peaked in the early '70s. We are still the third largest oil
producing country, yet we have to import more than 1/2 our oil. Seems to
me, there is a hell of a lot more we can do on the conservation side,
than on the producing side.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:28:26 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:48:51 -0400, D.Duck wrote:


Now if we could only get some drilling going in the Gulf or on the
mainland. What's with this Ballken field in Montana/ND I've been reading
about?

Do you mean the Bakken Formation that was discovered in 1951? Lots of
oil there, but with current technology most of it will stay there.

We are not going to drill our way out of this. In this country, oil
production peaked in the early '70s. We are still the third largest oil
producing country, yet we have to import more than 1/2 our oil. Seems to
me, there is a hell of a lot more we can do on the conservation side,
than on the producing side.

I don't disagree - we can't "drill" out of the mess we're in.

However we can, and must, attempt to ease the crush on the economy,
jobs and lives by utilizing what we have to solve our own problems
rather than rely on countries who are antithetical to our unique place
in history. That means drilling until we can develop other methods of
supplying the energy.

It's basic - the world runs on energy produced by fossil fuels.
Period. At this period of time, we have nothing to replace fossil
fuels. We can talk about wind power and solar power all we want - the
plain truth is unless and until we develop solid alternatives, we have
to use fossil fuels - oil/coal - there simply is no other mass
replacement for them. Meaning we have to drill.

What is interesting to me about this issue is that up until two years
ago, including one regular here who I respect greatly, peak oil theory
was all the rage. Oil hits $150 a barrel and now we're awash in oil -
there's freakin' oil everywhere. The Bakken Field is an older field -
you are correct. What you apparently don't know is that while the
original field is fairly well played out, the field UNDER the old
field is huge - 400 Billion (with a B) barrels of oil that can be
recovered with new vertical/horizontal drilling techniques.

There is another problem with alternative resources and it's a curious
dichotomy in terms of ideology. On the one hand, environmentalist -
climate change advocates are telling us we need to get off fossil
fuels. Ok fine. Let's use the Oklahoma/Texas wind corridor as T.
Boone Pickens proposes to generate electricity.

Whoops - can't do that because it's also part of the Mid-American
Flyway for ducks and geese. The largest area of constant wind in the
world and Picken's proposal is being assailed by the very people who
want less use of fossil fuels because of the potential damage to the
flyway. And let's not forget those who oppose the project because it
will change the scenic views and vistas.

In the US, it takes 12 years (and that's a conservative estimate -
there is one proposal by Clearwater to add additional reactor to an
existing site in Texas that will be twenty years into the process) to
get a nuke power plant approved and additional 5 years to actually
build it. Those 12 years are the result of legal challenges - pure
and simple. We could be entirely off fossil fuels in the US for power
generation by now if only...

The problem is this - there is no clearly defined energy policy - the
Democrats don't have one, the Republicans don't have one and the
environmentalists - climate change advocates don't have one. All sides
of the issue are at logger heads over inconsistent and frankly stupid
concepts and outdated theories of social progress.

I'll leave you with this thought. Recently, MIT researchers developed
a process by which solar panels were engineered using the process of
photosynthesis and two common chemicals to split water into oxygen and
hydrogen and a simple method of using the product into fuel cells -
the solar panels work during the day and the fuel cell works during
cloudy days or at night. Sounds like a real benefit to mankind
doesn't it?

Here's the hitch - there is no way to tax sun power. In short we
won't see this technology put into production because the power from
the sun can't be taxed. In short, there is no "use" tax on free power.

You heard it here first. :)