Next Obama Czar Position: "Pond Scum Czar"

[logical4u]

Do me a favor: calculate a "rough" estimate of how much space would be required to grow enough algae to fill up a 55 gallon barrel (say one acrefoot, a water covered measurement, per 100 barrels). Now, consider you will need tens of these barrels to convert enough to fill ONE barrel with actual fuel. What do you think the cost would be to keep "environmental conditions" favorable for massive algae growth (how much energy will it take?)? Will it contaminate our waterways and harm the "wildlife"? Will it "affect" our drinking water? Who will monitor it? How many agencies will have to be created (filled by friends of Obama) to "regulate" it?

This is another money laudering scheme (PONZI if you insist) that the O is planning on using in his next term. Billions will be invested in companies that will declare bankrupcy after WASTING valuable energy for a "show" for his green zombies. And your response at that time will be: if only we had "spent" more....

From the link I already posted:

Briggs used the numbers from NREL's Aquatic Species Program—that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced on 200,000 ha (roughly 500,000 acres) or about 780 square miles—to compute that 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel would requre 19 quads (140.8 ÷ 7.5).This would require about 15,000 square miles (19 x 780), or about 9.5 million acres—which he notes is only about 12.5% of the area of the Sonoran desert of the Southwest. So using algae as a source of oil for biodiesel with the NREL productivity assumption, the acreage required is less than 3% of the 450 million acres now used to grow crops.
Based on a UNH research project, (8) Briggs then estimates the total cost of producing 140.8 billion gallons of oil (unrefined) for biodiesel at $46.2 billion—substantially less than the $100-*150 billion that the US currently spends to purchase foreign crude oil.

Logistics:
how are you going to seal the ground to reduce water loss
how are you going to cover 15,000 square miles with enough water
how are you going to stop mosquito populations from exploding
how are you going to feed the algae

No environmentalists want to answer? What's the matter, can you see another "pipe" dream?

 

[thereisnospoon]

From the link I already posted:

Briggs used the numbers from NREL's Aquatic Species Program—that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced on 200,000 ha (roughly 500,000 acres) or about 780 square miles—to compute that 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel would requre 19 quads (140.8 ÷ 7.5).This would require about 15,000 square miles (19 x 780), or about 9.5 million acres—which he notes is only about 12.5% of the area of the Sonoran desert of the Southwest. So using algae as a source of oil for biodiesel with the NREL productivity assumption, the acreage required is less than 3% of the 450 million acres now used to grow crops.
Based on a UNH research project, (8) Briggs then estimates the total cost of producing 140.8 billion gallons of oil (unrefined) for biodiesel at $46.2 billion—substantially less than the $100-*150 billion that the US currently spends to purchase foreign crude oil.

Logistics:
how are you going to seal the ground to reduce water loss
how are you going to cover 15,000 square miles with enough water
how are you going to stop mosquito populations from exploding
how are you going to feed the algae

No environmentalists want to answer? What's the matter, can you see another "pipe" dream?

This algae thing goes NOWHERE. If it were viable, I'd give it a chance.

 

[The T]

Logistics:
how are you going to seal the ground to reduce water loss
how are you going to cover 15,000 square miles with enough water
how are you going to stop mosquito populations from exploding
how are you going to feed the algae

No environmentalists want to answer? What's the matter, can you see another "pipe" dream?

This algae thing goes NOWHERE. If it were viable, I'd give it a chance.

It isn't. The process will go nowhere. The chemicals left in the process are toxic as Hell...Enviros won't hear of it.

 

[bripat9643]

You dumb CON$ervative assholes NEVER learn. Your "expert" is too stupid to know that Times New Roman has existed since the 1930s, long before computers. But at least he agrees that the 4s do not match MS Word's 4!!!!

You really are an astounding moron, Ed. The expert said there was no such TYPEWRITER font. That doesn't mean it wasn't available on industrial printing presses.

You aren't helping your credibility with these amazingly stupid arguments.

Forged NG document:

MS Word Version of the document:

Notice that they are identical.

You have to be the terminally gullible to believe the documents weren't forgeries.

Gee, you must be blind! look at the "th" that comes after 187 and tell me they are the same!

You truly are a moron. The only difference is that the forged version is more blurry because the hack Dan hired to make it scanned it several times and ran it through a fax machine.

BTW. There is no typewriter than can make that kind of superscript. None. Not even the IBM machines you refer to that are able to do proportional spaced fonts can do it.

 

[edthecynic]

You really are an astounding moron, Ed. The expert said there was no such TYPEWRITER font. That doesn't mean it wasn't available on industrial printing presses.

You aren't helping your credibility with these amazingly stupid arguments.

Forged NG document:

MS Word Version of the document:

Notice that they are identical.

You have to be the terminally gullible to believe the documents weren't forgeries.

Gee, you must be blind! look at the "th" that comes after 187 and tell me they are the same!

You truly are a moron. The only difference is that the forged version is more blurry because the hack Dan hired to make it scanned it several times and ran it through a fax machine.

BTW. There is no typewriter than can make that kind of superscript. None. Not even the IBM machines you refer to that are able to do proportional spaced fonts can do it.

BULLSHIT! It has already been established in this thread that the very popular IBM Executive, available since the 1940s, comes with optional superscript and subscript keys.

And the only reason your fake MS Word version is close to the real document is because your dishonest source shrank the size down to hide the many differences that would be obvious if the two were blown up, and not just the obvious difference in the "187th" at any size.