# Another setback for EVs?



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Those darned scientists are at it again.

Photosynthesis Fuel Company Gets a Large Investment

I ran the numbers on this. Using their predictions of over 20,000 gallons per year from an acre of land, the entire world's consumption (currently 30 billion barrels per year at 55 gallons / bbl) could be produced on 75,000,000 acres of land, or about 117,000 sq. miles. While large (about the size of New Mexico), we have more empty land in the U.S. alone to provide the entire world's energy supply.

If this takes off and they can really produce it for about $1 / gallon, it will seriously delay EVs becoming economically competitive - especially since it is renewable.

Edit: For those who do not already know, Ethanol weighs around 6.5 lbs/gallon (almost identical to Diesel fuel; a bit more than gasoline). The energy density is a bit less than gasoline, though, so running purely on ethanol would reduce your mpg. Ethanol is dandy for airplanes, having a sufficiently high octane to run just fine even on hot days with high compression engines. The only drawback is reduced range.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

By definition, this is unscalable. Considering all our electricity could come from 1/75th that amount of space, and no one has given it serious consideration, I don't think there's much news here.


----------



## Gary B (Jun 2, 2011)

Yeah! - With one of these in my backyard i could produce enough fuel to run my vehicle all year! - (I'm using a hybrid.) - Gary B.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

I still think I like Butanol better than Ethanol as a fuel.


----------



## GizmoEV (Nov 28, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> Spammer alert...


Just click the red triangle symbol at the top right of the post to report it.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

GizmoEV said:


> Just click the red triangle symbol at the top right of the post to report it.


Ah, thanks!


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Ziggythewiz said:


> By definition, this is unscalable. Considering all our electricity could come from 1/75th that amount of space, and no one has given it serious consideration, I don't think there's much news here.


Not sure I follow why this is unscalable? Granted that skipping the conversion to liquid fuel is unnecessary for stationary applications, if batteries don't get considerably better liquid will still have a major advantage in energy density and in the speed with which you can refuel a vehicle.

There are massive desolate areas in this country which could profitably be turned to this use. And, even if it is a bridge technology while we await better batteries, at $1/gal to produce it would create a tremendous boost to our economy while making us energy independent (preventing $500 billion per year from leaving our country).

I don't see a down side.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

We can't manage to cover 1000 acres with solar panels. How are we going to cover 75 000 000 acres with algae panels?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Ziggythewiz said:


> We can't manage to cover 1000 acres with solar panels. How are we going to cover 75 000 000 acres with algae panels?


Well, for one thing the solar panels don't produce gasoline-substitute fuel at $1/gallon in a form that can be used in existing automobiles without modification. One presumes that the $1/gallon figure includes capitalization costs - I'm guessing these things are a lot easier / cheaper to produce than solar panels.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Algae oil myth has already been busted. NREL and DOE gave up 15 years ago after wasting billions of Tax Payers dollars on research. There is no economical way to extract the oil or keep it from being contaminated. It can only be done in a lab. It is more like $100/gal. They are looking for SUCKERS to invest.


----------



## Gary B (Jun 2, 2011)

Sunking said:


> Algae oil myth has already been busted. NREL and DOE gave up 15 years ago after wasting billions of Tax Payers dollars on research. There is no economical way to extract the oil or keep it from being contaminated. It can only be done in a lab. It is more like $100/gal. They are looking for SUCKERS to invest.


Aw sunking. - You have no faith! My reading of the news convinces me that DOE (and many others) have NOT given up on the pursuit of such fuels using microbes and bacteria, etc. - In fact, to me, they are making remarkable progress, including the referenced company. - The seaweed route is also being pursued with alacrity. Such hydrocarbon resources serve many other purposes than vehicle fuels. - Whatever efforts are made to replace our depleting oil reserves is quite welcome and worthwhile to my mind, including good EVs and hybrids. - Gary B.


----------



## Gary B (Jun 2, 2011)

Sunking said:


> Algae oil myth has already been busted. NREL and DOE gave up 15 years ago after wasting billions of Tax Payers dollars on research. There is no economical way to extract the oil or keep it from being contaminated. It can only be done in a lab. It is more like $100/gal. They are looking for SUCKERS to invest.


Here's another example. - 

*Bio Architecture Lab *sees seaweed in biofuels
 Good on you. - Gary B.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Sunking said:


> Algae oil myth has already been busted. NREL and DOE gave up 15 years ago after wasting billions of Tax Payers dollars on research. There is no economical way to extract the oil or keep it from being contaminated. It can only be done in a lab. It is more like $100/gal. They are looking for SUCKERS to invest.


That is certainly possible. It would be nice if the claims were true for once, though.

Still, as pointed out above even this plan requires a lot more land per Kwh of extractable energy than simply using solar panels. In the long term, even if successful, this (or technologies like it) are likely to be simply "bridge technologies."


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> That is certainly possible. It would be nice if the claims were true for once, though.
> 
> Still, as pointed out above even this plan requires a lot more land per Kwh of extractable energy than simply using solar panels. In the long term, even if successful, this (or technologies like it) are likely to be simply "bridge technologies."


The problem is energy input vs output. To be a source fuel it has to have above unity gain. Otherwise you are just wasting energy and money like hydrogen. If it takes 20 units of energy input to get 1 unit out, forget it, you have not gained anything making EROI and ROI non existent. The market will eliminate it. 

Take an example you have two gas stations selling fuel. Deano the Dino sells it for $3/unit, and Green Dream sells it for $30/unit. Green Dream is out of biz and bankrupt.


----------



## Gary B (Jun 2, 2011)

Sunking said:


> The problem is energy input vs output. To be a source fuel it has to have above unity gain. Otherwise you are just wasting energy and money like hydrogen. If it takes 20 units of energy input to get 1 unit out, forget it, you have not gained anything making EROI and ROI non existent. The market will eliminate it.
> 
> Take an example you have two gas stations selling fuel. Deano the Dino sells it for $3/unit, and Green Dream sells it for $30/unit. Green Dream is out of biz and bankrupt.


Tell it to Brazil. - and munch me up another bunch of sugarcane. - Gary B.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Gary B said:


> Tell it to Brazil. - and munch me up another bunch of sugarcane. - Gary B.


That is an very uninformed statement. Brazil is located in the sugar belt, a very small band around the equator.

With sugar cane you do have a net energy gain converting sugar to ethanol. About 3:1 (Will not work with corn which is negative gain) They extract the the sugar by pressing the cane, then use the bagasse (the left over stalks from pressing) to burn and distill the fermented sugar to alcohol. The bigasse has so much energy they also use it to produce roughly 25% of their electricity. 

Now that may sound great huh? The burning of bagasse produces more CO2 than coal for a given amount of heat energy. 

Brazil model only works in Brazil. It could work in Hawaii but it is no bargain with the pollution it produces. We could do it on a very limited scale in the USA. All you have to do is bull dose NOLA to Miami down to grow sugar cane. 

Bull dozing NOLA down is not a bad idea huh?


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

Sunking said:


> Algae oil myth has already been busted. NREL and DOE gave up 15 years ago after wasting billions of Tax Payers dollars on research. There is no economical way to extract the oil or keep it from being contaminated. It can only be done in a lab. It is more like $100/gal. They are looking for SUCKERS to invest.


Probably, but they do seem to have passed a mojor hurdle in engineering an organism that excretes the fuel into the water stream rather than having to grind it up and extract it from the algae itself; which has been the major stumbling blocks in the past.


----------



## Gary B (Jun 2, 2011)

Sunking said:


> - - - The bigasse has so much energy they also use it to produce roughly 25% of their electricity.
> 
> Now that may sound great huh? The burning of bagasse produces more CO2 than coal for a given amount of heat energy. - - -


Please keep me informed, Sunking. - How much more? - Then - - - It's all temporary solutions. - - - Just wait until we tap into that massive domain of "Dark Energy". - What fun! - - - The sun can't compare with that energy resource. - Don't believe that's possible either? - Just wait. - Gary B.


----------



## Gary B (Jun 2, 2011)

jeremyjs said:


> Probably, but they do seem to have passed a mojor hurdle in engineering an organism that excretes the fuel into the water stream rather than having to grind it up and extract it from the algae itself; which has been the major stumbling blocks in the past.


YES ! - You too, jeremy, are optimistic and have a bit of faith in the unknown future. - Good on you. - Gary B.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

jeremyjs said:


> Probably, but they do seem to have passed a major hurdle in engineering.


No hurdle at all, it is ancient technology using sugar cane to make Ethanol. It has another name called Rum.

Brazil is unique because they are in the Sugar Belt an area around the equator. So when you use sugar as the feed stock, it takes far less energy to distill than any other feedstock. In fact you get an energy gain so that ethanol made with sugar, and using the waste product bagasse for the fuel for heat to distill the mash , you get about a 3:1 energy gain. The bagasse has so much heat energy in it there is enough heat left over to make steam which generates electricity. 

Here in the USA we use corn as the food stock which is very low in sugar compared to sugar cane. So when you distill the mash made for corn, it takes more energy from the source fuel (natural gas, coal, nuke, diesel or whatever) than what the ethanol has when it is finished. Corn ethanol is not a fuels at this point, it is a carrier of energy and as being such will always be a multiple price of the source fuel.


----------



## Gary B (Jun 2, 2011)

jeremyjs said:


> Probably, but they do seem to have passed a mojor hurdle in engineering an organism that excretes the fuel into the water stream rather than having to grind it up and extract it from the algae itself; which has been the major stumbling blocks in the past.


 Jeremy.Looks like Sunking is still talking about sugarcane, not the process you were referring to, which appealed to me so much also. - I don't know if he looked at the original reference. - Photosynthesis Fuel Company Gets a Large Investment . Best to you, Gary B.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Sunking said:


> The problem is energy input vs output. To be a source fuel it has to have above unity gain. Otherwise you are just wasting energy and money like hydrogen. If it takes 20 units of energy input to get 1 unit out, forget it, you have not gained anything making EROI and ROI non existent. The market will eliminate it.
> 
> Take an example you have two gas stations selling fuel. Deano the Dino sells it for $3/unit, and Green Dream sells it for $30/unit. Green Dream is out of biz and bankrupt.


Yes and no. Since the "energy in" is sunlight currently being wasted, the only real question is economics. Questions such as, "Will States such as Nevada with immense tracts of useless land lease that land at rates low enough to make the overall process viable?;" and "Can this process live up to the cost per gallon claims of the inventors?

The only thing that might reasonably compete for these "wasted sunlight" spaces are solar cells; but if you look at the amount of land we have available (in the U.S.; sucks to be Europe) it quickly becomes obvious that we could meet both our grid (assuming viable grid off-hours storage batteries) and auto fuel needs without worrying about tearing down towns, etc.

If anything, this process has a slight advantage over solar grid in that the end product is already "stored energy." That means that this could get up and running more quickly than a program to "go solar" with our entire grid, because we currently lack the storage infrastructure to extend solar power past sundown.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> Yes and no. Since the "energy in" is sunlight currently being wasted, the only real question is economics. Questions such as, "Will States such as Nevada with immense tracts of useless land lease that land at rates low enough to make the overall process viable?;" and "Can this process live up to the cost per gallon claims of the inventors?


Philly I think you are over looking some things. When you are talking about things like algal, hydrogen, and even solar PV panels there is a huge energy input involved in the manufacturing of the product. Algal (oil made from Algael) and hydrogen are prime examples where it takes many multiple energy units to produce 1 single unit. That makes it a carrier fuel, and not a source fuel like natural gas. 

To run the huge pumps, dry, extract, and refine the Algal uses conventional fuels like coal, petroleum, or uranium. For algal depending on which study you want to reference is anywhere from 10:1 to 300:1.

So what that means realistically, the cost of the fuel will always be a multiple of the source fuel used to make it. That presents two real problems.

1. Is economics, Who in their right mind is going to pay 10 to 300 times more for the fuel, when they can just use the cheap source fuel to being with.

2. You are wasting a chit load of energy that could have been used elsewhere more efficiently and economically. 

NREL and DOE did a rather large study on growing algae to be used as fuel. They concluded the same thing 14 years ago, researching still conclude today. It can be done from an engineering POV, but the economics and efficiency suk. Read the report here. The same exact challenges exist today.

Also take some time to read up on companies that spurred up, tried and fail like Green Fuels Technology. They were a MIT company that was shut down in 2009 after burning through $70 million dollars of investors money. Hell they even had a working prototype built and operating in AZ at a coal fired electric generation plant using the CO2 from emissions of burning coal. It could not be made economical using there closed loop bio-reactor. It took way to much power.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Sunking said:


> Philly I think you are over looking some things. When you are talking about things like algal, hydrogen, and even solar PV panels there is a huge energy input involved in the manufacturing of the product. Algal (oil made from Algael) and hydrogen are prime examples where it takes many multiple energy units to produce 1 single unit. That makes it a carrier fuel, and not a source fuel like natural gas.


I get the feeling we're not talking about the same things here. Go back to post 1 in the thread. Sheets of glass; plastic tubing, some pumps. Yes, they take some energy to create but the resulting panels will produce 20,000 gallons of fuel each year per acre. My guess is that the total energy consumption to make the equipment is less than 1/2 year's output.



> To run the huge pumps, dry, extract, and refine the Algal uses conventional fuels like coal, petroleum, or uranium. For algal depending on which study you want to reference is anywhere from 10:1 to 300:1.


Umm. Or, simply intersperse some solar panels. Really - read the original article. I won't claim their claims are true; simply extrapolating from their cost figures that the energy cost IF true can be supplied on-site - more efficiently through solar cells, but my guess is that it wouldn't take more than 1% of ethanol produced to fuel the necessary pumping, etc.



> So what that means realistically, the cost of the fuel will always be a multiple of the source fuel used to make it. That presents two real problems.
> ...<snip>


Yah, I get all of that. However, you are basing your assumptions on anther technology / other scientific papers. Now, if you want to simply say these guys are lying through their hats, then you are (statistically) probably right. But, based on their figures it will not only work but will be extremely lucrative.

Unrefined petroleum is already well over $1 / gallon ($90/bbl, 1bbl = 55-60 gallons). This processes <claims> to produce ready-to-use fuel around $1/gallon, including energy costs. There is no funny math that can calculate the amount of energy required you are implying and still come out at that price.

So, it's probably out there in EEStor-land; but if they aren't kidding it would be a completely viable and renewable form of liquid stored energy that could eliminate virtually all of the Global Warming nonsense (the process taking up as much CO2 as it generates when burned).


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> I get the feeling we're not talking about the same things here. Go back to post 1 in the thread. Sheets of glass; plastic tubing, some pumps. Yes, they take some energy to create but the resulting panels will produce 20,000 gallons of fuel each year per acre. My guess is that the total energy consumption to make the equipment is less than 1/2 year's output.


So you believe that do you? Then invest and make Trillions You are now own the world and are King, we will call you the new Bill Gates. 

It is PR junk claims to milk you out of money. If they could do it, they would not write an article, they would be selling it.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> So, it's probably out there in EEStor-land;.


 That and Nanosolar rolled up into one. Nanosolar is a real company for the last 5 years and yet to sale 1 single solar panel.

I was beginning to wonder about you there for a minute. You understand it is a Green Dream, and then you woke up.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> Unrefined petroleum is already well over $1 / gallon ($90/bbl, 1bbl = 55-60 gallons).


C'mon you are smarter than that. Petroleum dos not cost anywhere near that price. You are using market price, not production/manufacturing.

The drilling and lift cost produced in the USA is $10-$15/barrel. Middle East cost are $2 to $3/ barrel. Where are you coming up with this $1/gallon stuff for oil? Try about 1/50th of that.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Sunking said:


> So you believe that do you? Then invest and make Trillions You are now own the world and are King, we will call you the new Bill Gates.
> 
> It is PR junk claims to milk you out of money. If they could do it, they would not write an article, they would be selling it.


Oh, I agree the odds are against them. However, every advance requires funding to move to production. If investors don't verify the claims, they will get bilked. If it doesn't pan out, it will be another EEStor.

But, every once in a while the claims are true - and to call everything a scam simply because some are is to ignore all the advances we have ever seen. So long as it is individual investors risking their money, I'm fine with it. I just oppose letting the government gambling with MY money.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Sunking said:


> C'mon you are smarter than that. Petroleum dos not cost anywhere near that price. You are using market price, not production/manufacturing.
> 
> The drilling and lift cost produced in the USA is $10-$15/barrel. Middle East cost are $2 to $3/ barrel. Where are you coming up with this $1/gallon stuff for oil? Try about 1/50th of that.


If that were true, then the oil industry profit margins would be higher than they are. Drilling costs millions, and a high percentage of the time they get a dry well. Those costs must be recouped over the life of the well, raising the cost.

And, while you are correct that the well cost is lower than the market price - but not to us. That is because unless we pay market price we will not receive a drop of the oil produced - so say what you will about "cost," the real cost is market price.

Thus, if these people can produce finished gasoline-substitute for $1/gallon, they can be profitable and additionally place a cap on the upper limit that prices can rise for oil before more of the substitute is produced. That cap alone (i.e. the existence of a viable substitute at close to current market prices) would cause economic growth - because there would be certainty in the markets that oil prices cannot increase without limit. Too, every gallon we produce in the U.S. (or, whatever country you happen to live in) reduces your trade deficit - thus strengthening your currency and improving your personal purchasing power, while reducing the profits of ME nations. Overall, I favor such a situation greatly.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> If that were true, then the oil industry profit margins would be higher than they are. Drilling costs millions, and a high percentage of the time they get a dry well. Those costs must be recouped over the life of the well, raising the cost.


My friend you are smarter than that. It is not the oil companies getting all the $90/barrel. Most of it going to the land owners and government in the form of royalties. Oil companies do not set the price of oil, OPEC sets the price based on supply and demand. It is not the oil companies making the big bucks.

I know you know this as I have seen you talk about it many times. 

As for the PR release of this company. I really do not care if it is true or not. Experience tells me it is BS and they are looking to find funding. Since 2005 there have been several, and all either bogus, or just plain failed like Green Fuel Technology.

What I do know is they cannot change biology of photosynthesis. That is what NREL and all others researchers have discovered. Technically it is possible to make oil from algae, that is not the problem. The problem is the extremely high amount of inputs required to do it, and keeping it from being contaminated. The only way to do it economically is by open ponds requiring huge sums of fresh water, CO2, and sunlight. The huge amount of energy to extract, dry, and refine the product. But in open ponds the algae is contaminated by more productive aggressive non oil bearing algae.

FWIW I use to be a huge supporter of biodiesel made from vegetable oil, used vegetable oil that is. I use to make the stuff up until about 2006 when making it cost more than buying dino diesel. That industry is now dead and gone. Pre 2006 restaurants paid to have their used veg oil hauled off. People like me came in and offered to take it for free to make fuel out of it. 

Then when the stupid government moved in and decided to give commercial producers about a $1/gal subsidies for biodiesel production, and mandate refiners blend a percentage in with dino diesel, commercial collectors moved into the system of collecting oil from restaurants agian this time bidding to buy the oil. At that point it became a commodity and going price is now $2 to $3/gal. Now biodiesel made from used veg oil cost more than dino diesel. 

There were many of the refiners popping up over night. It all came to an end in 2008 when oil prices relaxed. What are left today most of the oil now goes to Europe because they can buy it here cheaper than they can buy it in Euorpe because we tax payers still are paying the $1/gal subsidies 

My point here is during that time I was extremely interested in Algal and after a few years learned all about it only to find the reality is it can only be done in a lab. Lot's of con artist companies out there selling bio-reactors today to make your own algal, and it works. So long as you do not mind paying 100 times more for fuel it works great.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Unrefined petroleum is already well over $1 / gallon ($90/bbl, 1bbl = 55-60 gallons).


I thought an oil barrel was 42 gallons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_(unit)#Oil_barrel


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> I thought an oil barrel was 42 gallons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_(unit)#Oil_barrel


A barrel of petro is 42 gallons, but that does not mean it produces 42 gallons of product, it produces about 45 gallons of refined products because the refined product have less density than the crude. Really depends on what they want to get out of it. On average a barrel of crude produces 19 gallons of gasoline and 10 gallons of diesel using straight distillation process. They can use steam and water fracturing to up the gasoline to 22 gallons, but get less diesel in the process. The remaining 16 or so gallons is kerosene (aka jet fuel or #1 diesel), home heating oil, namptha, and other products like LPG.


----------



## Gary B (Jun 2, 2011)

PhantomPholly said:


> ---
> 
> Thus, if these people can produce finished gasoline-substitute for $1/gallon, they can be profitable and additionally place a cap on the upper limit that prices can rise for oil before more of the substitute is produced. That cap alone (i.e. the existence of a viable substitute at close to current market prices) would cause economic growth - because there would be certainty in the markets that oil prices cannot increase without limit. Too, every gallon we produce in the U.S. (or, whatever country you happen to live in) reduces your trade deficit - thus strengthening your currency and improving your personal purchasing power, while reducing the profits of ME nations. Overall, I favor such a situation greatly.


 --- Phantom --- Whatever we say here will not change the flow of events. - In relation to your first referenced posting, the company (and process) will succeed or not. - My best guess is that it will succeed. - Haven't done it yet, but i may put my money where my mouth is. - I want to see how their pilot plant works out. - Best to you. Gary B.


----------



## coulombKid (Jan 10, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> Those darned scientists are at it again.
> 
> Photosynthesis Fuel Company Gets a Large Investment
> 
> ...


Their predictions are, of course, geared to bring in capitol. Being brought up in the corn growing states I see a place for this technology but I don't see this displacing all competing technologies. If the water and CO2 are free it will still be an infrastructure and labor intensive system. Here in the desert southwest we have power plants that already using waste water for nuke cooling. Very close to that we have natural gas power plants AND a correctional facility. Given all the required inputs on desert land makes an optimal mix of resources. You have to have a large number of marginal returns working in the right ways to even come close to the hype.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I thought an oil barrel was 42 gallons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_(unit)#Oil_barrel


My only reference was my recollection of 55 gallon drums of cleaner we used in the steel mills in my mis-spent youth, so I'll assume Wikipedia has it right and stand corrected.

On the other hand, that means that petroleum is more expensive than I had thought (fewer gallons / $90). And, like the above poster mentions, at best half comes out as gasoline.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Gary B said:


> --- Phantom --- Whatever we say here will not change the flow of events. - In relation to your first referenced posting, the company (and process) will succeed or not. - My best guess is that it will succeed. - Haven't done it yet, but i may put my money where my mouth is. - I want to see how their pilot plant works out. - Best to you. Gary B.


Yep - whether this process, another, or all of the above. Good luck if you invest - I lost $500 on Razer a few years back...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

coulombKid said:


> Their predictions are, of course, geared to bring in capitol.


Naturally. I think the point is, even at $2.50/gallon that such a solution becomes potentially competitive, and will most certainly place an upper limit on fuel price increases.



> Being brought up in the corn growing states I see a place for this technology but I don't see this displacing all competing technologies. If the water and CO2 are free it will still be an infrastructure and labor intensive system. Here in the desert southwest we have power plants that already using waste water for nuke cooling. Very close to that we have natural gas power plants AND a correctional facility. Given all the required inputs on desert land makes an optimal mix of resources. You have to have a large number of marginal returns working in the right ways to even come close to the hype.


I flew home to Atlanta from Las Vegas down low (12,500') a few years back. Until you really look at it relatively low and slow, you forget how immensely vast and unpopulated much of America is. There is enough land for some similar technology (perhaps this, perhaps another, perhaps a blend) to provide all our liquid fuel, plus enough land for solar to power our entire grid - and all of that together would only take a fraction of our unused desert.

While it may not yet be financially profitable, the writing is on the wall. ONE or MORE of these answers will break the economic barrier, and it will be soon. Transition will take longer, but if the liquid solution is a drop-in for gasoline then overall it will be relatively painless as we abandon our import addiction.


----------

