3 ms·

So 25k gallons (of gasoline, presumably) = ~900MWh, which is the energy they claim can be harvested from one acre annually, once production reaches commercial l

by ph0rque 16y ago

So 25k gallons (of gasoline, presumably) = ~900MWh, which is the energy they claim can be harvested from one acre annually, once production reaches commercial levels. On average, each acre receives 5800 MWh per per acre annually. This comes out to ~16% efficiency. The big question is the cost per watt of this technology. Of course, there's the added benefit of removing CO2 from the air...

1053r 16y ago
They claim it at $30/barrel, (42 gallons in a barrel according to google calculator), which makes it about $0.7142 per gallon of produced fuel (wholesale). Factor in distribution and retailing markups and taxes and you are probably going to double it or more, but still. Cheap gasoline limited only by area (not even land area, since presumably you could produce this in sea water) and sunlight? Sounds too good to be true. Anyone have a corroborating source other than the globe and mail?
- ph0rque 16y ago
  To take your analysis further, $0.71 per gallon of gasoline comes out to $0.02 per kWh... even with 100% markup, $0.04/kWh is very cheap energy. You're right, it sounds too good to be true.
  - Retric 16y ago
    Power plants are only 40% efficient at best and cars are lucky to be 20% so it's really about the same cost as an electric car. PS: Not that I think it's accurate; 16% efficiency is not bad for a solar cell, suggesting you can get a bio fuel plant close to that is a hard sell IMO.
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      cars are lucky to be 20% so it's really about the same cost as an electric car. Except that your range is going to be a whole lot better and the maintenance costs for your storage device are a whole lot smaller.
Retric 16y ago
At 16% efficiency you almost don't need to use sunlight. 900MWh * 0.07$/kwh = 63,000 U.S. dollars vs 3$ * 25k = ~75,000$ worth of gas.
stcredzero 16y ago
This comes out to ~16% efficiency. The big question is the cost per watt of this technology. It's very hard to beat liquid hydrocarbons as a portable energy source. 16% efficiency is fantastic when you take the form factor into account. Add in the fact that our established infrastructure already can consume, process, convert, and transport this stuff, and you have a winner. Remember, portability brings a whole raft of additional requirements and challenges.
streety 16y ago
They talk about producing 10k gallons of ethanol and then about scaling that up to 25k gallons. You're looking at 557 MWh adjusting for ethanol and an adjusted efficiency of ~9%.

by ph0rque 16y ago

1053r 16y ago

They claim it at $30/barrel, (42 gallons in a barrel according to google calculator), which makes it about $0.7142 per gallon of produced fuel (wholesale). Factor in distribution and retailing markups and taxes and you are probably going to double it or more, but still. Cheap gasoline limited only by area (not even land area, since presumably you could produce this in sea water) and sunlight? Sounds too good to be true. Anyone have a corroborating source other than the globe and mail?

ph0rque 16y ago
To take your analysis further, $0.71 per gallon of gasoline comes out to $0.02 per kWh... even with 100% markup, $0.04/kWh is very cheap energy. You're right, it sounds too good to be true.
- Retric 16y ago
  Power plants are only 40% efficient at best and cars are lucky to be 20% so it's really about the same cost as an electric car. PS: Not that I think it's accurate; 16% efficiency is not bad for a solar cell, suggesting you can get a bio fuel plant close to that is a hard sell IMO.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    cars are lucky to be 20% so it's really about the same cost as an electric car. Except that your range is going to be a whole lot better and the maintenance costs for your storage device are a whole lot smaller.

Retric 16y ago

At 16% efficiency you almost don't need to use sunlight. 900MWh * 0.07$/kwh = 63,000 U.S. dollars vs 3$ * 25k = ~75,000$ worth of gas.

stcredzero 16y ago

This comes out to ~16% efficiency. The big question is the cost per watt of this technology. It's very hard to beat liquid hydrocarbons as a portable energy source. 16% efficiency is fantastic when you take the form factor into account. Add in the fact that our established infrastructure already can consume, process, convert, and transport this stuff, and you have a winner. Remember, portability brings a whole raft of additional requirements and challenges.

streety 16y ago

They talk about producing 10k gallons of ethanol and then about scaling that up to 25k gallons. You're looking at 557 MWh adjusting for ethanol and an adjusted efficiency of ~9%.