Beware the Silver Bullet ...

Across the world, people are passing around with great excitement the news that there might be a bug that will create oil. And, not just bio-derived oil, but carbon-negative oil. One little bug, too small for the naked eye to see, and all our problems are solved!

Worried about anything? Forget it. Solved!

Think about the problems this new biofuel could tackle.

Peak Oil? Forget it. Solved.

Global Warming? Forget it. Solved.

Export of dollars overseas for energy? Forget it. Solved.

Failure of the Big Three Automakers to adapt to a new world? Forget it. Solved.

Risks to American National Security due to funding both sides of the war? Forget it. Solved.

Average Americans' financial challenges in face of skyrocketing gas prices? Forget it. Solved.

My sleepless nights concerned about the above? Forget it. Solved.

Time to roll over and go back to sleep? Forget it. At least for now.

I am a bit of a techno-optimist. I believe that scientists and engineers provide part of our solution paths forward. I believe (know) that there are tremendous things being developed in laboratories and garages around the world that will help us (the US) deal with the challenges we face. Yet (that "but"), I am weary of leaping upon the latest news, the item from the laboratory, the newest press release that screams "PROBLEM SOLVED" because, for whatever reasons, those miraculous answers all too often head back to the laboratory, turn out to be more difficult and costly than first described, and end up doing less than imagined.

This is the "Silver Bullet" solution concept, the idea that there is something magical out there, one single path toward solving all our problems. Silver Bullets are often thrown out when it comes to Peak Oil. When it comes to gasoline problems, for example, the Republican solution path is to feed what George W. Bush called our oil addiction and empty America's limited oil reserves through a crash program of DRILL! DRILL! DRILL! (Of course, they won't mention that this drilling program will have no influence on prices for years and perhaps only a 1-2 cent impact 15 years from now.) Vinod Khosla has been making a lot of news (and making real investments) in the idea that biofuels will be the Silver Bullet for awhile now. And, he might be right ... he might be ... But, what if he is not? What if we (the world) seized upon this magical bug and said: full stop on everything else, problem solved? If Khosla is right, problems solved and I can roll over and go back to sleep. If not?

The other idea is the Silver BB, that there are a myriad of responses and answers to our challenges. Each Silver BB (and silver speck of dust ... do you compost?) is part of the a larger, system-of-systems, holistic response to our global challenges (energy, water, global warming, food, economic development, etc ...). And, if a Silver BB turns out to be a false path, to not be a precious metal but something less, then we continue with our other approaches, not having made a bet on that single Silver Bullet.

We must continue to tackle our challenges in a holistic manner. We must tackle energy efficiency. We must look toward paths for retiring coal from the electrical system. We must pursue renewable energy. We must look toward non-oil based transportation paths. We must ... approach our challenges in a holistic, system-of-system manner. And, we should do this in a flexible, (mainly) technology-neutral fashion, ready to incorporate (and even embrace) Silver Specks of Dust that might turn into Silver BBs and that might ... might ... might ... turn into true Silver Bullets that change the game.

Will Khosla's bugs solve humanity's problems? Maybe. And, I might even bet some bucks on it. But I won't bet our future.

Comments

[twgbonehead]

(... continued from below)

Although algae are a very wide spectrum of life, different strains have shown all of the following properties (not all properties in a single strain, of course!):

a) reproduce quickly
b) grow with primarily light and CO2 as inputs, with relatively little additional nutrients
c) grow in the ocean, a vast surface area which is not competing with agriculture
d) Grow (in vessels) in the desert, which also doesn't compete with agriculture
e) produce soft cellulose which can be easily converted to ethanol and/or food sugars due to the lack of lignin
f) produce oils which can be used for fuel or food
g) produce food directly for both fish and livestock, as well as organic fertilizer
h) be relatively easily GM'ed, to combine desirous traits from different strains into a single organism.
i) grow in fresh, brackish, and sea water
j) De-contaminate sewage

So, why is this resource, with all it's incredible potential, receiving a fraction of the support that "clean-coal", offshore drilling, corn subsidies, etc are? The answer isn't scientific, it's strictly political. And "We" aren't doing a damned thing about it.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

While perhaps (or evidently) with less enthusiasm than you, I've been an interested (and supportive) watcher of algae as a potential Silver BB for years. The UNH work, I think, was the first to interest me. I think that there are tremendous opportunities with algae (as you outline) and that "we" would be far better off with more resources going that way and less to subsidization of (especially) the coal industry. I've written re 'principles' quite a bit and one is that we should focus on 'win-win-win' strategies as much as possible. CCS is a win-lose-lose-win: reducing CO2 emissions (win), reduced efficiency of electrical generation (lose), increased infrastructure requirement when we need to build other things (lose), increased use of coal for each kwh delivered to end user (win for Peabody Energy / coal industry). Algae has the potential for being win-win-win-lose: reduced CO2, including potential for some of the algae mass being used for biochar (win); reduced infrastructure per output of energy (liquid, electrical, food, otherwise); improved EROEI (win); reduced use of coal / fossil fuels for energy output (lose for Peabody ...). In otherwords, we have quite a bit of agreement as to Algae's potential. My caution, as with the entire story, is that I would not want to be thinking of Algae as a Silver Bullet (even if it might develop that way) nor even as a Silver BB, at least not yet.

[twgbonehead]

Mr. Siegel,

Thanks for your responses, which are very much appreciated!

I am very much in agreement with the basic core of your (initial) post - One of the greatest dangers is that we read about some new discovery, or advance (still in very very early stages) and breathe a sigh of relief - "Oh, the scientists have it covered, so I can stop worrying about it and just wait for them to bring it to market".

And what we don't seem to notice is that we are spending vast amounts of money on "last-gasp" efforts (ANWAR), ineffective technologies (how much have we spent on "clean coal"?) and long-term albatrosses (allowing lots of new "dirty coal" plants to be built because "clean coal" is too expensive and doesn't really exist yet).

At the same time we leave the development of promising technologies (like algae) to mosey along, with only basic grant money, and directed towards privatized solutions. And I fear that this environment is almost certain to be manipulated so as to string out our oil and coal usage to maximize profits, and that when all is said and done we'll still have a few oil companies who wind up controlling our entire fuel supply.

Wouldn't it be great to see decent funding go towards "open-source" energy technologies?

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Continued ...

There are, as I'm sure you are aware, a range of demonstration projects going on around the world and many research efforts. Scaling up / etc challenges have yet to be proven, as far as I understand. I am hopeful, hopefully watching.

Sadly, Algae doesn't have the political attractiveness (cash / power / voter attention) of ethanol or 'clean coal'. Hopefully, the private venture capital investments and research activities will create a momentum irrespective of that support.

[Overtone]

The urgent need is an emergency changeover, within a decade, to widespread use of new sources of energy that eliminate the need for fossil fuels. That goal is now in sight. Several firms, including Magnetic Power Inc., are pioneering revolutionary, inexpensive, renewable, energy conversion technology that can yield cost-effective, mass-produced, alternatives in the immediate future. SelfPoweredSystems, our breakthrough technologies, can turn future cars into power plants when suitably parked, and thereby help to eliminate the need to build new coal burning and nuclear power plants.

[twgbonehead]

Who is this "we"? Have a mouse in your pocket?

The truth is that "We" as in the US, aren't doing squat about many promising fuel sources, particularly algae. The R+D is being done by private companies, or by university researchers who then intend to create private companies to exploit their discoveries.

OUR energy "solutions" have involved huge subsidies to private industry (Oil companies, Agribusiness, etc) while true innovation proceeds at a snail's pace, starved by "risk management" and political expediency, and controlled by a few private interests.

I agree we shouldn't get too excited about oil-producing (or soft-cellulose-excreting) algae, even though these are very exciting technological advances - because you know they will come to market under-supported, and controlled by the same mega-business interests that are overjoyed to see $140/barrel oil.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

"We must continue ..." really should have been "we must begin to ..." deal with our energy challenges in a holistic manner.

[KillTheMessenger]

In the end it all boils down to admitting that the truth about these matters can be found in our university libraries and the heads of our best scientists, engineers and, yes, economists. The truth is complicated and can not be reduced to a one hundred and fifty word article in the tabloids. Therefor the truth will not be able to permeate the minds of ordinary people who are not used to getting their information from anywhere else but the tabloids and who are blissfully unaware that a world beyond their own even exists.

The super bug will never materialize. Neither will magic algae or any other critter, plant or chemical reaction that can solve this problem once and for all. More and more people will eventually understand that the solution will cost money, like everything else in life and that they and nobody else will have to pay for it. And life will go on. It always has.

[mamacat]

While I agree with much of what you have said, "...life will go on. It always has," seems to me to be a nearsighted view on our problems.
The question are, I think, what quality of life will our species have, and, in the long run, will the human lineage persist? Any species that does not adapt to a changing environment is left behind as an evolutionary dead-end. While humans as we know them will not always exist, it would be good to know that we contributed to a healthy life-style and to successor species, rather than being nothing more than evolutionary footnotes, if even that. In any case, yes, life will go on, as long as the Earth is habitable in some way, shape, or form.
Humans have a chance to enjoy this planet, but will we waste our chances? Will we blow everything up in a nuclear holocaust, or overpopulate ourselves to the point that life as we know it is terrible for everyone but the very wealthiest? Humans are the first mammals to achieve technology and complicated language, but given another 100,00 years, who is to say that elephants or dolphins, with their huge brains, could not begin to rival us?
Outside the mammalian order, there other animals that demonstrate intelligence. It might take longer, but who is to say that one of them cannot climb into space?
All I am saying is that while tranquility is admirable, complacency might not be.

[mamacat]

Without carbon atoms, oil is no longer oil, but something else entirely, with completely different physical properties.
There are already plenty of animals that like to eat carbon. In fact, almost all animals like to eat some form of carbon, whether it is in wheat, corn, soy, rice, or meat.
The only animal that likes to use the carbon atoms in oil is called "human".

[garbovatwins]

There is already a silver bullet within each human on your world. You only need to awaken it to heal your world.

[research]

"However, to substitute America"s weekly oil consumption of 143 million barrels, you would need a facility that covered about 205 square miles, an area roughly the size of Chicago." Not to mention the wood chips.

Solar and wind 1T$ over 10 years to replace all coal, nukes and imported oil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research

[KillTheMessenger]

Make that $30 trillion and you will be closer to the truth.

[mamacat]

Assuming about 3,000,000 MW of electrical energy used in the U.S. that is produced by carbon-based sources, and assuming a cost of about $1million per MW to purchase and install wind turbines, then to replace all 3,000,000 MW with wind would cost about $3 trillion.

Of course, it is not practical to install that many wind turbines, since a mix of different energy sources is be needed. Nevertheless, it is generally recognised as practical to go to at least 20% wind energy, and maybe much more.
On the other hand, it is interesting to see what could have been done with the $3T that Dubya is spending for his wars in the Middle East.

[research]

You didn't read my profile did you?

Please read it, go to the links, study them.

about half of our electricity is generated by nukes coal and imported oil.
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php

That knocks down the required capacity to about 1.5 TW

Wind at current prices to replace all of that would be about 3T$. Why on earth do you assume current prices over 10 years? And there is plenty of rooms for Wind. last year 02GW of wind were installed, up 30%. over 50 nukes worth of wind in just 3 years, even without an infusion of money and legislation. Faster then nukes coal or drilling.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf

Roof top solar benefits from eliminated 60% of the transmission losses. Dropping the requirement to .7TW.

[research]

I redid the presentation and calculations based in folks various comments.

It comes out a little cheaper then my last calculations.

I have added more links as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research

[shadow322]

When I watch the Green debates roll on, I am amazed that one side always seems to take a political stance on the subject as opposed to a scientific one. Do they think that billions of humans do not produce pollution or is it that they do not think pollution has any detrimental effects on our planet?

[nikto]

Somewhere under the ground there is a great big worm, rather like a
gigantic parasite, feeding on long-dead organic matter (with heavy concentrations of nitrogen
and ammonia compounds), and crapping out of its anal orifice: REPUBLICANS!!

This worm can produce enough repugs in a year to DESTROY SEVERAL PLANETS!!

Hence, we are DOOOMED!!