Obama's algae problem

Obama

Judging by Obama’s recent comments about turning algae into fuel as a way to turn down gas prices algae isn’t just good for fuel. He must also be able to smoke the stuff because it appears to have certain side effects that cause hallucination.

I’m all for green energy. Wind, solar, bio fuels and so on, but not when it’s heavily subsidized or when it is a pipe dream. It would be amazing if my car ran on water, but it doesn’t. That doesn’t mean we should quit dreaming of the next clean fuel supply, but let’s not punish our people who are paying through the nose at the gas pump today because Obama and his liberal cohorts have no interest in creating a real energy policy that creates jobs and lowers prices. Let’s do our best to develop new technology, but let’s not forget that the vast majority of cars today run on petroleum.

Every time an environmentalist opens his mouth about drilling for oil domestically, they whine “But it could take ten years…” well how long is it going to take for us to mass market algae, and how much will I pay at the pump until this miracle happens? Too long and too much!

63 Replies to “Obama's algae problem”

  1. delegate

    This guy is dilusional. 2013 can’t come soon enough.

    Keystone will bite him in the @$$ soon enough.

  2. Owls_in_pajamas

    So it would take ten years to produce the infrastructure needed for domestic drilling. At a certain point, we will need to invest in alternative sources of energy.
    The lack of the necessary capital and the rampant operating costs make algal oil production too expensive to be economically acceptable at this time, despite its great potential.

    From Forbes
    “…the Energy Department?s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory… found that 17 percent of U.S. oil imports could be displaced by domestic biofuels from algae.”

    What this industry needs is funding (insert grunts and groans here) so that the necessary research can commence. People can knock algae as much as they want, but algae could realistically become the next energy source, with a little help and a lot of money.

      1. Dave R

        What needs to be done is to create fuel – a higher energy state substance that can be used an an energy source. All these biodiesel projects so far have been bunk – requiring more energy input than practical.

        Biodiesel, fuel cells, solar, wind, etc are all “alternate” because they never get to the point where they are “practical”, despite decades of effort, advocacy and hope. Actual energy policy has to be predicated on what will work, not what people wish would work.

        Bush made the same gullible mistake with switchgrass.

        If this stuff were really do-able, I would be all for it. Independance from crappy third world dictators, freedom from fluctuating supply, less money going to terrorists and self-proclaimed enemies. It would be a bright, happy day when our energy needs could be met by a wide variety of cheap, clean, renewable, self sustaining technologies.

        But they are not truly viable options. They are simply not. I am so so sorry. It just won’t work, and likely never will.

  3. springer

    Obama is on record as saying that energy prices will “necessarily skyrocket” so he is happy as can be that prices are up. He doesn’t care; it isn’t affecting his pocketbook as he hasn’t bought his own gas or filled his own car for who knows how long. He is appealing to his liberal, environmentalist base and anything out of his mouth or any actions by his administration are geared to winning the 2012 election, not to doing what is best for this country or its citizens. No one is against finding alternative sources of energy; this is how all progress has been made. But this is the only administration that has been so foolish as to ignore the present, necessary forms of energy while pursuing pipedreams that are nowhere near reality as to feasibility. Other forms of energy will be developed as they have always been developed in the past, but until then we need and have a responsibility to use what we have in abundance in order to remain a viable nation and to protect our nation.

  4. Clay Bill

    Cutler Cleveland, the director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University, notes that in the U.S., the elimination of oil imports, even if possible, would only reduce, and not eliminate entirely, the nation?s strategic interests in the Middle East because the economic security of every oil-using nation — and thus the global economy — is still tied to Middle East oil.

    Middle East oil is so important to the world economy because 1) there?s so much of it there, and 2) since it?s concentrated there, it?s the cheapest place to obtain it.

    If any politician (or political blog) tells you that things will be much more economically stable in the U.S. if we become energy independent, it would be good to think again.

    Cleveland notes that increased U.S. production would have little impact on the level or volatility of oil prices. The price of oil is determined in a global market by a complex array of forces including speculation, weather, geopolitics, decisions by OPEC, and most importantly, by market fundamentals?short and long run supply and demand forces. At the margin, producing decisions made in the U.S. have little influence on this process.

    Global price determination also means that energy independence won?t protect our economy from supply disruptions abroad, according to Cleveland. He noted over a year ago that a refinery strike in Venezuela, civil war in the Niger Delta, and other events (think Libya) can quickly reduce oil production. Oil instantly becomes more expensive everywhere ? the UK, Japan, China, and the U.S. all pay pretty much the same price, Cleveland said.

    The sensitivity of our economic well being to changes in the price of oil stems from the overriding importance of ?oil? to human existence, not from our dependence on ?imported oil? per se, said Cleveland. A nation can reduce its economic vulnerability to oil price increases only by using less oil in total, regardless of whether it is produced domestically or imported.

    Meaning it’s easy for politicians of all stripes to easily pull our legs. Keystone, or drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or increased production in the gulf may all sound like feel-good projects, but politicians know the public doesn’t really understand that the U.S. will never be able to produce enough oil domestically to have a significant impact on global energy policies. Deep down inside, I wish that we could easily solve our energy problems by simply drilling more. But I know better.

    It would be nice if all political leaders ? and blogs that are both critical and supportive of them ? would be honest to us about the vexing issues involved with U.S. energy policy.

    1. Arrowhead

      BS.

      Let’s drill. Let’s create jobs. Let’s be self sufficient.

      All of these miracle fixes are at the tip of our finger tips but oil that is below the surface, a product we’ve been converting to energy for over a centrury is out of reach. Give me a break! Ethanol hasn’t solved one darn thing in this country Niether will algae.

        1. insomniac

          Why not? You could go occupy that for a while. And look like a lazy liberal bumb while the rest of america goes back to work.

  5. Anonymous

    The government built the a-bomb in, what, 7 years? Why can’t we solve the fuel problem? Lack of political will on both sides. Oh, and insomniac, get some rest. You are acting like a child.

    1. Job Creator

      You ask a good question, but your self-answer is a bit short. We can’t solve the energy issue because the politicians are owned by the status-quo energy companies. And even though the voters are the ones who put the politicians in place, the politicians serve the people who give them the money. That’s why the money people have think tanks constantly coming up with spin sandwiches to feed the masses out here who are too lazy to do enough basic research to come to an intelligent conclusion.

  6. D.E. Bishop

    Algae is a major emphasis in Iowa. Iowa State University has done a great deal of promising work on algae for a variety of purposes. Perhaps its most valuable in its ability to use carbon dioxide.

    The ISU researchers are having success in tooling algae for use in many ways, including use as fuel. Here is a helpful article from ISU to get you up to speed: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/11/genetic-tweak-brings-big-boost-in-algae-biomass/

    Nope, they don’t have it all solved yet, but they’ve got algae plants that have been running for a few years now. “BioProcess Algae Grower Harvester bioreactors located in Shenandoah, Iowa have been continually running since their Phase I launch in October, 2009.”

    Imagine if we funded this research like we subsidize outrageously profitable oil companies.

      1. Job Creator

        That’s a great idea. Now just try getting the corporate servants in DC to take those billions out of the pockets of the people who control them.

        1. Les

          This includes both parties as in the sum total of DC which also includes the last 7 presidents, or more. How do you raise half a bil without becoming owned?

          We have everything we need to succeed but the will to determine our future. This to can change, as it has for hundreds of years.

          That change will be exciting to say the least.

  7. Rapid City

    Algae as fuel is only 30 years away. Good I’ll be 58 then. How about we come up with a new plan. Drill here drill now!

  8. Duh

    ABSOLUTELY, SIMPLY THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. I would take a cloned mix of Carter, Nixon, Truman with a little spice of Ike and stir it all up in Billy Beer, before I’d ever, ever vote for that American hating piece of crap. Let’s appologize one more time for the koran burning but not a word when US soldiers are killed because of it. How outrageous. MORON.

  9. Job Creator

    It must make your stomach churn and your head ache when you realize we’re going to have four more years of Obama.

  10. Duh

    Doubtful. A summer of $5+ gas, gobal tension, every economic indicator in the shitter… doubtful. The leaders often represent those they lead. U S of Morons.

    1. Bill Fleming

      The President doesn’t have any control over the price of gas. That would be the paranoid, delusional, cowardly, lying, theiving, “kick ’em-when- they’re-down” immoral energy market speculators. There has never yet been a true market shortage of crude. Ever. And there isn’t right now either. Only an ignorant sucker would try to blame this on Obama.

      1. Job Creator

        You’re right, Bill. But with people’s access to misinformation these days, isn’t it much akin to the olden days when they blamed droughts on witches and bad luck on angry “gods?”

        1. Les

          My my how quickly they forget. My delusional brothers and sisters hammered me on GW’s Iraqi heritage in the oil biz.

          Now it is not rising oil prices they say, but falling dollars…well, they are half right.

      2. 73*

        His policies hinder production. They hurt the working family.

        While the rest of us are cutting our travel Michelle Obama isn’t cutting down on any of her vacation travel.

  11. Troy Jones

    Bill, do I have to find the video of Obama blaming Bush for high gas prices. Finally we agree, Obama is one ignorant sucker.

  12. Spartan76

    The President doesn?t have any control over the price of gas

    He does if his last name is Bush, right Bill.

    You libs blamed everything on Bush and still do. Only now that you have your liberal idiot in office, is it not the presidents fault for high gas prices. Well it is in this case, he is a whimp when it comes to Iran.

    1. Les

      S76, you are spreading misinformation with the Iran crap.

      Iran has been within a year to five of a nuke since 1982. The petro dollar is once again being threatened by Iran posing to trade oil for gold putting that final nail in the coffin of our fiat dollar.

      Of course we should nuke Iran off the map to protect our bankers.

      1. Tim Higgins

        Yeah Les Obama is really tough on Iran. Let’s see, there is this drone thing, you know the one that Iran forced down?

        Obama to Iran, Can we have our drone back? Please can we have our drone back? Pretty please? Pretty please,can we have our drone back?

        I haven’t heard, did that work for obama?

        1. Les

          Maybe you don’t understand who Leon Panetta works for Tim? He claims(all over network tv) war with Iran by spring.

          I’m also assuming, a bad thing I know but assuming you aren’t taking into consideration Iran’s capability of bringing the US petro dollar down by trading the Indian rupee and gold for oil or the Chinese Yuan and gold for oil? I’m thinking Ob’s bankster backers won’t allow him silence on that issue.

          One war at a time hopefully with Obama huh??

            1. Les

              Huh? Back to bomb the guts out of them to get our failed covert trespassing equipment returned?

              With that thought process it is no wonder the Muslim hate is so easy to ignite.

            2. Les

              I don’t know where you’ve come from Tim but if you’ve been watching any length of time you would know my probs with Iran are not Obama.

              My probs are those who spread any type of hype on why we should go to another war based upon lies that have been perpetuated over the last 30 plus years.

              You choose to see Obama as weak on Iran. I choose to want out of war so badly, I am not even willing to risk you or your children in another war based upon the needs of the bankers supporting the reserve currency of the world.

            3. Job Creator

              Tim, that drone is theirs now. We could go get it back. It’ll cost another trillion bucks. It’ll cost another 50,000 lives. And when we have that useless drone back you will be able to puff up your chest and march around saying America is the greatest country in the world. I’m volunteering you to be the first one off the chopper to go teach them ignorant Iranians a lesson or two…

  13. Bill Fleming

    Au contraire, gentlemen. Unlike Obama, GWB and Dick Cheney were paranoid, delusional, cowardly, lying, theiving, ?kick ?em-when- they?re-down? immoral energy market speculators.

  14. popeye

    Well let’s try just 1 term whith a president who is allowed to drill baby drill! and then we’ll see if a president can influence the price of gas.

    Of course Obama says nothing can be done and that isn’t surprising considering how much he relies on Hope and Change and my change is starting to disapear because of Obama’s energy policy.

  15. Dave R

    If its stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid. Drilling for oil will increase supply, which would reduce price.

    Opposition to more domestic oil production is irrational.

    1. Anonymous

      I wonder if Obama thinks creating more algae will decrease the cost of agae fuel?

      So why wouldn’t it decrease the cost of oil?

  16. Tim Higgins

    http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/thorium.html

    Health Effects of Thorium

    How can thorium affect people’s health?

    The principal concern from low to moderate level exposure to ionizing radiation is increased risk of cancer. Studies have shown that inhaling thorium dust causes an increased risk of developing lung cancer, and cancer of the pancreas. Bone cancer risk is also increased because thorium may be stored in bone
    It is still dangerous Bill

    1. Bill Fleming

      Indeed, Tim, as are coal dust, petroleum, wood fires, nuclear waste, tanning beds, over-charred meat, most mine tailings, most prescription medicines, alcoholic beverages, drano, fiberglass, etc. It would have to be regulated, of course.

  17. i...pea

    South Dakota is a chemical toilet waiting for the pump: Cory Heidelberger is driving the honey wagon.

    1. Job Creator

      And most of the people in this here blog are creating the material that must be carted off…