Your thermodynamics argument suggests that it is impossible to grow more than a certain amount of algae per acre. Yet - companies are currently growing more than that amount.
How do you respond to this? Is it not obvious that the blogger's calculations are wrong? Perhaps the blogger does not have as full an understanding of the process as he claims?
Why would anyone trust his theory in the face of evidence to the contrary?
Your new link is talking about sugarcane, not algae.
Nuclear reactors were once considered the stuff of pipe-dreams; I'm just glad companies are pushing the boundaries of this technology rather than twiddling their thumbs waiting for oil to run out.
in its current farming method.... but its early stages, you don't need tractors to plant the seeds and pick the crop apart nor do you need fresh water or fertile lands, and the yeild is many times greater than other bio fuel and most of those stats are from open pond systems and not the newer and far more efficient bioreators that feed off coal burning power stations, the method has been proven it just now has to be scaled up in size for commercial use.
it is double in size every 2hours not 24
aeroscope 3 years ago 2
thus fastest at making oxygen as well as sequestering carbon, the two things needed most, or at least, most needed.
reforest4fertility 2 years ago
Say, have you read this?
greyfalcon. net/ algae4
greyfalcon. net/ algae
Works great, assuming you're willing to pay $12,000 a barrel.
greyflcn 4 years ago
And yet Greyflcn the companies are doing it right now, in your face.
"But how can this be? It is impossible."
So your calculations are quite obviously wrong.
roidroid 3 years ago
Being able to do it isn't the issue.
It's issue of cost.
And the issue of cost is largely made difficult by the weak thermodynamics.
greyfalcon. net/ sugarsolar
greyflcn 3 years ago
Your thermodynamics argument suggests that it is impossible to grow more than a certain amount of algae per acre. Yet - companies are currently growing more than that amount.
How do you respond to this? Is it not obvious that the blogger's calculations are wrong? Perhaps the blogger does not have as full an understanding of the process as he claims?
Why would anyone trust his theory in the face of evidence to the contrary?
Your new link is talking about sugarcane, not algae.
roidroid 3 years ago
Valcent seems to indicate at 2:30 in this video that they are aware of the thermodynamic debate, and that it is flawed.
watch?v=DGj6quVUChg
i didn't really understand his explanation, but it shows that they are aware of your flawed point.
roidroid 3 years ago
Diesel engines were ran on coaldust at one point; didn't stop people continuing making it more efficient.
MCH1984 2 years ago
re: MCH1984
No doubt.
However the point being that it's not about the processing.
It's photosynthesis itself which is your major bottleneck.
And just in general, the raw ingredients for the fuel.
And short of any gigantic breakthrough the "feedstock" for biofuels is either far too limited, or far too expensive.
greyflcn 2 years ago
Nuclear reactors were once considered the stuff of pipe-dreams; I'm just glad companies are pushing the boundaries of this technology rather than twiddling their thumbs waiting for oil to run out.
MCH1984 2 years ago
in its current farming method.... but its early stages, you don't need tractors to plant the seeds and pick the crop apart nor do you need fresh water or fertile lands, and the yeild is many times greater than other bio fuel and most of those stats are from open pond systems and not the newer and far more efficient bioreators that feed off coal burning power stations, the method has been proven it just now has to be scaled up in size for commercial use.
brendo80 3 years ago 2