Let the renewable biofuel naysayers critisize this!

[DeepIron]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science...oil/index.html

Facinating! After bacteriums, algaes are among the most prolific, "can be grown just about anywhere" forms of life on the planet. Ironic. What we consider "pond scum" could be key in alleviating some of our biofuel woes...

Be sure to watch the embedded video as there are few "eye-opening" remarks made during the interview. One must realize however, that the reseach has a long way to go. But it looks promising!

[GlobalExplorer]

Of course we need biofuel. I am 100% convinced the future lies in technobiological fuel production (think genetically engineered bacteria/algae aka "green slime"). There is already talk of hydrogen producing algae, the problem is of course, today they are not producing enough fuel.

I mean all fossile energy was produced by photosynthesis so why not make use of it directly?

[TteFAboB]

Yup, this one's a pretty good replacement because it's compact, you don't need to waste vast extenses of land. The land you need can be found in the worthless desert.

The enviromentalists still won't like what comes out of the exhaust pipe though.

[DeepIron]

I've been experimenting with "aeroponic methods" for food production as a hobby for years and so when I read about something like this, I'm excited!

I'm really impressed with his "process". If the water is recoverable, which I believe most would be, the exception being that water which is necessary to suspend the lipids, and most of the energy needed for growth and machinery is sun powered, this could be really sustainable and a "low impact" model. Not to mention the possibility of using the algae remains AFTER the lipids are removed. The possibilities are staggering IMO.

The enviromentalists still won't like what comes out of the exhaust pipe though.

Some of those people just want to live in a perfectly balanced utopian world. The bottom line of of ANY electrical, photonic, fussion, fission, combustion or chemical reaction is that somewhere along the chain, an "undesirable" of some kind is going to manifest itself...

Hell, even if we all lived in caves, we'd have to cr*p somewhere. Right?

[Trex]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

Some of those people just want to live in a perfectly balanced utopian world. The bottom line of of ANY electrical, photonic, fussion, fission, combustion or chemical reaction is that somewhere along the chain, an "undesirable" of some kind is going to manifest itself...

Hell, even if we all lived in caves, we'd have to cr*p somewhere. Right?

No argument, but it's not an Either/Or choice.

There are a range of options. Any carbon-based fuel will pollute, but some less than others, especially when the engine system is properly designed and maintained. At the far end is perhaps solar power, but as you have noted, even that cannot be totally eco-friendly because one needs to make the gizmos to capture and transmit that power.

I think the point is to minimize that impact to the greatest extent practical. Using your own example, we no longer walk out into the yard to relieve ourselves; we have gone to considerable trouble to produce a system to deal with that biowaste.

Because we cannot do everything does not mean that we should not do anything.

[Skybird]

70% of earth'S oxygene is produced by plankton, and the plankton levels are already being drastically decimated by fishes whose natural enemies - predatory species, especially sharks - man has brought to the brink of exticntion. In many maritime areas, sharks has been reduced to level below 10% of the orignal population, and the effect oif this is immense and amongst othe rfactors has brought the ecosystem seriously off balance.

Whomever considers farming algeas on large scale hopefully spends some very intense thinking about how that could affect plankton levels in the future, since plankton already is threatened by many other factors as well.

Biofuel I do not consider to be an option for the highly industrialsed, but small nations in europe, and america. Scandinavia has the space and natural ressources to farm biofuel plants on land for it'S own usage, so has Brazil, and maybe Russia, if only it would. with China, I already get doubts.

Biofuel imo is a welcomed desparate attempt of that lobby that does not wish to realise that we need to do much more, and that a first step to that is to realize that we simply cannot go on anymore like we did. Our ways of living have to chnage, and it will be a loss of comfrotable otpions, coming at much higher prices. It will become tough, and very much so.

But it seems mankind will not act before nature has started to pick people away one by one even in the industrialised countries. Mass dying for natural desasters and changing environments in the third world obviously does not trouble many minds over here - the dying happens far, far away, so people think.

I hate to say it but in the past four years I have changed my mind and think that nuclear energy is a risky and very bad option with a lot of problems coming from it (waste, security risks, silent contamination) that nevertheless we cannot afford to ignore. At least for the forseeable future of the next 100 years. I simply see no alternative being available in time that could shoulder the energy levels needed in the near future. The German way of banning all nuclear powerplants in the next years, I consider to be madness today. when this plan was introduced quite some years ago, I was for it. Well, everybody is wrong at times. meanwhile, the Bologna process, wanting to reduce energy consummation levels, has totally collapsed. we do not see declining but massively raising energy consummaion levels worldwide. If Bologna illustrates anything, then this: how life-threatening far apart politicians and reality are. even today they still try to tell us that we could do something to stop or slow climate change - while the truth is the only answer we need to find anymore is how not to loose grip an dnot falling out of the rollercoaster we are riding in and that already has left starting position some time ago and is about to dive into the first spiral.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...e.html?ref=rss

It is not aboiut prevention, and most likely not about delaying climate chnage - it is only about adapting to it and how to survive it without mass dying of biblical scales. Planting algeas is nice and well. but maybe we should not farm them for our damn cars, but for eating. has anyone noticed that the prices for food exploded last year - and currently have entered a ohase of rasies again? and that now stockmarkets have discovered food stocks as a speculation object, which means nothing else thant artificial shortages will be created to push prices even more, and thus raise some anonymous a$$###es' profits and wins? there is this movie with Arnie, Total Recall, where in the colony on Mars a huge company raises taxes or demands money for quantums of breathing air. Well, we are getting nearer to that, at least regarding sweet water, and basic food supplies. and, who knows, maybe regarding air as well in some distant future - never say never again.

[peterloo]

Originally Posted by Trex

No argument, but it's not an Either/Or choice.

There are a range of options. Any carbon-based fuel will pollute, but some less than others, especially when the engine system is properly designed and maintained. At the far end is perhaps solar power, but as you have noted, even that cannot be totally eco-friendly because one needs to make the gizmos to capture and transmit that power.

I think the point is to minimize that impact to the greatest extent practical. Using your own example, we no longer walk out into the yard to relieve ourselves; we have gone to considerable trouble to produce a system to deal with that biowaste.

Because we cannot do everything does not mean that we should not do anything.

What our aim is that, if we can make the overall release of CO2 by all human and animal activities < the overall absorption of CO2 by green plant, algae..., we are successful.

Sonar power, of course, the panels used to capture light still needs energy to produce, yet, the CO2 released during its manufacture < the CO2 saved by using it as alternative to fossil fuel. So, the NET CO2 release is NEGATIVE and it is considered green.

[Trex]

Ideally? Of course. But let's not reject anything that moves us in the right direction. Too many ideas are being rejected because they are not a complete solution.