What is Digg?35 Comments
- FullOfCrap, on 08/27/2008, -0/+9We have to start looking ardently for alternatives. This could be one, who knows. :) Thanks for sharing.
- JenniferInMO, on 08/27/2008, -0/+8This is really interesting. There is no silver bullet which will get us off of fossil fuels and biofuels needs to be a part of the solution. I love reading about advances like these. BTW please see my post on "clean coal":
http://usaenvironment.blogspot.com/2008/08/clean-c ... - McSwankypants, on 08/27/2008, -0/+6You had me at "ardently."
- philomathie, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5How is this not renewable?
It is essentially just another form of storing solar power - as hydrocarbons when this bacteria is refined.
It is not adding any net carbon to the atmosphere, it just captures carbon already in the air. - AZTriGuy, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5Perfect, I've got recurring breakouts of cyanobacteria in my saltwater fish tank. I can just stop fighting it and killing it off, grow my own, and become an energy trader!
- atact88, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3Neutral net carbon cycle is the idea behind it.
CO2 + H2O --> FUEL --> CO2 + H2O
Repeat. - Bluemanz, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2What, is the algae from last week old news now?
- curtisag, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2Yea, no *****, every time we hear about a new energy source the following week there's another story about the next great thing. I'm all in favor of creative destruction, but can we latch onto an idea and run with it already?
- TheMachine1, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2Its still has the same technical constraints as algae culture. Which is ideal conditions of CO2, temperature, nutrients, mixing, an enormous water source or a closed system to prevent its lost, etc will be needed to get high yields per acre.
Thats means lots of capital cost. The article said 10 to 1 advantage of cyanobacteria over tradition crops but the capital cost for culturing algae or cynaobacteria absolutely has to be much more that 10 times that of tradition crops. Break throughs in biology would be nice but they are not the bottleneck in the process. The bottleneck is plant construction cost. - valy8851, on 08/27/2008, -1/+3clean energy resources are for children of our children! Nuclear Fusion have an horizon of 50 yrs!
Leibniz have invented mechanical computer quite 200 yrs. before technology arrive at profitability point! - elementop, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2Nuts...beat me to it :)
- JQP123, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2"Cheap and easy to make."
Don't you realize how much corn and sugarcane a human can consume? Better to use this to produce ethanol instead. - mountainweb, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1"the technology will be in development for another 10 to 20 years" in other words someone had better be pumping oil to fill the gap. A major issue we have with the "alternates" is not ready for prime time. We need to be developing as many alternates as possible but a dose of reality must be faced in the meantime.
- spoonchucks, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1Dude, you are so FullOfCrap...
- SuperHyperKid, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Haha, I see what you did there.
- slapthemonkey, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1The potential for bio fuels is immense.
- atact88, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Didn't say I agreed with biofuels. Just explaining the rationale behind it.
- Versh, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Next week:
Cell organelles are the future energy source-- don't ask how or why! Say so long to your mitochondria!
Anyway, I would think the scientists are trying every avenue so I guess it's not really too surprising. Besides, I'm sure they're not discarding entire methods at the first slight inclination of failure... - maxjames007, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1interesting.
- smurfsahoy, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1That's nice, but 10% is only a quarter of the 40% of sunlight's energy we can get from PV cells, charging batteries in electric cars...
And then on top of that you have 20% efficiency for an internal combustion engine, and about 90% efficiency for an electric motor, so the disadvantage for biofuel climbs to a factor of EIGHTEEN times less efficient per meter of sunlight.
That's just silly. - ap1983, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Algae, is there nothing you can't do?
- leerayIG88, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1I think we need to use Humans as fuel. Too many humans in this world. Cheap and easy to make.
- wonderchemist, on 08/27/2008, -2/+3Not in my backyard!
- elementop, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1cyano-*bacteria*...not algae, fwiw
- JQP123, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Fossils fuels are bad. They pollute the environment and create global warming.
So why are we trying to make more?
I just don't get bio-fuels. Or better yet, I don't get why so many people support the idea, particularly among those who profess to be environmentally conscious. - jimbo92107, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1The sky is so very blue today...
- stutimandal, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1This week's biofuel revolution at Digg is Cyanobacteria.
Really, can we talk about these breakthrough after it actually works on an industrial scale? - elementop, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Is that supposed to be "grrr" in pig-latin???
- EffYoo, on 08/27/2008, -1/+1Well, I guess it's renewable. It still isn't clean to burn the fuel just because it comes from bacteria. Renewables & electrics will win out, these biofuel ideas that will take 15 years to develop will be obsolete before they can reach a production stage.
- jonathangerlach, on 08/27/2008, -2/+2Green, not Cyan. BURIED.
- vgarlington, on 11/02/2008, -0/+0Bacteria, Algae, when you think about it all sound so dubious when you think about them in other areas of our lives. Hey but when to talk about saving money on fuel and our environment, it sounds like a wonderful song on warm and sunny day on the beach with your friends. This will be good for us all
- darkpred, on 08/27/2008, -0/+0The Judas Strain anyone?
- JQP123, on 08/27/2008, -1/+1Given a "neutral net carbon cycle", there are still lots of adverse effects associated with trying to grow fuel.
The most immediate and obvious being the global rise in food prices. Any way you look at it "Bio-fuel" equals "Higher food prices". Regardless of what crop is grown, energy farms will always compete for land, water and other resources needed for food farms.
Cheap food or bio-fuel. Pick one and only one. - jonathangerlach, on 08/27/2008, -1/+0urgay
- inactive, on 08/26/2008, -6/+110 or 20 years? umm, I think we should just go back to coal... that'd be awesome. Coal-burning cars FTW!!!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is