Yes, just like corn ethanol. It worked ... but not a good idea. It only took a few decades and a bazillion dollars in public funds to prove this point to enough people to get the subsidies stopped.
And the same applies to bio-fuel in general --- it may work but it's not a good idea. It's simply not possible to extract a significant amount of "bio-fuel" from any source without adversely affecting the food supply, the environment or both.
Coming back to the corn ethanol example, the most obvious effect was a doubling of the price of corn. The non-obvious effect is soil depletion which would eventually result in either decreased yields or increased use of petroleum based fertilizers.
yah i am pro alternative energy i just do not believe this is a viable one...liquid fuels are gona be a thing of the past..thanks for the backup jqp123...
We will still have the same question regarding ethanol; does it require more energy to produce the ethanol than it contains? If it takes 1.1 BTUs of energy to produce 1.0 BTUs worth of ethanol we are accomplishing nothing because that extra energy has to come from someplace. Any alternative fuel must have a favorable energy balance compared to the fuel it is replacing.
Not necessarily. Depends on the fuel source required. It's possible that solar power could be used to provide power needed. Or maybe natural gas can be used to produce a fuel that can offset a less efficient petroleum fuel.
And the biggest controversy comes in at how you calculate the amount of energy required to produce a fuel.
I agree, but this is not taking place in a vacuum. From an energy point of view, there is always an opportunity cost; that cleaner, more efficient energy source could be used for something else besides processing bio-fuel. Eventually the difference will be made up with a less clean, less efficient source (probably some 50 year old coal fired generating station). Unless you have a net energy gain, what you are really doing is converting a stationary power source into a portable power source, similar to charging the batteries in an electric car.
rufiohoFeb 1, 2012
Thanks E. Coli!
cb810Feb 2, 2012
You ain't good for nuthin' E Coli!
NewsMeBackFeb 1, 2012
Finally something useful from E. coli...
jqp123Feb 2, 2012
"Biofuels made from macroalgae, aka seaweed, avoid this problem [food vs fuel]".
Not really. It's still food vs fuel, the only difference is the food --- which now becomes fish.
Any sort of significant "biofuel" production will likely have an adverse effect on the price of some food and on the environment.
rudegarFeb 2, 2012
if this is a success it's likely a countdown to when we are harvesting it faster
then it can grow
dougnic55Feb 2, 2012
not a good idea but it would probably work...
jqp123Feb 2, 2012
Yes, just like corn ethanol. It worked ... but not a good idea. It only took a few decades and a bazillion dollars in public funds to prove this point to enough people to get the subsidies stopped.
And the same applies to bio-fuel in general --- it may work but it's not a good idea. It's simply not possible to extract a significant amount of "bio-fuel" from any source without adversely affecting the food supply, the environment or both.
Coming back to the corn ethanol example, the most obvious effect was a doubling of the price of corn. The non-obvious effect is soil depletion which would eventually result in either decreased yields or increased use of petroleum based fertilizers.
dougnic55Feb 2, 2012
yah i am pro alternative energy i just do not believe this is a viable one...liquid fuels are gona be a thing of the past..thanks for the backup jqp123...
sleestakslayerFeb 2, 2012
Stupid rebuttals from Alternative Energy Deniers in 3...2...1...
craig1958Feb 2, 2012
We will still have the same question regarding ethanol; does it require more energy to produce the ethanol than it contains? If it takes 1.1 BTUs of energy to produce 1.0 BTUs worth of ethanol we are accomplishing nothing because that extra energy has to come from someplace. Any alternative fuel must have a favorable energy balance compared to the fuel it is replacing.
crgauthFeb 2, 2012
Not necessarily. Depends on the fuel source required. It's possible that solar power could be used to provide power needed. Or maybe natural gas can be used to produce a fuel that can offset a less efficient petroleum fuel.
And the biggest controversy comes in at how you calculate the amount of energy required to produce a fuel.
craig1958Feb 2, 2012
I agree, but this is not taking place in a vacuum. From an energy point of view, there is always an opportunity cost; that cleaner, more efficient energy source could be used for something else besides processing bio-fuel. Eventually the difference will be made up with a less clean, less efficient source (probably some 50 year old coal fired generating station). Unless you have a net energy gain, what you are really doing is converting a stationary power source into a portable power source, similar to charging the batteries in an electric car.
imarascalFeb 2, 2012
Good,maybe that will replace the corn , which could be farmed as food instead.
untitledavFeb 2, 2012
Awesome so now at some point oil company should intervene and stop this mad experiment
alicei78768768Feb 2, 2012
this is crazy...... check what happen if you eats the stuff... video here.... http://bit.ly/nu00UJ