the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Wow

Posted by Jeff Id on October 29, 2010

There are far more interesting things going on in the thread below, but this is just way too insane not to publish.  It’s by Steve Goddard, on the algae based biofuel scam.  As Air Vent readers know, algae biofuel is a complete scam.   If you have money in it, plan to get out early.  Of course with government in charge, there is always the possibility that you will get paid 63 million dollars to make 150,000 gallons.  The disgusting thing about it is that this money was for our troops to fight war, not for throwing down a toilet.  Basing a fleet on this is dangerous and stupid and our people deserve better, wars are to be won not to be screwed around with.

Read the article at Steve Goddards blog – link on big title, and be sure to read the the main article.  I pray it’s bad information.

—–


It Costs $424 Per Gallon, It Ruins Your Engine, But It Is Green!

US navy completes successful test on boat powered by algae

The experimental boat, intended for use in rivers and marshes and eventually destined for oil installations in the Middle East, operated on a 50/50 mix of algae-based fuel and diesel.


45 Responses to “Wow”

  1. Jeff Id said

    It’s so stupid it hurts.

  2. Sam said

    The really stupid thing is that the navy already uses quite a few nuclear ships and if they want to be independent of middle east oil then they should just build more. My dad served on a nuclear cruiser in the late 70’s, the technology is proven and when you consider the cost of research into algae and implementation of completely new technology, it is probably cheaper to just use nuclear.

  3. stan said

    Like Algore’s diversion of intelligence assets to spy on global warming.

  4. Andrew said

    This a really outrageous story. But you know, it is very also alarming. If green political correctness has infiltrated the military, then there is no function of government beyond corruption into this sort of thing, even the legitimate functions of defense.

    Everything “progessivism” touches turns to crap.

  5. boballab said

    Yes this is stupid but it’s not that bad yet.

    First they are using this fuel for small craft not for ships like Destroyers and up. The Destroyers the Navy uses (The Arleigh Burke Class) are built using gas turbine technology because the older diesel engines, while being more efficient are not as responsive as gas turbines (same argument the Army used in the Abrams tank). Gas turbines spin up to full power faster and can respond to power changes during combat faster then diesels. They do not put Nuclear Power plants on ships destroyer sized, again due to size of the needed equipment and also because it takes a good long while for a Nuc Plant to go online after being shut down (Yes the Navy shuts down the shipboard plants when they are in port for long stretches of time). This means if the shit hits the fan it will take awhile for a ship with a nuc plant to spin up compared to a ship with gas turbines. The USN wants to have ships that they can flush from port in a hurry and that is what the Gas Turbines gives them and something an algae-diesel powered plant won’t.

    The destroyers are powered by four GE LM 2500 gas turbines, each rated at 33,600hp with a power turbine speed of 3,600rpm, driving two shafts, with controllable pitch propellers.

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke/

    For Carriers they haven’t made a conventional Carrier since the 1960/70’s they are all Nuclear powered since then and will be far into the future. The reason why they like the Nuclear plants in carriers, even with the penalty for how long it takes to start one up after it has been shut down, is that they do not have to carry fuel for their own engines. This allows the Carriers to carry more Jet fuel for the aircraft and fuel for the gas turbined destroyers and cruisers that make up it’s escort.

    Cruisers are starting to become a thing of the past in the USN right now due to cost, the added bene’s in size are not out-weighting the costs over the smaller Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers. The few Nuclear powered Crusiers the USN had were very big for their class and not that capable. However the Tico class cruisers are also gas turbine powered.

    The Navy’s FY2011 budget also proposes terminating the Navy’s planned CG(X) cruiser program as unaffordable. Rather than starting to procure CG(X)s around FY2017, as the Navy had previously envisaged, the Navy is proposing to build an improved version of the DDG-51, called the Flight III version, starting in FY2016.

    http://opencrs.com/document/RL32109/2010-02-26/?24684

    So don’t expect to see the USN with algea powered ships any time soon.

  6. Richard Sexton said

    “It Costs $424 Per Gallon, It Ruins Your Engine, But It Is Green!”

    From the referenced article: “Fossil fuels are also horrendously expensive. By the time it reaches a war zone, the true cost of a gallon of petrol is well over $400.”

    Given the latter has a century of refinement, has economy of scale in manufacture and is in a dwindling supply (which means the price will only go up) then $34 more for something that can be made from chicken shit and will get cheaper over time…

    Did you guys even read the article?

  7. Adam Gallon said

    Mobil (?) have been running ads on Eurosport (UK/European satellite channel), with some guy rattling on about algae – pretty colours! basically – being a potential fuel of the future.
    Still, isn’t Megacity 1 being fed by algal vats in the 2000AD comic?

  8. RomanM said

    #6

    Let me see…do I have this straight? They can buy this stuff AT the corner war zone algae station for only $424 per gallon? A real bargain …or maybe the cost of getting petrol to the war zone is what adds costs of $400 with only an initial $4 or $5 actual cost to acquire it at the source.

    Didn’t you even do the math? ;)

  9. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Military procurement as idiotic public relations… welcome to the politically correct 21st century. You are right Jeff, it is so stupid it hurts.

  10. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Nothing a brief committee hearing in the House of Representatives couldn’t straighten out….. after the beginning of January, that is.

  11. Brian H said

    Re: Andrew (Oct 29 13:08), That’s not accidental.

  12. Brian H said

    Re: Richard Sexton (Oct 29 14:06),
    I expect the $400 premium for regular diesel transport to A-stan would also apply to algae-fuel. Don’t you ever think?

  13. timetochooseagain said

    11- I have long since come to that same conclusion. Think about it. In the process of “fixing” one problem, you create a new one…you’d never become obsolete as the “problem solvers”.

  14. Ecoeng said

    I hate to rain on your parade Jeff and I do agree with you that the algae-to-fuel industry is partly populated with dodgy venture companies which make outrageous claims.

    But you need to be aware that there is a very large literature on the subject of cyanobacterial energetics and solar (PAR) conversion efficiency, both in natural systems and in ‘unnatural’ man-made systems (both ecologically stable and unstable) some of it, ironically, involving excellent papers by Makarieva and Gorshkov.

    Unfortunately I am presently travelling in the US for my work (am Australian) and can’t respond in technical detail to your various points but may I recommend that you check some of the literature out and at least e.g. try to get a copy of the 10-year USDOE study on algae cultivation.

    Some points you may not be aware off:

    Cyanobacterial solar conversion efficiency of around 14% is achievable with certain bioreactor configurations.

    This is not necessarfily a critical issue anyway IF CO2 scrubbing of fossil fuel plant off gases is the goal as the key issue there is efficiency of CO2 uptake. In that case low light efficiency is tolerable.

    An associate of mine (a brilliant chemical engineer who designed one of the most efficient bioethanol plants in the world) has calculated that several structures similar to large city-style multi-level carparks would be adequate for producing counter-current scrubbing which would remove most CO2 from the exhaust gases of large coal fired power stations (>Gigawatt).

    There are also energy efficiencies to be gained in cyanobacterial energy conversion by mimicking natural systems where there are mixed consortia which use the ‘quorum sensing’ principle to optimize system energetics/biomass production. You may not be aware that many common oceanic cyanobacteria can survive up to ~100 days in the complete absence of light and can even grow under unusual conditions of apparent zero light in the flooded workings of underground coal mines i.e. they can switch to heterotrophic growth and/or use luminescent consorting bacteria e.g. Vibrio spp at will.

    This ‘algae story’ is by definitely no means energetically as facile as your simple calculations imply and the manufacture of biofuel from algae (= utilizing waste CO2 to make useful socially products efficiently) is by no means a scam, nor, I might add, is utilization of algae as high efficient bulk CO2 sequestors.

    This reality is why the whole AGW green movement hates (or ignores) algal cultivation so much – see e.g. their rabid opposition to oceanic iron fertilization trials which despite their lies, have largely been very successful at producing CO2 sequestration on a bulk scale.

    An emerging algae-based high technology strikes at the very heart of what they really want to do to our civilization. Think about it. Please.

  15. M. Simon said

    #2 Sam,

    That would have been the Long Beach unless it was the Bainbridge which was upgraded from frigate to cruiser.

    I was an RO (rod yanker) on the Bainbridge. Mid 60s. Vietnam tour. Cruised with the Long Beach and Enterprise.

    BTW because of crew training expenses nuc power is not economical for ships smaller than carriers. Which is why the Navy has built no new nuc cruisers since the retirement of the Long Beach and the Bainbridge.

  16. Jeff Id said

    Ecoeng,

    I would be interested in seeing photosynthesis at 14 percent, let alone a conversion efficiency from solar of 14 percent. There is quite a bit of literature that claims the max theoretical efficiency is far lower than even that. The best paper I’ve read came in at 9% theoretical max, the paper was blasted by several biologists here for unrealistically high efficiency. I very much doubt the 14 percent number but if you can produce a paper, I’ll read it.

  17. M. Simon said

    This means if the shit hits the fan it will take awhile for a ship with a nuc plant to spin up compared to a ship with gas turbines.

    Sorta true. Starting a nuc ship from cold iron to full power takes 6 hours. In an emergency it can be done in much less time. I was part of a 30 minute hot re-start in a combat zone once (actual time about 24 minutes).

    The difficulty is Xenon build up in the core post shutdown. That takes about 3 days to dissipate if the core was operating at full power for a few days before shut down. Less time for lower power operation. And low power operation can burn out some of the Xenon from high power operation. It can be calculated well enough to give some idea of rod position at restart. And knowing the rod position for restart is very important for safety.

  18. boballab said

    M. Simon said

    October 29, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    I was an RO (rod yanker) on the Bainbridge. Mid 60s. Vietnam tour. Cruised with the Long Beach and Enterprise.

    M. Simon said

    October 29, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Sorta true. Starting a nuc ship from cold iron to full power takes 6 hours. In an emergency it can be done in much less time. I was part of a 30 minute hot re-start in a combat zone once (actual time about 24 minutes).

    NNPS Class 8602 graduate/NNPTU Windsor Locks :)

  19. M. Simon said

    boballab,

    An honor sir.

    Re: nucs – as geeky as you can get and still be at the pointy end of the spear.

  20. Ecoeng said

    It’s well within the realm of achievability by maximising spectral range and consortial diversity, with or without GM. A (slightly dated) comprehensive review is here:

    http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/NjaBZp8qVXt6XGURnPlAWQ/John_Raven_WorkshopSep2009.pdf

    Here is an example of how fast the field is being altered by sudden jumps in knowledge:

    http:/www.calacademy.org/sciencetoday/boosting-solar-efficiency/

    Bottom line? The current rate of increase in our microbiological/biochemical knowledge of photolithotrophy is very much faster than our rate of increase of knowledge of solid state phenomena. It was only about two decades ago we realised the predominant cyanobacterium in the oceans was a nano-cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus at ~100,000 cell/mL.

  21. Ecoeng said

    Darius Abramavicius and Shaul Mukamel. Quantum oscillatory exciton migration in photosynthetic reaction centers. Journal of Chemical Physics, 2010; (forthcoming)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100721154236.htm

    Elisabetta Collini, Cathy Y. Wong, Krystyna E. Wilk, Paul M. G. Curmi, Paul Brumer & Gregory D. Scholes. Coherently wired light-harvesting in photosynthetic marine algae at ambient temperature. Nature, 2010; 463 (7281): 644 DOI: 10.1038/nature08811

  22. Jeff Id said

    Ecoeng,

    I’ve read your links as promised yet nothing in either of the two links seems to address total photosynthetic efficiency which is the absolute requirement for fuel production. Most articles rate it practically at around 6 percent maximum. There are probably some links in the biofuel threads here.

  23. Ecoeng said

    Jeff

    I don’t know why you insist ona 6% maximum unless you are saying that approximates the current large scale photoreactor design-limited value. That is probably about right, but as I stated above there are many reasons, even outside of design constraints (which themselves may not apply in a mixed consortium situation for the reasons I gave) why that is not a real limit even for pure cultures

    Good quality studies on Chlorella which has been an intensively lab-studied alga for very many years due to its human consumption show about 18% in vitro – for example:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jctb.503300105/abstract

  24. Ecoeng said

    And here’s a web reference to a theoretical efficiency list (which I had to locate again as I’m only a few 1000 miles from my office/library) for a suite of mostly common freshwater algae (Synechococcus being the only marine one) compared with a mixed consortium:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2876029/table/pone-0010821-t002/

    I’d say 14% is a pretty fair assessment of an average value for the theoretical efficiency for mono-cultures and likely an under assessment for stable (self-optimized) mixed consortia.

  25. Jeff Id said

    “I don’t know why you insist ona 6% maximum”

    Because that’s what I found in the literature. The theoretical limit of the efficiency of photosynthesis using clorophyl.

    It’s not that bad if these efficiencies can be achieved, now I wonder about the role of the food source, the wavelenghts used and general setup of the experiment. Can you provide the whole paper in 23, abstracts don’t have a lot of meaning.

  26. Jeff Id said

    Perhaps this is why you are finding good efficiency.

    “The photosynthetic efficiency was independent of the incident light intensity over the range studied, 5.3–21.3 W m^2″

    Dunno but that’s very little light.

  27. Jeff Id said

    Also, this sounds like a very unrealistic solar equivalent.

    “The light source had a spectral range of 400–700 nm and its mean wavelength was assumed to be 575 nm. ”

    I used to like algae biofuel until I looked at the numbers. Send the paper if you can.

  28. Ecoeng said

    You need to bone up on the theory of phototrophs. The full paper of the 2nd reference I gave was just a click away. It references numerous relevant reviews BTW.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2876029/

  29. jeff id said

    I was interested in the first which said 18% the second said this:

    “The yield of harvested electron varied from 0.051% (for Leptolyngbya) to 0.3% (for pond consortium). Although all yields were within one order of magnitude of each other these yields should be regarded as semi-quantitative since technical difficulties precluded accurate estimation of the biofilm biomass in individual cultures. ”

    It also said this:

    “By measuring the amount of electrons passing through the electrical circuits of MFCs under well controlled illumination conditions, it was possible to estimate the apparent yield of electrons harvested by the MFC anodes to the photons available for photosynthesis for each culture (Table 2). The yield of harvested electron varied from 0.051% (for Leptolyngbya) to 0.3% (for pond consortium). Although all yields were within one order of magnitude of each other these yields should be regarded as semi-quantitative since technical difficulties precluded accurate estimation of the biofilm biomass in individual cultures. While, in general, the yield of electron discharge appeared to be quite low, we found that it could be substantially increased by improving the design of the electron-harvesting system [15]. ”

    This is the third link you have sent me without support for your points that I can see. Please take a link with a specific quote so I can follow your meaning. You are more versed in this science so you should be able to be a little more direct than a whole 20 page paper. Ecoeng, I know you read and comment here sometimes, but really if you are right, we will have no choice. Show me the paper and the quote, all of us will be forced to agree. Show us non-specific unrelated compilations of thousands of words, and the discussion becomes difficult.

  30. Frank K. said

    I am all in favor of alternative fuels as long a they are privately developed. I also believe that folks such as Ecoeng, if they really believe in this product, should sell everything they own (house, cars, jewels, etc.) to help fund this emerging industry, and leave us U.S. taxpayers alone. Are you willing to do this Ecoeng?

    In the end, most green advocates (like government scientists, IPCC, Al Gore) are really after YOUR “green” (tax money = Climate Ca$h)…

  31. Jeff Id said

    Frank,

    Algae is far worse than advertised. Although the abstract to the one article above claimed very high efficiency in comparison to any other paper I’ve found, there are a lot of other factors which influence how much fuel is made from that efficiency.

    http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e05.htm

    Any analysis of biomass energy production must consider the potential efficiency of the processes involved. Although photosynthesis is fundamental to the conversion of solar radiation into stored biomass energy, its theoretically achievable efficiency is limited both by the limited wavelength range applicable to photosynthesis, and the quantum requirements of the photosynthetic process. Only light within the wavelength range of 400 to 700 nm (photosynthetically active radiation, PAR) can be utilized by plants, effectively allowing only 45 % of total solar energy to be utilized for photosynthesis. Furthermore, fixation of one CO2 molecule during photosynthesis, necessitates a quantum requirement of ten (or more), which results in a maximum utilization of only 25% of the PAR absorbed by the photosynthetic system. On the basis of these limitations, the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy conversion is approximately 11%. In practice, however, the magnitude of photosynthetic efficiency observed in the field, is further decreased by factors such as poor absorption of sunlight due to its reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels. The net result being an overall photosynthetic efficiency of between 3 and 6% of total solar radiation.

    The 1980 abstract Ecoeng linked has chlorophyll working over two times better than what is standard understanding still today – 30 years later. This link said a theoretical max of 11 percent, I’ve read recent papers which peg it at 9, only half of that can go into oil because the rest powers the plant so you have an extremely inefficient collector of energy – and therefore claims of huge gallons an acre are completely bogus. The acreage required to produce reasonable quantities of fuel from this stuff is prohibitive.

  32. Jeff Id said

    Slide 3 of this 2008 presentation is interesting

    http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/dismukes.pdf

    but its efficiency claims are pretty high considering the support land required.

  33. Frank K. said

    Jeff Id said
    October 30, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Hi Jeff. Thanks for the links. Regardless of the efficiency claims one way or the other, if private venture capitalists want to fund this industry, then great! Let them take the risk. If they develop a product people will want to purchase, then they will reap their investment reward many times over.

    Sadly, many eco-advocates talk a good game but NEVER put any of their OWN money into these projects. Rather, they want to put MY money (e.g. tax money) at risk…

  34. Jeff Id said

    I agree Frank, if they can make money, let em just keep the govt out of it.

  35. DeWitt Payne said

    Fixing CO2 is just the first step in the process. For algal oil production the carbohydrates produced by fixing CO2 have to be converted into hydrocarbons by the algae. That’s an inefficient endothermic reaction so more solar energy will be required. The important number is the fraction of incoming solar energy from the full solar spectrum that is converted into the final product, diesel grade oil. For that calculation it will be necessary to assume that all the energy required for the process comes from the algae or algae byproducts. I’m assuming that the engineering problem of diffusing the direct solar radiation over a wider area, which is too intense for maximum efficiency for much of the day, has been solved.

  36. Sam said

    #15. Actually I think my father was on the USS Mississippi (DLGN/CGN 40), Virginia class guided-missile nuke cruiser. He’s told me before but I always forget. I believe he was on the first crew aboard, and it was deployed in 78′, so the timing works.

  37. TerryMN said

    Hmm…..

    What is the maximum efficiency with which photosynthesis can convert solar energy into biomass?

    Xin-Guang Zhu 1, Stephen P Long 1, 2 and Donald R Ort 1, 2, 3,
    1Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, United States
    2Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, United States
    3Photosynthesis Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Urbana, IL 61801, United States

    Available online 18 April 2008.
    Photosynthesis is the source of our food and fiber. Increasing world population, economic development, and diminishing land resources forecast that a doubling of productivity is critical in meeting agricultural demand before the end of this century. A starting point for evaluating the global potential to meet this goal is establishing the maximum efficiency of photosynthetic solar energy conversion. The potential efficiency of each step of the photosynthetic process from light capture to carbohydrate synthesis is examined. This reveals the maximum conversion efficiency of solar energy to biomass is 4.6% for C3 photosynthesis at 30 °C and today’s 380 ppm atmospheric [CO2], but 6% for C4 photosynthesis. This advantage over C3 will disappear as atmospheric [CO2] nears 700 ppm.

  38. Ecoeng said

    Sure beats me how you can claim I’m quoting a 1980 paper when I was actually quoting a May 2010 study pertaining to the actual electrogenic yields (yield of electrons as a fraction of the theoretical quantum yield). Note here that we haven’t even discussed the issue of harnessing phototrophs electrochemically.

    The well known November 2009 Weyer et al review (currently the commonly accepted industry assessment) clearly shows that the actual theoretical maximum yield for biomass is exactly 26.7%. Due to practical efficiency limitations on terms of of their calculation this is comopnly reduced to ~3.5%. But there is no reason why this cannot, by virtue of improved designs go to 7% (good bioreactors alrteady achive around that value) or (e.g. with thin film technology) ~14%. The value of 14% is certainly often exceed in vitro e.g. Chlorella 18%, even without well engineered thin films.

    Basically you are trying to say that commercial yields of biodiesel etc will never approach the laboratory in vitro yields and hence it is all a crock of shit.

    On the other hand you could go back to the history of industrial microbiological synthesis of numerous products now made routinely by that route and look at how modern industrial yields rate against the yields exhibited by original in vitro studies. You would get a surprise.

    Too many people here who may be good physicists commenting without acquiring much microbiological or biochemical knowledge. I know, I know, it’s all physics in the end I hear you cry. Going for another ‘consensus’ are we???

  39. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: Ecoeng (Oct 31 23:53),

    I’ve looked at the Weyer 2009 review. Have you actually read it? It’s far less optimistic than you imply. Here’s just one quote on how the theoretical maximum production rate was calculated.

    For the theoretical case, total solar irradiance was calculated assuming year-round clear skies and minimal atmospheric absorption. With these assumptions, theoretically maximum total solar irradiance is a function of latitude alone, shown in Fig. 1 for sea level. Calculations for this graph used the Bird Clear Sky Model [4], with the following inputs for minimal atmospheric absorption: 0.05 cm total column ozone thickness, 0.01 cm total column water vapor thickness, 0.02 aerosol optical depth at 500 nm, and 0.1 aerosol optical depth at 380 nm.

    [my emphasis]

    Then there’s this report to the IEA Bioenergy Task 39. Only government could sponsor research with this many critical knowledge gaps and long time horizon.

    Realizing the strategic potential of algal feedstocks will require breakthroughs, not only in algal mass culture and downstream processing technologies, but also in the fundamental biology related to algal physiology and the regulation of algal biochemical pathways.

    A 5% contribution of algal biofuels to total biofuels supply by 2030 would require the construction of 170 100 ML facilities. When the technical uncertainty is considered it seems unlikely that the first large scale plant would be commissioned before the middle of the coming decade, and even this would be ambitious.

    There is, in fact, no guarantee that economically viable large scale production of algal based biodiesel will succeed at all. This sort of thing in industry has way less than a 50% chance of success. Building a space elevator seems more probable to me.

  40. jeff id said

    Ecoeng,

    You started by asking how I could make such claims about algae but the numbers used in the calculations were generous ones taken right from industry. You provided one paper which directly addressed the photons/reaction but only the abstract is available. The paper is below:

    The 18percennt paper linked by you above:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jctb.503300105/abstract

    reads:

    Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology Volume 30, Issue 1, pages 25–34, 1980

    First published online 2007. And it claims a maximum photoefficiency of 4.8 photons. This is the key number. No one has provided the whole paper, so it is a mystery how they came up with a number that is so much lower than anyone else even 30 years later.

    “The well known November 2009 Weyer et al review (currently the commonly accepted industry assessment) clearly shows that the actual theoretical maximum yield for biomass is exactly 26.7%.”

    I suggest you go back and read it, DeWitt is right. They admit the true efficiency accepted by industry is 8 photons yet use 3.5 because nothing in simple calculations of perfect energy say it is impossible. Then they uses clear sky year round, rather than measured light values. Then they point out that photosynthesis becomes substantially less efficient in high light regimes but use the best value anyway. They use only 5% loss of light passing into the water medium. Max efficiency through the whole day. etc. on and on. It reads like it was meant to sell something as possible, while not quite lying about the reality.

    My calculations used actual light with very generous numbers to algae and came up with values (unsurprisingly) greater than have been achieved in production. And they show quite clearly that using industry numbers, algae biofuel is a terrible way to catch light energy. As was stated above though, if you can make money at it, be my guest. Just don’t use my money.

    Also like I said, if you provide a paper which actually supports the claims you are making, I’ll read it with an open mind. So far these links don’t support your claim. Until someone invents superchlorophyll, it looks like scam technology to me.

  41. Frank K. said

    Ecoeng sez…

    “On the other hand you could go back to the history of industrial microbiological synthesis of numerous products now made routinely by that route and look at how modern industrial yields rate against the yields exhibited by original in vitro studies. You would get a surprise.”

    Well there you have it! Ecoeng should sell everything he owns and invest it in the up and coming
    algae-based fuel industry. I’m sure he will do this as he is so confident it will work. That way we can avoid using my tax money, and Ecoeng will be the big winner.

  42. Jeff Id said

    Here is a link which should have been added to the discussion.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/what-about-algae-biofuel-hype/

  43. Ecoeng said

    Here is another link which should be added to the discussion.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100415085344.htm

  44. Jeff Id said

    #43 Ecoeng,

    Do you have any information of how the plankton react in higher carbon environments?

  45. My spouse and I stumbled over here coming from a different web page and thought I might as well check things out.
    I like what I see so i am just following you. Look
    forward to going over your web page for a second time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers

%d bloggers like this: