Jones Beene
Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:34:37 -0700
Let me correct this: > a major point not yet made is to remember that Kertz's algae produce 50% oil > and almost 50% protein (food), so if the efficiency is 35% for the oil - it > is 70% for the net biomass, and the food may be just as important as the oil > to the third world. This is especially true since corn is being used to make > ethanol and is comparatively low in protein anyway. Well that is surely wildly optimistic. Kertz's technique appears to be between 25-30% efficient for the oil, which is half of the biomass. That is: if we could believe that the numbers presented by him are fully accurate, and also fully scalable to many acres, and fairly robust, weather-proof, etc....? This would actually reconcile his numbers with those already published by others which claim that Algae conversion efficiency can go up to 50% of the solar energy. It should be noted that there are also far lower figures than that in the older literature. And even so, it would be 50% for the total biomass *on a best case scenario* of which half may be lipids. One should then discount that number by the usual factors which almost always make complicated processes come-out to be less efficient than the best case scenario- but also realizing that here, the best possible bio-engineered "scum" has probably not yet been found or hybridized. If there was ever a good place for genetic engineering to be put to good use, this would seem to be it. Bottom line: even if Kertz is off on the high side by 100%- the system is better than anything else which has such an advantageous ecological footprint. Even wind energy does not actively remove CO2- plus as mentioned, there is little reason that the algae site cannot share its required land with windmills. I've never been to a desert that wasn't windy. Jones