Jed wrote. > > Frederick Sparber wrote: > > >BTW, Jed. > > > >The lagoons required around livestock operations produce copious > >amounts of algae year around without any odor. The CO2 produced by > >Anerobic bacteria synergises it the manures produce more than enough > >nutrients too. > > Yup. When I said "if it is only 0.1% efficient, like photosynthesis . > . ." I meant dry land plant photosynthesis on average in North > America. Aquatic plants are a whole different story. > Efficiency doesn't matter, if the cost of a barrel of fuel and environmental protection is reasonable. > > Actually, naturally occurring aquatic plants in North America in > swamps and wetlands to not produce all that much more biomass than > dry land plants. They are limited by nutrients and sunlight, whereas > dry land plants are of limited by water supplies. However, algae that > is fertilized artificially by people would be limited only by the > plant physiology, and it is not clear what the upper limits are. (Not > clear to me, anyway. I read two books and asked several experts about > this, and they do not appear to know either.) > Judging by the deposits of Oil Shale in Utah-Colorado, I would say algae can do quite well in the right environment. > > I estimated that the lettuce grown in the Japanese food factory > converts roughly 15% of the light into biomass. It grows under > optimum conditions, in aqueous solution. See chapter 16 of my book. > Hydroponics gardening works that way.
Fred > > - Jed > >
