Michel > You're right about ethanol of course, but PV is real nice IMHO, no moving > part, no pollution, probably the highest overall efficiency, even at > Nanosolar's present 9 to 10% sun-to-electric efficiency. Even if the 50% > figure for sun-to-algoil was true --I am skeptical too--, what would be the > overall sun-to-wheel efficiency?
I am not sure "efficiency" is the main concern. If the comparative cost of the oil produced is close but acceptable, and the dollars stay at home instead of going into the hands of our enemies: Saudi Arabia in particular, then we are better off. Arabia is the home of anti-Western terrorism and the sponsor of Bin Laden, and that is all the "convincing" any of us should need. Algoil would also allow us to walk out Iraq almost immediately. But in addition to the "stay-at-home" dollars which is the big advantage (even if we must pay slightly more) we get a stable currency and a large proactive mitigation of CO2. But 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. But the most important point for a shift of investment dollars is that a decent ROI for nanosolar panels is nonexistent if you include all costs, and eliminate tax benefits. They are hiding major problems ! Some bloggers and proponents of algae fully believe that pond algae gives 4 times higher return per investment dollar than thin-film solar panels, and there are figures to support this, which of course nanosolar advocates try to minimize. The only thing which will convince most of us, and in particular: the potential investors in alternative energy- is the comparative bottom line of a fully operating system like that of Kertz. His may not be the best approach however. Despite his glowing claims, it is likely (if not obvious) that his vertical growth thing is not going to give as great a ROI because of the very high cost per acre of the enclosed space- not as high as nanosolar but twice as high as force-fed CO2 ponds. To my thinking the best implementation of Algoil is to put these CO2 ponds in immediately adjoining existing grid plants; which now belch CO2 directly into the air. That is win-win, and even though we want to see coal eliminated, eventually. In reality, that goal will take decades and in the meantime Algoil can strongly mitigate the problem. BTW has everyone seen the "Nova" (PBS) episode relating to "global dimming"? This is a big discovery, and hugely important if the numbers are accurate, because it explains two issues: 1) why a substantial minority of experts doubt the full significance of *global warming* and are actually partly correct, but at the same time 2) are doubly wrong in their erroneous models for the future effects. You must include the mitigating effects of global dimming in the past and how that has maxed-out. Without global dimming, global warming would already have pushed us past the point-of-no-return (which is the melting of the huge methane clathrate deposits) - and which will happen in 15 years anyway, without some mitigation of the problem. Nearly the whole state of Florida and most of Louisiana along with Boston and NYC will be gone within the lifetime of our children- if we do nothing! It is a very powerful message, far more factual than what Al Gore (Al Bore to his enemies) has produced; and I hope everyone who wants to weigh-in on what they see as a minimal impact of global warming (so far) will view this Nova special. Personally, and in somewhat of a reversal (or maturation) of belief I would now even have to agree with the skeptics that the impact of CO2 has been somewhat minimal to date, except in Alaska and Greenland, where it is more severe than the skeptics realize. However, I would add that it is "minimal" to the same extent as a small crack in the bottom of a large dam is minimal.... That "large dam" is metaphorically the trillions of tons of frozen methane - which if released due to higher ocean temps, is far worse, as a greenhouse gas, than is CO2. Thank heavens for global dimming. Jones
