The latest from our
moderator (56% want replaced)
Algae is basically a simple, natural, organic, yet very efficient solar energy process and source. It can provide the negative atmospheric carbon effect we need.
Algae does not need much in terms of nutrients, a positive, it grows easily and there are many types each with different particular features. Where there is an abundance of nutrients, algae will take it up, commonly known as "algal blooms". Unfortunately, these generally go unharvested, and then decompose and release carbon back to the atmosphere. This is a reality of farming, and, with the growing global population, there will be more pressure here.
Nope you are lying - they need more than all the nitrogen and phosporus available
Algae Systems is now constructing a pilot plant covering several hectares in Mobile Bay, off the coast of Alabama, which should be operational early next year. If all the component processes work as well as they have in the research lab, the result should be carbon-negative fuels, says company president Matthew Atwood. This fuel should be able to undercut fossil petroleum prices within three or four years, he adds.
However, they will need to solve another problem for algal biofuels: fertiliser. Algae are gorge on expensive nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. At relatively small scales, wastewater from cities and croplands can easily supply these, as in Algae Systems's design. But scale up and there simply isn't enough wastewater to go around. "Human nutrient loading is simply not sufficient," says Stefan Unnasch, an energy analyst and engineer at California consultancy Life Cycle Associates. "You put more in your car every day than into your toilet." Indeed, producing even a tenth of the US's liquid fuel from algae would consume more than the entire US supply of both nitrogen and phosphorus, according to calculations by Ronald Pate, an algal biofuels specialist at Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico (Applied Energy, vol 88, p 3377).
You are a barefaced liar, explain that discrepancy
Nothing to explain, if you're wanting to create algae from waste materials that would be one way. I'd place the algae farms as near as possible to some of the greatest carbon polluters on the planet, the electrical power generation plants - plenty of food for them there.
.
Is that so? nope, its more dumb lies
Researchers may some day find a way to solve the nutrient problem by extracting and reusing nitrogen and phosphorus from the algal residue, but the biggest difficulty to scaling up is more intractable: how do you get your hands on all that CO2? Even if algae-growers could tap every last smokestack in the US, that would only be enough to produce about 75 billion litres of algal biofuel per year, according to Pate's calculations. That's less than 10 per cent of the world's current transport fuel needs. Moreover, tying biofuel production to fossil-fuel-burning industrial smokestacks merely wrings a second round of energy out of CO2. "This just postpones emissions," says Jonas Helseth, director of Bellona Europa, an environmental foundation based in Brussels, Belgium.
Lets wait for your explanation (or next lie)
