- This topic has 35 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
an.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 25, 2009 at 1:56 PM #387639April 25, 2009 at 2:29 PM #387655
temeculaguy
ParticipantI read some other articles and it doesn’t need to be fresh water, Saltwater, wastewater, brackish, it just need to be liquid. And the water is not destroyed in the process so it can be re-used.
But like AN pointed out, it would not ideally be a San Diego thing, there are plenty of places in the U.S. where they have lots of water, it literally falls out of the sky.
April 25, 2009 at 2:29 PM #387184temeculaguy
ParticipantI read some other articles and it doesn’t need to be fresh water, Saltwater, wastewater, brackish, it just need to be liquid. And the water is not destroyed in the process so it can be re-used.
But like AN pointed out, it would not ideally be a San Diego thing, there are plenty of places in the U.S. where they have lots of water, it literally falls out of the sky.
April 25, 2009 at 2:29 PM #387849temeculaguy
ParticipantI read some other articles and it doesn’t need to be fresh water, Saltwater, wastewater, brackish, it just need to be liquid. And the water is not destroyed in the process so it can be re-used.
But like AN pointed out, it would not ideally be a San Diego thing, there are plenty of places in the U.S. where they have lots of water, it literally falls out of the sky.
April 25, 2009 at 2:29 PM #387451temeculaguy
ParticipantI read some other articles and it doesn’t need to be fresh water, Saltwater, wastewater, brackish, it just need to be liquid. And the water is not destroyed in the process so it can be re-used.
But like AN pointed out, it would not ideally be a San Diego thing, there are plenty of places in the U.S. where they have lots of water, it literally falls out of the sky.
April 25, 2009 at 2:29 PM #387706temeculaguy
ParticipantI read some other articles and it doesn’t need to be fresh water, Saltwater, wastewater, brackish, it just need to be liquid. And the water is not destroyed in the process so it can be re-used.
But like AN pointed out, it would not ideally be a San Diego thing, there are plenty of places in the U.S. where they have lots of water, it literally falls out of the sky.
April 25, 2009 at 3:31 PM #387737xironman
ParticipantIt won’t http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/the-prospects-for-algal-biodiesel-dim/, but thanks for playing.
April 25, 2009 at 3:31 PM #387878xironman
ParticipantIt won’t http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/the-prospects-for-algal-biodiesel-dim/, but thanks for playing.
April 25, 2009 at 3:31 PM #387481xironman
ParticipantIt won’t http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/the-prospects-for-algal-biodiesel-dim/, but thanks for playing.
April 25, 2009 at 3:31 PM #387685xironman
ParticipantIt won’t http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/the-prospects-for-algal-biodiesel-dim/, but thanks for playing.
April 25, 2009 at 3:31 PM #387214xironman
ParticipantIt won’t http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/the-prospects-for-algal-biodiesel-dim/, but thanks for playing.
April 26, 2009 at 8:31 AM #387415svelte
ParticipantNow this would truly be going green in color as well as impact!
xman, in you linked article the author poo-poos the idea on cost alone, not a mention of it not being feasible due to energy consumed in producing algae-based fuel.
Costs of anything are variable with time…it may not be cost-effective right now but that doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future.
If he had made a case based on energy consumption, his argument would be something to consider. As it is, he’s all wet (or algae-covered).
April 26, 2009 at 8:31 AM #387683svelte
ParticipantNow this would truly be going green in color as well as impact!
xman, in you linked article the author poo-poos the idea on cost alone, not a mention of it not being feasible due to energy consumed in producing algae-based fuel.
Costs of anything are variable with time…it may not be cost-effective right now but that doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future.
If he had made a case based on energy consumption, his argument would be something to consider. As it is, he’s all wet (or algae-covered).
April 26, 2009 at 8:31 AM #387885svelte
ParticipantNow this would truly be going green in color as well as impact!
xman, in you linked article the author poo-poos the idea on cost alone, not a mention of it not being feasible due to energy consumed in producing algae-based fuel.
Costs of anything are variable with time…it may not be cost-effective right now but that doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future.
If he had made a case based on energy consumption, his argument would be something to consider. As it is, he’s all wet (or algae-covered).
April 26, 2009 at 8:31 AM #388078svelte
ParticipantNow this would truly be going green in color as well as impact!
xman, in you linked article the author poo-poos the idea on cost alone, not a mention of it not being feasible due to energy consumed in producing algae-based fuel.
Costs of anything are variable with time…it may not be cost-effective right now but that doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future.
If he had made a case based on energy consumption, his argument would be something to consider. As it is, he’s all wet (or algae-covered).
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.