- This topic has 35 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by an.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 25, 2009 at 1:56 PM #387639April 25, 2009 at 2:29 PM #387655temeculaguyParticipant
I 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 #387184temeculaguyParticipantI 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 #387849temeculaguyParticipantI 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 #387451temeculaguyParticipantI 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 #387706temeculaguyParticipantI 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 #387737xironmanParticipantIt 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 #387878xironmanParticipantIt 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 #387481xironmanParticipantIt 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 #387685xironmanParticipantIt 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 #387214xironmanParticipantIt 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 #387415svelteParticipantNow 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 #387683svelteParticipantNow 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 #387885svelteParticipantNow 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 #388078svelteParticipantNow 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.