I watched enough to know it can't compete with algae. Just the collection of the biomass assures that. That alone requires a lot of energy per joule produced. The beauty of algae is also that it maximizes surface area density due to its extremely small size. And because of its simplicity, which results in its high efficiency, it produces more useful energy per acre-year than any other plants can hope to produce. Because it flows with water, the energy-cost of harvesting is minimized. It took me about ten seconds to rule it out as a better option than algae.
That has been around for awhile now. I had known of this even when Bush was president. Anything like this is worth being in the commercial market at a proper cost. Even Xyleco has to be available at reasonable costs.
This idea has been around for a long time. Remember Bush43 and switchgrass? Remember corn? There is no doubt that one could create biofuel from plant life. Like most energy ideas, the challenge comes with attempts of scale, price, land use, etc.
At least we show to the alarmists we are completely willing to use new fuels. We are not wedded to petroleum as our sole source. I am suspicious that Algae can be produced in needed high quantities.
Switchgrass was and still is an excellent idea. Will changing to biomass cause the alarmists to shut up?
What the warmists like to ignore is that Svante Arrhenius also said rising CO2 would be beneficial to man. The CO2 centric hypothesis is based on correct first principles but that does not mean they are being applied right and yes, all of the alarmist predictions are based on computer models.
Germany who has the largest amount of renewables, 19%, and the highest electric rates in the world shows how renewables will not do the job. Those calling for 100% renewable are spouting off unicorn dreams.
perennial biomass crops like switchgrass can potentially produce more ethanol per acre than corn. In the Central Plains trials, the average ethanol yields from switchgrass would amount to 450 gallons per acre or 79 gallons per ton. https://articles.extension.org/pages/26635/switchgrass-panicum-virgatum-for-biofuel-production algae can produce 5000 gallons of fuel per acre-year, with claims that even more is possible through hybridization and/or genetic engineering. That is about 10 to 20 times better than all other options. And it can be grown on farms, in the ocean. Decommissioned oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico would make great hubs for algae farms.
Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet Me I judge people on the quality of their posts. Are your arguments supported by citations from recognised academic sources? No? Then in all probability you have no tertiary qualifications
Yes and I read the write ups from exemployees Not good So I will “watch this space” because as yet they have not succeeded in capturing market share.
?? You didn't address the point. And, why the heck would biomass fuel be a problem for anyone if it is a real alternative and doesn't involve burning food? You aren't addressing the reasons this idea has not taken off.
I see, your way of having a good talk is to make it about ME and try to land in my face over my comments. I can't address your second statement. I do not know why "this idea" has not taken off. I want the alarmists to see daylight at the end of this tunnel.
Germany is the size of some of our mid range sized states. Having personally been to large areas of Germany, for them to grow for fuel, they seem to me to have to agree to stop growing for food crops. Also the climate is colder typically than America is.
Government under Carter funded that scam too. I had the idea when he was president to profit off his scam. I was a tiny fry and never managed to figure a way to get it off the ground. You keep denouncing the 60 minutes science persons as if scam artists. I have to admit you need to provide proof to persuade the peanut gallery here.
There are a few ways we directly measure sea level. One is tide gauge observations—simply measuring the height of a tide on a fixed marker. As the tide marker is attached to land, this provides a measurement of sea level relative to land. In some areas, the land might be rising (uplift) which would mean the local sea level would be falling faster than if there was no land motion. In other areas, the land might be subsiding, which would result in higher local sea-level rise. I don't suppose you begin to see the problem. Another method is satellite altimetry, where satellites measure the actual height of the ocean surface. Well now, if the actual height can't be measured relative to a land benchmark, just what do you suppose it's measured relaitve to? Obviously you don't understand what that means. An average what? Not seal level rise, that's for sure.
Who has time dude?? I actually quit my job as a chemist two years ago to start a company with my brother. When I was doing the corporate gig I had a lot more free time. Now I have virtually none. You obviously either work for the government, live in your mom's basement, or are on the dole. Easy to find free time to post inane nonsense on the internet.
