Posts Tagged ‘skeptics’

IPBiz: Technology Review speaks of 20,000 gal/(acre year) biofuel production

September 19th, 2009

Unfortunately, the  algae energy industry is haunted by exaggeration and irrational excuberance. There is definately a potential within algae biofuel, but the overly optimistic views are not particularly helpful to create credibility for the industry.

One might ask how many photons per (acre-year) are needed to make 20,000 gallons of any biofuel? Perhaps, Jan-Hendrik is alive and well and in Cambridge? For some background on issues, one might look at “Closed photobioreactors as tools for biofuel production ” Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2009, 20:280–285, which notes a photoconversion efficiency [PCE] of about 9%, and states: for reaching the ceiling of 9% PCE, photo-bioreactors have to be almost ideal concerning mass and light transfer. That is, of photosynthetically active photons in sunlight [PAR, 400-700 nm], only about 9% go into photosynthesis. Then, one must consider “how many” photons are needed per molecule of biofuel.

via IPBiz: Technology Review speaks of 20,000 gal/(acre year) biofuel production.

IPBiz: “A high level of scientific illiteracy in the investment community”

September 19th, 2009

“The majority [of the efforts] are a gigantic hassle of time and capital because they’re trying to make coal out of diamonds,” said David Andresen, a clean-tech investment banker at Oracle Capital Securities. “There’s such a high level of scientific illiteracy in the investment community that you can really wow investors.”

via IPBiz: “A high level of scientific illiteracy in the investment community”.

Algae fuel skeptics: We listen, and want to collect all your good arguments

September 7th, 2009

Both sides of an argument must be heard. It is easy to only listen to the side of the argument that supports your hopes or beliefs (confirmation bias).

That is why we have started to list writers and websites that have a more skeptic view on the prospects of algae energy. Not healthy questioning skeptics like we all are and should be, but “convinced negatives” would perhaps be a more accurate description of the types of commenters we are talking about. (Nothing negative, we appreciate all sides of the debate!)

Anyway, we think all arguments should be heard and have decided to dedicate a page where we list all the counter-arguments and their associated sources.

All with the aim of full disclosure, and bringing real facts and knowledge to the table, without hype, neither positive, nor negative.

Go here for more information, and please add references in the comments!