Hear Hear. Haven't heard that one before but it probably has quite some truth to it. Sort of like the old: "Science advances one funeral at a time" - Max Planck.
Anyways. His criticisms are all good ones, and yet I can't help but feel like he's missing the big picture- that or he thinks we are just doomed.
In the short to medium term future (5-25years) biofuels are probably not the answer they've been hyped to be. Yet there are still some places where they will still work well, such as any thing that isn't in contact with the grid. These biofuels will be competing with oil that must be drilled through kilometers of ocean and earth, or from injecting massive amounts of steam into the ground... talk about inefficient.
Further, biofuels do not necessarily need to use arable land or potable water.
In particular I'd like to know specifics about reports of "higher efficiency" than should be possible. I wonder if these reports aren't based on efficiency as calculated from creating biomass. One thing that immediately comes to mind, is that perhaps simple circulation and dispersal of light in water can account for increased "surface area" that makes up for the "max efficiency at 20% sunlight" statement.
Anyways. His criticisms are all good ones, and yet I can't help but feel like he's missing the big picture- that or he thinks we are just doomed.
In the short to medium term future (5-25years) biofuels are probably not the answer they've been hyped to be. Yet there are still some places where they will still work well, such as any thing that isn't in contact with the grid. These biofuels will be competing with oil that must be drilled through kilometers of ocean and earth, or from injecting massive amounts of steam into the ground... talk about inefficient.
Further, biofuels do not necessarily need to use arable land or potable water.
In particular I'd like to know specifics about reports of "higher efficiency" than should be possible. I wonder if these reports aren't based on efficiency as calculated from creating biomass. One thing that immediately comes to mind, is that perhaps simple circulation and dispersal of light in water can account for increased "surface area" that makes up for the "max efficiency at 20% sunlight" statement.