Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Yes..c ertianly that number can be computed... I woudl try this weekend if I have time...

But you can certianly genetically modified it to make it five times bigger (why not... it is unproven)...

But I agree that ten times this number (efficiency of 50%) will be the most you can get..

SO you should do the fficiency number using 5% and 50%.... ther will give you a  boundary of the unproven technology.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Oct 25th, 2007 at 04:53:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, hey, "why not, it is unproven" is not valid in support of calculating on the assumption of genetically engineering an organism that doesn't even exist in concept. Stick to 8% efficiency, please.

The technology to grow algae on a massive scale, harvest them, and turn the green goo into liquid fuel is already unproven, but clearly feasible given what we know. The question is one of losses along the way, so let's ignore the losses and compute the theoretical capacity. After all, this 10% biofuels and 20% renewables is an EU goal for 2020, not for 2100 (at which point maybe postulating genetically engineered superalgae that can photosynthesize at the theoretical quantum efficiency of photosynthesis just might be legitimate).

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 25th, 2007 at 05:18:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series