3 ms·

I'd have thought algaculture might have made the list, but maybe it's not great for fuel production?

• Meandering 6y ago
  I didn't even think about algae. I know big oil has invested a lot into researching it. Not sure if that is marketing/virtue-signaling or a true business interest. Switchgrass! The facilities required to produce algae must be extreme in comparison to a perennial grass that requires limited maintenance. I guess algae has higher energy density but, I think grass would be more cost effective.
  • socialdemocrat 6y ago
    Yes that is always the trade off. You can waste lots of space and make things cheaper or use a lot less space but require more investment. Algae will win in the end though. Over time capital intensive solutions tend to win because you are not short on capital but land.
    • tuatoru 6y ago
      Have they solved the problem where wild species would contaminate and outcompete your GMO algae? There were a lot of lab experiments going at the time of the commodity price spike (2005-2008), but I've heard nothing since. There always was this scepticism about captial cost, extraction cost, and contamination costs. Edit: missed a word.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• socialdemocrat 6y ago
  It is more efficient. You get a lot more mass per square meter but the capital costs are much higher. Sure once you have it setup the variable costs are likely lower. But it is the upfront investment that kills it.