7 ms·
Reading the title my biggest concern was low efficiency but 80% actually seems quite good. There is still the issue of how much energy you need to expend suppl
by streety 18y ago
Reading the title my biggest concern was low efficiency but 80% actually seems quite good.
There is still the issue of how much energy you need to expend supplying CO2 but as you'll be producing relatively pure CO2 when you burn the methane I doubt it would be that big an issue.
On the plus side it sounds as though the bacteria hasn't been optimised so to me it seems likely that greater efficiencies could be achieved.
- biohacker42 18y agoIt's hard to optimize bacteria. You get your bacterium juuuust right, and then you get it to multiply and by the time you have a tank full, it's been intelligently designed all over the damn place! --EDIT--- I don't mind being downvoted, unless it's because people's sarcasm detector isn't working.
- eru 18y agoYour point seems valid. Why not pack it like this: "It's hard to optimize bacteria. You get your bacterium juuuust right, and then you get it to multiply and by the time you have a tank full, their genome has already drifted."
- biohacker42 18y agoI assumed that given the character of this website, and the italics, it should be obvious I meant that. But I guess not, there's a lesson here about being too clever.
- eru 18y agoSure, it was obvious. But it was trying to hard to be funny.