To summarise for those who don't have the time to watch the video, it shows that while algal biofuels have huge potential, as they can produce 30 times more energy than any other existing biofuel known, the technology has not yet been developed enough to enable large-scale production of this biofuel. Therefore, the question I have to answer before beginning the evaluation is should we incorporate the potential for these fuels into the evaluation of the potential impact of biofuels assuming that such technology will be developed in the future, or is this too great an assumption to make? Also, is developing this technology in the future going to be too late to have a significant effect on the overall impact of biofuels, as by the time these future biofuels begin to be utilized, current biofuels and anthropogenic actions producing GHG emissions, for example, may have produced such a large impact that it can not be compensated for in the future?
I personally feel that the answer to the first question is that we should take a cautionary approach and not incorporate the future biofuels into the evaluation at the moment. However, a concrete answer to the latter question is not possible as it is so dependent on the management factors that are very difficult to predict, as discussed in my last post, and this will determine the extent of the impact of current biofuels and of other anthropogenic actions. This is another good reason not to incorporate future biofuels into the evaluation of biofuel effects at the moment. Nonetheless, the algal biofuels should still be kept in mind, since they can potentially change the overall impact of biofuels in the future so significantly.
Interesting!
ReplyDeleteI'm currently looking at eutrophication... and well if there is a way of getting rid of that harmful algae it's probably mutually beneficial to freshwater dwelling animals. However, like all other biofuels, fertilisers will be necessary to increase crop production. At this point, it is hard to justify why we should produce biofuels at the expense of crops for food.
Yes, you are right - cyanobacteria can indeed be used as a biofuel, which would be a benefit to all (you may find Angermayr et al., 2009 useful for this, if you are interested: http://mbrc.res.in/database/literature/cyanobacteria/Curr_Opin_Biotechnol_20_257.pdf. I have not yet thought about this positive outcome, so thanks for that!
ReplyDeleteTo remove the need for extra fertilizer in algal biofuel production, some authors have begun to explore the utilization of industrial waste-water high in nutrients for algal cultivation. This does not only remove the need for extra fertlizer, but also produces potable water in place of the waste water, for example, which you can read about in my next post. Additionally, if the eutrophication has occurred without the intention for biofuel production, no extra fertlizer would need to be applied off course.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Dan Dan! I have found this interesting article relating to what you said, which you may find useful! It is about producing biofuel from growing bacteria on waste. This method does not require agricultural land as such and does not require any extra P, which you said is depleting. Simultaneously, it will provide a use for your beloved excretions (joking off course), meaning that they will not have to be disposed into water sources, decreasing the chances of eutrophication!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.oilgae.com/energy/nn/b/2009/06/microbial-process-turns-urban-waste.html