I’d imagine that it’s because algae biofuel isn’t very cost effective, and it uses more energy to make biofuel than it produces at this point. Sometime in the future, when technology is better, it may be a plausible concept, but at this point it’s not entirely useful.
I think it’s more because the platforms to produce it haven’t been invested in. It’s actually incredibly easy to grow, with minimal inputs needed and a seemingly endless list of benefits. So in a sense, yes it isn’t cost effective yet but I’m not sure I agree that it takes more energy to produce it. It depends on what we’re adhering energy to. Algae grows with water and sunlight, basically. Similar to areas prime for Solar use, it can thrive without much maintenance. The problem still rests in designated space for it.
Here’s a great link to outline the pro’s and con’s about it. Seems to be a matter of perspective. However, Please note the carbon emission of strictly harnessing algae for fuel is virtually zero, as studies by Mark Edwards have stated. His book can be found on Amazon, “The Green Algae Strategy”
Also— in the case of land use for algae harvesting, DON’T even consider deforestation. Let areas that are designed for specific things specialize in them, and let other areas designed for other things focus on those.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC