Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
What's the EROEI?
Don't know.
But the thing I do know, is that they use stagnant water ponds to produce it.
This is the company.
Sapphire Energy, Inc.
Therefore, although the EROI for algal fuels might remain less than one in the foreseeable future, algae represent one of the most promising petroleum fuel substitutes, particularly for high-energy density fuels, such as aviation fuel. Therefore, although large-scale algal biofuel production remains quite challenging, algal fuels have the potential to satisfy some of these niche markets.
So far it's less than one, i.e. it requires more energy to produce than it returns to us.
http://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/IEEE/Beal_EROIAlgae_BioEnergyResearch_OnlineFirst.pdf
Right, but it's in the infancy phase, although they've successfully produced it.
It doesn't take away the fact, that solutions are being brought up all the time.
You can't predict a collapse like that, because you aren't aware of all technology in development. At best, it's grasping at straws.
No we're not remotely close.
There is plenty of freely usable agriculture land across the world.
New growing techniques have reduced the amount of land needed and increased the yield per plant.
We're fine, Malthusian collapse, at this point, is junk science.
I think we might be able to float another billion or so with our current model. after that, we will probably have to start getting creative.
I don't see how there is any way to ethically calculate this. Even worse, even if it can be calculated, if it requires a population decrease, it's going to take some intense evil to get rid of a few billion.
Not really, just time and having fewer children on average. Or do you think that's intense evil?
so long as its not forced on them, its ok. But generally, bringing societies up to western culture will do that for us.
I'm pretty sure it will, as people grow richer, they tend to have less children.
Why?
Because they don't have to worry about them dying, like they did before they were rich.
They invest in 1-3 kids, instead of 8, hoping 1 or 2 survive.
I've been hearing cries for population control, for so long, that the thought of listing anything above what we have now seemed pointless. Not once have I heard someone say "The World needs more people in it".Your poll does not include options such as 10 billion, or 15 billion, or 40 billion.
With sufficiently advanced technology we could support that many, especially since most people live in cities these days anyway.
Personally I don't think we'll ever get much above 10 billion. Trends show population stablizing if not going into decline in most advanced nations.
As other nations reach a certain level of development their pop growth will go into decline also.
The alleged "population problem" will almost certainly fix itself.
I've been hearing cries for population control, for so long, that the thought of listing anything above what we have now seemed pointless. Not once have I heard someone say "The World needs more people in it".
What's an acceptable world population?
What's an acceptable world population?
One. Me.
If you want to talk about population models, this is hardly the place.
In any case, there is no "acceptable world population", seeing that there's loss and gain at all stages of growth.
Moderator's Warning: |
Moderator's Warning: There will be no further personal attacks or suggestions that other posters commit suicide. Violators will be infracted and threadbanned.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?