The 2.3% number i gave you was not the estimation of the SA algal biofuel company. Their estimation would have produced numbers of .76%. Their quoted yield was 3 times greater than the number required to hit 2.3. The number that produced the 2.3% estimate was an estimate by U.S. scientists working for the federal government and was a top end estimation of what could be done in the U.S. The guy doing the numbers in the link confirms this should be possible, though unlikly
And Yea, that definitly is scaleable. And it definitly is a decent option in light of the current state of hydrocabon based technologies having permiated the market. Not that a more direct solar based electricl generation isnt better for general power[instead of coal or other non-renewable sources], its not a complete energy solution.
As for "omg we dont have enough food". I think the answer is "bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha"
We have so much land for food we are able to subsidize it at ridiculous rates. We have so much land for food it is more efficient to refine foods[using more acre/calorie] instead of selling them whole. We have so much land for food that meat is not a luxuary[livestock is 10 times less efficient in a land/calorie ratio than even low yield crops like corn]. We have so much land for food that we can produce enough food to drive producers in other countries out of business[and/or into cocaine/heroin production] because they cant compete with the subsidized products with such little demand, and they live in areas with DIRT cheap labor.
The U.S. is the most arable land rich nation on the face of the planet. With a little conservation, and care, we wont run into these problems you describe.
no subject
And Yea, that definitly is scaleable. And it definitly is a decent option in light of the current state of hydrocabon based technologies having permiated the market. Not that a more direct solar based electricl generation isnt better for general power[instead of coal or other non-renewable sources], its not a complete energy solution.
As for "omg we dont have enough food". I think the answer is "bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha"
We have so much land for food we are able to subsidize it at ridiculous rates. We have so much land for food it is more efficient to refine foods[using more acre/calorie] instead of selling them whole. We have so much land for food that meat is not a luxuary[livestock is 10 times less efficient in a land/calorie ratio than even low yield crops like corn]. We have so much land for food that we can produce enough food to drive producers in other countries out of business[and/or into cocaine/heroin production] because they cant compete with the subsidized products with such little demand, and they live in areas with DIRT cheap labor.
The U.S. is the most arable land rich nation on the face of the planet. With a little conservation, and care, we wont run into these problems you describe.