Government Investment in Algae as Fuel
ARPA-E (The U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Administration – Energy) is investing an average of about $600K into each of 18 projects associated with algae as fuel. They write:
Today, nearly all domestic biomass produced for electricity generation and liquid fuels occurs on land.
While algae production has increased substantially over the past quarter-century, it is not currently capable of achieving the scale, cost, and efficiency needed for an impactful seaweed-to-fuels process. Achieving this heightened productivity requires a technology-driven approach focusing on transformative, systems-level improvements and engineering, including advanced research in farm design and autonomous operation.
Of course, anything ARPA-E does raises the age-old issue about the validity of government’s picking winners and losers. Yet, doesn’t it seem that indiscriminate investing is a bad idea—even worse than going with putative winners? Who invests in things that are broadly believed to be losers?
Here, instead of saying, “Achieving this heightened productivity requires a technology-driven approach,” I would say, “Achieving this heightened productivity is either impossible, or extremely expensive, and shouldn’t be attempted on the taxpayers’ dime.”
There comes a time in the development of every technology that humankind has ever developed that the winners win and the losers lose. Algae (and the other biofuels) has lost, and now’s a good time to admit it.
We have no time left to devote to speculative experimentation in energy tech. We have to deploy the proven solutions we’ve already identified.
Because the defeated but entrenched fossil-based market continues to resist change, populations must organize and direct leadership and resources to support the necessary transition to sustainable resources.
@ Cameron,
Sometimes I wonder if you actually think about what you write ?
You are not part of the solution, you’re not even part of the problem, sadly, you (and many like you) are just an irrelevant distraction.
I really don’t want to sound harsh or impolite, but having spent many years working, investing and promoting clean technology, I find your trite nonsense more annoying than those who don’t care about the environment.
Cameron, no one is helped or motivated by vague, poorly informed sanctimonious platitudes and conspiracy theories.
If you want to be part of the movement toward clean technology and a better environment, do something useful !
It may involve you spending time, investment and labour studying and becoming involved with promoting practical clean projects, but believe me you’ll feel better and gain far more satisfaction from being able to speak with knowledge and authority.
I really don’t mean to be unkind, but cliched opinions from armchair critics just aren’t helpful.
It starts with you !
Since the government pays attention to the algae fuel, and we can believe that this kind of fuel will bring us a lot of benefits in the future.
Ivy,
Wow ! Gosh it’s really refreshing to hear from someone who still has faith in government decisions !`(unless you were just being sarcastic ?)
Craig,
Well said ! Like any prudent investor governments have to be prepared to walk away from impractical projects. That shouldn’t be a refection of the initial decision to support the project, just prudent fiscal policy management.
Yes, I agree with it. For sustainable development, human beings should develop other resources to replace non renewable resources. This is very necessary.