MovieChat Forums > Fields of Fuel (2009) Discussion > Scientific American:Is Algae Worse than ...

Scientific American:Is Algae Worse than Corn for Biofuels?


"Is Algae Worse than Corn for Biofuels?A new analysis suggests so because of the need for copious fertilizer"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=algae-biofuel-growth-environmental-impact
Fertilizers come directly from fossil fuels so in this light:
"Interest in algae-based biofuels has blossomed in the past year, sparking major investments from Exxon Mobil Corp. and Dow Chemical Co., and it has gained steam on Capitol Hill, as well."
Also from same article:
The culprit, the researchers say, is fertilizer. Growing algae in open ponds is akin to producing them in a shallow swimming pool, Clarens said, so all of the nutrients -- nitrogen and phosphorus -- needed to keep them alive and boost their production come from outside sources.

And that fertilizer has an environmental impact because it's often made from petroleum feedstocks, Clarens said.

"If you grow corn, you rotate the field with soybeans so you get nitrogen fixation," Clarens said. "You still have to fertilize a lot, but if you're growing algae ... all that fertilizer has to come from you, and the fertilizing demands are much higher."

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." Ronald Reagan

reply

This is the kind of oil-funded propaganda that is holding humanity back from exploiting sustainable sources of clean energy.

Did you miss the part about human waste being used to grow this algae? We produce millions of tons of "fertilizer" every year and it's just dumped somewhere. In Ireland we fertilize our hay fields with "slurry", a mixture of water and cattle waste. How many cattle are raised in the U.S. every year? Most of these animals are raised in sheds. Where does all that animal waste go?

reply