Check this out:
A 15-unit apartment building has been constructed in the German city of Hamburg that has 129 algae filled louvered tanks hanging over the exterior of the south-east and south-west sides of the building—making it the first in the world to be powered exclusively by algae. Designed by Arup, SSC Strategic Science Consultants and Splitterwerk Architects, and named the Bio Intelligent Quotient (BIQ) House, the building demonstrates the ability to use algae as a way to heat and cool large buildings.
I am unsure how to make this economical for home use, but it will work on any project that is going to have big energy bills, like a skyscraper. Screw the oil and gas companies. We’ll innovate around them.
Because multi-unit dwellings aren’t homes?
Well, if we want to move everyone into apartment buildings. You know what I meant.
Prefer to let all those suburban SFH dwellers pay the full cost of their lifestyle — most of whom couldn’t afford their carbon footprint.
Bingo.
I wonder if it costs more to live in the suburbs, or out in the woods.
Since we have artificially propped up the housing market for decades, yeah we need to move some people out of houses and into apartments.
Exactly. Big Business isn’t the only one that can benefit from our global economy.
Until, of course, Monsanto patents an invasive species of GMO algae that eliminates the natural competition.
Interesting but pretty impractical. Here is a calculation, taken from the comment section of the article:
“Average yearly solar irradiance at Bremen Germany is approx. 950 kW hrs./M^2 or 2.6kW hrs/day. Assuming the high end of photosynthetic efficiency of 6%, that is .156kWhr/M^2. Now that building facade appears to be at most 200M^2 so an average daily energy production by the algae would be 31kW hrs or a 24 hr average power rate of 1.3 kW. Even assuming a 100% efficiency in conversion to biogas, this is a joke. “
I believe the calculation is an overestimate of the net amount of energy produced by the algae. 1.3 kW is not going to heat this building; it’s about half what my fireplace puts out. They would have gotten get more energy from the system running it as solar water heater (blacken the panes so they really absorb heat and circulate the hot water); but the higher water temperatures would kill the algae.
As clearskies points out, most of these sort of alternative energy schemes fail in the basic math somewhere along the line.
Physics professor Tom Murphy has a nice blog where he does the math on energy questions. One of his best posts was his summary of what alternative energy schemes can do and what they can’t (and basically every conceivable option is listed, and compared in a dozen dimensions). It’s sad but accurate that he finds that fossil fuels really are the best in basically every dimension, save two: they’re finite and they’re polluting.
I like Murphy’s blog (he happens to be a colleague of mine). One thing he leaves out (on purpose) in his matrix is cost comparisons, which are very important in the real world. Nevertheless, a nice discussion.
That is interesting. Of course, you can always expand the matrix. I mean at this point the finite and polluting aspects of fossil fuels should be beyond red in at lost one of those columns. Flashing red at least.
And I always wonder, too, what about lifestyle changes? I remember an article in the paper about various ways to save money on gas. Granted, it was the automotive section, but I thought they could at least have mentioned the possibility of driving less along with making sure your tires are properly inflated.
I guess that would come under acceptance. But what choice do we have?
Yes, the greenest energy plan is simple conservation. Better home insulation; higher mileage vehicles; more efficient fridges (your fridge gobbles up most of the electrical power in your house, on average, unless you heat your home with electricity). I remember Obama getting a bunch of flack from various ignoramuses for suggesting people inflate their tires to the proper pressure; but he was right.
Here, in my opinion, is the energy future:
http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/meetings/2011-March-TWG-GCR/Day1/HTR-PM-Status
-SYL-20110328.pdf
Passively safe modular pebble bed nuclear reactors. Being built in china as we speak. No carbon emissions, 300-500MW on a footprint of about an acre.
Nuclear?!?!?! That’s heresy!
(I agree with you).
My objections to nuclear power are rooted in two basic facts.
So nuclear accidents will happen and they will be preventable but we will fail to prevent them.
You are right that human error makes any technology more dangerous. Nevertheless, based on the available evidence accrued over 50 odd years , commercial nuclear energy is the safest form of large scale energy production (possibly excepting geothermal energy production which is available only in a few locations). Safer than fossil fuel plants (which pollute and thereby kill thousands per year indirectly), safer than hydro power (where dam failures have killed hundreds of thousands).
Nuclear power is not perfectly safe, but when you are talking about producing gigawatts of power in a small footprint, there are going to be safety tradeoffs. The new passively safe designs cut further cut down on the risk. Its much more dangerous on average to commute to work in your car than it is to live beside a nuclear power plant.
I don’t expect perfectly safe. I’m someone who argues we need to preserve civil liberties even if that means terrorists kill some of us (or me or my loved ones). But judging by our government I don’t even expect being reasonably safe, which is the deal breaker.
As it is, I’ve lived about 6 miles from a nuclear plant before.