Mr. Rapier,
I do not claim to be an expert in Biodiesel from Algae. One common theme I have noticed in alternate energy proposals from Algae for biodiesel to hydrogen to solar photovoltaics and on and on is a lack of understanding of the difference between a Scientific advance and an Engineering advance.

Engineering advances take existing technology and adapt it to new uses. A hybrid car is an example. Existing internal combustion engines and existing batteries and electrical technologies were combined to produce the hybrid cars. Engineering takes into account the economic aspects of the system.

Scientific advances take a leap into the unknown. The clearest example which comes to mind is the development of the atomic bomb. Once the science showed that a neutron coliding with a U235 nucleus produces energy(E=MC2) and more than one new neutron the rest was engineering. Actual bomb building then became engineering difficult but engineering.

I realize that I am oversimplifying this and people write overoptomistic reports for various reasons such as to obtain Funding Grants, getting investors(legitimately and fraudulantly), and simply wishful thinking.

I believe this theme of failing to understand the difference between Science and Engineering is a common theme of alternate energy literature. If science can produce a strain of algae which will grow in the open air resisting contamination and being containable then producing biodiesel on a large scale becomes engineering.

yes, I agree. It makes more sense to use engineers (NASA or private industry) to work on this problems than academics.

Engineers are more blind to the problem than scientists as they tend to be more technocornucopians. The reality is that few people know how to think properly about energy constraints, probably because for the last 50 years there have been no meaningful energy constraints.

And in my opinion, as an academic scientist, is that biofuels from algae will never have a positive energy return. Not even close.

NASA astronauts are very sensitive to the environment inside of a spacecraft. They know more about sustainability than 90% of scientists, because their life depends on it.

I suggest that you look at the EROI of offshore algae, it is much better than trying to do it on land. It will require slow moving automated seagoing barges to do the harvesting. These are all engineering problems not basic science.

When you are running your barges on algae biodiesel, let us know. Engineering is fine, but it will not show you a way around fundamental limits.

Astronauts know nothing about sustainability. It there was ever a prize for low return on investment (money or energy) manned space travel would win every time.

When was manned space travel supposed to generate a return on investment?

Presumably it generates something, but very very inefficiently, therefore very unsustainable.

The point was not about the ROI of space travel. The astronauts were keenly aware that if the ecosystem within their space capsule fell out of balance, they would die. It couldn't be more direct. But somehow most humans still view ecosystem services as an abstraction, not their life support system.

NASA kicked off the environmental movement with the picture of the earth taken from the lunar orbit. NASA also invented solar cells and did much of the original work on wind turbines.

If we are going to survive on earth, we need to understand as much about our ecosystem as the astronauts on Apollo 13 knew about their CO2 scrubber. It is ironic that the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is the main cause of ocean acidification and global warming.

Did we not learn anything from their experience?

We learned in order to solve global warming we just have to fit this into this with nothing but these.

""Did we not learn anything from their experience?""

No, we did not learn anything at all. NASA is still in business and still a total waste of taxpayer money. The first of many, many useless government departments that need to be shut down, yesterday.

Disclaimer: While I am not a huge fan of manned spaceflight in general, I was still in awe of the work done by the astronauts involved in the recent repair mission to the Hubble Space telescope. If I understand correctly this was not a mission that could have been executed by robots the presence of human workers was required.

I am however a much bigger fan of unmanned space missions such as the Rover mission to Mars and to other parts of our solar system. I actually had the immense honor a few years back to support NASA scientists when I worked for a company that sold a high end technical and scientific graphics application, I could think of no finer people to work with.

And while there may be ingrained inefficiencies in any government Bureaucracy, NASA, I'm sure has it's fair share, for someone to claim that it should be shut down because it is a total waste of taxpayer money can only be because the individual making such a statement has no understanding as to why a quest for pure knowledge is one of the most important quests for our species as a whole.

If ever the expression "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water" was applicable this most certainly is such a case.

Are you suggesting that we don't need satellite communication (banks and phone calls), the GPS network, solar panels and wind turbines also. Even those air cowlings on trucks were designed by NASA folks. The rocket programs were started by the Nazis so I'm not sure that putting our heads in the sand would have prevented the development of ICBM. Should we have let the Russians do it alone?

SMN

I believe this theme of failing to understand the difference between Science and Engineering is a common theme of alternate energy literature. If science can produce a strain of algae which will grow in the open air resisting contamination and being containable then producing biodiesel on a large scale becomes engineering.

Although I think there is some merit behind your differentiating "science" and "engineering" advances, the point Robert makes is still valid - i.e. technological breakthroughs, be they science or engineering, are not "inevitabilities".

I fully agree that money spent to develop biodiesel from algae may not result in success. The problem is that at this stage you can't be sure until it has been researched sufficiently.

An engineering failure is more likely to be that the goal can not be done economically than failure to attain a "technological breakthrough". People have produced biodiesel from algae so it can be done "technology wise" but so far no one knows how to do it at a cost to compete with existing alternatives.