” If it takes more energy to produce food than we actually get from the food, why haven’t we all starved to death—well, how do we exist in the first place?”
I know this is complicated for a government scientist.
The “potato” point was a metaphor. If agriculture were like biofuels it would take two potatoes of energy to get one potato to eat and everyone would starve to death.
“Well... what can we expect from someone who can’t tell the difference between legitimate science and wild speculation...”
What can we expect from a big-government scientist who cannot tell the difference between something economically viable, and something powered by government funding.
Haha, you're funny. Usually, I'm accused of being a big-pharma shill.
I have seen very little science that is funded purely by government or purely by industry. *Most* researchers have a mix of funding. Many businesses receive research grants--ever hear of BARDA or DARPA? Etc.
There is no reason biofuels can't replace at least some of our oil imports. Replacing *all* of them would be fantastic, but the problem with that is space--not energy. Vats to grow algae while exposing them to sufficient sunlight to photosynthesize are going to have a large footprint.
Algae is not the only biofuel under development. All you need is an organism that produces long-chain carbons suitable for fuel and at a high enough yield for the effort to be worthwhile. This method probably will *not* be viable, ever. However, researchers are creative, and I'm sure other people are busy thinking of other solutions that have more promise.
I don't know about you, but personally, I would love to see the middle eastern oil barons put out of business. So I support any effort at alternatives that looks viable; I don't dismiss any of them out of hand, without considering whether they are scientifically sound.