>>>> Assuming it can be made to work the yield from algae is claimed to be
>>>> 30,000 gallons diesel/acre-year. пїЅ This comes out to be 30 kW/acre
>>>> (24/7/52).
>
>>>> (This is over 3X the gross income as growing berries so it is
>>>> probably
>>>> economical especially considering the quality of the land doesn't
>>>> matter.)
>
>>>> Taken along with the 40%% efficiency of a diesel engine, the
>>>> mechanical
>>>> work from algae oil is only 12 kW/acre (24/7/52).
>
>>>> Dish Stirling averages over 120 kW/acre mechanical work (24/7/52).
>
>>>> Now, to be sure, no one will deny that liquid fuel is often a
>>>> convenient way to store and transport energy, but even if the
>>>> electrical energy storage device, i. e., battery, pumped water, etc.,
>>>> is only 10%% efficient, dish Stirling _still_ beats bio diesel in
>>>> mech.
>>>> energy/land use.
>
>>>> Bret Cahill
>
>>> Not a useful comparison Bret.
>
>> Land and capital cost of covering land are always important.
>
>>> But at least neither one actually works.
>
>> San Diego Gas & Electric just bought 40,000 Stirlings for the desert.
>> You might want to tip them off.
>
> The only thing I've heard about is conventional turbines running off
> solar thermal. Can you give a reference?
>
>> Diesel from algae seems likely.
>
> I don't know. Is it just 5-10 years away, like hot fusion?
This pretty much explains at least the current popularity of solar
thermal.
> This is
> 1950's sci-fi that has yet to materialize. Assume the tech; you've
> still got to get water to the desert.
Dish Stirling has a closed cooling system.
>>> Give me a functioning Stirling generator and I can charge up the
>>> electric car off the wast heat from heating and AC right there at my
>>> house.
>> That violates the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics.
> Huh?
The efficiency is too low at any rate.
Bret Cahill
