MAR 31

Actually, it would be very easy to feed CO2 straight from a power plant. Simply bubble it up from the bottom. There'd be a fair amount of loss but that's better than the current system.

On second thought, though, isn't having a closed loop more of a perceived benefit than an actual benefit. After all, CO2 "pollution" isn't really a localized phenomenon. Any CO2 that comes out of the atmosphere is a good thing. Any CO2 that goes in is a bad thing. Doesn't much matter where the input or output happens. It's the net effect on a planetary basis that's the problem (or benefit).

I have been telling people for ages that algae was a far saner solution than food stock based Solutions. In large part because they can be closed loop, and can produce multiple types of fuel, depending on type of algae.

And using a Chlamydomonas Reinhardtii type green algae, once we understand the two phase sulferless solution better, it could lead the way to a bio-hydrogen plant even, removing the CO2 from the cycle entirely. Sun Water -> Hydrogen-> Water.

Actually closed loop would be better because you could have more of a CO2 rich atmosphere which should increase the growth rate of the algae.

This is a an encouraging step in the right direction. But hooking it up to a fossil fuel power plant is still introducing new carbon into the atmosphere. To stop the greenhouse effect, they have to get CO2 directly out of the atmosphere. Open ponds look like the best option here because there doesn't have to be a coal plant in the loop.

I'm merely guessing but I think Hank's power plant reference was to a plant using the fuel produced by the algae. That would make it a closed loop. You could start it with atmospheric CO2 but, after that, the CO2 would merely run from farm to power plant to farm, etc.

Open or closed, the farm can run on atmospheric or powerplant-generated CO2. The important point is that CO2 output roughly equals CO2 input, thus making this technology carbon-neutral (other than the carbon stored in the algae), regarldless of whether the system itself is open or closed.

Look at this for what it is.

Algae production can use deserts to produce transportation fuels like biodiesel, because this is the denser and less volatile energy transport medium that masses can use.

This is a temporary solution while waiting on the real solution, that is : Photovoltaic/ThermalSolar electric to Batteries/UltraCaps electric vehicles.

Everything else is by far less efficient.
Algae could also be used in remote desert location where a pipeline is cheaper than electric power lines, as long as these desert have water.

But don't draw plans on the comet, every energy conversion is energy loss, breeding algae to burn them to produce electricity can only be interesting if it is damn cheap.

Stop burning things to get energy. Combustion generates pollutants, that's the way things are.

On April 1st...., sounds like an April Fools joke to me....

Feeding CO2 from a powerplant will not be a closed loop, the CO2 comes fron some form of fossil fuel, it is burned, turned into algae and then released into the atmosphere contributing to a net increase regardless, it simply adds another step. Like pissing your pants to stay warm in other words.

I think the idea of it is...

Algae Sun (energy) CO2 -> Fuel (ie something similar to Photosynthesis)

Fuel O2 (burning) -> Energy CO2(ie something similar to combustion or aerobic respiration)

CO2 (from burning) Algae Sun -> Fuel (cycle repeats using CO2 from combustion of fuels to generate new fuels, thus making the theoretical output as NIL CO2).

However a previous poster was correct in saying that along every energy conversion there is energy lost. Though even they must agree that having Energy which effectively cuts down the majority of its net CO2 output is a very good thing indeed.

Unfortunately we have only just started to scratch the surface with renewable energy. Although we have made leaps and bounds, Petrol and other fossil fuels have had centuries of use and thus centuries of development. A petrol car today would (arguably) be a lot more efficient than that of the first cars. All we need to do is be patient. We are all so panicked by the hype of global warming, that we are forgetting that some of these technologies have only been created in the last 5 (or less) years. We are demanding scientists and businesses change hundreds of years of thinking and suddenly come up with the hypothetical silver bullet to carbon emmissions over night. I personally think (coming from Australia) we need to do a lot more with solar-based technologies. It is truly the only infinite power source. (Well lets put it this way, if the sun stops giving off energy, we're all dead anyway). However solar power is still very basic, requiring huge cells or plants to make moderate-basic amounts of energy. But with time comes development and eventually technology will grow.

I am sure in 20 years or so we will look back at how inefficient our solar panels were, or how primitive Algae fuels may seem. But all we need to do is give it time, money and patience.

Nice work.

Algae is also a clean, sustainable and local source of carbon biomass for food, chemical and structural uses. As pointed out above, used as biofuel for internal combustion engines, algae recycles, but does not sequester, carbon. This is a stopgap to help our civilization get past Peak Oil. A company, Coskata, http://www.coskata.com/ has proprietary engineered bacteria that convert syngas = CO H2 from biomass into ethanol, perhaps these critters could be modified to eat the CO (sequestration) and leave the H2 for fuel cell use, as a next step into the electric economy, perhaps much cheaper and simpler than solar/wind etc dedicated to H2 production, or perhaps both, certainly better than the absurd idea of building nuke plants for no other purpose than process heat reformation of H2O into H2 (nukes have their place, but this is not it).

I don't know about these particular installations, but algae can do a lot more than just turn energy and sunlight into biodiesel. They can also help process biodegradable waste and the waste from biodiesel can be used for crop fertiliser, thus helping to recycle nitrogen and phosphorus as well as carbon and relieving the need for energy-intensive ammonium nitrate fertiliser.

It's almost may, where's the algae farm?

Is anybody doing agrichar with the pressings after the oil has been extracted? Seems like it could be a huge added value to the process, and yield great fertilizer.

Bio-fuels have to become commercially viable for them to be brought to market. I think that the projects to develop aviation fuel from algae in Europe have the best chances for convincing the markets that bio-fuels are practical. If you look at being able to fly using an algae-oil derivative then you reduce extra CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels. These applications may lead to adoption of algae -diesel and hopefully an algae - gasoline product if the strains can be convinced to produce the exotic/lipids necessary to replace our fossil fuels. It would be nice if we could replace all the internal combustion engines we use overnight but I think tat find green power alternatives is a practical short-term solution!

this system does not work to the degree that they've been claiming. They lost their head scientist; they made some questionable deals with oil magnates in regions where the blue-green algae can not survive, and they have breed the algae in such a way that it could become a major factor if introduced to a ecosystem.

Algae Commercialization:
Business Roundtable, Research, and Networking Forum - Jul 17, 2008

www.nationalalgaeassociation.com

Please take a note that all the crying about earth warming and green house gases did not generate much popular support for alternative energy or CO2 sequestration. The idea became popular with price of fuel going up and algae promising to reduce CO2 and produce fuel. The biofuel community would make still more supporters advertising economic and defense vulnerabilities due to oil imported form Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.
We cannot afford $700 billion per year wealth outflow. We can not economise down to zero energy use. And, above all, we should not pay to supporters of terrorism and aspiring colonial empire like Russia who are our potential enemies and salivate waiting for us to get destitute.

Actually, it could never theoretically be a closed loop. A certain amount of energy is lost to electricity production. It could only a closed loop if it were actually closed. But because energy is lost in the production via creation of electricity that leaves the loop to enter our homes, it can't be closed.

so im bored someone call me 1-417-300-4604

Just posting on the whole pipeline comment. Unfortunately due to susceptibility of damage by water, biodiesel faces the same problems as ethanol when it comes to transport by pipeline. It will collect to much moisture and degrade in quality to the point where reliability would become near useless. I myself can support the use of a "Closed Loop" Algae farm, though I don't believe it would ever truly be a closed loop. Also I feel the need to say that even though this may be a stop-gap, it's a much better stop-gap than producing fuel from our regular food sources. Between the possibilities of using the algae to produce hydrogen, the vitamin supplements and animal food stock that can be made from it. There would be minimal waste from a vertical algae farm, and we would be able to produce 2 viable sources of renewable energy from it.

Generating biofuel from algae does sound like a better use of land than growing corn for ethanol. But will the projects that are hooking up to coal plant exhaust streams do much to offset the CO2 production of the coal being burned? I find it hard to imagine that more than a tiny fraction of the CO2 could be recaptured by the algae. The proof of that would be that within a few days of operating this way, the coal-fired plant should be able to switch over to being an algae-fired plant. Otherwise, while growing the algae will do some good, the green-washing of being able to claim a coal plant is recapturing 'some' of its CO2 through algae production might just make it politically easier for electric utilities to keep burning coal.

Everyone that has posted so far has no idea of the real potential of algae!

One acre of algae absorbs over 2 million tons of Co2 a year! When it is burnt it end up releasing only half of the Co2 it gives off because you forgot about the fact it transfers some of the Co2 into oxygen. It isn't a stop gap but a solution to Global Warming.

Also on an acre of algae over 15000 gallons of bio-diesel can be made. That doesn't include the left over carbohydrates that can be made into ethanol or the left over nutrients that are turned into fertilizers that are environment friendly or the feedcake that can be fed to livestock at a cheaper price than feed. That's amazing considering the next leading alternative is palm oil at 635 gallons per acre.

That's not the only benefit either! First there is the fact it can solve Global Warming. It's unbelievable but look into it. Second it cleans the water it grows on. You can grow it on sewage plant water which means you clean water and make fuel. Cool I know. Third it solves for all our peak oil concerns because its renewable and can replace all of the US transportation fuels using 0.2% of the US farm land. Not Kidding! Fourth it can create a huge economic market that could replace the one oil controls right now. and Last it replaces all of corn ethanol so we no longer would have to worry about food prices or deforestation or any other problems that come from growing fuel from food sources or clearing areas for more farm land. If you want my sources where I got my information from my E-mail address is below.

Algae is also a completely renewable source so we wouldn't have to worry about ever running out.

The cost of growing and making fuel from algae is small compared to the profits you could rake in. Algaes mass can double or even triple over night and has far higher yields because half pf it is lipids or in other words the oil we use for bio-diesel. Right now 4000 barrels can be made at a cost of $25 per barrel or $0.59 per gallon. That is incredibly cheap!

It can be done commercially right now and is. GM has invested in this along with other companies. There is also engines that have been made that run off 100% pure algae. This is the fuel of the future. any questions you can e-mail me at \n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

This is a great fuel and can make a bigger market than corn ethanol ever could. It could possibly make a market as large as oil. Because the bio-reactors that can make algae can be built anywhere this can be a worldwide fuel source.

Using algae to remove CO2 from fossil fuel use in a closed system will not work for very long.

Coal contains sulphur. When burned, sulphur produces sulphur dioxide. Sulphur dioxide conbines with water to form sulphuric acid. In the case of atmosperic burning, this produces acid rain. It kills everything exposed to it for any length of time---entire forests and ecosystems. Cycling flue gasses through a closed system with algae would simply magnify the rate of acid formation and kill off the algae in very short order.

Why bother trying to "clean up flue gas" with algae when you can produce oil from algae that can run any diesel engine with no modification. Petroleum needs to be refined into diesel fuel and still contains sulphur that is very difficult and expensive to refine out. Algae oil does not contain sulphur---it has not been buried underground for millions of years.

That is why fossil fuels exist in the first place---the conditions that formed them killed all living bacteria which caused them to fossilize without decomposing completely. Burning fossil fuels allows those compounds to be released back into the atmosphere. If we continue to burn fossil fuels, we will ALL become fossils.

Every single atom of carbon in algae oil had to be removed from the atmosphere first by the algae--otherwise, they would not be there---it is the definition of life, respiration---algae breathe in CO2 and breathe out oxygen. Carbon is the basic unit of exchange in the natural system that allows organisms on earth to draw energy from the sun, photosynthesis. This process has been going on almost 4 billion years.

Carbon is not the enemy. Fossil fuels are the enemy. Biofuels can do anything that oil can do, and they can do it better.

"Actually, it could never theoretically be a closed loop. A certain amount of energy is lost to electricity production." Very good point but we are not talking about energy conservation, but rather matter conservation.

If C isn't pumped out from the guts of the earth then we can leave with an atmosphere as polluted as it was when the loop was closed. Also, we can have some improvements by extending the capacity of florests and soils to stock CO2. Or perhaps,with deep storage underground.

All you nay-sayers and all you who understand.... If we bury algae deep enough we trap CO2. All the excess algae can go underground and the rest can provide us all the energy we need. We can even do it without the oil companies getting money for solar panels and other dumb ideas that keep the money funneled to the rich and greedy.
2% smarter everytime......

Hello algaeecogeeks, my name is Michael Jochum and I am the chief Scientist for a company called GRO-PEC Solutions LLC. We use a vertical Close System Photobioreactor to grow algae in Tx. email me for more information or if you need algae, equipment, etc....

It would be nice if the people posting read the comments before them. The comment made by Joe covered almost every benefit stated in this blog. Seriously its annoying reading things twice.