MAY 30

That;s great that potentially we won't need to go drilling for oil, but what about air-quality??(only of several concerns of mine) Use of fuel is only going to expand (duh, we're capitalists!). Oil never was green, and just because it can be grown by algae instead of ripped from the earth doesn't it ever will be.

We need to get off oil!!

Well gee; there is always someone with a counter view. I think they were making GASOLINE not oil. Out of algae NOT OIL.

Right now a dependency on foreign oil is costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

spl49 makes an excellent point. This has nothing to do with oil. I don't know much about gasoline, but I would imagine that when it is made from algae, it might have a similar impact on air quality.. although really, global cooling is all that's keeping us alive at this point..

How much ocean needs to be covered with algae for this to work? And where? What marine ecosystems will be crowded out because of lack of sunlight, or will only deep-sea areas be used? Aren't deep sea areas more turbulent? There are a lot of unanswered questions for me.. but maybe I'm completely off the mark?

The technology is already here to make plentiful amounts of gasoline from coal without disturbing the planet's oceans.

Coal is the future of gasoline manufacturing.

==The technology is already here to make plentiful amounts of gasoline from coal without disturbing the planet's oceans.==

Last I checked.
Ocean acification screws with the ocean, big time.

arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/02/15/aaas-that-other-carbon-problem-ocean-acidification
sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522181511.htm

Not to mention the obvious impact of making something which has 2x the GHG as conventional Oil isn't such a good idea.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061700945.html
greyfalcon.net/svlglca.png

Especially when it's a water hog.
Needing 14 gallons of water, (Which ends up as sludge) for ever gallon of fuel.
ecoworld.com/blog/editor/guest/2008/03/06/chinas-coal-to-liquids/

Besides which, they wouldn't grow algae in the ocean at all to begin with.
Why? Because it's illegal.
desmogblog.com/un-deep-sixes-algae-seeding-scam

Anyways, I somewhat agree with you. Liquid fuels may be neccisary in the long term for aircraft, ships, and military vehicles.
And for those niches, diesel and kerosene may be made. Together, about 5% of current global demand.
Everything else, will most likely be moving to electric.
greyfalcon.net/plugins7

I like the algae idea because it's not something we eat so it won't impact our food supply.

Then again, solar energy still seems to be relatively cheap and there should be more research done on how to properly tap it, at a residential level.

Thanks for sharing this amazing information!

One of the better arguments made by these guys.

Why the hell would we want to create an entirely new liquid fuels infrastructure and vehicles to support ethanol?

Ethanol sucks when it comes to distribution logistics.

Why not create a better fuel that doesn't need new infrastructure, rather than taking the intellectually lazy route.

From what I read off their website it would seem that they (Sapphire Energy) are producing crude oil, which needs to be refined to a usable form, and refining of crude to gasoline has all sorts of environmental and health risks.

And as the economy expands (as it does under a well-run market based economy) we'll be seeing more cars on the roads, which still means more CO2 in the atmosphere, and reduced air-quality in urban areas. Los Angeles is a prime example.

I believe that the goal should be to, if feasible, to remove petroleum based fuels from vehicles entirely, because even if the production is clean, it's burning in the ICE (internal combustion engine) still releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

In all honesty, I don't see anything petro-chemical as end-game. As a stepping stone on the way to zero emissions transportation.


But still, much respect to the gentlemen at Sapphire Energy, brilliant minds with another interesting alternative!!

In other words, does petrol not pump the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere whether it's drilled from the ground or made using algae?

Surely the only benefit of this is to make sure we can keep burning petrol and other oil derivatives for longer. That sounds like a disaster for the environment for me.

Using algae is just like using trees ---- it'll take away the oxygen producing capabilities of the earth. best to use solar power.

In other words, does petrol not pump the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere whether it's drilled from the ground or made using algae?

I'm constantly amazed at some of the comments here.

The CO2 released by burning fuel from algae comes from the atmosphere in the firstplace. No net change.

Even if the CO2 is initially obtained from coal or natural gas plant exhaust, it effectively gets "utilized" twice... resulting in ~50% reduction in CO2 creation.

While it won't reduce carbon emissions, it'll create a sustainable loop that means our civilization will no longer be on a timer, contingent on oil reserves. Algae, like plants, photosynthesize quite efficiently, and efficiency is always a good thing!

There is no mention in the website of oceans. This is a purely ground-based process. It's solar, and of course, carbon neutral (or carbon positive if it's used to build stockpiles :-). The only questions are how scalable and how soon.

==I like the algae idea because it's not something we eat so it won't impact our food supply.==

Well aside from the water and the fertilizers needed. Which last I checked, is integral to our ability to grow food.

And we're going to be expecting shortages, and cartel style regulation of both.

Besides which, they wouldn't grow algae in the ocean at all to begin with.
Why? Because it's illegal.
desmogblog.com/un-deep-sixes-algae-seeding-scam

Nice choice of a highly biased summary. It is not illegal, most countries decided to have a moratorium until the effects were better understood. Nor does it say it is a scam. Interestingly, it doesn't say if the US was a signatory to that agreement or not.

These men are "moving" toward discovering things. Some will work, others won't. Here's a thought. Heavy duty railroad locomotive routinely hold 5,600 gal of diesel fuel each. There are about 20,000 of those around. On those lines in hydro-electric areas, coupled with high traffic density, switch to electric locomotives. I guess the biggest problem would be initial startup money and the GOP won't foot the cost, saying "it must come from private sources" - which can't (won't) afford it. So here we sit. GEN-SET locomotives have been a big boost. Think algae produced fuel would do better than those?

Sapphire is doing something good. Whether anyone chooses to believe it or not, today the US needs petroleum to run. That is a fact that no one can deny. If they could mass produce a substitute for a substance that we require from a foreign source, then we are one step closer to finding something better. Once this is in mass production, the price of oil drops to nothing because demand has diminished exponentially and prices can once again go down to an affordable level. All of these things would encourage new ideas and better ways to find something cleaner and greener.

On those lines in hydro-electric areas, coupled with high traffic density, switch to electric locomotives. I guess the biggest problem would be initial startup money and the GOP won't foot the cost, saying "it must come from private sources" - which can't (won't) afford it.

Larry, Diesels ARE electric. They convert Diesel to electricity to power electric motors. Pure Electric engines are already used in areas where the power lines exist and the rail roads are getting a big boost in revenue with the high oil prices as everyone is switching to trains over trucks. The railroads can afford it themselves at this point and are probably working on it.

There are also dual diesel/overhead electric engines coming out.

... You are half-right. Diesels are electric ONLY after they have burned diesel fuel to make them so. Electric propulsion DECLINED over the last thirty years when The Milwaukee Road and PennCentral pulled the plug on their electric operations. About 30 years ago, there was a spirited push to explore electrification on the BN and the UP but both were shelved because diesel locomotives were being refined and horsepower boosted to the point where the railroads didn't think it was economically feasible to continue further studies. Railroad use of electricity has declined by 400% in the last 30 years. You mentioned dual locomotives. Dual locomotives have been around for 100 years from the days of distilled fuels and gasoline but the the most successful was the EMD FL9's now mostly retired in favor of newer GE P42AC's. All will work where they have always worked, between New York and Boston. Please look at "estimated costs of electrification on your search engine".

I like the algae idea because it's pretty easy to grow algae. All algae really needs is sunlight and carbon dioxide; with sunlight being pretty easy to find and there being an over-dose of CO2, it sounds like a great solution to me.
You also don't have to grow the algae in the ocean, many types of algae can grow very well just in damp places so i think we'd find that there are plenty of places to grow the algae without having to over-crowd the ocean or other ecosystems.

I don't think we should JUST rely on the one source of fuel that the algae would provide though. To cut our reliance on oil in the quickest manner, we should be using as many resources as we can. I think the most beneficial would be using the algae fuel as well as solar panels, especially for cars. Instead of making hybrids from electric and gasoline, they could have cars that run on solar panels/electric and the algae fuel.

there are already solar panel roofs that can be installed in hybrid cars that recharge the battery so you don't have to stop to recharge it as much. http://www.solarelectricalvehicles.com/

If they take the C02 out of the air for this, then it's a good transitional technology, especially if it can be cheaper than pumping it out of the middle east.

Net-efficiency of creating vehicle speed out of gasoline is two or three times less than net-efficiency to create vehicle speed out of electricity. Just look at the amount of heat escaping each gasoline or diesel car, compared to an electric car. This heat in general just escapes.

According to me EV's are to become the future in most transportation (next to public transport and cycling). Better use the algae-gasoline to create the elecricity needed for this.

Besides: how much costal area do we need for the algae to create a substantial amount of gasoline? And how about food for the algae? will this only be CO2?

it is great to end wars, despite the lack of environmental help

I think it doesnt harm the environment. it takes about 500 acres to produce a billion gallons a year. We just need several different technologies not just one form. Imagine the algae, electric, hydrogen, others not discovered all coming to market and competing for consumers. thats the way it should be. no control no dependence!

I agree. These gentlemen are saving the middle east, and should be funded by the people of the US and Iran alike; because they'll reduce the American's need to make a presence. Given the US doesn't give a shit about the Bhurmese or Somali people, I'd imagine they'd care equally little if they didn't need oil and might stop slaughtering and torturing random people en masse. Yay.

Algae is getting its C02 directly from what is already in the air. When the fuel is burned it is re-released into the air. The problem with fossil fuels is that they are releasing carbon into the air which was captured over millions of years and then harvested to be spewed into the atmosphere in the blink of an eye - a few hundred years - in comparison. The claim that this method is neutral in terms of carbon emissions may hold water in my opinion.

Also, algae can be used to clean the environment in many ways. It tends to cleanse stagnant water and filter contaminants. This means that it could clean our ground water and then be used for fuel, without having to "feed it fertilizer".

Oh, and Frisbee...are you an engineer? Have you at least taken a few Thermodynamics and Electrical Engineering classes so that you can do the math to back up your claim? Sure, electric motors are very efficient, but most power plants in the US are using fossil fuels right now anyway. No matter what type of fuel is used to produce electricity, there are massive inefficiencies that are dealt with at the power plant so the inefficiencies are still present whether they occur at the plant or in the internal combustion engine.

Sure, solar and wind may be good answers for the future, but we need something now. If we have a solution which doesn't put strain on the food supply, is easily integrated into our current infrastructure, (everyone would not have to buy new vehicles and new fuel stations would not need to be built) and causes a great deal less pollution than current technology, then I say it's a good thing. Why is everyone criticizing someone else's effort to solve the energy crisis? What are you doing about it?

I have some experience in mechanical and electrical engineering, but admit that I am only speculating on the positives and negatives associated with this article, due to the lack of details given as to how it actually works.

i am amazed people can't see the environmental benefits of this

when you burn oil, you are releasing the CO2 from a substance which has been buried underground for millions of years, thus resulting in a net growth of CO2 levels

however when you burn algae, you are only releasing as much carbon dioxide as the plant absorbed from the atmosphere in the first place, net result=0

so this wont reduce the current level of CO2, but it would completely stop any increase... and if this algae is stockpiled, the amount of fuel constantly in storage will be holding CO2 that would otherwise be in the atmosphere

Hi folks. Easy on the assumptions, people. I'm a microbiologist/master brewer with experience in this type of stuff. In fact my history has a lot in common with commercial ethanol production as well. I then got my MBA with concentrations in Biotechnology and Entrepreneurism.

Until some mass transfer equations and assumptions about mass production costs are put forward, this will remain a question mark. The CO2 uptake is indeed from dissolved gases in the medium, >50% of current CO2 uptake is done by marine ecosystems that are comprised of single celled organisms or their colonies. Optimizing the environments to produce mega-facilities might be difficult, but could tie into other means that I won't mention here. The important part of this is to ask objective questions until we know it can/cannot provide something useful. It has a lot of merit, especially coupled with genetic manipulation.

Holy shit this is straight out of Metal Gear!!!!

Why are people discussing the environmental impact of burning this fuel when in the first sentence of the article says that the fuel source is carbon neutral??? Get informed people!! (this means absorbing what you read before spouting over-opinionated crap)

How do you make food again?
written by David Ahlport , May 31, 2008
==I like the algae idea because it's not something we eat so it won't impact our food supply.==

Well aside from the water and the fertilizers needed. Which last I checked, is integral to our ability to grow food.

And we're going to be expecting shortages, and cartel style regulation of both.

Forget how we make food for just one minute, let's think about how we "make" fertilizer.... Okay, now I don't think will now, or at any point in the future run out of what is needed to "make" fertilizer. If we do we are in a whole 'heap' of trouble.

I commend Sapphire for trying to find a new solution to an old problem.

Okay, I still think that a lot of the problems with PVO are a bit exaggerated and resolvable. Yet, this is the reason why I agree that we should have multiple answers to this question. Test them out. Maybe a few will shine- stick with them. (Emphasis on them.)

However, I have a few misgivings with this particular product, stemming from the Green Crude's site. If the CO2 emissions are that of the CO2 the algae absorbed (thereby making it, yes, you guessed it- carbon neutral); then would it not be prudent to be concerned about the same algae absorbing pollutants? (as the site states as a potential benefit)Would not they then too become reintroduced, only this time into the atmosphere, as an airborne pollutants? Bit curious about that one.

Also, a few mechanical Q's. Algae is MUCH thicker than gas. Are we not concerned about our fuel systems getting clogged up? Since we are not going to have to 'overhaul' our vehicle systems, nor make new vehicles to run on this fuel. Then also is the water aspect. This fuel is water-based, yes? If then, when we get condensation in our fuel tank and it sputters and barely runs; what about a fuel that is comprised of a large quantity of water?

I am not claiming to have a large amount of knowledge in any of the above fields, but I see these questions as fundamental.

Just thought I'd get some juices flowing.

Re-reading my post, I just realized just how tired I truly am.

Instead of studying new renewable sources (clean) and ways to increase efficiency of the already existing, no, they actually stop and try to make more gasoline. I just hope they fail miserably, because gasoline isn't and never was a good solution.

If they really just need algae blooms, they should check out Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada.
It's had a massive algae bloom problem for quite a few years now, and due to the massive, MASSIVE (24,514 km² (9,465 sq mi)) size of the lake, is nearly impossible to reverse.
The lake appears green from space...
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~gmccullo/LWsat.htm

People, the article is very vague upon many of the issues you are bringing up. The only thing it said, environmentally, is that it was very water efficient, which would go against the 14 gallons of sludge per 1 gallon of fuel. And just because something is grown does not mean it must be done outside of a facility. Why would it have to be grown in the ocean? Is gasoline processed while in the oil fields? No, it's done elsewhere. I think once more facts come out and you aren't jamming your presumptions in people's faces, then it would be a good time to evaluate this and then get your negativity out.

If we were to spend the same amount of money researching this stuff into getting the cost of solar and battery technology down we could all be driving electric cars like the GM EV1 and charge them for free with thin-film solar chargers on the roofs of houses and businesses and parking lots! It really is a very easy fix if we'd all just direct or last bit of oil-derived energy and money.

One thing I would like to add, we do not know what their process is to make this fuel using algae. I would guess that they grow it in a tank, and push CO2 gas and water into the tank to feed the algae to make it grow fast. It would be interesting to see if this system could act as an atmospheric filter. They pull the CO2 out of the the air, push it into the tanks to feed the algae, they make fuel from it which creates CO2 and then they filter it out of the air again. If the process is refined enough (if its even logistical) they could come close to removing as much CO2 from the atmosphere as cars would put in it when the fuel is burned creating close to a zero net effect. If a balance could be met, and it could be produced at a scale that would limit our need to use crude from the ground, we could in effect bake our cake and eat it too.

Algal petroleum products have an amazing amount of potential to produce relatively clean energy. From an engineering standpoint producing a clean fuel that would fit into the existing infrastructure seems like a step in the right direction. These “Algae Farms” don’t really require that much land (especially when the algae is farmed vertically) or water. They also have the potential to become cheaper as the production scale is increased. Apparently the major hurdle they are trying to overcome with the production of these algal biofuels is finding an economical process for extracting the oils from the algae it self.

I would personally like to see more effort being put into the development of renewables like this. I know that many people would rather see the development money going towards solar/electric vehicles, but putting more effort into the development of those things aren’t realistically going to be able to put a significant dent in the current energy crisis. There simply isn’t enough room on the surface of a passenger vehicle for enough photovoltaic cells to provide enough energy to sustain motion, let alone accelerate. Only about 400 Watts per square Meter even reach the surface of the earth. Assuming that there is only about 10 square meters of car facing the sun at any one moment, and the theoretical maximum efficiency of a photovoltaic cell is about 40%, the maximum amount of power that a car could produce is about 1.6KW (2.15hp) on a clear sunny day. Either you could fill your car with batteries and drive it for five minutes a day, or you would have to find another energy source to generate the additional power needed to move the vehicle. Rather than overload an already at-the-limit, mostly fossil fuel powered, electrical grid, I would advocate supplementing this with a renewable liquid fuel. In all reality, the cost of the components of electric vehicles would increase as production increased anyway, because the primary cost of the production of solar cells, electric motors, and batteries is the materials. The prices of these materials would increase exponentially as the demand for them increased. Putting more money and research into these technologies isn’t going to make these materials any cheaper. Solar power isn’t going to be able to fix this crisis alone.

This seems like a great idea to me. In fact, a whole new industry could rise from this idea. Imagine people opening small algae fuel businesses across the country. Instead of having huge power oil conglomerates making fuel we can have fuel made in a smaller area or by smaller companies locally. In addition, the oil companies (if they were really smart) could start shifting through own production away from petroleum and make algae fuels themselves. This could make the entire market for fuels VERY competitive again and greatly reduce the costs of production through competition to a level that would not require everyone to buy a new car. Actually, I am all for griesels (grease diesel) and electric/wind/solar as well. I still think those technologies need to be developed as well. But you do you really think that it is realistic to expect 300 million people in the united states to replaces perhaps 200 million cars that mostly run on gas over night? The answer is no. A drop in replacement that is low pollution, somewhat less expensive and that will create new competition in the industry and that can be distributed through the current infrastructure can only be a GOOD thing. As for some questions. One I have is about how much water that really will be required to make this stuff. That is still very much a big question. A lot of places have water shortages right now even in areas that traditionally have not been dry (think GA, NC, SC). So that is a big question. I don't think that they will need oceans to grow this algae. Its ridiculous to think that they would need that. Still, how much water will this technology use? Water is one of the basic components of life and we cannot afford to endanger the water supplies more than we already have.

It's nice to see people actually doing the calculations, way to go B

Only about 400 Watts per square Meter even reach the surface of the earth. Assuming that there is only about 10 square meters of car facing the sun at any one moment, and the theoretical maximum efficiency of a photovoltaic cell is about 40%, the maximum amount of power that a car could produce is about 1.6KW (2.15hp) on a clear sunny day.

400W/m^2 seems a bit low, perhaps a 24 hour average. At noon on a cloudless day expect about 1,000 watts per square meter as a rule of thumb.

The 40% theoretical maximum is far from attained, and you were correct to use it as an upper bound. As far as I know, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) current photovoltaic preforms at a mere 15%.

But anyway, this leaves a maximum of 4kW and practical 1.5kW, certainly consistent with your argument that solar vehicles will definitely need batteries.

looks like I forgot to reference the kW/m^2 rule of thumb. Here's one http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_en...works.html

However, I have a few misgivings with this particular product, stemming from the Green Crude's site. If the CO2 emissions are that of the CO2 the algae absorbed (thereby making it, yes, you guessed it- carbon neutral); then would it not be prudent to be concerned about the same algae absorbing pollutants? (as the site states as a potential benefit)Would not they then too become reintroduced, only this time into the atmosphere, as an airborne pollutants? Bit curious about that one.

Also, a few mechanical Q's. Algae is MUCH thicker than gas. Are we not concerned about our fuel systems getting clogged up? Since we are not going to have to 'overhaul' our vehicle systems, nor make new vehicles to run on this fuel. Then also is the water aspect. This fuel is water-based, yes? If then, when we get condensation in our fuel tank and it sputters and barely runs; what about a fuel that is comprised of a large quantity of water?

You have to understand they aren't just taking fist fulls of algae and throwing them down the intake. they are creating a crude oil which is then refined into a product that is chemically identical to gasoline, plastics or one of the other products made from crude oil. this refinery process would also be able to eliminate all the filtered pollutants absorbed by the algae and keep them out of the final product.

Actually if you think about it CO2 would be reduced. There will always be an amount of CO2 that is stored in the supply, so the greater the demand (ie more cars on the road) the greater the supply. So as the supply grows we would actually be reducing CO2 in the air and be storing it. The net would be zero but actual would be a reduction in the storage based off of lead time and inventory. We would be better off than we are now.

It's too early to say whether or not this matters. Even if it's a drop-in replacement for petroleum-based gasoline, if it costs them $10/gallon to produce there won't be any appreciable change in the current situation.

I can't believe most of the comments here... just as pollutant as gasoline? So what! You seem to be missing the point of "weaning off oil." We're not looking for a greener alternative, we're looking for a relatively cheap, sustainable, replacement. If it happens to lower pollution, great. But so far all the green technology everyone so touts, biofuels and electricity most notably, do not produce any significant amount less pollution than oil production.

I wish this technology was explained better. Are we growing algae that has been genetically modified to produce gasoline directly? Are there any unintended dangers in this? Valcent Technologies has greenhouses full of vertical growth sheets for their algae. No oceans required.

I keep reading the completely crazy posts about the renew-ability of this algae fuel. First for all for all of the anti combustible fuel people... #1 All of the cars in production today will require some type of combustible fuel for an estimated 20 years. 99.9999999999....% of cars on the road today fall in to this category. When we trade them for non combustible fuel cars, someone buys them. So your wet dreams of having no combustion fuel cars on the road will happen at least 20 years from the last one ever produced. #2 Farm land need not be effected. Have you been to the desert lately? Come visit Arizona Utah or Nevada. There is a ton of land in the middle of nowhere that grows nothing where plants can grow in man made lagoons. We don't need to use oceans to produce this stuff. we need controlled a enviroment, and there is way more land out in the Southwest than would be required to provide the need for our fuel thirst. #3 The average person can't just go out and change their cars major components to satisfy a no fuel world. That would require a huge chunk of money that most just can't manage to scrounge up. #4 it's believed by some that algae fuel is virtually carbon neutral. I think you can find reasonable stats like I did by typing searches on your computer like you did to find this web site. So far it's the best alternative to gasoline going, unless we can all afford to destroy our gasoline cars today. I know some people would love for that to happen but it's not practical for 95% of the population. #5 We would be financing our own fuel needs and keeping money in our economy. We could take the current approach of spending our money over seas. The neat thing about that is they take our money and buy large assets here in the USA. Once the become powerful enough here in our business and financial systems, they get in to our politics and help make laws that benefit them. You may not like their laws either. The good news is America will be taken over not by force, but by influence.

I just wanted to point out that many people don't realize that the carbon goes in and the carbon goes out therefore the net impact is zero. Compared to crude oil which bring the ancient carbon back into the cycle.

Wow, a lot of people talking like they are intelligent and professing to know something about the topic, yet you all spell like third graders.

Creating actual gasoline from a renewable, carbon neutral source: algae.