Foo - What's wrong with this as an alternative energy? Algea

Energy is the hot button. We keep seeing articles like this, but no results. We're still paying ridiculous amounts of money for energy. Think about how much your energy costs you. It's part of everything somehow. Even if you lived in a house that was self sufficient in its energy needs, you would still be paying for energy in the costs that are passed down to consumers in goods sold. It takes energy to do everything. Why is something like what is described below not an obvious answer to energy problems. If it's producing over 1,000% more fuel per acre than corn and other products, why is this not a serious solution? Why don't we hear about this on the news? Why am I driving a car I don't like because I can't afford gas for the car I want?

http://www.scribemedia.org/2007/12/12/algae-biofuel-valcent-vertigro/

If proof is in the pudding, Valcent’s pudding is looking mighty green to me.

Not too long ago, I spoke with Valcent Products Inc. CEO and Principal Scientist Glen Kertz about his company’s Vertigro bioreactor system.

Judging from the first wave of Vertigro test data, the promise of sustainably producing large amounts of biofuels-ready algae oil is becoming more and more of a reality — and a potentially revolutionary reality at that!

From the Valcent/Vorticom press release:

During a 90 day continual production test, algae was being harvested at an average of one gram (dry weight) per liter. This equates to algae bio mass production of 276 tons of algae per acre per year. Achieving the same biomass production rate with an algal species having 50% lipids (oil) content would therefore deliver approximately 33,000 gallons of algae oil per acre per year.

…As a comparative, food crop such as soy bean will typically produce some 48 gallons oil per acre per year and palm will produce approximately 630 gallons oil per acre per year. In addition, the Vertigro Bio Reactor System is a closed loop continuous production system that uses little water and may be built on non arable lands.

The press release goes on to note that the focus of the 90 day test was determining the robustness of the test bed — not pushing the limits on production yields. The official line from Valcent stresses that the test system has not been optimized for maximum yields or the best selection of algae at this time.

According to Kertz and Dr. Aga Pinowska of Valcent, “We have learned how to produce a very large algal bio-mass under varying environmental and operating conditions in our continuous process photo bioreactors. We believe these initial results are amongst the best achieved to date, and we are confidant we can now increase the productivity.”

Doug Frater, CEO of Global Green Solutions Inc, goes on to note‚ “We are extremely pleased with the robustness and performance of the Vertigro technology in sustainably producing commercial quantities of algae biomass. Over the coming months we will further optimize the technology and demonstrate economic algae production for biofuel feedstock purposes.”

The next round of tests will involve an increase in the number of reactors from 30 to 100, various lipids extraction tests, as well as tests that focus on optimizing oil production per acre. Subsequintly, the joint venture between Valcent and Global Green intends to build out a one acre pilot plant, with engineering and design work underway at this time.

For those new to the Valcent story, their Vertigro system may be a solution to the renewable energy sector’s quest to create a clean, green process which uses mainly light, water and air to create fuel. The Vertigro technology employs a proprietary high-density vertical bio-reactor that produces fast growing algae which may yield large volumes of high-grade algae oil. This oil can be refined into a cost-effective, non-polluting diesel biofuel, jet fuel and other applications.

The algae derived fuel may be an energy efficient replacement for fossil fuels and can be used in any diesel powered vehicle or machinery. In addition, 90% by weight of the algae is captured carbon dioxide, which is “sequestered” by this process and so contributes significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gasses.

I think that I’m breathing a little easier already.

- Curtiss Martin

The reason that the corn fuel thing is going forward is the corn lobby, plain pure and simple. Money talks, and so does theirs. Even if you like biofuels, which I don't, it is an idiotic solution.

Sun, water, and wind. These are the sources most worth taking a long, hard look at. They produce NO pollution, and tend to be suitable for most applications other than aviation.

Geo thermal is a good one to add to Mich`s list, Bio fuel takes more energy to process than it will give off. Corn based energy will make your food prices go up to.
And corn robs the soil at a fast rate and hurts, its not feasible to plant corn in the same place year after year in the same spot without fertilizer. And do we want to keep dumping fertilizer into the ground year after year. Thats another enviromental problem

Corn fuel would actually help the food situation I'd think. Maybe it would mean the end of corn syrup in every damn thing you see at a convenience store.

Biofuel is simply stored sun energy. Sure, when you burn it, you generate CO2, but if you only used biofuel while fueling its production, you also take the same amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere (assuming no wasted plant parts). Personally, I think biofuel is the future. Why work so hard to generate solar panels when plants are nature's solar panel? As for what plants to use for biofuel, I don't know. Let them compete and let's see what's most effective. The best choice for one region may not be the best choice for another region.

What is so hard about solar panels? You can put them on your roof, power your house, and charge up batteries. It saves you the trouble of refining plants. Besides, I personally would rather this country have a lot more trees and a lot less corn fields.

I read that cannibus , weed you know is one of the most perfect plants for creating bio fuel because its very easy to proccess and the entire plant is used. But the THC issue keeps it off the short list.

corn is big ag, algae is just some guy in his backyard. decentralized energy is where it's at, but the oil and coal companies and the electric utility monopolies would rather keep control themselves.

[QUOTE=Michigander;5799120]The reason that the corn fuel thing is going forward is the corn lobby, plain pure and simple. Money talks, and so does theirs. Even if you like biofuels, which I don't, it is an idiotic solution.

Sun, water, and wind. These are the sources most worth taking a long, hard look at. They produce NO pollution, and tend to be suitable for most applications other than aviation.[/QUO

Plants and algae are sun powered. Oil is too. Its solar energy from millions of years ago.

Geo thermal is a good one to add to Mich`s list, Bio fuel takes more energy to process than it will give off. Corn based energy will make your food prices go up to.
And corn robs the soil at a fast rate and hurts, its not feasible to plant corn in the same place year after year in the same spot without fertilizer. And do we want to keep dumping fertilizer into the ground year after year. Thats another enviromental problem

I think you're defining biofuel too loosely. There are varying types. I'd like to hear more about these algae production plants. I remember hearing about a algae plant the produces hydrogen a few weeks ago. The algae acts as a catalyst to the electrolysis process to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen.

The article above is another algae based system where you're not burning the 'plant', you're burning the fuel the plant produces. (I think.)

corn is big ag, algae is just some guy in his backyard. decentralized energy is where it's at, but the oil and coal companies and the electric utility monopolies would rather keep control themselves.

Read what I wrote above. The algae process can probably be franchised out. It would me a very viable option.

I think it would be VERY interesting if a budding entrepreneur bought maybe 100 acres of land and started a gas station off of his biofuel and sold it for a small margin above what it costs to make it. Assuming the article is correct it wouldn't be incredible expensive. Even if he sold it for $2 a gallon he could corner the gas market in town and cause quite a stir. If other entrepreneurs then saw what that person did and said, "screw real estate I'm starting an algae oil station," then things might get really interesting. Suddenly it's the small business owner that is profiting off of oil and not big international conglomerates.

Anyone want to go into business?

What is so hard about solar panels? You can put them on your roof, power your house, and charge up batteries. It saves you the trouble of refining plants. Besides, I personally would rather this country have a lot more trees and a lot less corn fields.

Biofuels could be something other than corn. Just because this country's pouring huge amounts of money into corn doesn't mean it's the best solution.

As for solar panels, sure, they have their use, and I see solar power becoming more important, too. But you can't save up arbitrarily large amounts of energy as readily, nor can you transport it to arbitrary locations as readily. You still need some sort of transportable fuel. Solar also doesn't take care of the CO2 already in the air (a long-term biofuel program could do that as we stockpile excess fuel) or offer a replacement to oil for raw materials for plastics and other petrochemical-derived goods.

I think you're defining biofuel too loosely. There are varying types. I'd like to hear more about these algae production plants. I remember hearing about a algae plant the produces hydrogen a few weeks ago. The algae acts as a catalyst to the electrolysis process to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen.

The article above is another algae based system where you're not burning the 'plant', you're burning the fuel the plant produces. (I think.)

Bio fuel I consider fuel from plants. Geo thermal, solar, wind, water/tidal is just good environmentally safe and cheap energy.

Sorry to run all my crap together in that post. Hope this clears it up.

Plants and algae are sun powered. Oil is too. Its solar energy from millions of years ago.

Of course they are, no debate there. All I'm saying is that taking the sun and using it to electrically charge a battery, or feed appliances, or doing the same with flowing water or air is vastly more efficient. An electric motor can be incredibly efficient.

In the fashion that they are typically used, an internal combustion engine wastes huge amounts of power in the form of heat and exhaust pressure. I've said it many times, a hybrid electric diesel car that used a hydrolic accumulator to collect exhaust pressure to run on so the engine can remain off most of the time might very well be the best way to go about having reliable transportation that isn't limited by a battery charge.

To say that we should just replace gasoline and regular diesel with less efficient bio diesel and otherwise leave things as they are doesn't seem right to me. It's a step down in performance, and it still creates CO2.

Biofuels could be something other than corn. Just because this country's pouring huge amounts of money into corn doesn't mean it's the best solution.

As for solar panels, sure, they have their use, and I see solar power becoming more important, too. But you can't save up arbitrarily large amounts of energy as readily, nor can you transport it to arbitrary locations as readily. You still need some sort of transportable fuel. Solar also doesn't take care of the CO2 already in the air (a long-term biofuel program could do that as we stockpile excess fuel) or offer a replacement to oil for raw materials for plastics and other petrochemical-derived goods.

As I said before, corn for fuel is idiotic. There are vastly better options for biofuels.

The manufacturing of plastics and things, (which is in and of itself an enormous problem for pollution) is the best reason I know of to get away from burning it. We are taking from future generations an extremely useful resource every time we fill our gas tanks.

Of course they are, no debate there. All I'm saying is that taking the sun and using it to electrically charge a battery, or feed appliances, or doing the same with flowing water or air is vastly more efficient. An electric motor can be incredibly efficient.

In the fashion that they are typically used, an internal combustion engine wastes huge amounts of power in the form of heat and exhaust pressure. I've said it many times, a hybrid electric diesel car that used a hydrolic accumulator to collect exhaust pressure to run on so the engine can remain off most of the time might very well be the best way to go about having reliable transportation that isn't limited by a battery charge.

To say that we should just replace gasoline and regular diesel with less efficient bio diesel and otherwise leave things as they are doesn't seem right to me. It's a step down in performance, and it still creates CO2.

Yea. The reason they're more efficient is there are fewer conversions of energy. I know how inefficient ga engines are. I drove a 60's chevy powered tank. Fuel just smells and sounds soooooooo good when burned though.

Algae and Diatoms are interesting possible sources of fuel, yes.

Issues: Are we going to have to introduce recombinant genes and develop a Chimeric strain of the Algae to produce sufficient fuel? Yes, algae of certain species do produce Petrochemicals as a waste product. The only issue really there is what would the long term effect be of a recombinant chimeric strain escaping into the natural environment? Once loose, you can't recall it.

A portion of the organic chemistry community is hard at work decreasing our reliance on petrochemicals and turning to renewable building blocks such as carbohydrates. But nonetheless, advanced materials can't be made without raw materials. Oil is about more than just energy, and it's really a shame that so much of it is used for that purpose.

As I said before, corn for fuel is idiotic. There are vastly better options for biofuels.

The manufacturing of plastics and things, (which is in and of itself an enormous problem for pollution) is the best reason I know of to get away from burning it. We are taking from future generations an extremely useful resource every time we fill our gas tanks.

Yea corn, ie ethanol, is too weak anyways.

The algae process is interesting though. It takes out one less step than the corn process. Since the algae is in water and produces oil, it separates itself. With corn biofuels you still need to distill it all and remove the alcohol. Also, it's still a biofuel. It does take in CO2 to produce itself, which we later release again. It's better than burning fossil fuels where no CO2 is used to make the fuel.

Algae and Diatoms are interesting possible sources of fuel, yes.

Issues: Are we going to have to introduce recombinant genes and develop a Chimeric strain of the Algae to produce sufficient fuel? Yes, algae of certain species do produce Petrochemicals as a waste product. The only issue really there is what would the long term effect be of a recombinant chimeric strain escaping into the natural environment? Once loose, you can't recall it.

Perhaps all we'd need to do is figure out what is the natural predator of said algae? Even though its waste product is oil, would fish and other marine wildlife be able to feed on it? If so, then I'm not sure I would be so worried about it over running the earth.

See, that's the thing, most of the petrochemical producers are mildly toxic. What would the effect be of amplification of the production of Petroleum in the organism on this? I'm not against the idea, don't get me wrong here. I'm just playing "Devils Advocate" and looking for possible unintended consequences. This is a necessary process when you are dealig with something that can't be recalled once it's loose.


Perhaps all we'd need to do is figure out what is the natural predator of said algae? Even though its waste product is oil, would fish and other marine wildlife be able to feed on it? If so, then I'm not sure I would be so worried about it over running the earth.

See, that's the thing, most of the petrochemical producers are mildly toxic. What would the effect be of amplification of the production of Petroleum in the organism on this? I'm not against the idea, don't get me wrong here. I'm just playing "Devils Advocate" and looking for possible unintended consequences. This is a necessary process when you are dealig with something that can't be recalled once it's loose.

And what if we enjoy releasing mildly toxic organisms into a wildlife that can't control it?

I think a good answer would be to genetically engineer it to only survive in certain environments. For example, perhaps make it an algae that can only survive in freshwater or only in extremely salty waters. In the freshwater scenario it would only affect a small part of the worlds water stores and thus, more easily thwarted. In the salty scenario it wouldn't survive whatsoever in the real world.

There could be variations to this, such as producing algae that needs high protein content in the water or something. Who knows.

As a technology though, is the algae deal that difficult? I've seen estimates that the US oil supply could be supplied by less than 120,000 sq miles of land with algae. Someone gave a figure that corn production covers over 100,000 sq miles in the US.

Corn sounds on paper like it will help energy stuff, but all its doing is driving up food prices. Each ear of corn turned into alcohol is one ear off someone's dinner table, or one ear less available to ranchers who have to pay higher prices for quality feed, or use crappier feed which causes health problems in livestock.

Long term, what is needed are energy sources that don't spew carbon in the atmosphere in any way, shape, or form. Few forms of energy fit this bill. You pretty much have solar, wind, fission, and fusion.

Algae is one idea, but I really shudder at genetically modifying stuff. Look at all the havoc caused just by transplantation of normally growing species (fire ants, killer bees, kudzu, Caulerpa taxifolia), much less ones created with man-made advantages.

To boot, most petrochemicals are very toxic. Long term, oil based stuff should be relegated *only* for manufacturing (plastics for example), and not used as energy.