Algae Can Save the World From Global Warming While Producing Biofuel

[Why Syzygy]

http://www.naturalnews.com/026010.html

Tuesday, April 07, 2009 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Scientists at Plymouth University in the United Kingdom are conducting research into ways to use algae to not only remove global warming-causing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but also in the synthesis of new biofuels that do not compete with food production.

Algae is being eagerly investigated for its ability to remove vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, turning it into oxygen. It was this process that originally led to the creation of the Earth's current atmospheric composition and allowed for life as we know it. It was also the decomposition of algae on the ocean floor that eventually led to many of today's existing petroleum deposits.

"So we are harvesting sunshine directly using algae, then we are extracting that stored energy in the form of oil from the alga and then using that to make fuels and other non-petroleum based products," said Steve Skill of Plymouth Marine Laboratory.

Plymouth scientists are not the only ones working on turning algae into viable fuel. Companies trying to get into the game include Sapphire Energy, Origin Oil, BioCentric Energy and PetroAlgae. Japan Airlines has already test-flown a plane fueled with a combination of biofuels (some derived from algae) and conventional jet fuel.

Part of the appeal of algae biofuel is the same as that of other biofuels -- because plants absorb carbon dioxide while they grow, they are thought to make up for the carbon dioxide emissions when fuels derived from them are burned. Algae has the added benefit of growing well in places unsuitable for human food production, this making it less likely to affect food prices as corn-derived ethanol has been accused of doing. It also grows 20-30 times faster than most food crops.
(...)

[glitch]

1. Infinitely smarter than corn. K & R nt

[kristopher]

2. I don't have anything against algae, in fact I strongly support it, but...

This type of article pisses me off to no end.

Doesn't journalism require at least an elementary level of critical thinking skills?

Claim: "use algae to not only remove global warming-causing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but also in the synthesis of new biofuels that do not compete with food production."

IF you "remove global warming-causing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere"

BY MAKING

"new biofuels that do not compete with food production"

THEN YOU ARE NOT REMOVING "GLOBAL WARMING CARBON DIOXIDE FROM THE AIR"!!!

You are just cycling it through another loop before releasing it into the air.

Algae can be a good carbon neutral source of fuel, but the carbon stream has to be a non-fossil fuel source. If you use a fossil fuel exhaust stream as the carbon input, you are either perpetrating the lie above (and in the process providing greenwash cover to the fossil fuel burning entity) or the algae must buried and not used as fuel.

[GliderGuider]

3. Bingo! Thanks for making that point. n/t

[Why Syzygy]

4. Growing the algae REMOVES carbon dioxide

as part of its growth cycle. I don't get your point.

[kristopher]

5. Think about ....

what happens when you BURN the algae you used fossil fuel CO2 to grow?

Where does the fossil fuel CO2 now go?

[Why Syzygy]

7. Isn't that the definition of "recycle"?

Fossil fuel production certainly doesn't convert CO2 to O. :shrug:

[kristopher]

9. Clarify concepts

We have a system that is basically balanced. CO2 and O go through a plant/animal cycle within the biosphere. There is also a geologic cycle where CO2 is released from sources such as rocks as they weather and break down chemically, or when volcanoes erupt; that is offset by organic carbon carrying material that gets buried in the ground or under the ocean.

When we pump carbon from the ground in the form of fossil fuels, it combines with O when it burns, creating CO2. That is outside the "cycles" mentioned above. This is what is primarily responsible for the climate change problem. Whether you take carbon out of the ground, burn it and combine it with O then release it into the air; or whether you take it out of the ground, burn it, feed the CO2 to algae and burn it again then release it into the air - you are still taking it out of the ground and ultimately releasing it into the air.

Since algae is only commercially viable when grown in a concentrated CO2 solution, it can't work as a commercial enterprise if we just let it absorb CO2 out of the air in a natural way. There are, however a number of concentrated CO2 streams that we have other than fossil fuels; for example, fish farms and algae production are extremely compatible.

[eppur_se_muova]

6. You can't sequester your cake and eat it too ...

that kind of leaped out at me, too. Choose recycle or sequester, can't do both at once.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Well, you can do both at once.

If you're producing, say, 100k bbl/day in a an area that "only" needs 50k, you can sell half and pump the other half underground. And the more we switch from hydrocarbon fuels, the more there is available to sequester.

[Gregorian]

12. The algae approach gets a thumbs up here. And agree with the thumbs down on more carbon emissions.

From whatever source.

Because we are not going to eliminate carbon emissions, and live a modern lifestyle. All we're going to do is reduce them by a fraction. And not a big fraction.

[HamdenRice]

13. Actually, the article is right, in an abstract way

Here's a thought experiment.

Right now we have a certain level of CO2, which is higher than optimal because of fossil fuels.

Let's say that hypothetically we could flip a switch and tomorrow all coal, gas, oil consumption ended and algae fuel consumption began.

To produce the amount of fuel necessary for tomorrow, we would have to take 1 days' worth of CO2 out of the air. Then we would burn it releasing the CO2 back into the air. And the next day and next day and so on.

Whatever our average net amount of stored algae fuel would be sequestered. I doubt it would be one day's worth.

So if the world switched to algae fuel there would be a net reduction, or sequestration, in the amount of stored fuel, even though there would be a cycle of releasing it.

This is in addition to the fossil CO2 we would not be releasing.

[kristopher]

14. Where is the energy for concentration coming from?

I understand what your point is: you're considering the CO2 involved in this energy loop to be sequestered.

I'd argue that ignoring the real world circumstances isn't moving a problem into the realm of a simplified abstraction, it is changing the basic parameters of the problem and that your thought exercise obscures the issue more than it clarifies it.

The requirement exists for a CONCENTRATED stream of CO2.

Growing algae at high volume is ONLY possible when the water is enriched with CO2 artificially. This is because the transfer rate at which CO2 in the air moves to water is much, much too low to enable a business model of any sort. It doesn't alter significantly if you stir or aerate, the concentration isn't simply isn't there.

Since the process of concentrating the CO2 requires an additional energy input your model must account for that. In the OP the input of concentrated CO2 is sourced from fossil fuels being burnt to provide energy.

The alternative is a biologic source that is actually downstream solar and that distinction was already made.

[HamdenRice]

15. Theoretically from burning algae fuel

Your algae fuel burning power plant would just pump the cooled exhaust into a closed tank of algae. The only input into the closed system would be sunlight. Of course that's a long way away, but the idea is that algae would be a net reduction/sequestration of CO2.

[kristopher]

16. I don't think we disagree on this, I'm just striving for clarity.

I don't think we disagree on this, I'm just striving for clarity.

The use of algae in the manner you describe is here and now. It is also a more expensive than the obvious alternative of tapping into the existing CO2 streams produced by fossil fuels. And therein lies the problem; when people are calculating the bottom line, the range of possibilities is defined in at least two ways, what is physically possible, and what is economically possible. If you are using part of your output as a next generation input, that is an expense. When you piggyback onto an existing waste stream the expense of using your output is avoided. In relation to fossil fuels, this waste stream is massive and can support a vast amount of algae production.

Fossil fuels are under attack. This attack is centered on their CO2 emissions and energy security. There are constant attempts to greenwash the technologies that are under attack, and the use of algae in conjunction with fossil fuels is a prime example.
If you go back you'll note that my comments draw a distinction based on the the input stream, with my criticisms centered on that provided by fossil fuels.

[HamdenRice]

17. I agree -- what they are proposing is not a net decrease in CO2, but recycling

I don't think the OP researchers are in any way proposing anything that is on our medium term horizon. It's just basic research about a potential renewable resource that in the far future might create a closed CO2 loop or balanced system.

I think the main unstated point of the algae gee whiz stories is that as we look to bio renewables -- which ultimately would require us to use no more energy than the sun produces in energy in biomass -- the question is which is fastest growing, and creates the densest and most oil-like form of bio energy?

Trees? Switch grass? Agricultural waste?

And they're saying gee, isn't this interesting. Who would have thought it's algae. What we will do with that knowledge in the far future is unknown.

[kristopher]

18. Where we diverge...

Behind these stories, business models are NOW being crafted that serve the purpose of greenwashing. To me, the key element is the promulgation of such stories where the dual claims of carbon sequestration and provision of energy are made with the intent of creating the "Gee Whiz" reaction you speak of. That reaction based on false conclusions is more important to such stories than the much more nuanced and much less exciting truth. Your academic exercise notwithstanding, you can't have both sequestration (in any meaningful sense) and fuel production from the same product.

[excess_3]

21. what are the Europeans waiting for?

support for these projects is very strong in Europe.

Eorope does not need the permission of the US.

somebody needs to go first

[kristopher]

22. Venice to use algae for 50% of its electricity

The city of Venice has announced a plan to utilize algae in a different way than we're used to hearing about.
The Italian city plans to produce 50 percent of its electricity needs from an algae-based power plant instead of
fossil fuels.
The water-filled city is turning what has become a nuisance into a renewable energy resource. The city will be
producing electricity from two types of algae that are brought in clinging to ships and regularly grow over the
seaport. The algae will be cultivated and treated in laboratories to turn it into fuel. The fuel will then be used to
power turbines in a new 40 MW power plant in the center of the city.
In order to make the new power plant truly carbon neutral, any CO2 produced by the process will be fed back
to the algae.
The innovative project will cost the city $264 million and should be operating in two years.

From Yahoo Ecogeek blog.

[excess_3]

23. excellent, thanks for posting that, n/t

[farmbo]

10. Huge algae de-watering breakthrough in Ohio... costs reduced 99%!

http://www.rechargenews.com/regions/north_america/article174685.ece

The Ohio company says it can reduce the cost of harvesting, de-watering and drying algae by more than 99% making it an economically feasible source of fuel.

``For nearly 40 years, it has been widely accepted that if the cost of removing, harvesting and de-watering algae could be reduced to $50 a ton, algae could become a significant source of fuel,’’ says Ross Youngs, chief executive of Univenture.

``We have demonstrated a truly disruptive technology that reduces that cost by more than 99 percent - from $875 per ton to $1.92 per ton,’’ he adds. ``This breakthrough moves algae back into the spotlight as an economically viable, plentiful source of fuel.’’

[glitch]

11. Wow! Thanks for posting. nt

[plcdude]

19. Take a look

at this http://science.discovery.com/videos/ecopolis-biofuel.html

[Why Syzygy]

20. Thanks!

I don't know all the technical issues discussed above.
I DO believe algae is much more sensible than corn!