I normally don't cross boards, but this thread got interesting and we have more scientists per square inch here than any other board, so thought I'ld link it:

<link>

Someone mentioned algae biofuels, so I did what I do best, chase down business oriented information on the subject. Basic idea is simple; waste water plus CO2 plus pond scum equals something useful. Lot of interesting players, including Sandia Lab and Shell and Chevron, with Boeing and other aviation types showing interest.

Anyone know anything on this? Havelock?

Can't comment on th science of it per se, but I believe University of Arizona or someplace was doing pretty serious research on that......

It sounds promising, and lots of big name venture capitalists seem interested. I doubt it would 'replace' fossil fuels completely -- but hey, I'll take a 10% reduction and kiss it :)

Wonder if 100 yrs from now people will look back with amusement at days when oil and gasoline were just considered 'indispensable' for civilization!

"Wonder if 100 yrs from now people will look back with amusement at days when oil and gasoline were just considered 'indispensable' for civilization!"

Like we look back on the horse or wood fired steam boats.

What I find interesting is how it fits our needs. Wastewater, CO2, pond scum, and sunlight. One test plant I read is parallel to a coal fired generating plant and uses exhaust as CO2 source. Another prototype is placed downstream from a grain ethanol plant and uses "black water," waste from the plant, as food source. Applications in sewage are easily imaginable. Linking algae biofuel with wastewater treatment and potable water generation kills a lot of birds with one stone, and some pond scums do fine in saltwater, so could have desalinization side benefits, but at least would require fresh water..

What I find amusing is that *someone* late last night asked me out of the blue in an email what I was considering as a capital project.

<shakes head>

<half hearted glare>

;-)

Wrenn:

What I find amusing is that *someone* late last night asked me out of the blue in an email what I was considering as a capital project.

<shakes head>

<half hearted glare>

;-)

I am tantalized and intrigued. Is that a whiff of venture capital in the air :)?

Unfortunately, you have a problem with using CO2 from coal burning as a source, if your goal is a reduction in greenhouse gas-- coal still has an open carbon cycle while the algae cycle is closed (hence the coal CO2 still is a net increase in the atmosphere to the same extent it would have been if the coal was burned and the algae grown separately).

einhverfr:

Unfortunately, you have a problem with using CO2 from coal burning as a source, if your goal is a reduction in greenhouse gas-- coal still has an open carbon cycle while the algae cycle is closed (hence the coal CO2 still is a net increase in the atmosphere to the same extent it would have been if the coal was burned and the algae grown separately).

I see what you're saying, but like the elegance of inline CO2 utilization, as well as getting twice the energy from the same amount of CO2 produced, as well as particulate cleanup opportunities from cycling the coal exhaust through liquid medium.

...about the various algae-biofuel projects underway. One of my colleagues has some small-scale project in the area though. As I understand it, the main limiting factor right now is yield per unit surface area. The algae only grow well is a relatively thin layer exposed to the sun. So getting an economic yield at the moment requires a good bit of area and fairly tight control across that entire area over growing conditions such as water temperature and CO2/oxygen balance. And that makes the whole operation somewhat unwieldy and inefficient. I think a good bit of the research is focused on getting around that to some extent, for example by selecting for algae that grow well in a wider array of conditions and/or make more of the biofuel components (mainly oils and carbohydrates). My colleague is evaluating light requirements in relation to oil yields, if I’m not mistaken. Overall, I’d say that the technology shows a lot of promise; the potential yield per unit of land is very impressive.

There’s also a lot of work going on looking at bacterial production of fuels, e.g. ethanol and mixtures of gasses, from various waste matter feedstocks. Some researchers say that their processes have already passed the threshold of economic feasibility. So who knows? We may see some significant changes in energy production in this country in the next decade or two.

Let’s hope so.

"Let’s hope so."

One of the companies I looked at used fiberoptics and mirrors to enhance light, another an agitation device to stir the material. I figure that natural processes made petroleum in the first place, so the theory is sound :)

It’s the application that’s a challenge – as usual. But I think we’re getting fairly close to having energy options we haven’t had in the past. Then I guess what takes off and what doesn’t becomes to some extent a matter of politics, money, and vested interests. Should be interesting...

"Then I guess what takes off and what doesn’t becomes to some extent a matter of politics, money, and vested interests. Should be interesting..."

As we saw with corn kernal ethanol, politics and vested interests don't always give the best results. Anymore I trust the clumsy, blundering market over herds of lobbyists.

How's your project coming along? This would be a good year for cellulosic, what with all the rain we've had. My city yard looks like a pasture, been cutting every three or four days. Little bluestem down at the farm has just gone nuts, almost three foot tall last time I was down there, near the upper range of the species. Hay will be too cheap to make this year, so I'll probably just burn it off this fall.

Hope you and yours are well and keeping dry. We have more rain coming in, looks like.

Well, the clumsy and blundering market is probably trustworthy enough, but the investment that’ll be required to bring any or several of these new technologies to market is going to be huge. One of the things we’ve seen with ethanol, I’d say, is that most folks aren’t eager to jump into the game without some guarantee of government backing in the form of subsidies or other incentives. I wonder then what chance the markets have of being allowed to blunder along unguided. Where’s konark_girl? Lord knows I’m no economist.

But things are fine here. If by “my project” you mean the ethanol from sweet sorghum project, they’re currently looking for funding to support larger-scale field trials. The laboratory-scale trials were promising. But it’s very far from being my project by any stretch of the imagination; I’m barely involved at the margin – mostly providing occasional analytical support. But the project goes well. There’s a fair amount of interest from various quarters and I think the funding will come through.

We have been fairly wet here, but it’s been nothing compared to this time last year. No late frost this year though, so we too have had prime conditions for maximal cellulose production. If only I could convert my yard waste to fuel. Maybe one of these years…

We do have more rain coming, so they say. But I’m on fairly high ground. Hope you and yours stay dry too. Any danger of flooding at any of your places?

Take care.

One of the things we’ve seen with ethanol, I’d say, is that most folks aren’t eager to jump into the game without some guarantee of government backing in the form of subsidies or other incentives. I wonder then what chance the markets have of being allowed to blunder along unguided. Where’s konark_girl? Lord knows I’m no economist.

******************************­******************************­******

I think the most obvious guarantee that most of the other investors want is a guard against a temporary drop in oil prices which makes everyone think that era of "cheap oil" is back, and for 6-12 months almost noone buys these alternate fuels. The era of cheap oil is likely gone, but there could be a temporary spike in supply (a few months of peace in Iraq so their oil fields start producing -- before some sectarian grievance bubbles over again). Your avg consumer has a short memory, and a temporary blip when we get $2.50 a gallon might be enough to bankrupt some of those who invest in alternate technologies.

The govt could provide subsidies etc etc, but my personal preference would be if the govt just put a 'price floor' for gasoline, basically saying that it'll be kept at -- say $3 a gallon -- at the pump. So for e.g. there'd be some kind of a tax that would kick in only if prices did go below, and that tax would keep the price folks paid at $3.

It kind of gives the investors in alternate technologies something to shoot for -- tells them that any fuel that can be produced at less than $3 a gallon is a 'good bet'. After that, one can hopefully count on competition between them and eventually even more tech breakthroughs that drive price of those alternate fuels even lower over time....

Here's another interesting company, gentically modified microbes that excrete...crude?

http://www.ls9.com/

"We do have more rain coming, so they say. But I’m on fairly high ground. Hope you and yours stay dry too. Any danger of flooding at any of your places?"

Noel has flooded three or four times, no damage, as the house was built above maximum level, although some neighbors who finished their basements aren't real happy right now. Rest of the properties are high ground and the levees in KC have held.

"It kind of gives the investors in alternate technologies something to shoot for -- tells them that any fuel that can be produced at less than $3 a gallon is a 'good bet'. After that, one can hopefully count on competition between them and eventually even more tech breakthroughs that drive price of those alternate fuels even lower over time...."

Interesting idea, an inverse ramped tax to maintain price. Politicians will love it as they are being tarred and feathered by their grateful constituents :)