- #421
- 8,142
- 1,759
mheslep said:Once one has sugar
That's the part I wonder about - getting the sugar. I suspect that the process is not very efficient or more would be done.
mheslep said:Once one has sugar
This [Biodiesel] much-smaller industry has had trouble attracting—and keeping–government support, unlike ethanol. And it is competing in a dramatically depressed market for traditional petroleum-based diesel that hasn’t recovered nearly as much as gasoline. Most biodiesel refineries have stopped production.
The National Biodiesel Board warned in a study last month that the industry could face thousands of layoffs if a federal biodiesel tax credit was allowed to lapse as scheduled Dec. 31, 2009. Conventional wisdom a few months ago was that the credit would be renewed. Then, Congress got caught up with health care…and the credit lapsed.
Michael Frohlich, NBB’s federal communications director, calls it “a pretty significant blow to biodiesel makers. Basically, the industry is treading water,” he says. He said the industry still expects a retroactive tax extension to be passed. But it could take until March, perhaps longer. “At that point you’ll already have seen a healthy amount of layoffs,” he predicts.
mheslep said:Cornyation: Good Days for Ethanol, Bad for Biodiesel
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...tion-good-days-for-ethanol-bad-for-biodiesel/
http://www.immunesupport.com/news/94wtr001.htmBlue-Green Algae: Nature's Perfect Food
"Algae has been eaten by man for centuries, but scientists have only recently focused on its nutritional potential. Blue- green algae grows in Upper Klamath Lake in southern Oregon, far from urban pollution, under the most natural Conditions possible. Also known as Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, blue-green algae contains no heavy metals or harmful bacteria, and supplies the most complete range of amino acids, vitamins and minerals available in any single food. It is a virtual powerhouse of nutrition...
Ivan Seeking said:I found this argument to be very effective when discussing the potential for algae. I'm glad to see it being used to get the message out generally. This issue isn't green, it's blood-red.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6_PRzP0R88
Ivan Seeking said:Another twist on the algae story is its potential as a food source for humans.
billiards said:sorry but that justy made me burst with laughter. Brings new meaning to the term scum burger.
Edit: just saw the McDonald's link. Says that algae is included within the 1% seasonings, and is simply a binding ingredient. (kind of makes me want to go on a rant about the mush that goes into those things -- if it won't binsd without the algae, it must be pretty awful!)
...Also known as Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, blue-green algae contains no heavy metals or harmful bacteria, and supplies the most complete range of amino acids, vitamins and minerals available in any single food...
Ivan Seeking said:While I don't think consumers are going to make a mad dash for Algae Macs, the issue of starvation does come to mind. If the quote above is accurate, then perhaps algae farming is the simplest and most efficient means to quickly provide a sustainable food source for a starving population. Note that some strains double in mass as often as once every four hours. It might also be used as a supplement in areas that have a limited variety of food sources. It does take a lot of water to grow algae, but a large number of strains can grow in brackish or salt-water. I don't know how algae compares to other plants in terms of the nutritional value, per gallon of water used for growth.
Also, if it has the highest nutritional density, so to speak, might it be the best medium for storing nutrients as long-term emergency food reserves?
It strikes me that, like oils, sugars, and hydrogen, which can used as or to produce fuels, nutrients are just another form of stored energy, so many of the arguments that apply to algae for fuel may apply in terms of algae as a food source. Presumably, as with oils and sugars, the simplicity of algae makes it very efficient at energy [solar to food] transfer and storage. In fact, the oils and sugars used for fuel are much the the same as those we get from other plants in our diets.
Ivan Seeking said:What do the insects eat? How much water do they require? The direct conversion of CO2 and water into long-chain hydrocarbons, via solar energy, makes algae growth the shortest energy path. But I can also see insects storing more energy through their diet than one could reasonably capture from the sun for algae growth. Other large-scale processes concentrate energy in the diet of the bugs.
Ivan Seeking said:One might even imagine that some bugs might eat algae. Does anyone know? Clearly it wouldn't be as efficient as humans eating the algae directly, but the bugs might be a preferable or complementary to the algae as a food source, as mentioned by frame dragger. It may also allow for wild/indigenous algae strains to be used as the base of the food chain, rather than the more difficult hybrid strains.
I believe the Arthropods in general eat the majority of the algae on the planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krill" in particular out weigh homo sapiens 2:1.Frame Dragger said:Ooooh, I just remembered what else eats algae... amphibians, snails and turtles... which we really can't afford to steal from so to speak. Although, we do raise frogs for food, it's a huge step down the efficiency ladder.
mheslep said:I believe the Arthropods in general eat the majority of the algae on the planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krill" in particular out weigh homo sapiens 2:1.
Ivan Seeking said:Going back to the subject of algae for fuel, this small company is claiming to have stumbled upon a technique to control what amounts to a chemical switch in the algae. This switch selects for the production of either oils or sugars. It has been one of the holy grails of algae research, so if true, it is a huge breakthrough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxA8KxuvJ1Q
Frame Dragger said:: Holy ****. I mean... this would be like finding a way to make logic gates from graphene alone, or synthetic diamonds from leftover tissues.I hope this is true!
Ivan Seeking said:Some strains are known to be good producers as a percentage of their total mass. For example, botryococcus braunii is famous for yielding up to 80% oil by dry weight, but this has never been well-controlled. Yields fluctuate dramatically. The reasons for this are not well understood. It was know that this switch exists and that controlling it would be one of the keys to making algae-oil fuel cost-competitive with petrodiesel.
Frame Dragger said:Yeah, I still don't understand why the yield fluctautes, and the opnions on the matter are so diverse as to be confusing (this is nowhere NEAR my field), but if they stumbled across this, I can live happily with this ignorance for a while. I'm just... pleased.
80%... with a reliable way to moderate the process... eat your heart out corn ethanol.
Significant, but wouldn't this still be several notches down in importance from the other impediments to commercial success, e.g. raw algae yield, net oil/sugar yield after harvest, container costs, water usage, CO2 required for yield, and so on?Ivan Seeking said:Going back to the subject of algae for fuel, this small company is claiming to have stumbled upon a technique to control what amounts to a chemical switch in the algae. This switch selects for the production of either oils or sugars. It has been one of the holy grails of algae research, so if true, it is a huge breakthrough. ...
mheslep said:Significant, but wouldn't this still be several notches down in importance from the other impediments to commercial success, e.g. raw algae yield, net oil/sugar yield after harvest, container costs, water usage, CO2 required for yield, and so on?
Ivan Seeking said:I would rate is as being highly significant. Growing algae is actually pretty easy. Getting the high yields - consistent 50% yields, for example - has been the big trick. Extraction processes and the rest are all making great strides simultaneously, so I don' see any real problems there. I see it as more a matter of having all of the pieces in place, with each being critical to the end product. However, if I was to pick one as the most important issue, it would be the consistent yields. Without that, the systems are unmangeable from an economic pov. There is no way to know the risk for any given year. As for CO2 requirements, there are many industrial sources to be tapped, including power plants, and a wide variety of industrial processes that release CO2, such as in the production of cement. For a closed system used to produce electrical power, the CO2 is preserved.
It is my view that for closed algae systems, given the free acreages of open oceans, some large lakes, and perhaps even some rivers, not to mention the natural temperature control, which is also critical, in principle, the operational cost of the farm is dramatically reduced such that ambient CO2 is sufficient to allow for profitable yields. The rate of growth is balanced against the operating costs at every step in the process. Eliminating the cost of land, while naturally regulating the temperature, changes the math dramatically.
Again though, it occurs to me that we don't know the energy cost of the technique that allegedly produces high yields. So we don't know that this solves the problem, even if it works.
Ivan Seeking said:One problem that bugged me for a long time was this: What about when we have high seas? Won't that destroy the algae farm?
Answer: You sink the farm when you have approaching storms.
Visibly it is not easy to do economically.Frame Dragger said:Asolutely! Look at the cultavation of Haematococcus pluvialis for extracting Astaxanthin; it's extremely easy to do with bioreactors and minimal water usage, especially compared to the alternatives. ...
Clever idea, but doesn't this imply the reactor has to be sealed and capable of withstanding some pressure, and if that is the case what is the economic advantage of placing the farm in the ocean (vs land or lake) and having to deal with marine operations?Ivan Seeking said:By sinking the farm, I was suggesting that the bioreactors would tend to be barely buoyant anyway, so they could easily be sank to a safe depth for storms. A simple ballast system could be used to do this.