Chemical/Paint Algae Carbon Capture: Make Your Own Algae Tank & Absorb CO2

[Rive]

And this isn't for amateurs. It is highly complex. You will just end up with a big stinky mess.

I've been wondering how can an amateur identify the algae. If you grow - for example - carrots, that's simple. You have either carrots or something else. But for algae, all you get is a green goo. How do people (youtubers, to be precise) determine which (composition of) algae is that?
Or it's just the usual hope/ignorance mix?

 

[BillTre]

You can buy pure strains from aquaculture suppliers, or maybe get them from researchers.
Good technique is required to maintain the purity.

If you want to start from something you have, you could try making pure strains from the presumed mix you have now.
Making a clone from a single cell would be one way.
Identifying what you have would probably require a microscope, maybe some dyes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You can buy pure strains from aquaculture suppliers, or maybe get them from researchers.
Good technique is required to maintain the purity.

If you want to start from something you have, you could try making pure strains from the presumed mix you have now.
Making a clone from a single cell would be one way.
Identifying what you have would probably require a microscope, maybe some dyes.

UTEX [University of Texas at Austin] is a major supplier of pure algae cultures. That was where I purchased my cultures
https://utex.org/

Maintaining a pure strain is one of the biggest challenges. You can have the DNA tested. But there are other methods. There are over 30,000 identified species of algae. This is one of the challenges for the fuel industry - which one do you use? Even a major supplier like UTEX only has a handful of species.
https://utex.org/collections/living-algal-strains?sort_by=relevency&page_num=2

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Botryococcus Braunii is considered to be the beginner's strain. It can allegedly produce yields of oil up to 75% by weight.

 

[BillTre]

How do you harvest the oil, from mashing up the cells?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How do you harvest the oil, from mashing up the cells?

The early efforts involved using an olive press. That is one of the tools you need to produce fuel at $50 a gallon. Far more advanced techniques are used now ranging from the use of solvents, to ultrasound, to supercritical extraction methods. Economically and efficiently removing the oil from the algae is one of the ongoing challenges for reducing processing costs.

 

[CCatalyst]

The early efforts involved using an olive press. That is one of the tools you need to produce fuel at $50 a gallon. Far more advanced techniques are used now ranging from the use of solvents, to ultrasound, to supercritical extraction methods. Economically and efficiently removing the oil from the algae is one of the ongoing challenges for reducing processing costs.

So THAT is why it is so expensive. I guess it makes sense now.

I've been thinking about a way how you can grow algae and use solar energy in the same location. The solar panel absorbs all light (or as much as possible) except for the green and yellow wavelengths. This is also useful for greenhouses as well. So does anyone know what material does this?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So THAT is why it is so expensive. I guess it makes sense now.

I've been thinking about a way how you can grow algae and use solar energy in the same location. The solar panel absorbs all light (or as much as possible) except for the green and yellow wavelengths. This is also useful for greenhouses as well. So does anyone know what material does this?

Plants don't absorb much green light. That's why you see it reflected.

https://algaeresearchsupply.com/pages/lighting-for-algae-cultures

Each strain has a unique PAR fingerprint - Photosynthetically Active Radiation.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I suggest you plant some trees instead.

Some plants are pretty efficient at carbon capture but, at the end of their productive life, the trees need to be felled and stored, to make room for more trees.

The stored trees must be stored under conditions that will stop them decomposing again and releasing all the stored CO2. Fill the old coal mines with wood? Not a high enough density to do the necessary. Problems problems.

Instead they let their greed blind them

It's easy to blame someone else (big business) but, for decades, we (the public) have ignored the situation and not even considered changing our lifestyles to help with the problem.

Let's face it, we have been "blinded" by our comfortable life styles and by the convenience of carbon based energy. When do we ever fight against the marketing? Any government that tries to alter our life styles gets voted out PDQ. (If I am pointing a finger then it's at myself as much as anyone else)

 

[Rive]

The stored trees must be stored under conditions that will stop them decomposing again and releasing all the stored CO2. Fill the old coal mines with wood? Not a high enough density to do the necessary. Problems problems.

Only, if you are obsessed with carbon capture. If you are just about using the wood (replacing something else with wood) then it'll be at least carbon neutral. Worst case: you have some carbon neutral firewood.

Still beats a pool (cement, bricks) with plastic foil (fossil oil) and water (pumped mostly by fossil energy source) what would (maybe) produce some sushi nori.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Worst case: you have some carbon neutral firewood

Which is really not a good enough target, if we are seriously intent on improving things. If you want to have an effect, grow the trees, store them and wear thicker clothing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Some plants are pretty efficient at carbon capture but, at the end of their productive life, the trees need to be felled and stored, to make room for more trees.

The stored trees must be stored under conditions that will stop them decomposing again and releasing all the stored CO2. Fill the old coal mines with wood? Not a high enough density to do the necessary. Problems problems.

It's easy to blame someone else (big business) but, for decades, we (the public) have ignored the situation and not even considered changing our lifestyles to help with the problem.

Let's face it, we have been "blinded" by our comfortable life styles and by the convenience of carbon based energy. When do we ever fight against the marketing? Any government that tries to alter our life styles gets voted out PDQ. (If I am pointing a finger then it's at myself as much as anyone else)

Algae is far more efficient at carbon capture. You can grow it in the deep ocean and then let it die and sink. The captured carbon will be trapped by the high pressure and low temperature. Techtonic motion carries the algae underground where it is eventually converted to petroleum. That's how we got a good percentage of the petroleum we have used in the first place.

The fastest growing algae can double in mass in 18 hours. While most algae does not grow that fast, almost all strains double in mass in no more than a few days to a week.

 

[Rive]

Which is really not a good enough target, if we are seriously intent on improving things. If you want to have an effect, grow the trees, store them and wear thicker clothing.

On DIY level it's still better option than growing sushi nori.

While on industrial scale, trees and algae are simply not mutually exclusive. You can have them both (with both having their own different side benefits).

 

[sophiecentaur]

On DIY level it's still better option than growing sushi nori.

Does that include the transport cost of shop bought sushi? lol.

 

[Rive]

Yes. The 'initial investment' absolutely makes it so.

If you (DIY) plant a piece of corn (in some free soil), you have no initial investment to speak of. Same for a tree. Same for every soil based plant. You just get a free lunch, almost literally.

But growing (edible) algae requires quite an effort and materials to be invested. Just to make it carbon neutral during running is difficult (that's what's most of this topic is about). Getting back the initial investment (it's still about the 'invested' carbon footprint!) is even more difficult.

So: sorry, but if it's about 'saving the Earth', then you are still better of with ordering that occasional sushi nori.
If you want, you can also compare the carbon footprint of importing your few pieces of tropical fruits vs. growing them in a greenhouse.
Of course it's even better to not eat tropical fruits (no sushi), but that was not listed here as option.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Of course it's even better to not eat tropical fruits (no sushi), but that was not listed here as option.

I don't fancy the idea but we should probably all get used to eating a more medieval diet. In-season veg is very limited in wintertime but very low carbon.

 

[Rive]

Well, kind of. But I don't think it's that dramatic. As cooking goes international and we are getting better with preserving food there are plenty of new and interesting foodstuff becomes available locally (as farmers catching up). Some things will likely become luxury (again), but the variety may still increase.

Of course, only if people makes the effort. Nothing will affect a lazy breaded meat - mashed potato diet

Sushi is also not exactly a good example. If it's about healthy food and not about saving the planet, then the negative carbon footprint is not needed for growing algae and it can become industrial pretty fast, anywhere, locally.

Depends on the focus and demand.

 

[sophiecentaur]

As cooking goes international

It's not the cooking that matters. It's where the food comes from. People just assume everything is available from everywhere. That is not a sustainable attitude toward resources.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's not the cooking that matters. It's where the food comes from. People just assume everything is available from everywhere. That is not a sustainable attitude toward resources.

What if all food transportation was carbon neutral?

 

[Rive]

It's not the cooking that matters. It's where the food comes from.

Sure. But farmers do catching up.

 

[sophiecentaur]

What if all food transportation was carbon neutral?

Can you suggest a system that would be genuinely carbon neutral? Buying carbon credits from someone else is cheating.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Can you suggest a system that would be genuinely carbon neutral? Buying carbon credits from someone else is cheating.

Algae-fuel power.

Have you even read the thread?

Even solar powered eventually.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Sure. But farmers do catching up.

Sorry but I don't understand what that means.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Algae-fuel power.

Have you even read the thread?

Even solar powered eventually.

I have been reading a lot of comments here but the only solutions at the moment are not actually carbon neutral when you consider all the factors. The sums are mostly done by enthusiasts, journalists and politicians.

"Eventually" does not solve the present situation. If there are sources of surplus carbon neutral energy they should be directed toward carbon capture and not maintaining our present lifestyle. No one wants even a little pain for - not gain but less loss.

 

[Rive]

Sorry but I don't understand what that means.

OK, then an example. (Sorry for the random links.)

Bok choy, straight from China.

Fresh in New York
Local in England

Cooking gone international, and farmers follows it to make ingredients locally.
Of course, some things cannot be grown locally, and right, those (the carbon footprint of their transfer) will remain luxury. But the available variety still increasing. That's why I said that 'medieval diet' is a bit too dramatic.

 

[sophiecentaur]

That's why I said that 'medieval diet' is a bit too dramatic.

Yeah, well. A bit of overstatement never does us any harm. It's true that the climate will change (is changing) and so will the best food plants to grow. We could have some luck in that direction (or maybe bad luck not good).

Humans are pretty inventive so life may not be apocalyptic for us but we really have to acknowledge that life will change and it could be very counterproductive to spend all our effort on maintaining lifestyles. I can't see big business encouraging a modest lifestyle. It will probably be just the same as the tobacco industry which concentrated on profits rather than avoiding deaths.
One enormous snag about high tech food production on a small scale is that it usually needs expensive equipment and chemicals, both of which will be even more expensive as time goes on.

If turnips stop liking it in our latitudes then that will be the same for a lot of other plants. I agree that we need to diversify at the same time as reducing consumption (energy and fancy foods).

 

[Rive]

It's true that the climate will change (is changing) and so will the best food plants to grow.

It's not just that. As there is demand, new variants of the plants are developed too. Regarding that bok choy of Chinese origin, we (in Hungary) ordered seeds of a new frost-resistant type from Ireland, to grow them in winter.
International, yeah

It's true that the climate will change (is changing) and so will the best food plants to grow.

About this, I got some scorn in some local environmental protection groups when I mentioned that OK, right, protecting the old species is important but maybe it's also time to proactively seek species and ecosystems which can replace the old ones if those cannot tolerate climate change any longer. I think it would be good for maintaining biodiversity and may increase the chances of survival of the remaining species too.

 

[Tom.G]

What if all food transportation was carbon neutral?

Aww, just beam it over, Scotty; after all, our di-Hydrogen Oxide fuel is pretty Carbon neutral and they need it Now.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Aww, just beam it over, Scotty; after all, our di-Hydrogen Oxide fuel is pretty Carbon neutral and they need it Now.

Hydrogen from water isn't an energy source. It is a storage medium. You need energy to make the hydrogen.

Algae converts solar energy, water, and carbon dioxide, directly into a fuel. That makes it an energy source. It is like having solar panels you can grow. But unlike electric energy from solar panels, the fuel from algae can store the energy until we want to use it.

And fuels from algae can only release as much carbon as they absorbed to grow in the first place - net zero carbon

 

[CCatalyst]

Plants don't absorb much green light. That's why you see it reflected.

I knew that. That is why I want to know what type of materials do NOT absorb them but let them through in use for solar panels. This way we can have an algae farm and a solar farm in literally in the exact same location. Or we could have a solar powered greenhouse.

And if algae have applications for beyond fuel production, all the better, it would only serve to lower the cost. This is nothing new, the same thing happens with oil removed from the ground. Not all of it is used in fuel. Some of it is used for making things like tar and various plastics.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Or we could have a solar powered greenhouse.

I thought they'd always been powered that way.

 

[Rive]

That is why I want to know what type of materials do NOT absorb them but let them through in use for solar panels.

I've give this some thoughts, but found nothing. The realistic 'edge' given by such filtering and combining (based on existing materials) is negligible, if not negative.

The theoretical gain is also low. As a research direction, I would rather bet on 'gifting' the missing wavelengths to the algae by some genetic tweaking.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I would rather bet on 'gifting' the missing wavelengths to the algae by some genetic tweaking.

You and every farmer in the world! This is obviously a serious problem or 'they' would have an alternative to chlorophyl already. The photochemistry of solid state devices is probably a lot more approachable so I'd say that's probably the way to go.

 

[sophiecentaur]

This thread is getting further and further away from the DIY idea. Jus' sayin'.

 

[Bystander]

This thread is getting further and further away from the DIY idea.

Was it ever a "DIY?"

 

[sophiecentaur]

Was it ever a "DIY?"

I'm sure the OP could picture in his mind, a large, shallow plastic pool in his back garden with a little pump house at one end, with a 'processing' machine and a row of barrels - right next to his truck.

I could go for it if my garden was big enough. a lot less trouble than yearly digging and planting veg.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This thread is getting further and further away from the DIY idea. Jus' sayin'.

This never was appropriate for a DIY project.

 

[Rive]

This never was appropriate for a DIY project.

The problem lies in the topic description. Growing algae is OK for a DIY project - many does that.
But it has nothing to do with saving Earth.

Most DIY is that way, actually. Hobbies rare to come with negative carbon footprint.
And as long one is aware, it's fine.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The problem lies in the topic description. Growing algae is OK for a DIY project - many does that.
But it has nothing to do with saving Earth.

Most DIY is that way, actually. Hobbies rare to come with negative carbon footprint.
And as long one is aware, it's fine.

Even so, if you don't know what you're doing you will end up with a big stinky mess.

And yes, the whole point of the thread is saving the planet. I strongly support the use of algae fuels in that effort. But it is useless if not done properly. And that isn't easy or cheap!

CO2 remediation is great too but that needs to be done on vast scales in the deep ocean.

 

[Rive]

Even so, if you don't know what you're doing you will end up with a big stinky mess.

My first electronics 'project' ended up as a big wiry mess

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My first electronics 'project' ended up as a big wiry mess

And some kids ended up burning down the house. ;)

 

[Rive]

Well, I'm happy that this project is ... wet. Compared to some locked ones, it's so safe

 

[jrmichler]

Summary:: I want to save the planet.

So I want to make my own algae tank and use it to absorb carbon dioxide. Any advise and suggestions? And how do I get started?

The best way to get started is to do some reading on the subject. One source is the Biofuel Technology Handbook: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228735855_Biofuel_technology_handbook. It looks like a good source. I downloaded it several years ago, got as far as page 50, and lost interest in biofuels based on what I read in the book.

Another source that looks good is Sustainable Development of Algal Biofuels in the United States: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13437/sustainable-development-of-algal-biofuels-in-the-united-states. They have a free download that requires an email. I was able to get a copy by using a fake email address.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The best way to get started is to do some reading on the subject. One source is the Biofuel Technology Handbook: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228735855_Biofuel_technology_handbook. It looks like a good source. I downloaded it several years ago, got as far as page 50, and lost interest in biofuels based on what I read in the book.

Another source that looks good is Sustainable Development of Algal Biofuels in the United States: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13437/sustainable-development-of-algal-biofuels-in-the-united-states. They have a free download that requires an email. I was able to get a copy by using a fake email address.

Are you implicitly suggesting the OP should grow algae in a tank to absorb CO2? Do you think this has value?