Can Microalgae Solve Global Fuel and Environmental Challenges?

[mheslep]

Ok moved here ...

Oil from algae is just vegetable oil. It is non-toxic. You can drink it.

Sure, and the http://web.grcc.edu/Pr/msds/automechanics/MotorOil.pdf" lists it as 'relatively non-toxic'. A million barrels of vegetable oil dumped into the ocean could not be called harmless in my view. Covering the plumage of birds with any kind of heavy oil is going to kill them just as dead.

I might be wrong, but I believe the lightweight aromatics (e.g. benzene) are the most toxic compounds contained in the mixture commonly called petroleum. We know they evaporate fairly quickly. So, once the aromatics are gone in a spill like this, and reports suggest they are, I'm curious about the difference in toxicity, or more precisely the harm, between the petroleum products remaining after evaporation, and the oil produced by a biodeisel grade algae.

Also, without a significant source of nitrogen and the proper temps, the algae won't survive in open water - that is, it wouldn't exist as a giant plume that kills everything else. If you have these conditions, you would already have an algae bloom, in most cases.

The cells may die but the hydrocarbon compound remains. Then there are the modified strains (from Exxon and Craig Venter) that secrete the oil outside of the cell to make oil collection more economic. In that case, the fate of the algae cells themselves is irrelevant to an accident.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ok moved here ...

Sure, and the http://web.grcc.edu/Pr/msds/automechanics/MotorOil.pdf" lists it as 'relatively non-toxic'. A million barrels of vegetable oil dumped into the ocean could not be called harmless in my view. Covering the plumage of birds with any kind of heavy oil is going to kill them just as dead.

This would be a simple matter of regulating the maximum quantity of oil that can be stored. That is quite a different problem from what we face in the gulf. And there is no need for the Exxon Valdez when the oil source is 80 miles offshore.

Would you drink motor oil? Don't try to spin this as if there is no difference between crude oil, and food. That is a ludicrous position to assume.

I might be wrong, but I believe the lightweight aromatics (e.g. benzene) are the most toxic The cells may die but the hydrocarbon compound remains. Then there are the modified strains (from Exxon and Craig Venter) that secrete the oil outside of the cell to make oil collection more economic. In that case, the fate of the algae cells themselves is irrelevant to an accident.

The algae plume cannot exist without the proper nutrients. The majority of the stuff would die and sink to the bottom of the ocean; just as happens already in the normal CO2 sequestration process naturally provided by algae.

The potential problem of releasing bioengineered strains of algae into the wild, is another concern. But I would prefer that discussion be redirected to a dedicated thread, as that is a huge topic generally for all of biology. One immediate thought that comes to mind is that, if algae are famous for doing anything, it is mutating. Given the countless strains of algae found around the world. And considering the existing rate of mutation for natural algae, it seems that we would be hard-pressed, by many orders of magnitude, to pose a greater threat than already exists in nature, to produce a dangerous strain of algae. We could also design strains to be safe. Nature has no such motivation. In fact, it is my understanding that algae essentially have wars when strains are competing the wild. In effect, each strain mutates until one produces something toxic to the other.

 

[dgtech]

That is about one Iraq war every year in returns.

Since when is invading a country with crippled military infrastructure considered a war, or even a unit of measurement for that matter?

Algae is great, most of the treehuggers out there don't realize the majority of oxygen is being released by algae and not trees (I am not justifying deforestation, I strongly oppose it). Not to mention it is capable of producing bio mass as much as 30x times faster than any plant, making ethanol production from corn or soy look moronic at best.

The byproduct of oil production from algae is a good food additive for farm animals.

There are also many more potential benefits, what is critical is the actual execution, as we, humans have a history of misusing everything good we come in contact with.

Genetic engineering should be outlawed, its potential benefits far being far exceeded by its potential harm. No need to play gods and trying to better nature, all we need is to stop destroying it and if we have the resource - helping out a bit, but without playing Dr. Frankenstein

 

[mheslep]

This would be a simple matter of regulating the maximum quantity of oil that can be stored.

If one wants to seriously explore using offshore algae farms at a scale capable of replacing the global petroleum industry, I see nothing 'simple' about avoiding temporary storage of, say, a 1. 7 million bbl/day rate of production (Gulf of Mexico production). In fact I suggest it is a practical impossibility to avoid having at least a significant fraction of a day's oil production on the water at a given moment.

That is quite a different problem from what we face in the gulf. And there is no need for the Exxon Valdez when the oil source is 80 miles offshore.

Eh? The Valdez (ship) collided with the shore (essentially), hence the concentrated damage at Valdez (port/town)

Would you drink motor oil? Don't try to spin this as if there is no difference between crude oil, and food. That is a ludicrous position to assume.

I'm not. I'm attempting to explore the technical difference in degrees of harm which means going past hand waiving about what one can drink in small qty. Petroleum oil spills are visibly harmful. I now am asking why a hydrocarbon like CnH2(n+1-g) (naphthene from petroleum) is credited with ruining the Gulf but the same amount of hydrocarbon C3H5O6C(CnH(2n+x))3 (Canola) is somehow harmless fish food?

Edit: Another point as to why quantity must be important: there's always some background natural seepage of oil, several million bbl per year worldwide, which the oceans seem to have well tolerated long before oil rigs appeared.

The algae plume cannot exist without the proper nutrients.

We've already been there. The disposal of the oil itself, once created, does not depend on the health of the algae. The difference from offshore petroleum production would be two fold, I believe: one, the continuing production of algae oil could be stopped almost immediately, but two, a realistic algae farm would necessarily have an enormous amount of oil present on the surface at anyone time which all could be theoretically released, worst case, into the ocean.

 

[mheslep]

On this subject, this study is interesting to me for two reasons: 1) the background material gives some chemical description of what components of a petroleum spill actually end up on the beaches, and tangentially 2) it turns out biodiesel has been shown effective in breaking up the 'waxy' components. The study also notes that biodiesel is readily biodegradable, but I'm not clear that this means its parent triglyceride are also equally degradable before transesterification.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH4-40D61CC-9&_user=3938616&_coverDate=10%2F01%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1347997386&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000061828&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3938616&md5=6c629c1336083f95c7e5b3da5b68c0ba#bbib5"
Spill Science & Technology Bulletin
Volume 5, Issues 5-6, 1 October 1999, Pages 353-355

Abstract

Experiments using biodiesel derived from vegetable oils have demonstrated the considerable potential for removing crude oil from contaminated beaches. During laboratory studies in small boxes, contaminated sand treated with biodiesel also demonstrated the rapid biodegradation of the crude oil. Water soluble components were washed through the sand columns and these components subsequently precipitated with cold storage. This solid fraction was not soluble in organic solvents but could be re-dissolved in dilute acid. The sediments after four weeks were black in colour due to the precipitation of metal sulphides although no H2S was generated because the pH of the seawater kept the sulphides in solution. Further work is investigating which components of the oil were degraded and what products were formed

Introduction

Previous work has demonstrated the usefulness of biodiesel, the methyl derivatives of vegetable oils, in the removal of crude oil from intertidal sediments (Miller & Mudge, 1997; Mudge and co-workers, unpublished reports). Biodiesel acts as a non-volatile organic solvent and dissolves the crude oil, including weathered oil. In most cases of crude oil contamination on beaches, the oil has been at sea and most of the volatile compounds (e.g., BTEX, short chain aliphatics) have evaporated off and only the less volatile components (e.g., PAHs, long chain aliphatics) reach the shore. Biodiesel is able to dissolve these waxy components and make them more mobile in the environment. Experiments are in progress to determine the best application methods and efficiencies of removal. As part of this work, a biological side-effect has been observed which makes biodiesel even more useful than originally thought.

Biodiesel has been used as a diesel fuel substitute or additive for many years (see Louwrier, 1998 for a review) and previous work has demonstrated the rapid degradability of biodiesel in the environment; 95% after 28 days in an aqueous environment.[*] More recent work by the same group (Zhang, X., Peterson, C., Reece, D., Haws, R. and Moller, G., 1998. Biodegradability of biodiesel in the aquatic environment. Trans. ASAE 41, pp. 1423–1430. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (34)Zhang et al., 1998) has examined the degradability using EPA methods and concluded that biodiesel is “readily biodegradable”. [...]

[*] So what is the 95% breakdown time of the crude oil products?

 

[mheslep]

EPA to the rescue with the answer to my question and then some. Apparently the answer is quite complex.

In 1994 a gaggle of agricultural associations attempted have the EPA change the Clear Water Act rules and label them (oils and fats vendors) more or less harmless, as different from the 'bad' and 'toxic' petroleum products industry. The 'petitioners' were
the American Soybean Association, the Corn Refiners Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the Institute of Shortening & Edible Oils, the National Cotton Council, the National Cottonseed Products Association, and the National Oilseed Processors Association.

http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WATER/1999/April/Day-08/w8275.htm

a. Petitioners' request. [...] Based, in part, on these studies, the Petitioners asked us to create a regulatory regime for response planning for ``non-toxic,'' non-petroleum oils separate from the framework established for petroleum oils and ``toxic'' non-petroleum oils. They suggested specific language[...] For facilities that handle, store, or transport animal fats and vegetable oils, their suggested revisions would: modify the definition of animal fats and vegetable oil (set out in Appendix E, Section 1.2 of the FRP rule); allow mechanical dispersal and ``no action'' options to be considered in lieu of the oil containment and recovery devices otherwise specified for response to a worst case discharge; require the use of containment booms only for the protection of fish and wildlife and sensitive environments; and increase the required on-scene arrival time for response resources at a spill from 12 hours (including travel time) to 24 hours plus travel time for medium discharges and worst case Tier 1 response resources.

and the EPA response:

c. Denial of petition. On October 20, 1997, EPA denied the petition to amend the FRP rule. We found that the petition did not substantiate claims that animal fats and vegetable oils differ from petroleum oils in properties and effects and did not support a further differentiation between these groups of oils under the FRP rule. Instead, we found that a worst case discharge or substantial threat of discharge of animal fats and/or vegetable oils to navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment, including wildlife that may be killed by the discharge. We pointed out that the FRP rule already provides for different response planning requirements for petroleum and non-petroleum oils, including animal fats and vegetable oils.
We also disagreed with Petitioners' claim that animal fats and vegetable oils are non-toxic when spilled into the environment and should be placed in a separate category from other ``toxic'' non-petroleum oils. Information and data we reviewed from other sources indicate that some animal fats and vegetable oils, their components, and degradation products are toxic. Furthermore, we emphasized that toxicity is only one way that oil spills cause environmental damage. Most immediate environmental effects are physical effects, such as coating animals and plants with oil, suffocating aquatic organisms from oxygen depletion, and destroying food supply and habitats. We noted that toxicity is not one of the criteria in determining which on-shore facilities are high-risk and must prepare response plans. Rather, the criteria for determining high-risk facilities are certain facility and locational characteristics, because we expect that discharges of oil from facilities with these characteristics may cause substantial harm to the environment

Further down in bullet form:
Like petroleum oils, animal fats and vegetable oils and their
constituents can cause toxic effects that are summarized below. They
can:

• Cause devastating physical effects, such as coating animals and plants with oil and suffocating them by oxygen depletion;
• Be toxic and form toxic products;
• Destroy future and existing food supply, breeding animals, and habitat;
• Produce rancid odors;
• Foul shorelines, clog water treatment plants, and catch fire when ignition sources are present; and
• Form products that linger in the environment for many years.

The EPA's exploration of the technical background is very interesting.

 

[mheslep]

Technical section:

While the physical and chemical properties of vegetable
oils and animal fats are highly variable, most fall within a range that
is similar to the physical parameters for petroleum oils. Common
properties--such as solubility, specific gravity, and viscosity--are
responsible for the similar environmental effects of petroleum oils,
vegetable oils, and animal fats.
In one respect, however, many petroleum oils differ from most
vegetable oils and animal fats. Unlike most vegetable oils and animal
fats, many petroleum oils have a high vapor pressure. The high vapor
pressure of petroleum oils can lead to significant evaporation from
spills. It may also produce exposure of nearby populations through the
air pathway.

We describe some important properties of oil below.

Solubility. Solubility refers to the ability of a chemical to dissolve in water or solvents. Like petroleum oils, vegetable oils and animal fats have limited water solubility and high solubility in organic solvents.

Specific Gravity. Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of a material to the density of fresh water. Specific gravity determines whether an oil floats on the surface of a water body or sinks below the surface and how long oil droplets reside in the water. It can also give a general indication of other properties of the oil. For example, oils
with a low specific gravity tend to be rich in volatile components and are highly fluid International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation, 1987). The specific gravity of vegetable oils and animal fats whose properties we examined is within the range of specific gravity values for petroleum oils.

Viscosity. Viscosity refers to the resistance to flow. It controls the rate at which oil spreads on water and how deeply it penetrates the shore. Viscosity also determines how much energy organisms need to overcome resistance to their movement. At similar temperatures, the dynamic viscosity (shear stress/rate of shear) and kinematic viscosity (dynamic viscosity/density) of vegetable oils and animal fats are
somewhat greater than those for light petroleum oils but less than those for heavy petroleum oils. The viscosity of canola oil represents a medium weight oil and is comparable to that of a lightly weathered Prudhoe Bay crude oil after it has evaporated by 10 percent (Allen and Nelson, 1983).

Vapor Pressure. Vapor pressure is the pressure that a solid or liquid exerts in equilibrium with its own vapor depending on temperature. It controls the evaporation rate of an oil spill and air concentrations. The higher the vapor pressure of an oil, the faster it evaporates. Vapor pressure varies over a wide range for petroleum oils, from moderately volatile diesel-like products to slightly volatile heavy crude oils and residual products. The vapor pressure of animal fats and vegetable oils is generally much lower than that of many petroleum oils. Evaporation is significant for many petroleum oil spills, some of which completely evaporate in one to two days, but it is rarely an important factor in spills of vegetable oils and animal fats. In some vegetable oils, however, there is a small volatile fraction that can evaporate. Thermal decomposition can also cause the formation of many volatile degradation products.

Surface Tension. The spreading of oil relates to surface tension (interfacial tension) in a complex manner. When the sum of the oil-water and oil-air interfacial tensions is less than the water-air interfacial tension, spreading is promoted. At 25 deg.C, the oil-water interfacial tension for canola oil is far less than that of Prudhoe Bay crude oil, suggesting that canola oil could spread more (Allen and Nelson, 1983). Surface tension measurements in the laboratory, however, are not necessarily predictive of the behavior of oil that is being transformed by many processes in the environment.

Emulsions. Emulsions are fine droplets of liquid dispersed in a second, immiscible liquid. When oil and water mix vigorously, they form a dispersion of water droplets in oil and oil droplets in water (Hui, 1996c). When mixing stops, the phases separate. Small water drops fall toward the interface between the phases, and the oil drops rise. The emulsion breaks. When an emulsifier is present, one phase becomes continuous, while the other remains dispersed. The continuous phase is usually the one in which the emulsifier is soluble.
The tendency of petroleum and non-petroleum oils to form emulsions of water-in-oil or oil-in-water depends on the unique chemical composition of the oil as well as temperature, the presence of stabilizing compounds, and other factors. When an emulsion is formed in the environment, the oil changes appearance and its viscosity can increase by many orders of magnitude. Removal of the oil becomes harder because of the increased difficulty in pumping viscous fluids with up to fivefold increases in volume.
[...]

Adhesions. Although the ability to form adhesions is difficult to measure and predict, adhesions influence the ease with which spilled oil can be physically removed from surfaces. When water is colder than the oil pour point, oils become viscous and tar-like or form semi-solid, spherical particles that are difficult to recover. Weathering and evaporation are slowed, and oils may become entrapped or encapsulated in ice and later may float on the surface when ice breaks up. In ice adhesion tests, canola oil and Prudhoe Bay crude oil had the same tendency to coat the surface of sea ice drawn up through an oil/water interface (Allen and Nelson, 1983). Neither oil adhered to submerged sea ice even after surface coating. This study suggests that some vegetable oils and petroleum oils have a similar ability to form adhesions under certain environmental conditions.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It looks like Obama finally read my letter.

"We're making new investments in the development of gasoline and diesel and jet fuel that's actually made from a plant-like substance. Algae. You've got a bunch of algae out here, right?" President Obama said at a campaign event in Coral Gables, Florida.

"If we can make energy out of that, we will be doing alright," Obama said.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/23/147_obama_if_we_could_make_energy_out_of_algae_well_be_alright.html

 

[OmCheeto]

It looks like Obama finally read my letter.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/23/147_obama_if_we_could_make_energy_out_of_algae_well_be_alright.html

One of the things I've learned from my recent classes, and from experience over the last 30 years, is that if you put out an incredibly great idea, and then give leadership a long enough time lag, they will eventually think it was their idea to begin with, and it will get done.

There are innovators, there are entrepreneurs, and there are leaders.

shhhhhhh!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know if Chu has given up on his cellulosic ethanol but I'm glad to hear Obama talking about algae. Chu was definitely driving things the other direction - towards ethanol - as that was his focus before becoming the Energy Secretary.

 

[dlgoff]

It looks like Obama finally read my letter.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/23/147_obama_if_we_could_make_energy_out_of_algae_well_be_alright.html

I thought of you Ivan when I heard

We're making new investments in the development of gasoline and diesel and jet fuel that's actually made from a plant-like substance. Algae. ...

Maybe you should write him and ask for a grant.

 

[mattlomb]

Has research gone into coupling algae growth and fuel production with today's biggest human emitters of carbon dioxide - i.e. power stations? It seems to me that this could simultaneously solve three problems - the problem of what to do with the carbon dioxide emitted from these power centers, the problem of where to get free carbon for algae growth, and the problem of transporting the fuel required to generate electricity.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Interesting analysis of biofuels in general by Dr Tom Murphy, essentially whilst they're good they don't get round the problem of needing vast amounts of space
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/the-biofuel-grind/

Personally I'm more interested in the idea of artificial photosynthesis. If we could cut out the middle man and just make solar panels capable of taking in water and CO2 and secreting Oil and O2 and do it cheaply and efficiently our problems will be greatly mitigated.

 

[mheslep]

Has research gone into coupling algae growth and fuel production with today's biggest human emitters of carbon dioxide - i.e. power stations? It seems to me that this could simultaneously solve three problems - the problem of what to do with the carbon dioxide emitted from these power centers, the problem of where to get free carbon for algae growth, and the problem of transporting the fuel required to generate electricity.

A browse through some of the single cell biofuel companies (algae, bacteria) will turn up references to where they claim to have agreement with some large CO2 emitter such as a large power plant to supply the required carbon. It seems though that the more direct solution would be to eventually use biofuels in a (tighter) closed loop: grow them from the power plant carbon and then burn as fuel in the power plant; the power plant electricity is then used instead to run the (future electrified) transportation system instead of biofuels.

 

[OmCheeto]

Has research gone into coupling algae growth and fuel production with today's biggest human emitters of carbon dioxide - i.e. power stations? It seems to me that this could simultaneously solve three problems - the problem of what to do with the carbon dioxide emitted from these power centers, the problem of where to get free carbon for algae growth, and the problem of transporting the fuel required to generate electricity.

I saw a video once of researchers at MIT doing this. As I recall, the heat loving algae progeny survived their cold blooded brethren, and did quite well.

It gave me hope.

But then, I'm that way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting analysis of biofuels in general by Dr Tom Murphy, essentially whilst they're good they don't get round the problem of needing vast amounts of space
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/the-biofuel-grind/

Personally I'm more interested in the idea of artificial photosynthesis. If we could cut out the middle man and just make solar panels capable of taking in water and CO2 and secreting Oil and O2 and do it cheaply and efficiently our problems will be greatly mitigated.

I didn't read the link entirely yet bt I saw that he goes right to corn-ethanol. That is a horrible example that is well known to be a loser. The increased yield per acre-year is one of the biggest advantages algae [and perhaps bacteria] has over other biofuel technologies.

As for the closed-loop power-plant concept mentioned above, note that in a closed loop, not only the water, but also the nutrients could in principle be preserved. Nitrogen fertilizer alone is a significant cost for an algae farm. So it seems to me that a closed loop power scheme may be the first viable option [economically] for a practical algae farm.

The entire farm would be, in effect, a biological solar cell farm.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I didn't read the link entirely yet bt I saw that he goes right to corn-ethanol. That is a horrible example that is well known to be a loser. The increased yield per acre-year is one of the biggest advantages algae [and perhaps bacteria] has over other biofuel technologies.

It starts with that but then goes onto algae which he does admit is better but has it's own problems.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It starts with that but then goes onto algae which he does admit is better but has it's own problems.

He seems to be too reliant on the notion of genetic engineering for solving the problems. Then he dismisses GE as a deal breaker without considering that other options exist.

The numbers for algae are certainly more favorable than for traditional (proven) biofuel sources. But keep in mind that we don’t see a clear path yet to squeeze useful juice from algae at appropriate scales/efficiencies. Much of the talk is around genetic engineering to make the algae excrete something useful in quantity. I need not repeat my case for non-complacency regarding this prospect. Also, anyone who has failed at aquarium maintenance (everyone who has tried?) knows how pernicious algae can be at clogging the plumbing and sticking to tube walls, etc. So they should also be working on genetically engineered teflon-coated algae. By that time I’ll also be able to enjoy that three-headed goat!

I can tell you first hand that he's right to express these concerns. But these are not insurmountable problems that can only be solved with genetic engineering. Note also that algae is already grown commercially, so some of these problems have already been managed for decades.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

ievolve brought to my attention this recent breakthrough in processing algae, announced today. Thanks ievolve!

The Michigan team’s findings will be presented today, Nov. 1 at the 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh.

http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/n.../11/01/breakthrough-algae-to-oil-in-a-minute/

I also spotted this encouraging interview from last April
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzWvl9WDBnw

He mentions that NASA is playing with growing algae in big bladders in the ocean, which was suggested and discussed earlier in this thread. Based on my experience, temperature stability is a huge advantage in partially submerged bladders, nevermind the endless supply of water.

When asked, if he had all the money he needed, how long would it take to start producing 100,000 barrels of fuel [oil] from algae a day, the answer he gave was - one year.

 

[mheslep]

...
When asked, if he had all the money he needed, how long would it take to start producing 100,000 barrels of fuel [oil] from algae a day, the answer he gave was - one year.

Given your background knowledge, and that they currently have zero production capability, what credence do you give such a claim?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Given your background knowledge, and that they currently have zero production capability, what credence do you give such a claim?

I don't know the inside story with Origin oil but it has always been a matter of the cost at the pump. And I believe that is just a problem of throwing enough money at this to work through the mechanics of it. So given a Manhattan Project... sounds pretty optimistic but they clearly know more than I do about this. By March of 2008 I was arguing that given a Manhattan project, we could do this in five years.

What did he say the price was for pure algae oil, I think $5.25? At that price they are almost competitive at the pump now.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When he mentioned that NASA's approach looks very promising, that suggested to me that they recognize the cost and other practical problems with land-based systems.

It will be intersting to see how NASA plans to manage heavy seas and storms. The only solution that made sense to me was to have a simple ballast system that allows you to submerge the containers to a safe depth until conditions are calm again.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One last thought. It seems to make sense that retired oil platforms could be used as the hub of the farm. I did a quick google and found this. I got a number of other types of hits including converting retired platforms into luxury resorts.

The nonprofit Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute wants to use Venoco Inc.'s decommissioned Grace platform, in waters about 10 miles west of Ventura, to build an experimental operation that could produce up to 300 tons of fish annually.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/feb/13/local/me-vnfishfarm13

 

[dlgoff]

I don't know the inside story with Origin oil but it has always been a matter of the cost at the pump.

Gasoline is one thing but could existing "home oil heating" users benefit? Wouldn't that cost be competitive?

BTW Have you considered getting back into this somehow; invest, develop, etc?

Regards

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Gasoline is one thing but could existing "home oil heating" users benefit? Wouldn't that cost be competitive?

BTW Have you considered getting back into this somehow; invest, develop, etc?

Regards

Anything that can burn diesel should work. I know some specialized systems can but I don't know about typical oil burners. Like diesel, biodiesel and algae oils require high compression or very high temperatures to burn.

As for me, I have all of my eggs in other baskets now.

 

[dlgoff]

Anything that can burn diesel should work. I know some specialized systems can but I don't know about typical oil burners. Like diesel, biodiesel and algae oils require high compression or very high temperatures to burn.

Thanks for the info Ivan. I'm not a user of "home heating oil", unless propane is considered to be, so I'll have to do some checking on how the burners deliver the fuel. Probably similar to how these work.

http://r1.coleman.com/ProductImages/Regular/425f499g_500.jpg

 

[Andre]

Whilst I can imagine future reasons to follow this path like aviation fuel, I'm wondering if things like if getting enough CO2 to the algeae photo assimilation process has been thought of.

 

[mheslep]

Whilst I can imagine future reasons to follow this path like aviation fuel, I'm wondering if things like if getting enough CO2 to the algeae photo assimilation process has been thought of.

Yes. Some of the photosynthetic plays have deals with local power plants and have built their demo operations immediately adjacent one, with the limitation that they become dependent on such sources. Then there are the bio fuel approaches fed by carbohydrates, i.e. they get their carbon direct from feedstock, and that approach thus becomes dependent on the transportation of biomass. Also note the concentration of CO2 in water, where the microorganism are grown, is several multiples of that which is present in the atmosphere.

 

[Andre]

Also note the concentration of CO2 in water, where the microorganism are grown, is several multiples of that which is present in the atmosphere.

Sure, but consider some algae growing device in the ocean. I see 28 ppm carbon for seawater, so that would be 28 gram per cubic meter, but when you have converted that to algeae, it's essentially done. So if you want more yield, you'd need to provide carbon in some form.

Edit: Obviously more CO2 will enter from the atmosphere. But the total per year seems in the order of magnitude of 100 PgC (10¹⁷ gram) per year, the ocean area is about 361,132,000 km2 so the average flux would seem to be in the order of magnitude of 280 gram carbon per square meter per year. That seems a lot.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sure, but consider some algae growing device in the ocean. I see 28 ppm carbon for seawater, so that would be 28 gram per cubic meter, but when you have converted that to algeae, it's essentially done. So if you want more yield, you'd need to provide carbon in some form.

Edit: Obviously more CO2 will enter from the atmosphere. But the total per year seems in the order of magnitude of 100 PgC (10¹⁷ gram) per year, the ocean area is about 361,132,000 km2 so the average flux would seem to be in the order of magnitude of 280 gram carbon per square meter per year. That seems a lot.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you taking the amount of CO2 that enters the water naturally? As was discussed beginning at about post 340, CO2 is provided through forced aeration. Growth rates are too slow otherwise. And the aeration is ideally CO2 enriched. If we assume a nominal value of 60% processing efficiency for a farm, then we would expect 40% of all carbon could be returned to the system through the exhaust gases from combustion for power generation. So any farm could have it's own CO2-enriched supply of air.