Can Microalgae Solve Global Fuel and Environmental Challenges?

[mheslep]

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.

...

See further down in your reference. The percent CO2 of dissolved gasses in seawater is 15%, versus 0.04% in the atmosphere.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Two things that caught my attention were the optical density of their algae solution, and something he said. In my testing, the algae was taken to about a 1% solution by weight. And it was like thick pea soup. He mentioned a 0.1% solution, which surprised me. But their algae solution looks more like tea than pea soup so they do seem to be operating with a comparitively dilute solution, and I'm wondering why. Running a thinner solution would likely reduce clogging issues and such, and perhaps their process of coaxing the algae out of solution requires a lower density of algae than traditional techniques.

 

[OmCheeto]

I just heard about these yesterday.

I think I'll make 5 dozen.

http://c276521.r21.cf1.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/calleja_co2_lamp-e1334185077368.jpg
Algae Lamp​

How to Grow Bioluminescent Algae at Home

Green Light! Algae-Powered Lamp Needs TLC to Provide Light

Ha Ha!

Sometimes the world mimics PF:

This Micro-Algae Lamp Absorbs 150-200 Times More CO2 than a Tree! (Video)

French biochemist and Shamengo pioneer Pierre Calleja has invented this impressive streetlight that is powered by algae which absorbs CO2 from the air. We have featured algae-powered lamps before but this one takes out 1 ton (!) of CO2 per year. This is as much CO2 as as a tree absorbs on average during its entire life.

And then the comments start:

Oh no, where will one ton of CO2 fit in that tiny lamp!? What happens when it's full!? Seriously people? Google photosynthesis, then comment. The CO2 isn't "captured". It can't get "full". It uses the CO2, breaks it down to feed itself, and releases O2, just like every other plant. (headbang)

+115 more comments...

I love Science.

 

[Astronuc]

Sara Volz, who investigated increasing the oil content of algae to create an economically viable source of biofuel, received the top award of $100,000 at the Intel Science Talent Search 2013, a program of Society for Science & the Public.

http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2013/03/12/teenage-girl-explores-algae-powered-biofuel-wins-intel-science-talent-search/

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/this-co...zing-breakthrough-her-home-lab-165831291.html

 

[OmCheeto]

http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2013/03/12/teenage-girl-explores-algae-powered-biofuel-wins-intel-science-talent-search/

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/this-co...zing-breakthrough-her-home-lab-165831291.html

That is awesome!

I really like the fact that her lab is under her bed.

This young lady is the embodiment of science.

Someone go find her and sign her up for PF! I'll pay for her lifetime membership! :!)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Based on a preliminary look, I am quickly becoming a fan of Origin Oil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXsaj6OTzZM#!

 

[jlefevre76]

So, I've heard there are some challenges with algae biofuels. How serious are they as far as getting in the way of harvesting?

Challenges:
1. Algae are very sensitive to environmental conditions such as temperature, salinity, pH, etc. A slight change in one of them can kill it (depending on the species). The more resilient species that grow anywhere are not necessarily the ones that yield high lipid counts.
2. Diseases such as fungi and other aquatic microbes can ravage and perhaps even erradicate algae populations, especially if the algae is GMO and the genetic changes made to it have a drawback as far as natural defenses go.
3. Once the algae has been successfully grown in the desired quantity, there is still a harvesting step and an oil/lipid separation step. This can require a fair amount of energy for the process.
4. CO2 supply required, which can also require a fair amount of input energy to the process (pumps, etc). Algae is sometimes also circulated via pump, which requires energy.

So, all of these affect the EROI of algae biofuels and its viability as a future energy source. Will these obstacles be overcome anytime soon? (I think it would be awesome if they can.)

Also, is it possible to harvest existing algae directly from the ocean, and then process them? Wouldn't that save a fair amount of time and resources?

 

[OmCheeto]

So, I've heard there are some challenges with algae biofuels. How serious are they as far as getting in the way of harvesting?

Challenges:
1. Algae are very sensitive to environmental conditions such as temperature, salinity, pH, etc. A slight change in one of them can kill it (depending on the species). The more resilient species that grow anywhere are not necessarily the ones that yield high lipid counts.

Do you have a source for this? It is my recollection that an experiment done a few years ago indicated that the rapid reproductive rate of algae yielded an evolution of the source strain to a species that was quite happy with their ultimate environment.

2. Diseases such as fungi and other aquatic microbes can ravage and perhaps even erradicate algae populations, especially if the algae is GMO and the genetic changes made to it have a drawback as far as natural defenses go.
3. Once the algae has been successfully grown in the desired quantity, there is still a harvesting step and an oil/lipid separation step. This can require a fair amount of energy for the process.

This is true of everything. As long as the net algae energy/$ output is greater than the net human energy/$ input, then the system will be profitable.

4. CO2 supply required, which can also require a fair amount of input energy to the process (pumps, etc). Algae is sometimes also circulated via pump, which requires energy.

That is a problem. One of my PF friends is working on that problem. (The crazy one...)

So, all of these affect the EROI of algae biofuels and its viability as a future energy source. Will these obstacles be overcome anytime soon? (I think it would be awesome if they can.)

It would require someone with math skills greater than mine, but my guess is; Yes.

Also, is it possible to harvest existing algae directly from the ocean, and then process them? Wouldn't that save a fair amount of time and resources?

I posted something to that effect a few years ago.

The local river runs green with algae in summer.

As I recall, the ROI was not worth it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So, I've heard there are some challenges with algae biofuels. How serious are they as far as getting in the way of harvesting?

Challenges:
1. Algae are very sensitive to environmental conditions such as temperature, salinity, pH, etc. A slight change in one of them can kill it (depending on the species). The more resilient species that grow anywhere are not necessarily the ones that yield high lipid counts.

Yes, this is why I have previously argued that closed systems are the only practical way to do this. To my knowledge no open system has ever proven to be sustainable.

2. Diseases such as fungi and other aquatic microbes can ravage and perhaps even erradicate algae populations, especially if the algae is GMO and the genetic changes made to it have a drawback as far as natural defenses go.

I don't know about GMO but yes, the answer is the same as the previous question.

3. Once the algae has been successfully grown in the desired quantity, there is still a harvesting step and an oil/lipid separation step. This can require a fair amount of energy for the process.

This has been a key aspect of driving down the price. If you watch the videos linked above, Origin Oil claims to have a process that allows them to produce algae oil at $5.75 a gallon, which is down from $20-$30 a gallon just a few years ago.

4. CO2 supply required, which can also require a fair amount of input energy to the process (pumps, etc).

CO2 is required to accelerate the growth rate as well as to balance the Ph. Given that at best we might hope for a processing efficiency around 60%, we might expect that 40% of oil could be burned to power the farm, which would provide a ready supply of CO2 from the generator's exhaust gases. The same might be true for Nitrogen. It seems that diesel engines could be used to produce a good percentage of the required nitrogen in the form of oxides of nitrogen, that in turn could be reacted with water to produce nitrates.

Algae is sometimes also circulated via pump, which requires energy.

Yes, in particular this is required because only the algae at the surface [the top fraction of an inch of water] are active.

So, all of these affect the EROI of algae biofuels and its viability as a future energy source. Will these obstacles be overcome anytime soon? (I think it would be awesome if they can.)

Companies like those linked above claim to be getting close to a competitive price.

Also, is it possible to harvest existing algae directly from the ocean, and then process them? Wouldn't that save a fair amount of time and resources?

The energy density and yields likely make this impractical. As you indicated, dominant strains tend to be poor producers. But some companies are wanting to produce large algae blooms in the ocean in order to gain CO2 credits. The algae absorbs large quantities of CO2 and then sinks into the cold deep ocean, where the captured CO2 ideally remains trapped.

 

[jlefevre76]

Thanks OmCheeto and Ivan Seeking. Both responses are appreciated. It looks like I'll be attending ASU soon, and I will be interested in working with their algae biofuel lab if the opportunity comes up. My background is in heat transfer and thermodynamics, and my MS thesis was on solar distillation (for desalination). I hope to work on the radiation analysis of the algae, maybe optimizing the geometry of a bioreactor to improve light absorption. Or maybe something totally new to me. I've done some raytracing and things like that, and I'm interested to see if I can apply some of what I've done to this area of research.

 

[OmCheeto]

Thanks OmCheeto and Ivan Seeking.

You're welcome. But looking at the two responses, you should recognize that Ivan is an expert, and I'm an armchair quarterback. The only algae experiment I've done has a bunch of fish swimming around in it.

Both responses are appreciated. It looks like I'll be attending ASU soon, and I will be interested in working with their algae biofuel lab if the opportunity comes up. My background is in heat transfer and thermodynamics, and my MS thesis was on solar distillation (for desalination). I hope to work on the radiation analysis of the algae, maybe optimizing the geometry of a bioreactor to improve light absorption. Or maybe something totally new to me. I've done some raytracing and things like that, and I'm interested to see if I can apply some of what I've done to this area of research.

One of my ideas was to harvest automotive exhaust. Burning hydrocarbons creates CO₂ and H₂O. Extracting the water is easy. All you have to do is cool the gas below 212°F. Collecting the CO₂ is going to require some energy. How much, I have not a clue. Separating out the N₂ is also a problem I would imagine.

Also, algae is pretty old, and appears to have originated when there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere, so a diet of carbonated water might be to their liking. It may just be my imagination, but the Horsetail plants I've been watching over the last ten years seem to be growing bigger every year. They originated when CO₂ levels were much higher. I can imagine that algae all over the world are cheering the increasing levels of CO₂. Food!

Anyways, good luck with your studies.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While I appreciate Om's kind words, I am no expert. But I did start a company and formed a group, and worked hard for two years towards the practical implementation of existing technologies to produce biodiesel from algae. In the end it was obvious that this was too big of a problem for the little guy attack yet - probably hundreds of $millions of research was still needed back in 2007/2008, but it wasn't long before Exxon, BP, DARPA, and a number of major players started coming onto the scene. So I would bet that a career slanted towards this problem will eventually produce good employment opportunities.

If you go back to about page 20,
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211274&page=20
I discuss in detail my logic and efforts, which had a heavy emphasis on the energy side of the equation - the energy per net gallon yield required to run a farm and produce fuel. The other major consideration is the cost per square foot for the bioreactors as this is likely the greatest long-term cost in producing algae fuels. When you do the math, the bioreactors have to be either fantastically inexpensive or have a very long life.

While I focused entirely on a land-based system, I would emphasize that in the end, my best estimate of the problems suggests that the best option is to grow algae in large bladders in the ocean [or perhaps in some lakes], as NASA is now exploring.

 

[OmCheeto]

While I appreciate Om's kind words, I am no expert.

Um, if no one at the forum knows more about the topic than you, then that makes you the expert.

But I did start a company and formed a group, and worked hard for two years towards the practical implementation of existing technologies to produce biodiesel from algae. In the end it was obvious that this was too big of a problem for the little guy attack yet - probably hundreds of $millions of research was still needed back in 2007/2008

I'm going to wear out my Professor Chu anecdotes one of these days.

http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N56/chu.html
December 2, 2011

During the talk, Chu stressed that “federal support is critical to technology leadership.” He gave the example of the advent of airplanes, which started with Samuel Langley and the Wright brothers. Even though Langley, funded by the government, designed a failed prototype while the Wright brothers succeeded without any government support, Chu said that it was ultimately the efforts of federal government that lead to the advancement of the U.S. aviation industry.

When Professor Chu stopped by my workplace a couple of months ago, it would appear that he'd read the above article, and presented a much different analysis of Langley vs Wright. He is still capable of learning, it would appear.

Unfortunately, I don't have the transcript, nor do I have the 20 pages of notes I took that night.

, but it wasn't long before Exxon, BP, DARPA, and a number of major players started coming onto the scene. So I would bet that a career slanted towards this problem will eventually produce good employment opportunities.

If you go back to about page 20,
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211274&page=20
I discuss in detail my logic and efforts, which had a heavy emphasis on the energy side of the equation - the energy per net gallon yield required to run a farm and produce fuel. The other major consideration is the cost per square foot for the bioreactors as this is likely the greatest long-term cost in producing algae fuels. When you do the math, the bioreactors have to be either fantastically inexpensive or have a very long life.

While I focused entirely on a land-based system, I would emphasize that in the end, my best estimate of the problems suggests that the best option is to grow algae in large bladders in the ocean [or perhaps in some lakes], as NASA is now exploring.

Ivan, just take a tums, sit back, and listen to the kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d6y69fiYMw

With so many kids interested in the problem, it will, one day, be solved.

http://grist.org/list/16-year-old-turns-algae-into-biofuel-makes-rest-of-us-feel-unaccomplished/

 

[OmCheeto]

And on a "never trust wiki" side note...

I was reading up on Cyanobacteria the day I responded to jlefevre76, and ran across a funny statement:

Carbon fixation
Cyanobacteria account for 20–30% of Earth's photosynthetic productivity and convert solar energy into biomass-stored chemical energy at the rate of ~450 TW^[10]

450 TW sounded like a lot, so I checked reference [10].

Light-Dependent Electrogenic Activity of Cyanobacteria
Background
Cyanobacteria account for 20–30% of Earth's primary photosynthetic productivity and convert solar energy into biomass-stored chemical energy at the rate of ~450 TW ^[1].

So I checked reference [1].

Widespread occurrence of a unicellular, marine, planktonic, cyanobacterium
Nature 277, 293-294 (25 January 1979)

For some reason, I was able to read the 1 page article at work on Wednesday, but I'm unable to read it from home. It may be because I accessed it via our "edu" library portal?

Anyways, there was absolutely no mention of this "~450 TW" statement in the "apparent" source article.

I want to purchase this article
Price: $32

$32 for a 1 page article that doesn't even contain the information I'm looking for? I don't think so.

I don't have time to check the validity of the number today, but it yields: 14.2 billion tera joules of energy per year. (= 14.2 zettajoules)

The zettajoule (ZJ) is equal to 10²¹ joules. Annual global energy consumption is approximately 0.5 ZJ.

Ok I have to get ready for work and a wedding now bye bye

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Back in 2006 and 2007, after starting a company dedicated to the production of biodiesel from algae, and while still in the preliminary stages, I put together a crude power point presentation intended for investors. In the end it was my opinion that while feasible, the practical implementation of this technology for commercial fuel sales was still beyond the scope of a small company - this was still a problem for the Exxon's and BP's of the world.

Without the accompanying narrative a lot is lost and at times the context may not be clear. Also, it is now somewhat out of date, a few errors may be found, and there is definitely spin and perhaps a bit of friendly sarcasm - this was a sales pitch after all. Still, every effort was made to provide accurate information. It was always meant to be honest. It was also successful in its own right. The name of my former company has been deleted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HkEGp6RzD8

 

[OmCheeto]

Back in 2006 and 2007, after starting a company dedicated to the production of biodiesel from algae, and while still in the preliminary stages, I put together a crude power point presentation intended for investors. In the end it was my opinion that while feasible, the practical implementation of this technology for commercial fuel sales was still beyond the scope of a small company - this was still a problem for the Exxon's and BP's of the world.

Without the accompanying narrative a lot is lost and at times the context may not be clear. Also, it is now somewhat out of date, a few errors may be found, and there is definitely spin and perhaps a bit of friendly sarcasm - this was a sales pitch after all. Still, every effort was made to provide accurate information. It was always meant to be honest. It was also successful in its own right. The name of my former company has been deleted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HkEGp6RzD8

I apparently never took the Evelyn Wood course...

Good presentation Ivan. :thumbs:

...

Someone handed me a section from a newspaper earlier this year. I didn't bother reading it, as I'm "up" on most things going on.

Today, I skimmed through the paper, and, it would appear, that I'm not.

When Algae on the Exterior Is a Good Thing
Published: April 24, 2013

AS an energy source, algae may be growing up.

A new apartment complex in Hamburg, Germany, intends to generate heat, as well as revenue, from growing the micro-organism. The five-story Bio Intelligent Quotient (B.I.Q.) building, which was expected to become fully operational on Wednesday, has a high-tech facade that looks like a cross between a Mondrian painting and a terrarium but is actually a vertical algae farm.

This reminds me a bit of my polycarbonate eave idea. Though, after having spent quite a few minutes scraping the algae from my plexiglass fish tank earlier this week, I think glass might be a better medium. Higher up front cost, but we need a material that algae doesn't cling to.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I apparently never took the Evelyn Wood course...

There was no timing on the upload to YouTube. It was intended to be incremented manually.

As for the NY Times link,
Assume the building is 100 feet x 200 feet x 50 feet. The total surface area is 100x200 + 2(50x200) + 2(50x100) = 50,000 square feet. At 43560 square feet per acre, let's say we have 1 acre of active surface area. Given the vertical reactor design the growth potential has to be severely de-rated. Assume an ideal net yield of 5000 gallons per acre year, with a maximum multiplier of 0.1-0.2 - best guesses but probably a reasonable maximum given that at any time, most of the building is not in direct sunlight. We would expect a net yield of perhaps 500-1000 gallons per year. With a maximum guesstimated payback of $4000 a year, I hope that special building and all of the elaborate design features come cheap! If we're lucky this might pay for the cost of labor for maintenance and to operate the system for a month.

I think glass might be a better medium. Higher up front cost, but we need a material that algae doesn't cling to.

True story, except glass doesn't work either! Perhaps the ideal material for bioreactors would be transparent, resistant to UV and impact, tremendously inexpensive, and free of clinging algae.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Audi has started a new advertising campaign devoted to diesel engines. YAY!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quZ0l-AP6_A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZfxcD1kbkQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iHEx_qsPRc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTD2QVpiUJY

 

[AlephZero]

Audi has started a new advertising campaign devoted to diesel engines. YAY!

Hmm. In Europe, diesels account for over 50% of new car sales already. The brands with the highest share of diesel are those well known "tractor-makers" BMW (nearly 80%) and Audi (over 70%) [/IRONY] (Fig 6.7)

But the gap between diesel and gasoline CO2 emissions has narrowed over the last 10 years, with gasoline improving faster than diesel (Fig 3.5).

The 10-year trends in Figs 3.24, 3.25, and 3.26 are interesting as well.

Figures in
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Pocketbook_LowRes_withNotes-1.pdf - and plenty of other interesting stuff to compare US vehicle market, I expect.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hmm. In Europe, diesels account for over 50% of new car sales already. The brands with the highest share of diesel are those well known "tractor-makers" BMW (nearly 80%) and Audi (over 70%) [/IRONY] (Fig 6.7)

One thing that has changed the landscape here in the US is the requirement for ultra-low-sulfur diesel.

But the gap between diesel and gasoline CO2 emissions has narrowed over the last 10 years, with gasoline improving faster than diesel (Fig 3.5).

My primary interest here is the higher efficiency of diesel engines compared to internal combustion, and most of all, the option to use biodiesel produced from algae. Biodiesel contains no sulfur and is carbon neutral.

 

[AlephZero]

OK, now I see where you're coming from. The US have finally got somewhere close to the EU's existing ULSD standard, so EU car makers don't have to redesign their diesel engines to handle the gunk fuel on sale in the US.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

OK, now I see where you're coming from. The US have finally got somewhere close to the EU's existing ULSD standard, so EU car makers don't have to redesign their diesel engines to handle the gunk fuel on sale in the US.

Interestingly. the State of Washington has mandated that all diesel fuel sold contain at least 2% biodiesel, as a replacement for the sulfur; this to provide the required lubrication that sulfur provides. As it turns out, biodiesel is effectively a lubricant. It is generally claimed that truckers who run biodiesel see enhanced fuel economy due to the superior lubrication qualities of bd, as compared to regular diesel sold in the US. [correction, biodiesel contains slightly less energy per gallon than regular diesel, but they see no practical decrease in fuel economy, allegedly due to the added lubrication.]

 

[Straw_Cat]

A test plant in Spain that was basically a large water glass that used sunlight, seawater, and captured CO2, to grow algae, from which the researchers could produce algal biofuel, and the left-over bits could be turned into either feed for animals or composted for use as a soil amendment. (I presume they can eliminate the salt... ).
I haven't seen an update in the past 2 years, but they were talking about building a much larger algae farm back then. Don't know if it went ahead yet, since the Spanish economy isn't all that good.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A test plant in Spain that was basically a large water glass that used sunlight, seawater, and captured CO2, to grow algae, from which the researchers could produce algal biofuel, and the left-over bits could be turned into either feed for animals or composted for use as a soil amendment. (I presume they can eliminate the salt... ).
I haven't seen an update in the past 2 years, but they were talking about building a much larger algae farm back then. Don't know if it went ahead yet, since the Spanish economy isn't all that good.

Reuters | Posted: 08/08/2013 12:01 pm EDT | Updated: 08/08/2013 4:54 pm EDT ...

LONDON, Aug 8 (Reuters) - A European Union-backed project to produce biofuels from algae moved a step forward on Thursday by producing its first crop of algae biomass at its site in southern Spain, the main company behind the scheme said on Thursday.

The "All-gas" project will cultivate fast-growing micro-algae by using the nutrients in wastewater and then by further processes generate biomethane which can be captured and used in transport fuel.

The biomass obtained from the algae crop showed high energy potential with a methane production capacity of 200-300 litres of gas per kilogram of biomass processed, water company FCC Aqualia said.

"This original new approach to bioenergy means that Spain's 40 million population could power 200,000 vehicles every year with a single toilet flush," said Frank Rogalla, the project's coordinator and director of innovation and technology at FCC Aqualia.

Some 7.1 million euros ($9.46 million) of the scheme's initial 12-million-euro development funding came from the EU, which is aiming for 10 percent of its energy used in transport to be derived from renewable sources by 2020...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/08/algae-biofuel-europe_n_3726548.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I keep thinking of the advantages of the route taken by the EU project - algae to biomethane. I don't know how the energy side of this pencils out but there are some immediate potential advantages of this approach over the biodiesel approach.

ASSUMING that the net production of biomethane goes ~ as the mass of organic matter and is not dependent on either the sugar or oil content, then we would seem to avoid a good number of problems. Firstly, it is challenging to maintain the conditions required for good oil producing strains of algae. The best producers [Kg of oil per Kg of biomass] require controlled conditions that drive up the cost of production. Good producing strains can mutate into poor producers, or suddenly switch over to sugar producers instead of oil producers. Also, the best producers tend to be the slowest growing strains. There are low-yield strains that double in mass as often as every few hours, whereas good oil strains may only double in mass every few days. By allowing for a much broader range of growing conditions, in addition to the potential for 300% or even 500% increased growth rates, on a first pass the EU approach seems promising financially. It is easy to imagine that the cost of production per BTU of fuel could be much lower than for a land-based biodiesel-algae farm.

As for energy, the oil extraction process is eliminated and seems to have no counterpart. The bacteria do that for us.

It would be interesting to know the maximum theoretical BTUs of fuel per acre-year.

 

[Straw_Cat]

I suspect the net BTU production of any given algae farm is highly dependent on which algae strains one has, the local climate and lighting conditions, and the weather for any given period.

It seems there is a lot of research into this, and one demonstration project even has an algae farm on a rooftop, the goals being to produce more energy than the building needs... I wasn't aware of that possibility, and the whole concept is new to new to me.

http://theenergycollective.com/tinacasey/252431/voil-us-algae-company-turns-sewage-biofuel-france

I'm not used to thinking in terms of BTUs, but maybe I should study up on it and how to convert, say, kw measurements and the like to BTUs. Or switch BTUs to Kw equivalents...

Maybe there's an algae farming Yahoo Group??
Close enough: there's a 15 member group called Algae Fuel:

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AlgaeFuel/info

These kind of discussion groups have mostly fallen out of fashion, but they're a much better platform than social media. Forums are a bit better, too.

 

[Straw_Cat]

Add: The Energy Collective link above was a valuable one to me since I had thought it might be possible to include algae into part of a small sewage/ waste processing plant to handle the wastewater and perhaps kitchen wastes at a small mining plant. It might be worth looking into recovering the energy from this to help lower the overall carbon footprint, and build up a stock of soil amendments to use in site reclamation. :-)
I'll have to look into the 'Origin Oil' pages more now.
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/16/originoil-has-a-vision-for-urban-algae-biofuel-farming/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I suspect the net BTU production of any given algae farm is highly dependent on which algae strains one has, the local climate and lighting conditions, and the weather for any given period.

All true, but there is also a theoretical maximum production based on the solar energy input to the system and the conversion efficiency of the pathway - algae to biomethane. We know that there is an upper limit for algae-derived biodiesel of about 10,000 gallons of fuel per acre year, with a practical limit of probably 6000 gpay.

It seems there is a lot of research into this, and one demonstration project even has an algae farm on a rooftop, the goals being to produce more energy than the building needs... I wasn't aware of that possibility, and the whole concept is new to new to me.

Unless the production of biomethane is drastically more efficient than biodiesel, the notion of rooftop systems is unrealistic. At 43560 square feet per acre, and a maximum of 6000 gallons of fuel per acre year, the gross production of fuel is severely limited, making this approach impractical. As I demonstrated a few posts ago, even an entire commercial building covered with bioreactors is limited to perhaps 1000 gallons of fuel per year, and probably less than that.

I'm not used to thinking in terms of BTUs, but maybe I should study up on it and how to convert, say, kw measurements and the like to BTUs. Or switch BTUs to Kw equivalents...

BTUs can be converted to KW-HRS, where 1 BTU = 0.00029307107 kilowatts hours

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On 11 October 2013, the President of the Republic of France, François Hollande, visited OriginOil's joint venture near Paris, Ennesys. The President visited Ennesys after receiving the report from the "Innovation 2030" commission, headed by Anne Lauvergeon. Accompanied by Ms. Lauvergeon, President Hollande toured the showcase site and then spoke on official television, praising Ennesys as exemplifying the innovative spirit that France is pursuing. OriginOil CEO Riggs Eckelberry also met Mr. Hollande, and also completed negotiations for the transfer of important inventions to Ennesys to enable it to pursue its strategic goals in the urban waste-to-energy market.

http://vimeo.com/77345535

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Algae to the rescue at Fukushima? Scientists say it could help

...Almost three years after the triple meltdown there, the plant's owners still haven't figured out what to do with the huge amounts of radioactive cooling water flowing from the plant's damaged reactors into an ever-growing complex of metal storage tanks, some of which are leaking into the ground and into the ocean.

Cleaning up that water is a massive task. But what if something remarkably simple could help? Something like algae, perhaps?

This is where phytoremediation comes in. In a nutshell, it’s the process of using plants and other kinds of organisms to help clean up toxic waste.

The field isn't widely known, but Newman says it is well-established.

“There's been quite a bit of research in this area looking at heavy metals, pesticides, chlorinated solvents, explosive compounds and radioactive compounds,” Newman says...

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-06/algae-rescue-fukushima-scientists-say-it-could-help