Can Microalgae Solve Global Fuel and Environmental Challenges?

[mheslep]

Algae is nowhere near the photosynthetic limit. Just check the PAR for any strain and that is easy to see. I want to say that most high-yield strains are in the 20% range, but I don't recall the reference for that. It also depends on what we mean by the limit. For example, UV is not used for hydrocarbon production and can damage the cell. All PAR charts that I saw ended at UV frequencies.

I was referring to a general photosynthetic limit of about 11% for any from sources like this:

[...]Only light within the wavelength range of 400 to 700 nm (photosynthetically active radiation, PAR) can be utilized by plants, effectively allowing only 45 % of total solar energy to be utilized for photosynthesis. Furthermore, fixation of one CO2 molecule during photosynthesis, necessitates a quantum requirement of ten (or more), which results in a maximum utilization of only 25% of the PAR absorbed by the photosynthetic system. On the basis of these limitations, the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy conversion is approximately 11%.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e05.htm#1.2.1 photosynthetic efficiency

I see references on various algae strains at http://www.bioenergywiki.net/images/d/de/Egger_Energy_Efficiency.pdf" (page 9). Thus this bio-isobutanol process, if it is indeed 50% higher yield than algae, would be at or near the photosynthetic limit.

 

[joelupchurch]

For comparision, they use the algae benchmark: "a well-designed [biodiesel from algae] production system" can produce ~1 × 10^5 liter per hectacre - year, or 10691 gal per acre - year. That's a cite from Chisti, Y. Biodiesel from microalgae beats bioethanol. Trends Biotechnol. 26, 126–131 (2008).

They claim their process can exceed this by 55%, phenomenal. That's approaching the efficiency of a solar thermal plant. Seems optimistic. I thought algae was already at photosynthetic limits.

If you look back at my post of Nov 19th, the paper I quoted said the theoretical limit for Biodiesel is 28,000 gallons per acre/year. 10,000 gallons was my guess for the practical limit.

Another thing to consider is to also adjust for BTUs per gallon. Biodiesel is around 130,000 BTUs per gallon, while isobutanol is around 95,000. That is still a lot better than ethanol, which is around 76,000.

 

[joelupchurch]

And it might just be me, but I'm always afraid some genetically enhanced bug is going to turn into an Andromeda Strain type of scenario if they escape into the open ocean. Imagine a bug that lives on sunlight and CO₂, thriving world wide, spewing flammable liquids as a byproduct.

Considering we share our planet with Methanogens, that generate a flammable gas, the additional risk seems small. Of course, we now know that the big risk is when the methane doesn't catch on fire and is released into the atmosphere. Burning the methane reduces it's GHG potential by a factor of over 20.

I'm reading Stewart Brand's new book, "Whole Earth Discipline". Once you understand that we live in a genetic soup with organisms constantly swapping genes with other species, then what scientists do in the lab is small potatoes and extremely safe by comparison.

 

[OmCheeto]

Considering we share our planet with Methanogens, that generate a flammable gas, the additional risk seems small. Of course, we now know that the big risk is when the methane doesn't catch on fire and is released into the atmosphere. Burning the methane reduces it's GHG potential by a factor of over 20.

I'm reading Stewart Brand's new book, "Whole Earth Discipline". Once you understand that we live in a genetic soup with organisms constantly swapping genes with other species, then what scientists do in the lab is small potatoes and extremely safe by comparison.

A quick google of methanogens shows them to be predominantly anaerobic, hence minimizing their flourishment in our very aerobic surface world.

Now the methanogen-cow symbiotic system on the other hand:

http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Methanosarcina_barkeri
M. barkeri is also seemingly efficient. It has been said that a well-fed dairy cow can produce as much as 500L of intestinal gas in one day, 35% of which is methane. M. barkeri is thought to be primarily responsible for that 35%.

Methane has an energy content of about 1000 BTU/cubic foot, which equals about 35 BTU/L. If M. barkeri produces only 20% of the methane passed by a dairy cow, which yields 100L of methane, enough to produce 3500BTU. This is enough energy to melt 24.5 pounds of ice or run a 1hp motor for 20 minutes. By this conservative estimate, M. barkeri holds enormous potential as an alternative energy supplier. (Wikipedia references: British Thermal Unit, Methane)

Perhaps we need to put pilot lights on all the cow butts.

Wait! Let's feed the algae to the cows and collect the gas. I'm sure no one has thought of that before.

google, google, google...

Drat!

All the good ideas are always taken...

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/scientists-attach-rectal-methane-collecting-backpacks-to-cows/1390"
Thu, Jul 10, 2008



And just to put this idea to rest:

Cow Flatulence Power
1.90E+09 cows on the planet
3.50E+03 btu/cow/day
2.43E+15 btu/yr

worldwide energy usage
4.49E+17 btu/yr

conclusion:
After spending money on 1.9 billion rolls of duck-tape and pink inflatable bags, cows will produce 0.54% of our energy needs.

Next idea please!

 

[joelupchurch]

That's a coincidence. I used the same picture for something I wrote on the GHG footprint of cheese. I'm thinking about a doing a follow up on Velveeta.

The picture is from some research on cattle emissions in Argentina and the tube is running into the cow's stomach, not the rectum.

http://www.physorg.com/news135003243."

 

[mheslep]

I'm reading Stewart Brand's new book, "Whole Earth Discipline". Once you understand that we live in a genetic soup with organisms constantly swapping genes with other species, then what scientists do in the lab is small potatoes and extremely safe by comparison.

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Yes nature does a great deal of gene swapping, but it also puts up strong impediments that rule out most of the swaps. That is, elephants can't breed with mice in nature, but scientists can make it so in the lab. More generally speaking, nature constantly seeks low energy optimizations and throws up high energy hurdles that makes some combinations unseen in three billion years of of mix and match. We can leap those energy hurdles on what may be an ill-considered moment.

 

[joelupchurch]

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Yes nature does a great deal of gene swapping, but it also puts up strong impediments that rule out most of the swaps. That is, elephants can't breed with mice in nature, but scientists can make it so in the lab. More generally speaking, nature constantly seeks low energy optimizations and throws up high energy hurdles that makes some combinations unseen in three billion years of of mix and match. We can leap those energy hurdles on what may be an ill-considered moment.

Actually it appears to be that at the microbial level, that almost anything can swap genetic material with almost anything else and if you are surprised, it wasn't the way I learned it in school either. There is a whole new science called Metagenomics, where they talk of microbial communities, rather than individual species. Here is a link to the National Academies about Metagenomics:

http://dels.nas.edu/metagenomics/about.shtml"

Amazingly enough, Metagenomics is actually relevant to the climate forum. Here is link to a discussion about bacteria in the carbon cycle:
http://dels.nas.edu/metagenomics/global_change.shtml"

 

[mugaliens]

Now the methanogen-cow symbiotic system on the other hand..

Best gut-busting picture I've seen in a long time, and I'm not talking about the cow!

Wait! Let's feed the algae to the cows and collect the gas. I'm sure no one has thought of that before.

Why not just feed them sawdust rendered less acidic?

conclusion:
After spending money on 1.9 billion rolls of duck-tape and pink inflatable bags, cows will produce 0.54% of our energy needs.

Next idea please!

Termites! If I'm not mistaken, they produce several times the methane of cows. Then again, is there even a tube that small?

Perhaps we could simply raise termite farms.

Ok, next idea:

Bacteria. But that's the cause of the amounts of methane steaming off our landfills. So why not just cover them, collect the methane and burn it?

Actually, it's already http://www.epa.gov/lmop/" .

 

[mheslep]

Response to earlier queries/comments about alt-jet fuel

Media Reports:
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/06/17/veggie-power-plant-based-jet-fuel-outperforms-oil-based-jet-fuel/"

In 2008 and 2009, the consortium tested several blends of up to 50% biofuel in Boeing jets belonging to Air New Zealand, Continental Airlines and Japan Airlines. The blends were different combinations oil from jatropha (an oily seed plant that grows in arid climates), camelina (a fatty mustard-like seed) and algae, which reproduces prodigiously fast.

Tests were on normal, unmodified engines. They blended regular jet fuel w/ bio derivatives. Algae fuel was at most 8% of the blend. Edit: I didn't know that hydrogen must be added to the bio-oils to make jet fuel. That will inevitably come from natural gas.

also
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/06/aviation-gets-b/"

Boeing technical report:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/environment/pdf/PAS_biofuel_Exec_Summary.pdf
Edit: Interesting to see all of the technical players that signed the report:

• GE-Aviation
• Rolls Royce
• Honeywell Aerospace
• Pratt and Whitney
• Boeing
• DARPA/STO
• CFM

and the four airlines.Of course I'm still betting on the electric airplane ;-)
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2304796&postcount=34
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2304796&postcount=35

 

[mheslep]

AltAir Fuels has been selected to provide the bio jet from Camelina.
On their http://www.altairfuels.com/gjf.html" they say:

5. Camelina is grown in rotation with wheat and as such, does not displace food crops. It also provides new sources of revenue and jobs for farmers.

Does not displace food crops? BS! Same game as corn ethanol.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If it is found that a system can be run as if perpetual for extended periods of time, say on the order of months at a time, for example, we get back to the idea of a modified V. During the early stages of growth when we have perhaps 0.1 % of the mass of algae as compared to what we expect at harvest time, using a ditch shaped like a V helps to minimize the water volume - the volume of water goes as the square of the depth - which is helpful to minimize the volume of innoculant required. Also, a V shape is easy to drain. However, for the time that a system can be maintained in a perpetual state, we want to utilize the entire surface area of the reactor cell. This suggests that we want to use something like a U, perhaps with a sharper slope at the bottom of U for good drainage. The U/V might also be skewed according to the relative angle of the sun, at the given latitude, in order to reduce the amount of light that reflects from the walls [reducing the energy input]. As was mentioned earlier, the shape also affects the efficiency of aeration and circulation. The vertical or parallel walls in the upper portion of the reactor allow the volume of water to be varied without significantly reducing the effective surface area. This is where my design stood when the effort began to unwind.

If algae is grown under the conditions described, then the shape of the reactor could be significant to yields. It would seem prudent to further explore this issue. The only options to covered ditches seem to be open or covered ponds, or some variation on large plastic bags. There may be a few other twists on this out there but it would seem to be an implicit requirement that we use something very inexpensive and simple. How else could one possibly meet the budget requirement of 12 cents per sq foot per year, or anything even close to that, for the entire complex?

Here are a few questions that may merit discussion. At some point I may pop in with an answer or two, but anyone who wants to help is certainly welcome:

1). Again, what is the energy density of coal and the processing efficiency of a coal plant? What is the net efficiency of the system, from the mining to the generator, and how much water and petro fuel do we use?

2). Do we have a solid reference for the theoretical limit of algae yields. I know we had some references mentioned, but are they well-supported?

3). Using industry standards as a guideline, I estimated that it would require a minimum of about one metric ton of nitrate per acre-year, in order to produce 6000 gallons of fuel. I do recall having some references that allow for a rigorous calculation here, for the nitrogen mass required, but a few of my best links went dead long ago. Maybe someone here can find a good reference? If we produce 6000 gallons of fuel, using 7.3 pounds per gallon, we get 43,800 pounds of algae oil/fuel. If we assume this represents 40% of the dry mass of algae, then we harvested 110,000 pounds of algae, with 60% of this, or about 66,000 pounds, as plant fiber. One metric ton of nitrate is 2200 pounds, or a little over 3% of the mass of dry algae fiber. Is this enough nitrogen to produce 66,000 pounds of plant fiber? Again recall that I am working from memory here, not notes. Hopefully I have reconstructed this properly but a rigorous check of the information would be entirely appropriate. The minimum theoretical nitrogen requirement is a very important number to know.

Late edits: a bit of cleanup

 

[Ivan Seeking]

4). Can the water and the plant fiber from processed algae biomass, be treated with chlorine, presumably, or perhaps treated with a biological agent of some sort, and fed back into the reactor system? Can the algae biomass be effectively recycled in order to preserve the nitrogen? Or, perhaps the biomass is best preserved through combustion, for power production, with the exhaust gases fed back to the algae? This might also allow a fuel farm to shift the operating energy burden from saleable fuel, to less valueable biomass.

 

[mheslep]

...

1). Again, what is the energy density of coal and the processing efficiency of a coal plant? What is the net efficiency of the system, from the mining to the generator, and how much water and petro fuel do we use?

Price per short ton, energy per pound

• Central Appalachia 12,500 Btu/lb (29MJ/kg), 1.2 SO2: $55
• Northern Appalachia 13,000 Btu/lb (30MJ/kg), <3.0 SO2: $52
• Illinois Basin 11,800 Btu/lb (27MJ/kg), 5.0 SO2: $40
• Powder River Basin 8,800 Btu/lb (20 MJ/kg), 0.8 SO2: $9
• Uinta Basin 11,700 Btu/lb (27MJ/kg), 0.8 SO2: 39

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html

So it appears a zero sulfur fuel might fetch $60 per 13,000 Btu tops. Mining costs likely not relevant to the electric plant operator, just the end fuel cost.

As I posted earlier, I think algae BD must mainly target transportation, despite the advantages of a closed system electric - algae farm plant, unless there is a substantial penalty levied on coal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Price per short ton, energy per pound

• Central Appalachia 12,500 Btu/lb (29MJ/kg), 1.2 SO2: $55
• Northern Appalachia 13,000 Btu/lb (30MJ/kg), <3.0 SO2: $52
• Illinois Basin 11,800 Btu/lb (27MJ/kg), 5.0 SO2: $40
• Powder River Basin 8,800 Btu/lb (20 MJ/kg), 0.8 SO2: $9
• Uinta Basin 11,700 Btu/lb (27MJ/kg), 0.8 SO2: 39

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html

So it appears a zero sulfur fuel might fetch $60 per 13,000 Btu tops. Mining costs likely not relevant to the electric plant operator, just the end fuel cost.

As I posted earlier, I think algae BD must mainly target transportation, despite the advantages of a closed system electric - algae farm plant, unless there is a substantial penalty levied on coal.

Thanks. I will be getting back to this later, but my first interest was to explore the efficiency of algae biomass, as compared to coal, for engineering, not economic purposes. In particular, does it make sense to burn biomass, rather than algae oil, to power the farm? How much energy is available in the plant fiber? What then is the total yield of the farm in terms of power output?

As for price, I was hoping to get some perspective on the coal-to-power process, and how that compares to algae, step by step.

I don't see it so much as targeting fuel or electric, rather the most practical hybrid of the two. But in the end it all comes down to the price per unit of energy. As you alluded to earlier, by using the wholesale price of petro fuel as the basis for the business model, we are effectively shooting for a grid-competive price for power as well. It seems that a near zero-emissions algae farm and generating station might be constructed quickly, and would have far more flexibility than coal or nuclear, in terms of location wrt to population centers. Also, I do believe coal processing requires a great deal of water, while a closed algae system, in principle, would not. My hope is that algae power might be so benign in terms of environmental impact, political volatility, perceived and genuine risk, and public health, as compared to other sources, that it has a significant market advantage.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

3). Using industry standards as a guideline, I estimated that it would require a minimum of about one metric ton of nitrate per acre-year, in order to produce 6000 gallons of fuel. I do recall having some references that allow for a rigorous calculation here, for the nitrogen mass required, but a few of my best links went dead long ago. Maybe someone here can find a good reference? If we produce 6000 gallons of fuel, using 7.3 pounds per gallon, we get 43,800 pounds of algae oil/fuel. If we assume this represents 40% of the dry mass of algae, then we harvested 110,000 pounds of algae, with 60% of this, or about 66,000 pounds, as plant fiber. One metric ton of nitrate is 2200 pounds, or a little over 3% of the mass of dry algae fiber. Is this enough nitrogen to produce 66,000 pounds of plant fiber? Again recall that I am working from memory here, not notes. Hopefully I have reconstructed this properly but a rigorous check of the information would be entirely appropriate. The minimum theoretical nitrogen requirement is a very important number to know.

After thinking about this, I realized that I should modify that statement as it is a bit misleading. If we assume that we have 40% oil by weight, then we might expect to find that 20% of the total mass is sugar. The yields and the ratio of oil to sugar can vary greatly between strains and even between harvest cycles. In practical terms, we may only have 40%, or 43,800 pounds of plant fiber. I was implicitly assuming that we have an algae strain that only produces oil, which is ideal but not realistic. However, my exposure to the subject suggests that 40% oil yields are realistic. Additionally, biologists are working to control the chemical switch that selects for oil or sugar production. This may help to increase the oil [or sugar, if desired] content significantly beyond 40% yields.

I should have dug into my notes for this but they were stored away in a recent reorganization of my office.

 

[joelupchurch]

After thinking about this, I realized that I should modify that statement as it is a bit misleading. If we assume that we have 40% oil by weight, then we might expect to find that 20% of the total mass is sugar. The yields and the ratio of oil to sugar can vary greatly between strains and even between harvest cycles.

This is probably a stupid question; can't the sugar be converted to ethanol for additional fuel?
Does a Biodiesel/Ethanol blend make any sense? Would it lower the freezing point for the Biodiesel?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is probably a stupid question; can't the sugar be converted to ethanol for additional fuel?
Does a Biodiesel/Ethanol blend make any sense? Would it lower the freezing point for the Biodiesel?

I don't think a biodiesel/ethanol blend would work in diesels, but ethanol from algae is definitely an area of interest, as is hydrogen from algae, which is what the folks at MIT have been developing.

 

[mheslep]

I don't think a biodiesel/ethanol blend would work in diesels, but ethanol from algae is definitely an area of interest, as is hydrogen from algae, which is what the folks at MIT have been developing.

Right it wouldn't work in a diesel, but one could still burn the mix in an open flame steam boiler.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does anyone have any information on the algae-to-ethanol process? I never saw a good description of the process.

It was interesting to note than in my own investigations, when the algae was burned, there was a white residue that would literally drip [as a liquid] from the burning algae. The residue quickly cooled to a hard white blob. I think it was the sugar but I never had it tested.

I wondered, if it was the sugar, might it be possible to separate the sugar from the algae this way.

 

[mheslep]

Does anyone have any information on the algae-to-ethanol process? I never saw a good description of the process.

It was interesting to note than in my own investigations, when the algae was burned, there was a white residue that would literally drip [as a liquid] from the burning algae. The residue quickly cooled to a hard white blob. I think it was the sugar but I never had it tested.

I wondered, if it was the sugar, might it be possible to separate the sugar from the algae this way.

I would not have thought there would be anything particular to the 'algae ethanol' process, after the sugar molecules have formed. Once one has sugar, the usual drying and fermentation procedures should apply. Before that point, you've made reference to the sensitivities of various strains producing either oil or sugar, depending also on conditions, and on that point I have no information.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[joelupchurch]

oilgae has an Ethanol from Algae forum. There isn't much activity there but a couple of posts were interesting.

http://www.oilgae.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=36&sid=1a86d55600fbc3be3327571b1d521e8f"

I suspect oilgae has a lot of commercial algae developers, who aren't really interested in giving up information for free.

The Algae forum over at biodiesel.infopop.cc seems to get a lot more activity.

http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/cfrm/f/1581066562"

 

[mheslep]

Cornyation: Good Days for Ethanol, Bad for Biodiesel

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...tion-good-days-for-ethanol-bad-for-biodiesel/

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Cornyation: Good Days for Ethanol, Bad for Biodiesel

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...tion-good-days-for-ethanol-bad-for-biodiesel/

It should be noted that this applies strictly to food-crop based biodiesel, which is likely no better than ethanol as a fuel option.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[mheslep]

I posted a comment and link along similar lines over in Russ's energy thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2674171&postcount=566

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another twist on the algae story is its potential as a food source for humans. It is my understanding that back in the 1970's, NASA did some research on this. The subject also gained attention back in the 1990's. I remember some of the discussion about this but I don't know much about it. It happened to come to my attention recently.

Blue-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...

http://www.immunesupport.com/news/94wtr001.htm

Algae Burgers for a Hungry World? The Rise and Fall of Chlorella Cuisine
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3106856

Back in 1990, apparently McDonalds even gave it a go [p8 of 23]
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...WUQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=I4wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6782,2741854

 

[joelupchurch]

If I recall correctly, even when you are using algae for fuel, that the parts that aren't converted to biodiesel can be used for animal feed, which would free up land for feeding people.

As it stands now, ethanol uses up land that could be used for food crops, so just displacing ethanol helps feed people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can't be sure about this, but I do believe the algae bloom in the Upper Klamath Lake is the one that mysteriously died. One of our more prominent associates in the algae effort had first-hand knowledge of either this, or a similar situation in the same area. There were a couple of people harvesting the algae and making a small fortune. That was one of many examples that led to the conclusion on my part that open systems are unmanageable.

 

[Frame Dragger]

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

Yep, and not just for us... it's hurting (in one fashion or another) EVERYONE involved. Hell, we could use modified E. Coli to treat sewage, separate the urine to recover phosporus, and the grey-water for the algae. We'd get something very much like diesel from the bacteria, we need the phosphorus to spare mining and for agriculure, and algae + bacteria to liberate sugars from cellulose, and conversion to fuel.

Given that, you don't need to use the algae as food, thereby denuding your critical operation. You could centralize this around Sewage, and bioreactors. It's just a matter of time (to make this less expensive/more efficient), and funding, and RESOLVE.

 

[billiards]

Another twist on the algae story is its potential as a food source for humans.

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!)

 

[Frame Dragger]

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!)

We eat a LOOOT of algae actually, but it's highly processed. Your assesment of the McDonald's "hamburger" however, is entirely accurate. Mostly however, algae can be processed to form binding agents, molding agent (dental alginate for instance), etc. That said, I'd rather eat insects... they're higher protein, some genuinely taste good with seasoning, and it's not pond-scum.

Actually, I'd rather eat a steak, or barring that, well prepared tofu. Get some firm tofu, press-dry for 20 minutes, prepare with a marinade of soy, ginger, minced garlic, a dash of worsterchire sauce or fish sauce *same thing*, salt, pepper, and one extra element like honey, or chili pepper. Pan fry in its own juices with some veggies... yum. Steak... is better though, if not all the time. Mmmmm... pan seared, and finished in a hot oven. *wistful*

Sorry... what were we talking about originally? Something to do with fuel...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...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...

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. Algae systems might be competitive or superior to other farming options, in terms of water demand, if closed systems are used to prevent evaporation losses.

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 [fatty acids] 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.

 

[Frame Dragger]

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... you already probably enjoy at least ONE form of algae... it's typically used in sushi, but people think it's seaweed. "Nori" is pressed, dried, (and I think slightly fermented) algae, and it's what you get in sushi. Compare to Konbu, an actual sea-vegetable which forms the base of Dashi (basic broth).

BOTH can keep you alive for a VERY long time... rich in protein, carbohydrates (konbu literally glistens with carbohydrates) and those vitamins and minerals we need to live are there in spades. There is no doubt that algae are an amazingly dense energy supply, and it grows like... um... algae. Remember "Agar"? That's processed algae, and there's a reason it makes a wonderful culture medium.

That said, insects are easier to breed, require less water and processing, and are even more nutritionally dense in proteins and fats, which are critical to humans. I could imagine a mealworm+algae burger however, and it would be EXTREMELY healthy and about as dense as energy gets short of a sugar cube or gasoline. Both are easily flavoured, so it would be a mental issue for people, which as you point out, rarely survives in the face of starvation.

Hell, I've eaten crunchy BBQ mealworms, and frankly... they're pretty good. The mental issue is there, I won't lie, and I ate them ONCE... but the taste was far from unpleasant. As for Nori, TONS of people love it, and we already eat more algae than we know (see McDonalds again!... how many billions served? ) Then of course there are those used as food dyes, and now a source of antioxidants (and nutrients): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haematococcus_pluvialis

We have options beyond tofu or animals, but to be fair, a balance is likely the ideal, and far more sustainable.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Frame Dragger]

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.

That really depends on the insect, but a lot of them eat "food" that humans, livestock, et al cannot eat. Catterpillers for instance, eat leaves that we can make little or no use of. Algae... it's a bit like the issue with photovoltaic cells... in theory as you say, it's PERFECT! In practice, storage and transfer of energy becomes an issue. Insects however, tend to get the majority of their water from their food, and otherwise require something on the order of a moist sponge. They are EXTREMELY efficient in terms of storage... and as for transfer... kill... cook... eat. Algae need to be processed (such as Nori is)... you can eat plenty of insects live if you chose.

Heck, some of the best insects could live on Poppler wood, which is fast growing, and no good as food. That same tree could be used as a method of extracting toxins from groundwater (already in use).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Eh, now I'm raising an eyebrow. But I can see this all being quite dependent on the location and circumstances. In any event, one needs to consider the mass of food required by the bugs per unit of food yield for humans, however that is defined, and then the energy requirements to grow, collect, process, and distribute the bug food among the bugs. What is at the bottom of the food chain; what are the energy inputs to the system? Whats is the theoretical maximum capacity of the system in terms of land area per unit yield of food? How efficient is the energy transfer, from the energy source, to the mouth of a hungry human? A head to head comparison would seem to be worth the effort.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Frame Dragger]

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.

Do insects eat algae?... I don't know offhand. I don't think many do however... at least, not ones that are in turn, edible by us. This, I will have to research. Generally speaking, aquatic insects prey on other aquatic insects, and small fish... and usually that's larval or other stage for the insect (mosquitoes, dragonflies, all underwater hunters until they mature). I KNOW that I can't think of a single species of insect that is anywhere NEAR edible which subsists on algae... after all, bugs just don't compete well with the other "algae-vores" (shrimp, crayfish, etc) which consider an insect to be a bonus snack.

Anyway those tend to be short lived or "lean until airborne", whereas worms, ants/ant-larvae, beetles/beetle-larvae and moth-larvae tend to be the best in terms of fat/protein content. In essence, they're already just nutritional storage devices, for a later form (or in the case of worms... just storage). That makes them absolutely ideal.

As for food, ants, once cultivated, would be pretty inefficient because they tend to eat other insects or plant matter to a destructive degree. Beetles tend to eat the same things WE do (flour, sugars, fruit)... which makes them pretty unsuitable, because as with using cooking oil... it's only useful on a relatively small scale. Moth larvae, and worms on the other hand... eat plant material that is completely inedible to most (especially mammals), and they have no purpose beyond eating and converting that. As eating them is as simple as... well... eating them... they don't require large-scale processing.

For serious comparison however... phew, I can't find much that isn't politically suspect, or just anecdotal. That said, compare a moth to an equal amount of soybeans, wheat, bulgar, rice... that would seem to be a place to start, but it's outside of my bailiwick. That said, Remember the other benefit of these eating machines... they poop. They poop what is essentially pure fertilizer; worm castings aka crap, are prized as such, and they're already raised for that purpose, then the worms are used as bait... they're fed everything from moldy bread, to newspaper.

Caterpillars and worms are also not notable for speedy escapes, so... farming them would be even easier. Both are also notable for their rapid breeding cycles (after all, they are bred LARGE scale for zoos, pet-owners, bait, etc). A lot of the issues have to do with who is willing to EAT them, not how hard they are to grow. After all, do we NEED ~99% efficiency if our food is eating our garbage? They also... are easy to cook (which incidentally, causes them to... well... **** the bed thus cleaning them and liberating fertilizer), and could be ground into paste, mixed with algae as a binder, and... well.. "Soylent Composite Insect + Grain? anyone?"

Realistically, that's easier than selling people on whole bugs for the time being. In the meantime, you've inspired me to chat with some friends and see if they might have have more insight or access to research on this. If I find anything concrete that answers our mutual questions, I will post it immediately.

 

[Frame Dragger]

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]

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.

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]

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.

True, but clearly we can't interfere with ocean ecosystems in harvesting algae for fuel... if we decimate krill, we are absolutely 100% ****ed. Period. I am thinking in terms of algae which can be raised, as I said earlier, in contained systems.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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]

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

: 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]

: 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!

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 known that this switch exists and that controlling it would be one of the keys to making algae-oil fuel cost-competitive with petrodiesel. The energy is going to one or the other - to the production of either fats or sugars - so it is not a matter of claiming an energy gain, rather the same energy but in the more accessible form of fatty acids. In the end of course it determines the fuel yield per unit mass of algae grown - the bottom line.

Conversely, if one wishes to produce ethanol from algae, we want the switch tripped to produce sugars.

 

[Frame Dragger]

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.

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

A consistent 50% yield probably puts us in the neighborhood of 5000-7000 gallons of fuel per acre-year [gross], depending on the strain used, location, seasonal temps, topography, etc, and assuming that the growth rate is not inhibited by the technique used to control the switch.

I believe corn yields about 450 gallons of ethanol per acre-year, gross. Net, probably about zero gain. Some say it could be as high as a 30% gain. Some argue that the system yields a net energy loss.

 

[mheslep]

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. ...

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]

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?

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.

 

[Frame Dragger]

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.

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. The trick isn't to reach "0" effort, it's competing with drilling for oil and mining coal.