Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
Algal Fuel One Step Closer To Conventional Oil Alternative
cleantechnica.com — A new milestone was reached recently in the race to make algae a conventional oil alternative: high-octane gasoline that is compatible with any gas-guzzling vehicle. The feat was performed by Sapphire Energy, a company that manufactures “green crude”.
lekahe- 898 diggs
- digg it
- Rewebbed, on 08/01/2008, -4/+14It's still gonna piss some people off..
http://rljoneson.com/10110.jpg - tufftugg, on 08/01/2008, -20/+5 Well this is not good. Yes, algae produces more per square foot of area than corn, but how you going to get them dar votes in dah heart lands, if yah all don't gets some moneis goin to dem farmars?
- Rewebbed, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3yar make absolutely no sense.
- xexx, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2Cause farmers are making so much money now from the oil industry...
- thcobbs, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2Gee, maybe they'll convert all the catfish farms to algae farms, feed the algae with waste crop mass(stems, leaves, roots, weeds), and make a killing selling the oil.
- Terrk, on 08/01/2008, -9/+6Untill we can replace the hold that Oil has on our economy, we're not going to be able to go the route of an alternate.
- ebrooks, on 08/01/2008, -3/+16So until we can replace oil we can't replace oil? Brilliant!
- kmb1794, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5Well, I think it takes less time than the production of oil by, oh, I don't know, millions of years?
- theman8221, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2LOL ...so what your saying is that the oil companies are dropping millions of dollars a year on alternative energies in an attempt to stifle that very same technology from comming out....
These oil executives are not stupid...if they could produce oil alternatives as well as oil...the recent profits released would look like chump change compared. - motivatedmama, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1 Big Oil=Big Bully, this refers to the latest energy bill: "The bill is already generating some heavyweight opposition. The oil industry is warning that revoking its tax breaks could slow its production of new energy supplies."
Sounds like a threat to me.
http://digg.com/politics/Will_Big_Oil_Win_the_Ener ...
So you see. They aren't going down without a fight. Wonder how much they really are investing in alternatives? - DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Terrk said "replace the hold" not replace the oil.
And yes you are right, motivatedmama, they do fight. They are fighting solar and wind and other possibilities by ignoring and other means average person does not recognise. Else you could have replaced half the needs of nation with those by now.
- samoan27, on 08/01/2008, -3/+9I guess I'm not sure what Milestone has been crossed, do they produce better fuel? Is it produced faster/cheaper than before?
- liquidgrey, on 08/01/2008, -1/+12Better because it can be extracted from algae instead of from the earth and is carbon neutral.
Id say making fuel compatible with existing cars out of algae that is carbon neutral is a milestone! - SmartfulDodger, on 08/01/2008, -0/+14The Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the US, it would require 15,000 square miles. This is less than 1/7th the area of corn harvested in the US.
Thanks wikipedia! - samoan27, on 08/01/2008, -2/+8No I'm not asking about whether it's from algae instead of fossil fuels. My question is what NEW has occured; are they just saying they have regular, plus, and premium now? From what I've heard they've made fuel from algae for years that can run regular engines (just not at a commercially viable rate yet).
- Krille, on 08/02/2008, -2/+3Yea the article doesn't leave too much information on what has been improved
But they've found types of algea that produce more oil than before, and they're still looking for the algea which produces the most oil, and also genetically modify them.
Also due to that the oil is so expensive now more companies are willing to invest in research.
So the answer would probably be that they are able to produce it cheaper now.
The other day I read an article about it which went a little deeper into the subject, unfortunately it was in Swedish haha.. - SmartfulDodger, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2What's different is that this algae produces fuel that can be run in any gasoline engine. Before this breakthrough, algae fuel only produced bio-diesel, so an engine would need to be outfitted to run off of that. Since the majority of vehicles out there don't run on diesel, this would have been an expensive conversion.
This breakthrough makes the economics of algae fuel more in reach.
- Krille, on 08/02/2008, -2/+3Yea the article doesn't leave too much information on what has been improved
- liquidgrey, on 08/01/2008, -1/+12Better because it can be extracted from algae instead of from the earth and is carbon neutral.
- Evildudetx, on 08/01/2008, -6/+4This will only be an alternative if it can be produced on a mass scale and still turn a profit. If it doesn't then no one is going to waste the time on it.
- DeadPanDan, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5You need to "waste" time on it to determine if it can be mass produced for profit. It's usually called engineering or R&D.
- DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+0Solar energy is free, it will be profit for everyone to the tune of part of your bills, we are using it in India on individual levels on rising scales, and we are going with CFL bulbs too for same reasons.
If you need to sacrifice your persoanl savings and lives for corporate profits it is not even patriotism - it is only incomprehensible level of silly.- joeanon, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1Yeah, until you actually take the time to factor in the costs of our wars for oil and being at the whim of oil exporting nations for almost all our oil needs.
At that point you start to see why having an energy policy that is more than mere supply and demand makes sense.
Not to mention oil can ONLY get more expensive as it's in limited supply while algae fuel is... FOREVER :P
- joeanon, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1Yeah, until you actually take the time to factor in the costs of our wars for oil and being at the whim of oil exporting nations for almost all our oil needs.
- titansfan4life, on 08/01/2008, -8/+2what is not said how the algae is connived in to fuel if it anything like corn it still used a oil to make the fuel
- Coven, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3wat?
- rdmorley, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3yarg?
- GunOfSod, on 08/01/2008, -7/+1This was done in New Zealand Last year, but I guess like the first controlled flight (Richard Pearse) this'll go the way of the American history machine.
- Number23, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5While Pearse did manage to get airborne (according to some), even he didn't think it was very controlled.
- swatward, on 08/01/2008, -5/+1I love steps, but et's just do it now.
- hellride66, on 08/01/2008, -8/+2i have all the gas you need,
just step on my stomach - rivalthecreator, on 08/01/2008, -8/+0As much as we all want this to happen, it won't.
- malex, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3Unless you expect global civilization to collapse entirely in the next 50 years, it, or something similar, will pretty much have to happen.
- rivalthecreator, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1I'm hoping you're right. I wasn't saying I don't want it to happen, because I do. But knowing how it works is the government isn't going to want to change until we're all out of crude oil. They're going to milk that market dry before moving on to another .. it's all about the money. Unless there is more money in the algae market, I'm not expecting it to take off.
- malex, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2I think everyone knows that we've reached that point... the oil producers in particular.
"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel."
- Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum
- DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+0"As much as we all want this to happen, it won't."
rivalthecreator, think again - this is bleeding the earth in another form, whether corn or algae, and it might then have consequences not seen today.
What we all do want is clean renewable energy and it is the natural tremendous forces of our planet that could be harnessed and are just wasted today, that will make sense - solar, wind, wave, tide.
- malex, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3Unless you expect global civilization to collapse entirely in the next 50 years, it, or something similar, will pretty much have to happen.
- trobrock, on 08/01/2008, -1/+9It's great that organizations are finally taking a real interest in alternative fuels, all it took was oil prices to sky rocket and many companies to go under because of the increase in prices.... but hey I guess it's still progress
- motivatedmama, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1This is just the first page. I caught a segment on NPR concerning this and it seems the universities are on fire for alternatives. Now if our government would just fund them appropriately : (
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en- ...
- motivatedmama, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1This is just the first page. I caught a segment on NPR concerning this and it seems the universities are on fire for alternatives. Now if our government would just fund them appropriately : (
- shanealeslie, on 08/01/2008, -11/+3F*CK YEAH!...
Oh, wait, if its chemically identical to regular crude oil it's still
going to pollute our environment when it gets burned.
F*CK NO!...
If they can find a way to capture the exhaust gasses from the
vehicles and feed them back to the alge... well then...
F*CK YEAH!
Otherwise the post consumer costs are the same as regular oil.- yetAnotherCroc, on 08/01/2008, -0/+10Well we have a distribution system that will feed the co2 back into the algea. We call it wind and photosythesis. The difference is that by using oil from the ground we introduce "new" co2 that wasnt in the system before. When using the algea we use the same co2 that was already there.
- krnldmp, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4The difference between "renewable" hydrocarbon fuels and fossil fuels is the loop is millions of years shorter and it becomes possible to control the balance of free (atmospheric) C02. All carbon on Earth is "in the system", the touchy part is how and where.
Shanaleslie, don't be a spazdo. This ***** works. - shanealeslie, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1I know I know, I was just being devils-advocately-enthusiastic.
It is definitely a good thing, I just have a hatred of oil burning
internal combustion engines. I'd like to see more of the algae
that produces hydrogen and oxygen type of research - now that's
some clean burning fuel - and I'd buy a car that ran on that.
- krnldmp, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4The difference between "renewable" hydrocarbon fuels and fossil fuels is the loop is millions of years shorter and it becomes possible to control the balance of free (atmospheric) C02. All carbon on Earth is "in the system", the touchy part is how and where.
- DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Using algae might be better than petroleum but it is not going to be zero sum as far as co2 goes, since some process and burning is involved.
Think of coal and wood burning - is it better for the neighbourhood to breathe in? Not so. Which is why Europe had chimneys all over the place.
Why not straight jump to solar panels for cars - cover the surface with them, roof, engine, trunk. Use wind too.
- yetAnotherCroc, on 08/01/2008, -0/+10Well we have a distribution system that will feed the co2 back into the algea. We call it wind and photosythesis. The difference is that by using oil from the ground we introduce "new" co2 that wasnt in the system before. When using the algea we use the same co2 that was already there.
- B5tKUnT1, on 08/01/2008, -7/+2The ONE big problem with algae oil: it's very hard to extract and costly energetically...
Producing the right type of algae is only a secondary problem... so is producing biofuel engines.
Won't hold my breath.- cheezintern, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2hard to extract? Nope, You put it through a press and squeeze the oil out. Not very difficult. The remaining oil can be gotten by chemical solvents, or by using centrifuges. The hard part is doing it all on a massive scale, which is only a matter of engineering.
- LoCoPyRo, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Its not difficult to extract (use a press or electrolysis) although its true that it is still expensive. Its one of the cheaper alternative fuel sources to produce though and it only marginally economically inefficient. I think in the next 5 years it will be able to be done cheaper.
- Groovydoo, on 08/01/2008, -1/+4Imagine grand canals directing vast amounts of ocean water into the California deserts desalinating itself along the way and then finding its way into massive lakes or fuel centers thus making "gasoline" for southern California transit? Though I prefer hydrogen, generally speaking, water and algae are free and the cost can be better controlled.
- DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Nice thought, but then those desalinated waters could be used for other purposes that now waste fresh water - while solar and wind powers could free every single building from dependance with a permanent, renewable energy resource.
- DagonNL, on 08/01/2008, -1/+9Hmmm let's do a little calculation, just top of my head. The world consumes 80.000.000.000 barrels of oil a DAY. Now we need to match a portion of that with algae. Now let's assume, we can produce algae without pumps, machinery, fertillizers, large amounts of pure water, foods, just air, some impure water and sunlight. Now let's be generous and assume a machine about as big as the roof of your house would be able to produce one barrel per day, let's say an investment of 10.000 dollars for a machine that produces one single barrel a day, and a surface area of about 25 by 25 meters. Let's assume this investment would only need to produce a fraction for world consumptions; i.e. it doesn't cost any extra energy to produce. Some would get lost on shipping, manufacture, processing, but that's the case with regular oil too.
The total infrastructure required would be hundreds byhundreds of kilometers, scattered around globally, to produce a reliable yearly output. That's pretty big but doable in the world's deserts. It would require fairly pure water to run. Let's assume one barrel of water would be need to convert into an equivalent barrel of oil. That's the throughput of a big river. Better still you might be able to use seawater to a large extent.
If we start constructing now, we'd better hurry. At an investment of, 10K per barrel per day of machinery constructing this will be equivalent to the expense of the gulf war, for a decade. If we bet on this, *and* combine with solar, wind, geo, thermal and tide, we can come down from oil in ten years, worldwide. We might even be able to afford for some economic growth after that.
So why aren't we getting started yet? Waiting for *an even better* cheap system?- EricAnderton, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3Yea, I was gonna say. Any kind of biofuel-based approach will create an additional demand on freshwater that we can't exactly afford right now.
However, with a continuous supply of cheap (I hope), green energy, desalination of seawater won't be much of a problem. Getting that water to the interior of large-ish countries however, is.- greensky, on 08/01/2008, -0/+6I'm not sure about this particular variety of algae, but Algae can grow in salt-water and there are already people using salt-water systems to grow algae based bio-fuels.
Petrosun is one of those companies, although I can't say how good their system is or how well they'll do, but it IS possible.
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?artic ... - DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1DragonNL - why not go ahead with solar, wind, and other forces that are being wasted - and forget about the convoluted algae that will use huge amounts of water which could be used for better purposes?!!
Good post, though! - DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1greensky - so now we want wars over ocean depletion? What about consequences to the earth with large quantities of oceans messed up for driving cars? Think of a US versus China and so forth - and think of plate tectonics, earthquakes, and so forth. Stink that will be planetwide with dying oceans.
By the way why "green"sky?
- greensky, on 08/01/2008, -0/+6I'm not sure about this particular variety of algae, but Algae can grow in salt-water and there are already people using salt-water systems to grow algae based bio-fuels.
- organik, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2We should be WAY beyond burning liquid fuel to run our transportation at this point. It's just plain inefficient. Still environmentally devastating to produce and transport, and use. Large scale solar, wind, and geothermal plants can generate plenty of electricity very cleanly, and soon, cheaply. Electric car technology is ready to break into the mainstream, big time. Check out the Aptera. Biofuels are just refining the old technology to be renewable. We need NEW technology that is clean, cheap, AND renewable.
- LoCoPyRo, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Electric energy can't be used by all sectors. Currently natural gas is the most versatile fuel source. People like you seem to think we could run the whole country on electricity. The renewable sources you describe are also currently too unreliable and make up such a small percentage of the US market to be viable right now.
- DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1organik - finally a person that thinks right!! Yes, to everything you said, and may it happen!
- DangerCollie, on 08/01/2008, -0/+6You're a bit off on some of your figures. It won't take a growth area anywhere near that to replace the transportation fuels we use in the US. Let's let the rest of the world take care of themselves for the time being.
To grow that much algae fuel we'd need roughly 15,000 square miles. Which sounds like a lot until you consider the Sonora Desert in CA is around 120,000 square miles. To get off foreign oil the desert creatures of southern CA can just move the f--- over.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Those guys have already done the pilot projects to proof their production capabilities. The algae don't need clean water, they prefer waste streams. I imagine there will be plenty of communities and farmers willing to donate their sewage for the greater good. Although getting it to the production facilities will be a logistical challenge.
The cost estimates right now are around $40,000 per hectare of algal ponds. That's not going to quite add up to the cost of the Gulf War for 10 years. Besides, we've been in Iraq for five years and have gotten exactly bupkis. I'd rather be spending that money on technology that could help get us out from under the Saudis.- DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1The last two paragraphs make sense, though why everyone assumes it has to be in one place large scale is not clear - why not every farm, every backyard, if waste water is what it takes?
As for desert creatures, the reason some people care about general species is because of repurcussion of vanishing of species other than human are not - cannot be - escaped by human species either. We are all linked intricately and if some species go, it is time before your next generation will have to pay the price of the inevitable consequences.
As for
"Let's let the rest of the world take care of themselves for the time being. "
when has it been otherwise? It is a usual western way to shrug off all milking of others as a matter of no consequence, since you own the world, and then a few alms with a grand face of charity get to be called "taking care" of the world?
Get real. Think every time you have coffee, bananas, chocolate, or anything with coconut, about what the disfranchised locals of other continents are paid for the food they could have grown on the land that grows your luxuries instead, and why Africa has starved for last few decades.
- DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1The last two paragraphs make sense, though why everyone assumes it has to be in one place large scale is not clear - why not every farm, every backyard, if waste water is what it takes?
- scoottie, on 08/01/2008, -1/+3well if clinton didnt stop it algae would be more viable now
- DangerCollie, on 08/02/2008, -0/+2Regan stopped it, not Clinton. The research was started by DoE in the mid to late 70's after the oil embargo. Funding was pulled for most of those programs in the mid-80's. The Regan years.
If you look at graphs of oil consumption...as much as people hated Carter, the programs he put in place really were working. By the time Regan left office imports and demand had spiked significantly. Those policies were further accelerated by the election of the Suadis hand-holding buddy and oil man George H. W. Bush.
I know you want to blame Clinton for all your problems, but he wasn't president until '93. The price of a barrel of oil back then was around $20 bucks and remained relatively constant through his presidency. The Republican controlled Congress would have laughed away funding for alternative fuels research. They were too busy appointing special prosecutors to try and get to the bottom of Blowjob Gate.
You really are some ignorant motherf----rs, aren't you? Someone remind me why secession is such a bad idea. - DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Funny - Carter was a good guy in more than one way, and it is not as if he was the only one that got a few people in trouble (hostage crisis) - worse happened during Reagan and Bush in every possible way but they simply shrugged it off their hides and the idiots went with believing them on all impossible counts, all lies.
Do you people have an allergy to those that are actually good, intelligent, and honest where it matters? As for the reason why Clinton was shamed the whole world laughed at US for pretending to be shocked at something every male in US is supposed to do or else be questioned about his prowess; where does that country get off pretending to be shocked at the president being non virgin! The hypocrisy was galling. Not his - that was understandable since he had a family and wished to protect them. No, it was that of the rest of the public who wanted to corner him on that.
- DangerCollie, on 08/02/2008, -0/+2Regan stopped it, not Clinton. The research was started by DoE in the mid to late 70's after the oil embargo. Funding was pulled for most of those programs in the mid-80's. The Regan years.
- LoCoPyRo, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Estimates say we would only need to convert 10% of US farmland to provide enough oil for the entire population. To answer your question the reason this is not being done yet is that research was stalled in the 1970's and later during clintons administration (apparently? Everyone keeps talking about it) in the US.
- joeanon, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1The US is 2.3 BILLION acres is land. Most of which is not developed.
It would only take a few million acres of land to do the total US oil supply and then some as processes become more imaginative and productive.
It sounds like a lot, but hey 20 million BARRELS of oil is a lot also. The cost of just transporting that much crude and refined fuel is amazing. Having a domestic supply of 20 million a day is well worth it. That's not just car traffic, but the US military, all US transportation, US plastics, propane, ships and planes.
I believe algae biofuel can do all those and offer 10 times the energy density of lithium ion batters which can only realistically do cars cost effectively.
The downside is that using a less powerful energy source enforces minimalism by design and today's internal combustion engines are horribly inefficient. So, your still burning oil in a overall badly designed engine no matter if it's BMW or KIA, they all suck in terms of efficiency.
I think we should still however go for a the move proven solution and more diverse solution of oil while moving toward cheap biodiesel fuel cells.
In the short term, high efficiency diesel hybrids can get higher MPG than any current hybrids out there, even with diesels price disadvantage diesel comes out on top. Biodiesel, of course, runs cleaner so it immediately helps in that perspective.
The only problem is that oil is still essentially cheap because it's just pools of already formed solar organic conversion sitting there waiting to be used up in a one one millionth of the time it took to form and release that much of a surge of carbon into the atmosphere.
So, oil exporters would lower the price of petro oil in the short term to type to undercut algae oil, which is probably quite possible.
In that sense, speculation was actually helping the market overall, by forcing it to a renewable infrastructure. Speculation is the force that helps point out.. HEY oil is in limited and ever shrinking supply but ever growing demand.
- EricAnderton, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3Yea, I was gonna say. Any kind of biofuel-based approach will create an additional demand on freshwater that we can't exactly afford right now.
- bluezombie, on 08/01/2008, -2/+6I think I finally figured out that the algae eat roughly as much CO2 as is released by burning. That is the only way at present that I see "Chemically Identical" and "Carbon Neutral" fitting together logically. It sounds splendid as a fuel ... but ...
Why has no one asked this question yet ... What happens if this oil producing algae gets loose in the ocean?- EricAnderton, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3From what I've read, the algae traits that favor high oil production happen to make them rather un-viable in a wild environment - they'd likely mutate/evolve into a hardier strain that doesn't produce as much oil.
Its kind of like how domesticated animals are raised for specific characteristics - when they go feral, they usually change quite a bit over a generation or three before they're at homeostasis with their environment. - krnldmp, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1That question has been asked.
- DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Politician, yourself? "That question has been asked." - without mentioning anything about an answer. I wonder if anyone else got the wit.
- DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Politician, yourself, krnldmp? "That question has been asked." - without mentioning anything about an answer. I wonder if anyone else got the wit.
- joeanon, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1I really doubt algae forms quite that awesome of an equilibrium, but that would really make Algae the end all of solutions since it would not only keep the oil economy going, but it would reduce carbon.
So, you have very little transition costs compared to even a hydrogen fuel infrastructure no less and even more expensive electric fuel infrastructure.
MIT did studies of algae filtering a small coal power plant MIT owns.
I think they said it filtered as much as 80% of the carbon, so you could be right in saying it will only release roughly as much carbon as it consumes.
That definitely makes algae KING of renewable fuels. Funny we had large scale studies on algae as far back as 1970 and even hydrogen cars as well and it's taken this long to just get a little attention and funding.
- EricAnderton, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3From what I've read, the algae traits that favor high oil production happen to make them rather un-viable in a wild environment - they'd likely mutate/evolve into a hardier strain that doesn't produce as much oil.
- lmp49, on 08/01/2008, -2/+5never mind the criticisms, anything is better than the ***** Exxon sells us
- scoottie, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2criticism keeps the debate balanced if its an intelligent critique
- scoottie, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2criticism keeps the debate balanced if its an intelligent critique
- MarkusGarvey, on 08/01/2008, -1/+5this is a much better writeup....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/31/ ... - shiftless, on 08/01/2008, -1/+8Gee, that didn't take long did it? Am I not the only one that thinks this crap should have been accomplished decades ago?
- scoottie, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1GeauxLSU said it best below
- brainscab, on 08/01/2008, -7/+2Is it carbon neutral? or at least close to carbon neutral? If not, its still gonna melt the caps the exact same levels, its just going to be 'terror free' pollution.
Hey, thats pretty much the republican campaign pitch "Your pollution, now Terror Free!"- theman8221, on 08/01/2008, -1/+3you had to take a perfictly good argument and dumb it down with a lame political implication.
- MarkusGarvey, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3"Sapphire Energy uses single-celled organisms such as algae to produce a chemical mixture from which it is possible to extract fuels for cars or airplanes. When it is burned, the fuel only releases into the air the carbon dioxide absorbed by the algae during its growth, making the whole process carbon neutral."...
- ebrooks, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2Did you read the article?
- jabberwolf, on 08/01/2008, -1/+10Vertical algae farms in Arizona and New Mexico can produce much more oil per acre than corn does.And the cost increase to do this is minimal compared to output!
Close loop systems - very little water wasted as well.
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2008/04/100000-gallo ...
Granted he makes 1 poor comparison of creating corn oil, when corn is used to make ethanol not oil.
(always look for facts and fair comparisons)- DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Good info, and good idea the vertical farms and loops, thanks - if only it is done that way.
- GeauxLSU, on 08/01/2008, -0/+7Imagine where we would be with this fuel if in 1996 the Clinton Admin had not axed the program:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-07/gree ...- scoottie, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4clinton stopped a lot of things that would have saved us from the current situation
- DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1DangerCollie answered that above - it was Reagan, not Clinton, who stopped it. Look up that post.
- kalvinb, on 08/01/2008, -1/+4http://johnmccainaz.com/2008/07/03/how-mushrooms-c ...
Fungi can process hydrocarbons (oil) and turn an oil spill into a thriving envrionment.
Everything that nature can do, nature can undo. That's how it works. - organik, on 08/01/2008, -6/+1Terrible idea. Still burning fuel. Inefficient. Biofuels are the old technology at this point. Rudolf Diesel burnt a biofuel, peanut oil, in his first engine. I drive a veg oil powered benz for now, but we need 0 emission vehicles, ASAP!
The answer: wind, solar, geothermal. Electric cars. Mass transit.- wunksta, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3biofuels are generally carbon neutral. furthermore, if you looked into bioalgae its better than the rest simply because it actually sucks up extra carbon
- ebrooks, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3How does wind create plastic?
- Travelsonic, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2"Biofuels are the old technology at this point"
They haven't even matured yet as this article shows.
Buried. - LoCoPyRo, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1How is it inefficient? The output in energy from algae derived biodiesel is higher than the fossil fuels it takes to set everything up. It is also carbon neutral as the article states. Yes we need to make cars 0 emmissions but what about industry uses and other segments that can't use electricity based fuels? People seem to think the transportation industry makes up the majority of the energy market.. (its around 40% in the US).
If anything solar power is inefficient.. takes over 3 years (assuming no maintenance or problems) to even get back the energy it takes to make a photoviolatic cell. Unless this stuff MIT just developed actually works... - DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Organik - I agree, because you are right.
It will take time to switch to any alternative, why not put energy behind those that are ever there and can be used and are being wasted? Solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal.
And of course mass transit. Planes are mass transit too unless you have your own, just in case some of you think it is infra dig; so what is so wrong with trains and buses and trolleys, and being as efficient as Europe? See Germany and Switzerland for example of efficient transport.
And if every building had its own that will reduce the whole burder on the network, and industries could do a lot with these too.
As for the three years, LoCoPyRo - if it is free after that then you don't think it is a gain for the whole planet? Or you need to keep up the profit question so someone always collects and some continents always starve?
- scoottie, on 08/01/2008, -2/+2this is great but hopefully they dont let this be traded on the open market like oil. also there wont really be a need for typical fueling stations since it should be possible to make an item that will produce this fuel at peoples homes to not only power cars but everything else.
- DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Yes. Keep the good thought.
- rex84, on 08/01/2008, -1/+4Oh, this is going to make the price of algae skyrocket.
- kookbutt, on 08/01/2008, -1/+4Their facilities will probably get invaded and burn down to the ground on the orders of oil companies.
- Methusalah, on 08/01/2008, -2/+0Wait... is this before or after he gained control of Soul Edge? Man, Soul Calibur's storyline is hard to follow.
- GorfTron, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2Will Algore like the Algal?
- inurb, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1I've been saying it for years now. Algae is the future of hydrocarbons.
- FlaNative, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2Oilent green is people!
- JoanDark, on 08/01/2008, -1/+3Algae?
You mean pond scum?
Well they're gonna need mighty big, slimey ponds.
I just hope they're not talking using ocean algae.Because that will totally unbalance the oceans' ecologys, including the fish food chain.
I mean--it's great to find a doable source of gasoline.But the idea is a little scarey to me because of the seas.- LoCoPyRo, on 08/02/2008, -0/+2Maybe you should do some research on it... it has nothing to do with the seas
- timbuktu22, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0I think algae is probably the most feasible source for biofuel that I have come across. It certainly beats corn and sugar in not competing with food production. Hopefully it will also be a more ecologically sound crop as well, without taxing the topsoil and requiring large amounts of agricultural chemicals as other crops do. Though if algae is cultivated in massive amounts in natural bodies of water that could be problematic. The biggest sell is the efficiency I think. 10,000+ gallons per year from an acre, compared with 20-50 gallons for an acre of soy or corn .See “Algae Biodiesel - Fuel of the Future”:
http://www.brightfuture.us/new/index.php?option=co ... - motivatedmama, on 08/02/2008, -0/+2Caught this on NPR. Sounds plausible too: http://www.physorg.com/news72546043.html
- DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Thank you.
- EasyCash, on 08/02/2008, -0/+2
http://www.runncaronwater.com
Anything to save the environment is good ! Dont you think?
There are so many cars on roads now it is ridiculous.
Ways to improve the environment is essential otherwise we are all going to end up with MASSIVE problems. - ryanarchy, on 08/02/2008, -0/+2I still don't see why everyone has a hard-on for doing things the hard way and making gasoline based biofuels. Literally any plant matter that you can press oil out of can be turned into diesel with less than half the hassle. Less hassle = bigger returns on your investment. It just doesn't make sense.
Plus diesel engines are much more efficient and last longer. I honestly don't see how you lose with diesel.- floatingorb, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1hempseed oil.
- TastyWheat, on 08/02/2008, -0/+3Algae can grow in nasty waste water just as well if not better than clean, pure water. Also, depending on the bio-reactor, nutrition, and species the estimates for land usage could be even lower. Best of all the excess biomass (that which isn't turned into oil) can be fermented for ethanol or used as a high protein feedstock. As far as fuel sources go this is about as good as it gets. Combine all of this with better fuel efficiency and we've got energy independence.
- lornali, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Thanks for passing it on - great article.
- floatingorb, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1A 'peswiki' (infomercial) on some of the available systems from backyard to commercial:
http://www.peswiki.com.nyud.net:8080/index.php/Dir ...
note: The *critisism* section seems to be only dealing with large-scale production -- not homebrew oil-from-pondscum that a farmer could use in the tractor. - DrJG, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1This idea is another folly of high sort - wasting more of earth and depleting the ocean and soil rather than going with solar and thermal. And then staking shares of oceans - and fighting over which powerful nations should get more because they are used to spending more.
Have they learned nothing?
All this while the tremendous energy is free - solar, wind, wave, tide - and they still keep going after what can only be done on large scale by huge profit garnering businesses rather than every home and building independantly.
If energy is free for every building through solar and wind and other resources our planet is blessed with there still will be other venues of honest business and profit. There is really no need to go on depleting an already sick planet. - soshann, on 08/05/2008, -0/+0I wonder how much energy goes in to get the energy out. Also wonder what this algae is and how it would go when it is released into the local water ways. Still could be a positive bio fuel story?
- joeanon, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1Buy some pipes and find a sunny spot in your yard and produce your own OIL !!
A mixture of sewage and water with carbon injected should do the trick nicely.
That's what would really spark the industry... the WORST CASE SCENARIO for the wealthy.
Home power generation. - Mars1976, on 11/01/2008, -0/+0The answer has already been found for the energy crisis, it's been suppressed. I mean, how can they make money off of energy, if we produce it ourselves. They don't want and can't give up those billions upon billions of dollars a year. Want proof.... come to my site:
http://www.freewebs.com/mars1976/ and you can download the PDF's. I've been researching and aiding in the development of new and suppressed technology. Check it out!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is 