What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
33 Comments
- funkyjunk3, on 06/24/2008, -0/+5It is an awesome technology for currently built coal plants. My only worry is it may spur the development of future coal plants so they can champion themselves as "green", when we could put that money into, hey! What about just growing algae with CO2 already from the air?
- mellon, on 06/24/2008, -1/+6The really cool thing about this is that it greenwashes the coal plant. You promise to build one of these facilities, but make sure that the permit doesn't actually require you to build it. Then later, you just don't build it. Viola [sic] - easier permitting process, much less local resistance to building the plant, and ultimately you have a coal-fired plant that you can use to trade CO2 credits.
Even if they do build it, as funkyjunk says, the carbon isn't sequestered if you turn the algae into fuel. However, it does cut the effective carbon output of the coal plant in half, if you're able to consume all the coal plant's CO2 output in algae production. So that's better than nothing. But there's already plenty of CO2 in the air, so no reason to build a coal plant to generate more - just aerate the water and watch the algae bloom. - funkyjunk3, on 06/24/2008, -1/+4Fossil fuel --->algae ---->biofuel --->air
It still begins with fossil fuels, so the carbon count in the atmosphere would still rise because the carbon is being pulled from the ground. However, it is utilizing carbon that was already going to the atmosphere anyways, so it makes the whole process that much more efficient. - Scruffydan, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3It is possible to turn algae into biodiesel, so it may be possible bypass ethanol altogether.
- TheMachine1, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3I've been cleaning algae out of my dog's water bowel every few days. I have a strange suspicion my dog's R&D effort is in the lead.
- Fordi, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2Algae Fuel: Good.
Powered by Coal: Stupid and counterproductive on the face of it. Maybe not exceedingly terrible if we're passing the coal smoke through the algae basins to add CO2 and nutrients to the mix. Still, such an idea would require HEAVY preprocessing of the coal before combustion, and it's possible that would be energetically negative.
Meanwhile, demolishing mountains for coal (like is being done here in PA) isn't an acceptable way to obtain fuel. - Fordi, on 06/24/2008, -1/+3"However, it is utilizing carbon that was already going to the atmosphere anyways, so it makes the whole process that much more efficient"
Essentially, it's a coal-fired solar cell. Let's see the steampunk version. - zekt, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2BTW, we are already having a crack at this at Hazelwood power plant in Victoria Australia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3EpfkkEAAw (pathetically short video tho)
It is only a pilot study at this point. - thethinktank, on 06/24/2008, -2/+3This is an awesome technology, but we'll never get there without allowing ethanol to grow the flex fueled vehicle market. We can't burn algae fuel if we don't have flex fuel cars, and we won't get flex fuel cars without the current market leader, ethanol. The whole point of Ethanol should be to get us to algae and cellulosic ethanol... It is a beautiful technology.
Let's hope the Big Oil lobby doesn't convince more people of the "but they're turning food into fuel!" myth. If they do, we'll be stuck on foreign oil for "a hundred years, a thousand years"... just like McCain hopes. - Fordi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1The idea is that it is burned.
- bincoder, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1I'd rather have coal > gasoline. For the carbon uptake, plant some kind of plant, like trees or even (dare I say?) food. Or take the shortcut, stop chopping down thousands of acres per day in the rainforests and the carbon will take care of itself automatically. That has worked quite well for the past few billion years and will for the next few billion years. If thats bad for drug trade, oh well, they can get a nice job at McDonalds.
- phreak79, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Can't be good to still be relying on coal.
- Nintensity, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Only a portion of the biomass, there is still a large amount of carbon waste from the processing of the algae. If this were buried or used as a compost, then the we would be reducing the carbon emitted from a coal plant.
- Fordi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Sorry. I missed the implicit /sarcasm tag.
I need to stop Digging at work, it's affecting my ability to recognize satire. - theotheragentm, on 06/24/2008, -2/+3I'd imagine this requires a lot of water though, which means a lot of space too.
- JayTee44, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1This is John McCain's way of advancing the strip mining of america for profit. He is a useful idiot for the coal companies.
What? Barack Obama likes this symbiotic coal/algae idea? See? He's for positive change and moving forward! He has the best energy policy! - bincoder, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1For the algae to grow at the rate it does to make fuel, concentrated CO2 is needed. The amount in the air isn't enough. It would be interesting if the atmospheric CO2 could be concentrated cheaply and then use that instead, killing two birds with one stone.
- bincoder, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1What part do you disagree with? Or do one of the below fit better towards your way of thinking?
Perhaps all nuclear reactors should be torn down and replaced with coal plants?
Who cares about the rainforest, we can burn fuel to build artificial scrubbers and cover the world with them because everyone knows mankind is far superior to nature at making trees or things that act like trees?
Burning food is better than burning fuel?
To reduce coal generating plant emissions, get rid of the coal generating plant. This area has plenty of power and not a single watt comes from burning coal, or burning anything else for that matter.
Something like the holy grail of zero carbon output.
Coal is more useful converted to liquid fuels and purified to burn cleaner than gasoline does. - rhinofinger, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Symbiotic? Venom!
- zekt, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Most cars with run on E10 without any problems at all. Many cars and motorbikes have been doing it in Australia for years. We have a RAV4 that has done about 230,000k (170,000ish miles) running E10 the whole time. No problems.
- Thousand, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1A hundred years of oil is wishful thinking in and of itself.
- Fordi, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1WTF are you on about now?
- bremstrong, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1Another source for story:
http://media.cleantech.com/2997/inventure-chemical ... - AnimeCwboy, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1wasn't this what Craig Venter talked about at TED? (end of video)
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/227 - Fordi, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1"Let's hope the Big Oil lobby doesn't convince more people of the 'but they're turning food into fuel!' myth."
It's not a myth. Its a fallacy in implementation. There are much better candidates than commercial corn (source of corn oil, cornstarch, corn syrup, feedstock for most farm animals, primary carbon-bearing compost material - but terrible for ethanol production without a cellulostic process). For whatever reason, we're stuck on corn, most likely due to the ill-conceived subsidies on the stuff.
Meanwhile, the price of most grain has bumped up in correlation with ethanol production. Wanna guess why?
Jerusalem artichoke is a VERY good candidate for ethanol production, meanwhile; low sunlight requirements, so tiered cultivation is possible; very high sugar / starch content (12x better yield per unit mass than corn), so good ethanol yield; short grow season and hearty survival rates, so low maintenance. Overall, it's our best choice if we're after sustainable ethanol.
Of course, sustainable ethanol would require overunity of production, so that some of the output can be used to power the input without causing a loss.
Anyway, as is stands in the US, ethanol is a detrimental process - but it's because of HOW we're doing it, not because it's inherently problematic. - hollyminkowski, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1That server sure crashed in a hurry :-(
- BatmanStan, on 12/16/2008, -0/+0Coal is our only alternative in the short term, lets make is as green as possible
http://chaiseloungeoutdoorfurniture.com - Nintensity, on 06/24/2008, -0/+0The total amount of carbon released to the atmosphere would decrease due the carbon converted to algae biomass, assuming it was not burned.
- metalations, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0sounds like a winner for coalfire towns like...
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2196
be better then just letting a few hundred years of open burn go to waste - Fordi, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1You speak boldly without comprehension.
- joeomar, on 06/24/2008, -6/+5It is about damm time, we need to move forward, no more backward days, or backward Presidents, let us research, educate and motivate, peace........
- inactive, on 06/24/2008, -6/+3Anoher BS idea doomed to failure.
- Ryan166, on 06/24/2008, -4/+1peace out bra.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is