What is Digg?81 Comments
- diggerydood, on 12/12/2007, -1/+42This seems like such a great idea. There must be something wrong with it.
- halligan00, on 12/12/2007, -0/+15Problem isn't gallons per acre, problem is gallons per $
The NREL knew this under Clinton. Bush killed the renewables projects, and pushed coal-to-oil, and the ultimate delaying tactic: hydrogen. - VitriolAndAngst, on 12/12/2007, -0/+14The Key Point;
"
During a 90 day continual production test, algae was being harvested at an average of one gram (dry weight) per liter. This equates to algae bio mass production of 276 tons of algae per acre per year. Achieving the same biomass production rate with an algal species having 50% lipids (oil) content would therefore deliver approximately 33,000 gallons of algae oil per acre per year.
…As a comparative, food crop such as soy bean will typically produce some 48 gallons oil per acre per year and palm will produce approximately 630 gallons oil per acre per year. In addition, the Vertigro Bio Reactor System is a closed loop continuous production system that uses little water and may be built on non arable lands.
The press release goes on to note that the focus of the 90 day test was determining the robustness of the test bed — not pushing the limits on production yields. The official line from Valcent stresses that the test system has not been optimized for maximum yields or the best selection of algae at this time.
"
>> Alage is really the way to go as far as I can tell. No other "land plant" can compete. Plus, it will use less water -- since you can seal the system off. My real wonder is how much heat it can take, as it would get pretty hot under glass (or whatever) where there is a lot of sun -- especially if you contain evaporation.
I'd heard a discussion about biofuels, and in general, you could say that Oil-based bio fuels are a better way to go than alcohol-based ones, since oil can be removed from water much easier than alcohol -- which have to distill it first, requiring even more energy.
The alga-based biomasses have shown promise also in being used in filters for smokestacks, to help sequester gases.
One big down-side I could see, is if some extensively modified Algae were released into the wild and reproduced. So closed systems are a plus, and some sort of dependency on some nutrient not found in the wild (I don't trust "terminator" crops). - InfamousAtheist, on 12/12/2007, -6/+20How did this story get past the big oil/us car maker/bush admin gatekeepers? Someone is about to be silenced...
- gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+11FTA: " During a 90 day continual production test, algae was being harvested at an average of one gram (dry weight) per liter. This equates to algae bio mass production of 276 tons of algae per acre per year. Achieving the same biomass production rate with an algal species having 50% lipids (oil) content would therefore deliver approximately 33,000 gallons of algae oil per acre per year.
…As a comparative, food crop such as soy bean will typically produce some 48 gallons oil per acre per year and palm will produce approximately 630 gallons oil per acre per year. In addition, the Vertigro Bio Reactor System is a closed loop continuous production system that uses little water and may be built on non arable lands. "
Seems pretty promising to me. - drake77, on 12/12/2007, -2/+11Algae ravenously eat Co2...coal plants make lots of Co2...a match made in heaven?
- PeteyBugs, on 12/13/2007, -0/+9So, according to your math, we need about 8 million acres of this stuff to sustain America's intake - thats a 112 mile square plot - how is that not feasible?
- rikkuotaku, on 12/12/2007, -4/+13This kind of thing has been done for years by Changing World Technologies - converting almost any carbon based material into oil with no waste. The process even powers itself.
http://www.changingworldtech.com/
&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerizat ... - vostek, on 12/12/2007, -0/+8This stuff is completely true, I've seen it in action. Easy to set up and it is completely sustainable. Much more economical than biofuel from corn.
- vostek, on 12/12/2007, -1/+8I've seen systems in action multiple times, it really does work. Its the big oil companies that don't want you to see it.
- TheIguana, on 12/12/2007, -1/+8Well oil does come for the most part from dead algae that has gone through millions of years of heating and compression. Basically when they die they fall to the ocean floor and over millions of years they become buried under sediment and other algae. When they get the point where the temperate reaches about 160-250ºC the conversion into oil starts occur. Then if it is surrounded by the right kind of rocks (porous and permeable), it leaches out and forms a nice deposit of oil that one day an oil company can come and pull it out of the ground.
- skippyatuw, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6Current method - adding CO2
This method - take away then add CO2
Reduction is subjective - gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6if it were privatizable and farmers could dedicate an acre or two to run their farm, and sell of the excess it would be doable. Otherwise it'd be pretty hard to set up. That would reduce the need for massive plots of land. America doesn't get it's milk all in one place, and doesn't mine it's oil all in one place currently. Those oil fields out there collectively make up millions of acres.
Also, there's lots of foreign land for sale. If the US govt bought up TU amazon farms and (there are a lot of them) and used them to grow algae instead of cows, that would be a partial solution. I saw an article a few weeks ago about a 5Million acre ranch for sale for 100,000,000 bucks. Growing algae, especially in the Amazon where we've lost so much forestation already would be great. We'd definitely reduce the massive carbon debt down there.
There are ways to do this. - andyduncan, on 12/12/2007, -2/+8Algae is quite possibly one of the best sources for biodiesel we have.
But this thing looks like a scam on so many levels. - FutureGuy, on 12/13/2007, -5/+11What's wrong is the present administration. If Bush had chosen to spend the trillions he did in Iraq on renewable energy sources like this or further developing shale oil (http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/30/magazines/fortune/ ... he would have been forever know as the president who broke US dependence of foreign oil and hence middle east. Instead he the typical red neck thing, went to war for oil. Its also awful that all presidential candidates talk about middle east and the problems it causes for US but ignoring the fundamental problem which is the fact that US depends on them for oil, which is the source of the problem. I hope someone gets it before its too late.
- Berkana, on 12/12/2007, -1/+7I'm for Ron Paul, but even I must admit, this is getting stupid.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 12/12/2007, -0/+6Why do you say that? I'm really curious -- what makes it sound like a scam?
- inactive, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5Do some research, guys. This is not about harvesting marine algae, but growing more of it.
- billybob217, on 12/12/2007, -3/+8This is Digg... They have different gate keepers... Namely, the pro-RP, pro-Apple, Anti-Microsoft, and pro-Linux keepers... They block any stories that might contradict those stances... I may have forgotten some of them...
- unyuzyall, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Anyone with a pool or an aquarium will tell you that "wild" algae grows pretty damn fast by itself without the necessity of genetic engineering. The strains they are looking to develop would have a higher oil content.
- starkruzr, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Luckily, the situation is not quite so dismal.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
1/8 the size of Arizona, spread across the entire American Southwest? A pittance. - gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4It requires very little water, and can be done on non arable LAND, in other words, the desert.. so, uhhh..... NONE?
- Archer007, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4This is awesome technology. Full-scale, environmentally friendly fuel production is no longer fiction.
- gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Not to mention, in order for algae to make oxygen, they have to consume carbon dioxide. That's the other half of photsynthesis. Think it through.
- BradMajors, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3My calculation is that 14,500 square miles of algae are required.
- gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4Using algae would be close to, if not totally carbon neutral, algae produces massive amounts of oxygen, and this is a closed loop continuous production system. Constant oxygen production.
Also, it does not have to be done on arable land. Can you say desert algae farms? - chausey, on 12/13/2007, -2/+5This is a penny stock pump. Digg is getting used. Their ticker is VCTPF.ob and they recently closed a private placement financing which is what companies do when their share price gets up a little to finance their operations. Buyer Beware.
- BradMajors, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3109,000 square miles of corn were planted in the United States in 2006.
- xtoph3r, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3
Echoing PeteyBugs, but consider than the state of Iowa (the 26th largest state) has an area of 52000 square miles. Using a couple hundred acres to meet our current (wasteful) appetite for fossil fuels is not too bad.
You could almost argue that it would encourage wasteful behavior because it requires too _few_ resources. - sliksta, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2No doubt. I see gov't sabotage on its way to slow the advance of this technology. Probably in the name of anti-terrorism.
- vikingcoder, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2It got modded up because it is correct. Except, there wouldn't be any increase in the oxygen concentration - because it is a closed loop.
Air is 21% oxygen. Oxygen is the primary useful component in air. It is necessary for respiration - breathing. - starkruzr, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Some portion of carbon will be locked up in oil, whether it's being transported or stored or whatever. Thus the cycle actually *IS* slightly carbon-negative.
- gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Not to mention the photosynthesis part of it's life cycle, in which it actually consumes co2 in order to make o2.
- monkeysteps, on 12/12/2007, -2/+4"Achieving the same biomass production rate with an algal species having 50% lipids (oil) content would therefore deliver approximately 33,000 gallons of algae oil per acre per year." Unfortunately this article seems to imply that these test results do not come from this type of algae and thus they are wholly misleading.
- inactive, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2A recent issue of National Geographic touched on this - the operation they profiled was a cooperative effort between a bio-engineering outfit on the East Coast and a utility in the West (AZ, IIRC). While this has enormous potential, it is not something which is going to happen next week.
- starkruzr, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2It turns out some folks have given this quite a bit of thought. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/pdf/algae_salton_s ...
- pongx, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2You all do realize that diesel fuels could get a better MPG on your average vehicle right? Thus, if the average vehicle ran on bio-diesel and got say 40 mpg instead of 20-25 mpg, that we'd cut our fuel consumption in half. Also, we have thousands of miles of unfarmable land all over the country. Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, etc... all have plenty of desert area that can't be used for farming, yet have plenty of sun to grow algae.
Growing up in Nebraska/Iowa, I've seen endless miles of corn and soybeans. Each section of land is like 600 acres, so that would be about 460,800 barrels per section of land per year. That is a ridiculous amount of oil per section of land. With the average farm being about 1,000 acres, each farm could produce say 800,000 or so barrels per year. Given current oil prices, that would be a potential income of $50-$80 million a year. Even given the setup costs, that's a ridiculous amount of money per acre or per farm. And you still don't think this is an idea worth pursuing?
Obviously this is an idea that should be used in more unusable areas of land so that food prices don't skyrocket more than they already are, but this makes a lot more sense than soy bio-diesel or corn based ethanol. - SteveDeGroof, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Well, at the rate we're using oil, you'd need about 10 million acres to keep up with demand. That translates to about 16,000 square miles or roughly twice the size of New Jersey.
On the other hand, it works out to about 1300 sq ft per capita, which doesn't sound nearly as bad. - krnldmp, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Watch the video.
- stevenb337, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2My calculations say you're close...
33000 gal / yr / acre generated
785.7142857 bbl / yr / acre generated
20800000 bbl / day consumed
7592000000 bbl / yr consumed
9662545.455 acres required
15097.72727 square miles required - gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Linux
God sucks
Cake Lie
rickroll
iphone - sonicdevo, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2The article says that the algae sequesters atmospheric carbon, which is then released again when burned. I fail to see the problem.
- krnldmp, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2Name one.
- Eallan, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1I remember hearing about this 4 years ago and wondering where the hell it was. I figured even oil companies would be all over a source of oil that doesn't involve multi million dollar rigs moving all over the country.
From what i heard a while ago they were just now beginning to turn a profit in the Philadelphia plant. - permanentjaun, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I think what vitriolandangst was trying to get at was if we release a genetically engineered strain of algae into the wild, on purpose or by accident, it could have devastating effects. It's like when certain wild animals from europe were brought over to america centuries ago and they had no natural predators. Populations flourished and depleted the environment of certain resources.
It can be dangerous to release something unnatural into the wild. The consequences should be thought of and considered first. - kd1s, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Interesting, a friend of mine has 40 acres of land. He could convert half that to an algae farm and have an algal oil product of 660,000 gallons per year, or 55,000 gallons a month. That's a significant amount.
- kd1s, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Hey, they had to fund this somehow.
- buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1You can require companies like this to dry some percentage of the biomass and store that in silage bags to retard fermentation. Use these as land fill with dirt over them and store them for thousands of years.
- sosoez, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Valcent is a penny stock company whose other products include the "Nova Skin Care System" - only "$199.80 plus shipping and handling". Such a bargain. No doubt, they will bring the same revolution to biofuel as they have to skin care.
http://www.valcent.net/s/CorporateStructure.asp
http://www.novaskincare.com/
http://www.valcent.net/s/StockInfo.asp - xtoph3r, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2
Dude, they are growing it in big vats, not straining it from the ocean. From the article:
"The Vertigro technology employs a proprietary high-density vertical bio-reactor that produces fast growing algae which may yield large volumes of high-grade algae oil. This oil can be refined into a cost-effective, non-polluting diesel biofuel, jet fuel and other applications." -
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is