digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com

Turning Carbon Dioxide Into Fuel

greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com — Scientists have been trying for years to find a nonfood source for ethanol. A company in Bonita Springs, Fla., Algenol Biofuels, thinks it has found one, with the added benefit of getting twice as much work out of each molecule of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jun 30, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

39 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • mickstephenson, on 06/30/2009, -1/+8Algae are plants, where do plants get their energy from? Think hard.
  • regeya, on 06/30/2009, -3/+10Well, we could stop breathing.

    You first.
  • tcquad, on 06/30/2009, -1/+6Interesting proposal. I'm assuming they're turning the algae into little biological solar cells, using sunlight to fix the carbon dioxide and produce ethanol, but the article doesn't say.

    Depending on the efficiency of production/purification and the lifespan of the algae (how often it needs to be refreshed), it could prove viable.
  • cheddaro, on 06/30/2009, -0/+5Fuel? The real story here is that we can be getting drunk off some algae vino soon!
  • drmangrum, on 06/30/2009, -0/+5I'm highly skeptical. They would need LARGE vats of algae to metabolize the amount of CO2 created in power plants in a timely manner. Those vats have to go somewhere. I would like to know how much space they would need to get it to work.
  • LucasHenderson, on 06/30/2009, -1/+5So basically, you give the right algae sparkling water, and you get ethanol. Interesting.
  • Countess666, on 06/30/2009, -0/+4the increased (excessive) amounts in the atmosphere are getting absorbed into the ocean turning it more acidic, killing coral, and adversely effecting fishing and shellfish populations. and worst of all adversely effecting algae growth, hampering the oceans ability to process the CO2 into ocean sediment.

    so yes, even if you don't believe in the science of how CO2 traps more heat (which it does, that a proven fact) or don't believe that that will effect the atmosphere (that it will have a effect isnt really a scientific debate anymore, its a accepted fact, but just what effect it will have is unknown) the EXTRA co2 we are putting into the atmosphere is still a pollutant.
  • pyrates, on 06/30/2009, -1/+4Shouldn't we be doing something that avoids putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?
  • Countess666, on 06/30/2009, -0/+3i know its a joke but that doesn't actually stop any carbon from coming into the atmosphere.

    it was either taking out first by the food you were going to too but are now letting rot, releasing the co2 again. or it doenst take taking out in the first place as nobody is growing any more food for you.
  • sam2gemini, on 06/30/2009, -0/+3Serious?
  • tcinvestor, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2This rocks..
  • directrix13, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2I think he was saying, that couldn't you capture the CO2 again, and reuse as much as wanted.
  • drmangrum, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2I'm about as anti-greenwashing as they come, but that is one horrible argument. Not enough of it? How is not adding more CO2 than would naturally occur a bad thing?
  • inactive, on 06/30/2009, -1/+3Solar panels? Photosynthesis? Those crazy "energy out of space" people and their crazy ideas!
  • jrm125, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2Go on...
  • anonymousmedic, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2Truely, we live in an age of modern alchemy.
  • TheRealMisterd, on 07/02/2009, -0/+2If the clean coal idea works then it solves the radioactive pollution caused by burning coal. At least until it kills the algae!
  • HaSatan, on 06/30/2009, -1/+3Nuclear power.
  • Countess666, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2uhmm... no co2 is being taken out. just less EXTRA co2 put in.

    edit @ your 2de reply.

    okee now you just being silly, how can there be less Carbon after burning it again? the only carbon not being put back into the atmosphere is the stuff inside the algea themselves but thats a tiny amount.
    and carbon is still being added in this scenario by the coal fired power plant.
  • lostlyrics, on 07/01/2009, -0/+2will have to calculate how much co2 is generated
    when all the plants die eventually - 4th grade work
  • Gumphlumph, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2This tech has been in development for several years; get up to speed NYT.
  • tcquad, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1You can't decelerate too quickly. We're going to be burning fuel for a while longer.

    This is a first step: putting up half as much as before. Eventually, we might reach a point where we can be putting up the same carbon over and over (a net zero). It has the same outcome as switching everyone over to solar (or nuclear or geothermal or whatever), but it happens in more, smaller steps rather than larger, difficult ones.
  • AndrewMoyer, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1RTFA...

    So a molecule of carbon dug from the ground as coal would help create electricity when burned in the coal plant, and then [after the CO2 is consumed by algae] be incorporated into ethanol, eventually being released into the atmosphere when burned in a car — but only after having been put to work twice.




    The point here is that the algae uses the energy from the sun to break the CO2 apart and outputs two useful chemicals with much higher levels of energy that we know how to store and harness.
  • AndrewMoyer, on 07/01/2009, -0/+1I don't believe that capturing the CO2 and hauling it around on an automobile is nearly as realistic as at a coal plant. I'm sure you could, probably indefinitely, but the benefit wouldn't be as apparent, and it wouldn't be as practical as the simpler approach mentioned in the article. I think we probably have enough other sources of CO2 that are easier to harness with greater efficiency.
  • UselessTrivia, on 06/30/2009, -1/+2This is a terrible idea. The only thing worse than having too much CO2 in the atmosphere would be not having enough of it.

    We just need to get beyond hydrocarbons in general. There's enough wind, solar, tidal and geothermal energy to power the entire planet many times over for many centuries to come. The only thing holding us back is the economics of the situation. The problem is that by the time fossil fuels become less cost-effective than alternatives we'll have done some pretty significant damage to the global climate.

  • Gyga, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1As long as the algae reproduces it should be good.
  • AndrewMoyer, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1In the context of the 2-stage coal/ethanol process they describe, yes, twice.

    "So a molecule of carbon dug from the ground as coal would help create electricity when burned in the coal plant, and then be incorporated into ethanol, eventually being released into the atmosphere when burned in a car — but only after having been put to work twice."

    (rtfa)
  • douglasr007, on 06/30/2009, -1/+2Huh....I used to live in Bonita Springs. Now I live in Naples and Fort Myers.
  • enginerd17, on 06/30/2009, -2/+3Not really, all that needs to be done is add less co2 to the atmosphere. Plants take care of the rest. The ideal situation is that all the co2 we add is used by plants so the net amount in the atmosphere remains constant.
  • BaphClass, on 06/30/2009, -1/+2Wait... wait... So cleaner methods of burning coal might not have actually been a total crock of crap? Well, that's interesting. A source of pure oxygen, and ethanol, from stuff that's not all that different from pond scum?

    Sounds like they've come up with another piece that will help solve the economical emission-reduction puzzle. Hoorah.

  • UselessTrivia, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1I should have described it better. What I think is a bad idea is filling the world with CO2 eating algae in order to produce ethanol. If it consumes more CO2 than will be released again as we burn ethanol, you'd end up with a major carbon sink.

    That would be great for the near-term, as global CO2 levels could come back to normal, but then we'd simply be relying on this stuff instead of fossil fuels and instead of our fuel source putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere, we'd be taking too much out instead, leading to global cooling.
  • drmangrum, on 06/30/2009, -1/+1I just want to know more information. That article was woefully inadequate.

    For starters, what's the average daily output of a plant?
    How much CO2 can one liter of algae metabolize in a day?

    Those are some very basic questions that should have been answered. If it takes 500 swimming pool sized vats of algae to pull it off, it's going to be cost prohibitive, and therefore not done.
  • KinOfCain, on 06/30/2009, -1/+1It's pretty much a certainty that they'll try to claim this as "clean coal" with no co2 output and then sell the ethanol as a clean fuel with no co2 output, while magically putting (admittedly half as much) co2 into the air.
  • rizzo2008, on 06/30/2009, -1/+1or we could turn into gasoline if we can find a cheap way to extract the oil.

    http://www.sapphireenergy.com/
  • pinchduck, on 06/30/2009, -1/+1Do you know of any small industrial processes? Once something catches on big time, it's always large.
  • DeathToaster, on 06/30/2009, -1/+1Like what?
  • mydigglogin, on 06/30/2009, -5/+1Twice? Because once a CO2 molecule is reused, it can't be reused again?
  • IlMagnifico, on 06/30/2009, -7/+2There's not much energy left after C-O2 combustion. Not much that is thermodynamically viable anyway.
    Hoax. Right next to the "energy out of space" people.
  • inactive, on 06/30/2009, -7/+1CO2 is not a pollutant, why are you trying to get rid of it?

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.