Power from pond scum?

[bluestateboomer]

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is going to restart its research into algae as a replacement for oil and gas. In fact, the lab is going to team up with Chevron for the project.

Heard this on Marketplace http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/31/saving_americas_q/

My question (not answered by the report) is will this fuel keep screwing us up on the carbon dioxide levels? If so, as miraculous as the breakthrough sounds we're still killing the planet.
:shrug: :shrug:

[Xipe Totec]

1. Killing the planet is a self correcting problem

we may not be here to witness the miracle, but it will happen.

To address your specific question, if the algae is absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, then it nets out to zero increase in CO2.

[bluestateboomer]

4. Thanks

I wish they had said something like that in the report.

[madrchsod]

2. on npr tonight--the military is a major force behind this

it cost billions to power the machines and there needs to be a fuel that does not come from a foreign country. one big problem-genetically modified "pond scum". looks very promising if the problems can be overcome.

[NC_Nurse]

3. We can make power from the * admin?

Cool. :P

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. I just don't know how viable this is

Last I knew, water was becoming a bit of a scarce commodity. "Pond Scum" tends to grow on pools of water (AKA "ponds.") So:

• how many acres are you willing to dedicate to growing "pond scum?"
• how do you stop the pools from being tremendous evaporators?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture#Biodiesel_production
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf

[appal_jack]

6. check out Living Machines

I would say that some clear (glass or polycarbonate) tank material (potentially with closed lids on the tanks to minimize evaporation) would be the ideal medium in which to grow some of these algae biofuels

As for the source of water, these "pond scum" need nutrients, and the human sewage stream could be a good source of both water and nutrients (our "waste" is full of NPK, minerals, etc.) in which to grow them.

An early example of contained, engineered (as in created by humans, not GMO-type engineering) ecosystems that produce useful outputs (compostable plant materials, cleaner waters, etc.) are called Living Machines. Pioneered by John Todd and the rest of the New Alchemy Institute crew during the '70's and 80's, there are now several for-profit companies building them for mid-scale waste treatment (though none of the Living Machines specifically produce biofuels to my knowledge). The systems I have seen are generally greenhouse-based (another way of minimizing evaporation / potentially harvesting condensates).

Google "Living Machines," "John Todd" or some combination thereof. You will see some hopeful stuff. I had the privilege of interning with Ocean Arks International back in th late '90's, and Todd is a warm-hearted genius of a visionary.

-app

[skids]

7. Airtight greenhouses. In the desert, no less.

Airtight because they want to pump huge amounts of CO2 into the system to accelerate growth.

(So, to answer the OP's question, some of these systems will end up running off biomass powerplant waste, and some will end up running off coal as a "carbon sequestration" scheme. In the first case, there's no net CO2 gain, so it's renewable. In the second case, it "stretches" the carbon cycle to yield more comoditized energy per unit of CO2 released.)

[suziedemocrat]

8. K&R

[pscot]

9. I thought maybe science had found a use for Republicans

n/t