Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

How One Company is Using Algae to Offset Carbon

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
28 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 28
August 26, 2011
Great idea that would become even more wonderful if it would focus on ofsetting CO2-emissions of biofuels to really close the circle. Fossil fuels will always remain a limited resource with price volatility as a result.
Comment
2 of 28
August 26, 2011
---------" In the meantime, it's assisting ethanol with its carbon emission problem."----------

Ethanol does not have a carbon emission problem. Every single atom of carbon in ethanol came out of the atmosphere before it got into the ethanol.

Using fossil fuels to produce ethanol creates the problem.

Don't use fossil fuels to produce ethanol, that is the source of any new carbon. Use biofuels to produce ethanol and there is no "carbon emissions problem".

Producing algae to feed cattle or anything else is fine, all by itself. But sell it on its own merits, not as a solution to a mythical "problem" that does not exist.

The problem is using fossil fuels, not making ethanol.

We've been making ethanol for centuries before there was any such thing as fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are not required to make ethanol.
Comment
3 of 28
August 26, 2011
Are there any ethanol plants that run on ethanol? Are there any that don't have relaxed emission requirements as dictated by the EPA? Certainly this puts a little bandaid on the ethanol boondoggle.
Comment
4 of 28
August 26, 2011
fred-linn-151968 is right.The problem is in the use of Corn for that matter any of the grasses.There are tropical plants that can provide biethanol / biobutanol and also be independent in the supply of energy for distillation.It could be even a combination of two plants.
The problem is in the fact that these are tropical plants.
Comment
5 of 28
August 26, 2011
In Brazil, ethanol is produced from sugar cane. The bagasse(dried biomass of the cane after the juice is pressed out) is burned to provide power to run the mills and distilleries. There is enough power left over from the biomass that about 25 to 30% of the power generated is fed directly into the electrical grid. Ash from the biomass combustion is mixed with water to form a slurry, and sprayed back on the harvested fields as fertilizer. There is no fossil fuel input at all. Sugar cane grows well in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arizona, California and Hawaii.

The end product of making ethanol from corn is DDG, a high protein, nutrient dense feed additive for animal feed that replaces soy meal at about 1/2 the cost. It would take 3X the acreage to grow the same amount of protein using soy that can be produced by fermenting corn into ethanol. This can be fed to animals to produce meat, eggs, dairy and all sorts of other products. The end product of feeding DDG to animals is poop. Poop can be anaerobically digested into methane, CH4. Methane is exactly the same stuff as in natural gas. It can be used for any application that natural gas can be used, including distillation. CH4 is the cleanest burning fuel we have. The final product from anaerobic digestion to produce biomethane is compost, fertlizer.

Agave cactus produces agave nectar---we could give you agave nectar with biscuits for breakfast and I doubt if you could tell the difference from honey, I can't. Agave also produces biomass-----a LOT of biomass, even more than corn. Agave is a native species and provides habitat and food source for native fauna, requires almost no cultivation and no irrigation. Not only that, solar thermal energy is abundant in areas suited to agave culture, cheap to manufacture, install and maintain, and 100% efficient.
Comment
6 of 28
August 26, 2011
upali-----' The problem is in the fact that these are tropical plants.'-------

Then use the resources we have, and don't worry about the resources we don't have.

--------" Producing algae to feed cattle or anything else is fine, all by itself. But sell it on its own merits, not as a solution to a mythical "problem" that does not exist."-------

BTW(my own quote)----it would improve efficiency significantly to use the algae to feed species that have evolved naturally to feed on algae and other aquatic plants rather than cattle. Shrimp, fish(like catfish, carp and other species) ducks, geese, frogs, and a host of other species evolved to use aquatic food sources would be much more efficient at feeding with less processing, and converting nutrients into usable food.

We don't have to use either one or the other exclusively----steak and shrimp, or steak and lobster are something I find a good combination anytime.
Comment
7 of 28
August 28, 2011
The largest co2 problem from the corn-to-ethanol process is in the fermentation. Fermentation of ethyl alcohol [booze, swill, liquor] produces co2 which in industrial processes is often sold for carbonation [soda pop].

As for corn, that is another issue. Farmers grow corn because there is a market for it.

The companies that enrich their stockholders by doing business in corn feed, distiller's grains, corn syrup have a stake in corn agriculture as an industry, and so do the companies that provide the seed for the marvel of genetics that is #2 feed corn, and the chemicals to keep the fields weed and bug free.

If there were a consumer market for fuel ethanol in and of itself, there would be serious efficiency upgrades of the ethanol industry, but corn ethanol is a by-product of one industry, used by another [gasoline] as an additive, at best.

Combining fermentation by-products to feed algae is a step in the right direction.
Comment
8 of 28
August 28, 2011
The largest co2 problem from the corn-to-ethanol process is in the fermentation. Fermentation of ethyl alcohol [booze, swill, liquor] produces co2 which in industrial processes is often sold for carbonation [soda pop].

As for corn, that is another issue. Farmers grow corn because there is a market for it.

The companies that enrich their stockholders by doing business in corn feed, distiller's grains, corn syrup have a stake in corn agriculture as an industry, and so do the companies that provide the seed for the marvel of genetics that is #2 feed corn, and the chemicals to keep the fields weed and bug free.

If there were a consumer market for fuel ethanol in and of itself, there would be serious efficiency upgrades of the ethanol industry, but corn ethanol is a by-product of one industry, used by another [gasoline] as an additive, at best.

Combining fermentation by-products to feed algae is a step in the right direction.
Comment
9 of 28
August 29, 2011
fred-linn-151968
upali-----' The problem is in the fact that these are tropical plants.'-------Then use the resources we have, and don't worry about the resources we don't have.

True enough, but one has to keep in mind that two Australian Researchers in particular had studied the expansion of the tropical belt, both northwards and southwards.This means that more and more temperate countries are becoming tropicalized.It is already felt in some countries with dengue and Chickengunya becoming endemic outside the traditional tropical belt. What this means is that very soon the upper perimeter of the tropical,belt may be found at the US/Canada border.Not a very happy situation is it?
On the other hand US is fast becoming a country with depleted stocks of water, required by the householders, agriculture and industry.
The only solution to reverse the phenomenon is to grow canopied, tropical plants in the tropical, subtropical and the newly tropicalized belt. That may keep the US habitable to Humans, animals and plant life.Algea cannot do that.
Comment
10 of 28
August 29, 2011
We can make ethanol just fine from agave cactus. We've been doing it for centuries. It is called tequila. Agave cactus is a native desert species, adapted to harsh desert conditions, requires very little cultivation and no irrigation.

We do not need to import exotic species and grow them in hothouses. We can grow agave just fine in desert conditions, and we have plenty of desert lands available.
Comment
11 of 28
August 30, 2011
fred-linn-151968
All that is true.The cacti do not protect the soil against heat, and since you speak of deserts the heating up of the soil at an extreme.The question is where are you going to find the water when the aquifiers dry up.Of course you can dig deep into the bed rock, but then when every body extract water that way, the upper limits will be reached very fast.The best example of reaching the upper limit is the predicament over fossil fuels.

fred-linn. I never speciified what the tropical plants I referred to are.I indicate them as 2+1+1 (four in all) They perform specific functions. You will be surprised to know that they are found even in the US.It is matter of cultivating them.If with all your technology it is difficult, one can easily write off the US as a nation with a geography not suitable for man, animal or plant life in another 100 years?.
Comment
12 of 28
August 30, 2011
fred-linn-151968
All that is true.The cacti do not protect the soil against heat, and since you speak of deserts the heating up of the soil is at an extreme.The question is where are you going to find the water when the aquifiers dry up.Of course you can dig deep into the bed rock, but then when every body extract water that way, the upper limits will be reached very fast.The best example of reaching the upper limit is the predicament over fossil fuels.

fred-linn. I never speciified what the tropical plants I referred to are.I indicate them as 2+1+1 (four in all) They perform specific functions. You will be surprised to know that they are found even in the US.It is matter of cultivating them.If with all your technology it is difficult, one can easily write off the US as a nation with a geography and an environment not suitable for man, animal or plant life in another 100 years?.
Comment
13 of 28
August 30, 2011
Fred-linn, The plants I referred to can also be used as animal feed
Comment
14 of 28
August 30, 2011
Upali----" The plants I referred to can also be used as animal feed"--------

So can cacti, the prickly pear is often used as forage for cattle, after the spines have been burned off.

People can also eat prickly pear. You can find it in the Mexican foods section canned. It is sliced and steamed or roasted. It looks and tastes a lot like green beans.

You are of coarse right about the limits of resource distribution, Upali. But that was my point. You can do anything but you must adapt to the natural conditions that prevail. You can't build golf coarses and swimming pools in the desert and expect to keep going on like that forever.

We are reaching the limits of man trying to force his wants on nature, it is time for man to adapt man's needs to what nature provides. It can be done. But it can't be done with the same old business as usual solutions.
Comment
15 of 28
August 31, 2011
Ab University of Algeria and a Unversity in Japan are planning to build solar farms and reforest sahara desert.Sahara is said to,have been a fertile land long ago.
My point of view is that unless man is able to reverse the damage that he had done to the environment, we are all kaput.I have witnessed desertification in an abandoned sugar land.This is a good example of (i) Grasses destroy the soil in as much as animals do.(ii)modern agriculture destroys one's roots and is difficult to reposes. It takes dedication and effort.
Comment
16 of 28
September 2, 2011
Fred linn,
I was watching the comments on Hurricane Irene on the CNN and the visuals of the damage caused.
According to scientists, hurricanes are grouped under extreme weather.Extreme weather is said to be based on global warming, which in turn is based on CO2 from fossil fuels, heating up of the earth's surface etc.All this can be avoided if plants with canopies are planted not grass or algea
Comment
17 of 28
September 2, 2011
Upali----hurricanes, tornadoes and other weather patterns are perfectly natural phenomenon. Do not confuse 'weather' with 'climate'. Weather is what is happening right now. Climate is what the weather does over a long period of time.

Climate Change Theory says that the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is changing the climate and weather due to additional CO2 that gets into the atmosphere as a result of human activities. Burning fossil fuels primarily.

I agree with that theory. However, I don't really base what I would do based too much on that. The reason is, here(in the US---I don't know where you are) it has become so politicized by extremist political groups that trying to base actions for change on this premise only leads to arguments, rancor and fighting.

I think that we have PLENTY of reasons not to use fossil fuels---most of them clear and present dangers that can easily be seen and can not be denied. Oil spills, strip mines, pollution of fresh water sources and oceans, health concerns, air pollution, wars, resource depletion, economic damage, political damage, social damage, etc. etc.---all seems to me to be perfectly valid reasons to advocate against the use of petroleum and coal.

Why add the factor of long drawn out arguments with people who deny that climate change has any human involvement?-----the argument is simply being used as a propaganda and manipulation tool by right wing political groups using it to gain political power and continue the profits from fossil fuels use.

Why give them a bully pulpit to spread their lies and manipulations? So, I try to avoid climate change and concentrate on the many other reasons we should not be using fossil fuels. Climate change will take care of itself if we replace our need for fossil fuels with renewable sources.

We have plenty of reasons to get rid of fossil fuels available. Even we cut use to 1/2 or 1/4 of current use, we are making progress.
Comment
18 of 28
September 6, 2011
fred-linn, good thinking re: focusing on the myriad of other problems caused by fossil fuels. However, my view is that those other problems are not enough to motivate societal change.

The prospect of a collapsing climate system is sufficient to bring change. That is exactly why the right wing oil / coal industry is fueling and financing the propaganda and disinformation campaign, which in turns leads to the fighting. Their is a term in French for that tactic it is called "semer la zizanie" - to disinform and cause infighting among people who would normally be friends.
Comment
19 of 28
September 7, 2011
Pierrot----exactly why I concentrate on the actual damages that can be plainly seen by anyone.

Argument over the science with some people is completely wasted breath. They don't see it because they WON'T see it.

You might as well be having a discussion with a parrot.

And when you do, you are playing right into their field. They are trying to fight a war of attrition, to divide and wear us down. Much better to just say----'OK, but what about Peak Oil, air pollution, water pollution'.....etc. etc.----the things that can be seen, photographed, quantified. That forces the battle off of their field and into mine----where I can win, because nobody can deny the plainly obvious damage that fossil fuels do everyday.

--------' However, my view is that those other problems are not enough to motivate societal change.'------------

Not when we can use their own arguments to show the truth that they are trying so hard to cover up. I think we are turning the corner and we are winning. I can tell because I can make the veins in their foreheads stand out. I'll never convince the parrots of coarse----but for everyone of them, there are a dozen people reading and being quiet that can be moved toward a more active role. If you scatter enough seeds, some will fall on fertile ground, and burst forth to bear fruit.
Comment
20 of 28
September 7, 2011
I understand. You put it well, thanks.

I just dont think people care enough about pollution to give up their SUV's and stop idling at mcdonald's drive throughs.
Comment
21 of 28
September 8, 2011
Then don't make anybody have to give up their SUVs.

We can do that. We can make the SUVs more thermally efficient. We can do that right now.

Ethanol has a comparative octane rating of 115, gasoline 85-87. Ethanol can be used in high compression, high efficiency engines----you can easily get twice the horsepower and miles per BTU out of internal combustion engines using ethanol that you can using gasoline. We can make 4 cylinder engines the size of small economy cars(or even Harley-Davidson motorcycles) that have more power and torque than the largest V8s. But it can't be done using gasoline, you have to use E85 or straight ethanol. It is being done right now---and has been for the last 50 years.

The problem is, not the engines, it is the fuel that is being used. Ethanol is the superior fuel. It always has been. Nobody has to give up anything.
Comment
22 of 28
September 8, 2011
Fred Linn. I am not a petroleum chemist or a automotive engineer, my speciality is in Ethanol.I am surprised that many of the positive features of ethanol is not being talked about but only the so called negative features.Even as far as the so called negative features -based on easy start, acceleration and energy content ( 85000 Btus against 125000 BTU for gasoline) there are research published on means of solving them.These are also backed by laws of thermodynamics. Why or who is spreading this canard that ethanol is inferior.
Comment
23 of 28
September 8, 2011
"Then don't make anybody have to give up their SUVs."

why not? all you need is a law that bans them , unless you can prove that they are required for earning your living (0.1%of cases)

It might be possible to make suv's marginally more efficient, but the ICE is only 15% efficient, and I really dont see how making it 16% or 17% or even 20% efficient is going to save us from total climate collapse.
Comment
24 of 28
September 8, 2011
Upali---" I am not a petroleum chemist or a automotive engineer, my speciality is in Ethanol.I am surprised that many of the positive features of ethanol is not being talked about but only the so called negative features"-------

It started with John D. Rockefeller and J. Paul Getty in 1915.

They were the two largest private contributors to Women's Christian Temperance League leading eventually to Prohibition.

I'm sure their motives were far more influenced by finances than they were by morals.

-------" Why or who is spreading this canard that ethanol is inferior."-------

Oil companies and financial institutions and individuals who directly profit from oil consumption.

To maintain the de facto cartel monopoly that oil occupies in the transportation energy market. The only means of forcing higher profits out of consumers to continue oil use.

In free market competition with oil and alternative energy sources, oil would lose. It already is in other markets than North America. Brazil is an example, and Europe is rapidly becoming an example also.
Comment
25 of 28
September 8, 2011
pierrott-------

The typical thermal efficiency of a gasoline engine is about 20%.

With ethanol, that can be taken up to around 50%.

Hardly marginal.

Diesel engines are already high compression internal combustion engines. They already routinely return around 40% or more thermal efficiency---and are renowned for their rugged reliability and long engine life. And diesels need no engine modifications to use biodiesel fuels.

Any internal combustion engine can be converted to run on methane. If all vehicles on the road were running on methane, doing the exact same things being done now----the effect would be the same as removing every third vehicle from the road. Producing the same amount of energy using methane causes only 65% of the CO2 compared with that produced with petroleum. It produces only 44% of the CO2 that coal use does. Replace coal and petroleum use and you will produce 40% less CO2 doing all exactly the same things done now.

And that is using fossil methane. Use biomethane, and you will produce 0% new carbon into the atmosphere.
Comment
26 of 28
September 8, 2011
What do you mean by thermal efficiency? The numbers I've seen is 15% mechanical, 85 % heat energy for gasoline engines, 20 and 80 for diesel.

Regardless, even at 50%, that's way too high. We need to cut back by 90% by 2050 or we're hooped. If it's not already too late. And the biggest culprits in the transport sector are north americans and their SUV's. And because it is completely unnecessary, it is the most logical place to cut back first.
Comment
27 of 28
September 9, 2011
pierrot--" And the biggest culprits in the transport sector are north americans and their SUV's. And because it is completely unnecessary, it is the most logical place to cut back first."--------

There is no need to get rid of SUVs---only the fuel that they are using. We have no shortage of biofuels, nor are we likely to. It is like tomatoes, we might have temporary shortages of tomatoes from time to time, say from a late frost somewhere that tomatoes are grown----but we won't have long term shortages of tomatoes because we can always just grow more tomatoes. Same thing with biofuels, we can make as much as we need. The only limitation is cost. Consumers want the size of the SUV for families and cargo----but they don't want the high cost of gasoline. With biofuels, we can make our vehicles large, heavier(for safety) and all the amenities we want-----and still get better performance with much smaller engines. The objection to SUVs is the fuel that is being used, not the SUVs themselves. With the high thermal efficiency you can get with biofuels, we can build SUVs powered with 4 cylinder engines as small as most super economy cars and about the same fuel consumption---but more power than the largest V8.

Biofuels do not contribute to atmospheric CO2. Producing biofuels removes CO2 from the atmosphere,when they are used, they put the same CO2 back into the atmosphere. That is the Carbon Energy Exchange Cycle. All living things get their energy from the sun through the Carbon Energy Exchange Cycle. You included. The CEEC works in a closed loop. That is why biofuels are renewable.

Heat is energy. The amount of energy a fuel contains is measured by how much it will heat water. Thermal efficiency is a measure of how much of the actual fuel you put in you get back as work. Work out/ potential energy in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency
Comment
28 of 28
September 9, 2011
SUVs? Seriously? Older cars in poor condition, with fewer and malfunctioning emissions controls, are worse than SUVs.

Tran-oceanic shipping of goods from China that we can manufacture here, there's an unnecessary source of carbon emissions that dwarfs SUVs. Banning SUVs would make a negligible difference in the total carbon in the atmosphere, same with gas prices. Look up Trans oceanic shipping pollution, seriously.

Why must energy be a right-wing, left-wing issue? We're not talking ideologies here. Believe it or not, the left depends plenty on coal and gas and oil. They may prefer Occidental to Exxon, but they support fossil fuels just the same.

This article focuses on innovation. The President has spoken on how much we need innovation, and we do.

Aside from what everyone's implanted pardigms, what's wrong with the idea presented in the article? Nothing!

Let's talk facts. Yes, some are designed to be too heavy, not aerodynamic for highway speeds, others are poorly maintained, most are just driven badly! Why aren't we pushing for lower highway speeds and heavier speeding enforcement? Doesn't KE=1/2MV^2 ? Doesn't that equate to lost energy?

CO2 comes from a variety of sources, feeds plant life [algae, in this case] and algae goes to waste all the time; the Gulf of Mexico is full of it.

Algae can yield ethanol or methanol or both, and both are wonderfully dense, transportable sources of IC motor fuel AND fuel for electric fuel cells, eliminating the need for batteries.

[Yes, you could pull up to the pump and fill up your electric car with ethanol, using current technology.]

Let's look at the article for what it is, someone taking a chance on a useful idea for a waste product, fuel from pollution, putting carbon to work for us rather than against us.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Steve Leone

View Steve Leone's Profile
About: Steve Leone has been a journalist for more than 15 years and has worked for news organizations in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and California. more »

Advertise With Us

Natural Power Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. Enphase Energy Grundfos Direct Sensors Solar Electric Power Association ESI Inc. of Tennessee HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters