Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Pooh-Pooh Algae-Based Biofuel
Julie188 writes "Researchers from the University of Virginia have found that current algae biofuel production methods consume more energy, have higher greenhouse gas emissions and use more water than other biofuel sources, such as switchgrass, canola and corn. The researchers suggest these problems can be overcome by situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen — essential algae nutrients that otherwise need to come from petroleum."
Timothy, please spell check your title.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
And besides, they don't build nuclear plants in the city, they build them out in the middle of nowhere.
> ...phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential algae nutrients that otherwise need
> to come from petroleum.
Phosphorus and nitrogen from petroleum. Uh huh. Right.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Diesel, wholesale, is a couple bucks a gallon. Which means it is far FAR less than a dollar a pound.
A good algae is worth far MORE than that per pound as animal feed, dietary suppliments, etc. So why turn something that you can sell for $2/lb into something you can only sell for less than $.5/lb?
Test your net with Netalyzr
The company that I worked for commissioned a few studies on algae based biofuels. It turns out that the most efficient way of handling the material was to collect the algae in cakes and burn it in a reactor to make synthesis gas. Synthesis gas is a mixture of CO and Hydrogen. If you add steam, you could then perform a shift reaction to get methane or methanol. The main value of the process was not in producing fuel, or generating electricity. The main thing you could use it for was as a chemical feedstock. Methanol is a good starting point for many plastics.
(final comment, my spell checker wants to change biofuels to befouled)
Population size makes a big difference. It wasn't until around 1800 that the population of the Earth was close to 1 billion. We're now adding that many people in less than 20 years but we are NOT adding enough land to take care of that increase.
I notice a few people commenting on using fresh water. Well according to CSIRO (Australia) you can happily use salt water There is even a prototype plant that has been commissioned to look at making this more cost effective.
Which gets carried away gradually by the wind ... which flies way over your head.
This sounds like the University of Virgina is just regurgitating information published by Michael Briggs of the University of New Hampshire. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2364 This isn't really a new idea nor a new recommendation. It is sad that it is at least 6 years old and it is being treated as new information though.
To make fertilizer, you want fixed N (that is, N that is connected to carbon). Doing that is a big part of the energy cost in the fertilizer.
(this doesn't mean you can't come up with an algae good at fixing N; but there's plenty of N around anyway, N2 is most of our atmosphere. Such would be a good starting point for using algae to make fertilizer. My point is what we're really trying to get out of the algae is energy, which making fertilizer also requires).
I think you've over-estimated the chance in being Barack Obama by quite a bit. Your estimate for being hurt by a nuclear power plant seems right on, though.
Redundancy is good And also good.
I think you mean dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO for short).
hydrogen dioxide is also known as "hydrogen peroxide", which is a relatively harmless bleaching agent, and it contains more oxygen than DHMO, so it's got to be healthy.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
That's not quite true. The vast majority of the world's livestock farms aren't on land that's suitable for arable farming. Furthermore, without the livestock farms you are wholly dependant on petrochemical-derived fertilisers and human waste for farming - but it turns out that to make human waste from sewage plants safe to use as fertiliser, you need lots of petrochemicals. Oops.
Ah. LPAC stands for LaRouchePAC. I thought the rhetorical style was familiar.
Good question. Even industrial rotary drum filters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_vacuum-drum_filter
get clogged easily by the microscopic algae.
Also "the container" to be economical must be these so-
called raceway ponds and there is no "tilting" something
the size of a farm.
Again if you read up, algae has been a proposed source
of fuel for a very long time. Unfortunately the devil is in the
engineering challenges (and the biology -- this is a kind
of agriculture but with major disadvantages in that the "weeds"
are microscopic). It seems like every problem conspires to
make it more expensive.
This a link to a paper from a guy who has been in the field
for some time (and is sceptical of the hype).
http://www.futureenergyevents.com/algae/whitepaper/
You live east of the Dakotas, don't you?
Feedlot cattle are mostly an eastern thing. Out here cattle are grass-fed on land unsuitable for growing corn and soy. While it is true that the two largest beef-cattle states (Nebraska and Texas) raise a majority of their cattle on lots, they are the exception. Head north or west and almost 100% of the cattle is grazed.
In 2003 only ~40% of US beef cattle was grain-fed, and of that most were only grain fed the later days of their lives.