What is one of the major obstacles to using algae for fuel?

[kristopher]

PARC’s Solution for Algae Fuel: Going Down the Drain

A technology for water purification and toner cartridges could cut the onerous cost of getting algae out of water.

It started as a way to purify water, but the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) believes that its spiral technology could solve one of the most vexing problems with making algae fuel a reality.

A set of spirals – essentially channels that get water to swirl in a way that mimics how it flows down drains, discharge flumes and log rides – can potentially be used to separate algae from water with very little external energy. Much of the energy, in fact, comes from the force of the moving water itself.

"We are able to recover 95 percent of the algae with very little energy," said Meng Lean, the principal scientist on the project.

PARC has built a prototype that can cycle 1,000 liters of fluid a minute and is now seeking a grant in conjunction with a major oil company from the Department of Energy to experiment with it on a larger scale. In the picture, a water-algae mix enters at the 1 o'clock position. By the time it gets to 12, the algae forms a distinct band. A channel is a complete circle and the plastic housing holds an array of parallel channels.

If it works on a large scale...

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/parcs-solution-for-algae-fuel-going-down-the-drain

This is one of the two most significant problems associated with using algae for diesel. The other is economically and sustainably achieving the necessary level of nutrients, including high levels of CO2.

[NNadir]

1. "If..." "Could..."

"A technology for water purification and toner cartridges could cut the onerous cost of getting algae out of water."

"If it works on a large scale..."

If I had a buck for every could statement that "renewables will save us" advocates have been willing bet the future of humanity on here at E&E for the last 7 years, all while railing against the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy, I could fund any damn thing I wanted to fund.

We were hearing all about how algae based biodiesel would save us, it seems to me, well more than half a decade ago.

It hasn't done shit.

[kristopher]

4. in 2004 no one said it would save us in 2009.

But now that the Democrats have taken control of the government we can be sure that they will fund projects like this.

Isn't it great the Republicans and their "Let's build a brazillion nuclear plants!" are now dead in the water?

I think it is.

[ret5hd]

5. Lemme guess: Our only salvation is nuclear energy?

Am I right?

[Ready4Change]

24. Good example of one of the obstacles.

There is a drumbeat of voices against ANY alternative to established energy sources. The problem is that these voices aren't content to promote their solutions. They also do everything possible to obstruct and rip apart any support for any competing sources.

It drives me a little bonkers, as I see within their drumbeats nuggets of value. But their tirades against any competition are so shrill that often I just ignore them into white noise. They are trying too hard, IMHO.

Algae has potential. Basically it's a biological solar collector, with a side benefit in that you may be able to feed it waste products from cities or industry. It has problems in that it hasn't been demonstrated in large, industrial scales yet. That's necessary before it can become a big player. In that process problems will surely emerge, problems which may be more easily overcome than the drumbeat of obstructionist voices.

[thunder rising]

2. WTF: "seeking a grant in conjunction with a major oil company from the Department of Energy"

Why a "major oil company"

[kristopher]

3. Because several of the oil companies have existing research programs.

This is only one aspect of a larger operation - it wouldn't make sense to duplicate everything else to the scale required just to test this aspect of the process.

I suppose you could argue that the oil company should shoulder the costs completely. To address that I'd have to know just what the distribution of benefits between the public, the inventors and the private investors actually will be.

[Ghost Dog]

6. Algae eat CO2. You wanna release that into the atmosphere again?

Better use excess as fertilizer, I'd suggest.

http://www.cmtevents.com/aboutevent.aspx?ev=090914&

[GliderGuider]

7. But don't you see?

We have to keep driving. It's our God-given right, and the only possible way we can live. Screw the atmosphere. Keep driving. Keep driving. Keep driving...

[kristopher]

10. That's the whole point.

Using CO2 that is already in the environment would be a sustainable approach to providing liquid fuels for those applications where nothing else can be substituted (heavy equipment, aircraft, ships etc).

There are different varieties of algae and while the focus is on fuels right now, algae with other characteristics is also being explored as a means of sequestering CO2.

[Ready4Change]

26. You have a choice:

Use algae, which suck in atmospheric CO2, then release it, rinse, cycle, repeat...

Or continue using fossil fuels, adding brand new CO2 ontop of that which has already released.

[Ghost Dog]

29. Better choice: use algae to replace fossil-fuel-based fertilizers;

cultivate more biomass, thus locking up sequestered CO2 viably over the long term and, through increased photosynthesis, continue to draw excess CO2 out of the atmosphere (while also providing people with efficiently-produced food).

At the same time, encourage socio-economic change so as to require much less energy-consuming and trade-distorting travel and transport at all levels: fewer suburbs and exurbs, live and work in tighter-knit communities; Land transport and shipping can be solar-electric; Why did we need so many (faster, fester) aircraft again? Some solar-electric airships would be nice...

Please think outside the box. The way we live now will inevitably change - with or without intelligent input from us.

[Ready4Change]

39. I agree with much of that.

My understanding is that the outflow of past algae efforts, ie: the stuff not consumed by the algae, is good fertilizer material. If so, that is another way that this process is good stuff. Then again, maybe I was reading an overly optimistic article?

Without energy dense fossil fuels we'll have to accept slower, ground based transport. Thus far airships have fallen prey to their inability to handle weather extremes. Storms can wreck them, and they are too slow to avoid those same storms. While I love flying, I don't think it has 'work horse' value in a low energy density world. I think rail makes far more sense.

I think population density is going to shift in both directions. While suburbs of stand-alone homes on large grassed lots wont work any more, big cities, with huge numbers of people far, far away from food production will also not work. I think we'll see the return of the village and small townships.

[kristopher]

44. I think there is confusion between wild algae and farmed algae

Algal blooms in our waterways are a result of an overabundance in the water of the nutrients used in fertilizer. The fact is that ALGAE require large amounts of fertilizer.
Harvesting wild algae economically is almost impossible with any technology available today. It is isn't even economically possible for farmed algae where conditions are much more favorable and the market value of oil is added in.

The most probable scenario regarding algae is built around farm and human biological wastes being composted for its methane and then using the composted material to fertilize the algae. The operation is run using the methane tp power a generator, and the CO2 (another required nutrient for algae) from the methane is used to enrich the water the algae grow in.

For this scenario, waste heat from the generator is used to dry the algae and, if the operation is in a greenhouse, it is also used to provide climate control.

40-70% of the algae in this process is waste left over after the oil is removed. I'm not sure if this material is good for fertilizer, but I think its generally thought to have value as a supplement for animal feed.

There are other processes and they may end up being viable faster or be more sustainable, but this is the one I think is the best fit for our liquid fuel needs in a sustainable world.

[GliderGuider]

8. Why not just promote a society that doesn't drive so bloody much?

Algal biodiesel is a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

[kristopher]

11. Why not just sprinkle some pixie dust and solve all problems while you're at it.

[GliderGuider]

13. That's precisely what I'm trying to do:

precipitate a global shift in consciousness so that people will wake up and start attacking root causes rather than trimming away like mad at the branches.

[kristopher]

16. Pixie dust.

I have no problem with increasing awareness of problems to motivate behavior change, but there are limits within which that can be effective. When you start ignoring, or worse yet criticizing valid solutions to real problems based on glassy-eyed wishful thinking, then your efforts are counter-productive to your stated goals.

[GliderGuider]

17. You sell your brand of PD, I'll sell mine.

There's a big market for change.

I think you'll be surprised at how fast grass-roots behaviour can change when enough people wake up and start herding their friends and neighbours.

[kristopher]

18. No I wouldn't

I just know the types of pressures that result in such changes and how fleeting those changes are liable to be. If you don't deal with the underlying environmental forces that shape behavior you are just pissing in the wind.

[GliderGuider]

19. The point is to foster an awareness change, not just a behavioural change

The resulting awakening causes people to want to work on the underlying environmental forces and change their behaviour at the same time.

This approach is predicated on the assumption that we already have the scientific and technical knowledge we need to address most aspects of the problem, but we don't have the will. Most commentators predicate that with the word "political": we don't have the political will to solve the problem. I think that if we wait for the necessary will on the part of politicians, we stand a very low chance of success, as politicians are so cheaply purchased by those with the money and motive to do so.

In my opinion the lack of will that stands in our way is much broader than just the will of the political class. There is a lack of will on the part of the grass roots. If that will was mustered, not a politician in the world could stand against it. What is preventing this mustering of popular will is a lack of any sense of urgency or any appreciation of the scale of the crises we face. This complacency is eagerly abetted by the powers that be, in order that BAU may continue to their advantage.

The only thing I can see that will break this somnolence and cause people to take individual action is an awakening. Moreover, I believe such an awakening is already happening.

Imagine how much easier your job would be if there were tens of millions of people in your country screaming for change Right!Fucking!Now! And if they were also backing up their screams with actions that all lead toward a sustainable future. That's what I'm trying to foster.

There is no need for you to give up your activities. Despite my occasionally crusty tone I really don't think your activities are misguided at all. I am merely doing something a little different: I'm trying to give you and all the people doing the technical work a popular constituency, by awakening as many sleepers as possible to the need for immediate, radical change, and by giving them a hopeful image to use as a framework for their own personal change.

I do ask you to think a little deeper about the causes you champion, but whether you do or not (or whether you do and arrive at different conclusions than I have) is really not important. What's important is to get as many people as possible awoken to the benefits of pursuing true sustainability, and the risks of not doing so. When that happens, the will for change will appear as if by grace.

[Terry in Austin]

21. It all depends on what you consider a "problem"

You see the scarcity of cars as a problem. Others see the pervasiveness of cars as a problem.

It comes down to what kind of world you want.

Personally, I'd prefer a world where car-dependence is not necessary. You're free to condemn or dismiss it, but that's still what my preference is, and to the extent that you choose to deal with me, you'll also have to deal with the fact of my preference. Likewise, with others who have a similar preference.

If you want to sway people toward your view of what's preferable, there is a wide variety of techniques for doing so. You might want to consider which of them are more effective, and which are not.

[kristopher]

22. The problem is pretty clear.

We have a highly integrated global society that has sectors requiring the energy density of liquid fuels to continue functioning. It doesn't matter one whit if you'd prefer something else, we have what we have and the challenge confronting us is how to stop global warming and the associated effects of CO2 such as ocean acidification. That is job one.

Your preference is just that - a preference. It is also fairly easy to justify characterizing that preference as unrealistic and irrelevant as it pertains to addressing the problem. People aren't going to magically find ways to get to work or magically relocate to centralized public transport friendly communities no matter how much it seems like a great idea. It just simply isn't going to happen (ETA) in a timely enough fashion to be meaningful to the problem. The way you get to where you prefer is to price energy in a way that is a realistic representation of it's full costs, and that process will probably take half a century to have a meaningful payoff.

Frankly I don't devote time to discuss the merits of such thinking because there are none.

[Terry in Austin]

23. True to form

> Frankly I don't devote time to discuss the merits of such thinking because there are none.

Funny -- you just did.

You just don't get it, do you?

[IrateCitizen]

32. Does he ever get it?

Maybe not, but it is fun to point out for everyone else on the boards. :evilgrin:

[IrateCitizen]

33. Physician, heal thyself.

Another instance of snark and condescension when an alternative viewpoint is presented.

But hey, it's the OTHER people who don't know how to engage in respectful debate, right?

So predictable....

[Ready4Change]

25. We are heading in that direction.

Want it or not, we may wind up in an automobile free (or 'mostly' free) society. WE may get there in one of 3 ways:

1. We decide that fossil fuels are too dangerous, and we abandon all technologies that use them, cold turkey. That pretty much kills cars, trucks and planes, at least in the short term, maybe forever. Involves radical societal reform, which some would call a win, and some would consider the destruction of civilization as we know it. Most likely billions will die in famines (fossil fuels are directly or indirectly responsible for a large percentage of our current food production and delivery.) But after wards we would likely have a much smaller agrarian society or MAYBE a highly centralized (and easily domineered) nuclear powered one. Take your pick.

2. We continue our current ways, burning the easy to use fossil fuels (coal, crude oil), then using other energy sources (like nuclear) to extract the remaining, hard to use, fossil fuels (tar sands, oil bearing shale.) Using these techniques we either continue until all fossil fuels are used up, or, far more likely, until we have so laden our atmosphere with GHG that we encounter massive environmental changes that bring our society to an abrupt and nasty end. (We may already be well on our way to this one.)

3. We attempt to create alternative energy sources for transportation, using existing technologies as a bridge, but that attempt fails, and our transport systems collapse. How we fail, and why, determines whether we wind up in option 1 or 2 above.

There is, of course, a forth option, (#3, but where we succeed in creating alternatives to the point we can abandon current technology before we're screwed.) However, voices that would prefer that we continue using one of the status quo energy sources for as long as possible are dead set against that.

[Nihil]

31. It seems to be a fight between your options #2 & #3 at the moment ...

... with #2 being so established and incredibly well-funded (which also
translates to "politically supported") that it's not a very fair fight
at the moment.

:shrug:

[IrateCitizen]

34. Interesting, but this leaves out a more "micro" perspective

IMO, the "micro" is going to be just as important, if not moreso, than the "macro" when it comes to adjusting to our rapidly-changing world.

If you believe that business-as-usual (BAU) is not a viable option, and that some level of collapse is unavoidable as we power down from an energy-intensive society to one that is much less so, then I think that the LAST place at which you are likely to encounter meaningful change will be at the macro level. I would say this for a few reasons.

First, social inertia paralyzes large-scale, centralized institutions much more than smaller ones. Large-scale institutions are bound to remain wedded to the ways of thinking that encouraged their development and growth over time. Smaller organizations are less bound by such constraints, largely because they are not so tightly bound to the status quo. From a physical standpoint, it's like the difference between trying to turn an oil tanker vs. a speedboat.

Second, responses to the crises facing us will not be uniform, and will depend just as much upon LOCAL circumstances as they will upon large-scale, aggregate ones. What works for my community in a rural, agricultural region of NY state still within spitting distance of NYC may be very different than what works in Atlanta, GA or LA. Trying to apply a template to all of them will likely result in failure.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, any measure of success in dealing with the predicaments we find ourselves in will not come about from centrally-planned initiatives as much as they will come from tinkering. We often tend to forget that many of the technological advances of human history -- especially prior to 300 years ago and the industrial age -- came about as a result of individuals and small groups tinkering with existing technologies, and those advances gradually spreading to other peoples. Such developments often run counter to the dictates of the efficiency god at which modern society worships, but they're more likely to be successful given their long track record.

[GliderGuider]

36. +1

:thumbsup:

[Ready4Change]

38. I'm aware of micro. Not convinced it can kick in soon enough, big enough.

I'd be happy to discover I'm wrong.

[GliderGuider]

40. Soon enough, big enough for what?

What's your desired outcome? What would you see as a win, and what would you see as a fail?

Remember that change of one sort or another is inevitable, even in the best of all possible worlds.

[IrateCitizen]

41. What do you mean by "soon enough, big enough"?

If you mean in terms of maintaining BAU primarily through the implementation of as-of-now undeveloped or not-of-a-sufficient-scale technological innovation, then it most certainly isn't going to come in "soon enough, big enough."

However, if you are referring to the best way to deal with the collapse of complex systems that we have been accustomed to, as our economic, energy and environmental predicaments continue to slap us up side the head, then "micro" is your best bet.

Of course, none of this will likely happen without considerable pain and suffering, bringing our population and resource use more in line with our available energy and resources. If that's what you mean by "soon enough, big enough," then it likely will not occur.

DISCLAIMER: By saying that I believe there will be pain and suffering I am, by no means, endorsing mass starvation and/or disease. I am simply stating that, given the complexity of our high-energy society and the probable less complexity of a much lower-energy one, there will likely be an attendant level of pain, suffering and death.

[Ready4Change]

42. One reply to both of the above.

I call our current era the Age of Petroleum. I think we could have a sustainable future if we could develop fusion. Ideally, we would just develop fusion and skip right into the Fusion Era. But it's not working out that way. Fusion's evaded us, and we're getting pinched between the damage petroleum is doing to our environment and the depletion of that very same resource. So, between now and the Fusion Era is a big gap.

I'd rather this gap just be a bump in the road, a hesitation in our progress. But I fear it could be the death of billions in famines, and maybe a retreat to the dark ages, which we could well take thousands of years to emerge from, if ever.

So, soon enough, big enough, in my mind, is enough to bridge us over that gap. Buy us enough time to get a foot into the fusion era.

[GliderGuider]

43. OK, thanks.

I'm never sure what problem people are trying to solve. That clarifies it.

[GliderGuider]

35. There are many other possibilities

I think a heterogeneous mix of all the possibilities you mention is most probable, with the mix differing from place to place, and shifting over time.

The Powers That Be will continue to champion Business As Usual, with greeenwashed sops thrown to the general public to keep them quiet for as long as possible.

More and more people will continue to wake up and realize just how dangerous fossil fuels are. They will reduce their own FF use and will encourage their friends and neighbours to do likewise.

The scientists will continue to develop, and the activists will promote, alternative sources. They will have greater or lesser successes (think batteries and butanol), and will make the occasional misstep (like crop-based ethanol).

Meanwhile oil supplies will begin to decline in earnest, sometime within the next decade.

All these forces will pull us in different directions in our policies, technologies and personal choices, as gradually declining petroleum supplies gradually shut off the avenue of BAU. This tug-of-war will have different outcomes in different places around the world, depending on a combination of local conditions and unfolding global situation.

Some of the local factors will include the level of disposable income to pay the rising price of oil or the cost of replacements, the degree of local development or need for high-efficiency transportation, the extent to which social structures are dependent on transportation, the adaptability of the local population and the nature of the local government. Global factors will include the speed of decline of oil supplies (and especially oil exports) and the speed of development of replacement energy sources and infrastructure.

I don’t think this will result in a global crash of civilization, though it has the potential to make some places very uncomfortable to live.

There will be black swans, of course, but the joker in the deck IMO is the possibility of a widespread viral grass-roots shift in consciousness related to environmental, ecological, energy and social issues. As I’ve said before, this awakening is already happening.

The reason I think it could be a game-changer is that it’s a collection of individual changes of perception. As a result the overall change is largely beyond the reach of TPTB and the behavioural changes resulting from such a personal shift can be radical and immediate. Because it’s a memetic change, the new meme is open to rapid viral transmission through personal discussions, aided by the massive leverage of the Internet.

The meme is currently spreading by at least 40% per year. It’s entirely probable that a tipping point will be reached fairly soon when the spread will become even more explosive. At that point it’s within the realm of possibility possible that much of the planet’s population could reject some or all of BAU as championed by TPTB.

Some people won’t make the leap of course. There’s a Republican in every crowd, and TPTB have become very adept at convincing people to act against their own best interest. The Guardian Institutions will go ape-shit trying to protect the status quo.

It’s going to be a very interesting decade.

[Ready4Change]

37. Certainly will be an interesting decade.

I like your optimism. I'll try to be less of an Eeyore. :)

[phantom power]

9. sounds a lot like this:

[kristopher]

12. It does?

I'd need more information to see the connection.

[phantom power]

14. It sounds like they are using a vortex to separate out the algae.

Although they also mentioned "log flume," which is not a vortex.

[kristopher]

15. I don't know how the vacuum works...

The article gave me the impression the effect is related to friction causing different flow speed within the stream, which I took to have the a greater effect on the larger surface area of the algae than the smaller water molecules.

[phantom power]

20. I see that it's different.

They are both "vortex" based, but in the vacuum, it is centrifugal separation with a high-speed vortex. The algae separation uses the vortex as a means for producing transverse currents that focus the algae. Like kick-waves on the sides of a river chute, nudging everything to the center.

[bhikkhu]

27. Maybe I'm dim, but how about a sieve?

Its hard to imagine that separating the algae from the water is the real problem. "Evaporation" is another thing I've heard about that might work. Or a centrifuge if you are really in a hurry. I'd think a sieve would be the easiest though.

[XemaSab]

28. That would be the obvious solution

Have a moving screen, and just scoop it up like a fishnet. :shrug:

[joshcryer]

30. Sieves clog up (article mentions membranes "fouling up").

One major problem is that as algae is transported within a growing system, it must be kept from being killed by the circulatory systems. (You can increase the volume/density of the solution by circulating it and mixing it.) Some efforts have been made to genetically engineer more robust species to get over this though.

This seems like a very efficient method to separate the algae in a final stage. I do not see, however, if it is selective at separating out mature algae or what. It's only one technological aspect.

I have a friend who has built his own bioreactor, there's a whole community around it in Denver.