142 comments on Cost Viability and Algae
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
142 comments on Cost Viability and Algae
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
—Gandhi
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I find it enlightening to consider the implications of this "best source" of biodiesel:
45 billion gallons per year / 3654 gallons per acre = 12 million acres = 19,000 square miles.
Just the investment in all this land would seem like a big deal.
Gail -
The land wouldn't even be the most expensive part.
If we assume that this land would be covered by transparent plastic 1/4-inch thick, and if we assume the plastic has a density of 100 lbs/cubic ft, then covering 19,000 square miles would require something like 1.1 trillion pounds of clear plastic. This is probably several times greater than all the UV-resistant clear plastic that has ever been produced.
I haven't check prices for plastic lately, but I would imagine that UV-resistant clear plastic must be at least $4 per pound. If so, we're talking something like 4 to 5 trillion dollars just for the plastic alone. The installed cost would be several times that, not to mention the construction of 19,000 square miles of ponds. (For the sake of comparison, that's almost 9 times the area of the state of Delaware.)
It isn't difficult to show that schemes like this are totally unrealistic.
The post above is unrealistic....You do realize the U.S. ALONE has over 500,000 oil wells....and the pipelines....and the infrastructure....I imagine you think that was impossible also...I bet all this hardware takes up more room/land than the state of Delaware.
Off the cuff barstool analysis such as yours do nothing to advance the debate...Truth is NO ONE knows what is possible...until we really and truly try!!!
aviator202 -
Unrealistic in what way? I was merely making a rough estimate of the amount of UV-resistant clear plastic that would be required to cover the 19,000 square miles of algae pond a previous poster said is what would be needed.
If there is an error in my calculations, please point it out so it can be corrected.
Now Delaware (where I happen to live) isn't a big state, and maybe I'm not imaginative enough, but I really have a tough time picturing completely covering even one Delaware with algae ponds, much less 9 Delawares.
As I have said before, if someone can come up with a way to grow algae in uncovered ponds in a stable and controllable manner, then the prospects for algae will increase by orders of magnitude.
PS: What on earth do 500,000 oil wells have to do with the question at hand?
And, yes, folk are actually working on this - with some success.
I'll answer your last question first..."...500,000 oil wells"....That is an incredible amount of infrastructure that we have built up over the last century (and more) to harvest/pump oil from the ground. An incredible amount of steel, carbide, physical effort went into creating this massive infrastructure...And land, yes, LOTS of land, maybe an area equal to (or greater than) the land mass of Delaware. I am sure that someone (yourself for example) would state BEFORE it was created...that this couldn't practically or economically be accomplished...yet it was!!!
You state that it would take huge amounts of land and "plastic"...and even pull a figure for that "plastic" out of the air.
I took your whole point to be that algae would never be practical as a replacement for petroleum because it required "TOO MUCH" land or "TOO MUCH PLASTIC" (and the plastic would be too expensive anyway).
Yet we have an INCREDIBLE amount of STEEL and LAND devoted to the harvesting/transport/refining of oil and its end products.
So let's consider that the REAL question is COMPARED TO PETROLEUM is the algae infrastructure greater/lesser/equal to the ALREADY EXISTING infrastructure for petroleum that it would eventually replace?
My thesis is that when you compare the two....the algae infrastructure will be somewhat but not prohibitively greater than the already existing petroleum infrastructure.
How about if you compare it to infrastructure cost including ecological costs that will be necessary to extract liquid fuels from say Canadian tar sands. Is there a point at which conventional oil extraction costs becomes more expensive than production from renewable substitutes such as algae?
Another man after my own twisted heart!!! Hear, hear!!!!
Total agreement!!!!!
1/4 inch thick plastic is way too much.
One can use a thin plastic film to cover a pond.
And if we'd started 100 years ago we might have a large biodiesel industry. I kind of doubt it, since it would have been ten times as expensive as the oil infrastructure.
Off the cuff barstool analysis such as yours do nothing to advance the debate.
Really? Does off the cuff rebuttals advance things BETTER?
If you think the man is wrong, point out HOW he's wrong with DATA vs handwaving.
Because I was "excited" by the algae idea until I started running the numbers. When I got to the point of "if you use the sewage waste from cities as a growth medium" then tried to find land to run a plant *AND* keep a plant going when its -40 deg cold outside, the materials cost was too expensive.
But do go ahead and refute the material costs counter-argument.
There you go, thinking inside the box again. There are answers to these but it starts to get a bit more complex to explain the route.
Ahhhhh yes!!!! DATA!!! Yes we must have DATA!!! Problem is data is usually viewed in the rearview mirror. His major data was that somehow...he really didn't state...(probably from his barstool)...That the land required would be equal to the landmass of Delaware...Maybe yes, maybe no....Let's first find out how much landmass the present petroleum infracture is consuming...I bet it is equal to or MORE that the landmass of Delware. Then he goes on to pull the figure of $4/lb for the "plastic"...Again, no idea where he gets that figure either.
And as far as you "running the numbers"...I have no idea of your expertise...Are you a mathemetician or an engineer?...Ever design ANYTHING?
So don't expect me to refute thin air...because that is what the two of you are positing.
Let's first find out how much landmass the present petroleum infracture is consuming.
And this matters exactly *HOW*?
And as far as you "running the numbers"
Algae needs something to grow from. Sewage waste would work.
Now you have to move that waste. From somewhere.
A simple example:
pump station handles approximately 0.34 million gallons (MG) of raw sewage per day. Pumping processes consumed approximately 72,500 kWh of electricity annually
The longer the pipes, the more energy to pump it. So to place the sewage miles from the source will cost more in energy. Yet most cities have the cheap land WAY outside the city.
De-watering the sewage is going to be expensive energy wise.
Oh and really - the best photon -> human useable energy conversion device is the PhotoVolatic cell. So why bother with algae?
I have no idea of your expertise.
And you should be believed because you are "aviator202"?
So don't expect me to refute thin air
That should be easy. If there was "nothing" to the counter-claim - rebuttal should be a snap.
Yet you've opt-ed to go with "I'm not going to"
Why are you unwilling to?
"And this matters exactly *HOW*?"
You HAVE to be smart enough to understand the point I am trying to make....Others have....Please try again, I KNOW you are smart enough to grasp it.
"Algae needs something to grow from. Sewage waste would work.
Now you have to move that waste. From somewhere.
A simple example:
pump station handles approximately 0.34 million gallons (MG) of raw sewage per day. Pumping processes consumed approximately 72,500 kWh of electricity annually
The longer the pipes, the more energy to pump it. So to place the sewage miles from the source will cost more in energy. Yet most cities have the cheap land WAY outside the city.
De-watering the sewage is going to be expensive energy wise.
Oh and really - the best photon -> human useable energy conversion device is the PhotoVolatic cell. So why bother with algae?"
Straw Man argument....and no, I will not play that game.
"And you should be believed because you are "aviator202"?"
Eric Blair is a silly name....
"Why are you unwilling to?"
Eric, Eric, Eric...You don't listen well baby dumpling...
Here, I will spoon feed it to you:
Replacing petroleum with algae is an engineering problem
It is a problem that has not yet been solved because the will
and resources have not been devoted to finding an economical solution.
Humans are EXTREMELY good at engineering...We CAN solve it.
Way too many folks on this site...Peak Oil DOOMERS...Don't want it
solved....(See anything written by Jim Kunstler for elaboration)...
For political, philosophical and irrational reasons, they want to live as the Amish do.
That is my argument....It's a PHILOSOPHICAL argument Eric
You do understand that PHILOSOPHY drives innovation and engineering.
I disagree with the meme this site posits....There are NO substitues and it is TOO LATE ANYWAY!!!!!
Now baby dumpling...There is my argument.
Replacing petroleum with algae is an engineering problem
You do realize that petroleum is mostly the result of dead plants (Algae is a plant) being trapped and compressed under heat. Tons of force, lots of heat and time. Its not like it is in the movies.
The movies. Like Airplane!
From the scene in the movie "Airplane!" in which the character Johnny says, "then the dinosaurs got too fat and died and turned into oil,"
That time is millions of years - typically.
Quite an engineering problem there - the millions of years.
It is a problem that has not yet been solved because the will
and resources have not been devoted to finding an economical solution.
Oh! So this is an ECONOMIC solution! TOD has great respect for ECONOMICS whipped out as 'the solution'.
Perhaps by applying the time value of money you can take the millions of years and move that to the now?
Humans are EXTREMELY good at engineering...We CAN solve it.
No we are not. Humans happen to be the BEST at changing a broad range of things - re-knitting atomic bonds on this planet.
But what humanity does not know about the time from the egg fertilization to birth is staggering. Same with epigenetics - how did grandmothers eating habits get the effects on the human of today?
And if humans CAN solve engineering problems:
1) Where is the fission based electrical power too cheap to meter that was 'just an engineering challenge'?
2) The flying cars and jet packs
3) It's been 20 years - successful fusion as a reliable electrical power source was already supposed to have happened. Where is it?
That is my argument....It's a PHILOSOPHICAL argument Eric
Oh, so now we've gone from "its about economics" to "its about psychology".
You do understand that PHILOSOPHY drives innovation and engineering.
Really? Here I thought innovation came from study and experimentation. Now you are blowing my mind, that innovation comes from PHILOSOPHY! I thought you were going to go with the driving force being profit and economic - what with your economic start.
I disagree with the meme this site posits
Folkes who are reading this - this is the pay dirt point:
....There are NO substitues and it is TOO LATE ANYWAY!!!!!
There *ARE* no substitutes for $10 a barrel oil. It *IS* too late for the economy built on cheap oil.
But do go ahead - show how $10 a barrel oil will come back. Use your powerful economic arguments.
Eric, Eric, Eric....Tell me, is your head composed solely of bone?
"And if humans CAN solve engineering problems:
1) Where is the fission based electrical power too cheap to meter that was 'just an engineering challenge'?
2) The flying cars and jet packs
3) It's been 20 years - successful fusion as a reliable electrical power source was already supposed to have happened. Where is it?"
Straw Man argument....You can Google it if you don't know what it means...
But there is a story about Edison...the inventor...you know, guys who create things that didn't previously exist like the light bulb...
Edison's assistant reported to Edison on the progress made inventing the light bulb...He told Edison that it was going terribly...10,000 materials were tried and none worked as the filament...Edison said that was wonderful news!!!! We now know 10,000 ways that don't work and we are that much closer TO FINDING A FILAMENT THAT DOES WORK!!!!
Edison was right, a filament material was discovered...and the rest is history.
Trouble is Eric Blair, you are living life as the assistant...YOU can't figure out a solution, so you think NOBODY will be able to figure out a solution...
And psssstt....Isaac Newton wrote a book...The title uses the words Mathematics and Philosophy....Again Google can help you with the research.....
And also Eric...The World doesn't NEED $10/barrel fuel to survive....Algae fuel is competitive with petroleum at its present level...
And also Eric...The World doesn't NEED $10/barrel fuel to survive....Algae fuel is competitive with petroleum at its present level...
Ok - PROVE this.
Show where and how.
Once again the naysayer...So sad, so sad...
Don't know how old you are but remember the speech President Kennedy made...."We choose to go to the Moon, not because it's easy but because it is hard..." And we did so, though at the time NO ONE really new how to pull it off. Never before seen materials and processes had to be invented...they were.
I bet you would have stood on the Capital steps saying it was patently impossible and DEMANDING proof.
Here's my proof...This is the same kind of deal.
Oh, and by the way....Have you checked the price of crude over the past two years????...Or longer???...It hasn't been $10/gal for many years...and the ole World is still spinning as always.
Aviator,
I rather think that most of us Drum readers have a great deal of faith in technology eventually solving our problems.
It seems to me that the problem with your position is that you are overly optimistic that the progress will out run current resource depletion/environmental degradation/ population growth rates.
We have no assurance that this is so,other than historical trends.Things are changing really fast,and research/commercialization/rampup of new tech is nowadays measured in decades,and tens of millions even in the early stages of research.
I cannot recall hearing about a single new piece game changing technology in many years that is an exception to this rule.
Edison's lab was state of the art in it's day and his workers really did work wonders,but it is easy to find gold in a place like California during the gold rush.It is not so easy these days,the ground has been picked over again and again,and I strongly suspect that the day of the lone inventor of significant new tech is long gone.
The odds appear to be very high that if we solve our current problems,we will do so almost entirely with tech already at least in the early stages of commercilaization.Otherwise,something drastic happens.
I'll take it seriously:
This is a very good case for 2 things:
1. Colocating algae farms with sewage treatment plants.
2. Using the waste in a wet form for algae fertilizer.
At its most simple a combination of a Pasteurization and blending phase for incoming waste that is then fed into extended covered settling ponds/algae farms would be a minimum energy input, minimum added infrastructure method for turning waste into a useful form.
And as for the high energy cost of plastic, use recycled glass for the covers. It is an established technology with well known and predictable costs and high chemical and UV stability.
This is a very good case for 2 things:
1. Colocating algae farms with sewage treatment plants.
And the stumbling blocks:
1) The closer you are to a city - the land is in use already
2) Open sewage pits (the open raceway model is the one claiming to be workable) would have issues
3) Many cities have very cold weather - thus limiting said treatment method
At its most simple a combination of a Pasteurization
While being 'simple' - it is not energy cheap.
The land is already allocated for the sewage treatment facility, and it tends to be towards the edge of town if there is any serious dealings with settling ponds and such already. Nobody puts a waste treatment facility on expensive land given any choice.
Of course, for a more distant farm you would run an aquaduct/pipeline from the urban facility to the more rural component. The energy cost would be just enough to start the run somewhat uphill from the target farm, which would ultimately be part of the facility itself and reduce the energy and land requirements at the core location.
As far as pasteurization being energy expensive, do you even know what's involved there? Bringing an already warm waste stream up to pasteurization temperature and making sure it stays there for a bit. Last time I had a look around a waste treatment facility it was *already part of the process*, though I think they called it by a different name since it isn't in the food processing chain.
It is very easy to say "that won't work", but if you are going to go around naysaying ideas you should at least have a better grasp of the fundamentals of the processes involved.
Mind you, I'm not claiming that I could latch a profitable algae farm onto the NYC water treatment plant overnight, just that in many municipalities it isn't a big stretch from what they are already doing.
The land is already allocated for the sewage treatment facility,
And if one looks into the amount of energy one is pumping into sewage treatment - what is being done is fossil (and other) energy is being used in place of "photons in the now time".
The energy density of photons from sun means you have to have land. A lot of land.
Of course, for a more distant farm you would run an aquaduct/pipeline from the urban facility to the more rural component.
And where is the "more distant farm" for say, New York City?
As far as pasteurization being energy expensive, do you even know what's involved there?
Yes. Do you?
Spitballing:
1 kwh will take 410 gals of water 1 deg F.
120 deg change and some rounding - 30kWh to 'pasturize' the 100 gal the avg. American uses
Last time I had a look around a waste treatment facility it was *already part of the process*
Name the plant. And when you "had a look around".
if you are going to go around naysaying ideas you should at least have a better grasp of the fundamentals of the processes involved.
Yes. You really should understand what you are talking about.
1 spoiled US of A human generates 80-100 gallons of wastewater a day. To avoid self shading - 1-2 inches of depth will work OR a whole lotta turbidity. So spread that 13 cubic feet out so it covers 1-2 inches. Now have that kind of land mass for ALL the waste water. Now keep it from freezing, have storage for non sunny days et la.
If one wants to use cattails - 5 m^2 per person (no idea if the cattails are to be subjected to 'freezing' in that numbeR) Now where ya going to find 5 square meters per person for say NYC?
Here goes Eric Blair...yet AGAIN...
We can't do THIS because of that....We can't do ANYTHING EVER AT ANY TIME....because, because...ahhh because??!!!??
You see Eric Blair is stuck in the role of critic...He can only tear down, not build up...He can find the fly in any ointment, the scratch in any wall....But he is not imaginative enough to sit down and think..."Hmmmm, here be a problem...Let's find a way to solve it"
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....NOTHING will ever work ever in any way shape or form....and we are all DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!(As Eric Blair said while hunched over the keyboard gulping cheese doodles)
Now watch...He will protest....And yet he will come up with no solution except the one posited by the Dean of the DOOMERS Jim Kunstler...You know, the one were the population of Earth shrinks to barely a billion and we all live like the Amish....SNORT
Is that the best you can do as a 'rebuttal'?
Had you been quicker - you could have found the errors in the 243 kwh number I had put up.
But instead of says 'No, Americans don't use 100 gallons of water' or 'No the wattage is wrong' or 'No the shading isn't an issue for 1 foot' you go with the above rant.
.And yet he will come up with no solution
I was pointing out why pasturization will not get used, nor why a algae remediation of municipal bio-solids won't be used.
except the one posited by the Dean of the DOOMERS Jim Kunstler
If I want doom, I'll quote Jay Hanson - He makes Jim "I hate ugly buildings" Kunstler look like an optimist.
But please - if you feel you must hang a label about my neck - Money Quest and his powerdown PDF.
Oh, and given the upcoming collapse of Phosperous - I'd be interested in hearing your handwaving .... and CAP FILLED .... response as to how .... with .... peak Phosphorus coming - and along with a lack of potable water there will be a die-off of humans.
Unless, of course, the aliens land and give Aviator202 some magic beans so she can plant the beans and the beans have stocks that grow all the way up to Free Energy Heaven - that place where the magnet motors run forever.
You are too angry to be posting rationally, I can hear it in your ASCII.
It also sounds like if any solution isn't a perfect fit for the worst case it isn't good enough for you.
Killing microorganisms with heat might just be a superfluous step if one is feeding algae, the plant in question was a small capacity one out west where they were releasing into a watershed that potable water was to be taken out of downstream and it was many years ago. It may well have been an outlying case due to the strict release requirements of their location, but they definitely were using heat as well as chemicals in their process.
I believe I also said, explicitly, that this wasn't likely to be a solution for the NYC municipal waste treatment, and you come back at me saying that since it won't work for NYC I'm all wrong.
Wait, wut?
posting rationally,
What was irrational about pointing out the energy needed for pasturization, the land requirements for spreading out the 100 gallons an inch deep, the land for using higher order plants, or the need to have the system function in low temps?
Killing microorganisms with heat might just be a superfluous step if one is feeding algae
Again - show a modern plant that is killing bioactivity with heat.
Heat for a de-watering process - yes. But the goal there is de-water not kill. Killing is a side effect.
they definitely were using heat as well as chemicals in their process.
You might add heat to move the 40 deg out of the ground pipe sewage water up to a temp where the normal bacteria can operate. Chemicals are used to move the PH about, not to mention the flocculation agents.
It also sounds like if any solution isn't a perfect fit for the worst case it isn't good enough
No - given the nature of the human population - existing in large population centers without access to land - photon powered bio-remediation is mostly a non-starter. You claimed that one can just 'bolt on' or 'pump to outlying land'.
So do show how one can 'bolt on' 5 square meters per person for cattail processing, or 100 gals per person spread out over 1 inch in most city locations. Esp cities over 50,000 people. That's only the surface area of something like the
Shreveport Convention Center or this:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/san-antonio/110856-250-000-square-foot-re...
I believe I also said, explicitly, that this wasn't likely to be a solution for the NYC municipal waste treatment
No - what you ... in the style of the day ... EXPLICITLY said was:
Hardly 'wasn't likely to be a solution'.
Would it have been better for you if I picked Mexico City? How about Sydney Australia - where there are water shortages so large open air pond(s) would only make that water shortage worse? (potable water shortages was why I was asking bout covering the collection ponds)
None of that changes that - for photons in the now powered bio-remediation of sewage using the cattail method (in a warm place) you'd need 41 square kilometers for the NYC population. Lets just call it the island of Manhattan. Now if you propose to flood Wall Steet with crap and grow cattail - perhaps we all arn't doomed. *wink*
Here, have the complete quote back:
Sounds to me like "here's the most extreme case, I'm not advocating that, but there are a lot more moderate cases out there where a solution might be possible".
I like Mexico City as a sample case. Let's ponder what might be done there. Or not, perhaps Mexico City is a victim of past success.
On the other hand, that means they have a nice lake bed handy right next to the city that would be attractively used for something other than the salt plant that is there now. There are numerous plans being floated for doing exactly that, so we'll give that one a rest.
But as I said in another post, you work with what you have. NYC is ideally placed as a port city, being at the mouth of a long, navigable river with a beautiful sheltered harbor. Algae farming as a waste processing method carries the assumption of year-round operation for which the climate of the area is obviously poorly suited.
New York is defined by it's skyscrapers, so:
Convert a portion of the southern-ish facings of the Wall Street area into more efficient solar reflectors, with tracking mirrors placed where appropriate to concentrate light even more effectively across the river.
Place across the river a multiple block wide, 15-20 story tall, cascading greenhouse designed to take in direct light from the south and reflected light from Manhattan to the north. (make is as large as is needed to accomodate the volume without blocking the light to Manhattan).
Pipe all the city's sewage into this greenhouse as water and fertilizer for algae ponds and whatever else can be persuaded to grow efficiently in it. Take clean water and plant/algae products out the other end.
Engineering wise, it could work. If the concentration effect could be optimized for siting on the Manhattan side of the river it would be even better, but that would cut the allowable height considerably.
I don't know whether anybody could make a profit off such a monstrosity directly, but it could be designed to be both beautiful and functional and a true asset to the city. It would certainly be a better municipal investment than yet another sports stadium.
I think Benneman (formerly of nrel) said 2500 gallons per acre of light per year with todays technology which could be quadrupled with new species of algae but fears that new species could be highly invasive. So at 10000 gallons per acre per year it drops to 7000 square miles(New York City is 300 square miles).
Of course in reactors with electric lights on 24-7 the production rate would be much higher.
"Of course in reactors with electric lights on 24-7 the production rate would be much higher."
Then we can have On Demand algae that flows directly into reactor with algae diesel flowing out, all small enough to fit under the hood of a Ford Extrusion. COOL!
My understanding is that Eliot Coleman of "Four Season Farm" and "Four Season Harvest" figures that one acre of land managed and planted in a well-considered succession can support a harvest of about 100 chickens per year. Chicken are higher up the food chain, maybe an order of magnitude or so, but still, there is a huge discrepancy in emergy between an optimized 10 thousand gallons and 100 broiler birds.
Suppose a new species of algae was so productive it sucked up 100% of the incoming wattage. What would feed the algae? At 100%, wouldn't that be Gray Goo?
cfm in Gray Goo, Maine
Suppose you didn't need any light at all? Well then you'd have to feed them. Heck maybe they could be grown on corn syrup, YES, THAT IS TONGUE IN CHEEK.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005028.html
So now all we have to do is find an energy efficient way to make sugar...
Maybe it's because I have spent and continue to spend time out on the ocean that I just can't get my mind around arguments about investing in land. 75 percent of the surface of the planet is ocean. I would imagine we can either harvest already existing algae that seems to wash up on the beaches at least where I live, or maybe farm it in the open ocean. If we don't want to transform it into liquid fuel we can use it as fertilizer or process it for food. We already are in the business of inadvertently over fertilizing certain coastal regions and producing unwanted algal blooms, I can't imagine it would be impossible to harvest and utilize some of it.
This is a scene that I see often on my local beaches, what happens to this wasted resource is the city comes along with a tractor and removes this stuff and disposes of it probably in some land fill.
METHOD OF PRODUCTION OF BIOFUEL FROM THE SURFACE OF THE OPEN OCEAN
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090119978
Farming our fuel on the ocean could be dangerous. We all know about top soil depletion. What happens when we remove and burn massive amounts of nutrients from the ocean?
Maybe we'll find out.
My point is we are currently pouring massive amounts of nutrients into the ocean which are causing algal blooms that are detrimental to our marine ecosystems. I was just thinking out loud about the idea that we might kill two birds with one stone by harvesting some of it. Plus the example I gave of the algae that washes up on our beaches and is dumped in the trash so to speak.
I would agree that we need to be very careful how we move forward but the truth is that we have already performed a massive global experiment with pouring fertilizers, chemicals, pesticides, farmaceuticals, herbicides and such into our oceans over the past few decades.
I don't see any way that we wil not try to farm the oceans, maybe if we become wiser in our ways we will learn to manage them sustainably, if don't were screwed anyway.
Eutrophication is the cause of many of these blooms, removing nutrients in that situation would probably be a good thing.
More that one million tonnes were removed at the algae bloom at the Olympics last summer, the bloom was caused by human activity.
What happens when we remove and burn massive amounts of nutrients from the ocean?
Nothing. Well the carbon goes back into the atmosphere. But the ocean is where most of our phosphate, all our potash, and a good bit of our fixed nitrogen ends up.
I'd guess the biggest problem would be the low EROEI on seaweed by the time you fish it out of the water and dry it out. On the plus side, maybe they would also recover a bunch of that sea of plastic floating in the mid-Pacific.
Memory serves me that part of the reason 80% of human population lives within (20 100?) miles of the sea was due to the transport of materials by water AND the nutriants the sea provides.
With the soil being improved by washed up seaweed as an example of said sea bounty.