Robert,
I've been working on algae at NASA for two years and I agree that onshore solutions have at least five problems:

  • - energy for cooling
  • - energy for mixing (300W/m2)
  • - energy for de-watering
  • - energy for pumping
  • - indirect land use problems
  • We have concluded that it makes sense to do this offshore and use the ocean to solve these problems with some cool NASA forward osmosis membranes that the astronauts use for converting urine to drinking water.
    see also
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasa-fuel-algae-sewage

    I've read that if you spray Iron onto the Ocean you get 'algae blooms' -I guess we could 'harvest' these... (Couldn't this also be used to dramatically increase offshore fish populations too?)

    Nick.

    Doesn't work. There will be a secondary surge in population of grazing zooplankton and predatory zooplankton. All comes to naught. Unless perhaps you do a prediction of which zooplankton species will surge in population, and do a pre-emptive spraying of viruses and phages to wipe out the grazing zooplanktons.

    Your FO membranes will foul very rapidly from the Exopolymeric substances given off by the algae. Rob accted for 20% flux reduction, but I think depending on the species, you might be seeing something more severe than that, particularly for algae that weeps oil, like Botryoccocus Braunii.

    Cheers,
    Ray

    We have already done extensive cycling on the membranes. The algae forms a layer on top but it doesn't impact performance. We have cycled the membranes 30 times which is equivalent to 1 year of use in the ocean. We are repeating more tests, but these particular membranes have already been through some pretty severe testing required for spaceflight and other food processing applications. I'm not how you can make such statements without knowing what kind of materials that we are using.

    In response to your other concern, we are not using Botryoccocus Braunii, it grows too slowly.

    PM me. :)

    Cheers,
    Ray