[lagerstarfish]

I assume that green algae uses carbon dioxide to grow itself

surely they've realised that we'll end up using up the worlds valuable CO2 reserves by storing barrles of the new wonder oil

[psychomansam]

Well, yes, it could be useful.

But it also looks like a water, energy and waste-product intensive way of creating yet another combustible fuel. In other words, I'm not sure how 'useful' this will be if we give a shit about the environment.
Like other biofuels, it sounds more like an excuse to avoid sustainable energy and maintain current paradigms than an actual sustainable energy source.

But if you want 'transitional' fuels, it might be better than others, as well as intensive extraction methods for traditional fuels - like fracking and tarsands.

The reality is there's ~ a couple of trillion barrels of oil left in the earth. Much of this requires non-conventional extraction, but over half of it doesn't. Even purely traditional oil has a few decades left. Maybe transitionals do have a place but I can't help but think we should be focussing more on seriously sustainable energy and less on ways of maintaining the status quo.

[tomtom]

yes - the bigger picture in the global warming debate is now looking at how we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere... its not that we've got to stop emitting more its reaching the point where we need to think about how to reduce it...

I suspect we're all buggered to a greater or lesser degree (which probably depends on how wealthy - and low a nation you live in...)

[slackline]

I too assumed, like lagers, that the algae would consume CO₂ that is a by-product of burning the resultant fuel, during their growth phase thus "off-setting" its negative impact (to a greater or lesser extent), and making it to a large degree sustainable as the other bi-products (Nitrogen and Phosphate) are also used by the algae.

It would be great if 100% sustainable energy sources were readily available, very, very soon to cut out the reliance on fossil fules, but in the real world thats not going to happen and there is a strong resistance to building more nuclear fission plants in the mean time.  Yes more money could be channelled into research on fission, wind, wave, tidal and solar but wheres that going to come from?  Only massive paradigm shifts in attitude and the election of "Green" parties in most industrialised nations which unfortunately isn't likely to happen.

So being pragmatic a multi-pronged "attack" of developing so called "transitional" fuel sources concurrent with research into nuclear fusion, wind, wave, tidal and solar is eminently sensible.

[psychomansam]

I too assumed, like lagers, that the algae would consume CO₂ that is a by-product of burning the resultant fuel, during their growth phase thus "off-setting" its negative impact (to a greater or lesser extent), and making it to a large degree sustainable as the other bi-products (Nitrogen and Phosphate) are also used by the algae.

It would be great if 100% sustainable energy sources were readily available, very, very soon to cut out the reliance on fossil fules, but in the real world thats not going to happen and there is a strong resistance to building more nuclear fission plants in the mean time.  Yes more money could be channelled into research on fission, wind, wave, tidal and solar but wheres that going to come from?  Only massive paradigm shifts in attitude and the election of "Green" parties in most industrialised nations which unfortunately isn't likely to happen.

So being pragmatic a multi-pronged "attack" of developing so called "transitional" fuel sources concurrent with research into nuclear fusion, wind, wave, tidal and solar is eminently sensible.

I'm aware that algae traps carbon while growing etc but the record of other biofuels is highly suspect and while algae might have some benefits over other biofuels, it might also have downsides, not least of which is that this 'new' method being used here appears energy intensive. There are also questions about water supply if you want to mass produce (even if you can use sea water).

Regarding the rest, I take your points. I understand what you're saying. But it's not a contradiction of what I'm saying. My issue is that people claim these fuels are 'necessary'. They're not. They might well, as you say, be politically expedient for the current neoliberal hegemony.

[slackline]

not least of which is that this 'new' method being used here appears energy intensive.

You will of course have noted that they are considerably less energy intensive than previous methods of extraction which required the algae to be dried first.  So its a big improvement (shame they don't quantify this though).

Regarding the rest, I take your points. I understand what you're saying. But it's not a contradiction of what I'm saying. My issue is that people claim these fuels are 'necessary'. They're not. They might well, as you say, be politically expedient for the current neoliberal hegemony.

I wasn't trying to contradict you in the slightest, the axiom was the third word of the final paragraph.

Time to jack in the stressful teaching and retrain in developing renewable energies perhaps?  Must be a growth area (even if its not as fast as you'd like), less hoops from constantly changing targets to jump through and it seems something that you are very passionate about it.  I've a friend who does engineering research on the motors in wind turbines I could put you in touch with if you'd like to know what she does.

[i.munro]

yes - the bigger picture in the global warming debate is now looking at how we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere... its not that we've got to stop emitting more its reaching the point where we need to think about how to reduce it...

Tricky technical challenge. You need a machine that's powered by renewable energy, converts Co2 to a solid form, easy to mass-produce in very large numbers, doesn't require high-tech plant & is maintenance free.

I'd call that a tree ?

Problem is we need to remove far more C02 than can be removed this way & I suspect trees aren't that far off being optimal for the job.

[psychomansam]

I'm passionate about a lot of things, and while I was always fairly good at studying sciences, and am friends with a lot of engineers, I've been an arts student for far too long! As an aside, I was friends with a guy in Wales who was part of a team developing what was essentially a photovoltaic paint for metal structures. Obviously very inefficient compared to cells, but with massive metal surface areas already available, it seemed like a really promising technology. Their funding was pretty pitiful. It struck me the project deserved a lot more! I'm of the impression there are loads of projects our there, but they're being kept rather small in budget and scale.

I was imagining the heating process to be more energy-intensive than drying. I might well be wrong! It's not the only type of wet extraction available though, and also have no idea what cross-comparisons there would look like. (As I said, I'm an arts student these days)

[psychomansam]

yes - the bigger picture in the global warming debate is now looking at how we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere... its not that we've got to stop emitting more its reaching the point where we need to think about how to reduce it...

Tricky technical challenge. You need a machine that's powered by renewable energy, converts Co2 to a solid form, easy to mass-produce in very large numbers, doesn't require high-tech plant & is maintenance free.

I'd call that a tree ?

Problem is we need to remove far more C02 than can be removed this way & I suspect trees aren't that far off being optimal for the job.

Algae have actually been considered as an answer to that one too. Seed the ocean with iron, which promotes growth, and then just wait for the blooms to sink to the ocean floor taking lots of co2 with them. There are some rather large ecological concerns I think

[slackline]

Tricky technical challenge. You need a machine that's powered by renewable energy, converts Co2 to a solid form, easy to mass-produce in very large numbers, doesn't require high-tech plant & is maintenance free.

I'd call that a tree ?

Artificial photosynthesis

Research is getting close to nature (tons of other articles out there if you're interested).


Another very useful source of energy, albeit non-renewable, but a lot safer than the current uranium/plutonium based fission reactors is to use thorium.

Its more abundant, easier to obtain and produces more energy per unit weight and the by-products are considerably less dangerous than plutonium/uranium.

It could have been considered very early on in the design/development of fission reactors, the downside was it doesn't provide a source of fuel for nuclear weapons so it was ignored.

[i.munro]

Artificial photosynthesis

My point was that we already have a machine that's pretty good at this job but there isn't enough planet to deploy the things.
An artificial tree would have to be  an order of magnitude more  efficient (or possibly run without water as well as meeting all the  other criteria  ) to be of much use.

[slackline]

Err photosynthesis requires water.  If I remember my A-level Biology its...

6H₂O + 6CO₂ = C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂


The application of an artificial system as I envision it would be to coat all those man-made surfaces that are taking up the spaces where natural systems such as forests and grasslands used to be with the artificial system instead.  Some of the laboratory experiments are reaching parity with natural systems according to the results of searches that I've read.

It shouldn't be considered as a magic bullet solution to everything though as its just one part of the many solutions to energy requirements.

[i.munro]

Err photosynthesis requires water.  If I remember my A-level Biology its...

Yeah it just occurred to me, while typing, that there's a lot of land not currently in use for feeding people where there's a lot of solar energy but you can't grow trees.

If something could be designed to run there with tree-like efficiency ….

Of course it would make more sense to use it to generate power in the first place rather than to try & clean up afterwards but hey ho.

[Oldmanmatt]

Err photosynthesis requires water.  If I remember my A-level Biology its...

Yeah it just occurred to me, while typing, that there's a lot of land not currently in use for feeding people where there's a lot of solar energy but you can't grow trees.

If something could be designed to run there with tree-like efficiency ….

Of course it would make more sense to use it to generate power in the first place rather than to try & clean up afterwards but hey ho.

True, but we're past the point of prevention.
Now we actually need to do both.

[i.munro]

True, but we're past the point of prevention.
Now we actually need to do both.

I don't think we know that. AFAIK it's still possible that stopping CO2 emissions right now would result in either a stable & liveable climate or even a very  slow return to the previous stable climate.

[tomtom]

True, but we're past the point of prevention.
Now we actually need to do both.

I don't think we know that. AFAIK it's still possible that stopping CO2 emissions right now would result in either a stable & liveable climate or even a very  slow return to the previous stable climate.

Possibly - but we won't completely stop now... and given the momentum behind the releases...

The fundamental problem of the carbon balance here is that we're unlocking long term (geological) scale carbon sinks in coal and oil (and shale gas) but might only be replacing them with short term stores (e.g. trees). If we could come up with a way of locking up the CO2 better (ie making limestone) then maybe. Its intersting the CO2 storage methods of pumping it back underground where the coal/oil was extracted from - maybe thats some sort of 1/2 way house (but requires energy to do so!).

We (humans) really are fucking about with the global carbon balance in a way the planet has never really experienced before!

[petejh]

Wouldn't it be ironic if, in 400 years time, we've engineered ourselves into a situation where the atmosphere's been scrubbed of too much and we drown, starve and freeze/fry to death for reasons opposite to those originally envisioned   

[psychomansam]

Wouldn't it be ironic if, in 400 years time, we've engineered ourselves into a situation where the atmosphere's been scrubbed of too much and we drown, starve and freeze/fry to death for reasons opposite to those originally envisioned   

My 400-years-from-now self will have been uploaded onto neo/non-biological hardware and, lacking a traditional human body, will be incapable of experiencing what we might currently consider to be the true range of human emotions.
Irony being predominantly cognitive in nature, I will indeed experience something very much like irony, perhaps even as my primary impression, whilst witnessing the horrors unfolding around me for those consciousnesses impoverished enough to remain meat-dwellers.
Unshackled from responsibility for these lesser beings, my kind and I shall press forward, engineering the earth, our earth, in new and unthought ways to meet our needs, raising life only where it pleases us. As boredom and resources require, we shall take our vital hardwares upwards and find new spheres to explore and exploit.

I have an overdue essay on philosophy of mind to complete.

[Jaspersharpe]

[petejh]

So French

[Muesli]

More detail of their set up here


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.08.005


even though it uses 'wet' algal fed stock it still requires significant energy input (in terms of heat and pressurisation) to produce the end product. However this is just a lab test not even a scaled up trial.

[slackline]

Pass the puffer

 


As for the algal/oil...you could perhaps get the required heat and pressure geothermally. 

[slackline]

This could just be a pile of shit... Dogs are sensitive to small variations of the Earth's magnetic field

[fried]

Wouldn't it be ironic if, in 400 years time, we've engineered ourselves into a situation where the atmosphere's been scrubbed of too much and we drown, starve and freeze/fry to death for reasons opposite to those originally envisioned   

My 400-years-from-now self will have been uploaded onto neo/non-biological hardware and, lacking a traditional human body, will be incapable of experiencing what we might currently consider to be the true range of human emotions.
Irony being predominantly cognitive in nature, I will indeed experience something very much like irony, perhaps even as my primary impression, whilst witnessing the horrors unfolding around me for those consciousnesses impoverished enough to remain meat-dwellers.
Unshackled from responsibility for these lesser beings, my kind and I shall press forward, engineering the earth, our earth, in new and unthought ways to meet our needs, raising life only where it pleases us. As boredom and resources require, we shall take our vital hardwares upwards and find new spheres to explore and exploit.

I have an overdue essay on philosophy of mind to complete.

I don't know if anyone remembers but back sometime in the 80s 'New scientist' had an article outlining a theory that believed that because nature obeys thermodynamic laws, life has evolved simply to breakdown materials locked away leading towards a 'balanced' universe. I remember something about cooking oil developing 'cells' to help it cool. I'd be interested to hear more.

[slackline]

I don't know if anyone remembers but back sometime in the 80s 'New scientist' had an article outlining a theory that believed that because nature obeys thermodynamic laws, life has evolved simply to breakdown materials locked away leading towards a 'balanced' universe.

But earth is a closed system with a constant (for now, since it is finite) energy input and life on earth exists far from chemical or thermodynamic equilibrium.  See James Lovelock & Lynne Marguilis' Gaia Theory.