Possible Fix For Global Warming? Algae To Capture Carbon Dioxide

[JohnWxy]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0407-possible_fix_for_global_warming.htm


April 1, 2007 — Engineers have designed a simple, sustainable and natural carbon sequestration solution using algae. A team at Ohio University created a photo bioreactor that uses photosynthesis to grow algae, passing carbon dioxide over large membranes, placed vertically to save space. The carbon dioxide produced by the algae is harvested by dissolving into the surrounding water. The algae can be harvested and made into biodiesel fuel and feed for animals. A reactor with 1.25 million square meters of algae screens could be up and running by 2010.

[Indydem]

1. Its likely not a popular position on this board...

But I've always felt that science will develop a solution and the panick by Al Gore and some other environmental advocates is not really helping the cause.

[JohnWxy]

4. Im staggered by the apathy regarding Global warming.

[kristopher]

9. So am I.

Imagine all those assholes who place their personal financial gain ahead of effectively dealing with the problem.

[msongs]

10. reducing pollution is ALWAYS a good concept nt

[Indydem]

12. Oh absolutely, don't get me wrong...

I drive a midsize car that gets 30+ mpg and all my light bulbs at home are CFL's. We did extra insulation last fall, and are doing our best to reduce our carbon footprint through a multitude of methods.

My point is that when people hear doom and gloom predictions that forcast our demise (Ted Turner - canibalism) it makes the average person tune out and ignore the real problem.

[kristopher]

2. As described, this isn't sequestration.

If you use the algae to make biofuels, you are ultimately releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere when you combust the biofuel.

[Peregrine]

5. This is considered carbon neutral

You release the same amount of carbon into the air as you took out. BUT, at this stage we need a net loss in carbon.

[JohnWxy]

6. actually biodiesel burns cleaner than fossil fuels like gasoline or diesel. So

you should get a net reduction in CO2 - although not 100% sequestration.

[kristopher]

8. That isn't correct.

You release all of the carbon captured by the algae from the coal plant back into the air when it is combusted. "Burning cleaner" has nothing to do with it, we aren't talking about particulate pollution.

[JohnWxy]

15. I know you're not interested in this (scientific) stuff but for those who are:

http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=3&storyid=9773

A New Zealand-based producer claimed the biodiesel produced in the country's South Island emits around 50 per cent less carbon dioxide over its life cycle than mineral diesel. Biodiesel New Zealand (NZ) General Manager Paul Quinn said the reduction in carbon emissions from the country's outputs, which are drawn from homegrown rapeseed, far exceed the 35 per cent proposed by the New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr. Jan Wright.


http://www.commerce.state.il.us/dceo/Bureaus/Energy_Recycling/Energy/Renewable+Fuels/06What_Are_RenewableFuels.htm

"B100 reduces carbon dioxide emissions by more than 75 percent. B20 yields a 15 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. "

[madokie]

16. Thank you John, I'm liking what I'm reading

sure is hard to get a word in sometimes for all the 'you can't do that' folks chiming in, huh

[JohnWxy]

20. I seem to attract them - Internet wierdo's and geekoids. who never tire of seeing their "profound"

pronouncements on their screen. what's really bad is when there as stupid as 'this' one is. Much of the time when he thinks he's being brilliant he makes no %#&#@*% sense at all!

[kristopher]

21. Stupid is not being able to follow the flow of carbon

Stupid is not being able to follow the flow of carbon from coal to algae to atmosphere.

Or perhaps that's just basic dishonesty inspired by greed.

[kristopher]

19. And I know you hate basic logic but for those who don't

The original claim is for a method of "sequestering" carbon.

The algae uses carbon from fossil fuel to grow.

That is the carbon forming the basis of the claim to being "sequestered."

When you burn the algae or allow it to decompose, that "sequestered" carbon is released into the atmosphere, no different than if it had been allowed to go up the smokestack in the first place.

We aren't comparing biofuels to fossil fuels, we are tracking the eventual disposition of the coal carbon that was claimed to have been "sequestered".

The claim is false.

[JohnWxy]

22. This isn't carbon sequestration since it's proposed that the algae

be used to make biodeisel. I agree with that. But re my last comment about biodiesel: biodeisel does produce less GHGs than fossil fuels. that's what I was talking about. that's what my reference to scientific, empirically validated conclusions, was about.

My interest in the article is that is proposes a way of taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and producing a net reduction in said CO2. It supplies energy in the form of biodiesel with a net reduction of a GHG (by supplanting a fossil fuel). This is, I believe, a good and practical idea.

[kristopher]

23. Again, it isn't a "net reduction" of CO2

I understand your math; you are basing the claim on an all things being equal in the use of energy. But the FACT is you are still introducing CO2 that WAS geologically sequestered into the atmosphere for a NET INCREASE. If you want to make the carbon neutral argument, then the CO2 must be prevented from entering the biosphere. If you want a NET DECREASE then you have to NOT burn the coal AND produce the algae with atmospheric carbon as input then that algae locked carbon must be locked away underground or under the ocean.

In otherwords you are making another bogus, self serving argument to promote your company's product.

[kristopher]

11. Not carbon neutral.

The original source of carbon is coal. You are just delaying its release for a net increase.

[kristopher]

13. If we dump the algae down a old coal mine shaft and cover it...

If we dump the algae down a old coal mine shaft and cover it so that it doesn't decay, then we have sequestered the carbon from the coal.

[Indydem]

14. Actually.. i don't think the summary in the OP is correct...

The algae convert the CO2 to OXYGEN and then the excess algae is turned into biofuels. The CO2 that is being disolved in the water is the flu gases from a power plant, and then the algae feeds on them, turning it into O2.

Am I reading the article right?

[JohnWxy]

17. Yes, you are -- quote from the article:

"That carbon dioxide is broken down by the algae. Nitrogen and clean oxygen are released back into the atmosphere."

The summary was the first paragraph of the article mistated the process. Carbon dioxide is taken up by the algae - not produced by the algae - Oxygen is produced and is released by the algae.

apparently whoever wrote the article didn't have it down in their notes correctly.

[Massacure]

25. Except that when the algea is turned into biofuels and burned it produces CO2 again...

If you wanted to sequester the carbon dioxide you would have to take the algae and prevent it from decomposing or turn it into a hydrocarbon and then shove that somewhere it will be nice and safe for a few million years.

[NickB79]

26. No, photosynthesis converts water, not CO2, into oxygen

CO2 is not split into carbon and oxygen; the O-C bond is too strong relative to the O-H bond of water.

The algae convert the CO2 into carbohydrates through the Calvin cycle, and can process them further into oils, which are refined into biodiesel. When burnt, the biodiesel releases the same amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere as was incorporated into the oil by the algae.

[kristopher]

27. Plus CO2 from the input energy required for the entire process. nt

[panader0]

3. I saw something about that on TV

Way cool. I think it was in Arizona. I really think that humanity has the brains to fix things, if they can just keep the big corps out of trying to turn a profit. Actually, a profit is good, but an obscene profit is not. (Exxon/Mobil)

[applegrove]

7. Sounds like a plan!

[Zachstar]

18. Sounds like a start!

We got a break till 2018 so lets use that time to start getting these active systems online!

[Aragorn]

24. a similar idea..

I heard trees do this too...