Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Earth Power

Novel Algae Fuel-Farming Method Gets Big Backing 176

Posted by timothy
from the alcohol-project-leads-to-endowment dept.
Al writes "Dow Chemical has given its backing to a Florida startup called Algenol Biofuels that hopes to produce commercial quantities of ethanol directly from algae without the need for fresh water or agricultural lands. Dozens of companies are trying to produce biofuels from algae, mostly by growing and harvesting the microorganisms to extract their oil. Algenol has chosen instead to genetically enhance certain strains of blue-green algae, also known as cyanobacteria, to convert as much carbon dioxide as possible into ethanol using a process that doesn't require harvesting to collect the fuel. Algenol's bioreactors are troughs covered by a dome of semitransparent film and filled with salt water that has been pumped in straight from the ocean. The photosynthetic algae growing inside are exposed to sunlight and fed a stream of carbon dioxide from Dow's chemical production units. The goal is to produce 100,000 gallons of ethanol annually."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Novel Algae Fuel-Farming Method Gets Big Backing

Comments Filter:
  • Awesome to hear! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by electrosoccertux (874415) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @04:34PM (#28723111)

    Lets just hope the corn lobby doesn't catch wind of this...

    • Re:Awesome to hear! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by schmidt349 (690948) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @04:42PM (#28723229)
      Isn't Dow part of the corn lobby? [dowagro.com]
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      My first question after reading TFS is where these little buggers go after the salt water is pumped in. Presumably, the salt water is pumped out at some point in time. ... Oh, don't worry, I'm sure they filter them out after returning them to the ocean - yeah somehow I highly doubt it.

      I agree this type of stuff is the least worst choice, but something about genetically modified bacteria designed to produce fuel, in the ocean gives me the creeps.
      • Re:Awesome to hear! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @05:01PM (#28723453) Journal
        I agree this type of stuff is the least worst choice, but something about genetically modified bacteria designed to produce fuel, in the ocean gives me the creeps.

        It is producing alcohol. It is spending a part of its energy budget into producing alcohol, which is totally useless for reproduction and survival. Thus out in the wild it will be swamped out by the regular bacteria. Remember the currently bacteria living in the ocean have been fighting it out for some 3 billion years and they are as fine tuned to optimum as they can get. Any deviation from it is likely to fall at a suboptimal point in the fitness landscape. Any large deviation like producing alcohol is really a saltation. It will land it so far off the starting point in the fitness landscape it is likely to be much much lower than optimum.

        • by afidel (530433)
          What if the alcohol offers a competitive advantage by keeping their colonies from being eaten by other organisms?
        • by SharpFang (651121)

          so you mean the wine yeast is an extinct species?

        • by SQLGuru (980662)

          It is producing alcohol. It is spending a part of its energy budget into producing alcohol, which is totally useless for reproduction and survival. Thus out in the wild it will be swamped out by the regular bacteria. Remember the currently bacteria living in the ocean have been fighting it out for some 3 billion years and they are as fine tuned to optimum as they can get. Any deviation from it is likely to fall at a suboptimal point in the fitness landscape. Any large deviation like producing alcohol is really a saltation. It will land it so far off the starting point in the fitness landscape it is likely to be much much lower than optimum.

          Or the alcohol produced will make the immediate area uninhabitable for the existing buggers. This genetically modified version will start with a small area but reproduce and wipe out not only the competing bacteria, but all other marine life as they upset the balance that currently exists......these things not only change the scale biologically, but environmentally. Who will win? Who knows right now. But both outcomes are possible.....and it only takes a couple of mutations for it to swing a different w

      • ethanol and salt mixes with water. As such, they will likely use a distillation or a chromatograph to separate ethanol from the water and salt. To do that, means that it will run better if they do not have the algae in there. I think that they will have some sieve filters that will hold back large molecules, which will also hold back the algae.
      • No need to pump the salt water out- ethanol has a lower boiling point, so you simply boil it out of the tank- leaving the salt water behind to grow more algae. The ocean only is the initial input- from there on out, the tank produces ethanol until the algae dies.

      • Re:Awesome to hear! (Score:4, Informative)

        by ceoyoyo (59147) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @06:27PM (#28724447)

        You should have read TFA. Sometimes there are more details in it.

        The salt water isn't pumped out. The alcohol evaporates into the air at the top of the bioreactor and is skimmed off. The bioreactor does produce fresh water as a "waste product" but presumably they seem rather optimistic about finding a better use for that than dumping it in the ocean.

      • The algae aren't doing anything new, they are just doing much more of what they can already do. If this made them more able to survive in the wild than current algae, evolution would have produced them already. Instead, we have a bunch of algae which waste most of their energy pointlessly making and leaking ethanol - they won't survive long. Also, ethanol won't cause any harm unless in high concentrations. There are already lots of natural critters who produce ethanol, especially yeasts.

    • by hey! (33014)

      Especially if it ends up you can eat the organic residue. The omega 3 fatty acids that make fish so healthy for you aren't made by the fish; they're made by algae and bioaccumulated up the food chain.

      So have another of those yummy Soylent Green crackers... They've got everything needed to build strong bodies.

    • by b4upoo (166390)

      So far the money doesn't work! Creating 100,000 gallons of alcohol equals about 50,000 gallons of gasoline. The size and complexity of the facility indicates that this will loose money unless it scales up to far greater production.

  • This is a bad, bad idea.

    How long before it's noticed by the Invid???

    • by Jeng (926980)

      I would love to hear why you think its a bad bad idea.

      Care to inform people?

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invid_(Robotech)

  • Sources of Ethanol (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Frigga's Ring (1044024) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @04:37PM (#28723157)
    Good for Dow. It's probably about time some company jumped on this. I'm just waiting for one of the big oil companies to shut them down so they can go back to using expensive corn crops for ethanol. I mean, corn? Really? Couldn't they have come up with anything more costly that produces less ethanol? Oh! Coming in 2015 from Shell: puppy ethanol!
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tsotha (720379)
      The use of corn has less to do with oil companies than it has to do with pork barrel politics in farm states. Biodiesel will probably never be competitive with fossil fuels on a purely economic basis, so it's hard to believe the oil companies care.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nevergleam (900375)

      I was listening to NPR's All Things Considered yesterday (7/15/09) and they had a profile on a California start-up developing algae-sourced fuel in partnership with Exxon-Mobil.

      Oil companies aren't stupid. They invest heavily in all of the R&D for these alternative sources of fuel so they can oligopolize it when any of the research produces something practical.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

      This technology has a LONG way to go, 100,000 gallons per year is quite litterally nothing in the energy business.

      For example, the Alaska oil field, which produces quite a lot of oil but nowhere near what is needed, put out an average of 650,000 barrels per day, or just shy of 30 million gallons per day. That's ten and a half billion with a "B" gallons per year. Also bear in mind that Alaska accounts for only 1/3 the total oil production in North America, and also remember that the US must import 80% of i

      • by HiThere (15173)

        I don't think you understand building plants.

        First you do a research study. Probably in glass on a lab bench.
        Then you do a pilot project. This is in steel, larger reactors, etc. and is intended mainly to find out how things scale.
        Then you do a demo project. This is a really small scale version. Probably still too small to be economic.
        Then you do a small scale commercial plant.
        Where you go from there depends on how successful it is, but if you don't get this far, you just kill the whole thing off.

        Persona

    • by Sandbags (964742)

      OK, a massive expensive facility that requires proximity to an ocean, and in one YEAR it can't produce even 20% of what my town uses for fuel in 1 day.

      Dow, please get your heads out of your asses and look at an actual viable technology:

      dotyenergy.com.

      - Sequestered CO2 + Wind Energy = FUEL Propanol, methanol, ethanol, whatever hydrocarbon blend you want...

      A 250MW facility running on an annual cost of about $90M will produce nearly 30M gallons of fuels and higher alcohols. (300 TIMES what the algae farm cla

  • 100,000 gallons = drop in the bucket (SSIA)

    Note, the only reason I repeat myself is that I get this message when I try to leave out the body: "Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)"

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16, 2009 @04:47PM (#28723283)

      Note, the only reason I repeat myself is that I get this message when I try to leave out the body:
      "Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)"

      I think you mean, "I tried to post like an idiot by putting my message in the subject field, but Slashdot tried to save me from myself. I'll show them by being an idiot anyway!".

    • 100,000 gallons = drop in the bucket (SSIA)

      Yeah, I drink more than that in.....wait, is this my inner voice....

    • by tsotha (720379)
      I suspect it's a "plan B" option for DOW if carbon taxes go through. They can easily ramp up production if it's economically feasible.
  • by afidel (530433) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @04:42PM (#28723223)
    But less than 2,400 barrels of ethanol (~1,600 barrels of oil) is such a small drop in the bucket as to be laughable (The US consumes ~21M barrels a day!). Of course scale it up and feed it the output of some GW scale coal plants and you are starting to make at least some impact.
    • by ArsonSmith (13997)

      21M barrels a day? That's ~14 Barrels for each man/woman/child in the country. At $33 a barrel that's $168,000 a year per person, or about 4 times the national average household income.

      • by ArsonSmith (13997)

        whoops, forget all that, calculated it wrong. .05 Barrels a day per person and ~$600 a year. More reasonable.

        • by Smidge204 (605297)

          Still misleading, because a usage is not evenly distributed among the population.

          It'll probably blow your mind that you get more than 1 barrel of refined product out of one barrel of crude, too.

          But this is a good hedge bet. We have algae biodiesel, TDP diesel, cellulosic ethanol, and now algae ethanol.

          No single tech will solve our petroleum needs, but the more diverse our options the closer we get to energy sustainability.
          =Smidge=

    • Proof of concept? (Score:3, Informative)

      by mcrbids (148650)

      When considering new technology, scale is largely irrelevant. For a proof-of-concept, 2,400 barrels is not much more or less useful than 240 or 2.4 million, since even at the latter level, it's more an indication of how well funded the project is than it is an indication of the usefulness of the technology.

      The questions are:

      1) Can it be done?

      2) Can it be done cheaply enough?

      After those two questions are answered with "yes", then scale is largely a matter of getting sufficient capital, and working out the me

      • by afidel (530433)
        Yes, but you won't know the answer to your second question until you have operated a plant at (or near) commercial scales which this obviously isn't. That's why I said it's a nice technology demonstration, it's nothing like a test plant. It's more an intermediate step between the test-tube and a pilot plant.
      • by TubeSteak (669689)

        The questions are:

        1) Can it be done?

        2) Can it be done cheaply enough?

        After those two questions are answered with "yes", then scale is largely a matter of getting sufficient capital, and working out the mechanics.

        Ethanol still has two crushing problems:
        1. Anything over 10% ethanol (E10) destroys the fuel systems of old(er) cars. There are a lot of old(er) cars.
        2. E10 ruins most small motors (tractors, lawnmowers, weedwackers, etc) and is awful for marine applications.

        You can pump out all the cheap ethanol you like, but until all those "legacy" engines are out of service, ethanol cannot reach its full potential.

    • Actually, I could see it becoming interesting if it were made smaller-scale and efficient enough to have individual fuel producing systems for rural and distant suburban dwellers. Enhance public transit in cities (reducing the need for cars) where land is scarce, and it might be very well worth it for places where driving is essential and the grid is less reliable.

      Another (small but important) contribution to the many different ways we can kick fossil fuel dependence and go with renewable sources.

  • by idontgno (624372) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @04:43PM (#28723245) Journal

    of that pondscum whiskey.

  • Sorry. Read that as "Novell Algae Fuel Farming Gets Big Backing" and thought it a good question to ask if it ran Linux.
  • by wonkavader (605434) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @04:45PM (#28723265)

    From TFA: "Every gallon of ethanol made creates one gallon of fresh water out of salt water."

    This sounds interesting. If this can be cheaply scaled up, it sounds like coastal towns all over the developing world would want to become gas providers for more inland towns -- it solves their water problem at the same time as it solves their cash flow problem.

    I suspect there is a lot of distillation in the process as well, to purify the alcohol. So this sort of system would couple well with hot equator sun and passive solar systems.

    All this makes me wonder: how much human waste can you pour into the system to fertilize the algae? Can this system be used to solve that problem, too?

    And what do you do with the algae? Once you have a full tank, you just want to maintain the status quo, but the algae will continue to reproduce. Could the excess turn into an animal feed?

    • I assume that TFA wouldn't lie about something as verifiable as the freshwater production thing; but I'd like to have a better idea of how exactly that happens. I don't remember any notable quantity of salt being consumed in any aspect of photosynthesis or biological ethanol production.
      • Nothing quite so exotic- the salt is going to end up a toxic byproduct of this process. The rest is just solar-based distillation- salt water + algae + sun -> fresh water + ethanol, which is then further distilled down into it's component parts.

        • by Zerth (26112) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @07:22PM (#28724869)

          I'm sure the EPA or other agency has an "allowable salinity" restriction on water dumped into the ocean. If it is less than, say, double the normal salinity, they'll probably just stick it back in the ocean.

          Otherwise, they'll probably sell it as "Organic sea salt, purified by cute widdle ocean organisms".

      • by n dot l (1099033)

        I assume that TFA wouldn't lie about something as verifiable as the freshwater production thing; but I'd like to have a better idea of how exactly that happens

        Probably a byproduct of the distillation process they use to extract the ethanol.

    • These are awesome questions. I'm not really on board with this green tech stuff, because I think there is so much bad science out there right now (probably due to the politicization). But your comment almost inspired the geeky excitement I get over other areas of science. Good thoughts...

  • The 3 Steps (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    1)make a carbon-dioxide sequestering device.
    2)transfer CO2 to algae ethanol farm
    3)profit!!!

  • by matrix mechanic (893601) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @04:48PM (#28723291)
    And here I thought this was going to be about Exxon backing Synthetic Genomics. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/business/energy-environment/14fuel.html [nytimes.com] Algae fuels are just so hot right now!
  • $1.25 a gallon? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AnotherBlackHat (265897) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @04:52PM (#28723331) Homepage

    ... using a process that doesn't require harvesting to collect the fuel.

    Most of the reasonable plans I've read involve growing algae in ponds, sucking it up, and running it through a press (rather like an olive press)
    The expensive part of the operation isn't the press - it's the pond.
    As I recall, NREL recommended holes in the ground lined with plastic, and the pond was still the most expensive part.

    $1.25 a gallon is about twice the spot price for methanol, and $1.25 isn't what they can do, it's what they hope they can do eventually.

    Color me unimpressed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hey! (33014)

      I'd say that $1.25/gallon is pretty impressive, given the scale they're talking about, which is tiny. 100,000 gallons of ethanol/year? Production plants being built today have anything from one hundred to, in one case one thousand times that capacity.

      Why do people build big plants? To achieve economies of scale. If you built a back yard reactor that produced a thousand gallons of ethanol per year at a cost of $1.25, that would be darn impressive. Clearly, this thing is a model.

    • Re:$1.25 a gallon? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tsotha (720379) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @06:20PM (#28724385)

      $1.25 a gallon is about twice the spot price for methanol, and $1.25 isn't what they can do, it's what they hope they can do eventually.

      But remember they're using C02 as an input to the process. If cap and trade goes through this would allow them to sell or avoid buying carbon credits for other processes. I think C02 is a relatively common by-product in industrial chemistry. $1.25 isn't too bad if the cost of one of the inputs is negative.

      Also, don't underestimate the value of a continuous process. The big knock on batch processing isn't the cost of the press, but rather the complication (and cost) it adds to scaling the process. It's the biggest reason we see all those little pilot projects that seem promising but never go anywhere.

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @04:56PM (#28723389) Journal
    ... this could turn out to be the one that will allow us to tell the OPEC to go drink their own oil.
    • by tsotha (720379)
      It's not going to be even close to price-competitive with oil, at least in the foreseeable future. So I doubt it will have much effect short of major governmental playing-field-tilting.
  • by Gre7g (801284) <gre7g.luterman@g ... com minus author> on Thursday July 16, 2009 @04:56PM (#28723395) Homepage

    So, we could hook up the CO2 exhaust from a coal-fired plant, use that to grow algae, and then turn algae into fuel? And as a "dreadful" side-effect, we get clean water from sea water?

    Greenhouse gas reduction, renewable fuel, and fresh water...

    Why aren't we focusing everything we have on such a process? It sounds too good to be true.

    • What do we do with the excess salt?

      • Dump it back in the ocean?

      • by jhfry (829244)

        Put it back in the ocean. Any water that was extracted will end up there eventually. Even if it didn't it would be difficult to raise the salinity of the oceans by any measurable amount. If that were ever a concern, just flush the the salt into the ocean with the fresh water collected and have zero net salinity change.

    • by ArsonSmith (13997)

      We have several variations of it. We normally call it solar power though.

    • "Greenhouse gas reduction"

      I doubt it...

      Before: Coal - Power Plant - CO2 in atmosphere.
      After: Coal - Power Plant - CO2 - Algae - Fuel - Combustion - CO2 in atmosphere.
    • The downside is the land area required for the algae ponds, followed by the fact that your output is determined by solar input. They are basically solar panels.

      replacing the troughs with floating platforms on the other hand might remove the need for land and pumping seawater.

    • by SirGarlon (845873) on Friday July 17, 2009 @06:38AM (#28727791)

      It sounds too good to be true.

      It is. The CO2 from the coal-fired plant would not go away. It would be converted into ethanol and then released back as CO2 when the ethanol was burned.

      The reason some people are so excited about bio-fuels is they are supposedly "carbon neutral." They take CO2 out of the atmosphere, then release it back when burned. If one were to use CO2 from coal combustion instead, then the CO2 stored in the alcohol is coming out of the ground. In other words, inserting algae into the coal -> atmosphere chain does not change the carbon balance, only interrupts it.

      It is possible that adding algae into the chain could make energy production more efficient (more joules of energy per ton of total CO2 emissions) and may still be worth doing.

      My concern is that the coal plant owner would convince the general public (who by and large do not understand such basic scientific laws as conservation of mass) that their CO2 is a "green energy source" and therefore should not be taxed/capped as a greenhouse gas. In other words, using coal exhaust to feed the algae is basically playing a shell game -- "which one has the CO2 under it now?"

      The point to remember is that bio-fuels do not provide a net benefit to CO2 reduction. Ever. They're simply carbon neutral or approximately so.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CodeShark (17400)

        As another poster has noted, reusing the carbon once and reburning it halves the carbon consumption. But when you clean burn an alcohol based fuel, what do you get? Water and Carbon Dioxide. Meaning that you now have two of the three inputs into the fuel cycle, and if you only recycle the carbon dioxide one more time that makes the net carbon hit only a fourth of what it would be from coal fired, etc.

        Meaning that given the solar input which drives the algae to produce anyway, that if scalable this seems

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MrNiceguy_KS (800771)

        Don't be so dismissive of bio-fuels. Remember that the purpose of bio-fuel is to replace fossil fuels, and the CO2 that goes with burning them. That advantage holds true here as well. Yes, the carbon is released when the bio-fuels are burned. But (CO2 from industrial process into atmosphere plus CO2 from fossil fuel into atmosphere) > (CO2 from industrial process made into bio-fuel, then burned and released into atmosphere) You aren't just moving around carbon production, you're also producing a lot

      • by Sinical (14215)

        Well, that's not quite true. If we could replace overseas oil with this product, then we would reduce carbon emissions by however much foreign oil this new fuel supplants. It would also render us safer in the sense that we have assloads of coal here in the United States. It is true that it would not be as nice as using some other source of CO2 and at the same time closing down coal powerplants. But note that the two are not mutually exclusive: if we have some other source of carbon dioxide (as apparentl

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hador_nyc (903322)

        It sounds too good to be true.

        It is. The CO2 from the coal-fired plant would not go away. It would be converted into ethanol and then released back as CO2 when the ethanol was burned.

        The reason some people are so excited about bio-fuels is they are supposedly "carbon neutral." They take CO2 out of the atmosphere, then release it back when burned. If one were to use CO2 from coal combustion instead, then the CO2 stored in the alcohol is coming out of the ground. In other words, inserting algae into the coal -> atmosphere chain does not change the carbon balance, only interrupts it.

        It is possible that adding algae into the chain could make energy production more efficient (more joules of energy per ton of total CO2 emissions) and may still be worth doing.

        My concern is that the coal plant owner would convince the general public (who by and large do not understand such basic scientific laws as conservation of mass) that their CO2 is a "green energy source" and therefore should not be taxed/capped as a greenhouse gas. In other words, using coal exhaust to feed the algae is basically playing a shell game -- "which one has the CO2 under it now?"

        The point to remember is that bio-fuels do not provide a net benefit to CO2 reduction. Ever. They're simply carbon neutral or approximately so.

        You're wrong, at least partially. The ethanol does not displace extra electricity production, but could displace extra oil production. Think of it this way. Right now there are A LOT of coal plants. They aren't going anywhere any time soon. Hooking them up to this to make lots of ethanol would enable us to displace a lot of oil that is currently being burned in cars. So, this CO2 does get "burned" twice, but it does save the CO2 from the gallons of gasoline that are not being burned, but would have be

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sandbags (964742)

      Well, no.

      As a side effect, through ADDITIONAL processing, we can get water that can be filtered into drinking water, without actually having to run through traditional desalination.

      As a dreadful side effect, we'll have a mass of biowaste, and every last contaiminant in the ocean cleaned from the water becomes a toxic sludge waste, which will include large amounts of murcury, other heavy metals, and some farily dangerous compounds mixed in with some poitentially useful organic materials and other compunds.

  • by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Thursday July 16, 2009 @05:00PM (#28723441)

    1) Dow makes magic algae.
    2) Economic pressure forces Dow to make algae directly excrete ethanol in high concentrations (about 20%).
    3) Algae gets into environment
    4) Algae kills almost anything near it.
    5) Algae lives on rotting stuff it killed.
    6) Water around algae becomes flammable, sparked by lightning. Fires ensue.
    7) Worldwide, waterways and oceans become alcohol laden.
    8) Dolphin's social life improves remarkably.
    9) Whales start singing a *lot* more.
    10) Seals start coming ashore, seeking bars when their algae supply runs out. Barfights ensue. The ACLU gets involved. Punching seals is declared a hate crime.
    11) Growing algae becomes illegal. Everyone grows it anyway. California semi-legalizes "medicinal algae."

    • by TeknoHog (164938)
      10.1) So these two baby seals walk into a club...
    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      This sounds like a segment from "The Root of All Evil", where a comedian would try and convince Lewis Black that, say, Oprah would destroy the universe.

  • I have a theory that if this goes wrong, and some of the stuff gets out into the ocean, you get a blob like the one they're tracking up there...

  • TFA says 6000 gallons/acre/year of ethanol which translates to around $6000/acre/year assuming 0 costs. OK, so how are they going to amortize an acre of photobioreactor on $6000/year?
  • I can just see it now, we create some sort of alge that somehow gets out of its containment unit, and gone unchecked
    replicates itself until it has no more source of fuel, oxygen that is, to continue reproducing, cutting our own air supply ....sounds like we might be needing to bottle air up just in case a sort of self inflicted disaster occurs....! O_O

  • I can't believe that I of all people have to be the one to point this out. (Please bear in mind when I say that, that I am one of those Free Energy dudes who thinks Pons & Fleishmann were on to something and that it was suppressed).

    --I mean, I'd be as happy as anybody for a smart solution to the fuel problem to be embraced by industry. While wind and solar farming seem to be catching on, hydrogen and electric vehicles seem to be anathema. But anyway, the point of this post. . .

    Bacteria need more than

  • by bjdevil66 (583941) on Friday July 17, 2009 @09:14AM (#28729385)

    The Polytechnic campus of ASU in Mesa, AZ has created jet fuel out of algae [abc15.com]. That school has been focusing on many other solar technologies as well, since Arizona annually has an abundance of sunny days.

"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe

Working...