Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Renewable Energy From Algae? 620

Ravalox writes "With alternate fuel becoming a fairly hot trend in recent months, some academics may have applied their theoretical know-how to give us a practical solution. They offer up the idea that certain types of algae are well-suited to biodiesel production as they are nearly 50 percent oil. The article speculates that large pools could be created to farm out biodiesel from algae in areas near waste streams and salt water. They postulate that to replace our fossil fuel usage it would take only a total of a little over ten thousand square miles, which could fit in an area like the Sonora Desert."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Renewable Energy From Algae?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:10PM (#9253370)
    If this is true, I expect these guys will be involved in a "tragic fatal accident". *cough* Shell *cough* Imperial.

    I wish them luck
    • by cshark ( 673578 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:35PM (#9253620)
      Anyone remember KnightRider 2000? They postulated the same thing in the beginning of the movie. They also said it would cause the cost of oil to go down to nothing. Only they predicted Dan Quale would be president. So much for the nostradomous theory. Heh heh.
      • Gulf War II (Score:3, Insightful)

        I remember the President Quayle bit (shudder), but other thing that slips through the psychic scars was the mention that he was leading our country through "Gulf War II." Mildly creepy, that.

        <stands back and prepares for Dan Quayle/George W. Flame War>

    • by Rei ( 128717 )
      Oh, please. The oil industry doesn't kill people. ... outside of Columbia, at least.
    • by squidinkcalligraphy ( 558677 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @06:33PM (#9254167)
      I know quite a number of people using straight vegetable oil to fuel their diesel engines, modified by themselves. There are quite a few of them around, and they share the information and technology freely. In fact, they are in a lot of sense, like computer geeks and open source software. Quite a number of these people I know have heard about this concept for using algae, and a couple are heavily researching it. And sharing that info with other enthusiasts. We are talking non-heirachical, distributed operations here; very difficult to take down, as we all know.

      In fact, even the designs of some of these algae-plants are small scale - a few tubes of algae sitting on top of the van/truck collecting energy, these being fed into a centrifuge at the back to seperate the water, then through some filters, and into the engine.

      Near-self-sustainable transport.

      • In fact, even the designs of some of these algae-plants are small scale - a few tubes of algae sitting on top of the van/truck collecting energy, these being fed into a centrifuge at the back to seperate the water, then through some filters, and into the engine.

        Nice idea but TOO small a scale - if you want to run the truck more than a few minutes per day.

        Solar input at noon-intensity is on the order of a kilowatt per square yard. Solar input is equivalent to about five hours noon-intensity per day (vary
  • by NoDoZ ( 232151 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:11PM (#9253375)
    Alge grows in the desert?
    • by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) <seebert42@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:16PM (#9253431) Homepage Journal
      All you need is water, sun, and spores for algae to grow. Klamath Falls, OR is high desert- and anybody going swimming in upper Klamath Lake is going to come out GREEN. Algae production is already a primary industry there, albeit for New Age vitamins [celltech.com]

  • Solar Power (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:11PM (#9253378)
    And people thought solar power was useless.

    (I'm not saying this is useless, I'm saying it's a form of solar power that is cheaper and more efficient than huge metal arrays)
  • Hmm. (Score:3, Funny)

    by jpsowin ( 325530 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:11PM (#9253381) Homepage
    I can hear the "People for Algae" advocacy groups getting angry already. They're people too!!
  • by morcheeba ( 260908 ) * on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:11PM (#9253382) Journal
    Mix that algae with vinger-producing algae, and then splice these into lettuce. You'll have a salad that dresses itself!
  • Finally (Score:4, Funny)

    by mysterious_mark ( 577643 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:12PM (#9253387)
    My swamp land will make me rich!
  • Hey! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iswm ( 727826 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:12PM (#9253391) Homepage
    I live in the Sonora desert. Now I would appreciate if if you don't cover up my living area with algea, you insensitive clods!

    But really, it wouldn't makse much sense to have it all in one area. Lots of little farms of it all over the world would be quite interesting though. A few miles here, a few there, and the world is happy.
    • Re:Hey! (Score:5, Funny)

      by irokitt ( 663593 ) <{archimandrites-iaur} {at} {yahoo.com}> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:19PM (#9253471)
      I would be more than happy to donate my pool to the world's energy supply. Damn thing's too hard to clean anyway.
    • Re:Hey! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jjo ( 62046 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @07:35PM (#9254616) Homepage
      Don't worry, if you read the article, you'll find that they aren't in fact proposing to cover the Sonora Desert with algae, but just using it as a comparative yardstick to indicate how much land would be needed. The Slashdot summary, as usual, is wrong: the area needed is not the whole Sonora desert, but only 9% of its area. They actually say pretty much what you say:

      "The algae farms would not all need to be built in the same location, of course. In fact, it would be preferable to spread them around throughout the country, to lessen the cost and energy used in transporting the feedstocks."

      The best thing is that it eliminates the contribution to global warming. While burning biodiesel releases just as much carbon into the air does burning fossil fuel, producing biodiesel takes all of that carbon right back out again.
    • by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @07:57PM (#9254792) Journal
      Another good place to put it might be OVER the freeways in sunny areas as a sunshade. That area is lost to vehicles already, so why not ALSO collect the energy to fuel some of them without using up even desert land?

      Use transparent pipes and let the green light through. Like a plesant drive through a forest rather than in direct sunlight.
  • Politicize much? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:12PM (#9253392) Homepage
    As more evidence comes out daily of the ties between the leaders of petroleum producing countries and terrorists (not to mention the human rights abuses in their own countries), the incentive for finding an alternative to petroleum rises higher and higher. The environmental problems of petroleum have finally been surpassed by the strategic weakness of being dependent on a fuel that can only be purchased from tyrants.

    I must say, I wasn't expecting quite that sort of introduction to an otherwise very informative and logical essay.

    That aside, I'll never understand why pure alcohol has never been seriously pursued as a substitute for gasoline.
    • Re:Politicize much? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) <seebert42@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:19PM (#9253469) Homepage Journal
      That aside, I'll never understand why pure alcohol has never been seriously pursued as a substitute for gasoline.

      They tried it in the 1970s. Ended up taking about 1.5 gal in the tractor to grow enough corn to produce 1 gal of alcohol. But for a while, in my home county fair, lots of FFA boys got blue ribbons for building stills.
      • pure alcohol as fuel (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jecel Assumpcao Jr ( 5602 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:48PM (#9253743) Homepage
        Ended up taking about 1.5 gal in the tractor to grow enough corn to produce 1 gal of alcohol.

        If you use corn you do get these negative results, but here in Brazil we use sugar cane. The alcohol program, started in the 1970s, produced millions of cars (many of which are still running) until a shortage in the early 1990s scare most consumers away. It is making a major comeback since the introduction of "flex power" cars about a year ago. These work with either gasoline or pure alcohol so the buyer doesnt have to worry about future supply problems.

        At about $0.23 per liter (multiply by 4 for gallons) vs $0.57 for gasoline, alcohol is the current choice for everyone who can use it here even with up to a 20% loss in mileage.

        Starting the car in very cold days has proved to be the only real problem in nearly three decades of continous use. This isnt a big worry in Brazil, but probably would be in other countries.
      • Re:Politicize much? (Score:4, Informative)

        by SAN1701 ( 537455 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:53PM (#9253786)
        That's because your country was making alcohol from corn, and not from sugarcane. My country, Brazil, has a climate which facilitates the growing of sugarcane, and therefore cheaper sugar and alcohol production.

        Government invested in a big plan for cars in late 70s / early 80s, which was successful for some years, but, when oil prices fell, that program was cancelled (altough alcohol-fueled cars continued to be produced, in small numbers, all this time ).

        Now that oil prices rise again, cars with motors, called "FlexPower", which work with both gasoline and alcohol interchangeably ( and even with any mix of these combustibles ) are again selling very well. And they cost pretty much the same as cars with traditional, single fuel motors.
      • Re:Politicize much? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @06:10PM (#9253951) Homepage
        Completely incorrect. Visit the DOE's website sometime and read some statistics that aren't from the 1970s/early 80s. There still is one person pushing those bogus numbers (Pimental), but the general scientific concensus is that it contains 30-40% more energy than we put in.

        And regardless, even if it did take more energy than went in, that is irrelevant (the relevant issue is cost of inputs vs. value of outputs - for example, if you can get your energy to make ethanol from farm waste, you're in good shape, since people can't put farm waste in their gas tank, and it would otherwise be wasted).

        In World War II, the Nazis made fuel by hydrogenating coal. The energy to do so came from coal, the source material was coal, and the end product had far less energy than the inputs - and yet, it ran the Nazi war machine.

        Another way to put it: produced gasoline has 20% less energy than what we take out of the ground, but we still mine it. It's all an economic equation, not an energy equation. There's tons of energy in the earth; most of it, however, you can't put in your gas tank.

        This is, of course, all an aside. Ethanol has notably more energy than we put into making it.
  • At this rate, we'll be able to abandon the middle east in 5 years completely.
  • by JessLeah ( 625838 ) * on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:13PM (#9253403)
    For us to avoid a catastrophe with the US running out of fossil fuel and ending up in an awful post-apocalyptic scenario, "alternative energy" needs to be far, far more than "a fairly hot trend". It needs to be a serious movement. Getting all rosy-eyed talking about this bacterial production of biodiesel needing "only" 10,000 square miles is ridiculous. First, we need to persuade the Sheeple that (A) we are going to run out of fossil fuel, and (B) it it is imperative that we do devote those 10,000 square miles so that we can finally do so. (Or, alternatively, we could go with another alternative source of fuel, such as the TDP machines featured recently here.) Then, and only then, we can start patting ourselves on the back over devoting a 100x100 mile area of our own land to renewable fuel production, rather than depending upon volatile foreign nations to supply us with oil drawn from an ever-dwindling supply. At the moment, to the average Merkin, it will sound amazingly ridiculous to "waste" a 100x100 mile area "just so some pinko environmentalist wackos can stop using oil". (I'm sorry, but that's how the right-leaning folks in this nation will interpret it.)

    The general public in the US is so amazingly ignorant, they probably never even bother thinking that we could run out of oil, much less that we will, and that is is only a matter of time before we do (if no action is taken, which is looking rather likely as always).

    And half of them probably would say "Poppycock; there's no way we could run out of fuel. God wouldn't let that happen to us!" It sounds like an anti-religion troll, but I seem to recall actually hearing rubbish like that from the far-right...
    • by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:19PM (#9253468) Homepage Journal
      First, we need to persuade the Sheeple that (A) we are going to run out of fossil fuel

      Nope. Just start producing it cheaply and they'll have a reason to switch all on their own.

      At the moment, to the average Merkin, it will sound amazingly ridiculous to "waste" a 100x100 mile area "just so some pinko environmentalist wackos can stop using oil". (I'm sorry, but that's how the right-leaning folks in this nation will interpret it.)

      Wasting a 100x100 mile area is what the enviros will also complain about because of the disruption to the local ecology. There is no group harder to please than they are.

      The general public in the US is so amazingly ignorant, they probably never even bother thinking that we could run out of oil, much less that we will, and that is is only a matter of time before we do (if no action is taken, which is looking rather likely as always).

      That's because the sky has been falling for half a century and it's still nowhere closer to landing. Go back to the 40s and 50s, and you'll see just as many articles about there being only 50 years of oil left as there are now.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:33PM (#9253602)
      Way to persuade people to your cause, calling them sheeple, there. ...
      A problem with many geek movements is that geeks are every bit as smarmily elitist as the CxOs and MBAs they are fighting. The average person on the street (okay, I'm in europe) is NOT dumb, and treating them as such does not win their support.
    • by lpangelrob2 ( 721920 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:34PM (#9253615) Journal
      What?

      You make some good points, but I'll take up issue with some of them.

      First, we need to persuade the Sheeple that (A) we are going to run out of fossil fuel...

      Considering all the media hype that's gone into oil in the past year (and to a lesser extent, the past two years), I think this is common knowledge. If not yet, maybe $2.50 gas prices will... and seeing the recent decline of SUV sales, I think that message is getting through at least.

      At the moment, to the average Merkin, it will sound amazingly ridiculous to "waste" a 100x100 mile area "just so some pinko environmentalist wackos can stop using oil". (I'm sorry, but that's how the right-leaning folks in this nation will interpret it.)

      Among other things, people live in this 100x100 square mile area, you don't know what kind of an environmental effect covering it with algae would do to a desert, environmentalist wackos are generally limited to people that are a part of the A.L.F., and... have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, right-leaning folks (like me) are looking at the bottom line and think about how much money this would cost to actually do the things you said instead of talk about them? I am looking forward to owning my own house and installing a solar panel system. That is possible. 10,000 square miles of algae is just less possible, less feasable, and less economical.

      "Poppycock; there's no way we could run out of fuel. God wouldn't let that happen to us!" It sounds like an anti-religion troll, but I seem to recall actually hearing rubbish like that from the far-right...

      You're not the only one, I've heard this from people at church, too, and it bothers me to no end, considering we're supposed to take care of what we've been given.

      When technology becomes economical, you'd be surprised at what happens [enquirer.com].

      Interestingly enough, you'd find that shrimp farms aren't all that great for the environment either...

    • >The general public in the US is so amazingly ignorant, they probably never even bother thinking that we could run out of oil, much less that we will, and that is is only a matter of time before we do (if no action is taken, which is looking rather likely as always).

      Ignorance is only a factor for those willing to forget basic economics 101 from elementary school. It dictates a simple principle that is as follows:

      We will never "run out" of anything. It will simply become unaffordable for almost everyo
  • by ForestGrump ( 644805 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:13PM (#9253404) Homepage Journal
    my pool is green.

    -Grump
  • by fsterman ( 519061 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:16PM (#9253434) Homepage
    Or we could switch immediately to hemp which also eats up CO2, require ZERO modification to current engines, and support farmers in the U.S. http://www.artistictreasure.com/learnmorecleanair. html [artistictreasure.com] Hemp Car [hempcar.org] Hemp For Fuel [hemp4fuel.com] Norml [norml.org]
    • While I am a tree huggin hippy myself, hemp uses top soil and is much less efficient than algae.

      Now hemp as a renewable PAPER source.. I am all about that.

      As much I see the positive uses of hemp, keep efficiency and our limited top soil resources in mind. We currently have an abundance of saltwater and sunlight. 100miles squared is not THAT much to lose. Plenty of space in utah and nevada.
    • by kamapuaa ( 555446 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:50PM (#9253757) Homepage
      Hemp can be legally grown in other countries, where they'd be free to use hemp as a fuel source - and they don't! Using Ethyl alcohol as a mainstream fuel source is thoroughly discredited - it takes a lot of energy to grow plants. Susbtantially more energy than is derived from distilling it.

      I'm sympathetic to hemp advocacy, but in practice it comes off as blind support by people who primarily are pro-marijuana - why not advocate sunflowers as an energy source?

    • by SEE ( 7681 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:59PM (#9253839) Homepage
      Hemp requires too much arable land per gallon to be a successful biofuel. You could replace all the cropland in the world with it, and you wouldn't cover worldwide motor fuel consupmtion. Same with all the other crops-to-fuel systems, whether ethanol or biodiesel.

      Algae is a reasonable possibility, since it can be grown with salt water in shallow pools on otherwise economically useless land. I'm not certain it'd work, but it's the only biofuel that even has a chance.
      • Same with all the other crops-to-fuel systems, whether ethanol or biodiesel.
        Ah yes - this is quite true. Even Google [google.com] agrees with you on that.

        No - wait ...
        • Brazil has sugar cane, which is a far more efficient source of ethanol than anything you can grow in temperate areas. And it has far fewer motor vehicle miles per person than the developed world. That Brazil can do it does not mean the world as a whole can. The numbers just don't work.

          Now, if you massively reduce motor fuel consumption worldwide, you have a chance. But as China and India develop, the odds of that happening are close to zero, no matter how far you tighten fuel efficiency standards and a
      • by john.r.strohm ( 586791 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:22PM (#9254953)
        How interesting it is to see the waffling.

        On the one hand, we see no problem at all with dedicating 10,000 square miles of "otherwise economically useless land" to algae pools to produce oil (and waste material: recall that there is about 50% of that algae that is NOT oil).

        On the other hand, we scream bloody murder at the idea of dedicating a few DOZEN square miles of that same "otherwise economically useless land" for building nuclear powerplants and waste storage facilities, even though the nuclear plants will deliver one hell of a lot more power than the algae will.
  • by VistaBoy ( 570995 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:16PM (#9253437)
    Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake for the MSX had a plot involving an algae called OILIX that could create oil, and of course some bad guys kidnap the scientist and his creation. Kinda interesting that it can actually be done in real life though.
  • Hydrogen (Score:5, Informative)

    by Keighvin ( 166133 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:17PM (#9253450)
    Some types of algae, in environments high in sulfur, when deprived of sunlight for a few days also give off reasonable concentrations of hydrogen. The cycle is repeatable without any damage.
  • by osewa77 ( 603622 ) <naijasms&gmail,com> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:18PM (#9253455) Homepage
    Algae ultimately get their energy from the sun, as do plants. Whether this is a more efficient way of harvesting the sun's energy than other ways remains to be seen. The major potential advantage is that in this casethe algae produce oils/hydrocarbons which (hopefully) could be used in place of fossil fuels (no need to design new machines)
    ___________________
    and by the way, i blog [seunosewa.com]
    • Compared to silicon solar cells, biological processes are ultimately morbidly inefficient: "The primary reactions have close to 100% quantum efficiency (i.e., one quantum of light leads to one electron transfer); and under most ideal conditions, the overall energy efficiency can reach 35%. Due to losses at all steps in biochemistry, one has been able to get only about 1 to 2% energy efficiency in most crop plants. Sugarcane is an exception as it can have almost 8% efficiency. However, many plants in Nature often have only 0.1 % energy efficiency." - From Here [uiuc.edu]

      However, unlike solar cells, the algae produce no nasty by-products during manufacture, regenerate themselves if damaged, and eat up human waste on the side. Plus, the algae are quite simply far cheaper:
      • Assuming the algae are 4% efficient. Solar cells are roughly 5X as efficient, and therefore would need cover only 10 thousand square kilometers. At $400/M^2, covering ~10,000 square kilometers would cost 4.14 trillion dollars, compared to the stated cost in the article of 169 billion for algae farms. Algae win with a 30:1 cost advantage.
      • If you are more realistic and assume that the algae are more like 1% efficient, the solar cells will need to cover 2500 square kilometers, costing an even trillion dollars: The algae maintain a 6:1 cost advantage.

      Note that I'm not taking into account here what the economy of scale would do for the cost of the solar cells, but I'm imagining that the lower cost to maintain algae would still make them the preferred choice.
  • not enough (Score:3, Interesting)

    by feelyoda ( 622366 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:22PM (#9253500) Homepage
    Given the crazy estimates from enviro fear mongering of how much we would need to reduce greenhouse gas consumption to make a real impact, the 10000sq.mile area is not enough. What would it replace? all...
    ...petroleum transportation fuels.
    ...which account for only 16% of greenhouse gasses produces in America.

    Clearly such research is good. But beware the big numbers. First, they require large government intervention(otherwise, we needn't worry and the market will take care of things), which means that you shouldn't trust their figures to be that realistic. Second, they are talking about a change in a large sector of the oil economy. This would have to be slow by design.

    Again, this is good, but more needs to be done. Anyone want to fund a Grand Challenge/X-Prize for the best price/performance renewable fuel?


    What? You don't have $1B to blow?
    • by pavon ( 30274 )
      Given the crazy estimates from enviro fear mongering of how much we would need to reduce greenhouse gas consumption to make a real impact, the 10000sq.mile area is not enough. What would it replace? all... petroleum transportation fuels ... which account for only 16% of greenhouse gasses produces in America.

      Yep, and most of the rest could easily be solved if we switched to nuclear power, but those same fear mongerers are primarily the ones that are opposed to it. So they can just blame global warming o
  • Cost, cost, cost (Score:5, Insightful)

    by skwang ( 174902 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:24PM (#9253511)

    As with all alternative energy sources. It's the cost that holds it back. Whether we like it or not, oil is still the cheapest source of energy we have. Not only because of the price per barrel, albeit the highest is been in a while, but also because of the infrastructure costs associated with any new energy source.

    What we need in the US, and in the rest of the world, is a real effort to fund and off-set the costs of these alternative sources. Although I will support the free-market until my face is blue, I believe this is a good case for a the public sector to intervene in the business world. The problem is that this effort must come from the top. The presidential administration, who ever is in office, must be the one to lead this effort.

    I'd rather not get into a heated political discussion, but I do believe that the Bush administration wants to see us move from oil (you can stop laughing now). But they want the oil companies to lead the way. You notice that many of them, Exxon-Mobile for instance, now bill themselves as "Energy Companies," no longer wholy concentrating on petroleum. Despite the cynic, these companies do develope much of the solar, wind, and other non-oil technologies today, but don't pursure them due to cost.

    (That being said, John Kerry doesn't exactly strike me as someone whose presidental administration will supprt non-petroleum/fossil fuel causes.)

    True freedom from fossil fuels will not come quickly or cheaply, but I believe that if we pressure our leaders to help fund these alternative sources and lower their total cost of implementation, we can speed up the process. It may be naive but I can hope.

    • That being said, John Kerry doesn't exactly strike me as someone whose presidental administration will supprt non-petroleum/fossil fuel causes

      And how does a family that drived much of it's wealth from oil seem more likly to implement alternative energy sourceS?
    • Re:Cost, cost, cost (Score:5, Informative)

      by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 ) <mike@mikesmithforor e g o n . c om> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:53PM (#9253782) Homepage
      That being said, John Kerry doesn't exactly strike me as someone whose presidental administration will supprt non-petroleum/fossil fuel causes

      For what it's worth, part of Kerry's platform is an "alternative energy Apollo Project" to switch 20% of our energy production to renewable resources. Here's some information [johnkerry.com] that might be of use. Click on the link that says "Reduce our Dependence on Foreign Oil" as evidence of my claim; it will display my source paragraph.

  • by chaffed ( 672859 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:24PM (#9253512) Homepage
    This is an interesting idea. I've always maintained that a biodiesel industry would be best suited for a distributed model. Small installations around soybean farms to produce the oil and lower transportation costs.

    I guess a model like hoover damn would work. Build a large central installation that would produce a vast amount of energy. In doing so it provided a state with an economy that would have otherwise ended up like maine.

    No offence to maine but asside from lobster, timber, and steven king their aint much.

    I'm sure there are other costs and payoffs but that's the biggest I see so far, aside from the forgone conclusion of a cleaner environment and energy independence.
  • Where to put it... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:31PM (#9253576)
    10,000 square miles isn't that big; a 117 mile diameter pool. You could build that somewhere in Nebraska and no one would notice for years aside from airline pilots.

    Sounds good to me. Supplant oil production with algae and we can stop attempting to protect middle east oil resources from theocratic dictators. The only reason civilization still persists there is to maintain enough control to pipe out the oil...
  • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:32PM (#9253596) Journal
    If we can get usable energy from pond scum, are spammers now a national resource?
  • by Mr. Sketch ( 111112 ) * <mister DOT sketch AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:33PM (#9253601)
    I use about 800 gallons of gas a year, so according to their estimates of how much space it would require, would seem like I only need about 200m^2 (about 2000ft^2 for the metric-challenged) of space to produce my own biodiesel. So, could I just buy a 15mx15m biodiesel facility to put on my lot, and if it feeds on waste, we could pull that from the house, and we could buy in bulk the additional requirements (salt for the salt water and additional waste if our house doesn't produce enough). According to their cost estimates, the cost of a pond that size would be $1,200 with an annual maintance cost of $120/year, considering that I probably spend about $1,500 a year on gas, that would be quite a savings and it would be environmentally friendly.

    What would the feasability of that be? Of course, while traveling I would have to buy someone elses biodiesel, but it would be nice to be able to save some money for people who have the 200m^2 to put a algae pond.
    • Keep in mind that the figures are based on a giant economy of scale. They are estimating for one 10,000 sq. mile pond. you can't just multiply the number by the fraction of the space your pond would take up.

      Also keep in mind that you would have to maintain your personal pond in your free time. They don't say how many man-hours per gallon they esitmate, but again your efficiency woudl be a lot lower. You would do better to start some sort of algae co-op with your town and have everyone use it.
    • Problem is I doubt if you can just siphon off the sludge from your (no doubt smelly) algae pond straight into your tank.

      The article does mention that the oil produced by the algae would have to be processed by a refinery.

      So, this is not going to replace diesel, its replacing crude oil.

      you did read the article, didn't you... :^)
  • Sonora Desert (Score:4, Informative)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @06:04PM (#9253900)
    like the Sonora Desert

    Hey, I live in the Sonora Desert. And it's called desert for a reason. And the only way you'd ever begin to get me interested in wanting that in my backyard is if everyone here was profiting from it.

    Did I mention we already have a mosquito problem, strange as that might sound.

    Btw, has anyone considered what adding an additional 10K square miles of evaporation will do to the weather patterns? Of course not.

    If you want to use the desert, why not hydrogen farming using solar cells? Much less impact.

    • Re:Sonora Desert (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hektor_Troy ( 262592 )
      Hmm ... how about this idea: Covering it, so there isn't an evaporation into the atmosphere? Sure, building a 10,000 miles^2 roof is rather difficult, but build small ponds instead, cover them - not nearly as difficult ...

      Hell - you could probably have one in your back yard, if it's big enough, like a poster mentioned.
  • by ozbird ( 127571 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @06:29PM (#9254135)
    I wish people would stop assuming that desert is somehow worthless tracts of empty land - they've obviously never been to a desert!

    If you're serious about being environmentally friendly, convert 100x100 miles of cotton fields (heavy pesticide users) or rice paddies (heavy water users) to bio-diesel factories instead.
  • by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @06:40PM (#9254210)
    Why?

    Independance from the oil companies.

    1: Charge from domestic supply.
    2: Charge from PV on the roof of my house.
    3: Upgradable range. You can get 250-380 miles from NiMH batteries, LiON and LiS should improve on that.
    4: Acceleration, peak torque at 0rpm.
    5: Servicing costs.

  • by jonbrewer ( 11894 ) * on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @06:43PM (#9254230) Homepage
    They postulate that to replace our fossil fuel usage it would take only a total of a little over ten thousand square miles, which could fit in an area like the Sonora Desert.

    Wouldn't it make a little more sense to make 10,000 1SqMile pools? Make one and you still have to ship oil all over the world. Make many and keep the production close to the consumption.
  • by Un pobre guey ( 593801 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @06:56PM (#9254325) Homepage
    ...We found that at NREL's yield rates, 11,000 square miles (2.82 million hectares) of algae ponds would be needed to replace all petroleum transportation fuels with biodiesel. At the cost of $60,000 per hectare, that would work out to roughly $169 billion, to build the farms.

    The operating costs (including power consumption, labor, chemicals, and fixed capital costs (taxes, maintenance, insurance, depreciation, and return on investment) worked out to $12,000 per hectare. That would equate to $50.7 billion per year for all the algae farms, to yield all the oil feedstock necessary for the entire country. Compare that to the more than $100 billion the US spends each year just on purchasing crude oil from foreign countries.

    The most pathetic part is that the entire cost of the project, all of it, is less than the money we have already spent in Iraq to give that nation as a gift to energy traders so that they may continue on their merry international price-fixing way.

    Nobody seems to have realized that we have long passed the point where it is much more cost-effective to substitute fossil fuel consumption with something else than it is to defend our alleged interests in Persian Gulf oil with military might. And that does not include construction, production, and transportation costs, amortization, etc.

  • by kwhilden ( 25492 ) <kevin.solarhifi@com> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @07:16PM (#9254493) Homepage
    I like to tell people why biodiesel and linux are very much based on the same principles. Biodiesel is an Open Source fuel supply. Quite literally, anyone can make it, just by going to the supermarket and buying the ingredients off the shelf. Because of this, the knowledge to make biodiesel can't be stopped by the fossil fuel interests.

    Think about it....
    Fossil Fuel companies == Microsoft
    Biodiesel == Open Source and Linux

    The parallels are just so numerous, it's astounding. There are many many stories of some kind of fuel efficient engine or other technology that has been bought by FF or Auto companies, and quietly disbanded so the technology was never applied. MS has done the same thing countless times, but look how far it got them with Linux. :) Biodiesel is the same damn thing.

    Another parallel is how fast people are jumping on the biodiesel bandwagon. Fossil fuels are causing a world of catastrophic problems, and the obvious solutions are lacking. But biodiesel is an VERY obvious solution, that just about anyone can gravitate toward. It gives farmers jobs, and reduces pollution from any diesel vehicle, it increases energy security, it doesn't cause global warming... etc.

    The Algae aspect is really the first nail in the coffin for the fossil fuel Age. Think about it... a year's worth of fuel for the USA, from just 11,000 square miles of desert. And those figures use 1996 technology for algae production... given a little bit more R&D, it will get better.

    There's a lot more parallels for biodiesel and Open Source... for example the distributed nature of fuel production and the distributed nature of code production. You can think of more and reply to this post.

    About me...
    I have used B100 in my VW Jetta Wagon for two years straight, without a single problem. My car runs cleaner, quieter, and smells like french fries from the exhaust. I am one of the founding members of the GoBiodiesel Cooperative in Portland Oregon (www.gobiodiesel.org).

I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. -- Isaac Asimov

Working...