NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/index.html

I especially like the part about algae sex lives. I bet they throw killer parties. :)

Wow. 33,000 gallons/acre yearly is prety impressive - and that's just the test bed.
There's hope yet. :)

Even better, the hydrogen economy will be built on algae (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.04/mustread.html?pg=5).

More:
Mutant Algae Is Hydrogen Factory
Sam Jaffe Email 02.23.06 | 12:00 PM

Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have engineered a strain of pond scum that could, with further refinements, produce vast amounts of hydrogen through photosynthesis.

The work, led by plant physiologist Tasios Melis, is so far unpublished. But if it proves correct, it would mean a major breakthrough in using algae as an industrial factory, not only for hydrogen, but for a wide range of products, from biodiesel to cosmetics.

The new strain of algae, known as C. reinhardtii, has truncated chlorophyll antennae within the chloroplasts of the cells, which serves to increase the organism's energy efficiency. In addition, it makes the algae a lighter shade of green, which in turn allows more sunlight deeper into an algal culture and therefore allows more cells to photosynthesize.

"An increase in solar conversion efficiency to 10 percent ... is thought to be enough to make the mass culture of algae viable," says Juergen Polle, a former student of Melis’ who now does research on algae at the City University of New York, Brooklyn.

Polle points out that Melis has probably already reached that 10 percent threshold. But further refinements are still required before C. reinhardtii farms would be efficient enough to produce the world’s hydrogen, which is Melis’ eventual goal.

Currently, the algae cells cycle between photosynthesis and hydrogen production because the hydrogenase enzyme which makes the hydrogen can’t function in the presence of oxygen. Researchers hope to further boost hydrogen production by using genetic engineering to close up pores that oxygen seeps through.

Melis got involved in this research when he and Michael Seibert, a scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, figured out how to get hydrogen out of green algae by restricting sulfur from their diet. The plant cells flicked a long-dormant genetic switch to produce hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide. But the quantities of hydrogen they produced were nowhere near enough to scale up the process commercially and profitably.

"When we discovered the sulfur switch, we increased hydrogen production by a factor of 100,000," says Seibert. "But to make it a commercial technology, we still had to increase the efficiency of the process by another factor of 100."

Melis’ truncated antennae mutants are a big step in that direction. Now Seibert and others (including James Lee at Oak Ridge National Laboratories and J. Craig Venter at the Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland) are trying to adjust the hydrogen-producing pathway so that it can produce hydrogen 100 percent of the time.

A bigger challenge, and one that’s further down the road to solving, is improving the efficiency of the hydrogenase itself.

"Right now the electron chain that goes into the system should produce a lot more hydrogen than comes out, and we don’t know what’s causing the bottleneck," says Seibert. "More basic research is needed to better understand exactly what’s happening in there." Seibert also points out that there are plenty of naturally occurring hydrogenases in microbes, most of which haven’t been studied and some of which might be much more efficient than the one used by C. reinhardtii.

Whether or not scientists can find solutions for those two problems will have a lot to do with realizing the vision of a hydrogen-powered economy based on algae farms in desert areas.

But algae can do a lot more than produce hydrogen. They are already used widely in the cosmetics industry to produce key chemicals used in make-up and perfume. And pharmaceutical companies have long viewed algae as a potential way to produce drugs in a cheap and environmentally friendly manner.

Some algae are also viewed as an ideal source for biodiesel because they can produce oils at a much higher rate than other plants (which can then be converted into vehicle fuel without adding any carbon dioxide to the environment).

For all these applications, Melis’ antenna-truncated algae should be a major breakthrough, allowing higher rates of production and thus making the end product more cheaply.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70273

Even better, the hydrogen economy will be built on algae (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.04/mustread.html?pg=5).
Oh yeah, it is even better. But also much farther from being economically viable.

Beware of Saudis bearing bags of chlorine.

Awsome Algae are already alive and allieviating aglobal awarming.
aha!

Awsome Algae are already alive and allieviating aglobal awarming.
aha!

Don't they tend to suffocate every other living thing in the body of water when they grow out of control?

Something like eutrophication.

Soylent Green for cars?

Doesn't that pond scum gas cost like $20.00 a gallon? You'd be better off liquifying coal.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/index.html

I especially like the part about algae sex lives. I bet they throw killer parties. :)

Even better, the hydrogen economy will be built on algae (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.04/mustread.html?pg=5).

More:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70273
Very, very cool...

Very, very cool...
How is it cool? You would never be able to afford it.

Don't they tend to suffocate every other living thing in the body of water when they grow out of control?

Something like eutrophication.

i don't know. i Just wanted to put A's on the front of my words.:(

How is it cool? You would never be able to afford it.

Indri, of course its not very cost effective Right Now, but the more they grow and produce price breaks are inevitable.

Indri, of course its not very cost effective Right Now, but the more they grow and produce price breaks are inevitable.
Of course my new baby-mauler 3000 isn't very cost effective or popular Right Now, but if I make enough of them people will eventually be fighting over them at the stores.

It's not the low supply that's the problem, it's the high cost of production, even in this case. It's a bad idea. It's inefficient. There are better, more cost effective alternatives available right now. Trust me when I say that this will end up going the way of the Ford Nucleon, the EV1, and the hydrogen fuel cell car. Nothing but showroom demonstrations with no plans to make it marketable.

It's not the low supply that's the problem, it's the high cost of production, even in this case. It's a bad idea. It's inefficient. There are better, more cost effective alternatives available right now. Trust me when I say that this will end up going the way of the Ford Nucleon, the EV1, and the hydrogen fuel cell car. Nothing but showroom demonstrations with no plans to make it marketable.

Cost of production falls as time passes; the amount of money going in to this stuff is far greater, from both public and private, than at any time in the past and the tools are in place to make further advancement in the field plausible. The very reason why these other technologies failed was due to the fact that they were neither advanced enough nor was the market receptive enough to bring them around.

Hydrogen has a number of real applications that would make it a good complement to other non-fossil forms of energy.

Doesn't that pond scum gas cost like $20.00 a gallon? You'd be better off liquifying coal.
How is it cool? You would never be able to afford it.

Prices are coming down.

At the moment, Melis' method won't cut it in the marketplace. The algae-hydrogen system generates electricity that costs about 31 cents a kilowatt-hour. Natural gas-fired juice runs a nickel or less. But a solution is in sight. Melis' team recently uncovered the key bottleneck in its green biomachine: Hydrogenase is present in only tiny amounts. By genetically engineering algae that express high levels of the enzyme, the team expects to double hydrogen output.

As for being better off by liquifying coal, there're all the usual concerns regarding fossil fuels, such as the environmental effects of extraction, transportation, and utilization.

Also note the artificially low prices of petroleum in the US due to government subsidies.

Cost of production falls as time passes; the amount of money going in to this stuff is far greater, from both public and private, than at any time in the past and the tools are in place to make further advancement in the field plausible. The very reason why these other technologies failed was due to the fact that they were neither advanced enough nor was the market receptive enough to bring them around.

Hydrogen has a number of real applications that would make it a good complement to other non-fossil forms of energy.

Indeed.

Don't they tend to suffocate every other living thing in the body of water when they grow out of control?

Something like eutrophication.

In the wild, under certain conditions, yes.

What causes blooms?

Blooms can be caused by several factors. An increase in nutrients can cause algae growth and reproduction to increase dramatically into a bloom just as fertilizing a lawn makes the grass grow faster. In other instances, something may change in the environment so that certain algae can out compete the other algae for food, which can result in a bloom of the algae with the advantage. This environmental change can be related to the water quality, temperature, nutrients, sunlight, or other factors.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/water/environconcerns/hab/

However, note that what is being discussed is industrial bio-reactors, which are a whole other kettle of algea. ;)

In the wild, under certain conditions, yes.


http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/water/environconcerns/hab/

However, note that what is being discussed is industrial bio-reactors, which are a whole other kettle of algea. ;)

Right, well I didn't bother finding out how they planned on producing it. For all I knew it would involve dumping tonnes of nitrates into a lake.

Right, well I didn't bother finding out how they planned on producing it. For all I knew it would involve dumping tonnes of nitrates into a lake.

:) All the hydrogen escapes that way...

I could have sworn that just a few years back we were being told that corn oil cars were right around the corner. Now emerging research suggests that commercial production of corn ethanol as a fuel may actually be bad for the environment. Someone will take a closer look at this and find more flaws than are known to be present now.

Besides, chemical fuels should be a thing of the past by now. You can squeeze more juice out of a few pellets of Plutonium than you can from a ton of coal.

What happened to the Nucleon? What happened to RTGs? What happened to the Orion project and the Pluto project? Fear of the unknown, that's what.

I could have sworn that just a few years back we were being told that corn oil cars were right around the corner. Now emerging research suggests that commercial production of corn ethanol as a fuel may actually be bad for the environment. Someone will take a closer look at this and find more flaws than are known to be present now.

Besides, chemical fuels should be a thing of the past by now. You can squeeze more juice out of a few pellets of Plutonium than you can from a ton of coal.

What happened to the Nucleon? What happened to RTGs? What happened to the Orion project and the Pluto project? Fear of the unknown, that's what.

You do realise that basing your argument for nukes on fear of the unknown undermines your argument against hydrogen, don't you?

You do realise that basing your argument for nukes on fear of the unknown undermines your argument against hydrogen, don't you?
Actually my argument against hydrogen is that it isn't a source of energy, just a mediocre method of energy transfer. And it doesn't matter how tightly sealed your tank is or how well insulated it is because liquid hydrogen will boil on contact with just about any container that isn't as frozen as it is. Since we aren't living on Breen (according to DS9 it's bitter cold on Breen) your tank would probably be empty if you left your car in the garage for a week.

My problem with hydrogen isn't the unknown, it's what is known about it right now. It's the problems present with it right now. My problem is that people and politicians keep looking to the stary-eyed dreamer hippie-spawn for the answers to our energy woes when they should be looking to engineers who are thinking up more practical temporary solutions so that there is time to dream up and impliment something more permanent.

Actually my argument against hydrogen is that it isn't a source of energy, just a mediocre method of energy transfer. That depends on how you get it; if it's made by bacteria/algae it's as much a source of energy as other biofuels.

And it doesn't matter how tightly sealed your tank is or how well insulated it is because liquid hydrogen will boil on contact with just about any container that isn't as frozen as it is.So don't store it in liquid form.. For example you could store it in 'sponge' like material: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/03/62722
Or just use high pressure: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/hydrogen_storage.html

That depends on how you get it; if it's made by bacteria/algae it's as much a source of energy as other biofuels.
Other biofuels aren't sources of energy either, they're just a method of chemical storage and transfer of solar energy. Biofuels are not the way of the future and solar and wind are just pipe dreams in their infancy that require time to be furter developed and mass-produced before they can be considered a viable alternative to current energy sources. If biofuels were really so damn great then why do they need all those government subsidies to stay in the black?

So don't store it in liquid form.. For example you could store it in 'sponge' like material: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/03/62722
Or just use high pressure: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/hydrogen_storage.html
The sponge wastes space and therefore reduces range. If it were stored as a gas the tank would need to be huge or would be prone to exploding if you ever gotin anything more serious than a fender bender.

Other biofuels aren't sources of energy either, they're just a method of chemical storage and transfer of solar energy.So is fossil fuel. Every 'source' of energy we have comes from the sun indirectly, except perhaps geothermic and nuclear (nuclear isotopes wouldn't be around without earleir stars, nor would the material for the earth). Sun, sun, sun, sun; it's where we get our power from.

Biofuels are not the way of the futureYeah, it's just driving up the price of food, relly. Although the waste left after food production could be useful to meet a few percent of our energy consumption.

solar and wind are just pipe dreams in their infancy that require time to be furter developed and mass-produced before they can be considered a viable alternative to current energy sources.They'll never be an alternative; they're not reliable enough. (Unless you count orbital solar-power plants, but that tech really isn't even in it's infancy).
However, we can get 10-20 percent from wind already with current technology, and some countries are well on their way to achieve that.

The sponge wastes space and therefore reduces range.I don't think that's correct on either count. By using the 'sponge' technique, they save on space that would otherwise be wasted to keep a higher pressure or colder temperature. They were halfway to a capacity that competed with gasoline vehic less then (4 years ago), expecting to reach it in the future. And by using hydrogen in combination with a fuel cell, you can do away with the heavy internal combustion engine and replace it with low weight electrical motors.

If it were stored as a gas the tank would need to be huge or would be prone to exploding if you ever gotin anything more serious than a fender bender.You have a lively imagination; but no, the tanks would neither be huge nor prone to explode. In fact I read it would be safer, but that seems to have been on another site than I linked to. The tank would be only two or three times larger (less if pressure can be increased further).

Personally, I'm not a fan of a hydrogen ecomony anymore than you are, but your arguments don't seem to be based on anything other than antipathy for alternative fuels.