Nice.

_I wonder what the 24hr sunlight exposure during the summer months above the Arctic circle woould do to algae growth. The sun is relatively low on the horizon, but is up all day.

Green Fuel I'm waiting for an IPO......
I'd put my money and my mouth er lungs to....

allen Z I may be wrong be I believe algae do not require hi intensity light levles. I seem to remember that they prefer moderate intensity levels.

It would be interesting if someone would fiqure the cost of liquefing the CO2 on site, (such as at power plants or ctl/ctg sites) and sending it by rail to the desert's of the south west for algae conversion (I don't know how much water is used in their process). Even if the cost is slightly more than the oil produced, it could be worth the expense.

East Germany has plenty of dirty lignite and sites contaminated by Communist chemical factories. It is also sparsely populated, by central European standards.

80% CO2 re-use would imply that much carbon would not have to be brought to the surface in the form of oil for transportation use. IFF it is affordable, that sounds more sensible to me than true sequestration of flue gases.

I was wondering if the visible light released during the combustion of coal or coal gas could somehow be transported to the bioreactors and, if the algae will grow 24/7 if the conditions are right. Anyone know?

I was wondering if the visible light released during the combustion of coal or coal gas could somehow be transported to the bioreactors and, if the algae will grow 24/7 if the conditions are right.

You can calculate the peak emission wavelength if you know the temperature of combustion: lambda = 2898/T. T is in Kelvins, and the wavelength will come out in microns. The actual spectrum can be calculated using Planck's Law. The red end of light good for photosynthesis is around 700 nm (if the algae is using bacteriocholorophyll about 850-900 nm)

Andy
don’t invest in one thing especially new technology

There are mutual funds out there and there all doing pretty well

Check out Neuberger berman socially responsive fund

NBSRX

It only invests in energy friendly funds no nuclear

Its rated 4 star by morning star not pushing this one just using it as an example

Rafael et al,
The radiant energy of coal combustion is high-quality heat energy, thermodynamically speaking. If one divert this radiant energy to grow algae, then we would have less energy available to produce electricity, whereas solar radiant energy is free to use.

Unless, quite ingeniously, you are contemplating a short-cut scheme for CTL, turning coal energy directly into algae oil in one step, and then the whole steam turbine apparatus would merely serve to recycle the waste heat of the new "Seidl's" direct one-step CTL process. :) If you can raise the combustion temp of the coal enough to get wavelength of light in the photosynthesis range, and then line up around the coal combustion chamber with glass walls (E-glass with low infrared transmittance) as thermal barrier, and then place the algae bioreactors all around the glass wall, you might have a deal!!

For me, I'd go the IGCC route for cleaner and higher efficiency usage of the coal energy, and wait til the mornin' for the sun to rise before growing any algae oil. The CO2 produced in the night can be stored til the morning.

Sorry.

Previous post was intended to be on other tread line.

Sorry.

I think the design they have rotates the stream up the stack in the dark (to absorb the CO2) and then into the daylight to fix it.

I wonder what they will do about nitrogen - will they be using fertilizer or a N2 fixing strain? Heterocysts are amazing things.

PS Lunken, did you try any genetic manipulation of cyanobacteria? Is it as easy as, say E.coli or B.subtilis?

I wonder what they will do about nitrogen

Same as in any flue-scavenging bioreactor: air + heat = NOx.

Thanks, Lunken, for sharing your expertise in algae culturing. Indeed, plants, like human, need rest also for proper functioning, so 27/4 growth would be out of the question.
I forgot to mention in my previous posting that the efficiency of photosynthesis of even very fast-growing algae is about ~10-12%, while steam turbines can produce electricity at 35-40% thermal efficiency. So, using radiant light energy from coal combustion to power algae oil production (new CTL process) would not be efficient at all, unless free sunlight is used.

Gents -

thx for your insights. Looks like the algae could not produce 24/7 anyhow and the wavelengths produced during combustion are poorly suited.

Temporary sequestration of CO2 produced at night and in winter sounds more doable. During the day and in summer, the CO2 store would depleted, eliminating lengthy discussion with NIMBYs about how safe and permanent full-blown sequestration would really be. Besides, the reservoir would be much smaller.

The cheapest way to implement large-scale algaculture with CO2 enrichment might be to site one or more coal-fired power plants near a large natural body of water and pipe the scrubbed flue gas via a heat exchanger into a large cordoned-off section of open water. Certain places would be better suited than others, e.g. the Isthmus of Corinth (Greece) or the northern end of the Sea of Cortez (Baja California). Of course, there would be a big impact on local fisheries and tourism, so any such scheme would have to be considered very carefully. However, harvesting the algae would provide new jobs.