Scientists turning CO2 from coal-fired plants, algae into oil

Algae capture CO2 but they need energy to do that, normally they use solar energy. This article fails to explain how they are going to provide that energy to them.

There are 4 options, 3 of them make some sense:

1. Use sun light to provide lighting to algae and store algae as a sequestered CO2

2. Use sun light to provide lighting to algae and use them as fuel, burning the fuel will however release most of CO2 back into atmosphere

3. Use artificial lighting and store algae as a sequestered CO2, this would be most expensive

4. Use artificial lighting and use algae as fuel, this makes no sense as the energy needed to grow algae will be more then energy recovered from fuel and most CO2 will be released anyway.

Solar thermal plants like Solar One in the desert in Nevada have been producing clean solar electricity at rates below the cost of burning oil since 1984.

Only in the bizzaro world of renewable advocates.

Back in reality a modest 10% rate of return would have yielded a cost of 23 cents per kWh for Nevada Solar one; more than double that renewable advocates claim. And that's before you consider the cost of maintenance, before you consider the cost of transmission from the middle of a desert to wherever the vehicle is located, before you consider the higher cost of electric vehicles, before you consider the massive storage systems necessary to allow people to use energy harvested during the day to charge their vehicles during the night.

I'm not sure why solar advocates assume that all this stuff is free, including the cost of capital; is it because they're expecting it to be provided for by subsidies?

(the cost of using a lot of water for cooling, in the middle of a desert, is also flatly dismissed by CSP advocates).

Why not collaborate with private firms already doing work in this area,such as http://www.valcen...Home.asp ?

> $18 per barrel is too much.

You mean gallon. $18 per barrel for algal oil would be a bargain. Unfortunately, the unit is gallons, not barrels. And yes, $18/gallon is too expensive for gasoline, let alone unrefined oil.

Using algae for fuel production or sequestration of pollutants isn't a new project. DOE worked on it for years starting in the early 80's. They chose the open-pond system approach because closed systems (bioreactors) were thought to be much to expensive (the were, and still are). They gave up after running into problems with wild-algae contamination temperature control.

This time around, everyone seems to have learned from the DOE project that open ponds won't work, and are thus focusing on bioreactors.

But the issue that turned the DOE away from closed systems remains. The cost is prohibitive.

So when you read articles about algal oil from bioreactors, don't get too excited about its spectacular per-acre yield. That's been known for decades. The only breakthrough that counts will be a huge cost reduction (to something less than 1/10th the current estimated large-scale cost). Sifting through nature for undiscovered strains, and making developing genetically modified strains will doubtless eke out some efficiency gains, but it's not going to close the gap.

Consider that every other biofuel grows in an open field. Although less efficient, they can spread out under the relatively diffuse energy of the sun at minimal cost.

I have no idea if this technology will work out. I certainly hope it does. And I like to see more labs working on it. But I'd also like to see someone working on open ponds, in case there might yet be a way to solve its problems.

First off the idea of capturing CO2 via a method that turn the CO2 into a better preforming solar battery is great if you could keep the CO2 cycling with-in the closed environment of the algae tanks. (Burn the algee oil in a plant that then vents its co2 algee ponds) As for solar and CO2 put a green house next to a *sterline*(mispelled) engine. CO2 can make great solar to heat convention lenses. As for algee, people can eat algee, if you can separate the co2 from the toxic metals and radiation, guess what, you have food for cattle or chickens etc.., it is better than feeding them their own dead. Either you make the process cheaper or you make the algee oil of higher quality. Coal produces heavy metals, and as far as I am concerned if you produce heavy metals you better make good use of them. Venting perfectly good radiation is waste full. How many different medical uses are their for radioactive particles ?

how about floating large,long cylicone tubes in the hot water off the gulf of mexico,mixed with a little sugar cane to speed up the process.maybe attach them to the oil platforms after they are done.
plus,the bi-product of algae is left over protein for animals,cows,chickens etc.....that is awesome.