Comments on: Algae and the oil sands: solution to an eco-disaster? http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/ Trends, happenings and innovations in the clean technology market Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:38:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Denina Simmons http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-5771 Denina Simmons Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:34:36 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/#comment-5771 I enjoy the idea for phytoremediation purposes, an because I use algae in my research to clean up heavy metals (in academia, not for big oil) I think this sounds viable. I am also aware of scientific literature and studies that would support that increasing CO2 levels helps to increase metal sequestration (and obviously algal growth), so the entire schematic is well-thought out. My only point would be that you could not use these algae for biofuels. Aside from the fact that I think there are way cleaner alternatives than biofuel (Watch "who killed the electric car"), this particular source would contain massively high levels of metal (remember the days before unleaded?) causing the most toxic smog upon combustion. Therefore, we would be making a fuel that is dirtier than the dirt we cleaned in the first place with the algae. The main goal of the ponds in the oil sands is remediation, and I assume that the algae will be allowed to sediment to the bottom of the pond, effectively removing the dissolved, toxic metals with it at is goes, turning into some far-off generations' mineral, bitumen or fuel. I enjoy the idea for phytoremediation purposes, an because I use algae in my research to clean up heavy metals (in academia, not for big oil) I think this sounds viable. I am also aware of scientific literature and studies that would support that increasing CO2 levels helps to increase metal sequestration (and obviously algal growth), so the entire schematic is well-thought out.

My only point would be that you could not use these algae for biofuels. Aside from the fact that I think there are way cleaner alternatives than biofuel (Watch “who killed the electric car”), this particular source would contain massively high levels of metal (remember the days before unleaded?) causing the most toxic smog upon combustion.

Therefore, we would be making a fuel that is dirtier than the dirt we cleaned in the first place with the algae. The main goal of the ponds in the oil sands is remediation, and I assume that the algae will be allowed to sediment to the bottom of the pond, effectively removing the dissolved, toxic metals with it at is goes, turning into some far-off generations’ mineral, bitumen or fuel.

]]> By: Andrew Knight http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-4712 Andrew Knight Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:42:33 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/#comment-4712 Starry-eyed optimism is good for inspiring bright inventive minds to conjure up some workable ideas, but for every solution there is a problem. Important to sift the rhetoric from the facts. Our problem is not "How to fuel our cars", but how to stop using our cars. Global warming will not be solved by biodiesel nor ecologically considerate gasoline production. Automobiles are extremely inneficient modes of transportation and that is where the real problem lies. Andrew Knight Starry-eyed optimism is good for inspiring bright inventive minds to conjure up some workable ideas, but for every solution there is a problem.
Important to sift the rhetoric from the facts.
Our problem is not “How to fuel our cars”, but how to stop using our cars.
Global warming will not be solved by biodiesel nor ecologically considerate gasoline production.
Automobiles are extremely inneficient modes of transportation and that is where the real problem lies.

Andrew Knight

]]> By: Jim http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-3191 Jim Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:03:06 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/#comment-3191 There would be a very tangible advantage to producing some type of biofuel from the algae. Certainly it is not permanently sequestering the carbon dioxide if you convert to biofuel, though I would argue that it would be energetically favorable to shoot the algae down a hole, rather than liquified CO2 (which requires very high presures, so high energy expenditures). With biofuels taking a larger market share you essentially defer the use of a proportionate amount of fossil fuel. Whereas the starting point for fossil fuel is long-ago sequestered carbon (which we now dump directly into the atmosphere) biofuels essentially recycle current CO2 because the starting point is the carbon already in the air. By recycling you have essentially reduced/reused the current CO2 rather than introducing NEW CO2. Unfortunately the CO2 levels in the air are too low to be effectively used by algae. So this plan hooks them up to an emitting tailpipe, thereby scrubbing the flu-gases before they polute the air. If Canada gets this right, we could sell this to nearly ANY high intensity industry - fertilizer plants (1 billion people would starve without them) - steel smelters (automakers in Ontario) - electrolytic plants (aluminum anyone? makes lighter cars you know) There would be a very tangible advantage to producing some type of biofuel from the algae. Certainly it is not permanently sequestering the carbon dioxide if you convert to biofuel, though I would argue that it would be energetically favorable to shoot the algae down a hole, rather than liquified CO2 (which requires very high presures, so high energy expenditures).

With biofuels taking a larger market share you essentially defer the use of a proportionate amount of fossil fuel. Whereas the starting point for fossil fuel is long-ago sequestered carbon (which we now dump directly into the atmosphere) biofuels essentially recycle current CO2 because the starting point is the carbon already in the air. By recycling you have essentially reduced/reused the current CO2 rather than introducing NEW CO2.

Unfortunately the CO2 levels in the air are too low to be effectively used by algae. So this plan hooks them up to an emitting tailpipe, thereby scrubbing the flu-gases before they polute the air. If Canada gets this right, we could sell this to nearly ANY high intensity industry
– fertilizer plants (1 billion people would starve without them)
– steel smelters (automakers in Ontario)
– electrolytic plants (aluminum anyone? makes lighter cars you know)

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-1999 Anonymous Tue, 06 May 2008 19:13:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/#comment-1999 While you search for your perfect solution, coal will continue to be burned, and tar sands will still be mined. This is a good CO2 mitigation measure, and will have spill-over effects for other new technologies. One day algae may turn into a good source of energy without the concentrated CO2 input, taking from the atmosphere instead. In the meantime it might displace some hydrocarbon fuel use, thus reducing the total amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. While you search for your perfect solution, coal will continue to be burned, and tar sands will still be mined.

This is a good CO2 mitigation measure, and will have spill-over effects for other new technologies. One day algae may turn into a good source of energy without the concentrated CO2 input, taking from the atmosphere instead.

In the meantime it might displace some hydrocarbon fuel use, thus reducing the total amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-1998 Anonymous Tue, 06 May 2008 14:27:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/#comment-1998 I agree with the other two commenters. Using the carbon twice--this sounds like an argument for decreasing CO2 intensity, which is fine, but doesn't sequester one ounce of carbon. Like most intensity arguments, this one misses the point entirely of having to achieve absolute reductions. I agree with the other two commenters. Using the carbon twice–this sounds like an argument for decreasing CO2 intensity, which is fine, but doesn’t sequester one ounce of carbon. Like most intensity arguments, this one misses the point entirely of having to achieve absolute reductions.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-1997 Anonymous Mon, 05 May 2008 19:20:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/#comment-1997 This sounds like another reason to just do "business as usual" at the good old tar sands and another excuse to keep coal plants running. As the previous reader noted, this isn't sequestering the carbon either - its simply deferring it slightly, as it will be released in it's 'new and improved' forms. This biofuel would hardly be considered green either as it's a byproduct from the oil and gas industry and is NOT coming from, a natural source.. not to mention only 30% of the carbon is being captured with the technology right now. 70% is still contributing to global warming and thats a LARGE amount when talking about the overall scale of emissions at the tar sands and our coal fired plants. This sounds like another reason to just do “business as usual” at the good old tar sands and another excuse to keep coal plants running.

As the previous reader noted, this isn’t sequestering the carbon either – its simply deferring it slightly, as it will be released in it’s ‘new and improved’ forms. This biofuel would hardly be considered green either as it’s a byproduct from the oil and gas industry and is NOT coming from, a natural source.. not to mention only 30% of the carbon is being captured with the technology right now. 70% is still contributing to global warming and thats a LARGE amount when talking about the overall scale of emissions at the tar sands and our coal fired plants.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-1996 Anonymous Sun, 04 May 2008 12:00:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/05/03/algae-and-the-oil-sands-solution-to-an-eco-disaster/#comment-1996 If the algae absorbs the heavy metals from the tailing pond where do the heavy metals end up when the algae is used to create biofuel? Also where does the CO2 end up when you create biofuel and use it. The end result is still CO2 and heavy metal release into the environment just delayed. This is not a solution for the oil sands green house gas emissions problem. If the algae absorbs the heavy metals from the tailing pond where do the heavy metals end up when the algae is used to create biofuel? Also where does the CO2 end up when you create biofuel and use it. The end result is still CO2 and heavy metal release into the environment just delayed. This is not a solution for the oil sands green house gas emissions problem.

]]>