Algae Farming and it's Carbon

A few days ago, David Rush, @EcoEngineering over at Twitter, tweeted about Aquentium buying a New Mexico site for an Algae farm.

I responded with a comment about one line in the press release that looked funny to me. Here our conversation.

@EcoEngineering: Aquentium Announces 475 Acre Algae BioFuel Production Project - World Stock Wire (press release) http://bit.ly/mQWf1

Me: @EcoEngineering "Aquentium’s algae-based fuels will emit approximately two-thirds less CO2..." ??? shouldn't an algae system be GHG neutral?

Me: @EcoEngineering CO2 in at pond = CO2 out when it's burnt to product power/motion?

@EcoEngineering: Thx @gnoll110 So your saying more efficient algea system=more fuels to burn=more GHG. Good point!

Me: @EcoEngineering No, that if they don't feed the algae with coal/oil & make the setup using algae fuel, how can it not be GHG neutral?

Me: @EcoEngineering that is, as long as the setup is made using algae fuel, how could if be GHG positive? (all C from the air to start with)

Me: @EcoEngineering isn't the Atlantic Conveyor sinking and depositing huge amount of C (dead algae) of ocean floor how bioshere get ride of C?

Me: Carbon accounting strike me as simplistic, quantitative (at the expense of qualitative) and proven to creative accounting. Very spinable.

@EcoEngineering: Sorry @gnoll110 I think we're on different pages.

@EcoEngineering: @gnoll110 Send me a little more info so I can formulate a response please.

The above comments where made in reference to on-going operations. In a reply I've included the 'build' carbon too. I think a working Algae farm should be greenhouse gas (GHG) negative to start with and over time become slightly GHG positive once all fossils fuel usage (as a fuel) is replaced.

My reply to David and anyone who's interested.

Second attempt at a response. First one was turning into Ben-Hur.

Here is how I see it.

All the carbon in algae come from the atmosphere in the first place, so any burning process no matter how efficient or inefficient should be neutral at worst. Indeed an inefficient burn that produced an algae-char replacement for bio-char (charcoal) could make the process helpfully GHG negative.

Now lets switch to the energy front.

I going to assume that the total energy production over the life of the algae farm & associated processing chain is greater than the total energy consumption involved in building and operation said algae farm & processing chain. (if this is not true what we really got is most likely a coal to oil plant, and a different ball game).

Given the algae farm is a net energy producer, I'm going to assume these guys eat their own dog food and this means:
* they built the farm & chain using energy from the last one they built and
* that operational energy will be drawn from the farm & chain's previous operations

If the above is true, the carbon footprint is the physical carbon embedded in making the steel and other manufactures (ie coking coal needed to make the steel).

In reality this is likely not to be true. I.e. the bio-mass oil produced is likely to be used for transport, while the chain is operated by gas fired electricity (or some other non transport grade energy source). I'm not including this in my logic because this factor is highly situational.

Back to the carbon front.

Assuming that the net energy produced is going to replace the 'worst carbon energy source'. Isn't this what emission trading systems (ETSs) do? Act as a pricing mechanism to transfer resources between players. (I'm not including net changes to total human energy demand, that shouldn't effect the carbon & energy budget of individual artefacts).

Shouldn't any carbon cost of building and operating the farm & chain be far less than the carbon cost of building/continued operation of the low cost 'worst carbon energy source' that it replaces.

Granted the shut down of the low cost 'worst carbon energy source' won't happen on the day the algae farm & processing chain go operational. But the low cost high carbon alternative won't start either. Over time (and assuming governments don't corrupt the working of an international ETS system that includes an escalating carbon cost) the 'worst carbon energy source' will get replaced.

*** A working International Climate Change Agreement that a working International ETS system would be based on is a PRE-CONDITION to successfully fighting Global Warming (what the Australian Labor Party (ALP) is pushing atm does not meet these conditions and thus is a waste of current effort and may have big opportunity costs) ***

If the above happens, isn't an algae farm going to be GHG negative. The better the gross energy production:gross energy cost ratio (for the total life cycle), the more GHG negative the algae farm should be.

At some future date.

Repeating the no build/closures of 'worst carbon energy source' cycle over time would get you to the situation where the next algae farm itself becomes a 'worst carbon energy source'. One would hope that the base carbon cost is building an algae farm without the 'worst carbon energy source' offsets (offset = 0), is low enough that at that mythical future date when the human world as run by algae farm, the carbon load will be well within the Earth's ability to absorb (on an annual basis).

Update: If you get metal recycle percentages increasing, the net energy production would drop. but fossil fuel usage (as a feed stock, not a fuel) would drop too. This would close the introduction of fossil fuel (new) carbon into the carbon cycle down even more. More new carbon now (before the peak carbon), less new carbon later (at and after peak carbon): a good thing.

The end.

David, peer review to you hearts content. This in just a thought experiment on my part. Hope people find it helpful.

Gnoll110

Batteries and Oil to Solar

Talk on twitter last night got on to the topic 'oil to solar'. I think the topic needs a post about batteries just to make things more informed and complex.

The are 3 battery types I wish to expend on. What I call electrochemical, potential energy and thermal.

Electrochemical

These are what we normally think of as batteries. It covers many chemical reaction the produce electrical current. They are all example of Galvanic cells. The two most common are the Lead-acid battery used in cars and the ubiquitous Alkaline battery of screaming children on Christmas day fame. Some are rechargeable, some aren't.

In some application, like electric cars, where size and weight is an issue there a many exotic reactions under consideration. Being exotic, cost and rarity become an issue for wide spread application becomes.

At the other end of the scale is the Nickel-iron battery. An old, bulky and relatively benign chemistry that uses cheaper common materials.

Potential Energy

This type of battery system is not common, but where the situation is right, it can be very large store of energy. It involves two bodies of water at different heights (the bigger the difference, the better). Water is pumped from the low storage to the high storage when excess power of available. When power is needed the water is allowed to return to the lower storage, generating hydroelectric power in the process.

Thermal

These are systems where energy is store at heat. The simplest example is a well design fireplace. A single evenings fire can stores enough heat is the mass of the fire place to keep a well insulated rooms temperate elevated for 48 hours.

I divide these systems into Low temperature differential (LTD) and High temperature differential (HTD). LTD is where the store's temperature is less than 100C above ambient and HTD is where it's greater than 100C above.

A example of a LTD system is a Solar pond. An idea battery for providing heat to industrial processes like desalination. Electricity can also be generated using LTD heat engines.

A example of a HTD system is a Molten salt thermal system (not to be confused with Molten salt electrochemical batteries). There are many salts and these many temperature ranges to play with here. Right up to like 1600C, which start to made designs trickier/more expense, since common materials like iron & steel also melt at these higher temperatures.

Hope this gives people an idea of the range and have exotic battery systems can get.


Gnoll110

Can Capitalism save the Rain forests?

Tonight, ABC’s Foreign Correspondent is showing a programs entitled 'Amazon Rainforest - Can Money Grow on Trees?'. Without see the program, I going to say yes.

Why? For me it’s a matter of first principles of economics and ecology. The very words themselves point to the way forward. Both are derived from the Greek ‘eco’ (oikos), meaning 'house'.

I will argue the economics is the ecology of human societies. Money is a token measure of energy and materiel. Ecology is a study of the measure and flows of energy and materiel in the wider biosphere. Classical economics is the study competition between individual and organisation. There is cooperation and other behaviors that are seen in ecology. Lots of strategies and tactics are displayed by organisms. Taking these and applying them to economics problems and situation should be the main source for developing viable global warning measures.

Gnoll110

The Guerrilla Solar manifesto

Been reading Alternative Technology Association's (ATA) ReNew magazine. The current edition (#104, July-Sept 2008).

It has a great article entitle Guerrilla solar in the Aussie 'burbs. It's sub headed Installing grid-connect solar can be a frustrating process. Some people just give up and do it their own way, writes Avery 'Sonny' Daze and Jenny Rait.

It talks about putting a small system together. The dirty games that utilities play and getting a systems connected.

It ends this manifesto

The Guerrilla Solar manifesto

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all energy is freely and democratically provided by Nature, that utilities both public & private have no monopoly on the production and distribution of energy, that this century's monopolisation of energy by utilities threatens the health of our environment and the very life of our planet.
I. We, the Solar Guerrillas of this planet, therefore resolve to place energy made from sunshine, wind, and falling water on this planet's utility grids with or without permission from utilities or governments.
II. We resolve to share this energy with our neighbours without regard for financial compensation.
III. We further resolve that our renewable energy systems will be safe and will not harm utility workers, our neighbours, or our environment.
Signed: Solar Guerrillas of Planet Earth

What a great call to arms!


Gnoll110

Cycle, it's all cycles!

We’ve all seen the Atmospherics CO2 graph for the last few decades. It’s an upward trending line with an annual fluctuation. The uptrend is largely the result of the burning of coal & petroleum over the last 250 years. The annual fluctuation is caused by the photosynthesis/respiration/decay cycle of vegetation, the bulk of which is in the northern hemisphere.

Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide

Ok, to stop the up trend, it pretty obvious what we need to do. Stop burn coal & petroleum! We need to shoehorn ourselves back into the annuals solar/geothermal energy budgets of the planet.

For some reason that’s beyond me, the knee jerk reaction seem to be to try to ‘freeze’ carbon out of the atmosphere using whatever mean is available. To shoehorn ourselves back into the annuals energy budgets of the planet we need to work with the carbom cycle, even accelerate it, not freeze within parts of it. This topic will be an assay in its own right, for the future. Stay tuned.


Gnoll110

Carbon & its history

You didn't realise how basic peoples understanding of a well known problem can be at times.

Yes, not all carbon was created equal. History counts!

Here is part of a thread on the subject.

My initial post, part of a wider thread.

> One issue is how much GH gases you release, but more important is where the carbon (including embody energy) came from in the first place. Is a fire better that an electric light? Would the depend of if the electricity is solar or gas or oil or coal fired. Is the fire a wood fire or brickettes?
>
> I always ask, "where was that energy a year ago, 10 years ago, a hundred years and a thousand years ago?" Ultimately you're going to end up in one of four places. The sun, heat in the crust or below, the moon (tidal) or in a since mined crust deposit (I use this wording to cover exhaustible fossil fuels & radioactives).
>
> I'll leave you to work out witch 3 are exceptable and witch one isn't!

The initial response.

Hi there I'm still a newbie with lots to learn. So correct me if I am wrong you are saying condensed burning a 10 year old tree is more acceptable than condensed burning a 10 million year old tree and of the same ammount ?

I think the question was is the release greater at the power station than if every household was burning ?. There is simply no space on standard household blocks to have a huge array to produce their own solar energy to meet the same loads, that would also be the argument that appliances not just lights are just as inefficient as current solar technology :)

My reply, on why I think carbon is not all equal. History (source) counts.

The carbon in the tree is carbon that is in the carbon cycle. It moves through different parts of the biosphere over time. Moving between plants, animals, the atmosphere, the oceans and soils. Each of these five can be though of as a 'pool'. This carbon is constantly on the move. Part of the ongoing cycle of the biosphere and life. This carbon has fuelled human societies since we could rub two sticks together and this movement is generally fuelled by the sun.

Fossil carbon has been out of the above pools for ten if not hundreds of millions of years. When you burn fossil fuel you’re releasing 'new' carbon on the biosphere, and it usually ends up in the atmospheric or oceanic pools.

So when you burn carbon to make light (or movement or heat etc), it’s the history of that carbon that is important.

When it comes to removing carbon, it don't matter which carbon you remove.

How we farm, graze, forest and fish is important, but to a lesser degree. These processes determine how carbon is distributed between the five 'pools'. We need to move carbon to the plants, animals and the soils 'pools' from the atmospheric and oceanic 'pools'. The atmosphere and the oceans are so closely coupled in some ways they are just one 'pool'.

When I use the term solar, I'm referring to all sun powered systems, photovoltaic, thermal (dish & rheostat systems), biomass, wind and waves. Remember waves are driven by the wind. Wind in turn is driven by differential heating of the earth by the sun. You’re right, photovoltaic are still so poor on a system lifetime basis, that they are still effectively at the research & prototype stage. We got to start somewhere. Edison is said to have tested 10,000 configurations to get an appreciable one.

The reply about my thoughts

Thanks knoll. I never saw it that way, but oil has been referred to as

ancient sun energy or something like that. I would see it worse off
though if everyone started mass polluting from their homes don't you
think ? Thats why incinerators were banned, wasn't it. If incinerators

were banned that is a double standard for the industries then heh :)

Sorry i send this offlist so I don't bore the list with my ranting so
people don't get the wrong idea of me as i'm new :\

My second reply. Here I try to tease carbon out of other pollution issues. This case local ones.

Yep, oil has been referred to as ancient sun energy (coal too), the operative word is ancient. What this means is that the carbon is not in one of the biospheric carbon ‘pools’, but is in the geologic carbon ‘pool’.

There is normally very little movement between the biospheric carbon ‘pools’ and the geologic carbon ‘pool’. Some oil tars seeps to the surface here, some dead vegetation and animals sink to the bottom of a swamp, lake or sea and is buried there. The last 250 years ain’t normal.

The bans on incinerators, leaf burning etc are spot bans to stop local pollution hot spots. As with any activity, there are likely to be GH effects. There are two ways to look at leaf burning. You’re just releasing back to the air, carbon that was taken out last spring & summer. The other was is that you’re diverting carbon. You’re releasing carbon back to the air via near instant combustion instead of via slow decay, absorption into plants etc. You’re changing the distribution between the ‘pools’, at least in the short term.

I posted the comment, hoping they help people understand the cycle of life (particularly carbon) better.


Gnoll110

Permaculture niche: Dry Climate Trees

Over a month ago, there was an interesting item on Gardering Australia. It featured a visit to the Waite Arboretum in Adelaide.

It highlighted a group of plants I feel fill a permaculture niche not filled by Australian natives, large deciduous dry climate trees. I had been looking to the Med Basin, particularly North Africa.

Here is a batch of links.

Fact Sheet: Californian Oaks

the ecosystems

Wikipedia list 6 ecostytems
* Oregon Oak woodland
* Blue Oak woodland
* Coast Live Oak woodland
* Valley Oak woodland
* Island Oak woodland
* Engelmann Oak woodland

Many species of oak and other tree are listed

The three highlighted species were
* blue oak or Quercus douglasii
* valley oak or Quercus lobata.
* coast live oak or Quercus agrifolia

Imagine these Oaks, in a line north (south in the Northern Hemishere) of the House, shading it in the summer and letting the sun in during the winter. Solar passive design.


Gnoll110

Technorati:
carbon design permaculture solar

Carbon Offsets

In this quarter’s issue of the Alternate Technology Association’s (ATA) ReNew magazine, there is an article about carbon offsets.

The article deals with a number of factors and points. It defines the difference between the two main types of certification. These are the Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) and the New South Wales Gas Abatement Certificate (NGAC).
A REC equates to one MWh of renewable energy. A NGAC equates to one tonne of carbon dioxide ‘stored’ for a hundred years.

Carbon Abatement to me is cheating and consumes a different limit resource, land. Putting land under forest to tie up carbon is silly. You shouldn’t be paid to plant trees. You should be paid when you burn timber instead of burning oil, coal or gas.

For me buying RECs is much better. With that in mind, I looked at the article’s table of offset providers.

The two I would recommend is Climate Friendly and Neco (wind renewables), who are both private companies.

http://www.climatefriendly.com
http://www.neco.com.au


Gnoll110

Stirling Engines and Photovoltaics

One big advantage of systems that use Stirling Engines have over Photovoltaics is that many Stirling based systems have a battery built into the basic design. For example High Temperature Helostat and Dish systems use a salt-graphite mass at their focus as the hot-end block of their Stirling Engines. The mass behaves as a thermal battery

The state change temperature of salt from solid to liquid (molten) is 900 C. Like any solid to liquid state change, it absorbs a great amounts of energy. The physics of salt means that salt behaves in a constant desirable way between 600 C to 1500C. The thermal battery is heated by solar input during the day. Overnight, the Stirling Engine continues to draws off heat energy and generate power. The thermal battery's internal temperature falls accordingly. The follow days solar input reheats the salt graphite mass.

So these kinds of Stirling designs are potentially more cost effective for base load applications than Photovoltaics and Wind.


Gnoll110

Technorati Tags:
stirling+engine stirling+engines photovoltaics solar heliostat salt graphite base+load

A Complete Food Chain and the 12 Permaculture Design Principles

There is an interesting post over on Backyard Aquaponics. It's called Complete Food Chain

In the thread Daniel wrote two posts;

once i have quarantined my shrimp long enough to go into the tank with the fish, i could probably achieve this, but only with a very small stocking density of fish.
Farming fish in farm dams extensively rely on this, and they fertilise their ponds before adding fish to increase algae growth, which in turn supports more microorganisms, and so on

and

wait, if i did what was mentioned in my post above, i couldn't have any plants growing aquaponically with only an input of CO2 and sunlight

well i have confused myself, i have a feeling that there would need to be an input of fish food/nutrients to grow plants aquaponically as well

ah well someone else probably has some more helpful insight, and i will check this topic with eagerness to see if its possible

I'd like to add two comments about Daniels posts.

Firstly, about fish growers fertilizing their dams to increase algae & intermediate organisms before adding fish. This fertilizer is effectively embodied fossil fuel energy. In the systems we are trying to build, we can do these kinda things, but the way we do them means the scale will differ. Our processes will require more labour, land/water area, time and/or capital/materiels so that we can embody solar energy. We can play with the mix, but it won't be the fast easy fix of cheap fossil fuels.

Secondly, Daniel commented about growing algae precluded growing plants aquaponically. True, but another way to think of it, is that the fish components of the system produces a certain amount of nitrogen. It's your decision as the designer/maintainer to determine how much of the nitrogen flow goes to plant production (for human/animal use) and how much goes to algae production (for internal system feed stocks).

After I made my initial post, I was looking for a better way to express additional idea threads.

Then I hit upon the idea of using David Holmgren's 12 design principles as a lens.

1. Observe and interact
   

   Na

   
   
2. Catch and store energy
   

   Developing a system that captures and stores solar energy in usable/valuable forms

   
   
3. Obtain a yield
   

   Developing a system that captures and stores carbon, nitrogen etc as high nutrition food stuffs

   
   
4. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback
   

   Using large ponds, with caged off sub ponds and 'side' ponds to for produce feed stocks for the main fish speices. Thus using some of the nitrogen produced by the fish stocks to produce their own feed stocks. The system can also comsume excess output of Terrestial systems.

   
   
5. Use and value renewable resources and services
   

   Produce high omega-3 fish meats, with commerial value.

   
   
6. Produce no waste
   

   Using food stuffs that are in excess (roosters) as a feed stocks for a system that produces food stuffs that are in limited supply (omega-3 rich meats)

   
   
7. Design from patterns to details
   

   Na

   
   
8. Integrate rather than segregate
   

   Meshing the aquaponic system design with terrrestral systems.

   
   
9. Use small and slow solutions
   

   Use many sub pond and 'side' ponds rather than a small number of large ponds.

   
   
10. Use and value diversity
    

    Using many feed stock source to ensure more stable system dynamics.

    
    
11. Use edges and value the marginal
    

    Ulitize and manipulate pond surface & pond walls/floor to increase cumclative total production.

    
    
12. Creatively use and respond to change
    

    Na

    
    

Is it time to draw a mind map?


Gnoll110

Technorati Tags:
permaculture design+principles carbon nitrogen food+chain david+holmgren aquaponics backyard+aquaponics fossil+fuel peak+oil

Water for the Cities

While down south, I also heard that there are purposals to devert water from the Waranga Mallee channel (at Colbinabbin) to the City of Bendigo and possibaly to the City of Ballarat.

Note that Ballarat is on the south side of the Great Dividing Range water shed. So water would be being diverted from the inland to the coastal margins.

I would think that the value of the uses of this extra water would justify some solar desalination research.

See Landline and Pyramil Salt


Gnoll110

Technorati Tags:
colbinabbin bendigo ballarat water solar+pond

My first Stirling Engine book...

A few weeks ago I ordered my first Stirling Engine book. Got it from powells.com and was ordered via amazon.com.

It was "An Introduction to Stirling Engines", by James R Senft,
ISBN 0-9652455-0-0
1993 (Sixth Printing 2004)

It looks to be a good book. But I do note there is no Table of Contents or Index. It has good review both on the net & by word of mouth.

Lots of basic diagrams, cut-aways, pictures and historical stuff.

After I've read it, I'll decide what to get next.

Next, I've been thinking about another Senft book, "An Introduction to Low Temperature Differential Stirling Engines", ISBN 0-9652455-1-9. The other I'ld like to get is "The Regenerator and the Stirling Engine", by Allan J. Organ, ISBN 1860580106, but I want to build something that works from a Plan first. The Organ book is for serious designers!


Gnoll110

technorati:
stirling+engine solar+energy james+r+senft allan+j+organ