Algae: Truly Green Solution to the World’s Energy Problem


Get more information about algae as a source for non-polluting bio-fuel at TheAutoChannel.com. The search for alternative energy sources and fuels has certainly uncovered some surprising and exciting results. One of the North American research and development companies to be leading the algae charge is Valcent Products, Inc., of Vancouver, Canada.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by flyboy333 at August 26th, 2008

    Holy smokes, lets use a half of New Mexico, and start getting rid of national debt.

  2. #2 by deadbirdmassacre at August 26th, 2008

    Woah. This was added today.

  3. #3 by EnigmaNZ1 at August 26th, 2008

    18 gallons per acre per year for corn, 800 for palm, 20,000 for algae, so why is corn the main feedstock in the US for biofuel. Scaling up, a 100 acre pond using local sewage as a feedstock could produce 2 million gallons of biofuel a year worth a couple of million dollars, shit. Some people are going to become seriously rich.

  4. #4 by bastardchild17 at August 29th, 2008

    the reason corn is in place is becasue the infrstructure is already in place to make ethanol from biofuel from corn. Algae is stilll in an expreimentsl stage and there must be some unforseen problems.

  5. #5 by reforest4fertility at December 25th, 2008

    Not only the “national debt” but the nation’s debt and humanity’s accrued debt to all life and a future for life. As the fastest growing plant algae not only consumes carbon faster but makes oxygen faster–coupled with reforestation (nature’s carbon sink, source of fresh water and O2)–is how we can heal the ozone layer, as it is formed only by the abundance of oxygen in the first place.

    Then hey, they’ve been researching algae since the 1950’s. Let’s get it unstuck from research into devel’mt

  6. #6 by DarkLordOfPenguins at January 8th, 2009

    Yeah, New Mexico’s not using much of their land anyways. Drove through their on my way to AZ, it’s pretty much a majestic, massive plain-plateu. There’s lots of free space, and a good climate sunlight-wise.

  7. #7 by utubmania2009 at April 24th, 2009

    Not exactly. Grains are from farmers, Algae would be mostly corporation based. It’s a threat to politicians because they need farmers vote for them. Another thing, If Algae is really as per research found theoretically, it would create lots of trade imbalance and oil production nations will gone bankrupt within short period of time. The equilibrium btw OPEC nations n Algae producing nations, in standard of living and will fall backward at least 50+ yr.m not to mention political stability.

  8. #8 by utubmania2009 at April 24th, 2009

    USDA and politicians want to keep farmers as farmers, Algae production will put them out of job and probably turn them to production line factory workers at low wages that replaceable by cheaper available labors. Another things, Oil companies contributions would vanish if they promote Algae too aggressively.

  9. #9 by m2m32z at June 30th, 2009

    There would still be a need for American farmers. Instead of growing corn for biofuel they could grow corn for feeding people. As far as what would happen to OPEC, WHO CARES.

  10. #10 by samatention at July 11th, 2009

    There was university east coast that developed a smoke stack gas cleaner. What it is a long clear plastic pipe that you run the exhaust through water and you put a small amount a algae in the tube and the algae grows and fills the pipe. You get clean a lot of the pollutions out of the exhaust. Would it ever supply all the algae you would need? I doubt it.

    Corn that is used for fuel is not the same kind of corn used to feed people. They use a feed corn that is use for live stock.
    .

  11. #11 by heavyweather at August 15th, 2009

    Plankton biomass should be farmed and (fairtraded) where it is most needed and can grow most efficient…Thats coastal Afrikan regions! The NEED energy for desalination, biomass for aquacultures,…
    You can produce any oil substitute and a lot of food from phytoplankton. You can produce building materials and permanantly capture CO2.
    And all that with salt water, sun and CO2.
    low tec open ponds are a good solution.

  12. #12 by Dealz1988 at September 8th, 2009

    So your saing the Alge is a good thing that might work??

  13. #13 by reforest4fertility at September 11th, 2009

    Yes, that microalgae is the world’s fastest growing plant, so then makes oxygen & sequesters carbon faster than any other plant, while yielding a high lipid (fat) content, with a high nutritional profile, allowing people to get their greens at the same time, in the same bite. That fat is also oil potentially for biofuels. But I’d consider that a secondary use, as combustion of oxygen & its attending production of carbon at such rates as we’re prone to is THE problem in the 1st place.

  14. #14 by Dealz1988 at September 11th, 2009

    So if algae puts out alot of carbon, Than whats the solution for going 100% green?

  15. #15 by reforest4fertility at September 11th, 2009

    It doesn’t put out carbon but takes it in. Unless you mean “takes it out of circulation”, then yes. I believe the solution for going “%100 green” is to be found between us all, all our perspectives rounding out eachothers’ idiosyncracies. Yes, we need scientists, but their overspecialization & too often betrothal to their corporate funders compromises making systems simple enough to be done on the cottage industry (small outfit) level. If we wait 4 big biz we wont meet the window 2 sustain life

  16. #16 by Dealz1988 at September 15th, 2009

    Your confusing me (IDIOSYNCACIES) I don’t know what that means. Give it to me shright is Algae the best way right now. What would you choose is the way for going green. Alage or BioDiesal?

  17. #17 by rrmoh at September 26th, 2009

    knock off the advertisement… this is fraud

  18. #18 by mlchemwolf at December 3rd, 2009

    a loop. there is no NEW carbon put into the air.

  19. #19 by Luvanicebum at January 6th, 2010

    Algea.
    The yield of fuel per acre is 50+ times larger,
    plus you’re eating up carbon dioxide producing plants.
    Plus the bi-products are far more diversely usable.
    (feed stock, biomass, processing for paper products).
    They can even engineer different types of agea to produce different grade and types of bio-fuels.
    And the last point, we’re not competing with our own food supply.
    However, I think at this point, either effort is a step in the right direction.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Comments are closed.