NASA Aims for Future Fuel from Algae-Filled Bags of Sewage

Can the aviation fuel of the future be grown in plastic bags of wastewater?














Share on Tumblr

NASA algae sewage fuel

ALGAE UNLEASHED: NASA aims to capture the powers of algae in bags to make fuel and clean wastewater. Image: FLICKR/MISTERJINGO

NASA is applying space technology to a decidedly down-to-earth effort that links the production of algae-based fuel with an inexpensive method of sewage treatment.

The space agency is growing algae for biofuel in plastic bags of sewage floating in the ocean.

Jonathan Trent, the lead researcher on the project at NASA's Ames Research Center in California, said the effort has three goals: Produce biofuels with few resources in a confined area, help cleanse municipal wastewater, and sequester emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide that are produced along the way.

"Algae are the best source of biofuels on the planet that we know about," Trent said in an interview. "If we can also clean [wastewater] at the same time we create biofuels, that would great."

The process is amazingly simple. It starts with algae being placed in sewage-filled plastic bags, which in true NASA style have a nifty acronym, OMEGA, for "offshore membrane enclosures for growing algae."

The OMEGA bags are semipermeable membranes that NASA developed to recycle astronauts' wastewater on long space missions. In this case, the membranes let freshwater exit but prevent saltwater from moving in.

Then the algae in the bag feast on nutrients in the sewage. The plants clean up the water and produce lipids – fat-soluble molecules – that will be used later as fuel.

Just as in algae biofuel production on land, the floating OMEGA bags use water, solar energy and carbon dioxide – which in this case is absorbed through the plastic membrane – to produce sugar that algae metabolize into lipids.

Oxygen and fresh, cleansed water are then released through the membrane to the ocean.

"It's energy-free," Trent said. "It doesn't cost us anything. Osmosis works by itself."

The system is foolproof, he said. Even if the OMEGA bags leak, the salty ocean water would kill the algae, preventing the escape of an invasive species.

"Freshwater algae can't compete in the marine environment," Trent said. "We're not putting something out there that could become an invasive species."

And if the wastewater spills, he said, "the only thing we're putting in the water is already in the ocean anyway."


12 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. Shoshin 03:28 PM 5/12/09

    I like it. That's how Mother Nature did it, and it's worked out pretty good so far. Two potential issues that I see are:

    1. Scalability, which may be overcome, and

    2. The ability to run without any subsidies from the now discredited carbon sequestration/cap and trade/carbon tax boondoggles. GISS models have been falsified, so the whole AGW thing is dead. There is no need for the "War on Carbon"; there is no need for "Weapons of Mass Decarbonization".

    Get those two issues under control and you're off to the races.


    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. dmowen 03:45 PM 5/12/09

    10 acres?! For all US aviation fuels needs? That's got to be a typo! 10 acres is tiny!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. Shoshin 10:52 PM 5/12/09

    hotblack:

    Love your comment. I hope it stays up for all to see what you're really like. I guess when facts and reality don't suit you, just go for abuse and bullying.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. eco-steve 09:39 AM 5/13/09

    Shoshin : Yet another person who considers himself more qualified than the scientists who advise the IPCC? I am afraid you can't rubbish the IPCC reports unless you provide solid proof of what you are advocating. I know many negationists, none of whom can back up their 'beliefs' with hard fact. On science sites, you should only put forward opinions based on solid refereed studies.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. Shoshin 09:48 AM 5/13/09

    eco-steve:

    The IPCC is not a scientific body. It does no research of it's own nor conducts any peer reviews. It is a political body that picks and chooses whatever information it wishes to spread. By your definition the IPCC has no business being quoted on this website.

    So also by your definition, as a published peer reviewed scientist, yes I am more qualified than the IPCC.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  6. 6. Internet troll in reply to Shoshin 07:07 PM 5/14/09

    I agree that the algae/ fuel/ sewage idea is promising. However, I do not agree with your assessment of AGW or what you said about the IPCC:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

    "The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :
    The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.

    The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.

    The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals"

    So, Shoshin are you one of the scientists who contributes to the IPCC as an author, contributor or reviewer? If not, how are you more qualified than the scientists who contribute to the IPCC?

    For an interpretation of what the GISS model says:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  7. 7. brimartin10 in reply to dmowen 11:47 PM 5/15/09

    Maybe they misplaced some zeros. 10,000 acres perhaps?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  8. 8. Shoshin in reply to Internet troll 01:32 PM 5/16/09

    I stand by my comments. The IPCC is a purely political construct. If it were not, it would fund research on both sides of the argument. It does not. It can call itself whatever it wishes, but fundamentally it's actions are at odds with it's words.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  9. 9. galaxy_man in reply to Shoshin 08:41 AM 5/18/09

    Maybe you should try to realize that EVERY scientific experiment has as much chance to prove something wrong as it does at proving it right.

    Have you never heard of a failed experiment? There are many examples of experiments that were searching for something in particular and found something completely contrary. Don't believe me? Check out Michelson-Morley and the interferometer experiment that was supposed to prove the ether was real but instead showed that the speed of light was constant.

    There's no such thing as favorably funding science that supports versus science that contradicts. The results make that choice. Just because you're not seeing the results you want, doesn't mean the science is at fault.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  10. 10. Shoshin 05:34 PM 5/20/09

    Galaxy-man:

    Yes. Experiments fail all the time. But look carefully at the information that finds it's way into publication. It is not experimental in nature. It's focus is on gathering data on the effects of AGW or on postulating the effects of AGW on some system, be it ice shelfs or orchids. The data gathering activities all begin with the pre-supposition that AGW is a fact.

    Doesn't that strike you as odd? Nowhere is there the question as to whether it is real. It is just expected to be accepted as fact.

    Einstein was not afforded that deferrence; he had to use his theories to make predictions that were testable and tested. The same standard must be applied to AGW; if it passes, so be it, but it needs to earn it's way not be coronated.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  11. 11. galaxy_man 07:57 AM 5/21/09

    That happened about twenty years ago Shoshin....

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  12. 12. Shoshin 06:27 PM 5/28/09

    Galaxyman:

    If the IPCC isn't a purely political body, then you'd better explain this debacle to me.

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_malaria.pdf

    I'm not sure what the IPCC is, but scientific it ain't.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

NASA Aims for Future Fuel from Algae-Filled Bags of Sewage

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X