ALGAE UNLEASHED: NASA aims to capture the powers of algae in bags to make fuel and clean wastewater.
Image: FLICKR/MISTERJINGO
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
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."
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentI 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:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. 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.
10 acres?! For all US aviation fuels needs? That's got to be a typo! 10 acres is tiny!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishotblack:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLove 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.
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 thiseco-steve:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 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.
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:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://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
Maybe they misplaced some zeros. 10,000 acres perhaps?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI 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 thisMaybe you should try to realize that EVERY scientific experiment has as much chance to prove something wrong as it does at proving it right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave 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.
Galaxy-man:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes. 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.
That happened about twenty years ago Shoshin....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGalaxyman:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf 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.