Patent to Reverse Global Warming

[Jens]

Addressing global warming, peak oil and food security are urgent problems. I can’t imagine how the world will deal with these problems without the technological solution I am presenting.

I know you're a reasonable person, so I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but a statement like that can give the impression, even if you don't mean it, that you put a lot of faith in yourself and very little faith in all the other people who are thinking about the same kind of problem. It is possible that there are other solutions that you might not have imagined yourself but that someone else might have. Saying, "the solution I am presenting could be a powerful way to overcome..." would seem more humble.

[Robert Tulip]

Surely they'll travel around it, particularly if it's located away from the shipping lanes...

A submarine buoyancy chamber would be a more efficient way to extract tidal energy than a ship on the surface, and less subject to adverse weather. There is no need for a ship on the surface for this component except to manage transfer of pumped water.

[Stroller]

The tidal buoyancy of the submerged bag is equal to or greater than the buoyancy of a floating ship.

Are you sure? Air is a lot less dense than brackish water. The bigger the density differential between the two fluids the greater the volume for volume bouyancy I would have thought. As a thought experiment, consider two sealed plastic bottles floating next to your boat, one full of fresh water, one full of air. Which one will help you stay afloat better if you fall overboard?

I think this sort of thing might work better. You'd be able to gravity feed the nutrient to the algae at a constant rate easily too. In bad weather, the weight could be winched onto the seabed to hold the ship in position. Not as elegant as your idea I admit.

[Robert Tulip]

Are you sure? Air is a lot less dense than brackish water. The bigger the density differential between the two fluids the greater the volume for volume bouyancy I would have thought. As a thought experiment, consider two sealed plastic bottles floating next to your boat, one full of fresh water, one full of air. Which one will help you stay afloat better if you fall overboard?

If the two plastic bottles each contained a megalitre of air or fresh water, both would provide buoyancy. We are looking for a flotation device with the power to pull and push a bellows shifting 125 kilolitres of water (1/10 acre foot) twice a day.

The full contact between the two chamber waterbag model can provide superior pulling power compared to the remote contact to a surface ship. Your proposal is for an anchor chain from a ship to the top of the bellows bag fixed to the ocean floor. This does not work as it does not provide gravitational pressure on the lower bag to pump its contents to the surface.

125 KL over 6.21 hrs tidal period = 335 litres per minute. The analysis required is the downward pulling and upward pushing this pumping would exert on waterbags of different sizes.

Your suggestion of a ship had me thinking about the relative size of the ship and the bag. A rowboat would get sucked below the tide like the eponymous Andromeda of galaxy fame , saved by Perseus from the tide, while a supertanker would stay afloat. But neither could expel contents of a bellows bag on the ocean floor.

A buoyancy bag of mass ten megalitres would have much more power than a bag of mass 100 kilolitres. Over a tidal cycle, the bigger the upper bag the closer it would stay to constant depth, delivering greater pumping power to the lower bag. It would take a big ship to be pulled down less than a ten ML bag, which would have height up to 80 metres, and in water of 200m depth would sit at constant 120m or more below the surface. The upper bag can be conical in shape, expanding to greater diameter than the lower bag. Pressure difference between this bag and the surrounding ocean is zero, except due to depth variation caused by pumping pressure from water below.

[Stroller]

Robert, can you see my sketch? The weight suspended below the ship supplies the gravitational force for pumping. A major advantage is no need for suction side rigid tube. Just needs a spring coil of pvc pipe in the bag to keep it's shape when 'inhaling' nutrient water on the rising tide. Another advantage is that the range of vertical movement is increased by the filling and emptying of the onboard tank. This reduces material requirements for the pumping bag.

Don't forget your 335l/min is averaged over the tide. Because the rate of change of ocean surface height follows a sine wave wrt time, your delivery and suction sides will have to cope with much higher flow rates at mid tide when the rate of change is highest.

[Robert Tulip]

Now I get it. The ship pulls up the bellows on the rising tide, and then its anchor is so heavy that the anchor pushes the bellows down on the falling tide. This would work. In scaling up, it suggests an air filled buoy might be a superior buoyancy device to a water-filled bag as it requires less materials. However, it is subject to storm damage. If a waterbag at $30 per square metre costs $7,000 per megalitre, that may still be economic as a way to scale up.

What volume of air in a ship/buoy would be needed not to sink under the weight of an anchor plate heavy enough to lift 125 KL of water 500 metres per tide?

Just doing the calculations for the waterbag option, a spherical upper waterbag holding ten megalitres (ie 10,000 tons weight) would have surface area of 2244 square metres and radius 13.37 metres, which at rough indicative fabrication cost of $30 per square metre* would cost $67,340. How does that compare against a buoy and anchor with the same pulling and pushing power, and to terrestrial pumps shifting similar water volume (250 KL/day 500 metre head), considering waterbag operating energy costs are zero?

*http://www.hooverfence.com/catalog/cpage5.htm gives galvanised chain link fence prices of $4 per square metre. The rough bag indicative price includes estimated fabric price of $15 per square metre, plus chain fence and $13,000 of construction cost.

[Stroller]

Just doing the calculations for the waterbag option, a spherical upper waterbag holding ten megalitres (ie 10,000 tons weight) would have surface area of 2244 square metres and radius 13.37 metres, which at rough indicative fabrication cost of $30 per square metre* would cost $67,340. How does that compare against a buoy and anchor with the same pulling and pushing power, and to terrestrial pumps shifting similar water volume (250 KL/day 500 metre head), considering waterbag operating energy costs are zero?

Well, this is it. Time to get the calculators warm. Last one back with the calcs for 250kl/day is a dunce.

We need to agree the relative density of the deep and surface water, and a nominal tidal height first, then I'll do my buoy and press weight design calcs and you do your waterbag calcs.

[Robert Tulip]

Well, this is it. Time to get the calculators warm. Last one back with the calcs for 250kl/day is a dunce.

We need to agree the relative density of the deep and surface water, and a nominal tidal height first, then I'll do my buoy and press weight design calcs and you do your waterbag calcs.

Water density is pretty well the same at all depths, one ton per cubic metre. From http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wa...ght-d_595.html assuming temperature difference between surface (20 deg C) and deep (5 deg C) of less than fifteen degrees, the relative density of surface water is at least 99.82% of deep water

A map of world tidal amplitudes is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M2...onstituent.jpg. I suggest tidal amplitude of one metre, which means going for the red areas on the map.

[Stroller]

OK, so the only force we need to do the pumping from 500m down to surface is the force required to overcome frictional losses in the pipework.

The figure I get for shifting 450l/min (peak) through 500m of 6" fabric hose is around 0.75psi. Because my design utilises the pumped water to increase the effective tidal range, my bellows bag will be around 6m diameter. My weight will need a buoyancy mass of around 16 tonnes.

My pumping bellows bag will need around 200m^2 of material.
My surface float tank will need to be sufficiently buoyant to support 16 tonnes plus it's own weight and high enough for a vertical movement of 6m with some freeboard.

I estimate a 6 meter diameter by 18 meter long tube of reinforced concrete will do the job. The weight can consist of a galvanised mesh cage full of rocks.

[Robert Tulip]

OK, so the only force we need to do the pumping from 500m down to surface is the force required to overcome frictional losses in the pipework.

This is an important point. It means that pumping water from the deep to the ocean surface is very unlike pumping above the surface, as the concept of a pumping head does not apply in the ocean because the surrounding medium has near enough the same density as the pumped fluid. Is this right?

The figure I get for shifting 450l/min (peak) through 500m of 6" fabric hose is around 0.75psi. Because my design utilises the pumped water to increase the effective tidal range, my bellows bag will be around 6m diameter. My weight will need a buoyancy mass of around 16 tonnes.

How does your design utilise the pumped water to increase the effective tidal range?
Could the buoyancy mass be a saline waterbag, with salinity calculated to maintain constant depth, or would a bag of rocks etc be more effective?

My pumping bellows bag will need around 200m^2 of material.
My surface float tank will need to be sufficiently buoyant to support 16 tonnes plus it's own weight and high enough for a vertical movement of 6m with some freeboard.

If the anchor was made of saline water, it would rise with the tide, so would not need as big a float tank. As per last question, could a saline bag provide the same pumping pressure as a solid anchor of equal mass? What do you mean "high enough for a vertical movement of 6m"?

I estimate a 6 meter diameter by 18 meter long tube of reinforced concrete will do the job. The weight can consist of a galvanised mesh cage full of rocks.

This is great Stroller. Could the concrete tube be weighted to float at 20m below the surface, to protect from storm and shipping hazards, or would it need to be at the surface?

I don't have the expertise to compare this with the model I have proposed. Hopefully some other readers might take an interest too.


On the question of how to optimise algae yield in the production chamber, please see the following.

A reader kindly prompted me to show that 8.25 tons CO2 per day (1.6% concentration in proposed water volume) is required for the eventual production goal of five tons of algae per hectare per day. This requires pure CO2 as input. However, it would take some time to achieve this production intensity.

These CO2 sources are readily available on the North West Shelf of Western Australia, where industrial scale CO2 sequestration is planned.

One hundred million tons of CO2 is planned to be sequestered from the Gorgon Gas Project. Source: An Overview of the Gorgon Project: CO2 Injection, by Mckenna, J., R. Gurton, S. Leigh, T. Tankersley, Chevron Australia Pty Ltd, Perth, Australia

The Burrup Peninsula Ammonia Plant alone is estimated to produce 1.4 million tons of CO2 per year. Source: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/998_B1036.pdf

Burrup emissions are enough for 465 x 5t/ha/day algae plants, producing over 800,000 tons of algae per year, making about one million barrels of oil per year.

Availability of CO2 is not a constraint for my proposal. The proposal is designed to eat up all the CO2 that can readily be supplied and convert it into biodiesel feedstock at a more efficient rate than any other method.

You may recall my comment that the raceway photobioreactor should have four parallel tracks. The reason for this is to force the algae in each track to evolve to adapt to a high CO2 environment. Amount of CO2 in each track would start low and gradually increase until the optimum production level is achieved. Testing of algae production from each track for growth rate and lipid production would determine which algae to feed back into the system. The aim is to produce an algae species that is robust to this environment and delivers required yields.

Models of the technology are needed to determine the best way to inject CO2 into the algae production chamber, whether by tidal pump or by wave pump. Both of my proposed waterbag pumping methods are easily capable of supplying the proposed 8.25 ton per day quantity.

[Stroller]

This is an important point. It means that pumping water from the deep to the ocean surface is very unlike pumping above the surface, as the concept of a pumping head does not apply in the ocean because the surrounding medium has near enough the same density as the pumped fluid. Is this right?

Yes.

How does your design utilise the pumped water to increase the effective tidal range?

By pumping the water into the surface tank above the buoyancy chamber, it will drop the tank and weight by a distance equal to the depth of water pumped from the similar diameter bellows bag.

Could the buoyancy mass be a saline waterbag, with salinity calculated to maintain constant depth, or would a bag of rocks etc be more effective?

Not sure I understand you. The buoyancy mass is the object mass-water displacement mass.

If the anchor was made of saline water, it would rise with the tide, so would not need as big a float tank. As per last question, could a saline bag provide the same pumping pressure as a solid anchor of equal mass?

No because water is much less dense than rock.

What do you mean "high enough for a vertical movement of 6m"?

You'd need enough tube sticking out above water level to accommodate 5m of 'sinking' as the water is transferred from seabed into the surface float tank.

This is great Stroller.

Don't hang the flags out yet, there are some pretty tough engineering problems to overcome here.

Could the concrete tube be weighted to float at 20m below the surface, to protect from storm and shipping hazards, or would it need to be at the surface?

I don't think so. Stick a flashing light on it and it'll weather the storms.

I don't have the expertise to compare this with the model I have proposed.

I'm not sure I 'get' your model anyway, so I'm reluctant to try. If the upper bag 'floats' at a certain depth, and the changing tide varies this floatation level by a meter, the buoyancy mass is going to be pretty close to zero. How is that going to provide the force needed for pumping?

[Robert Tulip]

If the upper bag 'floats' at a certain depth, and the changing tide varies this floatation level by a meter, the buoyancy mass is going to be pretty close to zero. How is that going to provide the force needed for pumping?

This goes to my question in my diagram posted above, namely how the value of Z as the distance from the upper bag to the surface varies from zero.

Assume bag (A) size one megalitre (cube 10 metres per side), weighing 1000 tons. If filled with fresh water, it has density 40 compared to ocean water 41, and floats 25 centimetres (2.5% of ten metres) above the ocean surface. If one ton of salt is added, the weight is now about 1001 tons, and the bag floats lower, at a constant height with respect to the ocean surface, going up and down with the tide. By adding more salt, a level can be found at which the bag floats Z metres below the surface. Z is constant, assuming that ocean salinity is constant. If bag A is attached to a bellows bag (B) beneath it, bag A will seek to maintain its constant depth. It will provide pumping pressure to close the bellows on a falling tide, and will rise with the rising tide, either providing pumping vacuum for a bellows bag drawing deeper water, or simply allowing the bellows to fill by natural inlet if the bellows is at depth of external water required. This method can also be used to transfer water from a waterbag into a reticulation system. A near shore tidal waterbag pump can connect its inlet to a fresh waterbag, and its outlet to a pipe to transfer the water, at irrigation or potable standard, to a shore-based water treatment and pumping plant.

The changing tide does not 'vary the flotation' of the waterbag. The only things that vary its flotation are the density of its contents and the external pressure applied for pumping.

[Stroller]

This goes to my question in my diagram posted above, namely how the value of Z as the distance from the upper bag to the surface varies from zero.

Assume bag (A) size one megalitre (cube 10 metres per side), weighing 1000 tons.

The problem as I see it is that although the mass might be 1001 tons, the buoyancy mass is almost zero. This is because the density is almost the same as the surrounding medium.

A bag of water in water is 'weightless'.

[Robert Tulip]

The problem as I see it is that although the mass might be 1001 tons, the buoyancy mass is almost zero. This is because the density is almost the same as the surrounding medium. A bag of water in water is 'weightless'.

Consider a 1 ML bag of water (cube 10m3) of density to establish buoyancy equilibrium one metre below the ocean surface. Bag is placed in water of mean depth (D) 11 metres and tide 1 metre. On a high tide, the bag is 1.5 m above the floor, and on low tide the bag is 0.5 m above the floor.

A bellows bag beneath with height range 0.5m to 1.5m will be filled and emptied as previously described.

At mid tidal fall, the bag will be at equilibrium 1m above floor, but may actually be at 1.3m above the floor, due to its 'weightlessness'. Hence we have 300 tons of water exerting downward pressure at this moment.

As I imagined it, but have not tested or calculated, which is why I am asking questions here, the mass of the upper bag will have strong stability vis-a-vis the ocean surface, and will exert strong pumping pressure. Is this just wrong?

The question, then, is that as D increases, how does the power of the bag decrease, as its salinity increases so it is at mean equilibrium one metre above the ocean floor.

I looked on the internet for a simple definition of buoyancy mass but could not find one. Is there a simple definition of this combined term?

A Buoyancy Mass Patent is worth a look.

[Stroller]

At mid tidal fall, the bag will be at equilibrium 1m above floor, but may actually be at 1.3m above the floor, due to its 'weightlessness'. Hence we have 300 tons of water exerting downward pressure at this moment.

Yes, but the 300 tons of water has nearly all it's weight supported by the gazillion tons of water around it as they are nearly the same density.So the net downward pressure is negligible.

I looked on the internet for a simple definition of buoyancy mass but could not find one. Is there a simple definition of this combined term?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

It is common to define a buoyant mass mb that represents the effective mass of the object with respect to gravity

where m(o) is the true (vacuum) mass of the object, whereas ρ(o) and ρ(f )are the average densities of the object and the surrounding fluid, respectively. Thus, if the two densities are equal, ρ(o) = ρ(f), the object appears to be weightless. If the fluid density is greater than the average density of the object, the object floats; if less, the object sinks.

[Robert Tulip]

the 300 tons of water has nearly all it's weight supported by the gazillion tons of water around it as they are nearly the same density.So the net downward pressure is negligible.

Here is a schematic diagram of the four stages of piston movement of a waterbag tidal pump. The bag constantly seeks equilibrium in the tidal cycle. Without a bag pump beneath it, its depth will be constant, ie, the four arrows marked as 1,2,3,4 in the diagram will be of equal length. As energy is extracted for pumping, the depth will move from constant. With the large inertial mass of a 1 ML bag, considerable pumping energy could be extracted. I do not have the expertise in physics to calculate this pumping energy, so am relying on readers who can assist. For example, will the amplitude of the bag movement be significantly less than the tidal amplitude? How would you calculate it? Is there a lag?



(58KB, linked to attached thumbnail. Mods please leave image in Post for one week).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

It is common to define a buoyant mass mb that represents the effective mass of the object with respect to gravity

where m(o) is the true (vacuum) mass of the object, whereas ρ(o) and ρ(f )are the average densities of the object and the surrounding fluid, respectively. Thus, if the two densities are equal, ρ(o) = ρ(f), the object appears to be weightless. If the fluid density is greater than the average density of the object, the object floats; if less, the object sinks.

This shows the waterbag is at equilibrium at a defined depth, ie that it will move up and down with the tide at any given depth. [/quote]

Can we use this definition of 'bouyant mass' to define 'bouyancy mass' as tendency to sink or rise? If so, is positive buoyancy mass sinking and negative buoyancy mass rising?

By this definition, the waterbag has zero bouyancy mass at high and low tides, high positive buoyancy mass at mid tidal fall, and high negative buoyancy mass at mid rising tide.

[Stroller]

I do not have the expertise in physics to calculate this pumping energy, so am relying on readers who can assist.

Robert, I'm sorry, but I'm running out of ways to say 'very little'. To move water at the required rate with a 1m vertical movement will require a downward force on 125m^2 of around 50 tonnes. Your waterbag just ain't gonna generate anything like that much, because it's contents are very similar in density to the surrounding fluid.

[Robert Tulip]

To move water at the required rate with a 1m vertical movement will require a downward force on 125m^2 of around 50 tonnes. Your waterbag just ain't gonna generate anything like that much, because it's contents are very similar in density to the surrounding fluid.

A 125m^2 cylindrical bag of height one meter has diameter 12.6m. An upper bag of equal diameter has weight of fifty tons for each 0.4 metres of height. At ten metres height the upper bag would weigh 1250 tons. Without a second bag under it this object will just go up and down with the tide, because it has exactly the same density as the surrounding water, as its contents are measured so it will float at a defined depth. Are you suggesting the tidal motion of this bag would be reduced to near nothing by extraction of pumping of 125KL per tide?

Algae City
I've drawn the attached diagram of an Algae City in the Gulf of Mexico to illustrate the potential scale of algae production using waterbags, with nutrient water supplied by combination of tide and wave power and geothermal heating. As I noted earlier, geothermal heating of deep water is a way to improve pumping efficiency. The aim is 100% renewable power.

By my calculation, covering 2% of the Gulf with algae farms in this way would meet the fuel needs of the USA. Algae farming on this scale would significantly reduce water temperature, hurricane intensity and biodiversity loss. It is a way to significantly expand the arable land area available to the USA and Mexico.

[Stroller]

A 125m^2 cylindrical bag of height one meter has diameter 12.6m. An upper bag of equal diameter has weight of fifty tons for each 0.4 metres of height. At ten metres height the upper bag would weigh 1250 tons. Without a second bag under it this object will just go up and down with the tide, because it has exactly the same density as the surrounding water, as its contents are measured so it will float at a defined depth. Are you suggesting the tidal motion of this bag would be reduced to near nothing by extraction of pumping of 125KL per tide?

Yes. It doesn't matter what the water weighs, it only matters what the relative densities are. How much denser is the water in the bag than the surrounding water when it's artificially elevated 1m from equilibrium? Very little.

The frictional losses in the suction and delivery pipes will slow the delivery to a trickle.

[Robert Tulip]

Yes. It doesn't matter what the water weighs, it only matters what the relative densities are. How much denser is the water in the bag than the surrounding water when it's artificially elevated 1m from equilibrium? Very little.

The frictional losses in the suction and delivery pipes will slow the delivery to a trickle.

Okay, you've convinced me. At the scale described the buoyancy bag needs to be split in two, a weight and a buoy. With this revision the tidal bellows concept remains a feasible low cost way to obtain rich water from the sea floor for algae production.

However, I suspect on the scale of my Algae City the tidal pumping would work, especially when combined with geothermal heating. This floating city proposal is an upper waterbag of size one teralitre (1km^3). If pumping volume were 1% of the volume of this bag it would lift ten gigalitres per tide, notionally enough at 250 kl/ha/day for 80,000 hectares. At 0.1% efficiency it would be enough for 8000 hectares. The problem here is that tides are very small in the Gulf of Mexico, so using tidal energy would be only a small factor there compared to other locations.

[Stroller]

Okay, you've convinced me. At the scale described the buoyancy bag needs to be split in two, a weight and a buoy. With this revision the tidal bellows concept remains a feasible low cost way to obtain rich water from the sea floor for algae production.

Okay, the next problem is the bellows bag. How is the material to be jointed? What is the breaking strain of the material? It's going to suffer tremendous strains caused by motion of the buoy on sea swells. I'm wondering if we need a stronger structure for the pump body.

However, I suspect on the scale of my Algae City the tidal pumping would work, especially when combined with geothermal heating. This floating city proposal is an upper waterbag of size one teralitre (1km^3). If pumping volume were 1% of the volume of this bag it would lift ten gigalitres per tide, notionally enough at 250 kl/ha/day for 80,000 hectares. At 0.1% efficiency it would be enough for 8000 hectares. The problem here is that tides are very small in the Gulf of Mexico, so using tidal energy would be only a small factor there compared to other locations.

Sounds exciting. I'll concentrate on the scale I can accurately calculate for now.

[Robert Tulip]

Okay, the next problem is the bellows bag. How is the material to be jointed? What is the breaking strain of the material? It's going to suffer tremendous strains caused by motion of the buoy on sea swells. I'm wondering if we need a stronger structure for the pump body.

Preferably, the material for the bellows bag is polymer fabric, either designed primarily as a single sheet or connected by seams. A relatively simple flap design can open an inlet valve on a rising tide and an outlet valve on a falling tide. As the object is 500 metres below sea surface, it is not directly affected by motion of the buoy, and any actual motion between the buoy line and the weight is managed by a simple swivel connection point and tension in the line.

Sounds exciting. I'll concentrate on the scale I can accurately calculate for now.

Please see provisional patent application just lodged for the following ancillary devices for the ocean based algae production system.

Wave Motor
Wave Pump
Ocean Road
Ocean Container Canal
Whale Fluke Wave Propulsion
Ocean Dam
Ocean Rain Capture
Water Cleaning System

[Robert Tulip]

And here's me thinking Stroller might have been suggesting this was a perpetual motion machine (okay then, moon-powered).

[Robert Tulip]

Potential for algae to transform the world economy
Robert Tulip
1. The world economy relies on the movement of carbon from the earth’s crust into the atmosphere as its main source of energy. Burning of fossil fuel is unsustainable for two reasons: peak oil and climate change. Algae biofuel is the only realistic option to fix these problems on global scale.
2. Oil extraction rates have already passed their peak, with new reserves not adequate to supply growing demand. It is essential for political and economic stability that new bulk liquid fuel sources are established well in advance of any supply crisis.
3. The climate change impact of carbon emissions is more controversial, but the fact is that CO2 emission rates are increasing, not decreasing, in order to power economic growth for an expanding world population. NASA scientists say that if most of the carbon now in the crust was shifted to the atmosphere, Earth would become like Venus, a CO2 hothouse where life would be impossible. Just shifting a fraction of existing carbon into the air is already causing upheaval in global climate. The accelerating rate of emissions under business as usual means that climate change will become even more rapid until a systemic solution is implemented using new technology.
4. In response to these twin problems, peak oil and climate change, biofuel has been proposed as a means to supply sustainable energy. The first generation of biofuel, ethanol from grain, actually produces more net emissions than fossil fuel, while also displacing food crops and driving up food prices. The need is for a new generation of biofuel, a source of abundant liquid fuel that can be produced using renewable natural energy sources, that does not compete with food production for land, and that is rapidly scalable, simple to operate and good for the environment. Algae is the only crop that meets all these needs.
5. Transformation of the world economy to sustainable energy production from algae requires development of innovative new technology. The most promising method for bulk fuel production from algae is likely to emerge from the work of the US National Aeronautical and Space Administration, NASA, in their OMEGA Project - Offshore Membrane Enclosure for Growing Algae.
6. Dr. Jonathan Trent, chief scientist for OMEGA, recently explained the status of the project (link). OMEGA plans to grow algae by pumping wastewater from sewage plants into floating fabric bags located in sheltered coastal bays. OMEGA has identified San Francisco Bay as an optimal test site, with readily available nutrient supply adjacent to suitable pilot locations, as well as abundant human capital in the innovation hub of Silicon Valley.
7. Sewage contains high levels of nutrients, and can be treated offshore in floating farms to produce algae and fresh water, instead of just dumping the treated waste at sea. Dr. Trent has shown that once the sewage is fully converted to algae, it can be simply processed to thick slush by putting it in a floating bag of a material that allows fresh water to escape by osmosis into the surrounding sea while retaining the algae cells in the bag. The concentrated algae is then a valuable commercial bulk commodity.
8. Algae cells are mostly made of oil, protein and carbohydrate. A number of methods are now in development to extract the oil, which in preferred species is about half the mass of the cell. Algae oil can easily be converted to diesel fuel for use in transport and heating using the same methods now in operation in biofuel plants. The remainder of the algae biomass can be used for fertilizer, food and fibre. The aim is to produce abundant low cost commodities that will enrich the world and put the global economy on to an ecologically sustainable path.
9. Algae, growing in shallow warm seas, was the original source for the fossil deposits of petroleum in the earth’s crust. Algae farms can replicate this original natural production process in a fraction of the time, at commercially competitive cost, and in a way that will be good for the environment, the climate and the world economy.
10. The OMEGA method mixes the algae with nutrient and CO2 inside a floating bag using wave energy. The nutrient source water and CO2 can be pumped in and out using tidal power. The entire operation needs no fossil fuel at all, as it uses natural sources and produces its own operational energy by converting sunlight into algae.
11. If CO2 is pumped into the base of the algae farm together with nutrients, and drizzled up through the algated water, the CO2 will provide buoyancy for the farm and create a cultured environment to maximize productivity.
12. Algae produced from sewage will not survive in the open ocean as it will die on contact with salt water. This provides an initial guarantee against environmental damage. Any spilled algae will be eaten by fish.
13. The OMEGA pilot will examine risks such as shipping, lightning and storm. It appears these are readily solved. Signage can separate farms from shipping lanes, ability to patch any torn fabric can repair lightning damage, and ability to sink the entire system simply by expelling CO2 from the base can protect against rough weather. The ocean is still just below the surface.
14. Considering the potential to expand from the San Francisco OMEGA pilot project, one feasible plan is the co-location of electricity stations with coastal algae farms and sewage plants, with all the CO2 from the power plant going into the algae production, and the algae being dried and used as fuel in a closed loop with zero emissions. This was proposed on land by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the 1970s, but the project was shelved due to lack of interest from the petrochemical industry.
15. If all the emissions from power plants, mines, cement factories and the like were piped into algae farms, the rise in global CO2 level could be stabilized and even reversed. Algae, produced in this way, can replace the need for geological sequestration of C02. The best way to sequester carbon is to use it as a valuable commodity to grow algae in bags at sea.
16. My estimate is that all fossil fuel could be replaced by algae grown on 0.1% of the world ocean, 500,000 square kilometers. Optimal initial locations include pilot sites such as San Francisco Bay, and other sheltered shallow warm waters such as in the Gulf of Mexico and the northern coast of Australia. Just one mining project in Australia, the Gorgon Gas Project on Barrow Island, proposes to produce three million tons of CO2 each year as a byproduct. Instead of pumping it below ground as worthless waste, algae farms can use this CO2 as a resource for energy production.
17. In heavily polluted industrial environments such as in China, pumping of power station emissions into algae farms could rapidly reduce air pollution. Such pumping can be entirely powered by tidal energy in coastal locations. Concentrated CO2 from inland locations can be barged down rivers in fabric balloons to coastal algae farms.
18. Another excellent potential test site is Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. The reef is now at high risk from climate change due to warming ocean water temperature killing the coral. Algae farms located near the reef can contain all the heat from the sun in the surface layer, providing local cooling of ocean water beneath them, reducing the overall temperature of the reef water, protecting the coral, processing phosphorus from agricultural runoff, and providing a sustainable food source for fish.
19. The OMEGA pilot project in San Francisco offers the opportunity to consider even more productive large scale methods, such as salt water algae that draws its nutrient by tidal power from the deep rich water 500 meters below the surface. Strains of salt water algae can be produced that will dominate within the cultured farm environment but will not grow in the open ocean.
20. Tidal energy for pumping can mimic the upwelling of deep cold ocean currents that are now the nutrient source for the world’s richest fish grounds. Eaten by fish, the algae product from an offshore farm will rapidly increase the protein biomass of the surrounding ocean, providing a major boost to food production and protecting fish stocks.
21. Plant husbandry methods can achieve high yielding strains. If an algae farm has multiple parallel tracks along which water flows, the output can be tested for desired criteria, and the most productive batch can be used to seed the system, to outcompete wild strains and maximize yield. If CO2 is pumped into the water in the farm, new algae varieties will rapidly evolve that will grow well in the cultured environment, but will not survive in the open sea. My view is that such plant husbandry techniques are preferable to genetic engineering, and that all research and development should be highly precautionary regarding any risks. My estimate is that an initial yield goal of one cubic meter of oil per hectare per day can rapidly be multiplied many times over through intensive research and development.
22. Algae provides the only realistic way to actually drive down atmospheric CO2 levels by replacing current energy sources at global scale. Focus on technological innovation is far better than existing proposed climate response methods that concentrate on tax reform. While it is likely that government subsidy would speed up the establishment of a large scale commercial algae production industry, my assessment is that the methods described here should be commercially competitive against fossil fuels on current market prices, and even more so when the environmental damage of fossil fuels is considered.
23. There is no point in climate schemes that do not use market forces to transform the global economy away from its short term addiction to fossil fuels. Production of fuel, fertilizer, fibre and food from algae will rapidly address fuel security and food security. Resources are needed to expand current pilot projects. Equity investment will be highly profitable and socially responsible, establishing a sustainable new industry that will fix some of the biggest problems facing the world.

[profloater]

Hi Robert,
I like your summary. Is the OMEGA pilot the only trial at present? I would like to speculate about various alternative technologies for algae farming. One that comes to mind is to allow the algae "free" and to have small floating pumping stations (might be called boats) to collect it and process it. I agree you need to do parallel trials to develop better (for our purposes) varieties or even species. But those could also be done free floating in the oceans. Is the main objection to that the eating of the algae in the oceans? I understand you get algal blooms as soon as nutrients are released. Can you remind me of the process cycle time of the algae seeding to harvest time?

[Robert Tulip]

The OMEGA NASA pilot is the one I find most interesting, because it uses the natural energy of the ocean, whereas land based systems are more energy and resource intensive. There is also marine algae based work in Hawaii, for example here. There are numerous companies working on algae biofuel.

By concentrating the algae in a bag it can be processed as a commodity, unlike iron seeding proposals. Some species of algae can double in volume in eight hours or less, but quorum sensing means they stop growing when they reach a set density. The overall process cycle time is highly variable, depending on size of plant, technology, batch or continuous process, species, weather, etc.

[profloater]

quorum sensing means they stop growing

does that work the same way as with bacteria, using boron concentration? as I recall the only known bio use of boron? My thinking is that the key limit is the solar input so you need big areas, but I want to find out more about this.

[Robert Tulip]

Sorry, I am not familiar with the science of quorum sensing, except in general terms. A scientist colleague in China has suggested genetically engineering algae to knock out the quorum sensing gene. I regard all genetic engineering with some uncertainty, and would prefer that alterations to the genome be produced by gradual forced evolution, choosing selected high yield lines as feedstock.

My suggestion to grow algae at sea rather than on land is based on the availability of big areas, as Jonathan Trent highlights in his TED talk regarding use of San Francisco Bay rather than trying to find land. As well, tide and wave can be directly harnessed for pumping and mixing, whereas land based production needs energy input.

[Robert Tulip]

Biodiesel Crops and Production.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6oekxl0JAs

Please view Jonathan Trent's 12 minute video of his offshore membrane enclosure to grow algae. He explains recent progress in NASA's work in moving from laboratory to field trials in Santa Cruz and San Francisco Bay, using readily available sources of waste water and CO2.

The reason why algae is the best answer to the world energy and climate crisis is shown in this diagram of comparative biofuel yields from the NASA video. Algae could produce 100 times the yield of oil per acre of soy, and nearly ten times the yield of the best current land based biofuel, palm oil. Algae produces orders of magnitude more oil than any other crop, does not compete with agriculture, and provides a ready abundant source of fuel, fertilizer and food.

Algae will put these first generation biofuels out of business, much as the petrol engine replaced the horse as a primary energy source. Grown at sea, algae requires no fossil fuel or land, but instead uses wave and tide and solar power to produce abundant renewable energy with potentially negative CO2 emissions.

Innovative technology and know can replicate at industrial scale the natural process that the earth used over tens of millions of years when it laid down the fossil petroleum from algae. We are now mining fossil algae like there is no tomorrow for our petrol tanks. Algae is the original source of the CO2 poison that we are now spewing into the atmosphere to kill our planet, and can also be the source of saving 'antibodies' to reverse the threat of CO2, if we deploy it immediately on planetary scale at sea.

[profloater]

Hi Robert,
Have you advanced your patent to actually formulating a claim 1 yet? I cannot find any claim on your website.