Alternative Energy that could save the world literally-This is too big to fail!

[happy_liberal]

I had this company GreenFuel Technologies on a list to watch and just checked them out again...and they went under!

This technology grows algae to absorb and cleans up CO2 and then turns it into fuel..

"The GFT President, Chief Technology Officer and the inventor of a newly patented system for growing pollution-digesting algae inexpensively on an industrial scale is Isaac Berzin, who founded the company in April, 2001. Time Magazine included Berzin in its list of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2008.<3>

A beta emission reduction system was installed at an MIT cogeneration facility in 2004 and after performing beyond expectations was moved to a larger power plant in fall 2005. Pilot units were tested at power plants in Arizona, Massachusetts and New York.

GreenFuel's large scale algae to biofuel process at the Arizona Public Service Redhawk power facility won the 2006 Platts Emissions Energy Project of the Year Award"

"Sources of carbon rich exhaust include manufacturing facilities and electricity generation plants, especially those which burn coal. Once the algal biomass is harvested and processed, the resulting fuel may be sold for additional revenue or utilized on-site."


The world cannot afford to let this technology go to waste- but we bailed out the bankers :grr: :grr:



The company went under because of the bad economy. This is the kind of thing that I want our government to financially support.

[happy_liberal]

1. I don't want to hear any more bullshit about global climate change bills

if our US Congress cannot even look into solving this problem.

If there is algae that will eat CO2, then that algae can be turned into fuel-problem solved.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Um, happy_liberal, all plants "eat" CO2.

It's a magical process called "photosynthesis."

[happy_liberal]

3. This is called " a special algae that eats up pollution like no other"

These algae farms can be put on rooftops near pollution rich areas, coal plants etc.

[happy_liberal]

7. just wondering

did you unrec a thread about this new green technology that has the potential to stop global warming?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. No, but now that you brought it up, I'll go ahead and unrec.

[FreakinDJ]

4. Some of those things are not "Cost Efficient"

more or less they are a SCAM

I know - I posted an article here a couple years ago where the guy was stating with Nano-Tube Technology he could get some thing similar to cold fusion and solve all of the World's Energy needs - sounded real good but it was BS

[happy_liberal]

6. I don't care how much it cost and this company showed results and potential

They are telling us the planet is going to overheat from CO2 and we are all going to die.

I don't care how much it cost, pursue this technology now! What could be more important?



Meanwhile we waste trillions on wars, causing the very global warming we are trying to stop. I wonder how much CO2 those bombs create....and the oil we are wasting/burning while chasing down those 100 or so terrorists....

[Statistical]

9. Cost always matters.

Say we have technology x that mitigates CO2 and technology y that mitigates CO2.

The cost for x is $100 per ton of CO2. The cost of y is $150 per ton of CO2.

Even if your goal is to reduce CO2 it would be better to use y instead of x.

[happy_liberal]

10. well sure

If they have a cheaper way no problem.

My problem is that since this company went out of business, no one is pursuing it. People that stand to make money on the carbon credit global warming business will probably buy the patent and burn it.

[Statistical]

11. Nobody is persuing THIS doesn't mean nobody is persuing carbon mitiagation.

Efficient natural gas turbines vs coal plants = reduced CO2 output
Windfarms replacing fossil fuels = reduced CO2 output
More efficient gasoline engines/hybrids = reduced CO2 output
Nuclear plants to replace coal baseline = reduced CO2 output
Moving vehicles from fossil fuels to electricity = reduced CO2 output

There is more than one way to reduce CO2 intensity. This way proven unprofitable however wind turbine companies, nuclear companies, electric vehicle companies remained profitable.

So while nobody is perusing this method it doesn't mean nobody is persuing ANY method of reducing CO2.

[happy_liberal]

13. This eats the CO2 that is already here

why aren't we putting this algae on every toxic polluting site everywhere now!


Yes it is good to plan to reduce CO2 eventually- but this removes CO2 now that is already here!

[Statistical]

15. No. it doesn't.

Once CO2 is emitted is becomes very small % of atmosphere. 380 parts in one million.

This only works WHERE YOU EMIT CO2. Lots of it like a coal plant.

Instead of doing emitting more CO2 from a coal plant and reducing it via algae you could instead replace the coal plant with a wind farm.

Once again everything comes down to cost/ton of CO2 mitigated. If this can mitigate a ton of CO2 but the cost is twice that of a windfarm for example it would make more sense to just build 2 windfarms instead.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. It's worse.

How much energy does the process of making $100 or $150 use?

Want to save the world? Stay home.

[zipplewrath]

5. This is all part of "clean coal"

It has applications, but it is probably not part of a large coal fired power plant. I do agree though that I would like to see more investment into basic technologies that will be needed as part of the green revolution.

[happy_liberal]

12. This is what they are calling 'clean coal'?

interesting....

Did Obama set some money aside for this new technology?

[zipplewrath]

14. Some

I don't know how much. No where near what oil and gas are currently getting. Nothing approaching what nuclear is getting. Clean coal opponents would probably characterize it as "just enough to pander to the coal industry".

[TheKentuckian]

17. Algae based biomass has promise but hemp is already here for diesel and gas

We have solutions but we won't use them because of greed, stupidity, and apparently innate American attachment to the status quo.