Now this is interesting
Aardvark.co.nz has a dilemma for us “greenies” to grapple with today. If, by genetically modifying algae, we could produce hydrogen in a form ready to use as a fuel for transport and to replace fossil fuel, would we want to do it? Here’s the full Aardvark article, this is where they got it from, and this is the gist:
In our search for a clean, green energy source, scientists have found that it’s the green that’s important. Indeed, they’re now feverishly working on using carefully chosen algae to perform photosynthesis and excrete hydrogen as a byproduct.
Regular photosynthesizing cells normally use sunlight to convert atmospheric CO2 and hydrogen (from water) into sugars, releasing oxygen as a byproduct — but our clever biologists have already found some cells that will spit hydrogen out instead.
The plan is to create large algae farms that, powered by the sun, would convert water and CO2 into an almost limitless supply of hydrogen gas that could then be compressed into cylinders or bound to metals in the form of a hydride for transport purposes.
Right now you can hear the greenies amongst us jumping for joy can’t you?
Well bad news greenies — there’s a problem.
The hydrogen yield of these photosynthetic organisms is still about 100-fold short of that required to make the whole process commercially viable and it would appear that the most likely way to get the much-needed improvement is to genetically engineer the organisms involved.
Aside from the fact that Aardvark’s headline writers can’t spell, it certainly is a dilemma - what do you think?
February 27th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Are “greenies” that against GM? I’m against GM because of the risks it poses through lack of testing and the economic effects (Many consumers want GM-free food). Yet I still support GM studying so when new technologies, such as this example, are avaliable - and safe, we can use them.
February 27th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
I think people often aren’t clear about *why* GE is bad. Many of the arguments I’ve seen against it revolve around corporations using patent law to bully farmers who have GE products drift onto their land, or are worries that the GE version of something will displace the natural versions, lowering diversity, or that we will make mistakes and produce a GE lifeform that wreaks havoc in the biosphere. The one that scares me is that GE foods will displace organic foods and then turn out to have nasty side effects that appear down the line (that our corporate overlords never bothered to tell us about).
None of those arguments, to me, really apply to a case like this where, presumably, the organisms would have to be housed in specific machinery even to survive.
Those who base their beliefs on “not tampering with Gods work” or on not encouraging humanity to develop tools that would make incredible weapons in the wrong hands, may disagree, however.
- MugginsM
February 27th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
true true, why should it be a dilemma for Greens, (or even a dilema?), when the Green Party position on GE is Keep it in the Lab.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
sounds fine to me…..
and hard to admit coming from a vegan/animal rights position…but i also have sympathies for the idea of genetic modification to take care of the likes of possums…(i know..i know..!…)
phil(whoar.co.nz….)
and off topic..(sorta)..did anyone see that piece on 6o minutes about the garbage sorting/eating behemoth…?…whoar..!..eh..?..
you fill this baby up with fifty tons of rubbish..straight off the truck…add some water..and push the button…..
and a while later the rubbish is sorted into it’s component parts..with whats left processed into some inert/benign easily storable/reusable product…
what a ripper..eh..?
can we have one of those please..and some of that super gm’ed hydrogen fuel..while you’re at it….
y’see..i don’t share a lot of the doom and gloom of many greens…yes..i know there are seemingly insurmountable problems..
but here we have examples of two of those problems that yesterday also seemed insurmountable and are now looking not that….
and for every problem we face….there are clever dickeys and dickettes beavering away at solutions to them….
‘cos apart from any ‘green’ motivations on their part..there are also the incentives of the fortunes to be made from those solvers of our problems…..
so..chin up..i say..and try to put a bit of a skip into your step…eh..?..people are looking….
February 27th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
One day the Green movement will embrance both GE and nuclear power as amongst the best inventions for the environment.
But as with convincing people the world wasn’t flat, it will take time!
February 28th, 2006 at 6:56 am
Good question, batrachian friend… I know it’s good because I don’t have an easy answer.
My own general opposition to GM comes from three sources :
1* resistance to the buggers who want to privatize the world’s genetic heritage (n.b. Monsanto are currently re-launching the Terminator concept, after promising they wouldn’t…) : this is both political and ecological
2* fear of the unforeseen consequences of short-sighted meddling : this is a perfectly rational objection, given the well-documented behaviour of the big players, and more purely ecological
3* semi-mystical objection to tampering with the nature of life itself. Closely related to 2, but more of a philosophical than ecological objection.
All three of these objections may be mitigated by specific applications of specific technologies. Since the GM algae are not going to be supplanting any traditional form of peasant agriculture; Algae are pretty simple life forms, probably we are capable of understanding their biology and genetics sufficiently to ensure safety in an industrial process; I have no philosophical qualms about tampering with them on their own behalf.
So yeah I guess I’m ok with this stuff.
February 28th, 2006 at 7:28 am
I never quite got my head around the GE ban policy. I mean, who could be against pest-resistant cannabis plants? Imagine a GE plant that could scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere and bury it in the ground, or an extremely efficient biofuel that happens to be spliced more concisely than the traditional graft method.
If the argument had focused more on the patents and open research into DNA manipulation, all good. However, the Triffids/ Killer Tomatoes scenario was going a bit far. How does the cost/benefit weigh up? Is the price right?
February 28th, 2006 at 7:42 am
Please pass the beans…. As pointed out repeatedly in other threads, the chimera of Hydrogen is simply this… it is a total b@4ard to store, moreso in a vehicle. Add a single carbon to 4 hydrogens and you not only get more energy per liter, you have a more conveniently stored fuel AND a substance that the bacteria can easily produce AND one that we have the technology to use directly today.
In other words, THIS research is not meaningful.
From a philosophical viewpoint an interesting question, but not likely important respect, as producing methane is something we know how to do quite efficiently already.
respectfully
BJ
February 28th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Agree with BJ. Hydrogen is not the saviour that some make it out to be, and the merest scratching of the surface proves that. It might come in handy as one of a group of alternatives, but it is not an energy source in it’s own right; even these algae need sunlight to work. That we can replace all of the ancient sunlight we’re burning with whatever we can capture each day is fantasy.
As for this algae being GE, so what? Given that it will need some pretty stringent conditions to work (and capture that hydrogen), it can be approved under the HSNO Act, and kept in containment in accordance with that act. We have the legislation in place to make it useable, and the controls that can be enacted would effectively ‘keep it in the lab’. So the Greens are happy and the algae planters are happy.
Oh, and DPF, those who are most in need of convincing that the world is round are those on the right, the ones who are convinced that we live in a world of limitless resources. These ‘flat earthers’, wedded to the concept of infinite economic growth are THE fundamental problem facing our species.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:12 am
phil u just restored some of my faith in the Greens.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Green opposition to GE was born from badly thought through knee jerk luddism. One of the more unfortunate aspects of the Green movement is the it substitutes for religion for so many of its supporters. The anti-GE reaction, based on total un-reason, is a manifestation of that.
Fundamentalist Greens seem not to understand that science is neutral. Its people who use the outcomes of knowledge for good or ill, and as such technological change and development must be understood and controlled for the benefit of all - not simply hysterically opposed because it violates a quai-religious first principle.
February 28th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Tom, I think you’re reacting to a caricature of a Green position. Fundamentalist anti-science Greens are few and far between, in my experience.
February 28th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
I don’t see any personal dilemma, since I’m not philosophically anti-GM. My “greenieness” comes from an interest in sustainable energy, transport and urbanism, not from any Gaia-worshipping mytical belief in the sacredness of life.
However, I have to agree that hydrogen and fuel cells are no panacea. Cars powered by non-polluting renewable hydrogen would be better than ones powered by polluting fossil fuels, but they’d still take just as much space and require just as many motorways.
February 28th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
TomS - “Fundamentalist Greens seem not to understand that science is neutral. Its people who use the outcomes of knowledge for good or ill, and as such technological change and development must be understood and controlled for the benefit of all - not simply hysterically opposed because it violates a quai-religious first principle.”
That’s great as a philosophy.. but can you now please suggest a way science may be controlled for the benefit of all? and if it can’t (and you’ll be working quite hard to convince me there a political mechanism in existence that can overcome intransigent human jockeying for position and power using whatever tool is available..), let’s discuss what are realistic restraints to place on science, based on real-world realities.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
well written post huskynut-inspired me to reply.
The use of technology will always represent the underlying foundation of the society that it has come from. However ancient or new the technology, that is the case. That is why technology can never be societies salvation, it is only a tool, which if used properly, gives good outcomes(obviously).
Technologies reflect the strengths and weaknesses of civilisations, there will always be people who go against the flow and some might discover a “golden fleece” that can solve problems if the society is able to learn the lesson. But for the most part they reflect the consciousness of the civilisation, society, no way around it; and we are told constantly by media that it is private property and gain/profit at the expense of your neighbour-or F.E.A.R
So this is a big factor in the use of technology in our present age.
February 28th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
the problem with you greenie’s is that you have drawn a line in the sand. Of course not all genetic engineering is bad and this is just one example of where GE is a positive science.
I am sure if you look hard enough you will find many other examples of positive GE science.
Maybe the challenge is to identify other instances where GE is positive (like insulin)
time to come into the 21st century and out of the cave.
February 28th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Petermck
“the problem with you greenie’s is that you have drawn a line in the sand. Of course not all genetic engineering is bad and this is just one example of where GE is a positive science.”
“time to come into the 21st century and out of the cave”
Did you bother to read any of the posts above?
Would it be anymore efficient to collect sunlight (and produce hydrogen) with this algae than with solar panels? If not, why bother?
February 28th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
tomsk said..”..Cars powered by non-polluting renewable hydrogen would be better than ones powered by polluting fossil fuels, but they’d still take just as much space and require just as many motorways…”
um..tom..in your no-car paradise future…..what use did you have in mind for the motorways…?…will you tear them up..?..
going on your (apparent) carless vision/desire….won’t we need something to walk on..?..roller skate on..?..cycle on..?..ride our horses on..?..roll marbles on..?
and peter mc..peter mc…
can i echo what golo said..there you are confronted by a raft of reasoned reasonable responses from your reviled greenies…and all you can do is stick to your (extremely tired) script/schtick…
lift your game a bit..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 28th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Petermck, the Green Party policy on GE is Keep it in the Lab. That implies that we recognise
* that not all GE is bad
* that there are lots of examples of positive uses of GE technology
* that we support research and science on those positive uses
February 28th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
“in your no-car paradise future…..what use did you have in mind for the motorways…?…will you tear them up..?..
The motorways will make great cycle ways and trackbeds for electric trains. Given that the most optimistic forecasts (which show us finding 6 more Saudi Arabias in 10 years) show severe oil shortages in a couple of decades, and the pessimistic forecasts for later this year, it may be a case of downsizing whether we like it or not through simple economics.
Biodiesel and coal-to-liquids are the most promising becuase we can use existing fuelling infrastructure. Hydrogen is a dead end, because it would require a massive change in vehicles and infrastructure. We need proven technology at this stage, a crash commuter rail building program and some serious oil and gas exploration in offshore NZ.
It is still not going to be a smooth transition IMHO, and pie-in-the-sky stories about GM hydrogen producing algae are not going to be a solution anytime soon. GM biodiesel algae might be better, but I really don’t see that happening soon, do you?
March 1st, 2006 at 4:10 am
I don’t think there’s any dilemma. Keep it in the lab, simple as that. If you can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that it won’t irrecoverably harm the eco-system then you keep it in the lab. To date I know of no GM substance that has been proven as such.
http://last-straw.net/2000/07/keep-it-in-the-lab/
March 1st, 2006 at 8:46 am
Tomsk - You have something agin the horseless carriage, and what about the carriage with a horse? We’ve had roads since BEFORE the Romans, before the IC engine as well. We’ve had roads since the invention of the wheel and we’ve had vehicles on those roads, carrying individuals and goods almost as long.
In other words, what part of this had anything to do with GE, or sustainability, and what part of it is simply the luddite in you yearning to be free?
Green opposition to cars and new roads has to be considered in light of the above and placed in the context of preferring the building of rail and other mass transit, but not simply resisting all roading no matter how the needs are perceived and measured by the society.
respectfully
BJ
(endorsing case-by-case, carefully considered investment in road, rail and bicycle path)
March 1st, 2006 at 9:21 am
BJ,
In Tomsk’s defence, he is talking about motorways, not roads. The difference is one of scale. I’d suggest that the roads we have will be perfectly adequate for a non-oil transport infrastructure; they are likely to be excessive as I can’t see six lanes of carriages, biodiesel ambulances and ethanol police cars clogging access to Auckland. Yes we need roads, and we always will. But we won’t need motorways, freeways, autobahns and interstates.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:56 am
You beat me to it Tane ;-).
There’s a world of difference between roads for local access and 6+ lane motorways.
At the risk of going slightly OT here, take a minute to reflect why societies build roads. It is ACCESSIBILITY rather than MOBILITY per se that is valuable. People value access to goods, services and social interactions. Accessibility can be delivered in a whole multitude of ways that do not involve building unsustainable motorways - and provide other bonuses at the same time (e.g. health, social and environmental benefits).
More reading at
http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/handy/ECMT_report.pdf
March 1st, 2006 at 10:07 am
uk_kiwi,
“The motorways will make great cycle ways …”
I hope you’re fit. People will not be travelling as far on bikes as they do currently at 100kmh in a car. Re-localisation is the name of the game.
“…trackbeds for electric trains.”
High speed rail is more fussy in terms of gradient and bend radius than motorways, so it won’t be a 1:1 replacement. Hopefully some use can be made of these white elephants - at least they will be a monument to stupidity while they stand largely unused.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:50 am
Hey frog… a suggestion… instead of constantly having to refer to who your comment is replying to, how about nested comments in this forum?
March 1st, 2006 at 11:19 am
Fastbike,
I don’t know if we’ll ever have high speed rail in NZ, given our small population and our geography. The only viable route off the top of my head would be Hamilton-Auckland, maybe somewhere along the Canterbury Plains too (the latter is doubtful though).
But the highways would be very good for light rail within cities, possibly without any need for improving the bed (any engineers handy to comment?).
Still, I think we’re on the same track (pardon the pun). Roads, trams and trains for local movement, rail and shipping for national movement.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:29 am
Hi Tane,
Yes - our song sheets contain the same tunes, maybe the words are slightly different eh.
I agree high speed rail requires higher loads than will be economic in NZ - both now and certainly in a higher energy cost future. However, the current state of rail in this country would not even qualify as lo speed rail - in most places it is no speed rail.
And for anyone who’s interested in learning more about the cruel myth that hydrogen will replace our current addiction to oil, read this testimony given by Dr Joseph Romm to the US House. I think he’s more qualified than most hydrogen propenents to deal with the bukum that hydrogen has become.
http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full04/mar03/romm.pdf
If anything, pursuing this myth will divert valuable funding away from other solutions.
Roll on relocalisation.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:38 am
Nah, don’t mess with the paradigm…
this is a forum for public declamation, not a venue for snippy back-and-forth. The linear forum is by far the best for inclusive debate. Wordpress roolz.
March 1st, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Phil U: “um..tom..in your no-car paradise future…..what use did you have in mind for the motorways…?…will you tear them up..?..”
If it ever did come to that (and I never claimed that it would), then why not? We have no problem with dismantling other forms of obsolete technology (power plants etc) and restoring the natural environment. But there are probably better ways of reusing them, such as the suggestion that the roadbeds of the old freeways through Boston be used as the structure of new housing.
I don’t believe we’ll ever do without some form of personal transportation, so I haven’t suggested that we’ll be able to get rid of the motorways: we just won’t have to keep building new ones!
“going on your (apparent) carless vision/desire….won’t we need something to walk on..?..roller skate on..?..cycle on..?..ride our horses on..?..roll marbles on..?”
I said “motorways”, not “roads”, and I don’t think anyone wants to walk/roller skate/cycle/roll marbles on a motorway
And besides, I’d rather see streets than roads: the difference is that streets are places to be, rather than places to go through (see here for a better distinction). If we’re able to reduce the required roading capacity through improved public transport (and I believe we can), then some arterial roads can become streets again and return to the public realm. Imagine Wellington’s Golden Mile as 2km of pedestrian street with a tram line: hydrogen powered cars won’t allow that, but good public transport will.
bjchip: “Tomsk - You have something agin the horseless carriage, and what about the carriage with a horse? We’ve had roads since BEFORE the Romans, before the IC engine as well. We’ve had roads since the invention of the wheel and we’ve had vehicles on those roads, carrying individuals and goods almost as long.”
What we didn’t have his tens of thousands of people believing that it’s their god-given right to drive their carriages 50km to work then 50km back again every day without having to wait at a traffic light every now and then! Cities were built to a pedestrian scale, with a mixture of uses and a vibrant street life, rather than having sprawling, unwalkable office parks, megamalls and dormitory suburbs separated by acres of asphalt.
“In other words, what part of this had anything to do with GE, or sustainability, and what part of it is simply the luddite in you yearning to be free?”
I’m hardly a luddite: in fact, most hardcore “greenies” would call me a hopeless technophile! I just don’t think that big wide highways full of cars with 1.3 people in each (the average for commuters coming into Wellington) constitutes a particularly smart technology. No, my comment didn’t have much to do with GE (except to agree that GE-based hydrogen wouldn’t solve the other problems with cars), but it does have everything to do with sustainability, since the urban sprawl that goes along with car dependency is hardly an efficient use of land.
fastbike: “I hope you’re fit. People will not be travelling as far on bikes as they do currently at 100kmh in a car. Re-localisation is the name of the game.” By “re-localisation” do you mean a return to compact cities?
March 1st, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Tomsk,
Compact Cities is part of the concept.
Another part is more local commerce, which will have a postive benefit on balance or trade, employment, env. E.g. “grapes on the table in July air freighted from Chile” will be a memory .
Take a peek at GPM for more articles and interviews
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/topics/relocalization
March 1st, 2006 at 4:21 pm
fastbike: I agree, up to a point. But until someone in Martinborough starts making Vermouth, I won’t be able to move to a 100% local diet!
March 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Yes all things in moderation.
My tongue in cheek example (I forgot the ) was prompted by a recent visit to the supermarket where Chilean grapes are on sale (meanwhile I’m eating mine in from the garden) and a neighbour’s pear tree - dripping with lucious fruit which they don’t pick - they’re most likely buying those Chilean grapes ;-).
March 1st, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Alistair, I’m glad to hear at least one greenie admit:
“3* semi-mystical objection to tampering with the nature of life itself. Closely related to 2, but more of a philosophical than ecological objection.”
I disagree with your objection, but I’m really glad you are honest enough to say you feel that way. It’s no less rational than believing in God, something so many people think it’s important to tell everyone. Why not admit you have feelings about the sanctity of nature? I think this is behind a lot of greenism but people are too scared to admit it because it seems, well, not rational.
And it is not rational. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s false, or unimportant.
I personally agree that there are some aspects of nature that are goods-in-themself. I’m no whale lover, but I would be bitter if they were all killed off. I’m a tiger lover, and I’d be bitter if they were all killed off. I admit that doesn’t really give me the right to insist dangerous animals should remain unmolested in populated areas, but I still feel that way, that the world would be lessened by the destruction of nature.
That said, I think it’s a big jump to say GE will do that. Fair enough to be careful, but there’s being too careful. That’s my opinion on green policy regarding GE, it’s just too stern.
I’m not at all surprised by this talking point coming up, since I saw it several years ago in a HowStuffWorks article, the concept that GE could enable better biofuel (and other pollution reducing inventions), but greenies would have to get over being anti GE. I agreed then and I agree now.
As for the motorways question: I can’t realistically see any implosion in the amount of private transport happening. As oil runs out the use of it will get more and more efficient, and from the inventions needed to get that efficiency total freedom from fossil fuels is likely to result.
Cars are on the verge of an explosion in fuel efficiency. I read on a hybrid lovers forum a while back that a lot of americans have found ways to get their Priuses to do upwards of 200km/l, just by putting more batteries in and charging them when they get home at night. They’re thus not bound by low total mileage limits (you can still buy gas), but for most practical purposes incredibly efficient. I’m personally waiting for Priuses to fall to my price bracket. Probably will happen by about a year from now.
But I do think better mass transit will be inevitable for any city that wants to grow. We are getting there bit by bit. I just don’t think we’ll be losing the motorways. They’ll still be there, and we’ll still be ripping around in our awesome electric cars, and old folks will still be bitter on it.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Oh, and I forgot, awesomely fast and dangerous electric motorbikes. And in the future when you drive a bike you won’t have to wear a helmet. The Darwin effect is sacred, after all.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:07 pm
y’know ..one big problem with the prognistations of the doom and gloom merchants..is that they are locked in this time and place..with the limited view of the future that gives you….
to get an understanding of the limitations of that perspective..all you have to do is look back twenty years and see/try to predict from that perspective…
then if you want to get really gnarly on these negative futurists..all you have to do is go back another 20 years…(that’s 1966 btw..)..and try to make your projections/predictions about now from that limited/blinkered space/view…
then tell me how i can place any credence on what doomsayers say now about what the world will be like in 40 years time…
they are just whistling dixie..eh..?…
‘cos none of us really have a fucken clue…eh..?..
and anyone who says they do is deluding themselves and trying to delude us….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 1st, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Speaking as a motorcyclist I could live without motorways, but I do wonder what’ll be powering bikes through the twisties in a few decades. Ben Wilson might get his Prius, but the prospect of hydrogen powered 6kW machines with an 80kph top speed doesn’t light my candle.
http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-news/fuel-cell-motorcycle/
On the original topic: C. reinhardtii seems a harmless enough bug, but is the energy efficient mutant strain more efficient at being C. reinhardtii. And if so, would it displace ‘natural’ C. reinhardtii if it got into the wild. And does it matter? Any biologists out there?
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:04 am
Thinking the future will be just like today except better is a comforting point of view, which may hold true for NZ, if we’re lucky. I don’t claim to know what the world will be like in 20 years, but there are certainly some disturbing trends which can be extrapolated:
1) If you look at the events post-ww2, the cold war (1945-1990) basically kept a lid on many of the underlying conflicts the world over, as the risk of a nuclear world war was so high. Certainly the Cuban Missile crisis and several other geopolitical events very nearly turned the world into a radioactively different place. This stability at the point of a gun ironically set the foundation for an unprecedented golden era of peace, economic and technological growth. However we are now living in an inherently more dangerous world, in which perpetual war is the norm. NZ may not be able to opt-out much longer.
2) Resource depletion and energy scarcity may limit further growth, as competition for these resources grows between the BRIC nations and the first world. Oil production is now at 1000 barrels PER SECOND and it is unlikely to grow much more.
3) Population growth is out of control (adding 80 million people a year) and it remains to be seen whether this can be sustained without terrible misery and environmental damage.
4) Global temperatures continue to edge upwards, but 900 new coal plants are scheduled to be built this year.
I don’t want to be a doomsayer, but these are some alarming trends. On the other hand, iPods are becoming smaller than ever.
“and anyone who says they do is deluding themselves and trying to delude us….”
Yup. I’m clearly deluded to be worrying about these facts…
March 2nd, 2006 at 6:57 am
Ben:
Fair enough to be careful, but there’s being too careful. That’s my opinion on green policy regarding GE, it’s just too stern.
When GE has been well-proven enough in the lab AND something with major benefits turns up AND the questions about ownership/copyright etc on genetic materials have been satisfactorily resolved AND the actors involved are ethically OK, as opposed to Monsanto…
… then sure, let stuff out on a case-by-case basis. Nobody is losing anything at all by being stern at the current point (or have you got a pet example for me?). It’s politics mate : the benefits (in terms of risk avoidance) of putting the brakes on at the current point are great. The cost is nil. Let’s look at it again when there’s something to actually look at.
I read on a hybrid lovers forum a while back that a lot of americans have found ways to get their Priuses to do upwards of 200km/l, just by putting more batteries in and charging them when they get home at night.
Nah they are certainly not getting 200km/l, they are running their cars on domestic electricity. May be a cracker of an option, depending on battery costs and … actual electricity costs. The stuff isn’t free.
And imagine for a moment the electricity is generated by a gas power station…
… your mileage may vary.
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:14 am
fastbike. an interesting report to US congress but completely irrelevant when considering hydrogen generation from GE algae. Algae in local ponds using sunlight and water to produce compressed hydrogen for vehicles or power generation would skip the whole argument against using fossil fuels to generate pure hydrogen for fuel cells. The water source would be residential/commercial waste water and the self produced energy used to compress hydrogen to useable levels for vehicle fuel cells/electric grid production would have zero greenhouse gas effect.
I think Aardvarks example is a clear differentiator between reasonable people and enviro - religionists. If you oppose use of GE to generate useful algae you are definitely an enviro religionist.
Roll on GE algae to generate hydrogen
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:19 am
Hold on sagenz, isn’t it more complex than that. I concede that some people have an atavistic fear of ‘buggering about with nature’ which could be classified as “enviro-religion” (Although there seems precious little evidence of this in the above postings). But isn’t there room for rational worries over the effect that mutant microbes might have on the wider environment if they ‘escape’, or unanticipated toxic effects on workers. On the surface, C. reinhardtii seems utterly benign (although I’m no biologist), but in the general case, isn’t this concern entirely rational?
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:29 am
Sage,
Where did I oppose the use of genetically mutated algae? I’d rather you didn’t put words in my mouth
Now regardless of where/how you you get the hydrogen, read the rest of the article I linked to and think about the issues that the good Doctor raises:
- storage
- energy density
- infrastructure
- turnover of existing capital plant
- cost
- scalability
- safety
- etc
Each one of these issues is a roadblock in the path of the hydrogen economy. For good reason, hydrogen is referred to as the “fuel of the future” - even in the original Aardvark article - and it’s likely to remain so. As I said in my earlier post, funds wasted on the hydrogen dream are unavailable for the development and implementation of proven market ready alternatives.
Another thing, why not just use the solar energy directly (e.g. passive solar), use energy more efficiently, or harness the sun’s energy via wind.
But if you really think algae are great and are part of the answer, then use an oil producing algae, thus leveraging our existing investments in infrastructure and plant. We can always increase the efficiency of how we use the fuel over time, rather than starting from scratch as in the case of H2. There’s more here and here to get you up to speed.
And what about the source of the info - the Aardvark article makes scant reference to the original Wired article, which in turn draws on preliminary unpublished (and hence not peer reviewed) studies. The article contains innumerable qualifiers and provisos - it’s not very convincing and Wired is today’s equivalent of the 1960’s Popular Science mag.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering about the urgency of weaning ourselves from our oil addiction, take a read of the Hirsch Report. We need 20 years to achieve this process so can’t wait for the fuel of the future. We’d be foolish to rely on solving today’s problems with tomorrow’s technology - but remind me, how did we get into this situation anyway ;-).
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:36 am
Sorry I missed a link. A summary of the Hirsch Report can be found here .
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:58 am
And without wanting to pour cold water on the poor old algae, this isn’t even news Frog !
Wired carried the same break through in August 2002.
Quoting “… in the near future he will publish an advancement for peer review.” Well, 3 and a half years later where’s the peer review? Would you really invest your own money in this ?
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:04 am
Alistair, you’re right, I forgot about ancient measures. It was 200 miles per gallon, which is about 75km/l. And yes it doesn’t take the cost of the electricity into account, but the stats that people kept indicated it was costing them less than a dollar a day in extra electricity. The varying factors were how far these people travelled. If, like me, their average daily trip was less than 10 km, they would only need to buy petrol after it evaporated out of their tank! If they go more like 40km/day, some of it on the motorway at high speed, then the gas definitely gets used.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Javis “Speaking as a motorcyclist I could live without motorways, but I do wonder what’ll be powering bikes through the twisties in a few decades”.
Speaking as a motorcyclist, I wish Transit would quit their obsession with straightening every corner they can find, under the faulty idea that a straight road is the best way to join two points…
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Speaking as a motorcyclist, who needs roads? But I will concede my electric motorbike is currently very, very disappointing. Touted as capable of 35km/h it has only ever got me up to 20km/h along the flat. It was pretty embarrassing when a 10 year old on a pushbike dragged me off. Then again, it did only cost $400. I think the hybrid version (electric+pedals) deserves some attention. I noticed quite a few electric motorbikes in Europe recently - seemed OK, but I didn’t get to try one :-(.
One day….
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:12 pm
fastbike - i was not accusing you of being against algae - who is putting words in whose mouth. the researcher has been on track since 1999 and earlier. progress is slow.
what I object to is the zero sum game. hydrogen definitely has a future. I would agree that it is not going to happen within 20 years but that is not a reason not to increase investment in a clean process. the only genuine difficulty I saw in the article was the volume of storage required on a vehicle.
Using solar energy directly?? how using voltaic cells with a crappy conversion ratio?
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:01 am
the only genuine difficulty with hydrogen for transport is the volume of storage required on a vehicle???? what about the fact that it is much more dangerously explosive than liquid fuels? what about the fact that we would have to replace our fleet and fuel storage, distribution, sales points? what about the fact that you have to expend energy to make hydrogen? Why not just use that energy for transport in the first place rather than use it to make something else?
Basically it has nothing going for it other than a lack of emissions in the hydrogen + oxygen = water reaction.
And even that is only looking at a closed system, what about the emissions from the process to make the hydrogen?
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:45 am
Just musing…
… Whichever way you look at it, petrol (or diesel) is the best motor vehicle fuel by far. The problems are :
a) it’s of fossil origin, and
b) it’s getting too expensive.
If there are cheaper energy sources (and it’s a big If), then the problem remains of how to apply them to a motor vehicle. Batteries or compressed hydrogen are never going to be anywhere near as effective as good old petrol. There are advocates of compressed air or flywheels, but I can’t take them seriously…
So, if you have some magically cheap non-fossil energy source, why not use it to … make petrol? If you had an efficient chemical process to do so…
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:02 pm
You folks should check out Science In Society magazine. It’s written by green scientists and a great source of information.
They report that it is possible to produce hydrogen from farm waste at high efficiency from an ordinary biogas digester by simply lowering the pH, so there’s no reason to even consider using genetically modified algae.
Here’s an article from the latest issue that mentions it:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DFHTBCC.php
March 5th, 2006 at 1:01 am
daveh biodigesters are already being used widely in nz to process waste from agriculture. there is a cost benefit issue with it however. the EU subsidy is the only thing that would make it work in the UK. the biodigesters work best with fairly solid waste. but algae and biodigesters are not incompatible
the likely long term waste treatment direction is for various biological treatments to be used at various stages to extract harmful chemicals and refine beneficial components for on use. the algae route has the benefit of being compatible with high water content.
The point being that your water source is already existing industrial/agricultural waste that is presently being expensively chemically treated or not at all. having one set of algae clean out sulphates and another split water into hydrogen and oxygen or indeed methane are all good mixed options.
stuey - the local facility storage problems are red herrings. they will be solved with a long lead time. bigger underground storage tanks. Economically it is not the real issue. the safety issue in vehicles is part of the storage problem, I took it as a given.
March 5th, 2006 at 6:08 am
Daveh
WTF would I want to turn methane (energy dense, easy to store, carbon neutral when produced this way, and easily used in even a current car without huge modifications) into H2 which is next to impossible to store, difficult to use in a current automobile and even less efficient to produce than the methane?
Asking… cause without an answer to that question the H2 economy is just a place to park.
respectfully
BJ
March 5th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Some natural bacteria mop up CO2 from the atmosphere by photosynthesis and produce oxygen. Various others produce a range of other compounds such as ammonia, methane, methanol and ethanol. If we can genetically engineer organisms that split water into hydrogen and oxygen, absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, then react the hydrogen and CO2 to produce petrol and oxygen, using energy from sunlight, then we’ll have solved two problems; the energy crisis and global warming.