|
The algae aren't the CO2 devourers. . .the bacteria are.
Its their food. They eat non-stop and they can do it in the dark. They do require secondary nutrition like we do, various compounds so that they can self-replicate, but they don't need them in anywhere near the amounts they need sugars.
The algae are just supplimental nutrition for your bacteria.
I know its not a magic wand, but life is pretty close to magic. We may be relatively certain how it works but we have 0 ability to make it happen. We might know exactly how plants convert CO2 to O2 but we can't from scratch manufacture something that does it like they do. In that sense it is magic.
What we can do is manipulate bacteria that already devour nitrogen, sulfur and carbon compounds(in the dark) and dump out sugars and oxygen to instead dump out HCs. Its not really magic at all, its what your body does in reverse. You intake O2 and sugars and return CO2 and water. Bacteria use the CO2 and other compounds and run in reverse.
Yes of course energy has to come in somewhere. Thats the heat from the coal plant and supplimental energy in the form of algae. That said the process obviously also won't convert 100% of the CO2 it consumes to fuels. Most of the compounds the bacteria absorb will go to producing more bacteria and the leftovers will be sloughed off as HCs.
Its still a far superior technology to anything else even on the map. Converting the grid to solar or wind or nuclear or some combination will take a very long time and come at immense cost. Re-vamping our current power output facilities to additionally consume CO2 and produce small amounts of fuel in the process is much easier.
The people behind the idea are also proposing that these bacteria could be installed in CO2 laden areas. This would cause an immediate reduction in CO2 levels in and around cities and highways, because those locations are still producing CO2. If you drop bacteria farms along the highway they can passively clean CO2 and provide fuel to a more local refinery system and avoid shipping it across the country to get it refined.
It's not magic, but like solar it doesn't have much of a legacy cost. It's somewhat expensive up front, but in the long run its cheap. The other advantage is once you get some of the bacteria you can just let it multiply until its meeting your CO2 output instead of having to buy more.
And yes its not currently available because the bacteria die off too quickly to maintain a population.
Having said that, there is no other fuel system that could easily step into our current fuel delivery infrastructure. Hydrogen, EV, and other fuel cells all require a massive overhaul of every single filling station in the US. They also require every single car to be refitted with a new fuel system. So far none can match the ease and convenience of using a liquid non-compressed fuel when refilling the power-pack. Hydrogen filling can only go so fast before the lines get warm and you risk detonating a substantial fireball, fuel cells have the same problems, and batteries take a long time to recharge as well. If the idea is to use pre-filled canisters/cells/batteries then everytime you fill the batteries will have to be inspected to make sure you aren't dumping off junk. Also each station will have to have a veritable warehouse of canisters/cells/batteries.
If there is even a fraction of a chance we can make a bacteria convert CO2 to fuel even at just 1-3% its worth it. Why spend money on something that will force an enormous initial investment and then also force an infrastructure investment? Thats why I hesitantly applaud alternative fuels because its money that could be spent making this technology more of a reality.
|