Researchers from Washington State University have succeeded in developing an innovative method to grow algae more efficiently - in a period of days instead of weeks - while making the algae more useful for several fields, including in the field of biofuel production.
[Translation by Dr. Nachmani Moshe]
The research findings were published in the scientific journal AlgalResearch.
Researchers are interested in growing algae effectively for their environmental benefits. Oil obtained from such algae could be used as an alternative fuel to oil and the algae themselves could also be used as food, fodder, added fiber, fertilizers, pigments and medicines. Growing algae and harvesting them in wastewater streams could also reduce the environmental impact of many production processes. Despite all these advantages, the use of algae in industry has not become a significant process due to the fact that it requires a long time and a large amount of water. In general, large ponds and a lot of work are needed. Researchers have begun to develop biofilm supports for growing algae, but these supports are not the most efficient facilities due to frequent differences in the level of acidity and temperature, and also due to a limited supply of the carbon dioxide gas.
Researchers from the School of Chemical and Bioengineering at Washington State University have developed a unique biofilm backing that enables the recycling of gases and the use of smaller amounts of water. The resulting algae contained the oils that make them suitable for biodiesel production and in even higher concentrations than usual. In view of the fact that the filter membrane is removable, it was also easier to collect the algae, compared to normal systems.
The system is unique due to the fact that it allows the algae to simultaneously carry out both photosynthesis, like the one carried out in normal green plants, and to absorb carbon, in a manner similar to the respiration that occurs in algae. The researchers fed the algae with glycerol, a cheap waste product obtained in the production of biodiesel, and with urea (urea) - another cheap chemical used as the nitrogen source for the algae. The design of the system allows the recycling of the gases carbon dioxide and oxygen, thus making it more efficient and economical. "The cell, in practice, becomes a particularly efficient factory where the nutrients are provided by the substrate, and in addition - the cell's metabolism is based on the internal requirements of the carbon dioxide gas," explains the lead researcher. The idea itself is innovative and the researchers have filed a patent application for their invention. In addition, they work to improve the efficiency of the system.
13 תגובות
What is the difference between this article and an article that was published and appeared on Dr. Nachmani's website on May 24, 2017?
To be clear: I certainly agree that the use of algae for biofuel production is of the utmost importance, but I do not understand why 2 almost identical articles should be published within 3 months on this website (and with all due respect, Dr. Nachmani has an average of one publication per month...) - does All the scientific studies are over (and not only in the fields of organic chemistry and biochemistry), so there is nothing more to publish except algae biofuel???
I wrote that energy without burning is better, what is wrong with that?
It is better that they grow the algae for food and produce the energy from solar cells, wind stations, or nuclear reactors.
my father
Which of the following sentences do you disagree with?
1. The use of fossil fuel takes carbon dioxide from the ground and disperses it into the air.
2. Growing algae for energy production does not increase the concentration of PAD in the air.
Father, two simple sentences... do you agree with them?
Technical problems of alternative energy should be solved and it should not delay the use of such energy.
We need to invest in energies that do not burn carbon and do not emit GHG - nuclear, solar, wind, hydraulic... and not look for substitutes for oil.
The development of electric cars, and laws that limit the use of polluting cars is welcome (provided that the electricity is produced from such energy)
At the same time, it is necessary to invest in the cultivation of vegetation on land and in the sea.
In my opinion, there is enough time (300-1000 years) to carry out this transformation before the earth warms significantly...
On the other hand, there is not enough time to prevent the other ecological disasters that we cause and the UN does not deal with them.
for miracles -
Even the oil and coal that are found in the ground today were once plants that absorbed the carbon from the atmosphere and their burning returns the carbon to the atmosphere.
If algae remain algae and are not burned as fuel, they will not be turned into waste but into organic garbage that will remain at the bottom of the sea and maybe turn back into fuel or coal, etc. But if you burn algae/plants, you have done nothing for the benefit of the planet.
The solution to global warming is only the production of energy without burning carbon because every burning of carbon produces PAD.
At the same time, it is desirable to grow plants and algae to also help reduce the PAD, perhaps when not checking if there is a problem of depletion of algae in the sea for any reason (for example, chemical or organic pollution, etc.) But a large part of the PADH is absorbed by algae in the sea and as we know the area of the sea is larger than the area of the rain forests.
Why not finish the algae at the exit of coal-fired power plants where there is a lot of carbon dioxide?
my father
Bio-fuel does not add PAD to the atmosphere. Algae take PDH from the atmosphere, then burning returns most of this PDH. Check your sources of information...
Speaking of which - wind energy has its own problems. In the USA the companies pay 50 thousand dollars for each eagle they kill - and they kill a lot!
It would be better if they found energy substitutes for the carbon fuel, and not another method to produce such fuel.
After all, the biofuel will emit exactly the same PAD as any other carbon fuel.
In the original it says "reactor",
The simple translation of "reactor" would be a system that reacts,
Hence the concept, or for short, "backed up"...
And 'google translate' does indeed translate 'backup' to 'reactor'.
From reading the abstract of the article, it can be understood that Dr. Nachmani translated the word 'reactor' into 'magov', but he needs to confirm this.
I don't know the word "backed up". I checked. I came to the Wikipedia page about a mine clearance facility. Try and see.
So I guess chemists have their own language. I guess it means a reaction cell. Moshe - maybe add a Wikipedia page for chemical "backing".