Ok, Mr. Laumer, where is the discussion of possible environmental damage to the ocean ecosystem by such an agricultural system? I doubt that converting the coastlines to a biomass production system is without significant environmental risks. I bring this up because there are plenty of other ways to produce biomass that don't require mega corporations to destroy mega acres of land. Also, conservation should always be mentioned as a cheaper alternative to developing these sorts of systems.

Again, tree hugger is on the side of the large corporate giants, and not the environment or it's citizens.

==== author's response follows ====
Without some numbers like acreage, water consumption, wastewater discharge characteristics, salinity by products, etc it's pretty unfair to assume that they are "guilty as charged."

Currently the US "outsources" most of the petroleum created misery of its economy. Maybe the goal ought to be that all means of fuel production be located within a thousand miles of consumption: that would force society to come to grips with the externalized costs?

At any rate, lets see some data before we presume legality, peformance, or ethical characteristics.

Wow. Something is going to have to save us from Peak Oil. This is GREAT news. Not only does it not replace food crops it also doesn't use fresh water which is in short supply.

Also, nothing say this has to be directly on the coastline. It just needs to be close enough to pipe some ocean water to the plant.

This is amazing news if it's actually true.

Conservation= reducing use. Yes, conservation makes us all richer. But we still need resources to use. So if you'd like to get those resources in the unbelievably unsustainable, incredibly ecologically devastating ways we currently do, go right ahead. I, for one, will move one to systems that are more sustainable and less damaging, as they present themselves. And when even better systems become technologically feasible and commercially viable, I'll support the switch to them to. And by a sequence of managable jumps we will reach sustainability. That, or we'll die from lack of resources. Which would happen much faster if we urged only conservation.

hmmm , to the far left ( is that a pun ) there appears to be a large cloud of CO2 being emitted , that can't be good can it , I seem to remember something on treehugger about it being bad for the environment . . . .

" an intelligent and civil comment "

There is plenty of biomass being totally wasted (farm waste, lawn waste, other fiber that ends up in the land fill or otherwise left on the ground). There is absolutely no need to farm the stuff. That it is being done is simply to enrich those doing it. I've done significant research on this over the last 15 years. The point is all aqua farms cause significant damage. If there is no need for them, and if there is not, we should not be doing it. Remember, most of the ethanol goes to cars. Let's work on 1. Mass Transit, 2. No transit (stay at home or in the neighborhood to work), 3. More efficient cars or bikes, mopeds, etc, 4 More efficient ways to house people, and 5 Promote birth control. There are other forms of energy as well. Then entire U.S. can be powered by windmills located in Minnesota (or South Dakota, take your pick). Then there is solar in Arizona and New Mexico. Yes, most people don't live there. But higher voltage transmission lines and more efficient transmission can overcome those issues. And yes, we would need storage, but, that too is coming, and very quickly. My comments to the author stand: if you are going to promote a solution on a site called tree hugger you should do your home work. My feeling increasingly is that you (and other tree hugger authors) have done your homework but that you are a mouth piece for your sponsors or for some venture capitalist friends or you are sticking to some outdated libertarian philosophy.

To the other person commenting, it is very foolish to trade one disaster for another.

Algae is being sought as the answer for today biofuels criticism (food prices, water, deforestation etc), but little is being talked about their main feedstock: CO2. It is only possible to make algae biofuel if you have a (huge) reliable source of CO2, so all supporters of algae biofuel are supporteing coal, oil and natural gas. That's why there is a power plant besides the algae facility in the drawing. Stop to think. If you do not have a reliable source of CO2, algae do not work. So algae biofuel is just a way to improve efficiency (improving energy output) and reducing relative CO2 emissions (because the CO2emission wiil be the same for a bigger energy output) of coal powerplants. Once we do not have a definitive answer to make all energy the world needs, it's OK. But it is much worse than 2nd generation biofuels, wind, solar etc. Remember all the CO2 of coal (or oil, or NG) will be released in the atmosphere, after this algae biofuel is burnt. We need to have focus on the real issue.

Rodrigo,

You are right that the source of the CO2 is a concern. Having said that, CO2 is abundant in the atmosphere as well -- it doesn't have to come from some other industrial process.

This could be a neat technology, however I wonder why most other researchers in this field seem to think that Algae is best for biodiesel production -- Why are these guys producing ethanol? (they could at least be producing butanol) Are they only using one organism to do so or are they using a multi-stage fermentation -- and how are they acheiving efficiency?

It seems to me that there are too many unknowns with this project, and their choice of ethanol as a product is curious (motivated by the current US political climate / love of corn ethanol?)

If it works, it will help save the world!

Currently, there are a lot of researchers that want to get into this area of biofuels because it isn't a food crop. Yes, it is supporting coal and natural gas use, but this would be a good way to transition between fossil fuels to truly green energy. Unfortunately, not everyone is ready to get rid of their fossil fuels. Also, it seems that this would be a way to produce fresh water, which is becoming scarce. One issue with this is that it may up the salinity in areas where water is being pumped out of. The only way to do this safely is in an area where there is consistent current flowing in, which is probably why this is being done on Mexico's west coast. This would probably not work on the east coast, especially in the US which has an extremely stressed bay system.

rodrigo, surface grown algaefuel will be marginally better than undercrust fuels (hydocarbons). Algaefuel processes can use co2 from the atmosphere, but can also use up extra co2 wastes given off from hydrocarbon energy production. I think there's still more bang for the buck this way.

I think they need to grow some algae ganja for you guys to smoke. Look into this company and you'll see it's a fraud. It was just incorporated in Maryland this year (a $100 fee) and used the CEO's home address in Florida as the business address. Then when you go to the Lee County, Florida tax assessor, it shows the $53 fee Algenol paid with an address that is the same as another business in Bonita Springs, FL.

Check out the NREL and the Air Force's biodiesel algae program. The Air Fore wants to explore this technology to replace JP-8 jet fuel. This technology does not exist yet!!! It may never exist! Where does a private firm get $850M dollars anyway?

"Post an intellegent and civil comment"???

That's difficult with such nonsense being discussed!