Um

Hate to break it to you, but burning algae oil does produce CO2. Creating it is supposed to use up CO2 too, but I don't see Orlowski give a figure for how much is used vs how much produced on combustion. Because, after all, this tech DOES NOT YET EXIST so knowing its attributes is kind of hard right now ... Orlowski's "hey I'm drinking the kool aid on this because it confirms to my preconceived notions about the issue" notwithstanding.

I mean, seriously, the guy has an axe to grind, but lately he's been grinding it with the basic concept that if anyone famous comes up with an idea, that idea is as good as implemented, with no unforeseen drawbacks at all. The guy needs to work in engineering for a while to instill in himself the gut knowledge that this NEVER happens. How someone so cynical (a good thing) can be so credulous (when it suits him) is beyond me. Well, not beyond me. It's called intellectual dishonesty, but don't tell Andrew.

Oh dear.

x CO2 + H2O ---(sunlight + enzymes)--> pretty much any hydrocarbon you want with the general formula of CxHyOz, where z can be zero, but the other two are decidedly nonzero.

Burning the same hydrocarbon:

CxHyOz +O2---(FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!)--> x CO2 + y/2 H2O (+ possibly some CO and even some C if there isn't enough oxygen available)

Amount of carbon going in = amount of carbon going out. Said carbon usually takes the form of CO2 on both ends.

I'll refrain from asking how your degree in Media Studies is working out in today's job market.

basic chemistry

I don't share Mr. Orlowski's views on environmentalism and global warning, but you're off the mark.

In basic chemistry (absent nuclear reactions), elements are neither created nor destroyed, only recombined. So, if carbon comes out of the tank in the form of diesel, it needs to first go into the tank (probably in the form of CO2 in the case of Ventner's work, or in the form of sugar for the second gen biofuels). Hence these technologies being described as "carbon neutral."

The concerns I would have would be this:

1) for Ventner's work, carbon dioxide needs to be highly concentrated. If we get rid of nasty coal burning plants, its there a low-energy means for achieving this sort of concentration from atmospheric CO2?Is the net energy gain still positive? If not, but it's at least near-neutral, this could still be a decent means of storing traditional solar energy, and would probably be significantly more environmentally friendly than battery cars/hybrids.

2) I doubt that the bacteria and yeast researchers are experimenting with consume solely CO2, water, and sunlight. If other compounds are required in concentrations in the fermenting vats, they'll be spread in a fine film over the earth once we combust them. Depending on what they are and how hard they are to get, this could be a long term problem.

Other than that, I think this is a really interesting technology and I'm hopeful for it. Make huge hundred story tanks out in the desert and go to it.

Beer, because it comes from a vat full of yeast and look how good it is.

Answering concerns

for your concerns,

1. Technology exists today to extract the CO2 from the air at relatively low cost. Basically, what you have are calcium ions in some kind of membrane. It can be solid or liquid. Air is blown over the membrane. The CO2 sticks to the calcium, forming single molecules of limestone (Calcium carbonate). When heated to around 150 C, the carbonate disassociates back to CO2 and calcium. with proper heat transfer, there is little energy lost. The disassociation occurs in a chamber, and the CO2 is captured. This process was developed for carbon sequestration (CCS). It works just fine for atmospheric CO2 capture also. Then the CO2 is just compressed, and transported. Later, you release it into the algae growing medium.

2. They are not talking about ANY fermentation process. They are not intending to produce ANY ethanol. That is a different bio fuel. Oils generally have a higher energy density than alcohols do.

Also, on 2., yes, you do need some sort of fertilizer. Sewage waste works just fine, as does the dead algae that the oil was recovered from. Almost any biological waste will do. There is also a need for nitrogen. Air supplies this. Fortunately, most algae can 'fix' the nitrogen. Most plants cannot. The usable nitrogen is usually in some form of ammonia or a compound of it.

Don't expect end-of-timers going away, ever.

Except maybe until the end of time?

"There's loads not to like, from the environmental activist point of view."

Yes, but what if one DOES bathe and possesses a capacity for logical thinking?

Global Cooling

You are probably too young to remember. But, 30 years ago, before Global Warming, there was Global Cooling. Yes, you are correct, the only thing that could save us was the same solutions that are being pushed today to 'solve' Global Warming. so, there is precedent for what you are saying.

exactly - we'll still be dependent on the Middle East for much of our oil

Imagine a future not too far off. Vast ships carrying pressurised CO2 captured from power stations in the industrialised world offload it at algae farms spread across the equatorial deserts where guaranteed sunlight and land with no other value makes it economical. This means North Africa and the Gulf States, plus South Western US and Australia. Sea water is pumped in using wind or solar power (no fresh water, and that's a scarce commodity anyway). From space, the deserts will start to look very green...

Similarly, if we ever crack high-temperature superconductors, then basing our solar power stations in those areas and feeding it back to the populated areas along vast transmission lines would become practical.

@dr2chase

Nah, that's easy. We merely need to apply 'population pressure' to make the production of oil adventitious. The obvious solution is some aggressive growing medium where the aggression is mitigated by secreting 4* petrol.

Then Darwin will work to improve, rather than reduce, yield.