Dear all,

 

I have approached to the topic, you discuss here, from quite different angle with biofuels to be rather a by product. I have registered the idea with IP Australia and hope to have it fully patented within a year.

I would like, though, to have the idea fully tested and I welcome opportunity this forum might offer.

You are probably all aware that the most of renewable energy technologies do not aim at reducing current (high) levels carbon dioxide and other pollutants in planet’s atmosphere. Producing biofuels only to burn them again will only slow the pace of global warming. It will not reverse the trend that might be already at tipping point.

The only way how we can start reversing this trend is forestation (or making barren land fertile) on a large (planetary) scale. This might be easier said than done since the most of barren land areas is in less developed countries lacking skilled labour. And the land is barren mostly because of lack of fresh water, lack of fertilisers or lack of both.

I believe that I have met all these challenges with combination of existing technologies in as crude as possible form (unskilled labour). Simply bring seawater into desert and miracles can start happening:

• Algae (already present in seawater) grow in cascades of simple basins. From a part of biomass biofuels can be extracted in a quite primitive way and the rest can be used as fertiliser.
• Water naturally evaporates and part of evaporation could be captured to provide fresh water.

The only remaining thing is to safely dispose salts and other minerals. The rest will nature do on its own.

Please note that the emphasis is here on simplicity and that such method might be attractive to many; from mining industries (carbon trading) to relief agencies and major pollutants. It is easy to imagine, for example, a fossil fuel burning plant to start capturing produced carbon dioxide and, eventually, start running on its own biofuels. Relief agencies might also be interested in providing a mixture of arable land and protecting forests.

Potentials are endless. A dream that might, just might, come true.

 

Sincerely,

Damir Ibrisimovic

Dear all,

 

Am I at wrong place and wrong time? Silence is not particularly encouraging…

It seems that we forgot why we are in all this frenzy about biofuels. Simply speaking, our planet is in trouble. And that means that we (humans) are in trouble together with the rest of the life on this planet of ours.

However, global problems need global solutions. And global solutions need global thinking. Here we seem to have some unresolved issues swept under the carpet.

Consider:

• Arable land in Africa has increased lately (according to UN). However, pressures for biofuels are increasing likelihood of arable land to be allocated to crops for biofuels. In short: hunger as an issue in Africa remains.
• It is very nice to have sophisticated technologies in developed countries; technologies that would be hard to transfer to developing countries.

I’m offering here a win-win solution: Reduction in levels of pollution at large scales through forestation and through providing new arable land. Large scales may provide at the same time quite enough biofuels for all of us, even with quite primitive technologies. Africa wins-we win.

“The beauty of a design (or idea) is not in what could be added, but in nothing left to be taken away.” – Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Sincerely,

Damir Ibrisimovic

 Damir,

This was suggested by the ASP.  They wrote their final report in 1996. 

liberty1:

This was suggested by the ASP.  They wrote their final report in 1996. 

Dear Bobby,

 

With seawater algae?

I’m not aware of that. Could you direct me to the report or provide an outline?

 

Many thanks,

Damir

Damir,

what are you actually looking for? PM or email me with a contact phone number and we can talk.

Damir:

The only way how we can start reversing this trend is forestation (or making barren land fertile) on a large (planetary) scale. This might be easier said than done since the most of barren land areas is in less developed countries lacking skilled labour. And the land is barren mostly because of lack of fresh water, lack of fertilisers or lack of both.

I believe that I have met all these challenges

Ok. Im with ya so far. I think its workable but you have some real engineering challenges ahead of you. Biological, economical, mechanical, physics, transportational ...

I have read over the past 20 odd years about various 'green of the Sahara' projects. Maybe a collaboration with some existing organization might be beneficial? Certainly one could argue that the economics of such a project are getting more and more favorable as those 20 years have gone on. Desertification has also become a major issue and this 'greening' would also help.

It seems you need a working benchtop model of all the systems you would need and because this is a large system project, you will need a very large benchtop to hold the model.

Not sure what your background is but you are going to need a whole lot of brainpower to engineer this thru.

Do you have some spp. in mind?

Salt water alone will not have the nutrients you need to do the whole job. To ramp up to production levels, nut's load will be a large expense.

Do you have any concept of how a cash flow thru the system would look like? IE, I think I can make q and sell q for x and it will cost y to op the system and it will cost z to capitalize the equipment and land.

Do you have any end use customers you have in mind?

If de-salinization was easy, we would all be doing it. This is not a trivial matter.

You have ID'ed some reason for 'why' to do it but you havnt said much about the actual 'what'  and 'how' you are going to do. Many good ideas come from the why end but the real hard work is the what and how. Plus, the why part likely has not alot of actual economic value, tho it has social value. But its very hard to take a socal value check to the bank.

A comment ... dont take it wrong. You have said you are trying to IP something. Why on earth would I give you my brain power for free whilst you cash in on it? All great ideas and projects dont come thru IP. No one IP'ed the Panama canal or the Bolder Dam or the Pyramids... IP will come from not the big plan but the individual pieces of engineering to accomplish that plan. The turbine in the Hoover dam is IP'ed, the Dam is not. Let the turbine people who know more about turbines than you could ever learn in 100 lifetimes do what turbine people do, turbines. Your job, as project leader, is to put all the turbine companies and their IP together so that it works.

Dear Froggy & Slippery,

Twenty years ago mentioning biofuels extracted from algae would probably be met with the same whats & hows. Or you would be simply looked at as lunatics. And yet, some had courage to push the idea around which you are munching here plenty of whats & hows. And there are also few quite profitable patents attached to the idea.

 

Something has changed in the last two decades. Former lunatics are now frontrunners and you do not even think that you might be wasting time with whats & hows. Money just flows in.However, what former lunatics said is still valid. Biofuels are only the first step, but whats & hows of it seem to have us bogged down and we forgot about the rest. Lunatic or not, I wish to remind you that there are other steps waiting to be made.

 

Method is what opens the way for whats & hows, some of which may be patented already. Greening Method is just like any other method and does not prevent anybody to patent a what or a why within it. I do not think, therefore, that there is a need to worry that you will just fill my pockets.

 

Just like economics of biofuels from algae was not clear twenty years ago, economics of Greening Method is also murky. However, twenty years ago we did not have so strong economic and other indicators we have now. One of the best was costing of doing nothing about global warming. (Quite conservative, if you ask me. We could elaborate on this.)

 

And although almost everybody on the world stage agrees that something has to be done about global warming, the last meeting exposed cracks in whats & hows. Developing and developed countries simply could not agree. And yet, something has to be done.I hope that Greening Method could be one of agreed whats, for it does seem to offer a win-win solution for both, developing and developed countries.

 

I came here because you seem to be a small powerhouse for a keystone in the method I am suggesting. I’m well aware that I cannot pull it through all by myself. I also do not expect to become wealthy soon. In fact, I’m much more interested in what might be called “moral currency”.Another keystone I see in low-tech solutions and these seem not to be highly regarded here. I hope to change some minds in this regard.

 

All the best.Lunatic

PS: Slippery, if you still wish to talk to me over phone – I’m just setting up my Skype on new machine. If you do not have one, I recommend it. It is free to download and free to talk over the web.

Sorry about paragraph ends. I'm using Word (spellchecking etc.) and HTML masking here does not like it. Hope to have it better in future.

Lunatic

Damir:

   Just like economics of biofuels from algae was not clear twenty years ago, economics of Greening Method is also murky.

Well, there is no working model of algal energy so Im not sure how clear biofuels from algae are presently. Which bring me to your point, how murky your idea is.

There is no doubt that the desire to 'green the Sahara' would have great benefits. Its a beautiful idea. Your not the first. You wont be the last. Yet... the dream of it so far from reality that is more like a theoretical concept of 'Liberty' or 'Justice' than an actual actionable plan.  Sure you can make steps twords that concept but the desire alone will not do the trick. I am also dubious of the concept that algae are the only plants able to do the job of 'greening the Sahara'. And Im highly dubious of the concept that your gonna make $ doing it.

So where to start? Maybe a course on Halophyte Desert Ocean Irrigation Agriculture Program would be a start. Im sure that there are a few programs around the world.

Or... Move to the ocean/deserts and start trying to grow stuff and work your way inwards, making $ the whole way.

When you have some actionable plans, let us know.

 

Dear Froggy,

Somehow I cannot bring together your obvious enthusiasm for biofuels from algae and obvious rejection of the idea. According to you, economics of both is murky and yet you embrace one and reject another.

Idea of biofuels from algae makes sense simply because you do not need to use arable areas as for biofuels from other crops. Using saltwater makes even more sense since fresh water sources are not always available.

I know that can-do people are hard to come by, but you do seem to trying to push my key points aside. I have only pushed the idea of biofuels from saltwater algae further: into forestation or making barren land arable. Just simple, natural evaporation of seawater will provide enough moisture to minimise evaporation of water from the soil. Simple plastic cover can enable sufficient condensation. No need for industrial scale sophisticated desalinisation plants technocratic minds cannot do without. (You should try to learn a bit about forestation.) Although, biofuels are here only a by product, they are welcome.

Green the Sahara and other forestation projects, as I said before, were facing difficulties (and being dreams) simply because lack of water and fertilisers. I offer here, if not a solution, then a softener, at least, making some dreams more real. (Nobody yet told me that mentioned projects were considering sea algae cultivation as an aid in forestation. I would really like to hear this.)

Since can-do is hard to expect from you, I'll be perfectly happy with lunatic title and absence of your comments. Others, willing to share my dream are welcome with constructive comments.

Lunatic

Damir:

  Somehow I cannot bring together your obvious enthusiasm for biofuels from algae and obvious rejection of the idea. According to you, economics of both is murky and yet you embrace one and reject another. 

That is because you missunderstand me.

I am not enthusiastic about biofuels. I am not enthusiastic about algae to produce energy. I am not ethusiastic about using biology to farm energy in any way.

I AM enthusiastic about using algae to produce food. I AM enthusiastic about using algae to make certain bio-products. I AM enthusastic about using algae to produce livestock feed. I am enthusiastic about using biomass that exists already to produce value (manure and ag waste and human garbage and lake washup algae and  ...  into value).

Damir:

Idea of biofuels from algae makes sense simply because you do not need to use arable areas as for biofuels from other crops. Using saltwater makes even more sense since fresh water sources are not always available.

There is a reason that arid land is arid. To fix that, comes at a very high economic infrastructure cost. Piping ocean water doesnt solve that issue, infact it makes it even costlier because of the salt and the issues it brings.

No offence but your not bringing anything to the table. And I wouldnt wear a badge of Lunatic very proudly.

 

froggy:

Damir:

  Somehow I cannot bring together your obvious enthusiasm for biofuels from algae and obvious rejection of the idea. According to you, economics of both is murky and yet you embrace one and reject another. 

That is because you missunderstand me.

I am not enthusiastic about biofuels. I am not enthusiastic about algae to produce energy. I am not ethusiastic about using biology to farm energy in any way.

I AM enthusiastic about using algae to produce food. I AM enthusiastic about using algae to make certain bio-products. I AM enthusastic about using algae to produce livestock feed. I am enthusiastic about using biomass that exists already to produce value (manure and ag waste and human garbage and lake washup algae and  ...  into value).

Damir:

Idea of biofuels from algae makes sense simply because you do not need to use arable areas as for biofuels from other crops. Using saltwater makes even more sense since fresh water sources are not always available.

There is a reason that arid land is arid. To fix that, comes at a very high economic infrastructure cost. Piping ocean water doesnt solve that issue, infact it makes it even costlier because of the salt and the issues it brings.

No offence but your not bringing anything to the table. And I wouldnt wear a badge of Lunatic very proudly.

 

No offence taken. All this you are enthusiastic about is in the Greening Method, even enhanced. Using algae to make land fertile (+optional forestation) is exactly what is Greening Method about. All other benefits (including biofuels) are simply a plus.

Considering all this, it is really puzzling where is so negative attitude coming from.

You say: "There is a reason that arid land is arid." Of course there is. Not one, but many. One is, for example, white masters orders to chop trees for large single-crop plantations. Another one is irresponsible chopping of forests for quick profits.

There are many direct man-made reasons, but the recently acknowledged global warming is the biggest.

All this man-made arid land has also direct impact on microclimate and in the most of the cases we have too much rain where we do not need it and too little where we do. And land that used to be fertile is now a desert.

So let us have a truce and see if we can find a common ground. Many things you mention are valid issues. But these should only be calls for resolutions. Nothing can be done if we give up before we start.

I hope that you will see some reason in what I say. Till then, hopefully not in very distant future, all the best from yours,

Lunatic

Dear all,

Simple math:

A (relatively) small, new forest (foliage/trunk weight ratio 1/5) would weight roughly 10,000 tonnes. Taking away approximately 85% of water and, let us be generous, 5% of other elements will leave us with approximately 1,000 tones of carbon mostly captured from atmospheric carbon dioxide. (Ratio of a mature forest would rather be 1/40 and percentage of water would rather be around 60 % significantly increasing weight percentage of carbon.)

To raise such new forest we would probably need some 14,000 tonnes of water. However, all this water does not need to come from desalinated seawater. Let us say that natural precipitation provides 10,000 and desalinated water 4,000. Desalination of even high salinity seawater would probably leave us with 160 tonnes of salts and other minerals.

Carbon dioxide contains 32 weight % of carbon and 78 weight % of oxygen. In, roughly 4,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide we have around 1,000 tonnes of carbon.
Although I was rounding figures quite liberally, math is quite clear. What do you think is cheaper: To safely dispose underground 160+ of salts or to compress 4,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and also store it underground? (The later is seriously considered by “clean coal” proponents.)

Please note, expect for carbon dioxide part, all other figures may vary a lot. But even in worst case scenarios the math will still be quite clear.

Sincerely,

Damir

Hi Damir,

Sorry for late response but I have been out of town. Actually was in Sydney today.

Don't have and won't have Skype so give me a number and we will talk.

As for space and salt water - what about the outback. Some of those artesian bores are pumping out water that can not be used for anything so we need to check it's chemical composition , adjust it and use the space and wasted water for our future.

 

froggy:

I AM enthusiastic about using algae to produce food.

 

froggy,

do you know a special forum about that topic ? 

Heinz (not your neighbour)

 

alegria:

   do you know a special forum about that topic ? 

No but there should be. Find one and Im there. Make one and Im there.

alegria:

Heinz (not your neighbour) 

Didnt think so.

Slippery:

As for space and salt water - what about the outback. Some of those artesian bores are pumping out water that can not be used for anything so we need to check it's chemical composition , adjust it and use the space and wasted water for our future.

Dear Slippery,

Idea is quite interesting. However, I would rather start at some places that are now wasteland because of insufficient precipitation. And there are plenty of such places in Australia. If I remember well, in 30s or 40s, large parts of SA have been turned into wasteland because of excessive farming, for example.
But before all, we have to work out some details of, let us call it “algae plant”. A clever question was posted on another (Self Sufficient System) thread and this is exactly what I’m looking for; low-tech, sturdy solutions.
At the moment, I’m envisioning a web of cascading pools and basins for algae cultivation on gentle slopes of a terrain. Seawater is pumped to the highest points into tanks and released into cascades, just like water in toilets. These releases in intervals serve two purposes: airing and flashing out grown algae and debris that may accumulate at bottoms of pools and basins. (For the beginning, I opt for sloped terrain simply because it eliminates a need for pumps for moving seawater and algae from one pool/basin into another.)
Pools are parts of semipermanent structure while basins are parts of temporary aiding structure made of easy to transport elements. Both are, however shaped into shape that might resemble an elongated toilet seat without a hole at the bottom. (Still looking at fluids dynamics. Spillages must be minimised.) Pools are likely to be concrete and basins made of plastic.
At lowest points of terrain we have collection centres that are rather a cluster of pools for (likely manual) collection of grown algae and quick evaporation of the most of water. The rest of high salinity water with small algae will probably need to be pumped for further processing to processing centre. (High salinity will minimise decomposition for a while.)
Collected algae can have two purposes: to feed next generations of algae or fertilise land. Another good idea from other thread is to put animals (animal feed) in the cycle, but this depends on circumstances.
Evaporation from the web may be sufficient to minimise evaporation from the soil and thus make insufficient precipitation sufficient. Some points, though, may need a plastic cover.
Froggy is right that we need to think about safe disposal of waste (mostly salts and minerals). I’m reluctant to dump it back into sea. But this seems the best option for experimental plants. Close monitoring of the impact may give us some ideas.
The following is a wish list of components that can be easily added once we have a web showing results:
1. A sturdy biofuels extracting kit;
2. Identification and separation of algae suitable for human consumption;
3. Identification and separation of algae that could be used for medical purposes. (This one we will have to address if we consider inclusion of point 2.)
Corrosion is the biggest problem we will have to count on and monitor during implementation.
As you can see, all is intended to be as simple as possible; almost primitive. This is particularly important for sites where mostly unskilled labour will be available. I can almost see it up and running, but the biggest obstacle will be, as always, to convince people that this can be done.

Sincerely,
Damir

Hello Damir,You have come to this forum with passion and ambition which is good. However, you may soon learn that there are very depressing real-world problems which may dampen your enthusiasm. For instance, the deserts of the world are a part of the ecosystem, and to turn them into farmland might not only be impossible, but expensive if it could be done, and possibly harmful to try. The planet and it's climate are a dynamic system, in which one part affects another in ways that may not be apparent. For instance, the dust which blows off of the deserts forms the 'seeds' upon which water condenses for form raindrops. There is much evidence that dust is not the only such 'seed', but we might have great difficulty without such dust. The dust from the Sahara blows over the Atlantic Ocean near Mauritania and creates clouds from humid tropical air, which produces wind currents which align, and as they gain energy from the hot oceans and start to spin from coriolis forces, becomes hurricanes which eventually make landfall with well known devastating results. But if these hurricanes did not happen, the coast of Eastern America would look very different - and not alltogether better. The violence of the storms also brings up nutrients from the deep and bottom ocean, while pulling air into the ocean water. Without a mixing of some type, the Oceans as we know them would become devoid of life. Yet if man did squash a desert, I am confident that the natural order would eventually prevail, and a desert would come into existance somwhere else - making our efforts futile.

 Please take the above explanation with a grain of salt, as I am not an oceanographer or atmopheric scientist. I am sure there are materials you can read about these phenomena and others in the great planetary system.

Many ecologits get upset when they think of mankind's activities as having a lasting affect upon the world, separating 'man' from 'nature'. This division is artificial, because man is a part of nature. We also overestimate our own importance as a species, when there are forces much more powerful than man's action's at work on the planet, which shape it in the long term.

 This is not to say that man cannot make temporary changes to the climate or ecology of specific areas which, over a given span of time, are more or less to his liking. Certainly, the changes to part of Australia by farmer's ignorant of the changes they were bringing about have made those areas significantly less valuable to man. I speak mostly of the salinization of soil by changes in ground water levels. we must study and learn from these events, in order to keep as much of the planet to our liking as possible. Since man has created these specific changes, it may be possible for man to undo the changes. But there are so many possibile places for man to make these transitory changes to the environment, or to reverse them, and only so much resources. It requires more cleverness to fix these salted lands than it did to damage them. Do we possess the skills?

 As the human population of the Earth rises, so do the problems we face. Each success against disease, war, and starvation only serves to increase human population and the strains placed on our resources, which is why the problems recur. We've overhunted, we've overfished, we've overfarmed. We seem to have burned too much, and put too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The animals we raise consume enormous amounts of vegetable nutrition and contribute not only to carbon dioxide pollution, but methane pollution as well. Which says to me, that our carnivorous days are limited.

If we wish to slow global warming, we must change the environment, but in the end i believe all we can do is slow global warming. The methane thaws in the Siberian Artic are far more alarming to me than smog on a Los Angeles freeway, because it is farm more harmful and we don't even have an idea of how to stop this thaw or even slow it down. You're right that reforestation would help, but how much? Creating a forest in the Sahara is futile. we'd find it far easier to reforest ranchlands, and to make other racnches into vegetable farms.

Your point about biofuels has some truth to it. We can take some carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere with biofuels, and we can curtail carbon emissions from concentrated sources such as fossil-fueled power plants, breweries, and sewage treatment plants. Then we'll turn around again and put it right back into the air. But this is still a better solution than doing nothing.

 Saltwater algae exist, of course. But fighting the salt is an arduous process and they tend not to grow very fast. The solution you propose of using evaporation to collect fresh water would work, but the amount collected might negligable.  Also,  the remaing seater would be  far more salty. You could  cycle  the seawater  to regain normal salinity. But there's still the problem of  providing the other nutrients which algae need. Phosphorous is an important one.  Where are we going to get all the Phosphorus we need? Well, it's not a part of algal oils, so in theory it would just be recycled from the harvested algae. But these are engineering problems which might be more significant than they seem at first.

Finally, regarding intellectual property: Any mention of claiming patent rights relating to alternative energy in this or similar forums is a doubly bad idea. First, it keeps people from wanting to help you...why should they give you free advice if you're going to turn around and  not share what you discover?  Secondly,  it weakens defense of your claims in court -  were it shown that a sufficient level of  your 'invention' was aided by advice from people on forums, your patent could be rendered invalid. Even if you were to win in court, the cost of fighting such a legal battle would be high - probably more than your patent would be worth.

I am not trying to discourage you from trying to patent something - if you have the knowledge to create something of great worth without having to ask for the help of others, go for it. Or perhaps you have the financial or organizational skills to create a corporation which would hold these patent rights. Still, within your rights. But don't ask us for help. Look at the patent holderson strains and technology relating to Botryococcus braunii - Dr. Nonomura never comes around here, or anywhere else, asking questions, and his patents are apparently strong enough to sell before they are even granted. If you want more information on him, see the wikipedia article on Botryococcus braunii.

Oh, one more thing about Intellectual Property - the Pyramids ARE copyright, according to the Egyptian Government, which claims IP rights on them. However, I am sure they would be thrown out of any WIPO court if they were to ever to sue over the issue. In fact, their proclamation serves to make their government a laughing stock among many IP lawyers.

Dear BobK,

Thank you.

First of all, you make many valid points. I also think that any intervention of ours into natural processes needs to be measured and closely monitored. And this includes possible microclimate impacts. You might have, however, noticed that I employ natural processes as much as possible. I also do not think that what I am suggesting is a “magic bullet” that would solve all of our problems.
I do, however, believe that forestation (where possible) is the least harmful action humanity can take in testing times we are faced with. As with my point about biofuels, I rather think that complementing them with forestation is even better option.
Separation of man from nature is rather a psychological issue that needs to be overcome. We are too easy to use pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, genetically modified crops etc. These are direct results of our, psychological, separation from nature that are