Gaia Health

Environment

The Lie at the Heart of Making Biofuel from Sea Algae

January 21, 2012 by admin in Environment, Featured with 8 Comments

Seaweed Farm, Japan (Hassan and Mariko, flickr)

Seaweed Farm in Japan, by Hassan and Mariko, Seaweed Farm, Japan, Hassan and Mariko's flickr PhotoStream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/habdelra/

Biofuels have proven to be a disaster. They result in the misappropriation of  food for the primary purpose of fueling automobiles. The result has been millions of people going hungry. The impossibility of using land-based crops as a petroleum replacement is obvious. Now the focus is on creating biofuels from sea weed—and it promises to be an even bigger disaster than land-based biofuels. Aside from the fact that they utilize genetic engineering, documented here, the basis on which they’re being hyped is a lie.

The Lie

Sea weed is algae. The promoters of sea weed for biofuel tell us that it’s a win-win situation. There will be no need to provide fertilizer because, as “everyone knows”, algae feeds off the effluent that pours down rivers from factory farms and other industries. Therefore, the logic goes, the biofuel algae will not only provide fuel, they’ll also provide the service of cleaning up the pollution from factory farms!

Wow! Who wouldn’t want such a great deal? Everyone wins—and we end up with cheap and nearly free biofuel on top of cleaning up pollution without even breaking a sweat.

There’s just one problem with this scenario: It’s a lie. It’s a blatant lie.

The Truth

There are three basic types of algae: green, red, and brown. Brown algae is the type that would be used to create biofuel. Green and red algae are the types that can bloom in the face of severe pollution. The red blooms release toxins that cause fish to be poisonous. The green blooms deplete the water of oxygen, resulting in dead seas. No fish can live in such waters.

However, the type that would be used in sea weed farms for biofuel isn’t green or red. It’s brown algae. It’s the type that includes the great kelp beds. Unlike green and red types, brown algae never blooms in the face of pollution. It is, in fact, something of a canary in the coal mine.

Brown algae dies in the face of pollution!

The win-win story being promoted to sell sea weed-based biolfuels is a lie. The fact is that one, probably more, of the following must happen if sea weed is to be grown for biofuels on a large scale:

  • Fertilizer will be used, and that would almost certainly mean petroleum-based artificial fertilizers with the attendant pollution.
  • Sea weed farms will rapidly deplete the sea of nutrients required by other plants, thus further degrading the oceans.
  • Agribusiness sea weed farms will rapidly pollute the oceans, just as Agribusiness land-based pseudo-food factories pollute the land.
  • Agribusiness farming of sea weed for biofuels will supplant community-based farming for food, like that shown in the image above.

Yasuo Yoshikuni, the CEO of Bio Architecture Lab, which developed the genetically engineered bacteria that will convert sea weed to ethanol, is promoting the claim that sea weed farmed for biofuel requires no fertilization. He told the Guardian that cleaning up nutrients washed [dumped] into rivers from farmers’ fields would be cleaned up, thus preventing the pollution of large algal blooms!

Sea weed-based biofuels introduce the potential risks of the combination of two pathogenic-prone bacteria, Vibrio splendidus and E. coli, further erosion of the world’s food supply, and further pollution of the oceans. The technology is not the panacea that’s being promoted.

The two fields of biofuels and genetic modification are being combined with utterly callous disregard for the potential risks. Major news media is already selling it as a win-win for everyone if just a few kinks in the process are resolved. But the reality is that it’s a lose-lose for people and nothing more than a profit center for the one percenters.

Sources:

Share

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • Pingback: Disease Producing Bacteria Genetically Engineered to Make Biofuel from Algae | Gaia Health

  • https://profiles.google.com/harris.graham Graham

    If “Brown algae dies in the face of pollution”, and “Agribusiness sea weed farms will rapidly pollute the oceans” then agribusiness sea farms will be self limiting so you have nothing to worry about.

    Land-based farming using fertiliser derived from fossil fuel results in increased nutrient in coastal waters. This, combined with weather conditions, can result in blooms of red or green algae, which can be toxic and deplete the oxygen (killing fish and other sea creatures- especially shellfish) and other nutrients. A healthy permanent farm of brown algae could soak up the excess nutrient without a bloom (because brown algae grows more slowly- it’s analogous to trees ashore whereas bloom-forming algae are more like fast-growing annual weeds).

    Unlike trees though, brown algae can often be harvested by mowing like grass. By taking off just the top and leaving a healthy plant, seaweed harvesting could avoid the dramatic cycle of harvesting down to the soil that we see ashore.

    • Anonymous

      Nothing you’ve said deals with the fact that brown algae dies off in the face of pollution. It does not benefit from the on-shore farm pollution, as the promoters of this technology claim. I do apologize, though, for failing to include sources to the fact that brown algae is adversely affected by pollution. That has now been corrected.

      • http://twitter.com/Kevbonham Kevin Bonham

        Nowhere in the scientific publication do they say that this will somehow benefit from runoff of fertilizers. However, the fact that the cultivation of brown algae does not require fertilizer, nor freshwater, nor tilling of the ground nor massive machinery. Any shift in the production of ethanol away from traditional sources (like corn or sugarcane) will mean less pollution and less agricultural runoff.

        I’m having trouble seeing why you have an objection to this approach. Everything Graham mentioned demonstrates that using brown algae feedstocks for ethanol production is vastly superior to other uses, and since all the sugars come from photosynthesis, it will end up being a carbon sink.

        • Anonymous

          Nowhere does the article state that the scientific literature says that. In fact, it points out exactly the opposite. The point made is that the claim – which is clearly fraudulent – is being used to sell the concept.

          Frankly, any use of biofuel is wrong, and a comparison with corn or sugarcane doesn’t make it right. At best, it can be called less bad – and that simply isn’t adequate.

          • http://twitter.com/Kevbonham Kevin Bonham

            There are efforts underway to use red and green algae as biofuels as well, and similar approaches to the ones used in this article will likely be the best way forward.

            But I’m confused as to why you label “any use of biofuel” as being wrong. You seem like someone interested in protecting the planet – and I’m with you on that. There are clearly a wide array of threats to the global environment, and our current sources of energy are high on that list. If we can develop a renewable, sustainable, carbon-neutral (or potentially carbon sinking) way of generating energy, why would you oppose that? I’m not saying that this technique is the best we can hope for, but it’s certainly a big step towards that goal.

          • Anonymous

            Responding to the post below:

            Red and green algae are certainly different. But it seems unlikely to me that they will prove to work. Both exist in the space of devastated ecologies, not in healthy ones. When they bloom, other life dies. Perhaps they could be used, but it strikes me as unlikely.

            I’m not against their use, if it can be shown (honestly shown) that they would work, and would work without taking great risks with the environment or use of technologies that haven’t been carefully vetted to assure their safety (since we’re talking about a huge commitment, and therefore a huge element of risk) – until then, it strikes me as far more reasonable to focus on other approaches to energy generation.

            Anything that would use arable land or fresh water must be eliminated as an option.

            My comment that any biofuel is wrong may have been a bit over the top – but it seems highly unlikely to me that we’ll ever find one that’s sustainable.

  • Pingback: Genetic Engineering Gets Extreme. Now Comes Synthetic Genetic Modification | Gaia Health

Search Gaia Health

Subscribe to the Gaia Health
Newsletter

Don't miss breaking Gaia Health articles.
Rest assured that your e-mail address will never be sold or shared.

Wp Plugin by capn3m0

newsletter software