I wrote:
It is waste heat from coal, which is ~60% to ~70% of the starting
heat. Assume the plants convert 10% of that heat back into carbon
compounds, which would be phenomenally good. That 6% the waste heat.
6% of the starting heat, I mean.
A 6% improvement in coal plant production would extremely valuable.
Even 1.2% is worth doing. I cannot evaluate whether this method would
be more cost-effective than other schemes to improve coal plant
efficiency. Any method you use ends up reducing CO2 emissions.
Replacing 40-year old coal plants with ultra-modern version will
probably reduce emissions per MHW by more than 6%, and certainly more
than 1.2%.
Assume that other species of algae in the same ponds absorb
sunlight, and you get a better rate of return, although it takes a
bigger pond, as I noted.
Actually, with heat alone and no photosynthesis, you might pull this
off with less than 1000 acres.
All of the algae CO2 capture projects that have been implemented
until now use photosynthesis. The waste heat is used to enhance
photosynthesis, especially in winter. Some of these projects are on a
large scale. They reduce collection area by using vertically hung
plastic bags full of algae glop, rather than flat ponds. Still, none
of them captures 100% of the light.
- Jed
