A favored approach to addressing the need for mitigating GHG emission, the known agents of global warming, has been carbon sequestration. The other available approach is the algal bioreactor carbon removal process. Apparently both these processes do in fact remove carbon dioxide from the flue gas of the combustion reactions of power plants and so  without doubt are efficacious in certain respects. However, these observation are made only with respect to short term objectives. The efficacy of these processes have not been critically examined with respect to the long term and not within the holistic framework of viewpoint. In order to categorically assert the efficacy of these processes, the GHG emission mitigation functionality must necessarily be viewed through the prism of holistic analysis.

Performing the holistic analysis backwards, the critical analyses of the mitigation technologies are started with algal bioreactor. A critical examination of the bioreactor technology, reveals that in the long run, this technology does not solve the problem of actually removing the flue gas carbon dioxide as per asserted in relation to efficacy. The assertion, actually is fallacious, because it subtly implies that with the consumption of the carbon dioxide by the algae the carbon dioxide has in fact been removed from the atmosphere [in the long run]. However, this is not quite accurate, and the flaw of reasoning is simply this: the flue gas carbon dioxide is consumed by algae so instead of being discharged into the atmosphere the carbon atoms of the carbon dioxide depletion is simply stored in the algae.

This removal of the carbon dioxide from the flue gas must be viewed as nothing but temporary: in one respect, given that the algae will certainly expire at some time and consequently release the carbon atoms as carbon dioxide yet again back into the atmosphere, the removal in effect is only temporary. In another respect, as already proposed, the algae will be harvested, the algal oil extracted and  converted into bio-diesel fuel, effectively retrieving a portion of the carbon atoms and converting same back into carbon dioxide at the time of combustion of the bio-diesel fuel, and releasing those atoms back into the atmosphere. Further, the residue of the harvested algae is proposed to be also converted into ethanol, perhaps cellulosic ethanol, completing the retrieval and release into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide of the remaining carbon atoms extracted from the flue gas.

Evidently then, the very best accomplishment of this bioreactor technique of carbon dioxide removal from the flue gas is the delayed released of the gas back into the atmosphere, but nonetheless the inevitability of the release is granted.

    
Actually, by virtue of the proposed uses of the algae - first for bio-diesel fuel production and then for ethanol production - the technology also ties itself into the same concept as bio-fuel technology. Now the bio-fuel technology concept as well established hinges on the rationale that the adoption of bio-fuel as standard energy source, in the least, will lead to a dynamic equilibrium between the generation through combustion as a result of the activities of human being and the consumption of the carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion: The volume of generation of carbon dioxide as a result of the usage of the bio-fuel by humanity will equal the rate of absorption of the carbon dioxide by bio-systems from which the bio-fuel is produced; and thereby cause a plateau of the global warming effect of the carbon dioxide.

An obvious limitation of this bio-fuel technology rationale has, of course, been very well explained In view of this, the bioreactor use as a GHG emission mitigation technology also suffers the same limitations.

However, there is yet a tangential but an even more demanding imposition that constitutes a limitation to the use of the bioreactor for GHG emission mitigation. The requirement of maintaining a balance in the generation by human beings and consumption by algae of the carbon dioxide in the flue gases of power plants, there obtains the implicit demand to grow and maintain farms of algae in proportions to the quantity of flue gas carbon dioxide that are continuously produced. Lucidly stated, in order to capture and hold in the algae the carbon atoms that have been previously released, new algae have to be grown to capture the new carbon atoms being generated with each future release of flue gases by power generation plants. The earth just be have to be over-run by the algae to support that demand. Besides, everyone's time may have to be spent managing algae.

Obviously therefore, the GreenFuels Technologies bioreactor(s) just is not efficacious for the purposes of GHG emission mitigation in the long run.

However, bioreactor is not of dominant consideration as the method of carbon sequestration, and so now continuing with the same holistic analysis backwards, the carbon sequestration analysis is in order. A critical analysis of the carbon sequestration technique of GHG emission mitigation also elicit a few issues. Actually this technology has recently run afoul of the industry. One such reason is the energy cost for supporting the sequestration based on the use of existing power generator. The energy cost of the method as has been determined is between 4.9 cents/kWh to 9.0 cents/kWh which is an increase of electricity cost by 84%.

Two inherent consequences results from this indeterminate situation of contact boundaries of liquid carbon dioxide and earth cavity walls, both consequences obtaining from a release or diffusive flow of the carbon dioxide through the porous earth onto the surface of the earth. One result to consider is that carbon dioxide will result in the asphyxiation of people who are enveloped by the gas in very large concentration, as was the case of the Cameron, Africa. However, an even more sinister situation can develop when only small quantities sips through the rocks and envelop people: Carbon dioxide is naturally a stimulant, and is so used in resuscitation equipment; hence in high concentration in air - in excess of 4% certainly causes dies of apoplexy, which is a very painful death because such may be attended with massive internal bleeding of over-stimulated internal organs.

An alternative technology therefore is needed, that actually removes the carbon from the atmosphere permanently, at least in the geological sense of time. Such a technique or process has been proposed already as  remediation technology for which the only viable process chemistry was noted to have the chemistry in which the carbon of the carbon dioxide is extracted out into its elemental form; and the carbon is actually removed from the atmosphere, and there does not exist the prospective situation of having to re-release it back into the atmosphere.

In comparison then, the mitigation operations must forego for the immediate the use of the mitigation technologies currently under consideration and instead move fast forward to consider adopting the remediation technologies, if one is available, and where one is not available then all efforts of mitigation should be refocused on the development of the remediation technologies as specified. Such a choice will also accrue benefits to the adopting entity.

  Company