Water Power R&D

Archive for the ‘Ocean Desalination’ Category

Back in February the MSSC held a conference in Las Vegas. It would be helpful to recall that five major points were made. The first was made by Marcus G. Faust to the effect that the Republicans would likely take back control of some or all of Congress this November. The second point was made by Patricia Mulroy. She said that desalination was not enough to provide water for the west. There would have to be other sources –like from the East–see my last post. The last two points were made by Wade Miller. He mentioned that desalination required much more research and a champion — like Pete Domeneci of New Mexico–once was.

What should we make of Marcus Faust’s point that republicans would storm back into Congress come the fall?  imho it would be prudent for research administrators to assume that when/if the republicans return this fall — that they will be cutting everyone’s budgets. The easiest targets will be R&D. So any money’s for R&D not committed this year are easy targets for budget cutting next year. Consider Patricia Mulroy’s point about pulling fresh water from — say– my words–the Mississippi at spring flood or east Texas rivers during hurricane floods.  When/if the republicans come back to congress the likelihood of the feds sponsoring big water capital projects any time soon diminishes significantly.

Which brings us to the last two points made by Wade Miller: the importance of a water champion and the importance of research. There is no champion for water desalination on the horizon currently but curiously the National Geographic has outlined three areas for desalination R&D: Forward Osmosis, Carbon Nanotubes, Biomimetics.  They are all the major areas I have discussed on this blog. National Geographic also gives the time frame for when these research areas become ready for prime time. This sort of popularization of the big desalination R&D issues makes it easier for federal desalination R&D admins to pitch joint funding research programs with universities, private foundations and companies–and vice versa. My vote for the most important piece of federal funding for desalination R&D would be for redirecting toward desalination membrane research –the Princeton University Math solution which Makes Computer Modeling 100,000 Times Faster.

A new formula allows computers to simulate how new materials behave up to 100,000 times faster than previously possible, and could drastically speed up innovation relating to electronic devices and energy-efficient cars. Princeton engineers came up with the model based on an 80-year-old quantum physics puzzle.

It could also drastically speed up innovation related to desalination research.  Remember we are in the Golden Age of Math

Computer modeling programs played a significant part of the original work 4-5 years ago done on carbon nanotubes at LLNL that created the carbon nanotube tech mentioned in the National Geographic article above. Similarly, an appropriate role for federal labs might be to develop the membrane modeling programs, provide programmers and computing time at federal labs. Their role might be  to create models for membranes requested by government, university and corporate membrane materials researchers–who will in turn–based on the models–create new membranes in  their labs. That’s the way they did it with the carbon  nanotubes at LLNL. That’s the way they can do it with other materials. Only this time the whole process can be accelerated significantly.

My point is not new or original. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, also makes the point that better, faster, smarter computer modeling is the way to accelerate innovation

There’s lots of places to go for funding –but why not dream big? Currently the deepest pockets are at the DOE. The article above mentions energy as being a significant beneficiary of their computer modeling innovation.  DOE funding pools will come under the scrutiny of the long knives come November.  Desalination membrane separation issues are closely related to hydrogen membrane separation issues. Why not pitch to DOE funding a greatly expanded computer modeling program –using the Princeton University’s Math solution  mentioned above. There might be 20 teams. 10 for energy 10 for water desalination–modeling for 20 different energy and desalination projects around the country. Really, the USA could reinvent the whole civilized world  in five years.

If for whatever reason the DOE can’t do it then you might get some combination of the DOD, WateReUse Research Foundation and Bureau Of Rec funding to pay for 1-5 computer modeling teams. Or if the DOE could do it but just not in DOE labs then federal funds might be appropriated to Universities to fund the modeling programs for university and corporate research. Finally, if the feds are just too somnolent — an ingenious soul close to the players could get rights to the math formula, plug it into an algorithm, hand it to a couple of big iron–or massively distributed– programmers and get the software written for two million or less of programming time. Then open up shop or lease copies of the software out. Think there might be a market for a material research modeling program that’s up to 500,000 faster than brand X? That is, a materials research modeling program that would instantly obsolete every materials research modeling program in the world? Maybe both the feds and private investors could get into the act. Actually, this has been done before. In 1990, NIH launched the human genome project which they predicted would take 30 years to complete. In 1996 Craig Ventor jumped in and said he could get the job done in two years. He did. How did he do it. He developed faster software.

The important thing is that someone needs to be sure that Princeton University Math solution is re purposed–and funded– for desalination  modeling research. Now. What kinds of desal projects would be helped by better/faster/smarter modeling?  Well lets go back to the National Geographic Article. You may only be able to see two out of three areas for research: Forward Osmosis and Carbon Nanotubes but not BioMimetics. So click on the National Geographic Article to open the graphic in a new browser: Modeling for both Carbon Nanotube and BioMemetics would yield better material to create an electrical charge at the front of the membranes, better fillers for the membranes, perhaps better carbon nanotubes and protein channels–as well as numerous small details which researchers would be familiar with. As they say, the secret is in the sauce. For forward osmosis, computer modeling might create a better salt in the draw solution. That is, a salt that “draws” more water and evaporates at a lower temperature. Now understand, that carbon nanotubes and protein channels are just two of many kinds of semipermeable membranes. Researchers will want to bring others to the table. For example, I’ve mentioned from time to time that membranes of the future will need to be tunable–so as to resist different kinds of biofouling. That’s just what UCLA researchers have developed

.

Researchers from the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science have unveiled a new class of reverse-osmosis membranes for desalination that resist the clogging which typically occurs when seawater, brackish water and waste water are purified. The highly permeable, surface-structured membrane can easily be incorporated into today’s commercial production system, the researchers say, and could help to significantly reduce desalination operating costs. Their findings appear in the current issue of the Journal of Materials Chemistry.

The new development here is the “tethered brush layer” which is “brushed” on the membrane. This layer is in constant molecular motion. The constant motion of this layer “makes it difficult for bacteria and other colloidal matter to anchor to the surface of the membrane”.

“If you’ve ever snorkeled, you’ll know that sea kelp move back and forth with the current or water flow,” Cohen said. “So imagine that you have this varied structure with continuous movement. Protein or bacteria need to be able to anchor to multiple spots on the membrane to attach themselves to the surface — a task which is extremely difficult to attain due to the constant motion of the brush layer. The polymer chains protect and screen the membrane surface underneath.” Another factor in preventing adhesion is the surface charge of the membrane. Cohen’s team is able to choose the chemistry of the brush layer to impart the desired surface charge, enabling the membrane to repel molecules of an opposite charge.

This is a first generation success. Princeton’s computer modeling might well speed the researchers work at UCLA–so that the “tethered brush layer” of membranes would be tunable to any kinds of bacteria byo topography and chemistry and charge.

The team’s next step is to expand the membrane synthesis into a much larger, continuous process and to optimize the new membrane’s performance for different water sources.

Perhaps advanced modeling would be an appropriate way for the feds to help the the folk at UCLA. That said, it would be appropriate to check in with various research universities like UCLA before proceeding. It looks to me like their attitude is a winner.

“We work directly with industry and water agencies on everything that we’re doing here in water technology,” Cohen said. “The reason for this is simple: If we are to accelerate the transfer of knowledge technology from the university to the real world, where those solutions are needed, we have to make sure we address the real issues. This also provides our students with a tremendous opportunity to work with industry, government and local agencies.”

Finally one last question should be asked and answered.

What does accelerated membrane development have to do with, say, pumping rivers of water out of the Mississippi during spring flood. Likely nothing. But it may well be that 5-10 years from now public policy experts will start saying that the big rivers are hopelessly polluted with farm and human medicines and household cleaners. That will come because the deformities in fish and amphibians that one sees reported from time to time to time –will have moved up the food chain. We don’t currently have the tools to remedy this problem. Work in desalination separations will also provide answers to these other molecular separations–that in turn will make it possible to tap the big river at flood. Right now this is a fanciful solution to a fanciful problem but probably less so on both counts than current worries over carbon dioxide. When you have a material research modeling program that’s up to 100,000 times faster than current generation material research modeling program–you’re positioned to get solutions to even the most fanciful problems in real time.

imho the current muddle in the central valley of California lends urgency to the idea of accelerated developed of new deep sea desalination technologies I’ve mentioned in previous posts here and here. Deep sea water desalination looks orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to impliment than say spending 35 billion on a 35 mile long pipeline under the delta. According to this letter to the Congress by the American Petrolium Institute–offshore oil & gas would bring $1.3 trillion in new government revenue over the next two decades. A fraction of that would pay for all the water needs of southern California for the foreseeable future using deep water desalination–with money’s left to pay state officials for what not. Heck California might get the underwater desalination plants for free as a condition allowing oil drillers to drill offshore. Sound too good to be true? Maybe. The Obama administration is willing to fund offshore drilling in Brazil. Someday they may think it in the best American interests to allow more drilling offshore of the USA. At that point a deal might be struck with oil drillers to bring fresh deep desalinized water ashore as part of a deal to water algae onshore or drill for oil offshore or both.

but that’s not what this post is about–except tangentially.

Remember I mentioned that Exxon might be interested in getting into offshore water desalination because of their interest in algae oil and their partnership with Craig Ventor?

Listen to the story below about what going on in genetics field–and how it will affect water & power supplies. If you’re ready to move on — then know the significance of the story below is that commercial very large scale algae oil production is coming sooner –much sooner than is currently anticipated.

In the beginning

On July 24, 2009, a small group of scientists, entrepreneurs, cultural impresarios and journalists that included architects of the some of the leading transformative companies of our time (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, PayPal), arrived at the Andaz Hotel on Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood, to be offered a glimpse, guided by George Church and Craig Venter, of a future far stranger than Mr. Huxley had been able to imagine in 1948.

In this future — whose underpinnings, as Drs. Church and Venter demonstrated, are here already — life as we know it is transformed not by the error catastrophe of radiation damage to our genetic processes, but by the far greater upheaval caused by discovering how to read genetic sequences directly into computers, where the code can be replicated exactly, manipulated freely, and translated back into living organisms by writing the other way. “We can program these cells as if they were an extension of the computer,” George Church announced, and proceeded to explain just how much progress has already been made.

New York Times even talked about the symposium given by Church and Ventor.

Church noted that between 1970 and 2005 gene sequencing had taken place on a Moore’s Law pace, improving at about 1.5 times per year. Since then it has improved at the rate of an order of magnitude, or ten times annually.

Within a week or so of this symposium this article appeared entitled Researchers rapidly turn bacteria into biotech factories.

Led by a pair of researchers in the lab of Harvard Medical School Professor of Genetics George Church, the team rapidly refined the design of a bacterium by editing multiple genes in parallel instead of targeting one gene at a time. They transformed self-serving E. coli cells into efficient factories that produce a desired compound, accomplishing in just three days a feat that would take most biotech companies months or years.

Remember this is the same Church that gave the symposium with Ventor. At the symposium he was talking about improvements in gene sequencing accelerating to ten times annually before his announcement. However, in this case what he’s talking about here is writing genetic sequences. That is, before they were talking about reading genetic sequences into computer programs.  Now they are talking about writing out gentic sequences from computers back into living organisms. And doing so much more quickly.

The following week two companies–one in Cambridge Massachusetts and the other in Washington State — announced that they had quadrupled the yield for algae from ~5000gallons @ acre to ~20,000 @ acre. According to the Cambridge Massachusetts company:

A startup based in Cambridge, MA–Joule Biotechnologies–today revealed details of a process that it says can make 20,000 gallons of biofuel per acre per year. If this yield proves realistic, it could make it practical to replace all fossil fuels used for transportation with biofuels. The company also claims that the fuel can be sold for prices competitive with fossil fuels.

Joule claims that its process will be competitive with crude oil at $50 a barrel.

Seperately a third company called Green Technologies Inc — figured out a way to “massively increase” algae production because “scientists uncovered the elusive and long sought after “lipid trigger” in green algae.”

Escondido, CA, August 04, 2009 –(PR.com)– Sustainable Green Technologies (SGT) a start-up company in Escondido, California announced today that it has discovered a highly effective and low cost way to massively increase algal oil production.

Do they use the new method mentioned by Church? There is no definitive answer to this question. It looks like there might be a relationship but beyond the coincidence of the announcements–there is no proof from the text. But its safe to say that major major advances have been made in both the process and the production of algae oil. That more are likely– are on the way.

Is this just hype? Another article considers this question in a slightly different context.

In terms of methodology used to distinguish viable new technologies from the hype associated with renewables, McDonald said he looked for corroboration. For instance, Aurora Biofuels in Florida announced it had found a way to harvest algae oil using the same methods as waste-water treatment plants. Then a few weeks later the research arm of the Australian government made a similar announcement. “That’s what we are looking for,” McDonald said. “When legitimate organizations make similar discoveries independently that seem to corroborate each other, I think it gives credence to the commercial development and growth of the technology.”

Same could be said when several companies here and there announce radical increases in algae to oil yield –especially when they coincide with broad based technological change mentioned by Church and Ventor.

Remember the crucial take away. Church has created a tool that Ventor will likely use to improve algae to oil yields significantly above the just announced four fold increase to 20,000 gallons@acre. This will be used by Exxon oil to scale commercial quantities of algae oil.

Finally, of note, OriginOil along with Idaho National Laboratory (INL) of the Department of Energy has come out with the first-ever comprehensive algae production model, for the algae oil industry.

Its should be clear that algae oil process will require a lot more water from water scarce places with algae oil ambitions like southern California and New Mexico. What’s not so clear is what kind of water that will be. What’s that? Well, consider, advanced genetics will likely be able to tailor the algae to the kinds of water available.

But the implications of this accelerated genetics go to more than just algae oil’s demands on water.This technology will enable the water reuse industry to create specialized microbes for any water reuse plant.

This article dated July29 from Global Water Intelligence lists the
Top 10 New Water Technologies to Save the World I’m not familiar with some of the companies. But as to the ones that I am familiar with on the list–I would agree. They are world changers. So that reflects well on the rest. These are the technology areas mentioned in the article that would be most affected by Church’s new genetics tools mentioned above. Consider what would happen if you could quickly tailer single cell organisms for a specific waste stream mentioned below in such way as to maximize their yield and minimize any attendant problems.

Bio-polymers from wastewater: bio-polymers are a great natural al ternative to petro-chemical-based plastics; what is more they can be made during the biological digestion of sewage sludge. AnoxKaldnes (www.anoxkaldnes.com) is the leading commercial developer of this technology.

Biogas recovery: the collection of methane from anaerobic wastewater treatment has been a reality for industrial effluents with a high biological load for some years. The challenge is to make it viable for less concentrated municipal wastewater. Leaders in this market are Paques (www.paques.nl) and Biothane (www.biothane.com).

Microbial fuel cells: the next step in energy recovery from wastewater is direct electrical power generation through microbial fuel cells. Emefcy (www.emefcy.com) of Israel is at the forefront of commercialising this technology.

Decentralized wastewater treatment: centralised wastewater systems are expensive to build and use a lot of water. Decentralised systems might remove the need for sewers, and make it easier to recycle the water and energy in the waste. The Lettinga Associates Foundation (www.lettinga-associates.wur.nl) is one of the leading organisations promoting the practical application of decentralized wastewater.

Then there is the kind of experiment you see in many universities that uses microbes to do interesting work. Consider this article about the work of some Penn State Scientists (jointly with Saudi Arabia & China)

Wastewater produces electricity and desalinates water So far the work is just interesting. But what if you could get the microbes mentioned in the article to do a lot more work using the tools mentioned above?

If you find this info to be useful or interesting–kindly ask your webmaster to link to this blog.