What is the truth with Algae Fuel. Is it possible?
This blog settles the current idea or notions the common Joe may have about the possible use of algae as a form of gasoline.
Research for this blog was taken from different sources to be listed at the end of the blog.


The short answer is no! Algae will not be turned into buy-able gasoline anytime in the near future. The main reason fuel will not come from algae is because it would cost a great deal per gallon and it would take a great deal of energy to produce the fuel which makes it of no value at this point.

What circumstances have given rise to even consider algae as a fuel source?

High oil prices and the idea of competing for oil on the global market make it necessary to consider other options for fuel. According to Wikipedia "High oil prices, competing demands between foods and other biofuel sources, and the world food crisis, have ignited interest in algaculture (farming algae) for making vegetable oil, biodiesel, bioethanol, biogasoline, biomethanol, biobutanol and other biofuels, using land that is not suitable for agriculture. Among algal fuels' attractive characteristics: they do not affect fresh water resources, can be produced using ocean and wastewater, and are biodegradable and relatively harmless to the environment if spilled. Algae cost more per unit mass (as of 2010, food grade algae costs ~$5000/tonne), due to high capital and operating costs, yet are claimed to yield between 10 and 100 times more energy per unit area than other second-generation biofuel crops. One biofuels company has claimed that algae can produce more oil in an area the size of a two car garage than a football field of soybeans, because almost the entire algal organism can use sunlight to produce lipids, or oil. The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (39,000 km²) which is only 0.42% of the U.S. map or about half of the land area of Maine. This is less than ¹⁄₇ the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000. However, these claims remain unrealized, commercially. According to the head of the Algal Biomass Organization algae fuel can reach price parity with oil in 2018 if granted production tax credits.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel)

What other credible opinions exist regarding fundamental questions about algae as a fuel source?


According to this article in National Geographic: Facts on Algae Biofuel by Lexa W. Lee (http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/algae-biofuel-2814.html)
"Algae consume large amounts of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas and contributor to global warming. When harvested and dried, algae can also be burned directly like wood, coal or peat to generate heat and energy. However, critics of genetic engineering warn of harmful effects should modified algae escape from confinement into the natural environment, where they could potentially compete against wild species. Proponents, however, argue that such a crisis would be unlikely, since the modified algae must be cultivated under carefully controlled conditions and would likely not survive outside.

Are there current companies that specialize if fact finding experiments on Algae?

Yes. The most well known company in the US is called Sapphire Energy in California. Operating form a government grant for research and donations from the likes of Bill Gates the company boasts operating funds exceeding 100 million.---which will be used to complete a 300 acre demonstration pond in New Mexico.

The message I am getting from reading tons of information is simply: Genetically modified algae can be dangerous if not contained properly. Characteristics of algae, such as its ability to consume carbon dioxide make it perfect for our needs. However, currently it is in no way possible or ready for the gas tank. I suggest keeping an eye on Sapphire and other companies testing algae. Certainly our country must have a different source of fuel than fossil fuels. No longer can we expect to have low gasoline prices. Our country has no mass public transit system therefore we are in a tough situation at best.
 

A Varanus bitatawa lizard ? Wow!

According to the catch line of the National Geographic article: "It has a double penis, is as long as a tall human, and lives in a heavily populated area of the Philippines. Yet somehow the giant lizard Varanus bitatawa has gone undetected by science until now."

My question is how could such a giant, cool lizard exist without scientist knowing they were alive? Well, they lived in trees  According to study team member and biologist Daniel Bennett of Mampam Conservatio "They spend all their time high up in trees, more than 20 meters [66 feet] above the ground." 
Long known to Filipino tribal hunters, the monitor lizard was identified as a new species in 2009 via its DNA, scale pattern, size, and peculiar penis, a new study says.
So all the locals knew about this cool lizard, but we did not?  It seems it is related to the Komodo Dragon; the one we've all viewed before and thought Wow what a big lizard.

So they are both huge lizards, so what  else is similar or different?
"Capturing both types of lizards was crucial, Bennett said, because it allowed the team to inspect the two monitor lizards side-by-side and detect subtle differences that can help determine whether the animals represent different species.
One particularly revealing trait was the double-ended penis common to monitor lizards. The shape of this reptilian feature is unique to each species."
 According to Benett the reason for not finding them sooner is"few reptile surveys of the mountain forests where V. bitatawa lives" have been taken. So in other words no scientist have had reason to study in this area of the rain forest do far.
What good consequences are the result of this finding? I think the best result is the simple knowledge that new species exist on this planet. Mush study remains available on this planet especially in the oceans that exist. This discovery opens up still remaining prospects of new adventure. And according to this text:     

"The process of science is a way of building knowledge about the universe" to "constructing new ideas that illuminate the world around us." New scientific knowledge may lead to new applications. For example, the discovery of the structure of DNA was a fundamental breakthrough in biology. It formed the underpinnings of research that would ultimately lead to a wide variety of practical applications, including DNA fingerprinting, genetically engineered crops, and tests for genetic diseases. Potential applications may motivate scientific investigations. For example, the possibility of genetically engineering bacteria to cheaply produce cutting-edge malaria drugs has motivated one researcher to continue his studies of synthetic biology.  New technological advances may lead to new scientific discoveries. For example, developing DNA copying and sequencing technologies has led to important breakthroughs in many areas of biology, especially in the reconstruction of the evolutionary relationships among organisms.

An Introduction to blogging!

"Some things I have to say aren't getting said
in this snowy, blonde, blue-eyed, gum chewing English"~Julia Alvarez 

For some time now I have been posting scientific items, as news worthy items, for a Biology in the News class presented by the distinguished Dr.R. Hardwick of Clemson University. Thus far, Dr. Hardwick and interested parties, I have failed to find a persona. Let me explain; I have now had adequate time to consider how best for me to present information and to whom that might be the audience.
Rather than trying to form myself into the rules of others; I have decided to make the rules myself. A) blogs must have credibility B) Blogs must contain information of interest C) Blogs must be concise and well written---keeping these ideas in mind I have now decided to aim my attention toward an audience that wants to know science stuff that is good stuff and includes progress that makes all of us whole and happy well informed people, and focus totally on credibility of the source and evidential support.
In short, why should I waste my time reading a blog? Certainly it must be because we find something in common with the writer of the blog or the persona of the writer, or the opinion of the blogger. His/her style or slant or down home folksy charm or something about the blogger we enjoy otherwise information generic.

Previously Unknown Stone Age People?

  

Reward if Found
      Fossils of three remains found in cave in China---"These new fossils might be of a previously unknown species, one that survived until the very end of the ice age." says Professor Curnoe of the University of South Wales. Due to the odd mosaic features, clarification of these fossils is forthcoming. The article indicates that the anatomical features of the fossils, both modern and archaic---are a highly unusual mix. The details of the discovery are located in this journal:  http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0031918

        It seems like every time I turn around new human fossils are found which allegedly connect us closer and closer to our humble beginnings so what-is-the-real-deal when it comes to fossils and humans? After reading this article I began to wonder what exactly is the truth to human remains discoveries? This is what I found: on a scale of confused a little to a lot...a lot!
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils.
Or not so much confussion
http://australianmuseum.net.au/A-timeline-of-fossil-discoveries---which states--- 
       2010 - Release of nuclear DNA analysis carried out on a finger bone and tooth from Denisova cave,

Russia (found in 2008) reveals the remains come from a species that is neither Homo sapiens or Homo

neanderthalensis. This suggests a fourth human species (as Homo floresiensis was extant in Flores) was still

in existence between 48,000 and 30,000 years ago.








Now that we are all clear? Not! Scientists call the new find the "red-deer people"

 because they hunted extinct red deer and cooked them in caves at Maludong, near the city of Mengzi.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/red-deer-people-discovered-in-china/story-e6frfku0-1226299896769#ixzz1pa636Jvb

 

After 2 hours of research and reading this article, I learned that writing about science can be difficult even for the professionals. The initial article I viewed said nothing more than what amounts to the finding in 1989 and subsequent study of findings in 2010. Really not what I'd call focused information. Just a few lines and a bunch of fluff. The lesson here is that whether it is biology or gossip online information, while credible in truth may not present a credible picture by the writer of the article.  There is a recent journal report and with  details form Professors findings. However that's about it! So when you undertake to discern information do so with caution. One must dig a little dipper than just on the surface to find the whole truth even from a respectable source.

 According to this web address, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314124007.htm,the alledged credibly online source: ScienceDaily--- recently locatted fossils from two caves in south-west China "have revealed a previously unknown Stone Age people."