25 



used in an anaerobic process, to produce methane, or it could be 

 possibly fermented in some fashion, but I do not know the charac- 

 teristics of those algaes, to determine whether or not that is feasi- 

 ble, and I suppose actually you could even use the material if it 

 were dried in the pyrolysis process to produce methanol. 



Can you give us a comparison of the relative energy advantages 

 to those three different steps? 



Mr. Adams. I cannot provide that for you today, but I would be 

 happy again to submit that for the record. 



[The following was received for the record:] 



How Anaerobic Digestion, Fermentation, and Pyrolysis Compare in 

 Extracting Energy From Ocean Biomass 



Pyrolysis cannot now be justified because of the high cost of drying the feedstock 

 to a moisture content of 10 to 20 percent by weight. For anaerobic digestion and 

 fermentation, equivalent amounts of energy could be produced: methane from an- 

 aerobic digestion and alcohol from fermentation. However, the alcohol has a higher 

 market value per Btu than the methane gas. On the other hand, the processing 

 costs for methane gas are lower than those of alcohol. Market needs and prices 

 would therefore determine which conversion technology to use. 



From an economic point of view, it would make better sense first to extract 

 higher valued components from the ocean biomass, such as algin and mannitol, 

 before digesting or fermenting. 



Mr. Emery. I guess what I am struck by is the fact that we have 

 been spending a lot of money. I do not know how much it adds up 

 to, but it is more money than I have ever seen before, and these 

 are basic questions that I have asked, that you do not seem to have 

 the answers to. Nor do you seem to have done the necessary 

 research to determine the harvesting feasibility, the energy con- 

 tents, or various kinds of energy materials that might be manufac- 

 tured. I am a little surprised at that. 



Mr. Adams. I personally have not reviewed all those reports, Mr. 

 Emery. I am quite certain that people in my organization have. 

 But I personally have not, and this is why I simply would like to 

 get back to you with a more concrete answer. 



Mr. Emery. I would appreciate that very much. It just strikes me 

 that after the research that has been done, which I think we are 

 all interested in, I am a little surprised that you could not deter- 

 mine whether or not some of these questions have been answered. 

 You know the availability of the material, the energy resource that 

 is manufactured, and the method of manufacturing. These are the 

 most basic questions that anyone could ask. 



It is apparent that we have to do more work in this area, or at 

 least do a better job in researching the material that has already 

 been assembled. We have a tremendous resource on the coast of 

 the United States, if we could find a way to develop it in a feasible 

 manner. I think it probably exists. 



I have no further questions. 



Mr. Studds. The gentleman serves on the Armed Services Com- 

 mittee. I assume he means he has never seen sums of money this 

 small. 



Mr. Emery. Not having an immediate comeback, I will let that 

 slide. 



Mr. Studds. Mr. AuCoin, the distinguished ranking member of 

 the subcommittee. 



Mr. AuCoiN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



