38 



For example, while one considers a kelp that has carrageenan in 

 it, I do not have any data on how fast that chemical might revert 

 through the hydrolysis step, and the — into methane. That will be 

 one of the things that should be looked at in the future, and this 

 may be part of other programs that we will be addressing on 

 seaweed. 



So the question, to emphasize what Doctor Flowers said, depends 

 on the chemistry of the plants, some of the chemicals may go more 

 rapidly than others, higher rate, obviously, which has an impact on 

 the economics. Some may go more slowly. It is too early to project. 



One can build some kinds of models that one can predict the rate 

 at which these things go, but the only way is experiments, starting 

 on a small scale, perhaps one liter, and then 10 liters, and then 

 building up, if the data is positive. 



I do not mean to lean on your arms but it is chemistry depend- 

 ent, and one has to get at it experimentally. The microbiologists 

 are hard pressed to predict the rates at which some of these chemi- 

 cals can be converted to methane. 



Mr. Emery. I would suppose the ultimate desirability of any 

 species would depend on not only the general chemistry, but the 

 rates of growth, and other characteristics that would relate? 



Mr. Tompkins. That is precisely right, you have to consider the 

 balance of the whole system. Although it looks as if the feedstock 

 cost is the greater of the two, that is to say the feedstock cost, and 

 conversion cost, when one considers an integrated system, one has 

 to look at both sides of the equation, how fast can you group it, 

 productivity, and the subsequently, how fast, and how much gas 

 can you get out of a pound of it, or a ton of it, that you put into 

 your processing system. So you cannot consider that independently. 



Dr. Flowers. We also plan to look at the genetics of the species 

 to see if there is anything that we can do there. 



Mr. Emery. What can you tell me about the distribution of 

 nutrients in the ocean, obviously that the water temperature is a 

 bit warmer at the surface than at the depths, and I suppose that 

 the growth of seaweed is going to have to occur in the top layer of 

 the water so that the photosynthensis will be maximized. 



Can you give me some idea of the natural distribution of the 

 nutrients in the ocean. Is it possible that you might be able to 

 group these seaweeds and kelp in a depth where the nutrients and 

 the photosynthesis reasonably are in balance so that you could 

 eliminate the pumping of the water from the depths? 



Have you experimented with that or do you find that that is not 

 feasible? 



Dr. Flowers. The information that we have from Dr. Wheeler 

 North of Cal Tech and from the references that he has, indicates 

 that the oceans at a given depth, discounting mixing, are essential- 

 ly about the same as far as nutrients. The surface of the ocean is 

 nutrient bare, essentially none as you get down to 500 feet. The 

 nutrients concentration increases beyond that. It seems to vary 

 somewhat but it is of a general range of the same level. This in the 

 Pacific depends on the mixing of the Arctic Oceans and the Antarc- 

 tic Oceans as to just where you are there. But the oceans are 

 nutrient rich. 



