'Biofilms+for+Biofuel'+Review

__Biofilms for Biofuel Production: A Review__ The use of biofilms for biofuel production is a unique and relatively new energy technology. Group S's dossier gave a good overview of this energy source. We (group W) would like to share our thoughts on the dossier, the lab designed by Group S, and biofilms as a sustainable source of energy. Overall, the dossier was well-written and easy to read. There were some grammatical errors, but nothing major, and some sentences that were difficult to interpret. A greater variety of sentence structures could have been used. For example, almost all of the sentences in the first paragraph are identical in format. They could have been changed or combined. The analysis put forward by the dossier was thorough and unbiased. This allowed the reader to actually think about the technology of biofilms and to draw their own conclusions based on the facts. The various technologies associated with algae biofilms were detailed and easy to understand. In the case of algae harvesting, the explanation could have been expanded to include which type of harvesting is best. Environmental requirements were also clearly explained and well-thought out. The paragraph describing how algae can clean up wastewater and use excess carbon dioxide presented an excellent discussion of the benefits of this energy technology. Information about the uses of waste products was also interesting. Unfamiliar units of Btu were used on page three. These units should have either been introduced earlier or converted to SI units. The equation given on page three can be interpreted in a many different ways. Brackets should have been included for clarity. Descriptions of calculations on page three are not strictly necessary. Only the results are actually important to the dossier. Comparing the energy produced by a biofilm to that produced by a solar farm is a great way of putting the technology in context. However, the reason for comparing biofilms to solar farms must be further substantiated. Factors like overall cost, environmental impacts and maintenance should be taken into account before deciding how to compare two different technologies. The dossier was shorter than the maximum allowed number of pages. Despite this, it gave a good overview of biofilms. There are, however, a number of things that could have been included in the extra space. More details on the current state of biofilm technology and prospects for future development would have helped to establish whether biofilms will become more sustainable with time. If there are no currently functioning plants, trials or experiments could have been described. Pictures or diagrams might have helped to make the information presented even more clear. It would have been useful to talk about how long it would take a photo biorefactor to compensate for its high initial cost. The conclusion could also have been expanded. It encompasses the pros and cons of the technology, but is rather abrupt and only relates to Canada. Some of the extra space could have been devoted to discussing the merit of biofilms on a global scale as well. The biofilms lab was clearly presented, straightforward and was easily completed within the two-hour time period. It effectively demonstrated how the components of a biofilm ecosystem affect each other, and highlighted the importance of maintaining a balance between these elements. The accompanying questions could have gone into more depth about interactions between the algae, biodiesel and carbon dioxide. They could have asked how constant levels of algae and biodiesel production could be achieved, or what factors would have the greatest effect on this. More discussion could have been generated about what difficulties the models present with respect to generating energy (i.e. what extra procedures or costs would be necessary to keep the system functioning). The second model seemed somewhat unrealistic because graphs appeared to increase infinitely over time. Further explanation as to why this happened would have made the data easier to accept. If biodiesel were removed at a constant rate, it may have made the model more realistic as well. Overall, the lab was effective and well thought-out. In terms of the sustainability of this technology, we agree that open system biofilms are not practical for use in Canada. The climate in our country is not stable enough to support the organisms in a biofilm, which require stable temperatures, constant pH, and low turbulence. In other areas with more suitable climates, however, this type of biofilm seems like a viable source of energy. Open systems are inexpensive to set up, and can occupy nonarable land which might not otherwise be used. They can use excess carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, thus cleaning up the atmosphere, and waste generated can be used for fertilizers, feed or biogas. Although they have low productivity, open biofilm systems would be a good way to supplement energy in areas where they can be sustained. We believe that more research should be done on closed biofilm systems for Canada. They have a higher productivity than open systems and do not rely on the climate. The practicality of closed systems in Canada depends on exactly how expensive they are to build and maintain and how long it would take for them to pay off. Biofilms appear to be a clean source of energy, and Canada should be looking into ways of making closed systems more feasible.