Slashdot Mirror
Filling Up On Algae
grqb writes "News.com is reporting that GreenFuel Technologies, a Cambridge, Mass. based start-up, is using algae fed with sunlight, water and emissions from power plants to make biodiesel. The benefits are that heavy polluters can cut back on their emissions and at the same time make biodiesel. The algae consumes carbon dioxide as part of photosynthesis and they also break down nitrogen oxide, reducing the amount of polluting gas released. Once the algae are grown, the conversion to biodiesel is a relatively simple process. The company uses technology licensed from a NASA project. The only barrier now is to prove that it is economically viable."
This is unAmerican and you hippies should be ashamed of yourselves! ;)
"The only barrier now is to prove that it is economically viable."
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
The _only_? Oh, that should be simple, the *only* thing left eh?
How many brilliant projects have failed to meet that last hurdle.
So, like the same old story goes for all alternative fuels and energy, we'll just have to wait for peak oil to make it economically viable.
1)dont tend to your aquarium for 8 years
2)???
poor the contents of the aquarium into gas tank
4)PROFIT!
from the article:
3-meter-high glass tubes fashioned as a triangle--to grow algae
How much biodiesel do you expect to get out of a 3-meter-high glass tube? Sounds to me like you'd need one hell of a lot of those just to fill one biodiesel 18-wheeler.
I definitely applaud this step in the right direction, but it seems there would be much easier and more efficient ways to reduce emissions, without having to use the guise of obtaining a pinch of "biodiesel."
--
Fairfax Underground: Message board and public record search for Fairfax County, VA
When we start talking about how we ought to be focusing our energies (pun intended) on future sources of electricity and power, there seems to be two distinct tacks. The first is to rely on limited-pollution sources like Nuclear and Solar. The second is to build on existing combustion systems with Diesel and BioDiesel.
I'm very unsure of the second choice's long-term viability as well as its efficacy in reducing pollution levels. After all, it is still burning the fuel and releasing those emissions back into the atmosphere. Forests act as carbon sinks. They absorb excess carbon from the atmosphere and release oxygen so we can breathe. However, when a tree dies, all that absorbed carbon is rereleased into the environment. Burning an oil derived from a carbon sink (like the algae described in the article) only takes excess pollutants from one place and puts it somewhere else. In this case it puts it directly back into the atmosphere as the result of combustion.
The road ahead is long, but eventually we need to wean ourselves off of oil. As a pollutant it is second to none. As a political lever, it is a threat to the sovereignty of any nation that is dependent on its import. As a resource, it is limited and will one day run to levels insufficient to support our current usage.
BTW, the text captchas are getting harder and harder to read
Step 1: grow algae
Step 2: refine into biodiesel
Step 3: Profit!
I always thought step 2 was the hard part, because it requires methanol (biodiesel is basically a methanol-fatty acid ester), and methanol is tough to make. It gets made by cracking petroleum catalytically at very high temperatures and pressures, which takes a lot of energy. Where are these people getting their methanol?
On similar lines, there is talk about using Methane Farming techniques to get bio-diesel.. Here is an article that says "Methane farming and Bio-diesel can meet the entire energy requirement of India." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/950 402.cms
From the article linked above : We (in INDIA) have the world's largest livestock population of 250 million, which produces close to 125 million tonnes of cowdung. Using this we can produce enough methane gas to entirely replace LPG and kerosene in cooking, and substitute petrol in transportation. Methane gas can also generate enough electricity to meet all requirements, at least in rural areas. The by-product can serve as excellent organic manure, substituting chemical fertilisers which require LNG as feedstock.
It's not a panacea but at least it's an innovative approach. Countries under the Kyoto Protocol might get points for using this. As an added bonus the boffins gather every morning for an algea slurpie. On tv they all chugged down the thick green slop while bravely smiling.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
The only barrier now is to prove that it is economically viable.
Ahh, but that's not so much of an issue. It can reasonably be assumed that the process will become more efficient as time passes and throughput increases, and oil will, of course, become more expensive. As these two trends progress, it can't help but become cost effective. It's only a question of *how* cost effective and when.
Well, that and how long it is before I replace my aging 240sx with a TDI Jetta. I'm fairly certain those can be cheaply adapted to run biodiesel, yes?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Well, some varieties of algae can be pretty high in oil. Some are as high as 50% oil by weight. By crushing the algae, separating the oil, and performing transesterification (the same process used to convert soy or rape oil), you can get biodiesel from it. There has been a lot of talk in the biodiesel circles about using algae, so lets hope this group can bring it to market. BTW, people also talk about using algae in pools that capture the run off from, I believe, cattle grazing land. Not only does it clean the water, it also has a very nice byproduct.
For some time I've thought the future of automotive fuel lies in biodiesel rather than hydrogen. Hydrogen is just very hard to work with because of its low energy density and the fact it is normally a gas. Generation, transportation, storage and utilization all face large challenges.
For biodiesel, all the steps except generation are already solved and the infrastructure in place, and the generation problems do not seem large. (Even without the existing infrastructure, I suspect biodiesel wins economically.)
Generation from algae is particularly promising, as it doesn't require arable land, and can use salt water.
Article on biodiesel.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
They're probably using the high-oil algaes investigated by the University of New Hampshire here. UNH says some algae are made of over 50% oil. algae are some of the most efficient photosynthesis machines around. once you've got the oil, it's just a matter of standard transesterification, a normal part of biodiesel production (and really, the only step necessary when you have clean oil).
fear is the mind killer
Biodiesel algae - a 'power plant' a mother could love.
And soon, no doubt . . . Soylent Green - putting people to work...
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
However, you are right in terms of your observations of present diesel vehicle emissions. Until relatively recently, diesel particulate emissions were pretty much unregulated. That's changing rapidly. New diesels are a hell of a lot cleaner than the old ones.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
A mature forrest (One where the oldest trees are beginning to die), all of the CO2 absorbed by the trees is replaced by the CO2 being emitted by the organisims breaking down the leaf litter. Indeed, during droughts, forests have been measured as _emmitting_ CO2.
The only CO2 sinks on this planet are the oceans, where, interestingly, algae consume CO2, and their dead bodies sink to the ocean floor, where, the standard theory goes, they are compressed and heated and form - Oil!!
There is indeed nothing new under the sun.
What I have see are numbers that make the whole proposition somewhat marginal without advances in genetics of algae.
To get an idea of what you are going to get out an optimal system (using Calchemy's Unicalc):
.8gm_oil/cm^3; .6gm_prepressed_oil/gm_algae; .7gm_oil/gm_prepressed_oil?$/(acre*month)
50$/barrel_oil; 50gm_algae/(m^2*day);
= 1016.17 $/(acre*month)
Please check for any errors, but it appears that under optimal conditions, meaning a sunny desert with warm nights year round and algae production consistently at the height achieved by ASP during their 20 year study, using a species modified to produce optimal oil and a consistently high price for oil, one can get $1000 per acre per month.
We have $1000/month to make this realistic and to pay the rest of the expenses of the operation per acre.
A covering will eat into that $1000 in two ways:
1) Amortization (which has to be fast)
2) Solar flux reduction
Let's take out the solar flux from the covering first and say we lose 30% leaving us with $700 for the rest of the operation. Let's further say that we need half of that for expenses other than structure amortization, leaving us with $350. If we assume commercial lending rates of around 12% and zero amortization -- just debt service, we can afford $35,000 to cover an acre so with amortization it drops to sometning more like $10,000 to cover an acre.
Covering these ponds sounds problematic under optimal conditions, let alone constructing bioreactors -- and we haven't even gone to climates with less total solar flux.
Recalculating for volumetric production of oil:
50gm_dry_algae/(m^2*day); .8gm_oil/cm^3; .6gm_prepressed_oil/gm_dry_algae; .7gm_oil/gm_prepressed_oil?gal/(yard^2*month)
= 0.17636 gal/(yard^2*month)
What this says is that the best you can expect, under optimal species and growth conditions, of any algae-oil system that relies on the sun for its energy, is for each square yard of solar-exposed pond to produce just over a fifth of a gallon of pressed lipid oil each month -- which you must then process into biodiesel through the normal methods. If you find other energy sources you can feed to algae, you might beat this but algae are optimized to consume solar energy so you have to be very skeptical of any claims that exceed this productivity level and really find out where the energy is coming from and how the algae are metabolizing it.
Let me try to break down the parameters of the calculation:
50gm_dry_algae/(m^2*day)
This is the target productivity figure given by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's review of the last 25 years of algae biodiesel work. It basically says for a given area, how much dry algae you should be able to get out of an _optimal_ system per day -- optimal climate, species, solar flux at pond surface, etc. If you can economically create these conditions in your "back yard" then you can get that level of productivity. Find the NREL's review at:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf
.8gm_oil/cm^3;
This is the density, or specific gravity of diesel. Diesel isn't quite as dense as water. This probably should have been the density of lipid oil but I didn't have that figure handy.
.6gm_prepressed_oil/gm_dry_algae;
The _highest_ oil content, of oil-producing algae reported by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's review, was 60%. This presumes algae grown under their high rate goal of 50gm_dry_algae/(m^2*day) but this growth rate has yet to be achieved with this high, 60% oil content (to the best of my current reading of the NREL report).
.7gm_oil/gm_prepressed_oil
This is a fairly optimistic 70% fig
Seastead this.
Isn't it easier to produce methane directly from algae? That might not be quite as dense as other hydrocarbons, but it's not that bad and it's a lot better than hydrogen. It's also useful for producing oil from resources like the tar sands in Alberta (that requires a lot of natural gas eg methane).
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
> The only barrier now is to prove that it is economically viable
In the end, this is all that really matters. BioDiesel always has and always will be a net energy loser. Meaning it takes more energy to produce it, then it consumes
The Boston Museum of Science has a small exhibit on the technology right as you walk between all the exhibit halls (by the map of Boston with the buttons that light up various areas of the map).
As far as oil supplies go, we are totally, royally and majorly fscked.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Lets consider the real endless waste stream, Sewage. Waste water treatment plants should be set up as energy collectors. Start with anaerobic digesters to break down waste products and produce methane. The methane can be collected to fuel the plant. The waste is then generally treated with chemicals to remove solids (flocculation) and remove nutrients. The waste should be run through an algae growth facility. Normal waste water is considered a pollutant mainly because of the nutrient load. That load should be put to use.
Sure biofuels still add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but utilize carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so in the scheme of things CO2 from biofuels represent CO2 already in the system and not added to the system.
Imagine Powerplants run from biodiesel made from algae grown off of the CO2 emissions from the powerplants themselves. There might be a scale where the efficiency approaches that of photovoltaics or thermal reflector arrays. This sort of plant might be cheaper to produce that photovoltaic plants, or prove beneficial from the standpoint of pollution created during production.
Absolutely, energy diversity should be the future. It would be a shame to get away from the impending oil crisis by relying on a resource that will also deplete. I would like to see an assortment of energy using vehicles in the world: electric, hydrogen, petroleum-based, solar?. Energy should be approached in the same way that we approach our finances - with conservation and diversity.
Did anyone else read
The benefits are that heavy polluters can cut back on their emissions and at the same time make biodiesel
as
Now you can produce even more industrial waste, and it might be economically to your advantage to do so?
Perhaps I'm being too cynical... it seems like a great idea, but will it just be a justification for causing more environmental havoc if it is economically viable?
there is nothing new here....
josh tickell (don;t laugh, it's his real name)talked about this in his book From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank. thats 8 years ago!
he drove around in a painted mini-winnebago promoting bio/veggie burning waste oil for fuel.
the notion is that algea are about 90% water, and on the order of 5% oils. growing the algea on large shallow ponds is cheap and easy. reduction of the algea into oils is pretty easy with centrfuges. then making it into bio while simple, is very energy intensive, heat it up to react, use nasty chemicals made with lots of energy etc.
the end result was it was very energy intensive to make bioD, to make it economically viable. was, still is.
you are best off reading more at biodieselamerica.org
before you start wining about diesel 'soot,' soot is caused by excessive SULPHER in the fuel. bioD has no sulpher, so huge reductions in emissions. USLD will allegedly be here in a couple of years.
some of us ARE getting 45+ mpg in regular non-hybrid cars using regular diesel, bio, WVO/SVO plant oils. 25+ in 3/4 p/u. what do you drive? are you still driving mommy's SUV?
figures how an out of work rocket scientist instead of a truely green pioneer gets the press and the seed money.
that's america for you.
I have heard this exact same claim made of of
- Solar panels
- Hydro dams - they silt up and become unusable
- Nuclear power - only feasible due to goverment subsidies
- Wind power
And now I get to add biodiesel to the list.(I guess biodiesel is really just an organic solar panel anyway)
You know what, in every instance it's a myth, every one of those produces significantly more energy over its lifespan than it takes to manufacture - with the possible exception of a solar panel in the arctic.
Come on people, did none of the engineers realise that the hydro dam would cost more than it would produce? The wind farm? The algy pools? Did they need some slashdotter to come along and explain it to them.
And I, for one, welcome our oil producing algea overlords, and would like to remind them that as a slashdot poster I am highly capable of producing large steaming mounds of bullshit for their sustanance.
It may be greener than follis fuel, but unless they start to feed non-fossil fuels to the powerplants that these algae plants get their CO2 from, if , you burn this biodiesel, you are still contributing to the greenhouse effect. The only thing that has changed is that the CO2 has delivered twice the amount of energy.
So this is not an end-all solution to global warming, it only can halve the CO2 emissions, and we probably will need more.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Okay, I am an environmentalist. I have a degree in conservation biology. And I also know that studies have pretty much proven that the earth's climate fluctuations are directly linked to... total insolation from the sun. The sun's total energy output fluctuates over time, and when there is more energy coming in, the earth warms up.
But what about the perfect lock-step match between temperatures and atmospheric CO2 you ask? Easy. People talk about the tundra permafrost melting and releasing CO2 and sure, that's gonna cause some raise in temperature. But the big one? Gasses are more soluble in cold water than warm. With global warming, the oceans can't hold as much CO2, and so outgass it to the atmosphere. CO2 levels rise BECAUSE of global warming, not necesarilly the other way around.
Yes... global warming is going on. But whether it is mankind that is causing it is actually a lot more up for debate than you seem to think.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Canola is a popular oilseed crop for biodiesel. I did a quick look, and found that the yield of canola is around 1.26 tonnes/ha and is around 40% oil by weight. This means that a hectare of canola will give about 0.50 tons of oil; if the weight of oil and the product biodiesel are approximately equal (MW of glycerol = 92, MW of methanol * 3 = 96) you'll get .50 tonne/ha/year. If it's equal in energy content to #2 petroleum diesel [119,110 BTU/lbm] (which it isn't, but this favors biodiesel) that half-tonne yields 6170 kWh of chemical energy; burned in an engine at 40% efficiency, the output is ~2470 kWh.
If the efficiency of a PV/battery electric vehicle is 65% from panel output to wheels, getting 2470 kWh to the road requires 3800 kWh at the panel. If you average 5 hours sunlight for a year (1825 hours), you'd need only 2.1 kW of average PV output to get that 3800 kWh.
Growing the canola takes a hectare (10,000 m^2) plus fertilizers and cultivation. The 2.1 kW PV system would fit on a 100 m^2 roof with plenty of space left over and requires an occasional rinsing if rain doesn't wash the dust off. The key advantage is that you can power most of your transport on next to nothing once you have made the investment in a GO-HEV, and conversion of "standard" hybrids to GO-HEVs is something that can be done by amateurs.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
As was pointed out in The Matrix, living creatures produce a lot of energy and can be used somewhat as batteries. With the right engineering we could probably create a plant/animal hybrid that generated energy from chemical intake in a similar fashion. Not on the level of the fictional protoculture of Robotech, but along those lines. It would of course have to be as simple a thing as a pumpkin or tomato without a nervous system or no one would go for it.
(We could of course use convicted criminals, spammers, etc.)
As energy storage and concentration devices mature, we'll be able to store enough compact energy to power a car the way gasoline does today and even more economically.
What do we do with the algae? We use it for food and use it to process our sewage and we use it as part of aquaculture/aquafarming.
Burning things is an inefficient and wasteful way of doing the same things living things do in their processing of food into energy and waste. We need to figure out more efficient ways of doing what nature does in us and how to do it on larger scales. Living machinery, biomechanics, techno-organics... that's where the future is for us if we want to marry our world of ease and leisure to environmentally enmeshed living.
Sack cloth, brown rice, bicycles instead of cars, not to mention these biomass burning cars are not the answer.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)