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_? 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?
Biodiesel is much more significant than solar. With the energy density similar to normal diesel fuel, you can run a car with it, vice solar (except some very unrealistic designs). If biodiesel is able to compete with normal diesel fuel, the entire political landscape of the world will change. The industrialized countries will no longer need to help Saudi princes build palaces. The money that is being exported will instead stay in the country boosting the economy. This will fuel an unprecedented period of economic growth.
As a side benefit, it releases no net CO2 (burning - photosynthesis = 0). Just pray that the cost of oil continues to rise. At roughly $3.50 per gallon diesel, biodiesel will be more economical. Economies of scale will take over and old-diesel will be history.
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
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.
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.
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.