Slashdot Mirror
Novel Algae Fuel-Farming Method Gets Big Backing
Al writes "Dow Chemical has given its backing to a Florida startup called Algenol Biofuels that hopes to produce commercial quantities of ethanol directly from algae without the need for fresh water or agricultural lands. Dozens of companies are trying to produce biofuels from algae, mostly by growing and harvesting the microorganisms to extract their oil. Algenol has chosen instead to genetically enhance certain strains of blue-green algae, also known as cyanobacteria, to convert as much carbon dioxide as possible into ethanol using a process that doesn't require harvesting to collect the fuel. Algenol's bioreactors are troughs covered by a dome of semitransparent film and filled with salt water that has been pumped in straight from the ocean. The photosynthetic algae growing inside are exposed to sunlight and fed a stream of carbon dioxide from Dow's chemical production units. The goal is to produce 100,000 gallons of ethanol annually."
Note, the only reason I repeat myself is that I get this message when I try to leave out the body: "Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invid_(Robotech)
And here I thought this was going to be about Exxon backing Synthetic Genomics. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/business/energy-environment/14fuel.html Algae fuels are just so hot right now!
Nothing quite so exotic- the salt is going to end up a toxic byproduct of this process. The rest is just solar-based distillation- salt water + algae + sun -> fresh water + ethanol, which is then further distilled down into it's component parts.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
When considering new technology, scale is largely irrelevant. For a proof-of-concept, 2,400 barrels is not much more or less useful than 240 or 2.4 million, since even at the latter level, it's more an indication of how well funded the project is than it is an indication of the usefulness of the technology.
The questions are:
1) Can it be done?
2) Can it be done cheaply enough?
After those two questions are answered with "yes", then scale is largely a matter of getting sufficient capital, and working out the mechanics.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
read more. talk less. the article describes a pilot project. if you read it, the article also mentions another project which aims to produce 1 billion gallons annually.
You should have read TFA. Sometimes there are more details in it.
The salt water isn't pumped out. The alcohol evaporates into the air at the top of the bioreactor and is skimmed off. The bioreactor does produce fresh water as a "waste product" but presumably they seem rather optimistic about finding a better use for that than dumping it in the ocean.
Too bad ethanol eats away at most semi modern and older cars fuel systems even in concentrations of 15% or lower. Ethanol is TERRIBLE for a car.
This technology has a LONG way to go, 100,000 gallons per year is quite litterally nothing in the energy business.
For example, the Alaska oil field, which produces quite a lot of oil but nowhere near what is needed, put out an average of 650,000 barrels per day, or just shy of 30 million gallons per day. That's ten and a half billion with a "B" gallons per year. Also bear in mind that Alaska accounts for only 1/3 the total oil production in North America, and also remember that the US must import 80% of its oil from overseas.
100,000 gallons per year is nothing more than a "proof of concept". If they can scale that up to the millions of barrels per year range they'll start making a profit. If this scales well enough it could eventually be a good replacement for gasoline, which would mean the demand for gasoline could be cut in half. That would be awesome.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Hmm, good spot. The Slashdot summary says:
I've given a hint about which word doesn't appear in the original article.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Well, no.
As a side effect, through ADDITIONAL processing, we can get water that can be filtered into drinking water, without actually having to run through traditional desalination.
As a dreadful side effect, we'll have a mass of biowaste, and every last contaiminant in the ocean cleaned from the water becomes a toxic sludge waste, which will include large amounts of murcury, other heavy metals, and some farily dangerous compounds mixed in with some poitentially useful organic materials and other compunds. All that crtap then itself needs to be processed, sorted, and disposed of in a varying and complicated array of processes.
Getting ethanol out of algae isn;t so much the issue. Getting the resulting crap out of the tank and safeley disposed of is, and may actually cost more than getting the fuel...
Look into a real technology. dotyenergy.com and see how it compares:
- 300 times more fuel per site (up to 30M gallons anually, not 100,000).
- operational costs of about $90M anually, on $225M anual expected revenue.
- Fuel (methanol, propanol, ethanol, and several other blends, including higher alcohols and jet fuels too!) that will compete in price with oil at $70/bbl
- NO hazardous byproducts, little to no environmental impact
- Energy derived from off-peak wind production
- CARBON NUETRAL
- We've been using this technology for over 50 years (we made deisel fuels using a very similar process in WWII)!
very detailed information, including some actual science data can be found http://dotyenergy.com/PDFs/WindFuels_Sci_Engr_ppt.pdf. (FAR more than other companies I've seen provide) and this research has been confirmed by multiple universities and science firms.
They also have a lot of great data at dotyenergy.com on the undisclosed facts about all of the other alternatives, some real numbers and analysis on feasability and costs, and explanations about a lot of other solutions. They've been researching this process and patenting improvements for over 20 years, and were recently awarded over 60 world patents for their enhancements to this technology.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
The Polytechnic campus of ASU in Mesa, AZ has created jet fuel out of algae. That school has been focusing on many other solar technologies as well, since Arizona annually has an abundance of sunny days.
Mold? Ethanol at fuel-grade concentrations is ... well, it's one of our more common disinfectants, right? It's also been used as a preservative for generations*. How do you manage to grow mold in it?
Biodiesel, on the other hand, does have a problem with bacterial contamination. One of the disadvantages of a fuel that isn't extremely toxic...
*you could say it still is, but since it's carcinogenic and causes birth defects I'd say its preservative properties are probably pretty far down on the list of reasons why it's used...
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
I'm going to combine some replies here, so I apologize. First of all, ethanol doesn't grow mold inside the fuel, but the vapors support mold to grow on any surface not submerged in the fuel. Next time you pass a tank farm, the tank with black crap at the top near the vents is the ethanol tank.
Ok, I used imprecise language, but ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline. And stainless steel is much more expensive than regular steel, and isn't nearly as durable in the long run.
Petrol (gasoline) doesn't give two shits about water. Gasoline doesn't form a solution with water. Water simply sits at the bottom of your gas tank and the gasoline continues to power your car. Water does form a solution with ethanol and ruins the fuel potential of the mix.
The lower energy density creates a larger cost of shipment as the same energy requires more volume (hence you need more truck trips to get the same energy to the service station).
Ethanol does have a higher octane rating, which is why it makes a good gasoline additive. Sure beats lead or MTBE anyway. But as a straight fuel, it doesn't make sense.
And finally, I have to disagree with you about diesel (I realize I misspelled it, but I am too quick to hit post rather than preview). It's the better technology, more torque, greater durability, and better efficiency. Diesel cars have shown that they can match gasohol fuels for racing (see the LeMans) and can match hybrids in efficiency (see Jetta TDI).
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
For reference that would require the entire east coast be filled to ~55 miles inland.
Ever driven across the central part of the US? There's lots of corn... 87 million acres, or about 136,000 square miles, actually. Now, I know not all of that corn is used for ethanol production. However, there are large swaths of land in the US within reasonable distance of an ocean which aren't much use beyond growing pine for timber (like coastal areas of North Carolina or Texas) because they're not suited for growing other crops. This could be a much more efficient use for such land.
Plus, not all of that 24 acres is actually producing ethanol. We're talking 3100 tanks that take up 250 square feet each, or about 17.79 acres. As this technology matures and as farms are scaled up, you'll likely see increased output per acre.