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."

38 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. Awesome to hear! by electrosoccertux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lets just hope the corn lobby doesn't catch wind of this...

    1. Re:Awesome to hear! by schmidt349 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    2. Re:Awesome to hear! by religious+freak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My first question after reading TFS is where these little buggers go after the salt water is pumped in. Presumably, the salt water is pumped out at some point in time. ... Oh, don't worry, I'm sure they filter them out after returning them to the ocean - yeah somehow I highly doubt it.

      I agree this type of stuff is the least worst choice, but something about genetically modified bacteria designed to produce fuel, in the ocean gives me the creeps.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    3. Re:Awesome to hear! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I agree this type of stuff is the least worst choice, but something about genetically modified bacteria designed to produce fuel, in the ocean gives me the creeps.

      It is producing alcohol. It is spending a part of its energy budget into producing alcohol, which is totally useless for reproduction and survival. Thus out in the wild it will be swamped out by the regular bacteria. Remember the currently bacteria living in the ocean have been fighting it out for some 3 billion years and they are as fine tuned to optimum as they can get. Any deviation from it is likely to fall at a suboptimal point in the fitness landscape. Any large deviation like producing alcohol is really a saltation. It will land it so far off the starting point in the fitness landscape it is likely to be much much lower than optimum.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:Awesome to hear! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Awesome to hear! by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Informative

      What makes you think they're using unprocessed ocean water?

      Hmm, good spot. The Slashdot summary says:

      salt water that has been pumped in straight from the ocean

      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.
  2. Sources of Ethanol by Frigga's+Ring · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good for Dow. It's probably about time some company jumped on this. I'm just waiting for one of the big oil companies to shut them down so they can go back to using expensive corn crops for ethanol. I mean, corn? Really? Couldn't they have come up with anything more costly that produces less ethanol? Oh! Coming in 2015 from Shell: puppy ethanol!

    1. Re:Sources of Ethanol by nevergleam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was listening to NPR's All Things Considered yesterday (7/15/09) and they had a profile on a California start-up developing algae-sourced fuel in partnership with Exxon-Mobil.

      Oil companies aren't stupid. They invest heavily in all of the R&D for these alternative sources of fuel so they can oligopolize it when any of the research produces something practical.

    2. Re:Sources of Ethanol by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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
  3. 100,000 gallons = drop in the bucket (SSIA) by pweitz · · Score: 2, Informative
    100,000 gallons = drop in the bucket (SSIA)

    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!)"

    1. Re:100,000 gallons = drop in the bucket (SSIA) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      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!)"

      I think you mean, "I tried to post like an idiot by putting my message in the subject field, but Slashdot tried to save me from myself. I'll show them by being an idiot anyway!".

  4. Ok for a tech demonstration by afidel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But less than 2,400 barrels of ethanol (~1,600 barrels of oil) is such a small drop in the bucket as to be laughable (The US consumes ~21M barrels a day!). Of course scale it up and feed it the output of some GW scale coal plants and you are starting to make at least some impact.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  5. Pour me another glass by idontgno · · Score: 4, Funny

    of that pondscum whiskey.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  6. Water/Coastal towns, sewage, animal feed? by wonkavader · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From TFA: "Every gallon of ethanol made creates one gallon of fresh water out of salt water."

    This sounds interesting. If this can be cheaply scaled up, it sounds like coastal towns all over the developing world would want to become gas providers for more inland towns -- it solves their water problem at the same time as it solves their cash flow problem.

    I suspect there is a lot of distillation in the process as well, to purify the alcohol. So this sort of system would couple well with hot equator sun and passive solar systems.

    All this makes me wonder: how much human waste can you pour into the system to fertilize the algae? Can this system be used to solve that problem, too?

    And what do you do with the algae? Once you have a full tank, you just want to maintain the status quo, but the algae will continue to reproduce. Could the excess turn into an animal feed?

    1. Re:Water/Coastal towns, sewage, animal feed? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
    2. Re:Water/Coastal towns, sewage, animal feed? by Zerth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure the EPA or other agency has an "allowable salinity" restriction on water dumped into the ocean. If it is less than, say, double the normal salinity, they'll probably just stick it back in the ocean.

      Otherwise, they'll probably sell it as "Organic sea salt, purified by cute widdle ocean organisms".

  7. The 3 Steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1)make a carbon-dioxide sequestering device.
    2)transfer CO2 to algae ethanol farm
    3)profit!!!

  8. Also in the news: Exxon backing Synthetic Genomics by matrix+mechanic · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!

  9. $1.25 a gallon? by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... using a process that doesn't require harvesting to collect the fuel.

    Most of the reasonable plans I've read involve growing algae in ponds, sucking it up, and running it through a press (rather like an olive press)
    The expensive part of the operation isn't the press - it's the pond.
    As I recall, NREL recommended holes in the ground lined with plastic, and the pond was still the most expensive part.

    $1.25 a gallon is about twice the spot price for methanol, and $1.25 isn't what they can do, it's what they hope they can do eventually.

    Color me unimpressed.

    1. Re:$1.25 a gallon? by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd say that $1.25/gallon is pretty impressive, given the scale they're talking about, which is tiny. 100,000 gallons of ethanol/year? Production plants being built today have anything from one hundred to, in one case one thousand times that capacity.

      Why do people build big plants? To achieve economies of scale. If you built a back yard reactor that produced a thousand gallons of ethanol per year at a cost of $1.25, that would be darn impressive. Clearly, this thing is a model.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:$1.25 a gallon? by tsotha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      $1.25 a gallon is about twice the spot price for methanol, and $1.25 isn't what they can do, it's what they hope they can do eventually.

      But remember they're using C02 as an input to the process. If cap and trade goes through this would allow them to sell or avoid buying carbon credits for other processes. I think C02 is a relatively common by-product in industrial chemistry. $1.25 isn't too bad if the cost of one of the inputs is negative.

      Also, don't underestimate the value of a continuous process. The big knock on batch processing isn't the cost of the press, but rather the complication (and cost) it adds to scaling the process. It's the biggest reason we see all those little pilot projects that seem promising but never go anywhere.

  10. If this thing is really true ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... this could turn out to be the one that will allow us to tell the OPEC to go drink their own oil.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. Where's the downside? by Gre7g · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, we could hook up the CO2 exhaust from a coal-fired plant, use that to grow algae, and then turn algae into fuel? And as a "dreadful" side-effect, we get clean water from sea water?

    Greenhouse gas reduction, renewable fuel, and fresh water...

    Why aren't we focusing everything we have on such a process? It sounds too good to be true.

    1. Re:Where's the downside? by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but if we get twice as many useful BTU's per ton of CO2 we have effectively halved our CO2 output.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Where's the downside? by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It sounds too good to be true.

      It is. The CO2 from the coal-fired plant would not go away. It would be converted into ethanol and then released back as CO2 when the ethanol was burned.

      The reason some people are so excited about bio-fuels is they are supposedly "carbon neutral." They take CO2 out of the atmosphere, then release it back when burned. If one were to use CO2 from coal combustion instead, then the CO2 stored in the alcohol is coming out of the ground. In other words, inserting algae into the coal -> atmosphere chain does not change the carbon balance, only interrupts it.

      It is possible that adding algae into the chain could make energy production more efficient (more joules of energy per ton of total CO2 emissions) and may still be worth doing.

      My concern is that the coal plant owner would convince the general public (who by and large do not understand such basic scientific laws as conservation of mass) that their CO2 is a "green energy source" and therefore should not be taxed/capped as a greenhouse gas. In other words, using coal exhaust to feed the algae is basically playing a shell game -- "which one has the CO2 under it now?"

      The point to remember is that bio-fuels do not provide a net benefit to CO2 reduction. Ever. They're simply carbon neutral or approximately so.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    3. Re:Where's the downside? by Sandbags · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
    4. Re:Where's the downside? by CodeShark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As another poster has noted, reusing the carbon once and reburning it halves the carbon consumption. But when you clean burn an alcohol based fuel, what do you get? Water and Carbon Dioxide. Meaning that you now have two of the three inputs into the fuel cycle, and if you only recycle the carbon dioxide one more time that makes the net carbon hit only a fourth of what it would be from coal fired, etc.

      Meaning that given the solar input which drives the algae to produce anyway, that if scalable this seems like it could be a game changer. Here's why: That 100,000 gallons per year [if I calculated this correctly] translates to about around 100KW per of round the clock power. Since most cities and towns have folks that mostly sleep at night, call it double that for the daylight hours and half or a third after most folks go to bed. That's not a bad chunk of power -- for one location -- at the pilot plant size.

      The unanswered questions for me in the article are this: given the assumption that scalability were achievable, how much outside the system energy expense is required to operate the system anyway, and how many years would it take the fuel value to pay for a fuel plant both in terms of actual monetary investment and the actual power required to build the thing in the first place?

      --
      ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
    5. Re:Where's the downside? by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't be so dismissive of bio-fuels. Remember that the purpose of bio-fuel is to replace fossil fuels, and the CO2 that goes with burning them. That advantage holds true here as well. Yes, the carbon is released when the bio-fuels are burned. But (CO2 from industrial process into atmosphere plus CO2 from fossil fuel into atmosphere) > (CO2 from industrial process made into bio-fuel, then burned and released into atmosphere) You aren't just moving around carbon production, you're also producing a lot less of it. To take your CO2 shell game analogy, before, the shell game had a ball under 2 shells, now it's just under 1.

      If you read the article, page 2 also mentions using the ethanol to replace fossil fuels in the production of plastics, which would be carbon-negative.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    6. Re:Where's the downside? by hador_nyc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It sounds too good to be true.

      It is. The CO2 from the coal-fired plant would not go away. It would be converted into ethanol and then released back as CO2 when the ethanol was burned.

      The reason some people are so excited about bio-fuels is they are supposedly "carbon neutral." They take CO2 out of the atmosphere, then release it back when burned. If one were to use CO2 from coal combustion instead, then the CO2 stored in the alcohol is coming out of the ground. In other words, inserting algae into the coal -> atmosphere chain does not change the carbon balance, only interrupts it.

      It is possible that adding algae into the chain could make energy production more efficient (more joules of energy per ton of total CO2 emissions) and may still be worth doing.

      My concern is that the coal plant owner would convince the general public (who by and large do not understand such basic scientific laws as conservation of mass) that their CO2 is a "green energy source" and therefore should not be taxed/capped as a greenhouse gas. In other words, using coal exhaust to feed the algae is basically playing a shell game -- "which one has the CO2 under it now?"

      The point to remember is that bio-fuels do not provide a net benefit to CO2 reduction. Ever. They're simply carbon neutral or approximately so.

      You're wrong, at least partially. The ethanol does not displace extra electricity production, but could displace extra oil production. Think of it this way. Right now there are A LOT of coal plants. They aren't going anywhere any time soon. Hooking them up to this to make lots of ethanol would enable us to displace a lot of oil that is currently being burned in cars. So, this CO2 does get "burned" twice, but it does save the CO2 from the gallons of gasoline that are not being burned, but would have been if we hadn't done this.

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
  12. Welcome to our next ecological disaster by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 5, Funny

    1) Dow makes magic algae.
    2) Economic pressure forces Dow to make algae directly excrete ethanol in high concentrations (about 20%).
    3) Algae gets into environment
    4) Algae kills almost anything near it.
    5) Algae lives on rotting stuff it killed.
    6) Water around algae becomes flammable, sparked by lightning. Fires ensue.
    7) Worldwide, waterways and oceans become alcohol laden.
    8) Dolphin's social life improves remarkably.
    9) Whales start singing a *lot* more.
    10) Seals start coming ashore, seeking bars when their algae supply runs out. Barfights ensue. The ACLU gets involved. Punching seals is declared a hate crime.
    11) Growing algae becomes illegal. Everyone grows it anyway. California semi-legalizes "medicinal algae."

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  13. Proof of concept? by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  14. Ding! by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Got it, in one! Bioengineering is potentially dangerous. Various analogs of the "grey goo" problem are a real bioengineering risk today, and we're not ready to deal with it any more than the far future hypothetical nano-engineering risk. Corporations, by default, will be inclined to ignore risks like this, and it's not clear how to effectively regulate it. Think the financial crisis was a problem? Wait until we make our first major screw up with bioengineering.

    For the record, I think that this type of ethanol production has the potential to replace oil for transportation. We need to make sure we invest properly in risk investigation and management, so we don't completely wreck the biosphere in some disastrous new way, in the process.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:Ding! by Vintermann · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
    2. Re:Ding! by danbert8 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?
  15. gene swapping by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everywhere we look, we see single-celled organisms swapping genes. I'm just sayin'.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  16. Re:from a 24 acre demonstration plant by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    100 barrels per acre per year is NOT at ALL promising! To produce the current US consumption you would need ~137K square miles. For reference that would require the entire east coast be filled to ~55 miles inland.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  17. Arizona State University is also working on this by bjdevil66 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  18. Re:from a 24 acre demonstration plant by dfm3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.