Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Pooh-Pooh Algae-Based Biofuel

Julie188 writes "Researchers from the University of Virginia have found that current algae biofuel production methods consume more energy, have higher greenhouse gas emissions and use more water than other biofuel sources, such as switchgrass, canola and corn. The researchers suggest these problems can be overcome by situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen — essential algae nutrients that otherwise need to come from petroleum."

20 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. Reserachers? by azav · · Score: 5, Informative

    Timothy, please spell check your title.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    1. Re:Reserachers? by Stavr0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Timothy, please spell check your title.

      Oh, bother.

  2. Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hold on there, I for one do want to be next to a nuclear power plant.

  3. Somebody failed high school chemistry. by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

    > ...phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential algae nutrients that otherwise need
    > to come from petroleum.

    Phosphorus and nitrogen from petroleum. Uh huh. Right.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Somebody failed high school chemistry. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      OK, so whoever wrote that wasn't thinking straight. But it is true that fertilizer (both phosphates and nitrogen) require a lot of fossil fuel to produce -- usually natural gas.

      Phosphate fertilizer (ortho- or poly-phosphates) is synthesized in an energy-intensive process. Organic phosphates, like those from manure (or waste treatment plant effluent), help solve this problem.

      For nitrate fertilizer, it's even more extreme. Please read about the Haber Process.

      Yes, John, most fertilizer does come from fossil fuels.

      So, yes, whoever wrote that made a mistake. However, it's no lie to say that fertilizer production uses a huge amount of fossil fuel.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Somebody failed high school chemistry. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful
      From the article:

      As an environmentally sustainable alternative to current algae production methods, the researchers propose situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential nutrients for growing algae that would otherwise need to be produced from petroleum. Those same nutrients are discharged to local waterways, damaging the Chesapeake Bay and other water bodies, and current technology to remove them is prohibitively expensive.

      So here's the logic: Algae requires nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen. Where does that come from? Normally in the wild, algae live off nutrients in water. In artificial environments, they are given these nutrients. The source of these nutrients is synthetic fertilizer. Ammonia based fertilizers are often created by the Haber process. Artificial fertilizer requires petroleum to produce. Normally runoff is very high in these nutrients as they come from artificial fertilizers used on lawns and crops. Runoff enters wastewater and this high nutrient content creates all sorts of problems when discharged into the wild. Red Tide is caused by high nutrient runoff from the Mississippi. So kill two birds with one stone.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  4. Also by killmenow · · Score: 5, Funny

    Christopher Robin was unavailable for comment.

  5. Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics by 2obvious4u · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't mind living next to nuclear power plants. As a matter of fact I did. In fact it was the primary employer for my town.

  6. One other reason, Algae is more valuable! by nweaver · · Score: 4, Informative

    Diesel, wholesale, is a couple bucks a gallon. Which means it is far FAR less than a dollar a pound.

    A good algae is worth far MORE than that per pound as animal feed, dietary suppliments, etc. So why turn something that you can sell for $2/lb into something you can only sell for less than $.5/lb?

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:One other reason, Algae is more valuable! by martinbogo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually .. there are both yeasts and algae that literally -output- diesel as a byproduct of their metabolic processes. The researchers in this article focused on the conversion of algae to biofuels using heat and industrial processes, but this is not the technique currently in favor amongst the algae biofuel startups. Most have strains of yeasts (and algae) that were discovered around the world that have low yields of diesel fuel byproduct, and are working via rapid natural selection and genetic engineering techniques to increase the yield to commercially viable levels.

      So, you get the valuable algae .. AND .. you get the diesel byproducts. It costs sunlight, and fertilizer plus some post processing and captures more carbon than is emitted by burning the fuel. Sounds pretty good to me.

      --
      "Don't worry about the problems you have in mathematics, I assure you mine are much greater." - Einstein c.1919
    2. Re:One other reason, Algae is more valuable! by rev_sanchez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right now farm runoff containing nutrients is creating vast dead zones in places like the gulf of Mexico. If we could channel farm runoff through algae growing operations we might be able to help with the dead zone thing which would help the fishing industry.

      Reducing corn subsidies for biofuel, which we should do anyway, could drop the value of feed algae because we wouldn't be be turning so much corn into ethanol (assuming you could replace algae-based feed with corn).

      The cost of petroleum is not just the wholesale price + taxes + mark ups. The cost also comes in the form of dependence on foreign oil and the security problems that causes, maintaining a military that can help ensure our access that oil, and the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels.

      If ultimately they can't make the economics of algae growing work then clearly they shouldn't do it but there are other factors than the wholesale price of these commodities.

      --
      If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
  7. Re:Land values by 2obvious4u · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They could also put them downstream from chicken farms. I believe one of the biggest problems with the Chesapeake bay water shed is to much nitrogen in the water. If this could be used to produce fuel and clean up all the nitrogen run off from industrial agriculture it would be a double win.

  8. Re:People don't realise this... by AP31R0N · · Score: 5, Funny

    [Citation Needed]
                \O/
                  |
                / \

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  9. quick by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    someone inform Cheney of the news

  10. Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some true some false there. Electrons aren't created during power generation, but they are moved around. They don't come from mass. There does have to be a power plant and saying 'use hydrogen and there won't be any pollution' is definitely missing the issue.

    Algae biofuel = solar power harvesting via photosynthesis. The algae contain more energy once grown, but it might not be worthwhile to do all the extra work to get that energy into a useful form. It is theoretically possible, but so are highly efficient solar cells. Only time will actually tell.

  11. Re:People don't realise this... by homer_ca · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean organic? Going vegan would probably let us double the world population considering the huge amount of grain and soy that's fed to animals.

    Oil and natural gas won't last forever. The most optimistic estimates says 30 years before peak production rate, and we hit shortages on a growing planet. What's the plan to feed ourselves after that? Grow bigger and crash harder?

  12. Pond vs Bioreactor by geek2k5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article seems to be focusing on pond based algae biofuels as opposed to the bioreactor based ones that have been getting recent media attention.

    They do mention the bioreactor based algae biofuels, but claim that the photo bioreactors are unlikely to scale efficiently and that unlined ponds are the most reasonable configuration. Of course, the paper they are using for this claim dates back to 1996. They really need to update their economic analysis reference.

  13. Salt Water Biofuel by EEPROMS · · Score: 4, Informative

    I notice a few people commenting on using fresh water. Well according to CSIRO (Australia) you can happily use salt water There is even a prototype plant that has been commissioned to look at making this more cost effective.

  14. Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    for b: the cost of decommissioning and cleanup have never been counted for when building a coal plant. While those costs have always been considered for nuclear plants. That is one of the reasons coal is perceived as cheaper.

    a: its not a miracle cure, buts more than just a few steps in the right direction. The US has one of the largest supplies of uranium, both mined and in the ground. With the more efficient feeder-breeder reactors, it can meet our needs for hundreds of years and that is if it was our only energy source.

    A strong mix of feeder-breeder nuclear reactors and efficient solar thermal plants, we would be well on our way to complete energy independence with very low pollution for the forseeable future.

  15. Re:People don't realise this... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Going vegan would actually decrease the amount of land needed, since it's more efficient to just make wheat/corn, instead of making wheat/corn and then (inefficiently) converting it to steak.

    You're really not getting this. Cows don't eat corn, they eat grass. This is why in most of the world, cows are fed on grass or grass-like feed (hay, silage etc) with relatively small amounts of things like oats and wheat. Over here, we make a lot of use of "draff" which is spent distillery mash - malt that's been boiled up for the sugar to be used in brewing. The other important thing that you're missing is that a lot of the "undesirable" stuff that your cow food gets turned into is actually cow *shit*. You let this compost for a while (it helps to mix it with straw and burn it, but that smells awful) and yay, free fertiliser *without* petrochemicals. All this stuff about livestock farming "using up all the water" is just nonsense - cows don't magically make mass disappear. They are not nuclear reactors. They drink water - quite a lot of water - and either pee it out (yay, nitrogen compounds, just what nitrate-poor grassland needs) or sweat it out (okay, water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas, I'll give you that). Either way nothing is lost for the water cycle. Eventually more fresh water just falls from the sky. Oh, here comes some now!

    Even better than cows are sheep, which can eat tough heathery plants and tough grasses that not much else can eat. We hardly have to feed sheep at all over the winter (maybe a little bit of draff mixed with shredded sugar beet - yes, technically something you could feed humans. You get enough sugar already, fatso). The good bit about that is you can make use of farmland that isn't really suitable for arable farming. Go and have a look at pretty much any country that has hills (ie. not rolling cornfields like the middle states of the US), and work out how you're going to plant it.