Algae to the rescue

mheslep

A browse through some of the single cell biofuel companies (algae, bacteria) will turn up references to where they claim to have agreement with some large CO2 emitter such as a large power plant to supply the required carbon. It seems though that the more direct solution would be to eventually use biofuels in a (tighter) closed loop: grow them from the power plant carbon and then burn as fuel in the power plant; the power plant electricity is then used instead to run the (future electrified) transportation system instead of biofuels.

OmCheeto

I saw a video once of researchers at MIT doing this. As I recall, the heat loving algae progeny survived their cold blooded brethren, and did quite well.

It gave me hope.

But then, I'm that way.

Ivan Seeking

I didn't read the link entirely yet bt I saw that he goes right to corn-ethanol. That is a horrible example that is well known to be a loser. The increased yield per acre-year is one of the biggest advantages algae [and perhaps bacteria] has over other biofuel technologies.

As for the closed-loop power-plant concept mentioned above, note that in a closed loop, not only the water, but also the nutrients could in principle be preserved. Nitrogen fertilizer alone is a significant cost for an algae farm. So it seems to me that a closed loop power scheme may be the first viable option [economically] for a practical algae farm.

The entire farm would be, in effect, a biological solar cell farm.

Ryan_m_b

It starts with that but then goes onto algae which he does admit is better but has it's own problems.

Ivan Seeking

He seems to be too reliant on the notion of genetic engineering for solving the problems. Then he dismisses GE as a deal breaker without considering that other options exist.

I can tell you first hand that he's right to express these concerns. But these are not insurmountable problems that can only be solved with genetic engineering. Note also that algae is already grown commercially, so some of these problems have already been managed for decades.

Ivan Seeking

ievolve brought to my attention this recent breakthrough in processing algae, announced today. Thanks ievolve!

http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/ne...l-in-a-minute/

I also spotted this encouraging interview from last April


He mentions that NASA is playing with growing algae in big bladders in the ocean, which was suggested and discussed earlier in this thread. Based on my experience, temperature stability is a huge advantage in partially submerged bladders, nevermind the endless supply of water.

When asked, if he had all the money he needed, how long would it take to start producing 100,000 barrels of fuel [oil] from algae a day, the answer he gave was - one year.

mheslep

Given your background knowledge, and that they currently have zero production capability, what credence do you give such a claim?

Ivan Seeking

I don't know the inside story with Origin oil but it has always been a matter of the cost at the pump. And I believe that is just a problem of throwing enough money at this to work through the mechanics of it. So given a Manhattan Project... sounds pretty optimistic but they clearly know more than I do about this. By March of 2008 I was arguing that given a Manhattan project, we could do this in five years.

What did he say the price was for pure algae oil, I think $5.25? At that price they are almost competitive at the pump now.

Ivan Seeking

When he mentioned that NASA's approach looks very promising, that suggested to me that they recognize the cost and other practical problems with land-based systems.

It will be intersting to see how NASA plans to manage heavy seas and storms. The only solution that made sense to me was to have a simple ballast system that allows you to submerge the containers to a safe depth until conditions are calm again.

Ivan Seeking

One last thought. It seems to make sense that retired oil platforms could be used as the hub of the farm. I did a quick google and found this. I got a number of other types of hits including converting retired platforms into luxury resorts.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/feb...e-vnfishfarm13

dlgoff

Gasoline is one thing but could existing "home oil heating" users benefit? Wouldn't that cost be competitive?

BTW Have you considered getting back into this somehow; invest, develop, etc?

Regards

Ivan Seeking

Anything that can burn diesel should work. I know some specialized systems can but I don't know about typical oil burners. Like diesel, biodiesel and algae oils require high compression or very high temperatures to burn.

As for me, I have all of my eggs in other baskets now.

dlgoff

Thanks for the info Ivan. I'm not a user of "home heating oil", unless propane is considered to be, so I'll have to do some checking on how the burners deliver the fuel. Probably similar to how these work.

Andre

Whilst I can imagine future reasons to follow this path like aviation fuel, I'm wondering if things like if getting enough CO2 to the algeae photo assimilation process has been thought of.

mheslep

Yes. Some of the photosynthetic plays have deals with local power plants and have built their demo operations immediately adjacent one, with the limitation that they become dependent on such sources. Then there are the bio fuel approaches fed by carbohydrates, i.e. they get their carbon direct from feedstock, and that approach thus becomes dependent on the transportation of biomass. Also note the concentration of CO2 in water, where the microorganism are grown, is several multiples of that which is present in the atmosphere.

Andre

Sure, but consider some algae growing device in the ocean. I see 28 ppm carbon for seawater, so that would be 28 gram per cubic meter, but when you have converted that to algeae, it's essentially done. So if you want more yield, you'd need to provide carbon in some form.

Edit: Obviously more CO2 will enter from the atmosphere. But the total per year seems in the order of magnitude of 100 PgC (10¹⁷ gram) per year, the ocean area is about 361,132,000 km2 so the average flux would seem to be in the order of magnitude of 280 gram carbon per square meter per year. That seems a lot.

Ivan Seeking

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you taking the amount of CO2 that enters the water naturally? As was discussed beginning at about post 340, CO2 is provided through forced aeration. Growth rates are too slow otherwise. And the aeration is ideally CO2 enriched. If we assume a nominal value of 60% processing efficiency for a farm, then we would expect 40% of all carbon could be returned to the system through the exhaust gases from combustion for power generation. So any farm could have it's own CO2-enriched supply of air.