Exploring Microalgae as Solutions to Global Fuel Issues

[mheslep]

First of all, I agree that there are still issues. Of course what makes Iceland unique is all of the free energy that they get from geothermal, which makes H2 from electrolysis practical.

First I think you need to define what you mean by "economically viable". But, no doubt, this is all still in the development stage. However, for example, I believe that BMW has a car that can run on either gasoline or H2 [internal combustion] with the flip of a switch, so it might be interesting to see what they and other people are doing.

By economically viable I mean the cost/performance of an H vehicle vs comparable C-H ICE vehicles. Now I'll spot you some emissions credits for the H car to start as that's certainly a cost. Maybe spot you some more for having using a domestic fuel source. Now let's look at H distribution and storage costs. First, if you go liquification you burn 20-40% of the initial H energy right away. Maybe that's a wash if your energy is renewable (geothermal), though its not free regardless. Second, that tiny H2 molecule leaks. Refueling, at rest, whatever, its going to leak. I read 10-20% gone. Third, either liquid H or compressed H tanks are too heavy to get the 500km range associated with gas ICE cars, and they're more expensive. Then there's the cost of H distribution: cost of trucking and building the expensive trucks. Guaranteed even small Iceland has some traditional pipelines in place to push C-H around which it will find is far cheaper than trucking H. The buses for example, at $1.1M, are not viable. I imagine storage tank/fuel system costs are a big part of that. No real bus company, sans state support, would buy one.

There are a tons links in the hydrogen thread linked above for the fueling stations.

Yes lots of them, but these are all subsidized DOE or state stunts. Doubt any business would try this it couldn't turn a profit. Of course one can sprinkle around some H2 stations but it doesn't scale because there's no economical method to distribute the H2 to the stations. Pipelines don't work. Your point about local production is crucial here as it opens the door a bit but I'm still skeptical.

For me, none of this is as problematic as the issue of production. Right now there is no practical way to produce hydrogen that can compete with standard fuels. But for the long term it looks like algae could solve this problem. So the point is that once again we see that algae is the most promising path to follow no matter which fuel we wish to use - biodiesel, ethanol, and eventually even Hydrogen.

I see that most hydrogen is currently made by reforming CH4, and that is still 7 to 15x more costly per energy unit than gasoline. I don't understand why that is so (the 7-15X part). I had thought the reforming a C-H compound to get H was mostly some kind of catalysis and didn't require much energy. This is relevant because I assume reformation is the same process to take algae C-H fuel and make H. Can anyone enlighten me?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

By economically viable I mean the cost/performance of an H vehicle vs comparable C-H ICE vehicles. Now I'll spot you some emissions credits for the H car to start as that's certainly a cost. Maybe spot you some more for having using a domestic fuel source. Now let's look at H distribution and storage costs. First, if you go liquification you burn 20-40% of the initial H energy right away. Maybe that's a wash if your energy is renewable (geothermal), though its not free regardless. Second, that tiny H2 molecule leaks. Refueling, at rest, whatever, its going to leak. I read 10-20% gone.

Based on the current technologies this doesn't sound unreasonable, but where did you get your numbers?

Third, either liquid H or compressed H tanks are too heavy to get the 500km range associated with gas ICE cars, and they're more expensive. Then there's the cost of H distribution: cost of trucking and building the expensive trucks. Guaranteed even small Iceland has some traditional pipelines in place to push C-H around which it will find is far cheaper than trucking H. The buses for example, at $1.1M, are not viable. I imagine storage tank/fuel system costs are a big part of that. No real bus company, sans state support, would buy one.

I don't know about the tank weight problem. If you mean using traditional tanks then it may not apply any longer. The rest of your post really applies to mass distribution from a centralized source, which is verbotten in a H2 economy. But your point that there are hidden costs is entirely correct.

However, what you call a "spot" for domestic production is in fact [today] about 1/2 trillion dollars per year not sent to foreign suppliers. I consider that more than just a spot - that is about 1400 dollars for every man, woman, and child in the US. You also spot for emission credits, when in fact health care costs resulting from automotive emissions are a significant cost to society. Then you also have to factor in the change in the world order: Oil is what drives much of our need for military, and much of the geopolitical arena. The ME is clearly a major factor in our spending, but this would not be nearly so critical if we had no need for oil. And this is nothing new: Note that even the attack on Pearl Harbor was rooted in oil.

“The intent of the attack was to protect Japan's move into Singapore and the Dutch East Indies, executed to secure her access to natural resources; mainly oil”. - Miller, War Plan Orange; Willmott, Empires in the Balance

Less the Cuban Missile Crisis, the only time since WWII that the use of nukes was seriously considered [and I believe even authorized in the event of a conventional attack] was during the Carter Administration. The Soviets were poised to sweep the ME and we didn't have the conventional hardware to stop them. The oil supply was and is still hypercritical to our national security. So if you want to talk about hidden costs...

The need for oil nearly started a nuclear war and may yet be the cause of WWIII. As China and India come online, things could get really ugly. So you may need to spot for a siginficant percentage of our military spending as well as a war or two with China.

It makes one wonder what the true price of a gallon of gas may be; and how much blood does it represent?

Yes lots of them, but these are all subsidized DOE or state stunts. Doubt any business would try this it couldn't turn a profit.

I think you meant that the fueling stations are all sponsored or experimental sites. This is a predictable phase of R&D for a new technology like this. They are a part of the effort to usher in this technology and make it practical. If you don't do the ground work then it will never be possible.

But I meant the links below. Many may be dead now but it's a place to start. Some are directed to old sites. For example, the National Hydrogen Association is linked a number of times but the links are dead. Here is there new link.
http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/

These all come from the hydrogen thread linked earlier.

Posted approximately in the order discussed:

A Hydrogen economy: Be a part of the change! https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4127

Scientific American Frontiers: Future Cars [Watch the video online]
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1403/index.html

Questions about a Hydrogen Economy; Scientific American
http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse....B9BE5E6-2B35-221B-6F2461DEF9B52B9C&sc=I100322

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
U. S. Department of Energy
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative Nuclear
http://www.nuclear.gov/infosheets/hydrogenfactmarch2003.pdf

The National Hydrogen Association
http://www.hydrogenus.com/

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/iea/

http://www.geocities.com/mj_17870/index.html

http://education.lanl.gov/resources/h2/education.html

http://www.stuartenergy.com/

HYDROGEN AND THE MATERIALS OF A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE
WORLD WIDE WEB SITE
Hosted by: Los Alamos National Laboratories
http://education.lanl.gov/resources/h2/education.html

International Energy Agency Hydrogen Program
http://www.ieahia.org/

Includes discussion of
BIOMASS TO H2
DIRECT PRODUCTION FROM WHOLE BIOMASS
Gasification
Thermal/Steam/Partial Oxidation
PRODUCTION OF STORABLE INTERMEDIATES FROM BIOMASS PARTIAL CONVERSION
Small scale reformer technologies
Photovoltaic cells plus an electrolyzer
Photoelectrochemical cells with one or more semiconductor electrodes
Photobiological systems
Photodegradation systems
Photoelectrolytic and Photobiological Production of Hydrogen

Case Studies of Integrated Hydrogen Energy Systems
http://www.ieahia.org/case_studies.html

Hydrogen by Catalytic Decomposition of Water [search "Hydrogen"]
http://www.netl.doe.gov/
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...,468,499.WKU.&OS=PN/6,468,499&RS=PN/6,468,499

Also at the site above: search Hydrogen
HYDROGEN FROM COAL
DENSE CERAMIC MEMBRANES FOR HYDROGEN SEPARATION

Hydrogen - The Department of Energy
http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=ES_HYDROGEN
Time to Escape from the Grid: Wired Magazine
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,60089,00.html

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/7/10/1

First two myths about renewable energy need to be dispelled
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/14/6/2/2

Fuel cells: environmental friend or foe?
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/6/10/1

More on fuel cells
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/7/2/1

Hydrogen Safety Facts
http://www.hydrogenus.com/H2-Safety-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Hydrogen at Home; The H2 Horizon: Re Iceland, which has gone H2 already
http://www.loe.org/ETS/organizations.php3?action=printContentItem&orgid=33&typeID=18&itemID=204&User_Session=63e33af74b5bc33216035afa351f1a58

Fuel from water [credibility of author unknown]
http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks/hydrogen/index.html

Gas Hydrages
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/
http://oceanusmag.whoi.edu/v42n2/whelan.html
http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/who.html

The NHA's Hydrogen Commercialization Plan
http://www.hydrogenus.com/commercializationplan.asp

The NHA's Hydrogen Implementation Plan
http://www.hydrogenus.com/implementationplan.asp

Multi-step metal oxide cycles for solar-thermal water splitting"
http://www.colorado.edu/che/TeamWeimer/perkins.htm
http://www.pre.ethz.ch/cgi-bin/main.pl?research?project6

Solar Production Of Zinc: Concentrated solar energy is used as the source of process heat for the dissociation of zinc oxide
http://solar.web.psi.ch/daten/projekt/zno/roca/roca.html

Mechanical Engineering "Power & Energy," March 2004 -- "Packaging Sunlight," Feature Article
http://www.memagazine.org/pemar04/pckgsun/pckgsun.html

Analysis of Solar Thermochemical Water-Splitting Cycles for Hydrogen
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...solar+furnace"+efficiency+cost+problems&hl=en

Concentrating Photovoltaics: Collaborative Opportunities within DOE’s CSP and PV Programs
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31143.pdf

Rapid Solar-thermal Dissociation of Natural Gas in an Aerosol Flow Reactor
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...solar+furnace"+efficiency+cost+problems&hl=en

1. Union of Concerned Scientists www.ucsusa.org.
2. American Methanol Institute www.methanol.org.
3. Fuel Cells 2000 www.fuelcells.org.
4. California Air Resources Board www.arb.ca.gov.
5. National Hydrogen Association www.hydrogenus.com.
6. Los Alamos National Laboratory (see below)
7. California Fuel Cell Partnership www.drivingthefuture.org.
8. The US Fuel Cell Council www.usfcc.com.
9. California Hydrogen Business Council www.ch2bc.org/

White House press release
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-2.html

Also, search "Hydrogen"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Fuel Cells
http://education.lanl.gov/resources/fuelcells/

Fues Cells coming of age
http://www.fuelcellstore.com/information/coming_of_age.html

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars: ecoworld article
http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=284

NASA Spaces on Energy Solutuion: Wired article
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,63913,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

DEVELOPING IMPROVED MATERIALS TO SUPPORT THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY
http://www.hydrogenus.com/EMTEC-EFC-RFP01A.pdf

International Association For Hydrogen Energy
http://www.iahe.org/

Sustained Photobiological Hydrogen Gas Production upon Reversible Inactivation of Oxygen Evolution in the Green Alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/1/127

Hydrogen; Quick Facts
http://www.hydrogenus.com/hydrogen-basics.asp

Europositron technology: a private enterprise
http://www.europositron.com/en/background.html

Brayton Cycle engines
http://www.almturbine.com/

Hybrid Turbine Electric Vehicle
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1996/6000/6920v.htm
http://search.grc.nasa.gov/query.ht...qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rq=0&rf=0&tx=0&go=Search

UK company way ahead of the market in creating green hydrogen
http://search.grc.nasa.gov/query.ht...qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rq=0&rf=0&tx=0&go=Search

Hydrogen Economy looks out of reach: Nature article
UK company way ahead of the market in creating green hydrogen[/URL]

Running On Thin Air
Iceland is making its dream of a hydrogen economy come true
http://www.time.com/time/europe/specials/ff/trip1/hydrogen.html

California Unveils State's First Hydrogen Refueling Station: News item
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200410/200410230010.html

Fusion reactor decision must wait: BBC report
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3997249.stm[/url]

Hybrids vs. Hydrogen: Which Future Is Brighter?
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Hybrid/story?id=266883&page=1[/url]

hydrogen from methanol
[url]http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Jun02/NPO19948.html[/url]

hydrogen from coal
[url]http://www.nuclear.com/Energy_policy/Coal_gas_news.html[/url]

hydrogen from nuclear power
http://www.businessreport.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=291054

hydrogen from sunlight
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/09/14/6900043_Solar_Hydrogen/index.html

hydrogent from wind
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=502

fuel cells
[url]http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-03s.html[/url]

Technical issues of a hydrogen economy
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/1.html#pagetop

[url]hydrogen from methanol
[url]http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Jun02/NPO19948.html[/url]

hydrogen from coal
[url]http://www.nuclear.com/Energy_policy/Coal_gas_news.html[/url]

hydrogen from nuclear power
http://www.businessreport.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=291054

hydrogen from sunlight
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/09/14/6900043_Solar_Hydrogen/index.html

hydrogent from wind
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=502

fuel cells
[url]http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-03s.html[/url]

Technical issues of a hydrogen economy
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/1.html#pagetop

Scientists develop new hydrogen reactor: CNN news item
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/13/hydrogen.reactors.ap/

Ethanol and the Environment
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/factfic_envir.html
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=21
[url]http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm#net[/url]
http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2004/june/060904a.htm


A group of non-specific links from various poster:
[url]http://www.iogen.ca[/url]
[url]http://www.sheclabs.com[/url]
[url]http://www.ecologen.com/page_TSSOM2-75.html[/url]
[url]http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archive/04-076.shtml[/url]
[url]http://www.azonano.com/details.asp?articleID=1022[/url]
[url]http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1291187/posts[/url]
[url]http://www.forrelease.com/D20040519...3352.28636.html[/url]
http://groundstate.ca/node/68

Food, Energy, and Society [book]
[URL][/URL]

Hydrogen economy for a sustainable development:state-of-the-art and technological perspectives
[URL][/URL]

The Hydrogen Economy: Physics Today article
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/p39.html
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/PDF/vol57no12p39-45.pdf

The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs (2004)
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/

Hydrogen Economy Offers Major Opportunities But Faces Considerable Hurdles
[URL]http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091632?OpenDocument[/URL]

Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor
[URL]http://energy.inel.gov/gen-iv/scwr.shtml[/URL]

Clean coal compendium and related articles:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/cctc
[URL]http://www.careenergy.com/news/articleview.asp?iArticle=7[/URL]
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/mdaf.html

Automobile Emissions Reduction Efforts in the U.S. - Chronology
[url]http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/auto-emissions_chronol.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html[/url]

Articles posted from Car and Driver
[url]http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=2502&page_number=1[/url]
[url]http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3418&page_number=1[/url]
[url]http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3418&page_number=1[/url]
[url]http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3296&page_number=1[/url]
[url]http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=4343&page_number=1[/url]

The Dirty Folly of "Clean Coal"
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/clean_coal.html

Coal Combustion, Public Health and the Environment
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/coal.html

Emissions of greenhouse gases
[URL]http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg98rpt/emission.html[/URL]

More on nuclear options for Hydrogen
[URL]http://nuclear.gov/home/11-09-04.html[/URL]
[URL]https://www.pbmr.com/[/URL]
[URL]http://gt-mhr.ga.com/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nucenviss2.html[/URL]
[URL]https://www.pbmr.com/3_pbmr_technical_info/pbmr_technical_contents.htm#PBMRFuel[/URL]

Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

ASU researcher gets grant to explore new methods of hydrogen generation
[url]http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/asu-arg012005.php[/url]

Quantum Dots and Tunable Bandgap
[URL]http://www.evidenttech.com/applications/quantum-dot-solar-cells.php[/URL]
[url]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=quantum+dots+Infrared+solar+cells[/url]

Hydrogen for residential combined heat and power
http://www.waterstof.org/20030725EHECO3-132.pdf

Oregon may lead future of wave energy: news alert
[url]http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/osu-oml020105.php[/url]

"Ethanol has the potential to be an integral part of the emerging hydrogen economy. Its properties make it an excellent liquid fuel for the extraction of hydrogen.
http://www.maui-tomorrow.org/issuespages/energy/ethanol_hydrogen.html

Hydrogen powered motorcycle: news item
[URL]http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1321345.html?menu=[/URL]

T-Zero Electric Car [hot!]
http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm

Windmills in the Sky: Wired News item
http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,67121,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

Solar Tower of Power: Wired News item
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66694,00.html

About H2 ICE: Internal Combustion Engines. They're here...
[url]https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=70653[/url]

H2 CARSBIZ
http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/index.shtml

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For now we should all be driving on algae power through biodiesel. That is a solution for today.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here are the stats from the DOE for 1998. Do the math at the current price of oil and add a bit for increased demand. Note also that the net imports includes crude and refined products, so using only the cost of crude results in a low number.

U.S. Supply and Demand: In millions of barrels per day
Consumption (25% of world total) - 20.8

Production (crude oil, NGPL, and other oils) - 6.9
Net imports (crude oil & refined products) - 12.6

OPEC 41%
Persian Gulf 17%
Dependence on foreign oil - 60%

This accounts for about 60% of our trade deficit.
http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/ticker_home.asp

 

[mheslep]

For now we should all be driving on algae power through biodiesel. That is a solution for today.

I agree. I hope that per http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/07/14/diesel-volt/" (aka Bob Lutz) the EPA does not stand in the way. I was curious why in the heck GM wasn't using a diesal for its series hybrid Chevy Volt, as a diesal engine is absolutely perfect for a constant speed generator prime mover. Lutz says they aren't making any diesel engines in the US: Tier II Bin 5 air standards are too tough and they're sticking with gas. They are shipping at diesel Volt abroad! EPA is shooting us in the foot if true.

 

[Andre]

Don't shoot the messenger but, there are some disturbing complications, known as the law of maintaining misery:

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/UN_rapporteur_calls_for_biofuel_moratorium.html?siteSect=105&sid=8305080&cKey=1192127505000&ty=st

http://news.theage.com.au/uk-mps-seek-moratorium-on-biofuels/20080121-1n6q.html

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2207701/mps-call-biofuel-moratorium

Just so you know.

 

[mheslep]

Don't shoot the messenger but, there are some disturbing complications, known as the law of maintaining misery:

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/UN_rapporteur_calls_for_biofuel_moratorium.html?siteSect=105&sid=8305080&cKey=1192127505000&ty=st

http://news.theage.com.au/uk-mps-seek-moratorium-on-biofuels/20080121-1n6q.html

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2207701/mps-call-biofuel-moratorium

Just so you know.

As I understand it this is a good thing for cellulosic and Ivan's Royal Dutch Standard Algae Oil Co., as these technologies don't (shouldn't?) compete with food crops.

 

[mheslep]

Based on the current technologies this doesn't sound unreasonable, but where did you get your numbers?



I don't know about the tank weight problem. If you mean using traditional tanks then it may not apply any longer. The rest of your post really applies to mass distribution from a centralized source, which is verboten in a H2 economy. But your point that there are hidden costs is entirely correct.

I should have said tank weight and size. Problem is that although H is #1 in energy per mass, its 4x worse than gasoline in energy per volume even in liquid form. Then because of the cryo or pressure containment safety requirements, so that even though the contained H has 3x the mass energy density of gasoline, the tank mass becomes unmanageable. [Digression]Thus the reason why liquid H is suitable for space rockets and not autos. The rocket, which never need sustain a side impact w/ an SUV, can have a very high volume, thin skinned and even ~poorly insulated tank that consequently has a very high fuel energy per mass[/Digression]

Numbers commonly available but this a good concise source: (table 5, pg 29)
The Future of the Hydrogen Economy - Part 2

I recall Chroot did some years of work in the area so I hope he'll comment.

 

[Andre]

As I understand it this is a good thing for cellulosic and Ivan's Royal Dutch Standard Algae Oil Co., as these technologies don't (shouldn't?) compete with food crops.

Right, definitely, the algae do not compete and it would give a good use to otherwise unproductive land areas like deserts. But how to get the free world trade market to discriminate between biofuels generated from algea and the biofuels generated from food crops?

If there is an increasing demand for a certain ware at good prices, it will become available from whatever source regardless of the effects. it will be very hard to have a world wide consensus on suppressing food-generated biofuels and encouraging algae biofuel at the same time.

 

[mheslep]

Right, definitely, the algae do not compete and it would give a good use to otherwise unproductive land areas like deserts. But how to get the free world trade market to discriminate between biofuels generated from algea and the biofuels generated from food crops?

If there is an increasing demand for a certain ware at good prices, it will become available from whatever source regardless of the effects. it will be very hard to have a world wide consensus on suppressing food-generated biofuels and encouraging algae biofuel at the same time.

Appears that's not an issue w/ the proposed EU ban. They want to throttle the supply side and not the demand. From your 1st source:

Ziegler's proposal for a five-year moratorium, which he plans to submit to the UN General Assembly on October 25, is aiming to ban the conversion of land for the production of biofuels.

and thus those out to buy and resell biofuel need have no care for the source. In any case its all a bit hypocritical - the govt. subsidies for farming in the 1st place (especially EU) terrifically drive up the price of food esp. for the poor and force poor farmers out of the market.

 

[DrClapeyron]

It is sickening how you have managed to take a science and turn it into a politcal cartoon. there is no world left for the poor misery of order after having viewed this thread. I am total astonished how you have all managed to go along with this; is this the new lieberstraum? Is this the master plan?

I am sorry to have to state again: what has this to do with Earth science?

Please put this in economics or engineering that way we may poke fun in its rightful category.

 

[Dale]

As I understand it this is a good thing for cellulosic and Ivan's Royal Dutch Standard Algae Oil Co., as these technologies don't (shouldn't?) compete with food crops.

As far as cellulosic ethanol goes, switchgrass should not compete with food crops for land nor should algae, but both will compete with food crops for water. I believe that some of the by-products of both cellulosic ethanol and algae should be useful for animal feed.

IMO, the impact on food crops is the single biggest problem with ethanol currently.

 

[Dale]

what has this to do with Earth science?

It is clearly relevant:

earth science -> global warming -> fossil fuel greenhouse emissions -> biofuels -> algae

 

[mheslep]

[Copied from political forum]

PF to the rescue
Algae to the rescue
Questions about a Hydrogen Economy; Scientific American -365 posts
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars

BTW hydrogen as a fuel is loser IMO. Biofuels or otherwise renewably generated hydrocarbons are the way to go.

I disagree. But I don't know what this has to do with Iran kicking our butts.
Ok. I do.
Anyways, I have family working on the H2 problems. I for one believe in hydrogen.

My taco shells just went up another 14 bucks for a box. Dinner for 4 in Mexico was 180 bucks. Really don't love that biofuel idea. It is just another reason for Brazil to burn the rainforest.

You are referring to E85 type fuels made from glucose crops like corn. Thats a dead end. As you can see quickly scanning up thread, the smart biofuels coming down the pike are algae or cellulose based. No competition for your tacos, no need to torch Brazil.

Also, the energy expended extracting oil and tar sands oil exceeds anything you've demonstrated in that chart.

Apples and oranges. Hydrogen is just an energy carrier. The energy has to come from somewhere: Hydrocarbons in the ground(esp natural gas), biofuels, renewables, nuclear, etc. The vast amount of H2 is most commonly made now from CH4 out of the ground. When someone talks about a H economy, its only meaningful in the sense that H is first made from one of the above energy sources and then transported/distributed to cars for example. Then as an energy transport mechanism, I claim H is a lousy choice as the chart shows. Its extremely costly to move around and to store, relative to CH4/oil/coal. It has to be compressed, or liquified, can't send it down existing pipelines and it leaks away from common storage mechanisms (small molecue). Just pump the biofuel around instead. You can still use your electric hybrid or fuel cell vehicle w/ bio hydrocarbon fuels.

 

[baywax]

[Copied from political forum]



You are referring to E85 type fuels made from glucose crops like corn. Thats a dead end. As you can see quickly scanning up thread, the smart biofuels coming down the pike are algae or cellulose based. No competition for your tacos, no need to torch Brazil.

Could someone please tell that to Mexico and Brazil. They think they're going to get rich on corn and more corn.

Apples and oranges. Hydrogen is just an energy carrier. The energy has to come from somewhere: Hydrocarbons in the ground(esp natural gas), biofuels, renewables, nuclear, etc. The vast amount of H2 is most commonly made now from CH4 out of the ground. When someone talks about a H economy, its only meaningful in the sense that H is first made from one of the above energy sources and then transported/distributed to cars for example. Then as an energy transport mechanism, I claim H is a lousy choice as the chart shows. Its extremely costly to move around and to store, relative to CH4/oil/coal. It has to be compressed, or liquified, can't send it down existing pipelines and it leaks away from common storage mechanisms (small molecue). Just pump the biofuel around instead. You can still use your electric hybrid or fuel cell vehicle w/ bio hydrocarbon fuels.

It is a popular misconception that we need to burn hydrogen to have a hydrogen economy. All we need is to pass hydrogen through a membrane to generate electricity. You need oxygen on the other side, creating an osmosis that draws the hydrogen through the membrane creating a friction that creates the charge.

Are we including the 4000 troop and 500,000 civilian/police etc deaths in Iraq (war for oil) in the energy expenditure that goes toward acquiring hydrocarbons? Do you see anyone starting a war based on a Fuel Cell driven economy?

Fuel Cell Technology has been around since the 1800s. For some rea$on, they've been kept way on the back burner.

Quote:
There are several different types of fuel cells, each using a different chemistry. Fuel cells are usually classified by their operating temperature and the type of electrolyte they use. Some types of fuel cells work well for use in stationary power generation plants. Others may be useful for small portable applications or for powering cars. The main types of fuel cells include:

Polymer exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC)
The Department of Energy (DOE) is focusing on the PEMFC as the most likely candidate for transportation applications. The PEMFC has a high power density and a relatively low operating temperature (ranging from 60 to 80 degrees Celsius, or 140 to 176 degrees Fahrenheit). The low operating temperature means that it doesn't take very long for the fuel cell to warm up and begin generating electricity. We’ll take a closer look at the PEMFC in the next section.

Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)
These fuel cells are best suited for large-scale stationary power generators that could provide electricity for factories or towns. This type of fuel cell operates at very high temperatures (between 700 and 1,000 degrees Celsius). This high temperature makes reliability a problem, because parts of the fuel cell can break down after cycling on and off repeatedly. However, solid oxide fuel cells are very stable when in continuous use. In fact, the SOFC has demonstrated the longest operating life of any fuel cell under certain operating conditions. The high temperature also has an advantage: the steam produced by the fuel cell can be channeled into turbines to generate more electricity. This process is called co-generation of heat and power (CHP) and it improves the overall efficiency of the system.

Alkaline fuel cell (AFC)
This is one of the oldest designs for fuel cells; the United States space program has used them since the 1960s. The AFC is very susceptible to contamination, so it requires pure hydrogen and oxygen. It is also very expensive, so this type of fuel cell is unlikely to be commercialized.

Molten-carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)
Like the SOFC, these fuel cells are also best suited for large stationary power generators. They operate at 600 degrees Celsius, so they can generate steam that can be used to generate more power. They have a lower operating temperature than solid oxide fuel cells, which means they don't need such exotic materials. This makes the design a little less expensive.

Phosphoric-acid fuel cell (PAFC)
The phosphoric-acid fuel cell has potential for use in small stationary power-generation systems. It operates at a higher temperature than polymer exchange membrane fuel cells, so it has a longer warm-up time. This makes it unsuitable for use in cars.

Direct-methanol fuel cell (DMFC)
Methanol fuel cells are comparable to a PEMFC in regards to operating temperature, but are not as efficient. Also, the DMFC requires a relatively large amount of platinum to act as a catalyst, which makes these fuel cells expensive.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell1.htm

 

[mheslep]

It is a popular misconception that we need to burn hydrogen to have a hydrogen economy. All we need is to pass hydrogen through a membrane to generate electricity. You need oxygen on the other side, creating an osmosis that draws the hydrogen through the membrane creating a friction that creates the charge.

If fuel cells are used w/ vehicles, I expect it will be w/ hydrocarbon fuels (H is reformed, or used directily w/ Solid Ox or DMFC). I doubt they will; most likely they'll be used at the power plant level as replacement for the lesser efficient heat cycle generation. Vehicles will probably be electric (battery - ultracap) hybrid diesel.

Are we including the 4000 troop and 500,000 civilian/police etc deaths in Iraq (war for oil) in the energy expenditure that goes toward acquiring hydrocarbons? Do you see anyone starting a war based on a Fuel Cell driven economy?

Please reread the above post. Hydrogen is just a carrier. Where are you going to get the energy to produce it?

Fuel Cell Technology has been around since the 1800s. For some rea$on, they've been kept way on the back burner.

Hardly. There's boat loads of $ going into fuel cell research. There's been some in depth discussions on PF, most recently https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=210919". Until recently the most practical fuel cell for vehicle scale was the PEM cell. The PEM FC requires precious metals as a catalyst and thus has no hope of becoming cheap, currently $24k per KW. Solid Ox research in the last few months is much more promising ($1-2/KW); S-Ox doesn't require a catalyst, the high temperatures enable the reaction.

 

[baywax]

Please reread the above post. Hydrogen is just a carrier. Where are you going to get the energy to produce it?

I'm catching on but isn't there a lot of cheap energy in solar and wind for the purpose of unbinding hydrogen?

The rest of your post offers the hope of an efficient, low cost, fuel cell being designed and equally as low cost power from it. As I understand it there are 2,200 homes in Japan being powered, by fuel cells. But, every home in Japan has a Natural Gas line to it. Not so convenient in North America.

Japan is hot into the research and lowering the commercial cost of the FC.

But the technology is improving. Matsu****a says the savings from using fuel cell-generated power will vary by household and climate, but it promises a cost drop of about $50 a month.

Naruse's family -- with three TV sets, a dishwasher, clothes washer, dryer, personal computer and air conditioner -- saves about $95 a month. At the same time, conventionally generated electricity remains available to them, should the power generated by their fuel cell run low.

The Japanese government is so bullish on the technology it has earmarked $309 million a year for fuel cell development and plans for 10 million homes -- about one-fourth of Japanese households -- to be powered by fuel cells by 2020.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8V6652G1.htm

Toyota, Honda and Panasonic all have test models that perform well. The FCX Honda vehicle has been on the road there for a while now. There are cities in Canada running their service vehicles on Fuel Cells. I'd like to see this take off as opposed to the imbalance in the environment that can take place when cultivating and harvesting corn or algae or any living organism. Just look at how short at time it took for "cultivated salmon" to start infecting wild salmon with sea lice. I'm sure the Genetic Modifiers of the world are just champing at the bit waiting for corn to be the staple bio-fuel. The trouble is that their genetic concoctions threaten to homogenize the rest of the corn gene pool. Were the same thing to happen to algae, I don't know how serious the consequences would be.

 

[mheslep]

I'm catching on but isn't there a lot of cheap energy in solar and wind for the purpose of unbinding hydrogen?

Not a lot of 'cheap energy' anywhere. Solar and wind are getting cheaper. Solar still much more expensive than coal fired power, wind is about on par just recently - in some places. Nuclear would be the cheapest way to go, if only the politics of nuclear didn't make it so expensive - 10 yrs to build a plant, etc. In any case there's still the question of why would one make H in the first place? You can't ship it anywhere without burning up a lot more energy to package it.

The rest of your post offers the hope of an efficient, low cost, fuel cell being designed and equally as low cost power from it. As I understand it there are 2,200 homes in Japan being powered, by fuel cells. But, every home in Japan has a Natural Gas line to it. Not so convenient in North America.

Japan is hot into the research and lowering the commercial cost of the FC.

So is the US .gov. Article says Japan spending $300M, fairly sure Bush administration is spending >$1B in the area.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8V6652G1.htm

I don't see the point. I am skeptical of many of the statements:

From the BW piece:

Developers say fuel cells for homes produce one-third less of the pollution that causes global warming than conventional electricity generation does.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Natural gas fired power plants are pretty clean. I suspect the 'developers' here are playing games and referring only to the fuel cell and not the reformer (converts the CH4 to H for the fuel cell). A good chunk of the pollution comes from impurities in the natural gas - sulfur, etc which will also likely be released to the atmosphere by the reformer in this case.

And no energy is wasted transporting the electricity where it's actually going to be used.

This one is just flat misleading. There's transport energy wasted in pumping the natural gas to all those homes.

The Japanese plan might be worthwhile but one can't tell from this article. Some things it doesn't list: efficiency of the fuel cell, reliability, and operation in freezing temperatures, pollution from the reformer. Fuel cells can hit %50 efficient whereas the gas fired heat cycle plant is going to top out at 40% (very good). Its hard to keep the fuel cell at the high efficiency as the membrane will degrade over time - and that's not some you just replace like an air filter.

Toyota, Honda and Panasonic all have test models that perform well. The FCX Honda vehicle has been on the road there for a while now. There are cities in Canada running their service vehicles on Fuel Cells.

Highly skeptical of that. Many areas have demonstration projects to showcase technology, but I've yet to hear of anywhere where a city seriously runs all its services this way - just not cost effective.

I'd like to see this take off

See what take off? FC's are just ~ batteries. Got to give them some energy.

 

[baywax]

Not a lot of 'cheap energy' anywhere. Solar and wind are getting cheaper. Solar still much more expensive than coal fired power, wind is about on par just recently - in some places. Nuclear would be the cheapest way to go, if only the politics of nuclear didn't make it so expensive - 10 yrs to build a plant, etc. In any case there's still the question of why would one make H in the first place? You can't ship it anywhere without burning up a lot more energy to package it.

So is the US .gov. Article says Japan spending $300M, fairly sure Bush administration is spending >$1B in the area.

I don't see the point. I am skeptical of many of the statements:

From the BW piece:
Maybe, but I doubt it. Natural gas fired power plants are pretty clean. I suspect the 'developers' here are playing games and referring only to the fuel cell and not the reformer (converts the CH4 to H for the fuel cell). A good chunk of the pollution comes from impurities in the natural gas - sulfur, etc which will also likely be released to the atmosphere by the reformer in this case.
This one is just flat misleading. There's transport energy wasted in pumping the natural gas to all those homes.

The Japanese plan might be worthwhile but one can't tell from this article. Some things it doesn't list: efficiency of the fuel cell, reliability, and operation in freezing temperatures, pollution from the reformer. Fuel cells can hit %50 efficient whereas the gas fired heat cycle plant is going to top out at 40% (very good). Its hard to keep the fuel cell at the high efficiency as the membrane will degrade over time - and that's not some you just replace like an air filter.

Highly skeptical of that. Many areas have demonstration projects to showcase technology, but I've yet to hear of anywhere where a city seriously runs all its services this way - just not cost effective.

See what take off? FC's are just ~ batteries. Got to give them some energy.

How about horse and buggy and bicycles. The horses leave behind a fertile road and the bicycles will reduce the obese and heart patients in hospitals. I'm thinkING that's our up coming options next to a Nuclear powered car. You got some good points there.

The whole idea is to save a lot of energy that is now, and promises to be, wasted on fighting wars for oil, natural gas. Everybody seems to want to get into that game. If it can be stemmed off with a cheap, efficient and clean energy source for autos... then we can avoid turning the Earth into a cinderblock.

Air cars from India are now taking off as transport in France. They are the compressed air vehicle I brought up in the Technology section. Everyone said they're really lousy for efficiency of energy usage etc... but, that is not stopping the French from driving around going... pssst... le pssst...!-)

Here's a good report from France about the Air Car.
When you have the hybrid engine you're using a small amount of petrol to power an on-board air-compressor that will re-fill your carbon filament tanks on the move so you can actually go from LA to New York on one tank of... air.

 

[mheslep]

Craig Venter on biofuel bacteria.

Craig Venter spoke about his forthcoming genetically engineered octane producing bacteria in a http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/227." that he's engineering from ~scratch. He also mentions the efficiency of existing photosynthesis based fuel sources, plants (poor), algae (better); thinks his designed organism can do much better.

 

[baywax]

Craig Venter spoke about his forthcoming genetically engineered octane producing bacteria in a http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/227." that he's engineering from ~scratch. He also mentions the efficiency of existing photosynthesis based fuel sources, plants (poor), algae (better); thinks his designed organism can do much better.

I'm happy he's optimistic. The problem I see with genetic engineering as compared to natural selection is that by the time nature has had a chance to either accept or reject the genetic engineering of an algae, bovine, human or other organism, the genetic engineering may have already been spread into the general population of the species. Then, if the genetic engineering is faulty (as opposed to naturally selected genes) and it gets rejected because of its inefficiency, the whole, diverse range of the species is at risk of becoming extinct.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Right, definitely, the algae do not compete and it would give a good use to otherwise unproductive land areas like deserts. But how to get the free world trade market to discriminate between biofuels generated from algea and the biofuels generated from food crops?

If there is an increasing demand for a certain ware at good prices, it will become available from whatever source regardless of the effects. it will be very hard to have a world wide consensus on suppressing food-generated biofuels and encouraging algae biofuel at the same time.

That job will be done by a free market - supply and demand. Grain and other oil sources are severely limited as compared to the production capacity per acre-year using algae. Algae is ten to twenty times more productive than its best competitors. Also, there is greater demand for crops used for fuel as well as food, so the biofuel produced from algae will eventually [if not sooner] be the least expensive.

Biodiesel from seed crops, soybean, and palm etc have the same problem as does ethanol - quality farmland is required and the yields per acre-year are too low. In turn this drives the price of the fuel produced.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is a practical question: At what level of production [percent of supply] do alternative fuels start to force the price of petro down through competition?

Biodiesel from algae should be profitable at as little as $3.00 per gallon retail. The 20 year DOE study estimated profitablity at around $2/gallon, so allowing for inflation, estimate errors, etc...

 

[Dale]

Algae is ten to twenty times more productive than its best competitors.

Under ideal laboratory conditions.

Biodiesel from seed crops, soybean, and palm etc have the same problem as does ethanol - quality farmland is required and the yields per acre-year are too low. In turn this drives the price of the fuel produced.

This does not apply to celluslosic ethanol. IMO, this one fact makes any other ethanol than cellulosic not even worth considering. For ethanol I like cellulosic, and for boidiesel I like algae, and I prefer to eat the crops instead of burning them!

 

[Andre]

How are the equations in terms of total energy, roughly guestimating?

Earth receives a solar flux of ~1370 W/m². Which is about roughly 340 W/m² average on the surface. Say that for a lattitude of 40-45 degrees the average value is about 0.5 kW/m² for easy ballpark figures. Cars typically use 10-50 kW driving, I estimate. But in between the two is the efficiency of the photosynthesis, the loss to other, unusable masses, the transport and distribution of the fuel and the efficiency of the car itself. Suppose (wild guess) that 10% of the solar flux is captured in the photosythesis, which is transferred to fuel with a loss of 50% rougly estimating including all the other processes, except that the fuel efficiency of the car is about 40% which means that 2% of the 0,5 kW/m² is used effectivily for propulsion (5 W). So to generate the 10-50kW we need 1000 - 5000 m² production area.

Of course cars don't drive continuously, while the production can be considered continuously. So if I drive average 15,000 miles a year in 400 hours that's roughly one hour per day, so the 1000 - 5000 m² can support 24 cars continuously. So you'd need some 40-200 m² fuel production area per car. How far am I off? Is this feasible as prominent fuel source for the future?

 

[Dale]

A rough guestimate is that the amount of solar energy fixed as biomass every year is more than ten times the entire human energy expenditure worldwide. Of course, that rough guestimate was given to me by a researcher in cellulosic ethanol, he is usually completely honest with facts but he is not unbiased.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Under ideal laboratory conditions.

Actually, that is a real number achieved using highly inefficient open ponds in the ASP. The most exotic claims put it at twice that yield and more. Some sources are claiming yields as high as 25,000 gallons per acre-year [some even more, but the energy calcs don't show that to be possible]. I typically use 10,000 gpay as an ideal upper limit, whereas the actual yeilds achieved by the DOE were 6000 gpay. Palm is the next best at about 700 gpay.

Even in the worst case of 6000 gpay, algae is a highly viable option.

This does not apply to celluslosic ethanol.

Ideally it may not, but we really don't know yet. The other factor is processing efficiency, which I believe is currently about 5% for cellulosic Ethanol [maybe even a negative value]. Biodiesel from algae is typically cited as being 60-70% efficient. BD also has a much higher energy density than ethanol, so that has to be factored in. Also, using cars made today, diesel engines are more efficient than IC engines, so we get yet another advantage using BD.

No doubt though, ethanol from corn et al is a road to nowhere. At least CE looks promising.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How are the equations in terms of total energy, roughly guestimating?

Earth receives a solar flux of ~1370 W/m². Which is about roughly 340 W/m² average on the surface. Say that for a lattitude of 40-45 degrees the average value is about 0.5 kW/m² for easy ballpark figures. Cars typically use 10-50 kW driving, I estimate. But in between the two is the efficiency of the photosynthesis, the loss to other, unusable masses, the transport and distribution of the fuel and the efficiency of the car itself. Suppose (wild guess) that 10% of the solar flux is captured in the photosythesis, which is transferred to fuel with a loss of 50% rougly estimating including all the other processes, except that the fuel efficiency of the car is about 40% which means that 2% of the 0,5 kW/m² is used effectivily for propulsion (5 W). So to generate the 10-50kW we need 1000 - 5000 m² production area.

Of course cars don't drive continuously, while the production can be considered continuously. So if I drive average 15,000 miles a year in 400 hours that's roughly one hour per day, so the 1000 - 5000 m² can support 24 cars continuously. So you'd need some 40-200 m² fuel production area per car. How far am I off? Is this feasible as prominent fuel source for the future?

Usually we consider the total measured energy demand based on gallons per year and BTU per gallon, but using your numbers:

At 200 sq meters per car and an estimated 243 million cars in the US, we find a total required area of about 19,000 sq miles - about 140 X 140 miles to completely replace gasoline.

No problem. That is about 0.5% of the total area of land and water in the US. [water area is about 10% of the land area, and both may be used to grow algae]. In fact we could do it by using only 10% of the water area.

Ethanol from corn would require almost the entire land area of the US [assuming that it's not really a net negative, which may be the case].

My goal is to replace not only gasoline, but also petro-diesel and coal. This basically doubles the requirement. Also, as a practical matter I would use a conversion efficiency of 5%, not 10%, but then again a good part of the US is farther south than 45 degrees latitude. Processing efficiency is likely about 70% and improving. The oil content of the algae by weight is typically between 30-60%. And a good part of what's not oil is sugar that can be used to make ethanol.

All of this ignores advancements from the biological side, so it will get even better.

 

[mheslep]

My goal is to replace not only gasoline, but also petro-diesel and coal.

Why coal? There's domestic supply. If emission's are the concern then gasify and sequester.

 

[baywax]

Biodiesel from seed crops, soybean, and palm etc have the same problem as does ethanol - quality farmland is required and the yields per acre-year are too low. In turn this drives the price of the fuel produced.

What sort of facilities are required to grow and harvest algae?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why coal? There's domestic supply. If emission's are the concern then gasify and sequester.

Efficiency and other factors, but let's forget about that one for now.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What sort of facilities are required to grow and harvest algae?

Solutions range from open ponds to highly technical bioreactor designs. The race is on for the most efficient and cost effective processes, and it is all highly proprietary as it is highly competitive. After all, we are talking about the race to replace Exxon et al. Energy is a trillion dollar a year industry.

The introductory bible of the industry is the review of the Aquatic Species Program, linked earlier.

This solution has been sitting on the shelf since the 1970s; the price of fuel was just too low for algae to be competitive. But we now have a whole new game at $3 a gallon and higher.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

there are some late edits in post 63 - a few important points that I had missed.

 

[Dale]

Actually, that is a real number achieved using highly inefficient open ponds in the ASP.

ASP? That is impressive, do you have a reference?

No doubt though, ethanol from corn et al is a road to nowhere. At least CE looks promising.

Agreed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I checked the CRC and come up with a measured solar flux yearly average of 0.25 kW per sq meter at the surface, at 45 degrees latitude.

If you check using 120,000 BTUs per gallons and a 5% conversion efficiency, this suggests a yield of 12,000 gallons per acre-year. At 60% production and processing efficiency we net 7200 gallons per acre-year.

[Actually, that is too high in practice at that latitude. The final yield depends in large part on the selection of algae and its characteristics, the bioreactor design, co-gen systems, the CO2 supplies, the design of the farm, the weather and temperatures, and many other variables.]