Can Microalgae Solve Global Fuel and Environmental Challenges?

[Ivan Seeking]

To replace the total world oil production of ~85 mbbl/day w/ a 2000gal/acre-yr process hoped for by Exxon, one needs about one million square miles of algae farm, or collectively 1000 miles on a side, and a very large source of concentrated CO₂. That decreases by 10-20% if most of transportation is moved to electric power, and the algae oil is used to make electricity. Difficult, but at least there would never be a 'peak algae' problem.

In closed systems, in principle one doesn't need any CO2 except for the first batch.

2000 gal/acre-yr is a pretty conservative number.

 

[OmCheeto]

To replace the total world oil production of ~85 mbbl/day w/ a 2000gal/acre-yr process hoped for by Exxon, one needs about one million square miles of algae farm, or collectively 1000 miles on a side, and a very large source of concentrated CO₂. That decreases by 10-20% if most of transportation is moved to electric power, and the algae oil is used to make electricity. Difficult, but at least there would never be a 'peak algae' problem.

My. That's a big pond.
Divided by the world population, that means everyone needs a 64' x 64' pond.
Still a big pond by my standards.

Perhaps that is one of benefits of Venter's claim in this announcement that he has created a strain that directly ejects the lipids into the solution instead of self containing the lipds inside the cell. Once in the solution the lipids should be separable from the water without destroying the crop, that is, the water and algae stays in place while the energy containing lipids are siphoned off.

Algae that poops oil? Now why didn't I think of that?
That's as good as my bacteria that eats algae and then farts methane idea, that was thought of 6342 times in the last 6 months by various people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Algae that poops oil? Now why didn't I think of that?
That's as good as my bacteria that eats algae and then farts methane idea, that was thought of 6342 times in the last 6 months by various people.

Having the idea is the easy part.

 

[mheslep]

In closed systems, in principle one doesn't need any CO2 except for the first batch.

Eh? Did you mean H2O? If carbon is continuously removed in the form hydrocarbon oils from the closed system, then it must be continuously inserted mole for mole via CO2 or other forms of hydrocarbon.

2000 gal/acre-yr is a pretty conservative number.

Yes, I know you have cited other sources in this thread w/ larger numbers. 2k is Exxon's number.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Eh? Did you mean H2O? If carbon is continuously removed in the form hydrocarbon oils from the closed system, then it must be continuously inserted mole for mole via CO2 or other forms of hydrocarbon.

When the oil or biomass is burned, the CO2 is returned to the system in the form of exhaust gasses to be absorbed by the next batch of algae.

In principle we have a closed system with only sunlight going in, and electrical power going out.

Yes, I know you have cited other sources in this thread w/ larger numbers. 2k is Exxon's number.

I know. It is still a conservative number. The aquatic species program obtained yields of 5000 gallons per acre-yr in open ponds, which is probably a practical upper limit. Note that "other sources" are citing ten and even twenty-thousand gallons, and more in some cases, per acre-year. However, simple energy calculations show this [the high numbers] to be impossible. The only exceptions to this may be the approaches that involve the introduction of other energy sources, like sugar, into the system.

 

[mheslep]

When the oil or biomass is burned, the CO2 is returned to the system in the form of exhaust gasses to be absorbed by the next batch of algae.

Oh that system, the big system, sure.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh that system, the big system, sure.

Hey, we only think big around here!

To me the idea of using algae for the remediation of coal gasses is a bit ironic considering that we might be able to replace the coal with algae and close the loop.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps that is one of benefits of Venter's claim in this announcement that he has created a strain that directly ejects the lipids into the solution instead of self containing the lipds inside the cell. Once in the solution the lipids should be separable from the water without destroying the crop, that is, the water and algae stays in place while the energy containing lipids are siphoned off.

If true, that is huge because it would not only eliminate the step of separating the algae from the water, but also removing the oil from the algae. Separating oil from water is relatively easy. Also, depending on the doubling time of the algae, it could drastically improve the rate of production per acre. Some of the best oil producers are also slow growing. For example, the "Algae 101" strain, Botryococcus Braunii, which has reportedly been measured at 80% oil by weight in one case, has a doubling rate of something like once every two or three days. Other strains with low oil yields - say 15% oil by weight - can have a doubling rate of one every few hours.

Interestingly, one scientist claims that no matter what strain is considered, the rate of oil production [for good oil producers] is nearly a constant, which may make sense from an energy standpoint. But there is no doubt that growing the stuff from a pure culture is a limiting factor for continuous production.

 

[mheslep]

Here's only blurb available on the SGI site regarding the synthetic strain:

Current methods to produce fuel from algae include processes that resemble farming. Algal cells are grown, harvested, and then bioprocessed to recover the lipids from within the cells. In contrast, in one of our solutions, SGI has engineered algal cells to secrete oil in a continuous manner through their cell walls, thus facilitating the production of algal fuels and chemicals in large-scale industrial operations. Our first product in this area is a biocrude to be used as a feedstock in refineries.

http://www.syntheticgenomics.com/what/renewablefuels.html

 

[mheslep]

Here's a particularly articulate http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/10/23/vinod-khosla-speaks-at-seattles-algae-biomass-summit/2/" of the state of algae technology and barriers to exploitation from the venture capitalist guru Khosla:

General business model goals for any tech business:

—Relevant cost. Energy technologies are only scalable if they’re competitive without subsidies in places like China and India (what he calls the “Chindia price”)

—A scaling model. The technology’s growth has to be exponential and highly distributed (”we saw this in the Internet,” he says).

—Low adoption risk. “The only thing that solves the carbon-reduction problem in transportation is a liquid fuel-based solution,” he says. Something like hydrogen fuel requires too much development in infrastructure to make it go mainstream.

And algae specifically:

So why hasn’t he invested in algae yet? Khosla first gave his broader “venture rules of investing.” First, a company should “attack manageable but material problems.” Second, its technology should achieve “unsubsidized competitiveness”—which in the case of algae, would be prices competitive with oil prices of around $50 per barrel. Third, the tech has to scale to large numbers of users, and have declining costs with scale. And fourth, it should have “manageable startup costs and short innovation cycles. He pointed out that algae satisfies all of the above (”I can do a new strain of algae in 6 months”), except for the cost competitiveness.

Looking ahead, Khosla said, “To predict the future, invent it. It’s not what it is, it’s what it can be.” He proceeded to give a detailed reality check for algae, in that it is competing with things like biomass methods for producing ethanol and oil. Calculating a theoretical maximum output of 2000 to 6000 gallons of oil per acre per year for algae (based on solar energy availability and current conversion systems), he said, “Algae clearly has the potential to have very high miles driven per acre, but today it’s pretty low.”

Adding up the production costs for algae-based fuels—carbon dioxide, harvesting, containment, and energy, as well as systems to move, mix, and add light to the plants— he concluded, “I think algae can get above biomass in total gallons per acre, but the reason we haven’t invested is we haven’t believed the plans we’ve seen so far meet the [cost] criteria.”

To break through, Khosla advised pursuing “black swans,” technical approaches from outside the realm of traditional experience, with game-changing impact. “The strategy is more at-bats, more shots on goal,” he said. “Most of your approaches will fail, but a few will succeed. You will build from each others’ experience, and get better and better.” The examples of possible black swans he gave were companies like Algenol Biofuels (ethanol-producing algae) and Sapphire (oil-producing algae), and the idea of ocean farming for algae.

As for advice to startups in the space, Khosla said, “Don’t try to get to market quickly with a small improvement. Even a good process isn’t good enough, you have to be truly great to compete. That’s the right vein to build an algae company. I’d say we need to work on more fundamental breakthroughs in algae…Take your time, don’t be in a hurry where you’ll reduce your technical risk, but increase your market risk. Take two more years and do the research. The day you have good fuel out of algae that’s cost-effective, it’ll get into the market.”

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obviously Exxon sees it a little differently.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While there were and are a good number of practical engineering challenges for algae-fuel production, as far as I know, there is one and only one reason why we didn't do this long ago: The price of crude was too low.

When the Aqautic Species Program concluded, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf it was estimated that biodiesel from algae might be competitive when diesel was over $2 per gallon. At that time, diesel was about $1 per gallon. Now that the price of crude has a floor near or above the critical threshold for biodiesel to be competitive with petrodiesel, we are seeing a growing interest in viable alternatives to crude oil.

I have yet to see any alternative that offers the range of benefits found in using algae derived biodiesel as our primary energy source. After studying this option for about six months, I began to see that it is truly the elegant solution to our energy problems:

1). Does not need to compete with food crops
2). Does not need to use fresh water
3). Highest energy conversion rate of any plant [with qualifer stated earlier]
4). Greatest yield per acre-yr of any biofuel option
5). About 1.6 times the energy density of ethanol, and as good as gasoline
6). High lubricity of biodiesel allows for more efficient operation of engine [as seen in the Boeing test flight]
7). Diesel engines are about 1.4 times more efficient than internal combustion enginers
8). CO2 neutral
9). Clean diesel cars are already sold in Europe. The Honda diesel gets better mileage than the Honda hybrid. The proof in in the pudding!
10). Compatible with existing energy infrastructure.
11). The conversion to a biofuel economy can be implemented relatively quickly
12). Algae can be used to produce diesel, ethanol, and Hydrogen. So the development of algae technologies could be a stepping stone to a Hydrogen Economy.
13). Having a value of ~ $600 Billion annually - money sent to foreign oil suppliers - a domestic algae program would eliminate at least 60% of the trade deficit [depending on the current price of crude].
14). Can be used to remediate CO2 as well as toxic and other waste products from agriculture, industry, and municipalities.
15). While not necessary, it could be scaled-up to provide 100% of the required energy for the world.

 

[mheslep]

Obviously Exxon sees it a little differently.

Now. The Khosla speech was last October. Khosla said earlier in that same talk that he'd looked at 100 algae plans, so he clearly recognized the potential, but had yet to find anybody to carry the ball across the finish line, a line he defines clearly. No one else was giving money to Algae either last year. But this summer, we suddenly have the algae bloom of Dow Chemical, Solazyme, etc, and now Exxon/SGI.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The problem that I saw that led to my own efforts was that far too many people were taking high-tech, high-cost-per-unit-area approaches in the form of exotic bioreactors. In some cases it was nothing more than a scam. In others, the people developing the systems didn't have even a fundamental understanding of the limits on production as determined by the solar energy input. In others, it was impossible to know because the information was proprietary. The bottom line is that the cost per unit area for the bioreactor must be very low. In my own plan, I was driven to a price of less than $1000 per acre with a three-year life for the hardware, in order to be competitive at around $3 per gallon [retail]. But this was for a fresh-water, land-based system, and assumed only traditional methods of production and the known strains of algae at that time. Needless to say, this required some very innovative approaches to bioreactor designs.

I think there is little doubt that closed, batch systems, are the way to go. At the least, we know that contamination problems in open systems are generally prohibitive to that approach. The only exception may be when indiginous and dominant strains are acceptable oil producers. But even then, there is no way to be certain that an existing strain, say in a lake, won't be replaced by another or simply die off. Also, strains can mutate quickly. Apparently there are effectively algae wars in the wild, in which each strain mutates until one has an advantage and displaces the other.

Probably one of the best ideas that we came across was that of using batch bags, if you will, that are suspended in water; say for example, in the ocean. This all but eliminates the problems of temperature regulation and contamination.

 

[mheslep]

...The bottom line is that the cost per unit area for the bioreactor must be very low. In my own plan, I was driven to a price of less than $1000 per acre with a three-year life for the hardware, in order to be competitive at around $3 per gallon [retail]. But this was for a fresh-water, land-based system, and assumed only traditional methods of production and the known strains of algae at that time. Needless to say, this required some very innovative approaches to bioreactor designs. ...

Yes, needless to say. I can't imagine a material or method of any kind that could enclose an acre for $1000. Perhaps there's something that amortizes out to $1000 per year over its lifetime.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is possible, but just barely. It took months to come up with something that might be mangeable. Part of the solution was to recognize the value of innovative land preparation. Would it have worked? It worked well at small scale, but things fell apart [financing] before we got any farther. My best hope for a major investor just went bankrupt due to the economy - he was heavily dependent on the auto industry.

Some designs out there can't even hope to be competitive until the price of fuel reaches $15 to $25 per gallon, retail.

However, if the processing costs can be reduced as in the example you gave [no need for dewatering or oil extraction], the cost per unit area can be increased signficantly. This because there are both high startup costs as well as high operating costs for the processing equipment.

One real advantage to using ocean-based systems, beyond the issue of water, is that the cost of land evaporates!

 

[PRDan4th]

Why not just harvest kelp and other natural occurring algaes in open ocean or tideland areas and process in land based plants. Use solar energy to dry the kelp then process to extract the oils and other combustible components. I grew up in Southern California and saw kelp harvesting all the time. I think they were after Iodine and soda ash, but I'm sure there are a good source of energy products even methane. This would solve the land and water problem.

 

[mheslep]

... but I'm sure there are a good source of energy products even methane. This would solve the land and water problem.

Why are you sure? Do you have a rough estimate as to how much a mass produced barrel of kelp oil or ethanol would cost to make?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

To the best of my knowledge, as for kelp, there is absolutely no evidence that would work. Also, as stated earlier, most wild algae strains tend to be poor producers of oil. This in turn means that the processing costs [dollars and energy] would be exceedingly high for each gallon of oil. While it may be possible to use wild strains of algae as biomass for the generation of electrical power [burned directly], this has yet to be demonstrated. Only in very rare cases would an indiginous and dominant wild strain be appropriate for oil production.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

About the Exxon numbers: I just noticed in another news release that they claim corn ethanol produces 250 gallons per acre-year. This is almost certainly a net yield - includes the energy required for processing - not the gross yield, which is normally cited as being 400 gallons per acre-year. If we assume the same is true for their number for algae - 2000 gallons per acre-year as a net yield - then that is about what I would expect as well. While I think there is reasonable hope for higher numbers over time, for now, 2000 GPAY net is probably reasonable.

All in all, an order of magnitude better than corn is a good start.

 

[baywax]

Thank you for keeping on these developments Ivan!

 

[joelupchurch]

According to the calculations by Dr. David JC MacKay in his book "Sustainable Energy – without the hot air", it looks like CO₂ enriched algae is about 20 times better than corn based ethanol per square meter. The numbers were:

Bioethanol from corn: 0.2W/m²
Bioethanol from sugar cane: 1.2W/m²
CO₂ Enriched Algae Biodiesal: 4W/m²

The calculations are on pages 284-285

You can download the whole book here:
http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html"
Or go straight to the html page here:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cD/page_284.shtml"

The printed version actually says 0.02 for corn but there is a errata entry in the html version that says:

Page 284 Bioethanol section: "0.02 W/m**2" should be "0.2 W/m**2".

To make this section more informative I would rewrite
it thus:

1 acre produces 122 bushels of corn per year, which makes
122 x 2.6 US gallons of ethanol, which at 84000 BTU per gallon would
mean a power per unit area of {0.2 W/m^2}; however, the energy
inputs required to process the corn into ethanol amount to
83,000 BTU per gallon; so 99% of the energy produced is used up by
the processing, and the net power per unit area is about
{0.002 W/m^2}. The only way to get significant net power from the
corn-to-ethanol process is to ensure that all co-products are
exploited; including the energy in the co-products, the net power per
unit area is about 0.05 W/m^2.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

1 acre produces 122 bushels of corn per year, which makes
122 x 2.6 US gallons of ethanol, which at 84000 BTU per gallon would
mean a power per unit area of {0.2 W/m^2}; however, the energy
inputs required to process the corn into ethanol amount to
83,000 BTU per gallon; so 99% of the energy produced is used up by
the processing, and the net power per unit area is about
{0.002 W/m^2}. The only way to get significant net power from the
corn-to-ethanol process is to ensure that all co-products are
exploited; including the energy in the co-products, the net power per
unit area is about 0.05 W/m^2.

The net-net yield of the corn-ethanol process is hotly debated. Many people argue that the efficiency of the complete process is zero or worse - meaning [as you know] that we derive no benefit whatsoever, or we are even losing energy! Most standard sources seem to place the processing efficiency at about 30%. But one has to be careful about which number is being cited. I tend to refer to the "net yield" as the yield after including energy for processing. Then there is what I tend to refer to as the net-net yield, which includes the fuel for tractors and land management, hidden energy costs in the fertilizers, soil supplements, pesticides, antifungals, or whatever else might be used, the energy for pumping water, etc.

 

[joelupchurch]

When I applied MacKay's numbers of 60 grams of CO² per square meter and multiplied by the 10,000 tons of CO² per day produced by a 500MW coal plant and came up with 17SqKm of Algae. That comes out to a Algae field 4km on the side, which doesn't sound too bad, if you assume a sunny climate with cheap real estate.

Of course, sunny and cheap usually means a desert, so the water consumption situation needs to be analyzed.

Anybody want to calculate how much biodiesel 17 SqKm of algae would produce?

I find this interesting, since if the law starts requiring CCS for coal and natural gas plants, then the biodiesel would offset part of the capture cost and avoid the sequestration part entirely. There was a recent Harvard study, "Realistic Costs of Carbon Capture", that estimated $35 to $70 per ton of CO₂ capture.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19185/realistic_costs_of_carbon_capture.html

Since the Algae only need 10% CO₂, it isn't clear what you need to do to the output of the coal plant before you feed it to the algae if you have stack scrubbers. I should point out that the biodiesel produced isn't technically renewable, since it is produced using the carbon from the coal and not from the atmosphere.

I don't think CCS is practical, or that the continued use of coal is desirable, but I always like to check the math.

 

[joelupchurch]

The net-net yield of the corn-ethanol process is hotly debated. Many people argue that the efficiency of the complete process is zero or worse - meaning [as you know] that we derive no benefit whatsoever, or we are even losing energy! Most standard sources seem to place the processing efficiency at about 30%. But one has to be careful about which number is being cited. I tend to refer to the "net yield" as the yield after including energy for processing. Then there is what I tend to refer to as the net-net yield, which includes the fuel for tractors and land management, hidden energy costs in the fertilizers, soil supplements, pesticides, antifungals, or whatever else might be used, the energy for pumping water, etc.

It seems to me MacKay's numbers are pretty close to 30%. He assume a gross of .2 w/m² and a net of .05w/m² which is a 25% net yield.

I would like to point out that from a climate perspective corn based ethanol makes little sense, even if the economics are better than break even. It can only offset the CO₂ going into the corn, not the CO₂ produced by the infrastructure to raise the corn. It seems to me that we would come out ahead on CO₂ if we switched more of our vehicle fleet to compressed natural gas, since it produces much less CO₂ per KWH.

 

[mheslep]

When I applied MacKay's numbers of 60 grams of CO² per square meter and multiplied by the 10,000 tons of CO² per day produced by a 500MW coal plant and came up with 17SqKm of Algae. That comes out to a Algae field 4km on the side, which doesn't sound too bad, if you assume a sunny climate with cheap real estate.

Of course, sunny and cheap usually means a desert, so the water consumption situation needs to be analyzed.

Anybody want to calculate how much biodiesel 17 SqKm of algae would produce?

See up thread per Ivan: conservatively 2000 GPAY . 17 sq km = 4200 acres, or 8.5 million gallons per year.

I find this interesting, since if the law starts requiring CCS for coal and natural gas plants, then the biodiesel would offset part of the capture cost and avoid the sequestration part entirely.

As you noted, many of those coal plants are located where there isn't good sun.

 

[joelupchurch]

Maybe you could use some concentrators to get more sunlight for the algae.

Down here in Florida we have plenty of sun. Will algae work in saltwater? How about partially processed sewage?

Here is a new announcement from a company called Origin Oil about a method to "milk" the oil out of the algae without harvesting it.

http://www.originoil.com/company-news/originoil-announces-breakthrough-process-for-live-algae-oil-extraction.html"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe you could use some concentrators to get more sunlight for the algae.

My impression is that this can be done in areas that are low on light. But more significant is the length of the day, and temperature. Keeping the algae cool in full light is one of the challenges for bioreactor designs. In the Aquatic Species Program, the winter temperatures are what killed the blooms [one example of why open systems can't work, imo]. There was plenty of light, but it was simply too cold.

As for the length of day, obviously the energy input to the system is reduced by having shorter days. IIRC from reading the literature current a couple of years ago, algae can be productive for up to about sixteen hours a day if light is available. Of course this led many of the fringe developers to provide artificial lighting, which is obviously a losing proposition!

Down here in Florida we have plenty of sun. Will algae work in saltwater?

Yes. There are many varieties of salt-water algae, and there are some known to be good producers of oil.

How about partially processed sewage?

Yes. Algae has the potential to treat many types of waste including industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste products. In the case of agriculture, the controlled growth of algae could be used to remediate runoff that creates dead zones in the ocean. The runoff is typically high in nitrogen, which algae love. In fact it is the uncontrolled growth of algae that depletes the oxygen needed for aquatic life. We could control this, solve the problem, and produce fuel as a consequence.

 

[Skyhunter]

Looks like the algae phase may be entirely unnecessary.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/27/tech/cnettechnews/main5190810.shtml

The Cambridge, Mass.-based company on Monday is disclosing its technology and business plans for making ethanol and other liquid fuels from genetically-manipulated microorganisms that have been fed only sunlight and carbon dioxide.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Looks like the algae phase may be entirely unnecessary.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/27/tech/cnettechnews/main5190810.shtml

Sounds great! We will have to see if the reality meets the hype. [a news release is a far cry from years of real testing, as we have with algae]

One issue that bothers me is that they make ethanol. When one considers the offset in energy and efficiency as compared to diesel, 25,000 gallons of ethanol is probably worth about 10,000 gallons of biodiesel. This means added distribution costs. There is also the problem of being incompatible with heavy trucks and aircraft. Recall that an algae-jatropha oil mix was recently tested in a 737. It passed with flying colors.

 

[mheslep]

Looks like the algae phase may be entirely unnecessary.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/27/tech/cnettechnews/main5190810.shtml

The Cambridge, Mass.-based company on Monday is disclosing its technology and business plans for making ethanol and other liquid fuels from genetically-manipulated microorganisms that have been fed only sunlight and carbon dioxide.

Well fundamentally they've haven't changed anything in that statement, just the DNA. Algae is essentially "microorganisms that have been fed only sunlight and carbon dioxide". The issues of temperature, invasion by other strains in open systems, and in general the issues separation of the hydrocarbon product, large water requirments and a dedicated CO2 sources still remain. The only stand out part of the article to my mind is

The company estimates it can produce 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year, which is far more than existing processes or others under development.

As that is indeed far better (10 to 2X better) than processes with natural strains, if they can do it.

 

[mheslep]

...

One issue that bothers me is that they make ethanol. ...

Maybe not:

...It claims that it can make its end product - ethanol or another hydrocarbon fuel - ...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe not:

To me, that is key. Ethanol makes no sense on so many levels that to me it hardly seems worth consideration in any case [including cellulosic ethanol], but if they can make biodiesel, that would be another matter. At the least, we will need biodiesel in addition to other options.

Key also is that the claim of quantities is based on ethanol. In order to judge fairly, we need to know the rates and costs of production for biodiesel feedstock.

I think most serious people who have looked at algae expect bioengineering to play a key role. While it may be possible to convert now using natural strains, the question is, at what cost? Whereas natural algae fuels and cellulosic ethanol are sometimes referred to as second generation fuels - corn-ethanol and soy-biodiesel are first generation fuels - this and other similar work may be examples of third generation fuel technologies.

The best news of all is that this is beginning to look like a horse race! I think we have seen at least a half dozen approaches to advanced fuel technolgies.

 

[mheslep]

This just popped up:
Given that the US Marines burn through "h[PLAIN]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/13/us-marines-afghanistan-fuel-efficiency"[/URL] gallons of fuel a day in Afghanistan (alone), they are well motivated to find ways of reducing the logistics tale. Turns out one of the things they (the DoD) have been working on is algae, made in the battlefield no less:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...powered-soldiers-in-the-pipeline-1766017.html

Can Darpa now score another double success by changing how both the military and civilian worlds consume and produce energy?
...
With the expense of convoys and guards thrown in, the cost of a gallon of fuel used at the front can range from $15 to several hundred dollars, says the same report.
...
It now wants to develop inexpensive diesel and jet fuel from algae that could be produced in the battle zone. All three programmes include the aim of accelerating the manufacture of any new product by private companies, from whom the military could buy.
...
Others say Darpa's goals can be unrealistic. Darpa wants to reduce the current cost of algae-based fuel from $20-$30 per gallon down to $3. In January, Darpa awarded contracts worth up to $34.8m to two companies to produce aviation fuel at $3 a gallon from algae. The competitors are General Atomics, best known for its Predator drone, and Science Applications International. They have three years to do it. Some doubt these companies – or any company – can achieve that goal.

Anyone care to comment on The Independent's '$20-$30' per gallon figure? It seems inappropriate to call it the 'current' figure, and not the theoretical figure given no large scale production (yet).

I also see, however, that at least half of the fuel goes to running field generators at forward bases. Now that is a perfect case for one of these small portable nuclear designs running around, say a 15ton 25 MW design that could be flown in by C130, and not biofuel.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Anyone care to comment on The Independent's '$20-$30' per gallon figure?

That is the number that I see bantered about wrt some of the ridiculous designs for bioreactors out there. This is what I'm talking about when I say that the cost per unit area is so critical. We aren't growing tomatoes; we can't do this using high-end bioreactor designs or commercial greenhouses, and we don't need to.

The Aquatic Species Program estimated a cost of about $2 per gallon. If we factor in inflation, $3 is probably reasonable, and DARPA landed precisely where I did on price expectations. In the end I used a retail price of 3$ as a basis and tried to drive the production costs accordingly.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting article on algae and biofuel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/business/energy-environment/17algae.html

The Utes are investing in Solix's biotechnology.

 

[baywax]

I never thought I'd see myself saying this...

¡¡¡GO ALGAE GO!

 

[dlgoff]

I'm not really familiar with all the processes needed to go from algae to a ready to use fuel. And most of what I've been reading speaks of getting processes that can be done on a large scale.

So, would it be possible to make small scale systems to use, say on, a farm?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not really familiar with all the processes needed to go from algae to a ready to use fuel. And most of what I've been reading speaks of getting processes that can be done on a large scale.

So, would it be possible to make small scale systems to use, say on, a farm?

In principle, yes, but there are a number of issues. The existing methods of processing the algae, which includes dewatering with centrifuges, and oil extraction with presses or supercritical extraction methods, are problematic. While it is possible to make oil now this way, no one has been able to do it at a price that is competitive with petrodiesel [just last night I heard the price of $8 per gallon mentioned in this context]. However, there are a number of alternatives being pursued, not the least of which eliminate the need for the centrifuges and the presses altogether. It is just a matter of time until we have better options - these problems are more along the line of engineering problems, not fundamental. It is also likely that growers will license the use of bioengineered algae, rather than using naturally occurring strains.

In principle this could be done at any scale desired, but it wouldn't be cost effective.

One issue lurking in the background is the use of homemade fuels that do not meet the national fuel standards. If one is making less than about a million gallons of fuel a year, the price of testing and approval is cost prohibitive. Homemade fuels have been an issue esp since they gave biodiesel a bad name early on. Many people are running vegetable oil, which is not biodiesel and does not meet federal fuel standards. Biodiesel can be made from almost any vegetable oil, but it is chemically altered and the glycerin contained in the oil is eliminated as a precipitate. Properly made biodiesel does meet Federal fuel standards.

A bit of luck: Of all vegetable oils that could be used, it turns out that algae produce oils that, when converted to a fuel, produce a very clean fuel in terms of emissions. This is true because they are low in saturated fats.

Late edit: I would have to check my notes, but I probably should have said that in order for the required federal testing and approval to be cost effective, one needs a batch of a million gallons of fuel for each test. In any event, it is not cost effective for very small producers, and I suspect the EPA will eventually start pursuing those using illegal fuel.

 

[dlgoff]

Thank you Ivan. Very informative.

 

[OmCheeto]

Ah! Hahahaha! A car with Ivan's name all over it:

http://gas2.org/2009/09/01/150-mpg-algaeus-plug-in-prius-to-cruise-coast-to-coast-on-algae-fuel/"
September 1st, 2009

In an effort to drum up attention and support for their algae-based biofuel, http://www.sapphireenergy.com/" has announced they will conduct a coast-to-coast journey in their “Algaeus” plug-in hybrid. Part electric hybrid, part biofuel vehicle, Sapphire claimes the Algaeus will get 150 miles per gallon from its hybrid/biofuel drivetrain.

The Algaeus will visit 10 cities, starting in San Francisco on September 8th and ending in New York City on the 18th.

:!)

 

[mheslep]

Ah! Hahahaha! A car with Ivan's name all over it:



:!)

Hmm, they make gasoline from algae? Not BD or ethanol?

 

[joelupchurch]

Hmm, they make gasoline from algae? Not BD or ethanol?

I read Sapphire Energy's press releases and the information on their website and it isn't really clear what they are doing. They imply that have a product that can refined into gasoline. Here is an excerpt from the press release:

Sapphire Energy is providing the fuel that is a complete drop-in replacement containing a mixture of hydrocarbons refined directly from algae-based Green Crude, extracted through Sapphire’s proprietary process, and fossil fuels to afford a high octane gasoline.​

It sound like whatever fuel they are using is actually blended with regular gasoline, but it doesn't sound like ethanol.

I found a longer article about Sapphire here:

http://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2008/11/13/sapphire-energy-backed-by-bill-gates-tries-to-tone-down-the-hype-as-it-makes-gasoline-from-algae/"

One paragraph caught my eye:

After determining that their best prospect was to become a producer of gasoline and diesel fuels, Pyle says they set out to identify the best green technologies for making it. They found what they were looking for in the research of Stephen Mayfield, an algae biologist at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, and Steven Briggs, a professor of cell and developmental biology at UC San Diego.​

I checked Mayfield's and Briggs' publications, but nothing seemed relevant at first glance.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was in contact with Briggs and I thought he was focused on the standard issues, but he also said that most of the information was proprietary. I also remember him saying that something should be hitting the market in two to three years - right about now.

He wouldn't be publishing papers for the work that was privately funded.

 

[mheslep]

Darpa's looking to hand out some Algae money for those that can make JP-8 out of it.

BioFuels - Cellulosic and Algal Feedstocks
BAA
http://www.darpa.mil/STO/solicitations/baa08-07/index.html

 

[joelupchurch]

Darpa's looking to hand out some Algae money for those that can make JP-8 out of it.

BioFuels - Cellulosic and Algal Feedstocks
BAA
http://www.darpa.mil/STO/solicitations/baa08-07/index.html

They are also looking at biodiesel:
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/09/08/green-force-us-militarys-interest-in-algae-fuel-grows/"
The logistics for supplying troops in Afghanistan is so horrendous that even if biodiesel would cost them 20 dollars a gallon, it might be a bargain. They are also looking into portable nuclear power plants.

P.S. I wonder if we should request another forum for Climate Engineering and move topics like this and painting roofs white over there. A lot of topics like Wind Turbines, Solar Power, Biofuels, CCS and such are being done by commercial firms and the work never appears in peer reviewed literature.

 

[mheslep]

They are also looking at biodiesel:
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/09/08/green-force-us-militarys-interest-in-algae-fuel-grows/"

They being Darpa? I've not seen any solicitations from them other than the JP one.

They are also looking into portable nuclear power plants...

They should be, but I am not aware that they are. Do you have news on that? The Army had a program on portable nuclear decades ago and abandoned it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They being Darpa? I've not seen any solicitations from them other than the JP one.

From your link they certainly appear to be planning on making diesel.

It now wants to develop inexpensive diesel and jet fuel from algae that could be produced in the battle zone. All three programmes include the aim of accelerating the manufacture of any new product by private companies, from whom the military could buy.

I am pretty sure the base oils for jet fuel is the same as that for biodiesel; the only difference should be the strain of algae grown. It was implied that in the Virgin airlines test with the 737 that they were running raw algae oil and not even fuel that had been transesterified, but that was never made clear in what I read.

There are some algal oils that cannot be transesterified that may be suitable as a fuel in raw form for that very reason. The glycerides cannot be reacted out because there are none.

 

[mheslep]

From your link they certainly appear to be planning on making diesel.

In the Darpa solicitation link the word diesel does not appear. The WSJ blog link from Joel mentions the US DoD is certainly looking at BD.

 

[joelupchurch]

They being Darpa? I've not seen any solicitations from them other than the JP one.
They should be, but I am not aware that they are. Do you have news on that? The Army had a program on portable nuclear decades ago and abandoned it.

Right now, they are just talking about it. There are no actual development programs that I know of. Obviously, they can't do any development without funding from Congress. I tried to watch the presentation by Col. Paul Roege "Nuclear Energy for Military Applications", but the quality of the video was poor.

http://www.aml.umd.edu/news/news_story.php?id=2832"

I actually looked at some papers from the old program you mentioned, since I was interested about the parts about using Ammonia as a vehicle fuel.