Can Microalgae Solve Global Fuel and Environmental Challenges?

[mheslep]

.. 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.

FYI, I was referring specfically to the ANPP which died in the 70's. This presentation by Col Roege is the first I've heard of any nuclear in the present day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program

 

[joelupchurch]

FYI, I was referring specfically to the ANPP which died in the 70's. This presentation by Col Roege is the first I've heard of any nuclear in the present day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program

The ammonia paper I mentioned was from the ANPP. Kirk Sorensen got access to some of the old papers and scanned them in. Go to http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/"

Scroll down to the bottom and look under "Mobile Military Reactor Concepts and Technologies".

As it said in the Wikipedia article:

The Corps of Engineers concluded that, although feasible, the energy depot would require equipment that probably would not be available during the next decade. As a result, further development of the MCR and the energy depot was suspended until they became economically attractive and technologically possible.

There are a lot of people who think that now is that time, since there are many small reactor designs floating around now that could be adapted to military use.

 

[joelupchurch]

I was reading Slate and happened to see a report on the Algeaus car we were discussing earlier.
http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/shifting-gears/2009/09/11/algae-power-car-doesn-t-use-much-algae"

It says that the car only uses 5% algae based fuel. I'm a bit annoyed.

 

[OmCheeto]

I was reading Slate and happened to see a report on the Algeaus car we were discussing earlier.
http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/shifting-gears/2009/09/11/algae-power-car-doesn-t-use-much-algae"

It says that the car only uses 5% algae based fuel. I'm a bit annoyed.

hmmmm... per wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_fuel"
a mixture of carbon chains that typically contain between 8 and 21 carbon atoms per molecule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline"
The bulk of a typical gasoline consists of hydrocarbons with between 4 and 12 carbon atoms per molecule.

Perhaps because it's a gasoline engine, it can only tolerate so many diesel type molecules.

But I agree with you. It is a bit disingenuous. They should have bought a Euro-diesel and run it 100% on algae oil.

 

[joelupchurch]

hmmmm... per wiki:


Perhaps because it's a gasoline engine, it can only tolerate so many diesel type molecules.

But I agree with you. It is a bit disingenuous. They should have bought a Euro-diesel and run it 100% on algae oil.

I agree, but it would hardly be necessary to send to Europe for a suitable vehicle. There are a lot of people in the United States running cars on 100% Biodiesel.

http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=cfrm&s=447609751"

 

[joelupchurch]

I read this interesting article on algae farming today.

http://infranetlab.org/blog/2009/02/farming-fuels/"

I picked up a few good points from it.

1. We could produce all the biodiesel to supply the United States using less than 10 million acres. For corn based ethanol it would take 238 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol#Problems_associated_with_corn-derived_ethanol"

2. Algae doesn't require fresh water or arable land so it doesn't displace food crops. Waste water would actually be desirable as an input.

3. A high production algae facility uses more CO₂ than is available from the atmosphere. Locating it near a industrial facility like a coal plant or cement plant that produces large amounts of CO₂ is actually necessary and not just desirable.

 

[BigFairy]

Good read?

 

[mheslep]

Video of the bio-diesel turbine vehicle Jay Leno had built by GM et al over 2 1/2 years. The turbine starts on regular Jet-A (kerosine), but then switches to bio-diesel. Very cool. 650HP from the turbine! Carbon fiber body.

http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/clips/ecojet-definitive-edition/1156668/

 

[Astronuc]

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:


And algae specifically:

Dow Chemical Co will work with Algenol Biofuels Inc to build and operate a pilot-scale algae-based integrated biorefinery that will convert CO₂ to ethanol - on nonarable land.

http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/pr-090629.html

http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/thescience-biology.html

http://www.dow.com/imea/ssa/news/2008/20081103b.htm

 

[joelupchurch]

I read this interesting article on algae farming today.
http://infranetlab.org/blog/2009/02/farming-fuels/"

This article, I used in a previous post, claimed algae production of over 100,000 gallons per acre.

I was recently reading an article which makes that rather implausible.

Biodiesel production—current state of the art and challenges
J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol (2008) 35:421–430
DOI 10.1007/s10295-008-0312-2
http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/case/biol230/algae/SIM_algae.pdf"

If you look at the calculations on pages 426-7, the authors come up with a much lower limit.

In the United States, the average daily incident solar
energy (across the entire spectrum) reaching the earth’s
surface ranges from 12,000 to 22,000 kJ/m2 (varying primarily
with latitude). If the maximum photosynthetic
efficiency is 11.6%, then the maximum conversion to
chemical energy is around 1,400–2,550 kJ/m2/day, or
3.8 9 1012 J/acre-year in the sunniest parts of the country.
Assuming the heating value of biodiesel to be 0.137 GJ/
gal, the maximum possible biodiesel production in the
sunniest part of the United States works out to be
approximately 28,000 gal/acre-year, assuming 100% conversion
of algae biomass to biodiesel, which is infeasible.

Based on this I would suspect a practical limit for algae oil of less than 10,000 gallons an acre. Even within these limits thew authors point out that that algae has far more potiental than other biofuels, such as corn or soy.

 

[Mk]

This is a great site for doing your own home algae projects!
http://algaegeek.com/

On his primary site he has an ardunio-powered project not on the algaegeek site:
http://www.inventgeek.com/2009-Projects/Arduino-Strobe-Algae-Bioreactor/OverView.aspx

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Anyone using electric lights to grow algae is wasting their time. There are some folks who claim to be using sugars directly in such a way that photosynthesis is unnecessary, but the conservation of energy rule always applies.

There is anecdotal evidence that bright flashes of light having an period of fractions of a second, can increase the amount of light absorbed by the algae. The idea here is that the algae responds to bright light by absorbing less light, but there is a finite reaction time. If the flashes of light are signficantly shorter than the reaction interval of the algae, the cells can be tricked into absorbing more light than they normally would. I would have to review the literature to recall the exact mechanism of action, but that's the basic idea. A few researchers claim to have observed the increased yields as a function of light flashes, anecdotally.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Something else about the sugar route: IIRC, biomass is reduced to basic sugars which are then fed to the algae. The energy from the sugars are what allow the algae to produce useful hydrocarbons. The problem I see here is that we are only moving the goal post. Algae probably has the highest conversion efficiency of any plant. By using the energy stored in other plants to drive the system, the efficiency problem is compounded by the collection and storage of biomass. In the end we need more surface area for a given amount of solar energy than with algae alone, and we have additional losses in the system for the collection, tranportation, and processing of the biomass.

One of the beautiful things about algae is their simplicity. As a result of their simplicity, they are very efficient at what they do.

 

[mheslep]

This is a great site for doing your own home algae projects!
http://algaegeek.com/

On his primary site he has an ardunio-powered project not on the algaegeek site:
http://www.inventgeek.com/2009-Projects/Arduino-Strobe-Algae-Bioreactor/OverView.aspx

I didn't see a link on these hobby sites discussing the extraction of the algae from the water nor the processing into ethanol or diesel. Did I miss it? Otherwise the guy might have just as well painted the tanks green and saved the trouble.

 

[mheslep]

Something else about the sugar route: IIRC, biomass is reduced to basic sugars which are then fed to the algae. The energy from the sugars are what allow the algae to produce useful hydrocarbons. The problem I see here is that we are only moving the goal post. Algae probably has the highest conversion efficiency of any plant. By using the energy stored in other plants to drive the system, the efficiency problem is compounded by the collection and storage of biomass. In the end we need more surface area for a given amount of solar energy than with algae alone, and we have additional losses in the system for the collection, tranportation, and processing of the biomass.

One of the beautiful things about algae is their simplicity. As a result of their simplicity, they are very efficient at what they do.

Well it seems there are two goals with biomass to ethanol/diesel fuels that may or may not be independent, depending on other factors. One is to capture solar energy in a stored form as efficiently as possible, and the second is to provide liquid fuels for transportation. These goals may be independent if the transportation market remains combustion engine based for decades, but other energy sources besides fossil somehow become cheap. Say for instance that nuclear fission power actually does become plentiful and 'too cheap to meter', while transportation fuels remain costly. Then it very well might make sense to supplement algae growth with things like electric lights or chemically produced sugars, as the conversion efficiency would be less important, while the demand of the final product remained high.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well it seems there are two goals with biomass to ethanol/diesel fuels that may or may not be independent, depending on other factors. One is to capture solar energy in a stored form as efficiently as possible, and the second is to provide liquid fuels for transportation. These goals may be independent if the transportation market remains combustion engine based for decades, but other energy sources besides fossil somehow become cheap. Say for instance that nuclear fission power actually does become plentiful and 'too cheap to meter', while transportation fuels remain costly. Then it very well might make sense to supplement algae growth with things like electric lights or chemically produced sugars, as the conversion efficiency would be less important, while the demand of the final product remained high.

True. However, assuming the remaining practical issues can be resolved, and until we remove the requirement for an energy source, for now the elegance of the algae solution is undeniable. As you pointed out, algae-derived fuels actually solve two problems as once...three if you include the CO2 problem.

Then there is the potential for the remediation of municipal, industrial, and agricultural waste... I don't recall ever seeing a solution to a serious problem that operates on so many different levels.

It would have been nice to get a piece of the action, but at least the big players are involved now.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Based on this I would suspect a practical limit for algae oil of less than 10,000 gallons an acre. Even within these limits thew authors point out that that algae has far more potiental than other biofuels, such as corn or soy.

After many months of research, that is where I landed as well. In fact, if you go back to the Aquatic Species Program, you will find peak yields of about 5000 or 6000 gallons per acre-year. It was believed at the time that the yields could be improved significantly, but some evidence now suggests that these may have been practical limits [not to include strains produced through genetic engineering or hybridization]. Between various biological factors specific to the algae, water circulation rates, and the depth of the water, the energy input to the system is unavoidably reduced in any real system. After mulling over many different design concepts for bioreactors, my own impression is that probably comes out about right. Take your theoretical max yield and divide by two as a best case.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is one more thought that is what actually drove me to get involved in the algae business: One can beat the divide-by-two rule that I was following, but to this end I saw people using high-tech approaches that utterly defeat the system through cost. No matter how efficient a system might be, $20 or $30/gallon fuel is nothing but a curiosity. Beyond that, upon considering the energy required to produce those costly materials, the lifetime energy efficiency of the entire system has to be reconsidered. I became convinced that the high tech solutions have their place only in the biology and processing of algae, but not in the farming of it. Due to the scale of the problem - the many millions of acres required to supply the world's energy needs - it is hard to imagine any practical algae farm that has a high cost per unit area. As I have mentioned before, in my efforts, given the constrains listed in the posts above, as a practical business model, the dictated cost per sq foot of bioreactor made it all but impossible to make [design and build] anything at all. I thought it was doable given those constraints, but just barely using a $3/gallon model, using low-tech but hopefully clever solutions, and only after many months of hard work and fixating on the problem almost entirely [ask Integral]. Even with the various and presumably vast improvements to the processing methods being tested, we are still on the order of dollars [maybe one digit only] per sq foot of bioreactor surface, per year, as an amortized cost. Beyond improved processing techniques, and assuming gas doesn't hit $20 per gallon, the only other variables that I can see here are the characteristics of the algae strain used. Algae can presumably be engineered so that much higher yields are possible. So that lands in the laps of biologists.

Improving yields by 50%, while increasing the amortized cost per unit area by 800%, makes no sense. It doesn't take rocket science to figure that one out. For perspective, recall that one acre is 43,560 sq ft.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

we are still on the order of dollars [maybe one digit only] per sq foot of bioreactor surface, per year, as an amortized cost.

Yikes! I'm glad I checked this. That should be in units of square meters, not square feet. A quick check of the math reveals that this cost is the most siginficant to any system even assuming the most optimistic yields. This also brings to mind the fact that ocean surface area comes for free, as compared to land. There is no purchase price or taxes. The cost of land is a major consideration.

 

[joelupchurch]

I think we should keep in mind that Biodiesel wouldn't be the only revenue stream for an algae farm. What remains after the oil is removed can be sold as animal feed. An algae farm can also be used to process sewage and capture CO₂ from power plants.

Some of the estimates I've seen for carbon capture, indicate that the cost per KWH would at least double for coal plants just for the carbon capture and not even calculating the sequestration charges. Using an algae farm would provide offsetting revenue and probably be cheaper to operate, since the energy to capture the CO₂ would come from the sun rather than using salable power from the plant.

Biodiesel using CO₂ from a power plant doesn't sequester the CO₂, but since it are displacing displacing conventional diesel, the effect can be similar.

 

[mheslep]

I think we should keep in mind that Biodiesel wouldn't be the only revenue stream for an algae farm. What remains after the oil is removed can be sold as animal feed. An algae farm can also be used to process sewage and capture CO₂ from power plants.

Some of the estimates I've seen for carbon capture, indicate that the cost per KWH would at least double for coal plants just for the carbon capture and not even calculating the sequestration charges. Using an algae farm would provide offsetting revenue and probably be cheaper to operate, since the energy to capture the CO₂ would come from the sun rather than using salable power from the plant.

Biodiesel using CO₂ from a power plant doesn't sequester the CO₂, but since it are displacing displacing conventional diesel, the effect can be similar.

The net effect is to allow the use the same carbon atom twice before it's released to the atmosphere, i.e. double the amount of useful energy produced per C. Helps, but does not completely cure the carbon problem.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The net effect is to allow the use the same carbon atom twice before it's released to the atmosphere, i.e. double the amount of useful energy produced per C. Helps, but does not completely cure the carbon problem.

That is why, it seems to me, there is no reason to use the coal. If a closed CO2 capture system can produce a cost-competitive fuel, then replace the coal with algae biomass or an algae-derived fuel. Now we have a closed system that not only captures the carbon from a generating station, but also preserves the nutrients needed for the next batch of algae. The nitrogen, phosphorous, and CO2 problems all go away. The water is preserved as well. Algae takes the hydrogen from water in order to grow, and we get it back from the burner's exhaust stream.

We do have to be careful when considering byproducts. Everyone expected to recapture some costs from the production of biodiesel from soy, by selling the glycerin that reacts out of solution. However, as biodiesel production increased, the bottom fell out of the glycerin market.

Something else to be considered is the mind-numbing quantity of biomass that is left over after processing the fuel.

 

[mheslep]

That is why, it seems to me, there is no reason to use the coal. If a closed CO2 capture system can produce a cost-competitive fuel, then replace the coal with algae biomass or an algae-derived fuel. Now we have a closed system that not only captures the carbon from a generating station, but also preserves the nutrients needed for the next batch of algae. The nitrogen, phosphorous, and CO2 problems all go away. The water is preserved as well. Algae takes the hydrogen from water in order to grow, and we get it back from the burner's exhaust stream.

Hmm, yes that seems right. A closed system rules out using bio algae directly for transportation fuel, but then we've discussed before how it appears to be more efficient to burn algae derived fuel at the generating plant to make electricity for transportation.

I'm imaging a ~100megawatt plant, surrounded by algae tanks. So how much land for a ~100MW plant? 35% eff rankine cycle, 10,000 gal/acre-year, 140 MJ/gallon? Not accounting for energy to process to algae to BD, I get just ~100 acres for the algae tanks.
Edit: Interestingly, http://solar.coolerplanet.com/News/10130902-albiasa-concentrating-solar-power-back-on-mohave-county-arizona.aspx" concentrated solar plant wants 1800 acres for a 200MW facility.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I get just ~100 acres for the algae tanks.

X 2 [divide by two rule] X 1.6 [energy required to operate]

hopeful approximations.

mheslep, IIRC, you were the one who posted Exxon's expectations of, I think, 3500 gallons per acre-year, as a net-net yield? If I read this correctly, it would be closely in line with the approximations suggested above.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Doggonnit! You you all got me thinking about all of this again. There are still plenty of niche opportunities.

Funny! Algae-fed beef means that big fat juicy steaks are off the endangered species list.

Talk about elegance!

I just wanted to complete the one calculation in case anyone miseed it. If we want to sell fuel for $3 retail, we need to be around $1.5 wholesale [testing, taxes, resale, etc]. At 3500 gallons per acre-year, we gross $5250 per acre per year. So, at 43560 sq ft per acre, we gross 12 cents per sq ft per year. We have already paid for the energy to operate, but we still need to pay for labor, and the amortized cost of land, bioreactor hardware, and supporting hardware like pumps, pipes, and the processing equipment. Not to mention the interest on loans, insurance... donuts for board meetings...

Nitrogen, phosphorous, and CO2 supplies? Assume those are free. This is still a terribly difficult budget to balance, but I think it can be done, now. Obviously any rise in price of gas or diesel makes this easier.

Oh yes, we haven't made a profit yet. That's all just to break even,

 

[mheslep]

X 2 [divide by two rule] X 1.6 [energy required to operate]

hopeful approximations.

mheslep, IIRC, you were the one who posted Exxon's expectations of, I think, 3500 gallons per acre-year, as a net-net yield? If I read this correctly, it would be closely in line with the approximations suggested above.

2000 g/a-y, or so they said at the initial press release.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2271740&postcount=239

 

[mheslep]

Doggonnit! You you all got me thinking about all of this again. There are still plenty of niche opportunities.

Funny! Algae-fed beef means that big fat juicy steaks are off the endangered species list.

Talk about elegance!

I just wanted to complete the one calculation in case anyone miseed it. If we want to sell fuel for $3 retail, we need to be around $1.5 wholesale [testing, taxes, resale, etc]. At 3500 gallons per acre-year, we gross $5250 per acre per year. So, at 43560 sq ft per acre, we gross 12 cents per sq ft per year. We have already paid for the energy to operate, but we still need to pay for labor, and the amortized cost of land, bioreactor hardware, and supporting hardware like pumps, pipes, and the processing equipment. Not to mention the interest on loans, insurance... donuts for board meetings...

Nitrogen, phosphorous, and CO2 supplies? Assume those are free. This is still a terribly difficult budget to balance, but I think it can be done, now. Obviously any rise in price of gas or diesel makes this easier.

Oh yes, we haven't made a profit yet. That's all just to break even,

At 12 cents per sq ft I now see the problem w/ the cost of a making a bioreactor. What was the est. lifetime of your reactor? 10 yrs?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

At 12 cents per sq ft I now see the problem w/ the cost of a making a bioreactor. What was the est. lifetime of your reactor? 10 yrs?

Some components of the system I envisioned [and crudely tested], such as pvc pipe, were good for twenty years, but the killer is the plastic. It was a bit of a draw between UV resistant plastic good for 5 or 6 years [I think some might have been rated as good for ten years], or lower cost plastics that would only last 3 years. The life of the plastic is determined primarily by the optical properties of the material. Over time, even the highest quality greenhouse plastics will become cloudy and transmit significantly less light. It was also necessary to allow for incidental damage, as well as getting wiped out by a storm from time to time. The risk of damage from storms is what drove me to the lowest-cost materials having a relatively short life expectancy. That in turn drove up the cost of labor, but labor is relatively cheap. From there, it was critical to design for 9 out of 10 years of storms, for example. That, combined with planned maintenance rotations made it appear to be feasible. On any given year you plan to lose 33% of your plastic anyway.

I found myself landing about as far away from a high-tech solution as one can get. There is nothing like a budget to bring one back to earth.

The next logical step is to reduce the cost of the plastic by recycling it onsite.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

2000 g/a-y, or so they said at the initial press release.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2271740&postcount=239

Maybe it was DARPA who cited 3500. Anyway, I think the difficulty of this challenge is fairly obvious now. But apparently I [we?] am not alone in thinking it's doable.

Joel got scared and ran for the government money.

 

[OmCheeto]

I found myself landing about as far away from a high-tech solution as one can get. There is nothing like a budget to bring one back to earth.

The next logical step is to reduce the cost of the plastic by recycling it onsite.

I keep running across places that have problems with http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/11/2009112219319226668.html" .

Seems like a skimmer like they use on oil spills could be used in some of these spots to harvest the algae. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_de_Atitl%C3%A1n" has an area of 32,000 acres. A low tech system that continuously removed the algae would both clean up the lake and create a nice profit, even with a low octane strain of natural algae.

Perhaps they could build a floating corral in the middle, ala fish farms, say 10,000 acres, pump their poo out there, let the algae eat it, harvest the algae, etc, etc. (I suppose the acreage would be based on local population size: poo/person/day/how much the buggers can eat.)

I think the Chinese might lend them a hand, as they have quite a bit of http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7482791.stm" !

Ivan, I think you need to learn Mandarin, and go have a talk with those folks.