Can Microalgae Solve Global Fuel and Environmental Challenges?

[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.]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

The Aquatic Species Program
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf

 

[baywax]

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.

Are the people with the most profits (Exxon, Mobile, etc..) in the race?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Algae is catching on quickly, but until now solar, wind, ethanol etc have been the darlings of the industry. I know that some large energy companies are in play with algae, but I'm not sure who all is getting serious about it as the path to follow. Most of people with whom I've spoken who are working the cutting edge are unfunded or privately funded college professors and entrepreneurs.

Part of the problem for the traditional energy companies is that algae does not require huge drilling rigs and tremendously expensive exploration. It can be grown anywhere that we find moderate temps and sources of water. So algae will decentralize the energy markets, which is great for national security. We also eliminate much of the need for an energy infrastructure as it can be produced locally or semi-locally [note that the supply chain efficiency for petro, which is about 80%, wasn't included in our original numbers, so we immediately reduce our demand by 20% if looking at the total energy demand]. All of this threatens to dethrone the energy companies.

Ever hear of Sequential Biofuels? They are the number one supplier of biodiesel for much of the Western US.

Here in Oregon we just opened the first "alternative fuels only" station.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For those who missed it, check it out!
http://www.nearbio.com/

Also, there is one point that needs to constantly be stressed so I'll mention it again: Converting to BD from algae will inject about 1/2 trillion dollars a year into the US economy that is currently going to foreign suppliers. I need to check to be sure of the exact number, but this has been cited as being about 60% of our trade deficit - about $1400 dollars per year for every US citizen [which just happens to be about the same financial price that we are paying for the Iraq war].

This will solve the problem of GHG emissions because algae is carbon neutral; whether you believe in AGW or not.

Contrary to popular claims, "going green" does not mean economic disaster; in fact it will help to save the US economy and create millions of new jobs.

 

[rcgldr]

A saw a recent television program about a company Sofex, that is doing research on increasing algae blooms in the ocean by dumping fine iron dust into existing blooms. The goal was for the algae to take CO2 out of the air, and back into the ocean ("carbon sink"), where it would stay for a very long time (hundreds of years), but eventually would return, so it's not a permanent solution. However I got the impression that Sofex's main source of income would be due to selling greenhouse gas credits to poluting companies, without any actual proof that their activities were truly reducing CO2 significantly more that what ocean life does naturally.

http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2004/1june01.html

However, after more research, the benefits weren't as good as expected, and there's concern over seeding the ocean with massive quantites of iron.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/will_ocean_fertilization_to_remove_carbon_dioxide_from_the_atmosphere_work

My own question here:

What types of algae consume oxygen (the kind where blooms can kill off other forms of life in ponds, lakes, and rivers), and what types of algae produce oxygen?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Microalgaes used to produce oils and sugars consume CO2 and water to produce long-chain hydrocarbons and oxygen, so when you burn the fuel you release the carbon that was absorbed from the atmosphere in order to grow the algae - a net zero system. A list of the most promising strains considered in the aquatic species program is found in the review linked above, however there are at least thousands of strains that might be considered. In fact it is very difficult to get specific information about all but the most common strains as it seems that very little is known about most.

http://www.oilgae.com/ is a nice place to start after reviewing the ASP.

Note that NASA is using algae as a CO2 scrubber in testing for space travel.

Generally, wild algae strains are far less productive and will overtake the high producing strains. This is one reason why open ponds are problematic. However, in areas where indigenous strains are reasonably good producers of oil, open ponds may be practical. The bottom line is that typically the good oil producing strains are if anything difficult to keep alive without good controls. They require specific conditions in order to flourish. In fact this is the biggest problem encountered in the DOE program. The winter months were simply too cold for open ponds.

 

[baywax]

Algae is catching on quickly, but until now solar, wind, ethanol etc have been the darlings of the industry. I know that some large energy companies are in play with algae, but I'm not sure who all is getting serious about it as the path to follow. Most of people with whom I've spoken who are working the cutting edge are unfunded or privately funded college professors and entrepreneurs.

Part of the problem for the traditional energy companies is that algae does not require huge drilling rigs and tremendously expensive exploration. It can be grown anywhere that we find moderate temps and sources of water. So algae will decentralize the energy markets, which is great for national security. We also eliminate much of the need for an energy infrastructure as it can be produced locally or semi-locally [note that the supply chain efficiency for petro, which is about 80%, wasn't included in our original numbers, so we immediately reduce our demand by 20% if looking at the total energy demand]. All of this threatens to dethrone the energy companies.

Ever hear of Sequential Biofuels? They are the number one supplier of biodiesel for much of the Western US.

Here in Oregon we just opened the first "alternative fuels only" station.

Very cool! I would think that the major oil producers would have enough foresight to use their profits to ensure a future for their companies. But I also understand that they've invested billions in equipment, overseas invasions... er... marketing and exploration... and employee benefits. Is there no way that they can convert these assets into Algae research and development and beat the competition? America needs to lead (big time) in these innovations or become a follower and a dependent when it comes to the energy economy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When we first assembled our expert panel of advisors to discuss our technical plan and business plan, my business plan was blown out within the first few minutes - we can sell all of the oil that we can produce at twice the price estimated only six months earlier.

I was just informed that Oregon will now require that all diesel sold in the State contain at least 5% biodiesel.

 

[baywax]

When we first assembled our expert panel of advisors to discuss our technical plan and business plan, my business plan was blown out within the first few minutes - we can sell all of the oil that we can produce at twice the price estimated only six months earlier.

I was just informed that Oregon will now require that all diesel sold in the State contain at least 5% biodiesel.

That's Oregon for you! Bunch of hippies saving the planet again. Only this time getting rich in the process!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Heh, no hippies as far as I know, but this is in part a practical matter: The elimination of sulfur from the diesel, as is now federally mandated, results in damaged injection pumps due to insufficient lubrication. Due to its superior lubricity, adding as little as 2% biodiesel fixes that. In fact this advantage offsets the slightly lower energy density [by volume] of BD as compared to petro-diesel.

 

[baywax]

Heh, no hippies as far as I know, but this is in part a practical matter: The elimination of sulfur from the diesel, as is now federally mandated, results in damaged injection pumps due to insufficient lubrication. Due to its superior lubricity, adding as little as 2% biodiesel fixes that. In fact this advantage offsets the slightly lower energy density [by volume] of BD as compared to petro-diesel.

That's interesting to know that sulfur acts as a lubricant in diesel. I've also heard that ethanol will wear down injectors due to increased heat compared to gas. Is this something you've encountered?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have heard that there are issues with ethanol but I haven't read much about that. Brewnog would probably know.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Regarding the role of energy companies, I would expect that companies like Sequential Biofuels will eventually be acquired by companies like BP - let the little guys do the dirty work and then move in and take over. But, frankly, as long as we solve the problem, who cares?

Also, the correct language for the new standard is ULSD - ultra-low sulfur diesel - which allows no more than 15 ppm of sulfur.

 

[baywax]

Regarding the role of energy companies, I would expect that companies like Sequential Biofuels will eventually be acquired by companies like BP - let the little guys do the dirty work and then move in and take over. But, frankly, as long as we solve the problem, who cares?

Also, the correct language for the new standard is ULSD - ultra-low sulfur diesel - which allows no more than 15 ppm of sulfur.

Yeah, who cares. The technology will be world wide if the de-centralization factor weighs in with regard to algae as a source for energy. Then everyone can stay at home with their algae fields, forever. I wonder what the next issue to go to war about will be.

 

[OmCheeto]

Yeah, who cares. The technology will be world wide if the de-centralization factor weighs in with regard to algae as a source for energy. Then everyone can stay at home with their algae fields, forever. I wonder what the next issue to go to war about will be.

War? Let's go to war with those stinkin Mexicans. The New Mexicans to be specific. Time magazine had an article today, sponsored by CNN, payed for by WM(waste management) that said there is a company(Vertigro Energy(probably a stinkin American company)) that claims that they can produce 100,000 gallons of oil from algae, per acre, per year.

vs. um... 20 gallons per acre for corn fed bio-fuels.

The article stated that 1/10th of the state of New Mexico could produce all our energy needs. Today. And all we need is a bunch of cellophane.

hmmm...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

claims that they can produce 100,000 gallons of oil from algae, per acre, per year.

Uh, no. As I said, there are all sorts of wild claims out there, and many may be honest mistakes, but those sorts of yields are simply not possible.

The other pitfall is the cost per square foot of the bioreactor. Some designs apparently would work wonderfully but won't be competitive until we hit $15-$20 per gallon for gasoline.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The article stated that 1/10th of the state of New Mexico could produce all our energy needs. Today. And all we need is a bunch of cellophane.

Since NM covers about 122,000 sq miles, ten pecent would be 12,000 square miles - not too far off from what we were discussing earlier. So I wonder if you misread that and it said 10,000 gallons per acre-year...?

The US consumes about 146 billion gallons of gasoline each year. Using a 1:1 conversion, ignoring the advantages of going to diesel, and taking this over 12,000 sq miles, we would need about 19,000 gallons per acre-year. Factoring in the increased efficiency for diesel over IC engines would result in about a 30% reduction in the demand.

 

[OmCheeto]

Since NM covers about 122,000 sq miles, ten pecent would be 12,000 square miles - not too far off from what we were discussing earlier. So I wonder if you misread that and it said 10,000 gallons per acre-year...?

Nope. The "advertisement" stated 100,000. I don't think it was a typo either.
On their http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039" , they claim that a pond algae farm will produce 10k gal/acre yr.
Since their system is vertical, they presumably get 10 times the output.
Although I could not find the 100k number on their website. So that may be an interviewish kind of wishing number made up by the inventor.

The US consumes about 146 billion gallons of gasoline each year. Using a 1:1 conversion, ignoring the advantages of going to diesel, and taking this over 12,000 sq miles, we would need about 19,000 gallons per acre-year. Factoring in the increased efficiency for diesel over IC engines would result in about a 30% reduction in the demand.

My spreadsheet has confirmed your numbers.
Odd how an area just 100x100 miles can produce enough energy to run the nation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since their system is vertical, they presumably get 10 times the output.

Ah, they are playing games with the footprint as opposed to height. In other words, by making a taller structure, one can capture the solar flux that would illuminate the adjacent acreage.

 

[Dale]

Yeah, who cares. The technology will be world wide if the de-centralization factor weighs in with regard to algae as a source for energy. Then everyone can stay at home with their algae fields, forever. I wonder what the next issue to go to war about will be.

The water rights to fill up the ponds to grow the algae of course!

 

[OmCheeto]

Ah, they are playing games with the footprint as opposed to height. In other words, by making a taller structure, one can capture the solar flux that would illuminate the adjacent acreage.

So where do I find some 98 octane algae?
I've been thinking about this all day.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The water rights to fill up the ponds to grow the algae of course!

Which makes a good point: In the long run it would seem to make the most sense to use salt-water algae.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So where do I find some 98 octane algae?
I've been thinking about this all day.

http://www.utex.org/

 

[OmCheeto]

http://www.utex.org/

ummm...

http://www.utex.org
FAQ
Q: What strains can you recommended for biodiesel?
We are not studying this topic and you should check publications for information. http://www.oilgae.com/algae/oil/yield/yield.html

Well, I only need one gallon a day until my I get my poly-hybrid vehicle built.
So I'm curious about the process of turning the algae into biofuel.
But if you're not into giving out trade secrets, when does your company go public?

 

[baywax]

Which makes a good point: In the long run it would seem to make the most sense to use salt-water algae.

Do you have any info about the type of genetic modifications that might be done with algae for this application?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are plenty of strains of salt-water algae.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

ummm...



Well, I only need one gallon a day until my I get my poly-hybrid vehicle built.
So I'm curious about the process of turning the algae into biofuel.
But if you're not into giving out trade secrets, when does your company go public?

Oilgae has links to all of the information that you could want. There are no simple answers, but many different approaches to each aspect of the process can be found.

We hit a bit of a delay with the company but hope to be back on track shortly.

 

[Dale]

Which makes a good point: In the long run it would seem to make the most sense to use salt-water algae.

That is an interesting idea. In a lot of places you have desert regions right on the coastline, that would be ideal for such algae farms. But most places you would still have to pump the water inland even though you wouldn't have to desalinate it. I bet you would still get a net gain even a hundred miles inland. Of course, I wonder what sea-water runoff would do to the land "downstream"?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems to me that one would want to stay in the coastal areas for both of the reasons that you cited - salt contamination and energy.

Why do it on land?

 

[Dale]

Why do it on land?

I was thinking about that too, it has several advantages. Lots of surface area available with no property rights to worry about. Plenty of water. Easy access to worldwide markets. No need to level, grade, etc.

But containment would be difficult, particularly in the open ocean and particularly during big storms.