Can Microalgae Solve Global Fuel and Environmental Challenges?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential of microalgae to address global fuel and environmental challenges, including their use in biodiesel production, waste remediation, and CO2 mitigation. Participants explore various aspects of microalgae's applications, limitations, and the broader implications for energy and environmental sustainability.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that microalgae can produce biodiesel, ethanol, and hydrogen as alternatives to petroleum-based fuels.
  • Others argue that algae can also be utilized for environmental cleanup and CO2 remediation before being converted into fuel.
  • There are claims of high biodiesel yields from algae, with some suggesting over 50,000 gallons per acre, while others caution that realistic yields may be closer to 10,000 gallons per acre-year.
  • Some participants discuss the potential for improving algae conversion efficiency through genetic engineering or hybridization.
  • Concerns are raised about the technical, logistical, and economic challenges that alternative fuels face in replacing petroleum.
  • There is a mention of the economic impact of replacing imported oil with domestic fuel production, suggesting significant financial benefits.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the environmental benefits of algae compared to traditional diesel, questioning their competitiveness.
  • Others highlight the dual benefits of algae for waste remediation and fuel production, emphasizing the potential for profit through environmental cleanup.
  • There are discussions about the depth of water needed for algae growth, with claims that growth occurs primarily in the top fraction of the water.
  • Some participants reference competition from other biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, and express a preference for diverse fuel sources.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of enthusiasm and skepticism regarding the viability of microalgae as a fuel source. While some agree on the potential benefits of algae, others raise concerns about its competitiveness and the challenges it faces. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying assumptions about yield estimates, the economic feasibility of algae-based fuels compared to petroleum, and the environmental impacts of algae cultivation. The discussion also reflects differing perspectives on the role of the oil industry in the development of alternative fuels.

  • #61
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.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #62
DaleSpam said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #63
Andre said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
IS said:
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.
 
  • #65
Ivan Seeking said:
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?
 
  • #66
mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #67
baywax said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
there are some late edits in post 63 - a few important points that I had missed.
 
  • #69
Ivan Seeking said:
Actually, that is a real number achieved using highly inefficient open ponds in the ASP.
ASP? That is impressive, do you have a reference?

Ivan Seeking said:
No doubt though, ethanol from corn et al is a road to nowhere. At least CE looks promising.
Agreed.
 
  • #70
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.]
 
Last edited:
  • #71
DaleSpam said:
ASP? That is impressive, do you have a reference?

The Aquatic Species Program
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72
Ivan Seeking said:
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?
 
  • #73
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #74
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #77
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
  • #78
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
Ivan Seeking said:
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!
 
  • #80
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.
 
  • #81
Ivan Seeking said:
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?
 
  • #82
I have heard that there are issues with ethanol but I haven't read much about that. Brewnog would probably know.
 
Last edited:
  • #83
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. :biggrin: 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
Ivan Seeking said:
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. :biggrin: 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.
 
  • #85
baywax said:
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...
 
Last edited:
  • #86
OmCheeto said:
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.
 
  • #87
OmCheeto said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #88
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #89
OmCheeto said:
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.
 
  • #90
baywax said:
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! :biggrin:
 
Last edited: