GREEN POWER: Is slimy algae the key to a green energy future?
Image: FLICKR/LEE NACHTIGAL
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
There are some signs that the algae-based fuel industry might be ready to bloom.
One of the nascent industry's biggest and most well-heeled players, Sapphire Energy, announced last week that it would be producing 1 million gallons of diesel and jet fuel a year by 2011, double its initial estimates.
The La Jolla, Calif.-based company – with big-name backers like Bill Gates and the Rockefeller family – says it will be producing more than 100 million gallons a year by 2018 and 1 billion gallons a year by 2020 – enough to meet almost 3 percent of the U.S. renewable fuel standard (RFS) of 36 billion gallons.
But there's a hitch: Federal law makes no room for algae-based fuel in the RFS. The 2007 energy law caps corn ethanol production at 15 billion gallons a year by 2015 and has the remaining 21 billion gallons of renewable fuels coming from advanced biofuels, including 17 billion gallons from cellulosic biofuels and biodiesel.
"There needs to be policy work done to incorporate these new concepts like algae, which is an organism that actually consumes large amounts of carbon in the process of creating a liquid transportation fuel," said Tim Zenk, vice president of corporate affairs at Sapphire.
Algae-based fuel producers use sunlight, water and carbon dioxide to convert carbon dioxide into sugar, which the algae metabolize into lipids, or oil. The industry says it can do so using non-potable water and without converting more forests into farm fields – thus addressing major criticisms of corn- and soy-based biofuels.
Sapphire says its technology is unique because it produces a fuel that can be used with existing U.S. pipelines, refineries, cars, trucks and airplanes. "We are 100 percent convinced that the only way to address climate and energy security is to use the same infrastructure we already have," Zenk said.
Zenk said his company is supported by major oil companies. Its newly appointed president, C.J. Warner, is a 10-year BP executive.
"They really like us because we're providing them with what they do today, which is refining crude oil," Zenk said. "It's not ethanol, it's not biodiesel. It has the same molecules as gas, diesel or jet fuels."
The company's jet fuel was tested earlier this year by two of three airlines testing the commercial use of algae-based fuels in flight. Continental Airlines reported that the Boeing 737-800 test flight on Jan. 7 was successful. That test was the first commercial airline test of algae-based biofuel.
"Continental's primary role in the demonstration was to show that the biofuel blend would perform just like traditional jet fuel in our existing aircraft without modification of the engines or the aircraft," said Holden Shannon, Continental's senior vice president for global research and security, during a congressional hearing last month. "This is important because ... the current engine and airframe technology is unlikely to change materially for many years, so it is crucial that alternative fuel be safe for use with the current aircraft technology."
Zenk said the test flight showed that algae fuel gets better mileage than petroleum-based jet fuel. "We noticed a 4 percent increase in energy density in the fuels because of the lower-burning temperatures in the engine itself, which resulted in greater fuel mileage," he said.
See what we're tweeting about
23 Comments
Add CommentI already know algaes are great super foods as human fuel. Just look at some of the research NASA has done with chlorella, but to be used as fuel for the transportation industry as well? Yeah, truly an amazing super food for sure! Chlorella is one of the highest bio-available sources of protein/amino acids for human consumption, and it also removes heavy metals from the body and detoxifies the liver. Spirulina is another great source of bio-available proteins/amino acids for human food consumption, and blue-green algae is a great brain food.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRawk on plant power!
Cheryl Hill
www.cherylhill.com
www.ezrawfood101.com
Gee, isn't this going to make the "Clean Coal" backers angry??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm disappointed that this article didn't explain the science behind the conversion of algae to petroleum. How are the 500 million years short-circuited? This was an economic article, not a scientific one as I would have expected from Scientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA close English friend of mine,John Buswell, who had his PhD in Biochemistry, was developing this concept at the University of Texas at Austin in the late 1960's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis concept is not new nor ae the attempts to develop an economically feasible means to produce petroleum products from algae.
Micro-algae can also be used as animal and human food. The large multinationals and governments need to look at the potential of Algae in an objective manner and provide necessary support to expand this sector. For too long international fora have made decisions to suit selected power groups. the time has come to take a mature approach that is good for all concerned. It is time to wake up and do the right thing before it bites everyone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKumaran
aka04@hotmail.com
Hrm... carbon capture from coal plants and CO2 eating alge on the same webpage... I hope someone's put that one together already...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis algae project can be culled out by an entropy analysis. Please read the following: Entropy (not Energy) is the Issue for an explanation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEntropy (not Energy) is the Issue
According to the Conservation of Energy Principle (The First Law of Thermodynamics), we can neither create nor destroy energy. This means we will always have as much energy as we ever had. So, how can we experience an energy crisis?
Our crisis develops from another law of energy: The Entropy Law. It states that energy use always results in some overall loss of availability, quality, or order. Physics characterizes such loss as an increase of entropy. This is where informed energy discussions begin.
The inevitable increase of entropy seems to have a slightly different character for each system under consideration. For example, heat always flows from the hotter to the colder body, never the reverse. Perfume molecules escape their container and spread throughout the room, but never gather back into the bottle of their own accord.
While heat is flowing, or perfume molecules are spreading, they can do workare useful. Even after heat flows down its temperature hill, or the molecules spread out in a room, overall energy remains constant, but that energy is now unavailable for use--no good for doing work.
Entropy applies thermally, structurally, and environmentally. Just as a weight cannot supply any mechanical work once it reaches its lowest available level, thermal energy is not available for use after it falls to an ambient temperature. It simply becomes waste heat, like car exhaust. Entropic disorder is commonly termed pollution.
There are various mathematical expressions for Entropy, such as S = k ln W (where k is a constant and W is the microstates per macrostate). Due to its broad, complex, and abstract formulations, some have rejected the Entropy Laweven deemed it an illegitimate natural principle because too anthropomorphic (as if scientific laws had any other origin). Einstein, however, thought the Entropy Law was the one law that would never be overthrown.
Some have said that life transcends the Entropy Law, but no contradiction exists since the overall Entropy increase (system plus surroundings) still exceeds the entropy decrease of a structuring organism.
By extension of the Entropy Law, matter also becomes unavailable for use. High entropy copper junk (because dispersed in refuse dumps) can be too costly to recycle, both monetarily and environmentally, thus practically unavailable. Entropys economic decrements are developing beyond the control of todays price mechanisms.
From an entropy perspective, economic growth is the progressive transformation of usable energy into unavailable energy. This means an overall decline in our environmentexcept that the suns outside gift of energy may compensate for this decline by driving the earths large-scale regenerative cycles (carbon, oxygen, etc). The suns finite input, however, can only compensate if economic activitys entropy production is not too large.
All large-scale technical fixes such as clean coal, nuclear, or corn-ethanol create quality (entropy) issues. Energy from coal results in acid rain, global warming, methyl mercury in food chains, and toxic, congesting particles in the air we breathe. Nuclear plants create radioactive waste in direct proportion to the energy producedsome of which (Plutonium 40) requires environmental isolation for hundreds of thousands of years. Nuclear decommissioning costs billions. Corn-ethanol production emits two to nine times the greenhouse gas emissions saved by substituting it for gasoline.
Because of the high environmental costs we pay for creating high-quality (low entropy) energies such as electricity or hydrogen fuel, we should use them only where their quality is truly necessary. Coal-electric space heating and plug-in cars remain prohibitive.
The Entropy Law sets limits to the types of energy use humans can sustain. Since all earth-energized technological orderings result in an overall loss of order (even for pollution control devices and recycling), entropy compensating sources of energy must be external. Practically, this means the sun. Non-solar energy solutions become uneconomic (if not snake oil) once price mechanisms factor in their entropy effects.
We can choose to assess and respect the Entropy Laws implications, or we can continue to make energy policy in ignorance. A mix increasingly weighted toward low entropy solar applications is finally unavoidable. Reversible entropy is not merely a tree-huggers fancy; it is an ecological necessity.
For many energy applications, we have yet to determine the form, let alone the cost, of their attendant entropy (disordering). In the very big picture, however, specific calculations (the details) dont matter. According to the entropy law, we either go (relatively direct) solar or decline.
A mathematical interpretation follows: The Entropy Law (Second Law of Thermodynamics) when applied to an overall system undergoing an irreversible (practical) energy exchange and consisting of a subsystem of interest in equilibrium with its surroundings is expressed mathematically as
dS(overall) = dS(subsystem) + dS(surroundings) > 0
where dS is the attendant change in entropy.
The surroundings are taken large enough to form an unlimited reservoir. Thus, equilibrium is maintained with the system of interest. The above mathematical inequality states that the overall, proximate change in entropy (subsystem plus surroundings taken together) for any practical energy exchange is always positive. In other words, all earth-alone energy exchanges result in a net disorder.
Should external (solar) energy enter the overall system, the mathematical inequality may no longer hold. The net entropy can be zero or even negative. In other words, inputs of solar energy can compensate the otherwise inevitable entropy increases of our energy exchanges.
Here are a few examples of how an entropy-oriented analysis might expeditiously cull out technological proposals.
Arent hydrogen-fueled cars ecological since they emit only pure water? An entropy analysis cuts immediately to whether a solar component is involved. If no solar component exists to negate the entropy that attends hydrogen production, storage, and handling, the overall effect is ecological degradation. Note the economy of approach here. An entropy analysis doesnt need to show precisely how the degradation manifests to declare it unecological.
Clean coal combustion is similarly dismissible. If coals CO2 (greenhouse) by-product could be dumped (sequestered) without ecological consequences, the entropy law would be violated thereby making the whole science of thermodynamics incomprehensible.
Isnt natures geothermal energy, if unused, simply wasted? This question is superficial because it deals only with energy. The relevant question is: Does geothermal have entropy negation (a solar component)? If not, it is unecological. From an entropy perspective, we dont need to employ a team of engineers to investigate whether geothermals accelerated cooling of magma releases too much CO2 to sequester. CO2 waste dumps arent ecological. If an energy project is purely earth-derived (no solar negation), it provides no ecological solution.
Of course, minor solar entropy compensations soon wash out among infrastructure, transportation, and other supporting technologies. This means our solar applications must be relatively direct (wind, solar panels/concentrators, possibly hydro, etc.).
Some may still cling to the idea of affordable decline. But keep in mind, most entropy effects ultimately manifest as waste heat. Here, we are up against our ecological limits. Global warming makes this abundantly clear. We can no longer settle for lesser evils.
Summing up, our only practical means of negating technologys inevitable entropy (eco-degradation) is solar incorporation. No solar, no sustainability, no ecological solution. Go solar or decline!
One of the really big things not mentioned in the comments so far is the use of non-potable water. The shortage of fresh water is critical in many parts of the world, and getting worse. In an economic sense, sending grain from the US to other parts of the world is actually sending fresh water, since if they had the water, they could grow the grain. Since we can conserve the land and the water, this will be fantastic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow will the algae project be -fantastic-, since an entropy analysis shows it to be a net polluter?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter to focus on easily grown wild algae and burn it directly in solid fuel power plants as carbon neutral "green coal."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThomas Sullivan
Vineyard Haven, MA
It is obvious that if you want to replace fossil energy you have to get energy from somewhere else: nuclear or the sun, in practice. The sun's energy contribution to biofuels is through photosynthesis; that is why they could save fossil energy. The question is: at what cost, compared to alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that this article reads like a sales brochure: we need details of the economic alnalysis of algae biofuels: every company hoping to get R&D grants for this sort of work claims that its technology will become cost effective sometime in the future...
The main problem is that no natural algae we know about contain more than ~10% oil, but GM algae generally have to be kept expensively sealed to avoid being invaded by natural organisms. How do they get round that?
Wendell G. Bradley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou appear to enjoy long winded displays of your own self advertised knowledge, however, you forget the fact that algae production and as a result biodiesel or any other product resulting from the algae is in fact using solar energy (photosynthesis) in the growth of the plants (algae). Therefore, the use of algae as a fuel source is in no way negative or a "net polluter" as you put it. Solar has its place, and liquid fuel production from algae has its place. Algae consumes CO2 and produces oxygen as a byproduct of its growth. algae oil is if you like 50% of the weight of the algae, and the remainder can if desired be used as fertilizer for soil in need of nutrients or as animal feed or even human food. This would technically reduce the amount of carbon entering or remaining in the atmosphere as a result of the algae life cycle provided you did not burn the entire algae plant as fuel.
No one has argued that solar is not an important part of the puzzle, however, to say that algae biodiesel is a part of the problem and to say it is not actually a "solar" product is like saying forests are a part of the pollution problem because IF the forest was to burn it would release all the carbon inside the trees. If people allow the algae to grow as a results of solar inputs rather than lights powered by coal or another fuel then they are in fact using the energy the sun shines down on us and they do transform that energy into a useful product.
Christopher Towle
christophertowle@bonsolaire.com
www.bonsolaire.com
We, representing the donor agencies for projects Biofuel (bio-diesel and bio-ethanol) in Indonesia, offered to investors to come to Indonesia and make Biofuel projects with just a 5% of capital and technology transfer program, we will finance the project with the system "JOINT VENTURE". We will finance 95% of the project.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProvit Sharring that we offer is 60% for us and 40% for project owners. The GENERAL REQUIREMENT is below :
1. Fully Liabilities Company (to include related licenses)
2. New Project or development details
3. Submit the Executive Project Summary
4. Minimal New Investment USD. 25,000,000
5. Minimal Your Own Capital 2.5% of Invest Required (Bank
Account Statement)
6. Send your Application to:
The Chairman
SJK-GHAM Holding Inc.
Jalan Merdeka 87000 L.F.O.C.
Labuan, Malaysia
Send by email to: stp_dodyudia@yahoo.com
stp_dodyudia@hotmail.com
dodyudia@gmail.com
We, representing the donor agencies for projects Biofuel (bio-diesel and bio-ethanol) in Indonesia, offered to investors to come to Indonesia and make Biofuel projects with just a 5% of capital and technology transfer program, we will finance the project with the system "JOINT VENTURE". We will finance 95% of the project.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProvit Sharring that we offer is 60% for us and 40% for project owners. The GENERAL REQUIREMENT is below :
1. Fully Liabilities Company (to include related licenses)
2. New Project or development details
3. Submit the Executive Project Summary
4. Minimal New Investment USD. 25,000,000
5. Minimal Your Own Capital 2.5% of Invest Required (Bank
Account Statement)
6. Send your Application to:
The Chairman
SJK-GHAM Holding Inc.
Jalan Merdeka 87000 L.F.O.C.
Labuan, Malaysia
Send by email to: stp_dodyudia@yahoo.com
stp_dodyudia@hotmail.com
dodyudia@gmail.com
Ont thing is for certain, we can not wait for oil to completely disappear and then react.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy guess is that well over 90% of all products we use and are dependent upon as a human species, from cell phones, tires, and the PC you are using to trucks, cars, manufacturing facilities, food producers (including food), and engines is made from or uses oil.
Oil, as we all know, is not infinit. In fact, we are at or just past "peak oil". A term used by all oil producing nations to describe the approximate consumption level of all the known and potential unknown oil reserveses in the world. "Peak" is the location on a bell curve right before the decline in availability of oil.
It is obvious that without it (oil) or it's replacement, we will certainly face the greatest catastophy the human race has experienced within the next half to full century.
At this time, algae seems to be the most convenient solution to the problem of replacing oil until we as a human race can come up with a suitable sustainable energy source replacement.
There will not be enough crops, solar energy, wind energy, coal energy, wave energy, nuculear energy in the world to replace oil energy. As we all know, it takes oil to manufacture or produce each form, from the machinery to make it, to the machinery to transport it and build it.
If we want to continue in our current existance and paradym, we need a suitable oil replacement. Algae oil seems to be the only solution until we come up with something different as it (algae oil) is virtually a direct replacement now or live as we use to in the 17th century........one or the other, with or without entropy.
Mark Reynolds
Virginia Beach, Virginia
With the cost of many leafy dark green vegetables we can eat raw going sky high shouldn't we be using algae as a food source instead of using it for fuel? Beside wouldn't and algae smoothie taste better than one made of spinach? http://healthyrecipes.wikia.com/wiki/Spinach_Smoothie_by_Pce3@ij.net
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy thoughts on the cost of producing algae as a renewable fuel source
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone seems to only discuss the price, and the energy it would take to produce fuel from algae. I may be incorrect but, for lack of a better term “they” seem to mention only one product in their discussions I.E. bio-diesel production.
I have a problem with this because there are several other very useful byproducts, I never hear mentioned in single discussions. I think these other products would offset the price of producing bio fuel. Once the oil is extracted from the algae there are still starches, which could be used to create ethanol, glycerin (a by product of the bio-diesel, called transesertification). Cellulose, and possibly methanol. As you know the ethanol could be used for the purpose of gasoline. Glycerin has about 1700 uses. Cellulose can be used to make plastics, or could be burned to create methanol (destructive distillation of cellulose), it would produce carbon dioxide to feed the algae, and the heat produced could be used to dry out the algae for it’s processing, also the ashes can be used to produce lye, use in the bio-diesel process. Not to mention the positive impact on the environment, removal of green house gasses, removal of water contamination, less land use, and being carbon dioxide neutral Excreta…
One of the websites I have read “vertigro” says they can produce 100,000 gallons of bio-diesel per archer/year using a closed loop system. This makes sense to me, because of the problems associated with open ponds, and the matter of surface area (in a pond light only travels a few inches under the surface of the water). If this is true, and that much fuel could be produced, I would think you could use some of the fuel, or some of the byproducts produced to run some form of generators to power plant operations.
In my mind, it seems this would be all self sustaining not requiring an outside power source once it got into production. With all this; I can not see why the cost would be so high to produce bio fuel from algae, I have heard prices where anywhere from $4.00 to $33.00 per gallon. In my opinion these are just excuses nothing more. I don‘t see where these prices come from, I haven‘t seen, any facts supporting these statements (no data), or anything to justify these costs. In my opinion other than making up the cost to build the facility all at once.
One of the stories from Exxon, I have read says that it costs $36,000,000.00 on average to drill an oil well, but pump costs for gasoline stay around $3.00 a gallon, I think that kind of money wouldn’t be required to build and operate a bio fuel facility, not even close.
I just can‘t get my head wrapped around it. This is an example, I have read that on average a 20kw generator at full load uses about 1.6 gallons of fuel per hour this is about 14,016 gallons of fuel per year, that is running 24 hours a day. I believe a generator of that size is more than sufficient to run a small plant.
This interests me and I have done quit a bit of research on the subject. I would like to build a bio-fuel plant myself but unfortunately I don’t have the means, mainly financially, but I would like to see this happen.
technically algae would be a solar power source. It uses the suns energy to create the lipids, starches, and cellulose, that could be converted to bio-fuels and other useful products, and benefits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a little bit of a conspiracy theory on algae as a bio-fuel. Supposing the people that are doing all this research, and reporting to the public, and government are lying and they can produce algae fuels very cheaply? I mean just for conversation sake, say $0.02 a gallon. First of all they get grants from the government to do “research“. Then when that money runs out they tell the people that it costs say $2.50, a gallon to manufacture, or some amount to make it competitive with the oil companies , I mean how hard would it be to waist energy, time and money on a project to make it look like it costs more than it really does? How would you know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason I even thought about this at all is because, the companies doing the research don’t disclose this information, they are vague on their processes, how much energy they use, and so on. One company says they can produce between 20,000-100,000 gallons of algae oil per acre per year. I mean come on, this company has been doing this research for several years and that is there closest estimate they can come up with? Anywhere between 20,000-100,000 gallons per acre per year? That would be like me selling you a car, that I have owned for a few years and saying it gets between 5 and 40 mpg not real sure which though.
It seems to me if you look at it from an economic standpoint if you could produce the higher end amount per year on one acre, you would easily flood the market... Holding back would make financial sense. This may not be true, but with the wild “costs” per gallon they are saying… it sounds fishy to me.
Yes i do think it algae will be a source for fuel in the future coz High oil prices, competing demands between foods and other biofuel sources, and the world food crisis, have ignited interest in algaculture (farming algae) for making vegetable oil, biodiesel, bioethanol, biogasoline, biomethanol, biobutanol and other biofuels, using land that is not suitable for agriculture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.biblehealth.com/addadhd/adhd-treatment.html
I have spent the past 5 years and countless thousands of hours researching alternative fuel sources. Just as a passing interest at first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you may very well know there are several issues that are adversely effecting our economy. One major problem is our dependence on foreign oil. Two global warning due to CO2 levels increasing in the atmosphere, and Three water pollution. In my research I have found that algae is a promising option because of many reasons, but there seems to be several challenges faced with this option. These are the issues I would like to address in this letter.
The problems faced with producing algae fuel.
1. It is energy intensive if you are using power from the grid.
2. Capturing enough carbon dioxide (from the atmosphere) is difficult, and energy intensive.
3. In an open environment contamination by none productive strains of algae is a problematic.
4. Feeding algae commercially manufactured fertilizer is expensive.
5. Clear tube type bio-reactors are expensive.
6. Producing fuel from algae is energy intensive.
Even with all of these challenges, through my research I have found that growing the algae isn't a problem.
What I am proposing solves all of these issues.
Number 1. producing electrical energy by burning the algae cake, or the whole algae (two systems could be use at the same time in the same location. An electrical plant, and a fuel plant)as a fuel via a steam powered electrical generation system, after harvesting, drying the algae, and extracting the oils. The algae will be dried by the waste steam heat from the generator process, this type of system would produce the electrical power needed to run the whole Bio-fuel operation.
Number 2. The carbon dioxide produced from electrical generation would be fed back to the algae along with some atmospheric carbon dioxide as well (it recycles it‘s own exhaust, and draw in some atmospheric CO2 as well). Plus the system would be powering the fuel production, sequestering the atmospheric CO2 wouldn't be a problem.
Number 3. The system would be a closed system so contamination wouldn't be an issue.
Number 4. The algae will be fed the nutrient, and mineral rich water from sewer systems , there would be no need for fertilizer, and would help cleaning the water in the process.
Number 5. The design I am suggesting isn't a tube type system, it is an internally illuminated tank system. Much less expensive design, and not dependant on sun light, and much smaller space requirements, because it would be a vertical system instead of horizontal, the same principal ideas a high rise building versus a housing project.
Number 6. Since the system produces it’s own power, so electrical energy wouldn't be an issue.
All of this technology exist now, and can be easily implemented. I believe The system would be very cost effective.
In my humble opinion, from all the research I have done. The companies, and researchers trying to produce fuel from algae have tunnel vision. They seem to want to squeeze every product they can out of the algae, and sell it , and to research and develop more efficient strains of algae, and means to produce the algae to make up for the cost of their power needs, and the price of the tube bio-reactors, which is in a way understandable. All while powering their systems from the energy grid, wherein I think the problem lies, because of their statements that producing fuel from algae is energy intensive, and the bio-reactors are expensive. I believe these are futile attempts to make the systems cost effective.
Where my approach is a relatively simple solution, to produce your own electrical power, and source of carbon dioxide from what would be the normal byproducts of the fuel process, and to make the system in the form of large tanks. I have designed a system that does just this. I believe this would make the systems self sustaining, and cost effective. If my system were implemented it would allow all the other research to continue as well, but at a much cheaper cost.
Was just introduced to this idea today!By no means an expert!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFew concerns/questions though:
What would be the consequences of one of these 'algae-oil spills?'
Pre-existing infrastructure developed for the energy sector such as the pipelines found in Western Canada often have holes in them which cause leaks in very fragile ecosystems. Algae is something that has the potential to reproduce on its own.
Is there a possibility that spill of this oil substitute could somehow result in the same sort of algae blight found in heavily algae polluted waters such as Lake Winnipeg? This is a situation where the growth of the micro-organisms is as bad enough as to potentially make the water system un-fertile and unusable, as well as plain old toxic. Just not sure as to whether a substance like this could remain in our control if allowed to traverse large patches of barely maintained and occupied land.... at least oil is made out of the 'un-living.'
....maybe I've just seen 'Jurrasic Park' too many times.
Algae can be made into a variety of biofuels, including biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen, and biogas (as well as other materials). To add to your analysis, here are some pros and cons to algae as fuel:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPROS:
Algae grows in all directions
Single celled, no superstructure required for algae (roots, trunks, leaves)
Growth: 140 days for land crops; algae is year round, mature in 1-2 days
Algae weathers extreme conditions, is resistant to drought, wind, rain
Grow 30-100 x more oil per acre than corn or soybeans
No sulfur, non toxic, biodegradable
Can mix with existing fuels in existing vehicles
Can also produce bioplastics, medicine, nutrition, feed, fertilizer, more
Can absorb CO2 and other pollutants from power and cement plants, fossil fuel refining, fermentation based industries, ethanol production, etc
CONS:
Scale - difficulty replicating lab results into larger volume of production
Growing - using open ponds are easily contaminated, PBR's (photobioreactors) can be expensive
Processing - challenges to harvesting & extracting oil
Carbon Capture - is it really feasible? Can the algae keep up with the output, and what about during the night when algae is not active? Can the waste be reliably transferred into the algae? Are the right growing conditions and enough land there to cultivate the algae? ("to fully use the emissions from a 50 MWe natural gas fired power plant land would require 2200 acres of algae.") Additional nutrients are required, such as N, P, or K, which must be added in precise amounts and typically come from chemicals like ammonia or nitrate and phosphorous. Taking into consideration all of the processing, is there a net capture of CO2? Also, capturing the emissions it is not true sequestration, as it will be burned again as fuel.
Differing results from strains, environmental conditions, growing systems
If chemicals are used to extract oil or process fuel, exhaust can be toxic
Environmental Concerns - in scaled cultivation, especially of GM (genetically modified) algae - what if it seriously disrupts the ecosystem?
To learn how to make algae biofuels, check out:
Algae to Biodiesel: http://www.organicmechanic.com/algae-to-biodiesel/
Algae to Ethanol: http://www.organicmechanic.com/algae-ethanol/
For a look at the broad range of goods possible from algae and considerations for how to scale them up into entrepreneurial pursuits, check out Algae Business:
http://www.organicmechanic.com/algae-business/
Let me know if there are any questions about algae, or equipment to cultivate and use biofuels!
Best,
OM