CLEARED FOR TAKEOFF?: The U.S. Navy has ordered more than 60,000 gallons of alternative fuels derived from weeds and algae--and hopes to power planes and ships with them in the near future.
Image: Courtesy of U.S. Navy
-
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 »
Ships powered by algae and planes flying on weeds: that's part of the future the U.S. Navy hopes to bring to fruition. This week, the seagoing branch of the military purchased 40,000 gallons of jet fuel derived from camelina—a weedy relative of canola—and 20,055 gallons of algae-derived diesellike fuel for ships.
"The intent is for these fuels to be drop-in replacements," although initially they will be blended with their conventional counterparts, says Jeanne Binder, research and development program manager at the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), the U.S. Department of Defense's combat logistics support agency. "The test results will bear that out."
As the renewable fuels are delivered in increasing batches in coming months, the Navy will begin lab testing them. The Navy hopes to put the biofuels in active planes and ships in 2010 and 2011, respectively, according to Billy Ray Brown, spokesman for the U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division. "The three goals are fuel security, something that is renewable, and that we can produce and provide for ourselves to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of oil. It [also] has to be cost-effective. Then, obviously, the environmental benefits that could potentially derive from that."
The first green plane? An F/A-18 Super Hornet, or "green" Hornet, which is tentatively scheduled to take to the skies with a blend of conventional and bio-based jet fuel in tests next summer. The first biofueled ship has yet to be selected, Brown says.
As it stands, the Navy uses at least seven different types of petroleum-based fuel and burns nearly 35 million barrels per year. The challenge will be finding biofuels that can work in the many different types of aircraft, ships, engines, boilers and turbines employed by the fighting force. "We're at the very beginning. It's going to be seven, 10, 15 years" before this is in widespread use, Brown says. "We have to be very meticulous in what we're doing."
Particularly, the Navy is trying to be meticulous about the sources of its alternative fuels, mandating those that do not compete with food, like ethanol from corn does. Algae, although used in the nutraceutical industry, is not considered a food crop and camelina can be used as a rotation crop with wheat. "What we're doing is giving [the farmer] an economic alternative to having the ground sit fallow," says Scott Johnson, president and general manager of Sustainable Oils, the camelina biofuel supplier.
Sustainable Oils, which also breeds the camelina seeds it then contracts with the farmer to grow, planted about 8,000 acres this year, the bulk in Montana, which should yield roughly 400,000 gallons of the unrefined oil, Johnson says. That camelina oil was then trucked to a pilot refinery run by UOP, LLC, in Bayport, Tex., which turned it into the jet biofuel or other petroleum-based product required. The first jet biofuel will be delivered on September 15 and a UOP-sponsored assessment shows that camelina jet biofuel reduces carbon emissions by 80 percent compared with conventional kerosene.
The U.S. government will pay $2.7 million for the 40,000 gallons of jet biofuel from camelina, or $67.50 per gallon, although that price includes some research and development, DESC cautions. "The Navy is asking for quantities that are not commercial quantities," Johnson explains. "So the process involved is a batch process and some of the costs that are involved are very expensive to set up."
The company also sells the meal left over after crushing the camelina oil seeds as a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved feed for broiler chickens. "We expect to grow close to 50,000 acres in Montana next year," Johnson says, as well as add more approved uses of the leftover meal.
The algae-derived fuel for use in ships will be grown by Solazyme, a San Francisco–based start-up that grows its algae on sugar in the dark. The company leases fermenters, such as those used by the pharmaceutical industry to produce insulin, along with other existing industrial infrastructure to create batches of its product, although it declined to specify where it would produce this particular bio-oil. Nor will it reveal its refining partner.
If Solazyme succeeds, it will be the first biofuel company to actually produce algal oil from its own algae and deliver it. Sapphire Energy, a competitor, had supplied jet biofuel to the first commercial flight powered in part by the tiny aquatic plants but had purchased the bio-oil from Cyanotech Corp., which grows algae for the nutritional market.
The U.S. government will pay $8.5 million for the contracted 20,055 gallons of algal fuel from Solazyme, the bulk of which must be supplied within a year. That would be nearly $424 per gallon but "applying price per gallon to that contract would not be a very fair assessment," says DESC's Binder, because of the much greater research and development investment needed to make algae-based fuel a reality.
Ultimately, the Navy is looking for as many fuels as possible, ranging from nuclear to biofuels—even seawater, which could be transformed into jet fuel by energy-intensive chemistry. And the Navy is not alone. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has spent $35 million to sponsor research into oil from algae and the Air Force is also looking for cleaner ways to fly and fight. Additional biofuel contracts pending with DESC should be awarded by mid-September. That's for "up to 400,000 gallons of renewable jet fuel" for the Air Force, says DESC's Frank Pane, director of energy plans and programs. This "is a start of our ability to support [the U.S. military] as they look at alternative fuels or renewables for their future energy needs."
See what we're tweeting about
24 Comments
Add CommentAlgae is renewable, does not affect the food channel and consumes CO2. To learn more about the fast track commerccialization of the algae industry, you may want to check out the National Algae Association. It is the first algae trade association in the US.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlgae is renewable, does not affect the food channel and consumes CO2. To learn more about the fast-track commercialization of the algae industry, you may want to check out the National Algae Association. It is the first algae trade association in the US.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisokay... um i want to know about alternative fuels. Is this article about it somehow??? please let me know as soon as possble because im in a hurry. thanks a lot!!! (to the crater of this article)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisokay... um i want to know if this article is about alternative fuels. Please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you!!!( to the creater of this article）
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisokay... um i want to know if this article is about alternative fuels. Please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you!!!( to the creater of this article）
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisur bad
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisur bad
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is the military and ship industry putting food in their tanks. Are they not aware there is a world food shortage and people are starving to death because of it. These people need to get their heads out of their a** and think about how they are continueing to damage the environment. What is it with these thoughtless people and their desire to continue to destroy our environment and kill people?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUm...did you even read the article before you went off on your rant or is it just that you like eating algae?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the Navy is trying to be meticulous about the sources of its alternative fuels, mandating those that do not compete with food"
Camelina oil = $67.50 per gallon, Algae oil = $424 per gallon. These two quantitative phrases sum up the exact current state of the art in biofuel development, better than any biofuel BS press release ever made. At some point in time the gov. and the private biofuel developers are going to have address the biofuel problem from an economic feasibility standpoint and begin to direct their solutions from economic sensitivity and mass balance analysis stand point - rather than the BS stock promotion press releases. They are also going to have to get into their heads - the ones planted so deeply in the ground or other dark smelly places, that all biofuels will compete with food crops through their use of petrochemical fertilizers at scale. All biofuels will use petro chemical fertilizers just like other ag. crops at the scale required to produce commercial quantities of biofuels. Some minor percentages can be produced with wastes, but not anywhere the amounts biofuels required. With 95% of human food production requiring petro chemical fertilizers - there will be an impact on food and petroleum prices - until we find an equally competitive sources for energy. There will also be continuing spatial competition as well - whether biofuels are produced on land or in the water. Worse if we succeed in expanding the available energy to the human population, that population will continue to grow and demand ever greater energy consumption. Until we learn to manage global human population growth, we have no chance to address problems related to human energy demand and consumption - food production short falls, climate change, air and water pollution, the destruction of our supportive ecosystems. Our problems are equally complex and interrelated - so must be their solutions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBottom line - we have a long, a very long way to go before biofuels compete with petroleum economically - or energetically. More significantly, we don't have a technical or economic answer to address the problems of what we do to produce food or energy when petroleum runs out. The current biofuel efforts are not addressing these problems in any real or significant way - technically or economically. Basic economic sensitivity analysis and mass balance equations easily prove this statement. Instead current biofuel efforts appear to be more self-serving stock promotion efforts than any thing else. As such they waste precious time and economic resources that we could more intelligently and efficiently employ if we made more qualified and focused efforts.
ddugger, did you read the article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is an excerpt from Wikipedia: "Camelina needs little water or nitrogen to flourish, it can be grown on marginal agricultural lands and does not compete with food crops. It may be used as a rotation crop for wheat, to increase the health of the soil". Some plants actually improve the soil, and camelina is one of them.
The cost was explained, too. Things initially cost a lot until the production becomes economically feasible, but it has to start somehow. A one kilogram of aluminum one hundred years ago cost $100.00; today it costs pennies, and so did the first barrel of oil when pumped out 100 years ago with a hand crank pump in Pennsylvania.
I salute the Navy for taking a lead in the search for an alternative fuels.
Jano
but if US armed forces become foreign-oil-independent, the entire purpose for their existence (getting foreign oil, right?) ceases to exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJano - I read the article, did you understand what I wrote. Camelina has been a human oil seed crop for over 3000 years. It's not a new discovery. Don't you think if it were superior in oil production we would have been using it before now instead of soy, cottenseed, corn etc. - btw which cost $4-6/gal. Camelina will likely be a good producer of much higher value omega-3 oil (very high in omega-3), but never economically feasible as a fuel oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour aluminum example is economically inappropriate. Cost efficient aluminum production was limited by the lack of commercial electricity. Similar orders of magnitude technological cost reduction breakthroughs just aren't there in agriculture.
The Navy - isn't leading in anything alternative fuel. This was more likely a PR blitz for one of their favorite contractors. No one is debating whether veggie oil or algae oil will make good fuels. Rudolph Diesel ran his first engine on veggie oil in 1897. I have read that the Germans ran some of their jets on veggie oil in WWII. We aren't being limited by technology or technical feasibility, we are being limited by economic feasibility. That's my gripe. Much of the work currently being done in alternative fuel has no economic direction and therefore no feasibility. Again, the work that is being done is generally not being directed by economic sensitivity.
I've been a biotechnology developer and a food production scientist for more than 40 years. I have raised algae during most of that time commercially. I think I have more than casual observations and I would be the last person to criticize alternative fuel development - unless I thought the current efforts weren't actually threatening our ultimate success at gaining energy independence.
Good points, ddugger, I would also like to see how the energy in:energy out equation works for these fuels, I suspect that if the 'embodied' energy of most if not all biofuels is considered then they become a lot less useful than the publicity suggests... are there any published investigations of this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOverall I think we need to put our efforts into both reducing our energy needs - drastically - and tapping into as many different renewable sources as we can, provided we acknowledge the input:output aspect and look wider than the financial measures of efficiency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile not normally for nuke power, naval ships should be powered by Hyperion style heat sources with the heat when not being used to power the ship, make plane fuels with nuke, water and garbage/sewage onboard. Ships without planes can make the fuel for those who do. In port it can be used to power the port/base with it's excess power.
Not only will this save money on fuels but also you wouldn't need refueling tankers, cutting ship, crew costs 5-10%.
There have been several interesting comments and a few good points. I would just like to add the earlier in the test were ran with DC-8's using Bio-Fuels and the test results were positive... better air mileage due to the lighter physical weight of the Bio-Fuel and less harmful particle emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee information: http://www.advancednrgsolutions.com/References.html... look under Bio-Diesel References (Algae Bio-Fuel).
Also read the report on Algae Bio-Fuels Economic Viability at http://www.advancednrgsolutions.com/Companies.html scroll down to Gasification, Bio-Fuels and Algae Production Systems.
We are a society addicted to petroleum and we must be weened off and these solutions are in the right step.
I am currently working with companies like Diversified Energy and Olympia Green Fuels which are implementing technologies to reduce our petroleum usage.
On the first link provided there is reference material related to Bio-Diesel (including terrestrial crop yields) and other Alternative Energy News.
Our issue is we live in a Capitalistic, supposed Free Market and because of that... many solutions that are better for our society are not implemented because certain groups cannot profit from it!
As we switch to more alternative energy solutions there will be a new group of wealthy created... let's hope they make better decisions than the existing.
Although he was weird to me... Michael Jackson... one song comes to mind... it starts with the Man (or Woman) in the Mirror!
One more thing... on the above site referenced... go through the entire site thoroughly... very informative.
There have been several interesting comments and a few good points. I would just like to add earlier this year test were ran with DC-8's using Bio-Fuels and the test results were positive... better air mileage due to the lighter physical weight of the Bio-Fuel and less harmful particle emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee information: http://www.advancednrgsolutions.com/References.html... look under Bio-Diesel References (Algae Bio-Fuel).
Also read the report on Algae Bio-Fuels Economic Viability at http://www.advancednrgsolutions.com/Companies.html scroll down to Gasification, Bio-Fuels and Algae Production Systems.
We are a society addicted to petroleum it is used in fertilizers, plastics and all types of processes and we must be weened off it and these Bio-Fuel solutions are in the right step.
I am currently working with companies like Diversified Energy and Olympia Green Fuels which are implementing technologies to reduce our petroleum usage and carbon footprint.
On the first link provided there is reference material related to Bio-Diesel (including terrestrial crop yields) and other Alternative Energy News.
Our issue is... we live in a Capitalistic, supposed Free Market and because of that... many solutions that are better for our society are not implemented because certain groups cannot profit from it!
As we switch to more alternative energy solutions there will be a new group of wealthy created... let's hope they make better decisions than the existing.
Although he was weird to me... Michael Jackson... one song comes to mind... it starts with the Man (or Woman) in the Mirror! As a society we must be held accountable and stop being Sheepeople... recycle more... make a stand, let companies know if you use harmful processes in your products or the products themselves have harmful side effects... WE WON'T PURCHASE OR USE THEM!
Be more active and less re-active.
One more thing... on the above site referenced... go through the entire site thoroughly... very informative.
Entropy analysis shows that only relatively direct solar energy is ultimately sustainable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccordingly, one would expect energy funding that focuses on direct solar. This is not the case.
An alliance of Battelle and Midwest Research (whose main interests are clean coal and bio-oil) manage our nations renewable energy lab (NERL). They received five-year contracts from Bush in 08. Sadly, their favorite projects can be summarily culled out via entropy analysis (which their engineering education apparently did not provide).
NRELs Research Director is Robert T. McGrath; PhD, Nuclear Engineering. He has been associated with Battelle since 1977. Among Battelles interests are: Carbon Management (CO2 dumping and hydrocarbon conversion), Zero Emission Fossil Fuel (an impossibility), and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (now defunct).
Among Midwests interests are: National Defense, Energy Engineering, and Algae (as a bio-fuel and carbon capture source). Their senior scientist is Charles Maris; PhD in Microbiology-Immunology.
The alliance is apparently into bio-fuels since they would involve some familiar industry processes and extend the economic controls currently enjoyed by big oil and coal. Algae farming requires dedicated land and water. Getting to its end product (a crude-like oil) involves large fossil fuel inputs per gathering, baling, shipping, chemical breakdown, and heating. Usable fuel from algae additionally requires refining and distribution. This makes bio-fuel highly greenhouse-gas positive and otherwise polluting (i.e. high entropy).
Algaes bragged-up solar complement is likely washed out during algae-oils production and processing logistics. In producing algae-oil, ammonia is used. It is obtained from the hydrocarbon cracking of fossil fuels. The heating involved in algae breakdown also comes from fossil fuels. These costly, complicated processes may, by themselves, make algae-oil a net energy loser. Indeed, in fabricating the ammonia required, there is an intermediate step that results in hydrogen (the ideal fuel). We dont get the hydrogen fuel, however. It is all used up during an intermediate step of producing algae-oil. And, this algae-oil has yet to be refined into usable fuels (all of which remain inferior to hydrogen). Bio-crudes refining bottle-neck would allow the pricing manipulations that big oil currently enjoys. Net energy and entropy calculations seem to be missing from big energys engineering interests since its focus has always been on the tech sweet'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompetent energy policy discussions begin with entropy. Without a relative entropy analysis, no credible basis exists for an economic analysis of energy alternatives (say, relative pricing). Those who can’t do entropy have no business offering energy expertise. Entropy analysis shows that only relatively direct solar energy is ultimately sustainable.
Accordingly, one would expect energy funding that focuses on direct solar. This is not the case. An alliance of Battelle and Midwest Research (whose main interests are so-called clean coal and bio-oil) manage our nation’s renewable energy lab (NERL). They received five-year contracts from Bush in 2008. Sadly, their favorite projects are summarily culled out via entropy analysis (which their engineering education apparently did not provide).
NREL’s Research Director is Robert T. McGrath; PhD, Nuclear Engineering. He has been associated with Battelle since 1977. Among Battelle’s interests are Carbon Management (CO2 dumping and hydrocarbon conversion), Zero Emission Fossil Fuel (an impossibility), and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (now defunct).
Among Midwest’s interests are National Defense, Energy Engineering, and Algae (as a bio-fuel and carbon capture source). Their senior scientist is Charles Maris; PhD in Microbiology-Immunology.
The alliance is apparently into bio-fuels since they would involve some familiar industry processes and extend the economic controls currently enjoyed by big oil and coal. Algae farming requires dedicated land and water. Getting to its end product (a crude-like oil) involves large fossil fuel inputs per gathering, baling, shipping, chemical breakdown, and heating. Usable fuel from algae additionally requires refining and distribution. This makes bio-fuel highly greenhouse-gas positive and otherwise polluting (i.e. high entropy).
Algae’s bragged-up solar complement is likely washed out during algae-oil’s production and processing logistics. In producing algae-oil, ammonia is used. It is obtained from the hydrocarbon cracking of fossil fuels. The heating involved in algae breakdown also comes from fossil fuels. These costly, complicated processes may, by themselves, make algae-oil a net energy loser. Indeed, in fabricating the ammonia required, there is an intermediate step that results in hydrogen (the ideal fuel). We don’t get the hydrogen fuel, however. It is all used up during an intermediate step of producing algae-oil. And, this algae-oil has yet to be refined into usable fuels (all of which remain inferior to hydrogen). Bio-crude’s refining bottle-neck would allow the pricing manipulations that big oil currently enjoys. Net energy and entropy calculations seem to be missing from big energy’s engineering interests (and Sci Am’s Biello) since its focus is always on the technically sweet and sensational, apparently because that is what sells.
The managing alliance of Battelle and Midwest puts ten of its own executives on the NREL board. The other five are ostensibly independent academics. This is our government’s approach to renewable energy.
Consider instead the alternative of relatively direct solar. It is already distributed, free, and low entropy (for example, carbon negative). We should be investigating how relatively direct solar energy could provide ecological replacement of fossil fuels. For example, hydrogen fuel might be produced via a local (perhaps backyard) photosynthesis-driven generator. Hydrogen’s direct burning (even its deployment for fuel cell electricity) is not very polluting. Its waste product is pure water (which could be part of getting more hydrogen fuel).
Hydrogen handles about the same as natural gas. Storage may be more difficult (perhaps within the interstices of a solid). The point is, photosynthetic hydrogen, not bio-oil involves the style of research that will yield nonpolluting, renewable, natural fuel
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompetent energy policy discussions begin with entropy. Without a relative entropy analysis, no credible basis exists for an economic analysis of energy alternatives (say, relative pricing). Those who can’t do entropy have no business offering energy expertise. Entropy analysis shows that only relatively direct solar energy is ultimately sustainable.
Accordingly, one would expect energy funding that focuses on direct solar. This is not the case. An alliance of Battelle and Midwest Research (whose main interests are so-called clean coal and bio-oil) manage our nation’s renewable energy lab (NERL). They received five-year contracts from Bush in 2008. Sadly, their favorite projects are summarily culled out via entropy analysis (which their engineering education apparently did not provide).
NREL’s Research Director is Robert T. McGrath; PhD, Nuclear Engineering. He has been associated with Battelle since 1977. Among Battelle’s interests are Carbon Management (CO2 dumping and hydrocarbon conversion), Zero Emission Fossil Fuel (an impossibility), and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (now defunct).
Among Midwest’s interests are National Defense, Energy Engineering, and Algae (as a bio-fuel and carbon capture source). Their senior scientist is Charles Maris; PhD in Microbiology-Immunology.
The alliance is apparently into bio-fuels since they would involve some familiar industry processes and extend the economic controls currently enjoyed by big oil and coal. Algae farming requires dedicated land and water. Getting to its end product (a crude-like oil) involves large fossil fuel inputs per gathering, baling, shipping, chemical breakdown, and heating. Usable fuel from algae additionally requires refining and distribution. This makes bio-fuel highly greenhouse-gas positive and otherwise polluting (i.e. high entropy).
Algae’s bragged-up solar complement is likely washed out during algae-oil’s production and processing logistics. In producing algae-oil, ammonia is used. It is obtained from the hydrocarbon cracking of fossil fuels. The heating involved in algae breakdown also comes from fossil fuels. These costly, complicated processes may, by themselves, make algae-oil a net energy loser. Indeed, in fabricating the ammonia required, there is an intermediate step that results in hydrogen (the ideal fuel). We don’t get the hydrogen fuel, however. It is all used up during an intermediate step of producing algae-oil. And, this algae-oil has yet to be refined into usable fuels (all of which remain inferior to hydrogen). Bio-crude’s refining bottle-neck would allow the pricing manipulations that big oil currently enjoys. Net energy and entropy calculations seem to be missing from big energy’s engineering interests (and Sci Am’s Biello) since its focus is always on the technically sweet and sensational, apparently because that is what sells.
The managing alliance of Battelle and Midwest puts ten of its own executives on the NREL board. The other five are ostensibly independent academics. This is our government’s approach to renewable energy.
Consider instead the alternative of relatively direct solar. It is already distributed, free, and low entropy (for example, carbon negative). We should be investigating how relatively direct solar energy could provide ecological replacement of fossil fuels. For example, hydrogen fuel might be produced via a local (perhaps backyard) photosynthesis-driven generator. Hydrogen’s direct burning (even its deployment for fuel cell electricity) is not very polluting. Its waste product is pure water (which could be part of getting more hydrogen fuel).
Hydrogen handles about the same as natural gas. Storage may be more difficult (perhaps within the interstices of a solid). The point is, photosynthetic hydrogen, not bio-oil involves the style of research that will yield nonpolluting, renewable, natural fuel
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompetent energy policy discussions begin with entropy. Without a relative entropy analysis, no credible basis exists for an economic analysis of energy alternatives (say, relative pricing). Those who can’t do entropy have no business offering energy expertise. Entropy analysis shows that only relatively direct solar energy is ultimately sustainable.
Accordingly, one would expect energy funding that focuses on direct solar. This is not the case. An alliance of Battelle and Midwest Research (whose main interests are so-called clean coal and bio-oil) manage our nation’s renewable energy lab (NERL). They received five-year contracts from Bush in 2008. Sadly, their favorite projects are summarily culled out via entropy analysis (which their engineering education apparently did not provide).
NREL’s Research Director is Robert T. McGrath; PhD, Nuclear Engineering. He has been associated with Battelle since 1977. Among Battelle’s interests are Carbon Management (CO2 dumping and hydrocarbon conversion), Zero Emission Fossil Fuel (an impossibility), and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (now defunct).
Among Midwest’s interests are National Defense, Energy Engineering, and Algae (as a bio-fuel and carbon capture source). Their senior scientist is Charles Maris; PhD in Microbiology-Immunology.
The alliance is apparently into bio-fuels since they would involve some familiar industry processes and extend the economic controls currently enjoyed by big oil and coal. Algae farming requires dedicated land and water. Getting to its end product (a crude-like oil) involves large fossil fuel inputs per gathering, baling, shipping, chemical breakdown, and heating. Usable fuel from algae additionally requires refining and distribution. This makes bio-fuel highly greenhouse-gas positive and otherwise polluting (i.e. high entropy).
Algae’s bragged-up solar complement is likely washed out during algae-oil’s production and processing logistics. In producing algae-oil, ammonia is used. It is obtained from the hydrocarbon cracking of fossil fuels. The heating involved in algae breakdown also comes from fossil fuels. These costly, complicated processes may, by themselves, make algae-oil a net energy loser. Indeed, in fabricating the ammonia required, there is an intermediate step that results in hydrogen (the ideal fuel). We don’t get the hydrogen fuel, however. It is all used up during an intermediate step of producing algae-oil. And, this algae-oil has yet to be refined into usable fuels (all of which remain inferior to hydrogen). Bio-crude’s refining bottle-neck would allow the pricing manipulations that big oil currently enjoys. Net energy and entropy calculations seem to be missing from big energy’s engineering interests (and Sci Am’s Biello) since its focus is always on the technically sweet and sensational, apparently because that is what sells.
The managing alliance of Battelle and Midwest puts ten of its own executives on the NREL board. The other five are ostensibly independent academics. This is our government’s approach to renewable energy.
Consider instead the alternative of relatively direct solar. It is already distributed, free, and low entropy (for example, carbon negative). We should be investigating how relatively direct solar energy could provide ecological replacement of fossil fuels. For example, hydrogen fuel might be produced via a local (perhaps backyard) photosynthesis-driven generator. Hydrogen’s direct burning (even its deployment for fuel cell electricity) is not very polluting. Its waste product is pure water (which could be part of getting more hydrogen fuel).
Hydrogen handles about the same as natural gas. Storage may be more difficult (perhaps within the interstices of a solid). The point is, photosynthetic hydrogen, not bio-oil involves the style of research that will yield nonpolluting, renewable, natural fuel
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompetent energy policy discussions begin with entropy. Without a relative entropy analysis, no credible basis exists for an economic analysis of energy alternatives (say, relative pricing). Those who cant do entropy have no business offering energy expertise. Entropy analysis shows that only relatively direct solar energy is ultimately sustainable.
Accordingly, one would expect energy funding that focuses on direct solar. This is not the case. An alliance of Battelle and Midwest Research (whose main interests are so-called clean coal and bio-oil) manage our nations renewable energy lab (NERL). They received five-year contracts from Bush in 2008. Sadly, their favorite projects are summarily culled out via entropy analysis (which their engineering education apparently did not provide).
NRELs Research Director is Robert T. McGrath; PhD, Nuclear Engineering. He has been associated with Battelle since 1977. Among Battelles interests are Carbon Management (CO2 dumping and hydrocarbon conversion), Zero Emission Fossil Fuel (an impossibility), and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (now defunct).
Among Midwests interests are National Defense, Energy Engineering, and Algae (as a bio-fuel and carbon capture source). Their senior scientist is Charles Maris; PhD in Microbiology-Immunology.
The alliance is apparently into bio-fuels since they would involve some familiar industry processes and extend the economic controls currently enjoyed by big oil and coal. Algae farming requires dedicated land and water. Getting to its end product (a crude-like oil) involves large fossil fuel inputs per gathering, baling, shipping, chemical breakdown, and heating. Usable fuel from algae additionally requires refining and distribution. This makes bio-fuel highly greenhouse-gas positive and otherwise polluting (i.e. high entropy).
Algaes bragged-up solar complement is likely washed out during algae-oils production and processing logistics. In producing algae-oil, ammonia is used. It is obtained from the hydrocarbon cracking of fossil fuels. The heating involved in algae breakdown also comes from fossil fuels. These costly, complicated processes may, by themselves, make algae-oil a net energy loser. Indeed, in fabricating the ammonia required, there is an intermediate step that results in hydrogen (the ideal fuel). We dont get the hydrogen fuel, however. It is all used up during an intermediate step of producing algae-oil. And, this algae-oil has yet to be refined into usable fuels (all of which remain inferior to hydrogen). Bio-crudes refining bottle-neck would allow the pricing manipulations that big oil currently enjoys. Net energy and entropy calculations seem to be missing from big energys engineering interests (and Sci Ams Biello) since its focus is always on the technically sweet and sensational, apparently because that is what sells.
The managing alliance of Battelle and Midwest puts ten of its own executives on the NREL board. The other five are ostensibly independent academics. This is our governments approach to renewable energy.
Consider instead the alternative of relatively direct solar. It is already distributed, free, and low entropy (for example, carbon negative). We should be investigating how relatively direct solar energy could provide ecological replacement of fossil fuels. For example, hydrogen fuel might be produced via a local (perhaps backyard) photosynthesis-driven generator. Hydrogens direct burning (even its deployment for fuel cell electricity) is not very polluting. Its waste product is pure water (which could be part of getting more hydrogen fuel).
Hydrogen handles about the same as natural gas. Storage may be more difficult (perhaps within the interstices of a solid). The point is, photosynthetic hydrogen, not bio-oil involves the style of research that will yield nonpolluting, renewable, natural fuel
ddugger, your claims at being experienced in this field are not verifiable. Therefore, I must rely solely on your arguments to show you are wrong. First of all, the figures given for a per-gallon cost were explained with a caveat that the prices reflected startup and research costs. Greater, commodity amounts of fuel would cost significantly less. This is a concept which is thoroughly understood in economics, even that introductory course in economics at junior high school level would have made this clear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly, the competition with food products is not so high as to make a great conversion to biofuels make millions starve. As has been pointed out, the most promising crops grow on marginal land, with minimal fertiliser input at establishment stages and none thereafter. I speak specifically of Miscanthus x Giganteus. Algae crops can be grown in a variety of environments, depending on species, even the Atacama desert if the bioreactors are of an appropriate design.
But even if biofuel crops did compete with food crops for agricultural resources, this wouldn't be such a problem. Much of the world's agricultural resources of land, labor, water, and nutrients are mismanaged and wasted. Probably the worst waste of food is on livestock. If the basic costs of grain and corn more expensive, beef would be prohibitively expensive and less would be consumed. This would improve the health of many of us. There are many other cases of agricultural waste, but I do not need to recount them all here.
In spite of my disagreement with your assessment of biofuels, I do agree with you that human population has limits, and that countries around the world must take this into account. Europe and Japan have curtailed their population growth significantly, perhaps even too much for their survival as cultures, and China's one-child policy, while draconian, has had some positive effects. The residents of Canada and the United States having European heritage and cultural background have also curtailed their population growth. Yet other cultures and peoples reproduce at alarming rates. But what method is to be used to convince or to force those cultures who reproduce irresponsibly? The implications are frightening.
Just use hemp oil, grows fast, can also make paper, fabric, Plastic thats 100% recyclable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this