Hurdles
But mining algae is not a slam-dunk. For one thing, LEDs are expensive.
"Our number one cost ... is going to be the lighting system," Vidt said.
And LEDs need electricity to operate. "It takes energy to make energy," Vidt said. "But we can take electricity from anywhere -- our personal favorite is geothermal -- and turn it into algae."
To naysayers who criticize the process for burning more energy than it produces, Vidt argues that the process brings more benefit than just biodiesel.
"Our other co-products, like environmental remediation and carbon dioxide sequestration, we don't know the price of those," Vidt said.
But the idea of growing algae underground has not gotten widespread support.
Summers said the project, which formally began about three years ago, initially received some funding from U.S. EPA but is currently funded internally.
The research team is also in talks with venture capitalists and mining companies, where it has seen some interest, Summers said.
"But we haven't been hugely successful," Summers added. "The idea of putting it underground is a barrier to acceptance."
Michael Melnick, a venture capitalist with CMEA Capital in California, said his firm is not currently investing in companies that use photobioreactors because of the high capital costs and technical challenges.
"Our bottom line, from looking at the economics of photobioreactors versus open ponds, is that the capital investment is so dramatically greater for photobioreactors," Melnick said. "We have avoided photobioreactors in our algae company to focus on open ponds. We think, from a capital perspective, that's the way to go."
But the Missouri researchers are undeterred. They are scaling up operations in an artificial mine they have built in the laboratory. And if all goes well, they could be operating out of a real mine within two to three years, Vidt said.
"It's a novel process that we have, but there's nothing 'Star Trek' about it," Vidt said. "We're not waiting around for some pie-in-the-sky room temperature fusion to come about. We're trying an alternative process that takes advantage of what we already have."
Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentAnother use for abandoned mines that occurred to me is to use them as the lower reservoir for a pumped storage system working in combination with a renewable energy generation system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother use for abandoned mines that occurred to me is to use them as the lower reservoir for a pumped storage system working in combination with a renewable energy generation system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA novel idea but if you want to use the resources you already have available, wouldn't light (the sun) be the most obvious?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems the lighting is a very expensive part of this process.
The sun is free.
what an idiotic idea, use LED's that use coal produced electricity? the conversion rate from coal to electricity to algae would be about 0.33 x .0.95 x 0.2 x0.4 x 0.6 = 0.015.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif the coal is converted to high performance synthetic fuels the conversion rate would be 60 to 80%
Ripplinger is right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy initial reaction to this article was to think of perpetual motion machines. I trust that the researchers have other legitimate goals with their research, since the energy production motive is energetically preposterous.
@rickrow. I've been thinking about that for a while. We (South Africa) have one pumped water scheme, in the Drakensberg mountains, about 200km from any real industry. However, Johanesburg is the industrial capital and has the worlds deepest mines (8000m). The mines have to be continuaously pumped out, whether functional or not, due to water table pressure. The pruduct is usually toxic to some degree. The advantages, beside power storage, are 1) by filling the mine with water for half the day, the water table pressure would be equilized, reducing toxic inflow. 2) the water could be treated and "reused", instead of dumpin it into the surface water system, as is now the practice. Two comments on the article. If the algea picks up heavy metals, and they are not fully recovered when processed, will the biofuel be toxic? Secondly, I never considered the benifits for leaves of a plant, shaded by the outer leaves in full sun light, especially in wind, affording the lower leaves time to process photons. Are the lower leaves more productive?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEthanol uses far more coal to produce than the light these mines would require. They said too much light inhibits maximum oil production from the algae and surmise the led's would be more efficient. I guess tests will tell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf, however, you are deriving your LED energy source from solar arrays, then you are simply converting the solar energy into a more efficient spectrum for producing algea. There is loss in this due to the sun - to - energy conversion, but the increased production of the algae may compensate for that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe missing point is producing and/or getting electricity to these sites to power the LEDs. The "sweet spot" for algae-to-oil production sites are anywhere electricity is cheap--which usually means in hydroelectric or nuclear power regions. If those areas are also areas of high oil costs, then the spot becomes even sweeter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother question for the researchers is about how much carbon does the algae absorb and how much oxygen does it give off. in a productive mine you have lots of heavy machinery giving off CO2, Will the algae oxygenate the air and cut down on forced air circulation? If the mine is not productive, how long before the increased oxygen levels make the mine explosive?? As the article says, the main cost is in buying the LED arrays, solar cells and batteries can easily provide free power for isolated underground mines, so while you've got high setup/startup costs, you've got years of free oil production in land that would otherwise be toxic to use.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisERRATA. In my comment on 11/11/09 I said the worlds deepest mines were 8000m deep. The deepest is 3900m deep (TauTona). I was vastly WRONG!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my comment on 11/11/09 I said the worlds deepest mines were 8000m deep. The deepest is 3900m deep (TauTona). I WAS VASTLY WRONG.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this