article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (13) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
October 31, 2006

Algae as a Biofuel

Recently a politician informed me of an energy source I was completely unaware of, algae as a biofuel. I did some more research on it and was amazed to find how much more potential algae has other than any other crop because of it's amazing growth rate and, as a result, much lower cost to produce, even with its problems. Why then is this crop getting so little attention when it alone can replace all of our imports of oil for transportation and heating...? Scott H., Pen Argyl, PA

According to American Heritage Dictionary, Alga (plural, "algae") is: "Any of various chiefly aquatic, eukaryotic, photosynthetic organisms, ranging in size from single-celled forms to the giant kelp. Algae were once considered to be plants but are now classified separately because they lack true roots, stems, leaves, and embryos. And "fungus" (plural, "fungi") is defined as: "Any of numerous eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Fungi, which lack chlorophyll and vascular tissue and range in form from a single cell to a body mass of branched filamentous hyphae that often produce specialized fruiting bodies. The kingdom includes the yeasts, molds, smuts, and mushrooms." And Scott, you are right that they hold promise for ethanol, butanol, biodiesels and synthetic oils. Several companies and many universities are deep into the drive to commercialize algae and fungi to produce renewable fuels. There is no conspiracy here; we have a steep learning curve not only to identify correct strains and make them more robust, but to ensure they can do so at a scale of production that is meaningful and economic. No easy task. In some recent articles on the company 'GreenFuel,' "Using technology licensed from a NASA project, GreenFuel builds bioreactors -- in the shape of three-meter-high glass tubes fashioned as a triangle -- to grow algae. The algae are fed with sunlight, water and carbon-carrying emissions from power plants. The algae are then harvested and turned into biodiesel fuel. GreenFuel's plan is to get the carbon dioxide needed for the process by setting up shop next to big CO2 producers like factories. This way, instead of releasing the harmful greenhouse gas into the air, it feeds the algae. In the carbon dioxide's place, oxygen is released as a byproduct of the photosynthesis. Because the factories could be in different climates, the strain of microalgae chosen, in addition to being cost-effective, must be able to thrive in many different types of conditions. Biodiesel is the most likely form the algae-produced fuel will take, but the process could also produce ethanol through a fermentation process." In another article, "Veridium Corp has announced its patent-pending technology for the conversion of exhaust carbon dioxide from the fermentation stage of ethanol production facilities back into new ethanol and biodiesel. Veridium's bioreactor uses an iron-loving blue-green algae species discovered thriving in a hot stream at Yellowstone National Park. The Viridium BioStarch Recirculation System routes exhaust carbon dioxide from the fermentation stage of the ethanol production process through the bioreactor, where it is consumed by algae that are comprised of about 94% starch and about 6% oil. Presumably, the starch byproduct can be reclaimed for ethanol fermentation and the oil for biodiesel production." See link below. (Veridium Corp is a subsidiary of GreenShift.) In a recently published "Technology Review" article (Redesigning Life to Make Ethanol, July 2006), the author highlights the "fungus" work by Iogen: "In 2004, Iogen, a Canadian biotechnology company based in Ottawa, began selling modest amounts of cellulosic ethanol, made using common wheat straw as feedstock and a tropical fungus genetically enhanced to hyperproduce its cellulose-digesting enzymes. But Iogen estimates that its first full-scale commercial plant, for which it hopes to break ground in 2007, will cost $300 million -- five times the cost of a conventional corn-fed ethanol facility of similar size." Mississippi State University has an active program researching bio-oils and biodiesels from algae, and many other universities have published papers in this field. By 2025, less than 20 years from now, we will have several forms of algae and fungi producing all kinds of biofuels in the commercial markets, and hundreds of others poised to enter the market, not only for fuels but for coproducts -- from glues and resins, building and fiber materials, and chemicals -- not far from what we now do to manufacture vaccines and drugs today. -- Scott Sklar Scott Sklar is President of The Stella Group in Washington, DC, a distributed energy marketing and policy firm. Scott, co-author of "A Consumer Guide to Solar Energy," uses solar technologies for heating and power at his home in Virginia.
For Further Information
Please Note: RenewableEnergyWorld.com does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window.
Reader Comments (13)
 
No image available
November 1, 2006
I examined the use of algae in sequestering carbon from power stations some years back. It isn't very viable. Let's track the energy source - solar. The photosynthetic conversion efficiency even of plankton is maybe 10%. The plankton use this energy to turn CO2 and water into biomass and oxygen. You get the biomass and ferment it into fuel with say 70% efficiency then burn the fuel in IC engines at 40% efficiency (If you're lucky.) Overall efficiency ~ 2.8%. You would do at least 5 times better just with silicon solar cells and electric cars, and the technology all exists today.
Comment 1 of 13
No image available
November 1, 2006
Like in some other bioenergy cases, the main gain seems to be not (openly) energetic, i.e., to have a "new" way of carbon sequestration rising algae at an industrial level. Beside this, the energy production can be an "interesting collateral result", being also cheap enaugh to invest in R&D to improve the methodology.
Comment 2 of 13
No image available
November 1, 2006
I bet that there would be a net gain CO2 wise however. Remember that it takes a tremendous amount of energy to refine oil into gasoline or diesel. I would guess that the energy balance of algae derived biodiesel is quite positive so even using Coal or NG power plant flue gas as a feed stock would result in CO2 reductions. This is also a great way to make fertilizer without additional petroleum inputs or a really simple way to sequester the carbon.
Comment 3 of 13
No image available
November 1, 2006
#2,
Yes you are correct until the plant making that CO2 starts using algae to run instead of coal. But there is a great er worry here. We either come up with a fuel that will move good and people in the next 5 years, or TSHTF and we won't have to worry about pollution anymore because after dieoff due to no food being shipped to your kitchen, there will be no plants arount making CO2. Yes we have to fix the CO2 issue, but this algae thing is not designed with that priority. It is to replace petrol.
Comment 4 of 13
No image available
November 1, 2006
has anyone noticed the problem? The CO2 from the power station is still released to the atmosphere..it just gets delayed a few weeks by being turned into fuel before being burnt. The additional energy is useful, but it's effect on global warming is surely to displace oil consumption with the far worse coal .To be truely renewable algae would have to use low intensity carbon sources ( ie the air)
Comment 5 of 13
No image available
November 1, 2006
Aloha,

In the search for algae, why not the waters around Hawaii? We have experienced a tremdous growth of alien algae that is costing tens of thousands of dollars to rid the reefs of the algae. The harvested algae is currently dried and used as fertilizer. I am not sure of the type or anything else but it may be worth looking into.
Comment 6 of 13
No image available
November 2, 2006
Tony, I agree with your technical efficiency arguement... For the purposes of economic efficiency though, the costs of setting up algae farms for energy generation are far less than that of unsubsidized solar per MJ (or kWh) of useful energy produced. Also, while the net carbon effect of algae sequestered CO2 is roughly the same as it would be if released directly from the stack, algae does provide considerable reductions in NOx emissions.

A far better idea than using coal/gas as a feedstock for algae generation would be to use biomass waste products or switchgrass through direct combustion or gassification combined cycle technologies. Biodiesel integrated with plug-in hybrids and V2G technologies would aid tremendously with America's future transportation needs.
Comment 7 of 13
No image available
November 4, 2006
In my opinion, the best raw material source for biodiesel would be algae grown on wastewater streams.
Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation of New Zealand recently announced it was the first in the world to commercially produce bio-diesel fuel from algae sourced from Marlborough sewerage ponds.
Tom Sullivan
Comment 8 of 13
November 15, 2006
(continued -- can't live in a 1000 character budget... :-)

No single alternative to fossil fuel is going to save us. It's going to take a combination of fuels that are distributed, locally appropriate, and democratically chosen and controlled, combined with increased efficiency and vastly reduced use.

I'm not willing to sit on a footstool with only one leg, so why discard the "algae" leg before it's had a chance to prove itself? Base all your hopes on solar cells (or wind, or biomass, or ocean waves, or geothermal, or, or, or...) and you end up in the same predicament we have now -- addicted to a single, easily disrupted power source.
Comment 9 of 13
November 15, 2006
Tony, the efficiency of capturing or storing sunlight is just one rather small bit of the pie. A more relevant thing to consider is embedded energy efficiency -- how much energy you have to put in for how much you get out.

Solar cells are great, don't get me wrong! But they are tremendously expensive to produce, in terms of energy. Some skeptics (I'm not one) even claim that they can take more energy to produce than they themselves produce over their design lifetime.

What biologists call "basic productivity" -- the rate at which sunlight produces biomass -- is not a particularly efficient process. But it happens almost for free, when it comes to energy invested in the infrastructure -- vegetable plants grow themselves, whereas silicon wafer plants require vast quantities of energy to build and operate!
Comment 10 of 13
No image available
November 21, 2006
cont'd from #11

Using solar unsubsidized is of course frequently one of the more expensive alternatives. This however is changing very rapidly. The ability to print circuits as "sheets" is fast approaching commercial reality. The expense of solar is dropping rapidly and will continue to speed up along the lines of Moore's Law as consumers and businesses hop on the solar wagon.

Solar has its drawbacks with our darkness, cloud cover and rainy days interfering with our ability of ground based harvesting solar power it is no wonder we companies are already working on the putting solar panels in space. A recent issue of IEEE Spectrum mentioned that the conversion of solar to microwave to usable energy is 80%. Is it any wonder there are no less than 3 companies actual working to make this happen?
Comment 11 of 13
No image available
November 21, 2006
RE: #10 "No single alternative to fossil fuel is going to save us."

One of the wonders of the current mini-energy crunch is the realization that there are alternatives to our oil hungry energy appetites. As the cost of a barrel of oil climbs, more and more ideas become feasible. Nevertheless, almost all depend on solar energy in one form or another, either now or in the past.

Years ago, Mother Earth News magazine featured "corn-burning" stoves. They compared the cost of corn to firewood and it was cheaper to burn the corn! Many of the bio-fuel schemes are like that. Materials that would probably be better utilized as food or fertilizer are being looked at as fuel.
(continue....)
Comment 12 of 13
No image available
January 24, 2007
I really enjoy reading the opinions in Comments 1 - 12, but please, please cite your scientific authority for your statements.

If any of you good folks really are interested in how algae can provide both food and fuel, you just might be interested in reading my research paper I completed in December, 2006: MONTANA SYNERGY, LLP
BUSINESS PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF
ALGAE FOR FOOD AND FUEL
USING PHOTOBIOREACTOR TECHNOLOGY

Please send me an email and ask for the above article and I will be happy to email it to you.

Jim Miller
jimmiller5417@yahoo.com
Comment 13 of 13
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Virtual Energy Forum Latin American Wind Energy Association Morningstar Corporation The Switch martinHerzfeld Solar Living Institute
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo