Nominate Your Favorite Renewable Energy Project for The 2009 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards
click here for more information
Close
 
Photo Credit: Pat Corkery
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 (21) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) 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
June 17, 2008

The Algae Attraction

by Ken Silverstein, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Insider

Some recent breakthroughs in technologies to achieve carbon-neutral coal plants now exist while others are years away. One such concept is to use waste carbon emissions from power plants to grow algae, which is subsequently converted to energy and because those releases would be re-cycled, carbon dioxide emissions would be cut in half.

"Sapphire Energy was founded on the belief that the only way to cure our dependence on foreign oil and end our flirtation with ethanol and biodiesel is through radical new thinking and a commitment to new technologies."

-- Jason Pyle, chief executive, Sapphire Energy

Views range from enthusiastic to reserved. It's a sensible alternative but one that will not end the debate over which fuel sources will best meet the global community's future energy needs. In fact, if the theory can be scaled up and used at power plants, the subsequent reduced emissions might even encourage the use of coal.

Consider NRG Energy, which is field testing the technology at one of its coal-fired plants in Louisiana: It is using naturally-occurring algae to capture and reduce flue gas carbon dioxide emissions. The energy-rich algae are harvested daily and can be converted into a broad range of bio-fuels or high-value animal feed supplements.

Power generators can choose to dry and store the carbon-rich algae biomass for use as renewable fuel for the power plant or change it into valuable transportation fuels such as biodiesel or ethanol. Industry experts say that the rule of thumb is that it takes two million tons of algae to be able to capture one million tons of carbon dioxide. The process requires no re-engineering of the power plant, the utility says.

"Coal is — and will remain — the premier domestic fuel source for power generation purposes in the United States for the foreseeable future," says David Crane, NRG's chief executive. "This means it is incumbent on us not only to build new coal plants using technology which limits or eliminates greenhouse gas emissions but also to find the best way to retrofit the country's existing fleet of coal plants for post-combustion carbon capture." The company is continuing to monitor the algae carbon-capture technology.

Roughly a third of all carbon dioxide releases come from power generation. Coal is the biggest culprit with natural gas-fired power a distant second.

While using carbon dioxide to cultivate algae is not new, taking it from power plants and turning it biodiesel and ethanol is ground-breaking. It was first done by Arizona Public Service and GreenFuel Technologies in 2006, marking the first time ever that algae grown on-site by direct connection to a commercial power plant had been successfully converted to transportation-grade bio-fuels.

Now that the initial tests have shown promise, the next step is to prove it can all be done on a commercial scale and that it is financially viable. Moving to a coal plant is the next progression in the evolution of this technology — something in which government researchers are assisting. Interestingly, participants acknowledge that conversion strategies have been more successful than carbon-trapping ones. "With the help of forward thinking and environmentally responsible companies, we can use algae to recycle power plant carbon dioxide emissions safely and economically into a continuous supply of clean, renewable fuels," says GreenFuel CEO Cary Bullock.

Taking Bets

Meanwhile, a San Diego-based company called Sapphire Energy says that it too can take the carbon dioxide that is released from power plants and transform it into algae. That, in turn, can then be converted into a greener form of gasoline and diesel. The end result — high-value hydrocarbons chemically identical to those in gasoline — will be entirely compatible with the current energy infrastructure from cars to refineries and pipelines.

Everything from the byproducts released at the refineries to those shed from tailpipes will be cleaner, it says. The company adds that it will soon establish a pilot project, all with an eye on making it commercially feasible within five years.

In the end, Sapphire says that development of the fuel source will be cost competitive with other unconventional fuels such as those that produced from Canadian tar sands. Those energy forms, incidentally, have not bypassed the scrutiny of environmentalists, who acknowledge the potential but who fear that that the total production cycle is ecologically harmful.

"Sapphire Energy was founded on the belief that the only way to cure our dependence on foreign oil and end our flirtation with ethanol and biodiesel is through radical new thinking and a commitment to new technologies," says chief executive Jason Pyle.

Algae, which is homegrown that can be created anywhere sunlight exists, has the potential to ingratiate itself into the energy mix. The ultimate fuel form could either be used in conjunction with fossil fuels or possibly to displace them.

That's vital, considering that coal provides more than half of the fuel needed to make electricity in this country. Meanwhile, the United States keeps importing ever-increasing amounts of foreign oil. Last year, the number totaled $200 billion. The increased demand is the major reason behind record-high prices at the pump.

"It's hard not to get excited about algae's potential," says Paul Dickerson, chief operating officer of the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. "Its basic requirements are few: carbon dioxide, sun and water. Algae can flourish in non-arable land or in dirty water, and when it does flourish, its potential oil yield per acre is unmatched by any other terrestrial feedstock."

The verdict is still out. It's not just a question of whether algae-based fuel can work on a large scale but also whether the production cycle turns out to be environmentally benign. Imbedded within the discussion, however, is an inspiring message: Researchers are convinced that the idea works, leading some risk takers to make substantial bets.

Ken Silverstein is an award-winning journalist who is the editor-in-chief of Energy Central's publication, EnergyBiz Insider. With a background in economics and public policy, he has spent several years writing about the issues that touch the energy and financial sectors, and his work has been published in more than 100 periodicals.

Republished with permission from CyberTech, Inc. EnergyBiz Insider is published three days a week by Energy Central. For more information about Energy Central, or to subscribe to EnergyBiz Insider, other e-newsletters and EnergyBiz magazine, please go to http://www.energycentral.com/.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (21)
 
No image available
June 17, 2008
I have been following this technology for a while. The mass-balance to convert CO2 to biofuels using algae, sunlight and water is still of concern - in particular, will this technology require a massive amount of water to work? Water is fast becoming a scarce commodity in the world, especially in countries like China where coal is abundant. Will the mass commercialisation of such technology further constrain global water resources?

Does anyone have any idea how much water is needed to remove 1 tonne of CO2 or produce 1 tonne of biofuel?
Comment 1 of 21
No image available
June 17, 2008
If we are burning the coal anyways which the world will for the next decades, then this technology would give us 2 shots at using the same piece of carbon. first as electricity then as fuel for vehicles. Not a bad idea if it works.
Comment 2 of 21
No image available
June 17, 2008
Brian has got it right. This is not sequestration. It's essentially a shell game on behalf of the coal industry.
Comment 3 of 21
No image available
June 17, 2008
Hello guys,

I happen to believe that most of this topic and alot similar to it are a big hooha and do not seriously amount to much. I have to say though that I am a man of science, and that to me means an obligation to admit what you do not know, and keep yourself open to be surprised by people cleverer than you are, so you are welcome to surprise me.

I am, however, all out for solar energy. As it is the only form of energy -to the best of my knowledge- that has the potential to mostly replace fossil fuel/energy at least in the area of electricity generation in the foreseeable future. I am ofcourse talking about CSP here.

I wanted to start a discussion on the pages of this website about a few ideas that i have, with similarly minded people to see how feasible my ideas are, and wether people would be interested in trying to make something happen out of them.

The major thrust of my idea is that any real shift in US -and subsequently the world's- energy policy can only be brought about by popular action. That is because it is ultimately the people -me and you- who pay for energy in all its forms -at the pump, in the house,etc- and we are the first to be affected by the change in the price of this energy. And as you probably can tell, the vast majority of us are quite pissed off, at the moment.

This is at a time when the energy companies are having a great day. Now I am certainly not against energy companies per se. I just think that if we show them that the current situation is not sustainable for either of us, and that if they invest -really invest- in proven alternative sources of energy then they will be liked alot more, then things might change.

This will obviously mean that their short and medium term profits will go down, but they will be able to generate much more profit in the longer term, and gain the trust of the people. In addition they might -just might- end up saving humanity, and the planet. So, let me know what u guys think.

Bye.
Comment 4 of 21
No image available
June 17, 2008
We had 600 years of coal left in the 1970's. We now have ~250 years left. Why? You halve the available supply by growing at 7% per year for 10 years. If we keep expanding our coal production those numbers will continue to fall at an increasing rate.
Comment 5 of 21
No image available
June 17, 2008
Ofc we all understand that this is not sequesteration right? This is only a 2-fer on the coal carbon. When the bio-crude gets released, so does all that million year old carbon. Sure its 1 less dinodiesel gallon but its still not carbon neutral.

The only way its carbon neutral is if they would burn the algae in their boilers, only to have the algae uptake that very same carbon. And we all know that the economics of that wont happen anytime soon.

By the way... ever notice there is never any talk on actual yields? No one ever mentions EROI(e) of algal systems. Backpressure loss to the stack, pumps, gages, water purification, filters, collection, pressing, cleaning... nope, never a talk of real yields. Just some crazy tree hugging pipedream of soylent green meets exxon sorts of hype.
Comment 6 of 21
No image available
June 17, 2008
I don't know what awards 'ol Ken has won but this piece won't garner another one. I don't know what the point of the article is. It starts off making a case for the continued use of coal but then doesn't seem to go anywhere.

All the more humorous when, starting with coal, he is concerned about algae "...whether the production cycle turns out to be environmentally benign.". Compared to coal????

The only two companies he mentions are completely different in algae oil production. Green Fuel's concept sounded great years ago when it was introduced by the 'perfesser but it doesn't seem to have caught on. I suspect they have half of a good idea. Harvesting the algae and getting the oil, economically, seems to be the greatest hurdle. The new corporate management is having a stab at it. Sapphire's claim to fame is the molecular structure of the product - 'chemically equivalent'. No reports on the process used, one suspects GM algae in closed systems and that means high costs.

Solazyme, reportedly, uses an anaerobic system. I am led to believe they feed the *very special* algae sugar - in the dark. They do seem to have a killer end result however so maybe they can bring something to market - economically.

No mention of PetroSun. They appear to have taken the brute force approach. We don't need no stinking 'designer' algae. They use open air ponds and local brackish/salt water. This approach makes the permitting process easier since there are no modified organisms and the 'waste' water is cleaner than when it came in. They seem to have solved the oil collection problem as well. They are buying into a refinery in Alabama as well as selling their 'biocrude' to others.

So, is "The verdict is still out." true? It appears not. The timeframe for algal oil production seems closer that most pundits realize. There are at least 15 companies in various stages of testing/production. The ONLY one pushing the smokestack CO2 connection is Green Fuel.
Comment 7 of 21
No image available
June 17, 2008
to an Author above,

No offense. We don't have 600 years of coal either; that's a falacy created by special interest groups (coal companies). We have between 150-250 years. How many men and women will die mining coal and staying poor doing all the work. The CEO's make too much money doing nothing on our tax dollars. Look at their' necks and faces; they can't eat fast enough, and can barely get out from underneath their' luncheon tables. We should have them make a donation to Ed McMahon so they can all live together in Ed's little 50,000 square foot home in California. Ahhh, poor Ed. Hey Ed, do you even own a Premiere Bath Tub?

Using coal is effectively "staying at war" inside our own country. People don't deserve to be working at such jobs just to survive. Such jobs,...represents WAR for the poor individuals who work in them.

Sustainables are our only alternative; we have the brains/brawn power, and the technologies now. We simply need mandates from our elected officials.

Obama will produce if he is President for many reasons; he's a first time minority male, he's a pundant of clean sustainables, people demand change, and sustainables are hitting momentum now.

If McCain wins, he's getting old,..he doesn't want to fight the people. At his age, getting kick backs from the special interest groups is trivial. His wife may need to worry about the continued costs of facial laser surgery though. How old is she?

All the Best,...
Comment 8 of 21
No image available
June 17, 2008
.The "second to last statement, begs to be restated",.."The verdict is still out. It's not just a question of whether algae-based fuel can work on a large scale but also whether the production cycle turns out to be environmentally benign."

Is this benign? Only biologists and microbiologists have enough understanding to bring the answers, and only after larger scale observational studies have been conducted. It sounds good,...doesn't it!

Well, time for testing.

Facts remain,...we have only 150 years of coal, whether this technology works or not. If it works, we keep building our Green sustainables and let the Chinese import our coal and algae technologies; while we become totally sustainable within 50 years. At that point, we're then helping other nations with sustainables; and humanity moves onto other concerns for the first time since the discovery of fossil fuels.

After all, do we want to keep talking and dealing with this issue for a millenium, or for a century. It's getting quite "boring" indeed. Lets just get on with the PhotoCapture technologies already. It's our destiny, not to worry about what is clearly evident and available. Even with todays pitiful 5-10% efficiencies; we can be sustainable forever now with prompt resolutions and reform.

We need "Feed-Back" laws to make investing in sustainables an investment, not a "backbreaker". Paying $35,000 for a 2.5kW system is not gonna happen for the regular guy/gal with 2.5 kids; that's after incentives!

The President and politicians who bring this new legislation to fruition will help change this country over night. Ok,...50 years. That is over night!

I know,...I sound like Al Gore,...but he gets it! I don't care about his motivations, he gets it. He would be a good candidate for VicePresident under Obama. How much would he bring to the table for Obama!!

How much egomaniacal posturing would Hillary have to "act out" were she to be the VP? Not good.

All the Best,....
Comment 9 of 21
No image available
June 17, 2008
This sounds great. The US has a 600 year supply of coal, so our energy shortage could be solved without people worrying about carbon and oil.
Comment 10 of 21
No image available
June 18, 2008
Anybody who really wants to know the truth about this look up the 20 year study conducted by our very own government, it was called the "Aquatic Species Program" and addressed all the issues discussed here.

Personally I think using any fossil fuel in the first place is completely absurd when we have so many other options available to us; but since I am not in a position of power to change the status quo I will advocate for any way that we can get more energy out of the outdated technologies still in use.
Comment 11 of 21
No image available
June 18, 2008
Nobody has mentioned one of the great values of algae. After you have squeezed the oil out you have a lot of mass left. And if you pick the right algae, like Chlorella Vulgaris, what's left is food - for animals or humans. This technololgy could be applied wherever carbon dioxide is generated - even by breweries, ethanol plants, etc. Our local brewery puts out over 8000 tons of carbon dioxide every year. That could equate to about 500,000 gallons of biodiesel and several hundred thousand pounds of edible mass.
Comment 12 of 21
No image available
June 18, 2008
I agree with the people who argue that this is not a long term solution (even halving the emissions from coal is not that great). I also agree that coal is going to be around for a while, so it makes sense to find ways to reduce the damage it does. Whether this is the best way to go about this remains to be seen. However, rather than trying to prescribe fixes, we should be pushing for government to put a price on carbon (via a carbon tax and / or caps), then let the market decide which technologies to implement.

The problem at present is that in the absence of such a price, the market behaves as though pollution creates no (or, at least, minimal) costs. That is known in economic terms as a "market failure" caused by a real cost that is not taken into consideration by the market. Fix the failure and the market can fix the problem.

In political terms, this is far more easily said than done, but the simple truth is that any other policy is still going to cost a lot, but is doomed to fail and may even be worse for people and the environment than doing nothing. Simplistic corn ethanol and biodiesel mandates are object lessons on why we should steer politicians away from trying to pick winners (and / or dressing up potically motivated farm subsidies as environmental policies) and toward pricing carbon and letting the market do the picking. The former is costing billions, driving up food prices and doing almost nothing to reduce carbon emissions. The latter is accellerating rain forest destruction and it will take several decades or more for the GHGs released thereby to be balanced by reductions in fuel emmisions (if breakeven ever happens). If politicians had put the emphasis on emissions rather than specific technologies, it is certain that neither of these disasters would have taken off as they have.
Comment 13 of 21
No image available
June 18, 2008
I agree with the people who argue that this is not a long term solution (even halving the emissions from coal is not that great). I also agree that coal is going to be around for a while, so it makes sense to find ways to reduce the damage it does. Whether this is the best way to go about this remains to be seen. However, rather than trying to prescribe fixes, we should be pushing for government to put a price on carbon (via a carbon tax and / or caps), then let the market decide which technologies to implement.

The problem at present is that in the absence of such a price, the market behaves as though pollution creates no (or, at least, minimal) costs. That is known in economic terms as a "market failure" caused by a real cost that is not taken into consideration by the market. Fix the failure and the market can fix the problem. In political terms, this is far more easily said than done, but the simple truth is that anything other policy is still going to cost a lot, but is doomed to fail and may even be worse for people and the environment than doing nothing. Corn ethanol and biodiesel mandates are object lessons on why we should steer politicians away from trying to pick winners and toward pricing carbon and letting the market do the picking.
Comment 14 of 21
No image available
June 18, 2008
If we think that Algea will reduce CO2 emission, we are wrong. If we think that CO2 from coal is to use again as energy source, we are right.
We have a dilemma here. Algae can convert CO2 to energy but does not reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.
AS long as we understand it and accept it, then we should grow algae and use energy source.
If we burry algae in deep underground permanently, then we sequestrate fossil CO2. In this case, we cannot get any energy.
Which way we should use algae?
Comment 15 of 21
No image available
June 18, 2008
This technique could also be used by cement manufacturers which releases much CO2.
Comment 16 of 21
No image available
June 18, 2008
In addition to all of the other problems mentioned, we also need to be concerned with how well-scrubbed the CO2 stream will be as it enters the algae farm. Even the best-scrubbed coal plants still emit substantial quantities of heavy metals. Any water strained out of the finished algae crop would be contaminated and would require treatment to remove them. If this can be done, it could actually decrease net coal plant emissions, but the process won't come for free.

It would also be a terrible irony if this encourages more mountaintop removal mining. Those responsible for this catastrophe belong in a dungeon.
Comment 17 of 21
No image available
June 18, 2008
To address some concerns

1. The water for cultivation of algae can be salt water, or can be highly contaminated with sewage (not industrial effluent) or farm manure. Nitrate contamination increases production substantially. In some tropical areas, algae are used to treat sewage. As such, the algae could be used to increase available clean water. Were algae used to produce among other things, food for people and livestock, - for example, using CO2 and fertilizer derived from a bio-digester, then the amount of water use avoided in traditional farming could be substantial. Other by-products of the cultivation of certain algae could include a soil conditioner to hold soil in arid land, so facilitating dry climate cultivation and arresting desertification.

2. Yield of algae per area can be several thousand times greater than current generation bio-fuels such as corn (alcohol) or Oil Seed Rape (Bio-diesel), and the land used can be low grade, - unsuitable for traditional farming.

3. Algae could increase rather than decrease available food supplies, as certain strains are palatable for humans, and many micro-algae are suitable for cattle feed etc.

4. Irrespective of whether there is 150 years or 600 years of coal in the ground, this technology will not on its own allow us to burn coal without nasty consequences. The International Panel on Climate Change indicates that we need to reguce human CO2 emissions by 50% or more globally to prevent a temperature rise above 2 centigrade. True, a 50% reduction in per kW net coal burning emissions is a good start, but with rapidly increasing energy consumption, this is not going to be enough. However, there are other sources of CO2 such as bio-digestors, any combustion process, cement production, and the air.
Comment 18 of 21
No image available
June 18, 2008
"... analysts evaluated the solar resource in the Southwest [of the US] and ... found that CSP [concentrating solar power] could provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or about seven times the current total US electric capacity." (Tackling Climate Change in the US, American Solar Energy Society, January 2007, page 17, emphasis added).

This is a much better way to go! For more information see http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/ .
Comment 19 of 21
No image available
June 19, 2008
Coal strips beautiful land while renewable energy only adds to it... Coal adds to CO2 count while RE doesn't (minimal at first for construction) Fossils will cost more than the $5 a day (per person) RE will cost if fully implemented at a 2 dollar per watt basis. That includes all the line needed for all the electric vehicles too!
Comment 20 of 21
No image available
June 22, 2008
Algea is another way of capturing solar energy. If the growth only uses CO2 from the air it is a carbon neutral way of storing solar energy. There are companies working on maximum yield minimum impact production. Look at http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039

Using fossil energy carbon twice is not the answer.
Comment 21 of 21
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
SAF Suntech Power Holdings Solar Living Institute Schletter, Inc. KYOCERA Solar, Inc. Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo