Sign-In  or  Create a Free Account
Sign-in with:
 
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
 
Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Algae-to-Fuel Research Enjoys Resurgence at NREL

By Joseph B. Verrengia, NREL
April 16, 2009   |   20 Comments

Do you like this news?

 
 
"We've only begun to scratch the surface. We need to understand the lipid pathways and what regulates their lipid production and growth."

-- Al Darzins, Group Manager and Principal Researcher, NREL
20 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 20
April 17, 2009
Since this is only a reprinted article Mr. Verrengia, I don't expect you to see this and answer it, but -- in case you do -- I appreciate at least your candor as to how long it may take before the world sees commercially produced algal biofuels.

There are huge expectations from the airline industry. But, as is typical, they are not paying enough attention to cost. And, unlike ground-transport fuel, jet fuel is not taxed.

A few questions and observations:

-- You write that algae production doesn't compete with food crops. Maybe not with crops (yet). But if it is being produced in former catfish farms, it shows that there is at least the potential for competition with food, in this case fish protein.

-- There are only a limited number of abandoned catfish farms, rockpits and suchlike that can be used to grow algae. What then? Are we going to see a repeat of the same kind of assault on coastal lands, as happened in the wake of the boom in farmed shrimp, which led to the destruction of hundreds of kilometers of mangrove swamps and estuaries around the world?

-- A little-known fact regarding the algal oil that was used in the test flights was that it came from a small producer at Hawaii's Natural Energy Laboratory, near Kona airport. The water for its ponds comes from deep offshore, presumably through pipes and pumps built and paid for by the labratory. And the land out of which the ponds have been constructed is a recent (within the last 150 years) Aa lava flow -- i.e., of low biodiversity value (see photo):

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2007/Apr/19/FPI704190348AR_b.jpg

Who knows how much the bio-jet cost to produce. (Do you, Mr. Verrengia?) But the larger question is, how replicable is this type of facility?

Don't get me wrong: I would like to see truly sustainable algal biofuels succeed. But I think, as with any new technology, we need to strip away the hype, and be on our guard against unintended environmental consequences.
Comment
2 of 20
April 17, 2009
Using algae for fuel stock can be done as a saving effort for biodiversity. Coming from farming lands, i witness first hand the damaging run-off effects of cattle lands into the waterways, and agra-products (fertalizers,etc) into the marshlands. In the Cities and Townships you have watertreatment plants and Lawn run-off into the storm sewers. All these sources are dumping huge amounts of bio-nutrients into the waterways that -but for human concentrating factors - would not have been there. By using algae to "filter/mitigate" these waste streams choking waterways, farmers, water treatment plants etc may realize economic gain by setting aside mitigating settlement ponds and using them to grow algae.
Earlier articals also showed growing taking place in vertical clear tubes in greenhouses. That method would also co-act as a heat retainer for temperature mitigation (Heating Fuel Reduction)- a clear asset in greenhouse production. In recent years integration of North placed Water-Walls - or waterfilled 55gal barrles - have been purposely installed to reduce night heating and temper the heat of the day in greenhouses. Thus there are many placements conducive to the Mitigation of Man's footprint rather then the opposite.
Ron- are you one of those "Save the Birds-Oppose Wind Energy" types...?
Comment
3 of 20
April 17, 2009
Natalie, let me first ask you: are you one of those shoot-the-messanger types, who needs to pigeon-hole people before they decide they can have a discussion with them? Or are you open to the idea of just sticking to the issues, and leaving personalities aside?

Yes, it would be great if nutrient-rich waste streams can be diverted into facilities for growing and harvesting algae, in a way that does not require destroying arable land. I support the idea of governments funding research to make that idea work. But, as the NREL experts attest, that kind of high-tech, grow algae vertically, approach is "not remotely" (to quote Al Darzins) close to commercialization.

Meanwhile, however, there are companies moving into open-water development of algae, which is much cheaper (for now). My point is that making absolute statements to the effect that algae production poses no threat to the environment, or to arable land, is too categorical. It could, if not done right.
Comment
4 of 20
April 17, 2009
"This article points out one thing clearly, this would already be useful running technology if the price of gas had not gotten so cheap." Um, what kind of oil price do you have in mind, Robert? It certainly wasn't an up-and-running technology 9 months ago, when the price of crude was over $140/bbl.

What I read from this article is that there are still lots of technical hurdles to large-scale production. It's also a technology that researchers have been working on for decades.

Lots of people, though perhaps not the majority of Americans, would be in favor of a large tax increase on the cost per gallon of gas, but far fewer would dedicate it to be spent only on research into alternative fuels. (What about electric propulsion? Public transit? Improved fuel economy?) In order to bring the price of biofuels from algae competitive with gasoline or diesel, the tax would have to be several dollars per gallon. Multimply that by around 200 billion gallons per year (gasoline, plus diesel) and we're talking over $500 billion in tax revenues per year. I think that you would find that most people would prefer that money to be used to offset taxes elsewhere.
Comment
5 of 20
April 17, 2009
I've long awaited the resurgence of algae to the front lines in bio-fuels: A great big plus exist for its growth and manufactured use is in already existing coal fired power plants.

With regulation breathing down the necks of electrical producers to sequester CO2 "Global Warming" & "Carbon Tax Credits" by U S Congress: Building facilities to grow algae in columns as like the 1 liter bottles in the article [though on a larger scale] and then introducing the discharge gas flow. You'd not only be feeding the algae the nutrient it thrives on, but minimizing pollution and pacifying the alarmist over CO2.

It's a big win-win for all of us. Quite possibly even some monetary assistance for the start up of such an endeavor could come from the liberally overflowing coffers of the feds!
Comment
6 of 20
April 17, 2009
A quick GOOGLE search of "photobioreactor" provided me with images of several places around the world where algae are growing in racks of big plastic tubes or bags under sunlight or artificial light with CO2 from various sources bubbling through them. We seem to be moving from the small scale laboratory experiment to engineering models that begin to address costs and capabilities.

Until these produce quantifiable results we really don't know enough to argue dollars. It sure seems like we might all benefit if algae to refining becomes less expensive than drilling to refining, but who knows what surprises are waiting in the wings? There could be something better.

I'm glad to see so many teams researching so many different solutions to our energy future. Maybe I can have my cheap rooftop PV shingles someday soon?

Enjoy!

http://www.energy-enviro.fi/index.php?PAGE=691

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12834398/

http://www.hart-isee.com/index.php?page=crude-without-tar-making-fuels-from-algae

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/algae-biofuel-project-for-africa-kicks-off-in-eastern-cape-2009-03-20
Comment
7 of 20
April 17, 2009
I am interested to know if the process consumes much water or not? Also if in the process of consumption whether there is a salt and/or other constituent disposal issue since the article mentions using salty or brackish water?
Comment
8 of 20
April 17, 2009
Most of my working life was spent in mariculture and I have seen some amazing algae culture systems (which I wish I had been clever enough to think of)
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/08/algae-culture-alternate-systems.html

and I very much hope I am wrong but I think that algae culture for the productio of biofuels is virtually impossible.
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2008/09/biodiesel-from-algae-no-way.html

I would love to be proven wrong.
Comment
9 of 20
April 17, 2009
Hi W Hughes: There a difference between no way, and no way that I know of. NREL is a tad behind the times, or overly structured within their own processes There are ways to become viable, sooner, and lots of intermediate and viable products. . JR Sannerwind@gmail.com
Comment
10 of 20
April 17, 2009
hey why don't we use it for what it is meant to do, clean up our mess's and in return provide us with a cool source of fuel as a bi product. it thrives in urine rich environments such as sesspools or sewage processing plants. maybe in real poor neighborhood where there sewage needs a little to be desired or as in texas where vertigrow creator uses plastic containors to use the sun to photosynthesis algae to grow expedentially. use all the millions of wasted plastic water bottles , merge them to gether , put them on a oil tanker four or more flights up and using a small pool where the algae came from let them magnify from the sun and the excess algae can
be stored , processed in the belly of the tankers dock outside city on the eastern, western and gulf coasts of america, no loss of land, no importing oil and minimal transportation costs
Comment
11 of 20
April 18, 2009
Thank you so much, William Hughes-Games, for the links to your meaty, thought-provoking blogs on the challenges to commercializing biofuels from algae. It is the kind of article that should be published on this web site more often, instead of the constant stream of infomercials.

Some of the commentators here are excited by the prospect of combining waste treatment with energy production. Good luck. Waste treatment implies having little control over species in the mix.

I am reminded of the hopes invested in water hyacinths as both a means to clean waste water and as a source of energy. Water hyacinths are quick-growing, and much easier to harvest than algae. But people have been trying to find ways to use hyacinths for energy (especially in Florida) for more than three decades. Judging from this abstract from 2007, that hope springs eternal:

http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2007/preliminaryprogram/abstract_94168.htm

I hope they succeed. But I'm not holding my breath.

True believers in algal biofuels should not be annoyed by those of us who are skeptics. Like William Hughes-Games, I think we all "would love to be proven wrong". The question is, how should those who make public policy take the possibility of a break-through in algal fuel?

The answer is: with R&D support, but also a judicious amount of skepticism. The danger is that hype and unrealistic hopes can feed complacency, and provide policy makers with cover to avoid tough decisions.

Recently I was a panel discussant at the Aviation & Environment Summit, in Geneva. The aviation industry, buffeted first by the post-9/11 decline in passenger traffic, then by rising oil prices, once again finds itself in trouble as a result of the global economic crisis. On top of that, the industry is under pressure to curb its CO2 emissions in the run-up to the December 2009 conference of parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

(Continued)
Comment
12 of 20
April 18, 2009
(Continued from above)

Half of the Summit was on all the encouraging things that aircraft and aircraft-engine manufacturers were doing to improve their fuel economy, and how changes in the operation of aircraft could reduce fuel burn and thus emissions.

The other half was on biofuels, or more specifically bio-jet (currently a fuel refined from vegetable oils, rather than transesterfied).

I felt like I was back in 2006. The excitement over what bio-jet could do for the industry -- both to reduce CO2 emissions, but also to reduce fuel costs -- was supercharged. And the biggest excitement (a few people used the word "hype") was over the prospects of virtually unlimited supplies of bio-jet fuel from algae.

The industry has taken a big interest in algae, and some of the major players are helping to fund research. See this Business Week article from 15 April:

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2009/gb20090415_376954.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_global+business

But we should be aware of the subtext, which is the message to climate negotiators: We, the aviation industry, should be left to work out our own global solution to deal with our carbon emissions. We are committed to carbon-neutral growth. And look, we have all of these great plans for all sorts of sustainable biofuels. Why, we expect we'll be replacing 20% of our jet fuel with sustainable biofuels by 2020!

Believe that? If so, then I have this little cold-fusion reactor -- the answer to all of the electric power industry's carbon-emission problems -- that you might be interested in as an investment opportunity.
Comment
13 of 20
April 18, 2009
Ron-----you seem awfully anxious to invent problems where there are none.

The economic viability of algae oil is neither proven nor disproven. The fact that everyone and their brother is not making algae oil on every street corner simply proves that it is not being done yet, not that it is not possible to do.

-------"Believe that? If so, then I have this little cold-fusion reactor -- the answer to all of the electric power industry's carbon-emission problems -- that you might be interested in as an investment opportunity."--------

Of coarse there are risks to investing in new technology. But there are also high rewards to taking the risk. All investors know this. When PCs were invented in the 1980's no one had any inkling that one day about 20 years later it would be possible for the average consumer to go out and buy a computer with more speed, storage and computing power than the world's largest computers at the time. Then take it home and put it on their desktop for about the average price of a console TV of the time. Bill Gates and many others became very rich because they invested in untried and unproven technology at the time when all the "experts" were scoffing and telling everyone what cann't be done.

The price of petroleum skyrocketed to over $150 per barrel in just a few short months. Demand for oil has gone back down due to economic recession. All the other market factors affecting demand remain exactly the same. All the governments of the world are working feverishly to correct the economic recession. When recession ends, there is no reason to believe that the price of oil will do anything other than go back up to the levels that it was at before the economic meltdown, or even higher. When that happens, everyone will be scrambling for algae oil and biofuels. Investors already on board will get rich.
Comment
14 of 20
April 18, 2009
"When that happens, everyone will be scrambling for algae oil and biofuels. Investors already on board will get rich." -- If that happens, and the algae oil producers are making a profit, I shall toast them.
Comment
15 of 20
April 18, 2009
Ron---I can agree with you on that.

I can also agree with you that some sort of governmental control mechanism is needed to prevent undue competition between food and biofuel production. We disagree about the direction that control should take.

If a carbon-tax as you propose can be shown to be flexible enough to take into account rapidly changing production situations then I would be in favor of that also. For instance, the energy input/output balance of corn ethanol would be drastically changed overnight if stover and cobs were pelletized and burned to produce the energy to distill the mash. The resulting ash would replace much of the need for fertilizer. Biodigesters to produce methane from animal waste fed on DDG made from the corn would also change the energy flow---and also produce fertilizer as well.

How would a carbon tax take into account such changes?
Comment
16 of 20
April 19, 2009
Fred, I can fully understand the suspicion people have for the idea of a carbon tax. There are already so-called carbon taxes being applied on petroleum fuels (and electricity) by some European countries -- i.e., at the level of final consumption. Most people suggesting a more broad-based set of carbon taxes envisage them being applied at source, namely on production. The tax would be incorporated into the price of the good on up the line to the final consumer, changing the relative prices of low-carbon vs. high-carbon fuels.

In your particular example -- assuming that the amount of cobs and stover harvested does not exceed a sustainable level (some studies suggest the limit should be 25-30% of the available biomass) -- the ethanol producer would be advantaged by using a non-taxed energy source (the biomass), whereas its competitors -- ethanol producers using natural gas or coal for process heat, and petroleum refiners -- would be using taxed energy sources.

Similarly, producers of soil amendments (fertilizer, mulch, etc.) from biomass would be advantaged by paying tax only on any fossil sources of energy they use, which would presumably be less than producers using conventional techniques.

As for producing methane from biodigesters, again at the very least the producers would be competing with taxed natural-gas suppliers. Whether they would, in addition, receive credit -- payments -- for reducing emissions from animal waste that would have taken place otherwise, depends on how the scheme is devised. This is a base-line question. Do livestock producers have a "right" to allow emissions of methane from their livestock and their livestock's waste? If so, then logically they should be rewarded for reductions in emissions.

A similar set of questions would apply to changes in carbon emissions from the soil. Whether to, and how, to count changes in soil carbon, especially that created by indirect land-use change, remains a controversial issue, as you know.
Comment
17 of 20
April 19, 2009
Just to clarify the above, I wrote "the ethanol producer would be advantaged by using a non-taxed energy source (the biomass)". Of course, any petroleum fuels used in the production of the biomass, such as by tractors and harvesting equipment, would be taxed, and that would flow through into the price (or cost) of the biomass. But those are minor components of energy use compared with the energy used to break down and ferment biomass, and to distill and dehydrate the ethanol.
Comment
18 of 20
April 19, 2009
Ron------That explaination does make more sense.

I would prefer if it were called "fossil fuel" tax, rather than "carbon tax". I think "carbon tax" makes it sound like carbon is the enemy----which it is not. Carbon is the basic unit in the natural energy flow cycle that keeps almost life on earth able to exist.

One way that we differ is in your final example of the biodigesters. The tax system you propose seems to me to make everything black or white. It seems to me that real life, there are a lot of grey areas. Natural gas, while it is a fossil fuel is far preferable to coal[in my estimation]. Far less environmental damage in acquiring it, less pollutants involved in using it, and far less petroleum needed to transport it. Not to mention that biomethane can be mixed in any proportion[fossil methane and bio methane are exactly the same chemically]. Any (naturally created)methane we catch that would otherwise go into the atmosphere reduces greenhouse effect by a factor of 17 to 1. It is exchanging a high greenhouse effect gas(methane) to a lower effect greenhouse gas(CO2).

Call it a fossil fuel tax and I'd feel a lot better about it.
Comment
19 of 20
April 19, 2009
Fred, it is not me who coined the term "carbon tax". I would say it is well-enough understood among the policy community that using a term like "fossil-fuel tax" might be confusing. People might think you mean a tax proportional to the energy content of fossil fuels, as was at one point proposed (and then abandoned) by the European Commission. Also, fossil fuels are not the only sources of GHG emissions.

Calling the tax a carbon tax is not condemning carbon as a bad element, any more than having an income tax implies that income is something that should be discouraged. The name just indicates what is the basis for the tax.

A carbon tax is not black and white, because it would be proportional to the CO2-equivalent emissions associated with a fuel. But, yes, biofuels (and anything related to agriculture) are grey areas, in part because it is not clear whether, if a carbon tax were impossed, how it would treat existing emissions (and sequestration) from land and livestock. At the very least, I would expect, if current emission rates were recognized as "rights", then there would be a need to treat any additional emissions differently, especially if reductions in emissions were to be subsidized.

You point out that "natural gas ... is far preferable to coal. Far less environmental damage in acquiring it, less pollutants involved in using it, and far less petroleum needed to transport it." Very true: and a carbon tax would fall more lightly on natural gas than on coal, because it generates less CO2 per unit of usable energy. The other pollutants are better addressed through policies specific to each pollutant. We already have that for SO2. And there are regulations that try to make particulate emissions from coal-fired power plants closer to those from natural-gas-fired power plants. (Though the emissions are, of course, still higher.)

I agree that biomethane is good stuff, and that if it can be used instead of released to the atmosphere, so much the better.
Comment
20 of 20
April 20, 2009
Thank you Ron, that is a good explaination.
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

Advertise With Us

Enphase Energy Strategies Unlimited Johnson Controls, Inc. ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers The Stella Group, Ltd. RBI Solar Inc. REC Solar
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters