Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Algae Biofuels: From Pond Scum to Jet Fuel

By Chris Tachibana, Science Writer
September 15, 2009   |   29 Comments
Exxon Mobil and genome expert Craig Venter hope to strike it green with oilgae, but a few obstacles remain on the path to commercialization of biofuel from algae.

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"Generally, only a portion of the crude algal oil is suitable for making biodiesel, but all of it can be used to make gasoline and jet fuel."

--Dr. Yusuf Chisti, Professor of Biochemical Engineering, Massey University
29 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 29
September 15, 2009
Great round-up, Chris. I personally think that algae-based biofuels offer a lot of potential, in tandem with a variety of other fuels.

I keep hearing concerns about whether we can consider algae "renewable" because of its dependence on CO2 from dirty power plants. I wonder, can we partner growing operations with biomass-fired power plants? Would that offer enough CO2 to keep these cultures growing fast enough?

If anyone has an answer, I'd be curious to know.
Comment
2 of 29
September 15, 2009
Thanks, Stephen! Good point about whether algal biofuels that are grown with CO2 from power plants can truly be called "renewable".

NREL's close-out report on the Aquatic Species Program (see below) mentions a study (Benemann, 1977, see below) on using wastewater to fertilize trees grown as biomass for a power plant, with the CO2 from the power plant used to cultivate algae in the wastewater ponds. The scale of the wastewater didn't match the fertilizer needs, according to the NREL summary. Still, it was deemed economically and energetically feasible, and brings in the wastewater possibility, which Dr. Stephen Lyon emailed me about earlier today.

Chris

Sheehan et al. (1998) A Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy's
Aquatic Species Program: Biodiesel from Algae, NREL/TP-580-24190
http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/24190.pdfhttp://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/24190.pdf

Benemann, J.R.; Koopman, B.L.; Baker, D.; Goebel, R.; Oswald, W.J. (1977) "Preliminary design of the algae pond subsystem of the photosynthesis energy factory." Final Report to Inter-Technology Solar Corp., Sanitary Eng. Res. Lab., Univ. of Calif.-Berkeley.
No image available
Comment
3 of 29
Anonymous
September 16, 2009
Could someone please tell me how it is possible for microalgae to "capture sunlight 20-40 times more efficiently than plants", which have efficiencies in the range of 1-2% on a crop basis, and up to 10% on a cellular basis.

If true then we have a solar conversion device much superior to any solar photovoltaic or thermal device.
Comment
4 of 29
September 16, 2009
I am very interested in algal based biofuels. I do have several concerns....

Everyone complains about the price of oil and the profits that the large oil companies have been posting. So why would we think that they are going to do anything but what is best for themselves when it comes to developing and releasing these algal based fuels to the market.

Wouldn't it make more sense to also create viable small scale production units that individuals or co-ops could operate?

What about these modified algal strains? What will the long term affect be to the environment when these strains estabilish themselves in our lakes and streams that currently are used for our drinking water. Will the new algae be compatible with the existing eco-systems - or will it become a destructive and invasive species. We are allowing these companies and our government to move forward with reckless abandon all in the name of CO2 reduction.

These questions need to be answered before they start charging $200 a barrel for "new and improved" algal based fuel that is at the same time could be creating as many issues as it is resolving.
Comment
5 of 29
September 16, 2009
I have been very interested in algae for a renewable energy approach for a long time. I have conceptualized a residential stand alone system for a long time now and want to get it out there. I would love to work on this if I could find the right backing and intellectual alignment of the following:

Stand alone residential approach using a hybrid system consisting of solar photovoltaic panels, solar thermal collectors for heating and domestic hot water, wind generators, and algae farms to be designed as follows: Utilizing Algae photobioreactor tubes, one can obtain the biodiesels from extraction and compression and the fuels can be used in an automobile or standby/emergency heating system, the resulting compressed and dried algal-bricketts can also be used as a solid fuel for the standby/emergency heating system that feeds its exhaust into the algae bioreactor tubes, then for the kicker… set the algae photobioreactor tubes to produce hydrogen (Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production ), which is collected and stored for use in the automobile or heating fuel.

This process provides the best self sustained whole living unit system that will directly impact the environment and our dependency on petro-fuels.
Comment
6 of 29
September 16, 2009
VW is introducing diesel/natural gas bi-fuel engines on some models this year, begining with the clean diesel Jetta I think. The Golf gas/natural gas model is already on sale. The bi-fuel option is factory installed and avoids the problem of where to add tanks and safety problems of putting the CNG tank inside the vehicle.

Natural gas has an comparative octane rating of ~120, and matches that of diesel which can be used in high compression, high thermal efficiency engines. Diesels get about 30% more mileage and are smaller than similar horsepower gas engines. Both petroleum diesel and biodiesel have had problems with poor starting and fuel gelling at low temperatures. The bifuel engine would bypass this problem completely---simply start up and run on CNG until the engine is warm, then switch to diesel if necessary. Being able to use liquid or gaseous fuel means that you would always be able to find fuel available. If you can't find natural gas--simply switch to diesel.

Assuming that drivers on average run on natural gas 50% of the time, and the savings with the diesel engine---they'd use only 35% of the petroleum that they would going the same distance in a similarly powered gasoline engine vehicle.

Natural gas is methane. We can make methane from a wide variety of sources including sewage and trash. Methane captures heat 17X better that CO2. If we capture biomethane that would ordinarily escape into the atmosphere(for example, treating sewage) and mix it with natural gas and burn it----the resulting emissions would have less heat capturing capacity. We'd be trading high heat capture methane for much lower heat capture CO2. We would nullify the heat capture of the CO2 produced from burning fossil methane with only a 6% mix of biomethane. Fossil methane and biomethane are exactly the same chemically(CH4) and can be mixed in any proportion with no loss of performance.

You could run 100% bio.
Comment
7 of 29
September 16, 2009
Nice try Chris, but I would like to see a much more critical technical analysis of algae energy from someone in the media, especially since Exxon Mobil and others could be doing this hype as a green-wash and to throw other investors off real development in other areas. For example, in addition to other questions raised by commentators, aren't algae only efficient when grown under controlled conditions in expensive structures (which is also possible, although not economical, for crops grown in greenhouses)? Also, how can it be efficient to convert other carbon sources like sugar to algae for subsequent conversion to oil? What is the projected cost per gallon?
Comment
8 of 29
September 16, 2009
Great discussion!

@ anonymous: Microalgae can have 20% photosynthetic efficiency, maybe higher (reviewed in Huntley and Radalje, 2007), which is pretty good compared to the common biomass plant switchgrass, which is poor at about 0.5%. The explanation for the efficiency that I saw, at least in reviews and the NREL close-out report, was "simple cellular structure", which I know isn't very satisfying. Perhaps someone with more knowledge about microalgae photosynthetic processes can explain why they are more efficient than plants?

Huntley ME, Redalje DG. CO2 mitigation and renewable oil from photosynthetic microbes: a new appraisal. Mitigation Adapt Strat Global
Change. 2007;12:573–608.

@fred-linn-151968: Yes, methane is a great option from algae! This article was about liquid biofuels, so I hope to write about other options soon.

@mike-holly-17241 and ross-rager-130353: Check out Chisti's analysis (see below) for some projected costs and Jeffrey Decker's excellent article for other economic and environmental considerations. You're absolutely right, the other issues are all compelling concerns. Sapphire Energy is trying to bypass the photobioreactors with open pond growth, and currently uses genetically selected, not engineered strains. I think Solazyme feels that using sugars from waste biomass makes their whole process more efficient by reducing costs in growth and downstream processing, like harvesting. Everyone is looking to coproducts for economical feasibility, and factoring CO2 mitigation and use of wastewater or non-potable water into their justifications. Jeffrey's article addresses some other questions about what is hype and what is possible.

Chisti, Y. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol Adv. 2007; 25(3):294-306

Jeffrey Decker, "Blooming Biofuel"
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/06/blooming-biofuel-how-algae-could-provide-the-solution

Chris
Comment
9 of 29
September 16, 2009
Thanks Chris, I will check that out. But please note some sugar crops have greater than 20% photosynthetic efficiency.
Comment
10 of 29
September 16, 2009
Mike: 20% is terrific. Maybe we should grow these plants for biomass feedstock!

Chris
Comment
11 of 29
September 16, 2009
"Algal biofuel manufacturers have another ace up their sleeves: coproducts. Algae excel at making complex organic compounds like B and C vitamins and beta-carotene that are used as fragrances, flavorings, pigments and supplements. These can sell for hundreds of dollars a kilogram, so harvesting both the coproducts and feedstock oils can potentially offer manufacturers another revenue stream and make cultivating and processing microalgae more economical."

Let us not forget the lesson of biodiesel. One of its co-products is crude glycerine. In the business model of the early pioneers, they assumed good prices. However, as biodiesel production increased, so did the supply of crude glycerine, which pushed down prices.

The same is likely to happen to the prices of the co-products of algae, as soon as (if it) it starts being produced on a large scale first and foremost for its oils.

Also, while I know that the airline industry has invested a lot of hope (and hype) in algae-derived bio-jet coming to its rescue, most independent experts on this topic with whom I have spoken (and I have spoken with quite a few) see enormous hurdles to bringing down the price of algae-based fuels to anywhere near petroleum price parity.

Of course, some in the industry are assuming that governments will subsidize the price difference. But I would not count on it. For one, in Europe the main subsidy for biofuels is a tax exemption, and jet fuel (at least for international flights) is not taxed. No tax, no exemption possible for bio-jet.

Moreover, politically, it is far easier to sell taxpayers on the idea of subsidizing something they use every day (fuel in their private car) than subsidizing a mode of travel -- air -- that is seen as serving a more elite clientel.
Comment
12 of 29
September 16, 2009
Yes Chris, the world is, should and will be growing cane sugar crops worldwide as biomass feedstock, but development will have to come from outside the US, because that nation distorts markets with crop subsidies, mandates requiring that biofuels be made from cellulose and, most importantly, renewable portfolio standards that block the use of cellulose as fuel for electricity generation, in favor of unreliable windpower.
Comment
13 of 29
September 16, 2009
Chris----the limiting factor for terrestrial plants is water, space and nutrient availability. When looking at switchgrass, which is a praire plant---the limiting factor is water due to climate. Irrigate it, and it would grow much faster. The limiting factor for aquatic plants is surface area. Increase the surface area, and you increase growth rate.

http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039

I think the bi-fuel concept is a better way to go than just algae oil alone. Availability is the reason. By using methane in conjunction with algae oil---we can adjust fuels to meet demand much more easily. This would make a much more stable market/demand situation.
Comment
14 of 29
September 16, 2009
The legal environment for algae may change considerably in the United States pretty soon; the Waxman-Markey bill (HR 2454) which recently passed the House lists algae as one of the main sectors of clean energy its willing to fund, and goes much more extensively into biomass energy (into which algae can be converted & lies outside of the realm of cellulosic-based ethanol). While present legislation may favor soy or corn as fuel-stocks, algae is making headway towards gaining government subsidies... not to mention the current work being funded by the Dept. of Energy and the Dept. of Defense.
Comment
15 of 29
September 16, 2009
America should not be favoring soybeans or corn or even algae over alternative crops. Politicans should not be picking winners and losers as if they are smartest people in the world. Far from it!
Comment
16 of 29
September 16, 2009
Exactly, Mike!
Comment
17 of 29
September 16, 2009
Ronald-steenblik-74298, excellent point about co-product prices, and one that definitely came up in the interviews. One source made the point that so many diverse products can be obtained from algae, including some for which demand should be constant and high, like potential bioplastic precursors, that the co-product model should be feasible, at least for longer than for glycerine. What do you think? Also, touching on fred-linn-151968 points, methane is an option from algae fermentation, although I was told the current price makes it less attractive than the co-product model.

Also, mike-holly-17241, and catherine.mcganity, can we legislate or subsidize or Copenhagen-treaty ourselves into better energy policy? I've been looking into the history of wind power in Denmark, which required subsidizing to get started, and was sometimes controversial, but which is held up as an example of sustainable energy now (see article below). Is that a model for progress in biofuels?

Sennott, CM. "Denmark's windmills flourish as Cape Cod power project stalls". Boston Globe, Sept. 22, 2003.
Comment
18 of 29
September 17, 2009
I hope they can keep up with Ever Cat Fuels LLC. They had announced its opening of Isanti,Minn. plant this past week. Grand opening is Sept. 28 .
If all goes well they should be able to produce 3MMgy . With use of little water no chemicals and no waist .
It is nice to see companies coming on line and starting to make a difference .
Comment
19 of 29
September 17, 2009
If you could capture all the CO2 from fossil fuel power plants and turn it back into fuel for aviation use, the fossil carbon is used twice so one could argue the 'dirty power station' has halved its emissions. However if the fuel made is used to supply power stations, assuming all captured carbon is retained in the fuel, then we would have a closed carbon cycle and the power station would become carbon neutral. The problem is that to fully utilise the CO2 would require algae production using enclosed bioreactors (in deserts?), open pond systems would be lossy in regard to CO2 utilisation. However closed bioreactors need concentrated (captured) CO2 from the flue gas, a process which is not 100% efficient and also reduces the effective power generation efficiency considerably.

There is a solution however. Using DCFCs (direct carbon fuel cells) and carbon as a feed stock (e.g. coal, bio-char, or carbon black) the waste product is pure CO2 raising the possibility of 100% CO2 recycling, not only this but the DCFC is 80% efficient at converting the carbon chemical energy into electricity (80% demonstrated, could be higher, theoretically 100%). Carbon is also a very convenient method of storing energy so DCFC power stations would be a very useful backup system for intermittent RE electricity sources. Another scenario is that bio-waste and conventional biomass sources (wood etc) can be used as a source for the initial bio-char, the waste CO2 from DCFCs can then be fed to algal bioreactors to turn to CO2 into Jet fuel eventually, thus giving zero emission flights and the electricity could power land based transport which could give huge reductions in absolute energy requirements compared to internal combustion engine vehicles.

The bottom line is algae is great but is only part of the solution. Uultimately we need an integrated sustainable energy solution, with these technologies I believe doing it purely with RE is not only preferable but also possible.
Comment
20 of 29
September 17, 2009
Chris, I didn't see any energy policy in the article you referenced about windpower in Denmark (only local ownership, which I support). But I believe Denmark has used feed-in tariffs to set electricity prices paid to independents from utilities (which I also support as a fall back position). Usually, I am a big believer in staying as close to the free market as possible and only wavering to account for externalities (like carbon taxes). I generally believe the greater deviation from the market, the more politicians mess it up by favoring campaign contributors. Moreover, the Danish experiment has actually been a failure with very high electricity prices because feed-in tariffs have failed to internalize the lower value of windpower's intermittency. However, I still support feed-in tariffs for their simplicity because free markets have proved too complicated for the political system to handle fairly during the deregulation process, especially given the political power of the utility monopolies. Certainly, feed-in tariffs are far preferable to America's use of renewable portfolio standards and competitive bidding, which has allowed utility monopolies to favor bids from their own company, affiliates and corporate friends. Feed-in tariffs allow for local ownership, as demonstrated by Minnesota's local windpower ownership program. But to your question "Is that (local ownership and feed-in tariffs) a model for progress in biofuels?" I think locally-owned farmer cooperative ethanol plants are already common and so are mandates and subsidies to add biofuels to gasoline as a way to counteract petro monopolies. The problem has been policymakers have favored the corn and bean commodity groups while formulating policy including crop subsidies. Politicians should be trying to encourage more energy efficient alternative crops and especially non-food crops that are easier to process than cellulose residue. They should allow for the use of cellulose for power generation.
Comment
21 of 29
September 17, 2009
Chris, I believe the Decker article you referenced was incorrect when it said "The European Union is throwing €2.7 billion behind algae over seven years." Hype!
Comment
22 of 29
September 19, 2009
"I keep hearing concerns about whether we can consider algae "renewable" because of its dependence on CO2 from dirty power plants. I wonder, can we partner growing operations with biomass-fired power plants? Would that offer enough CO2 to keep these cultures growing fast enough?"

Chris- The source of the CO2 has nothing to do with algae being "renewable" or not. The issue is whether or not the CO2 is actually being sequestered. When algae are grown to produce biofuels, the CO2 is ultimately returned to the atmosphere when the fuel is combusted. Thus, the CO2 is recycled (not a bad thing), but not permanently sequestered. There is some valid concern about how this will be viewed by proposed cap and trade legislation.

In answer to the second part of your question, it is a fairly easy process to determine the algal biomass that will be supported by a given amount of CO2 from any source, fossil-fuel based or otherwise. I invite you to read the on-gong discussion of this issue on my website at www.bebout-and-associates.com -JWB
Comment
23 of 29
September 21, 2009
--------""I keep hearing concerns about whether we can consider algae "renewable" because of its dependence on CO2 from dirty power plants. I wonder, can we partner growing operations with biomass-fired power plants? Would that offer enough CO2 to keep these cultures growing fast enough?"-------------

There is no need for CO2 from dirty power plants. Algae---and all plants take CO2 from the atmosphere. This is just an attempt to allow polluters to continue to pollute. The reason that coal emissions have not proven successful is that sulphur in the coal kills the algae----the same sulphur that goes into the air. It also kills people. The sulphur is one of the toxins that caused the coal to become a fossil fuel in the first place. It killed all the bacteria that ordinarily would have decomposed the plants that created the coal. When we did up coal and burn it---we release those toxins into the atmosphere-------where it can kill people and all other living things. Google acid rain, Denora PA, London Fog 1954.

The limiting factors in growing algae is surface area and temperature. Not CO2. Algae have been growing just fine without coal burning electrical power plants for about 3 billion years.
No image available
Comment
24 of 29
Anonymous
September 22, 2009
In the brochures of start-ups and corporations looking for a fig-leave, algae appear to miracle organisms. In real life, algae are about as productive as tropical crops, with a few important downsides. Due to high capital costs (cultivation systems, etc.) the cost of producing algal biomass (about $ 5000 per ton) is two orders of magnitude higher than purpose grown energy crops or waste biomass from agriculture and forestry (about $ 50 per ton). Algae from closed systems cost another order of magnitude more.
The energy balance has not been determined in most cases, but harvesting algae is much more difficult and energy intensive than cutting trees. If closed systems are used, there's no chance to get a positive energy balance because of all the energy invested in the equipment,and the energy required to run the systems.
To my mind polluters use algae as a PR-instrument, trying to postpone real action on CO2 emissions. If Exxon-Mobil claims to invest $ 500 million, check carefully. They're not stupid. It's cheaper than changing the business model. And I doubt that they will spend that money. Claims are easily made.
Comment
25 of 29
September 23, 2009
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/09/solazyme-to-develop-algae-fuels-for-dod-us-navy

Obviously Solazyme is not nearly so pessimistic about being able to make diesel fuel from algae at a profit. I suspect that the numbers that they use are far different from the numbers you are using.
Comment
26 of 29
September 26, 2009
Great discussion!
But there are other very productive energy crops and we should be also looking at them.
One hectare of Agave annually produces 500+ tonnes of biomass, with 46+% cellulose content, yielding 3X more sugars than sugarcane; 4X more cellulose than the fastest-growing eucalyptus and 5X more dry biomass than the GMO poplar tree. Agave is the ideal feedstock for a biorefinery where electricity and tens of biofuels and value added bioprpoducts are produced.
Arturo
agaveproject2@gmail.com
Comment
27 of 29
September 27, 2009
I agree, the discussion is great, and brings up a lot of factors to consider in calculating CO2 sequestration, mitigation and overall efficiency.

mike-holly-17241: I'm just gathering information on the history of windpower in Denmark, so I appreciate your policy thoughts on that topic. About Decker's story, I'm not sure where he got the 2.7 billion euro figure, but as part of another story, I was looking at the EU research site http://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.html and saw several multi-million euro biofuel projects, although it's true, they were not all funding for only algal biofuels.

johnb999: I didn't actually ask the original question, but thanks for the response. Anyone who is interested in the first question of this discussion, please see John's website.

arturo-velez-136267: I remember seeing only one article that mentioned agave, so this is interesting information, thanks!

(Sorry for the late responses. I've been away from the computer for a week.)
Comment
28 of 29
September 27, 2009
------------"One hectare of Agave annually produces 500+ tonnes of biomass, with 46+% cellulose content, yielding 3X more sugars than sugarcane;..............."-----------------

Which looks and tastes exactly like honey. If I'd been told it was honey, I'd have never known the difference.

(LOL, I finally got to try some Arturo...........good stuff. And it works really well in peach tea.)
Comment
29 of 29
October 3, 2009
Actually----the whole thing about algae is kind of funny to me.

I've spent YEARS(literally) try to figure out ways to KEEP algae from growing where I didn't want it.

You want more algae than you'll ever need to power a 747 AND a Freightliner?

Build a swimming pool and TRY to keep it out.

Weeds are Algae's younger brothers. And he taught them everything he knows.
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

Intertek American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) IntertechPira Motech Industries, Inc. Sol Systems LLC Renewable Energy World Europe Solectria Renewables LLC
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America 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 Photovoltaics World Magazine 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