Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

UVa Engineers Study Environmental Impacts of Algae-based Biofuel

By Zak Richards, University of Virginia
January 25, 2010   |   10 Comments

Do you like this research & reports?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
10 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 10
January 25, 2010
U of V Algae Study Not Grounded in Reality: This study has been discredited by the Algal Biomass Organization (ABO), San Diego. The study used outdated raceway ponds and old methods that are no longer used. It assumed that CO2 would be shipped-in, rather than co-locating algae production adjacent to a source of waste CO2, which is typical. Algae is already being integrated into a variety of waste CO2 sources: Power plants, sewage and digester effluent, food processing waste water, manure effluent from dairy, poultry, hog, and cattle farms, and corn ethanol refineries, etc. The study also distorted water usage. It modeled algae that was Not co-located with a source of waste water. And omitted environmental credits for mitigating waste and pollutants. Algae is already integrated with corn ethanol waste CO2, waste water "centrate", and waste heat at the Green Plains ethanol plant, and many other integrated and co-located algae projects. But instead, the study used old technology, that was not integrated or co-located with waste CO2 or waste water. That distorted the true algae footprint that is currently in development. The study also used unrealistic assumptions for nutrient use, energy use, dewatering, and the purchase of CO2 and fertilizer. This threw the data way off and resulted in false conclusions: "Even with the scientific shortcomings of the survey, it shows that with a few improvements, algae is much better than terrestrial plants as a fuel source. The truth is that the algae industry is already well beyond the obvious improvements these authors suggest, and as we add these new efficiencies, algae will become much more environmentally beneficial." — Dr. Stephen Mayfield, director of the San Diego Center for Algae Biotechnology. "ABO said that the report was based upon obsolete data and "grossly outdated" business models, and overlooked tremendous improvements in technology and processes across the production cycle." (Green Car Congress)
Comment
2 of 10
January 26, 2010
The 2008 spike in corn prices and food prices was not caused by corn ethanol. Dr. Antonio Bento, Associate Professor, Applied Economics and Management Program at Cornell, says: Commodities Speculation on Wall Street and the escalating price of crude oil causes higher priced food, fuel, and commodities - directly proportional to energy and fuel prices. That's what determines transportation and production costs. And the further you ship them, the higher the price. Roller coaster prices of crude oil and petro-fuels have the biggest impact on global food prices. Next is the demand for corn used to feed livestock, 4 times higher than what's consumed to make ethanol. Corn demand for ethanol is a distant third, and that is offset by the increasing value of the co-products… Biofuels compete with and displace petroleum based fuels and put downward pressure on fuel prices. But Clarens thinks that using corn for fuel is ethically wrong, because he doesn't understand the economics. So his bad advice is to produce food and fuel separately. We have a huge corn surplus. Nobody goes hungry because we take only the starch from 25% of our feed corn crop to make ethanol, and also produce co-product livestock feed, corn oil, and a major biomass waste resource. Food, fuel, and fiber production are integrated and synergistic, not separate…Clarens gets his facts wrong. Ethanol refineries are Not using petroleum to convert corn into ethanol. They're using natural gas, and a good share of that is domestic natural gas that displaces imported oil. He says: "By the time you get done, you've used almost as much petroleum to make ethanol that you would have if you just put the oil straight into your car." That's a false claim. Based on the most up to date information, the 2009 Nebraska-Lincoln study, the energy return on corn ethanol is in the range of 1.5 to 1.8 for the average refinery, and a 2.2 return or more for biogas integrated refineries… Petroleum makes up less than 1/5 of the return.
Comment
3 of 10
January 26, 2010
It is great that universities are increasing research in this area, and publishing the results. Much of the information I had previously heard about biofuels, included claims from research about "black box" technologies that were hard to verify.

I haven't yet read the Nebraska-Lincoln study, but why do the numbers vary? Could the calculated energy return vary due differences the energy used for corn farming and harvesting? Or is the difference due to the energy quantities used for the hydrolysis, fermentation, and distillation processes? The research I have seen by Deutch at MIT shows that for gasohol, the energy output from gasohol is approximately 84,000 BTUs per gallon while the Energy input including production and conversion is 115,000 BTUs per gallon. At negative 31,000 BTUs per gallon, it is easy to conclude that ethanol doesn't yet make any economic sense as a substitute for gasoline.
Comment
4 of 10
January 27, 2010
Ethanol production is evolving. The MIT study is outdated. Besides, BTUs are NOT the bottom line. Some vehicles get better mileage on E-20 and E-30 than they get on gasoline. Most engines are designed for gasoline – not ethanol. When engines are optimized for ethanol, they get game changing performance: See "Ricardo and Growth Energy Collaborate on First Vehicle-Based Demonstration of Ricardo's Ethanol Boosted Direct Injection (EBDI) Engine Technology", by Bill Cooke, Green Car Congress. "Ethanol-Optimized" engines are here – Now producing better mileage than gasoline and mind boggling diesel torque out of fewer BTUs, at half the extra cost of a diesel, using cheaper fuel, in a downsized engine that is Half the weight. The lower BTU content of ethanol is offset by 30% higher octane, and faster vaporization rate and flame speed. Corn ethanol recycles CO2 and burns a lot cleaner than gasoline and diesel, which add carcinogens, toxins, sulfurous black carbon soot, and newly mined CO2 to the air we breathe. The numbers correspond to old information or new information. Older studies are obsolete. Corn and ethanol production are light years ahead of where they were 10 years ago. Older refineries are either upgraded or replaced by more efficient ones. Corn yield per acre increases about 5% a year, and will double by 2030. We're getting more corn, more fuel, and more co-products from the same acre. That's driving the energy return higher. Next generation tractors will run on the local biofuel that farmers helped to produce. And natural gas, used to refine ethanol and its co-products, is gradually being replaced by renewables, made from local biomass waste, crops, and manure. Co-locating dairy, poultry, and livestock adjacent to ethanol refineries exploits the manure resource with biogas digesters, mitigates methane that would have been emitted into the atmosphere, and displaces natural gas for production power. Again, the energy balance is steadily improving.
Comment
5 of 10
January 27, 2010
Aurson, it all sounds great and your vision might be technically feasible. But I worry that just as externalizing costs got us into the present situation with fossil fuels, so too will we see negative energy ratios in ethanol for decades to come. Money is being made under the present scheme and there are forces at work that seem determined to blunder ahead in spite of these inefficiencies.
No image available
Comment
6 of 10
Anonymous
January 27, 2010
Hey Zak, tell your proffessor to stop wasting gov money and get a real job AureonKwolek is right, algae fuel is way ahead of UVA. The environmental impact question should be ...What would happen if some of your special algae organisms get released into our waterways?? It's kinda nice of you to post this article alerting us to corrupt educators spreading faulty research.
Comment
7 of 10
January 27, 2010
Cliff – Ethanol does Not have a negative energy balance. Your conjectures are based on outdated information that is 7 to 10 years old or more. I doubt very seriously that you know better than Professor Ken Cassman - Ph.D., Agronomy and Horticulture, Nebraska Energy Sciences Center, who lead an inter-disciplinary team of UNL researchers - a regional, multi-university research consortium known as NC506. They produced The Nebraska-Lincoln Study 2009, published in the "Journal of Industrial Ecology". This is the most accurate, thorough, and up to date analysis available - of the energy return and the environmental footprint of current corn ethanol technology. This project was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the North Central Bioeconomy Consortium (not the petroleum industry). Find the study reviewed in an article in ianr news: "UNL Research: Corn Ethanol Emits 51 Percent Less Greenhouse Gas Than Gasoline". I suggest you spend 15 minutes and get educated on the subject. Simply smearing domestic ethanol, without backing up your conjectures with cold hard facts, is not going to cut it. You apparently deny what this expert group of scholars concluded: The energy return is now in the range of 1.5 to 1.8 for typical corn ethanol production. This includes energy use and greenhouse gases from crop production, ethanol conversion, co-product use, and transportation – all factored-in. For corn ethanol integrated with dairy, poultry, or livestock feeding operations, and manure based biogas digesters replacing natural gas for production power, the energy return is 2.2 or more. Clarens, the author of the disputed U of V algae study, falsely claims that ethanol takes almost as much petroleum to make, as what the final product is worth. "This new study estimates that 10 to 19 gallons of ethanol are produced for every gallon of petroleum used in the entire corn-ethanol production life cycle". And even that is gradually being displaced by local biofuels.
Comment
8 of 10
January 28, 2010
from the article--------"The U.Va. research demonstrates that algae production consumes more energy, has higher greenhouse gas emissions and uses more water than other biofuel sources, such as switchgrass, canola and corn."--------

A) All this doesn't make any sense to me. Algae can be grown in seawater. Since when are we short of seawater?

Biofuels do not produce GHG emissions, plants absorb CO2, not give it off. If they are refering to using petroleum to farm with---it is the petroleum giving off GHG emissions. Solution, don't use petroleum. Doesn't seem so technically difficult to me

------"As an environmentally sustainable alternative to current algae production methods, the researchers propose situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen — essential nutrients for growing algae that would otherwise need to be produced from petroleum."-----------

See solution A, don't use petroleum. Algae have been growing just fine for billions of years without the use of petroleum, or even human intervention.

---------" Those same nutrients are discharged to local waterways, damaging the Chesapeake Bay and other water bodies, and current technology to remove them is prohibitively expensive."--------

Isn't that an "environmental impact"? Taking in contaminated waste water and discharging clean water sounds suspiciously like an "environmental impact" to me.

-------"Clarens points to the 2008 ethanol boom which created a spike in corn prices worldwide and raised complex ethical issues that could have been avoided by producing separate crops for food and fuel."----------

What about producing both food and fuel from the same crops? Like corn for instance. When ethanol is produced, high protein animal feed supplement is left over.

The article is not available. It would be interesting to see who funded it.
No image available
Comment
9 of 10
Anonymous
January 28, 2010
"…We might also look at who funds this (U of V Algae) study - American Chemical Society. Their agenda includes opposition to Open Access science. And ACS owns and operates the ACS Petroleum Research Fund - a $500M fund to conduct research such as this.

ACS-PRF is charged with supporting "advanced scientific education and fundamental research in the petroleum field," including any area of pure science that may lead to further research directly impacting petroleum."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Chemical_Society

Posted by: sulleny | January 20, 2010 at 08:49 AM

From:

"Lifecycle Study Finds Algae as Bioenergy Feedstock Has Higher Environmental Impacts than Conventional Crops in Energy Use, GHG Emissions, and Water Use; The Importance of Using Waste Streams"

Green Car Congress - 19 January 2010
Comment
10 of 10
January 29, 2010
Thanks, very interesting, I suspected this must be the case.
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

FC Business Intelligence Schiller Planet Solar Inc Endurance Wind Power SunMaxx Solar RussTech Inc. Intersolar
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