Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Using Carbon to Fight Carbon

By Janneke Pieters, Contributor
June 22, 2010   |   16 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
16 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 16
Anonymous
June 23, 2010
The author writes: "Using CO2 as a catalyst to grow algae is a more viable solution for what to do with the plentiful gas than, for example, sequestering and burying it underground, according to those in the industry"

First, CO2 is not a catalyst in this context, it is a feedstock--catalysts are not consumed in a reaction.

Secondly, using fossil fuel exhaust CO2 to make algae rather than sequestering it is not an acceptable long term answer because it still leads to large increases in atmospheric CO2. If you burn biomass to create the CO2 to accelerate the growth of the algae that's fine, but we should not be confused into thinking algae fuels make coal fired electricity generation (the likely source of CO2) environmentally friendly.
Steven
Comment
2 of 16
June 23, 2010
The CO2 feedstock used by algae is in a concentrated form, thus it seems not really feasible to capture diluted CO2 from Power plants. Nevertheless Biogas produced from anaerobic digestion contains 40% CO2 which can be extracted at cost competitive prices.
You then produce biomethane from methanisation, the remaining CO2 can be recycled by using algae.

Axel
Comment
3 of 16
June 23, 2010
"The key is to actually have a price on CO2 emissions. Once carbon is actually priced, in terms of having to pay for emissions, you will see a market emerging," Wilder said.

Herein lies the largest roadblock to algae-derived fuels becoming competitive. If production costs have to be subsidized to make it viable, it's growth and long-term prospects will be limited. Just as solar and tidal/wave generation require tax breaks or feed-in tariffs to be competitive, algae-derived fuels need an artificial price on carbon.

With the science of climate change in doubt due to recent revelations of manipulated data, large scale subsidies for algae-derived fuels will have an unacceptable negative effect on this already weak economy. The costs will far outweigh the benefit. Much more R&D work remains before algae-derived fuels become mainstream - pricing carbon is not the right way.
Comment
4 of 16
June 23, 2010
I would think that algae would also be a good form to bury carbon, if one wishes to reduce the net amount of CO2 in the air. It might be worth consideration at the beginning to have say, 50 percent of production go into the ground -- deep underground. That would be an improvement over current situation where we just keep going up and up in CO2 levels. Tax credits could be offered to offset the cost to a business of reducing production in this way.
Comment
5 of 16
June 23, 2010
@paul-tousignant-111847 Who said anything about an artificial price on carbon? Much like the billions of dollars US taxpayers have forked out to take care of health impacts to those who live or work around coal mines and power plants, dumping carbon in the atmosphere creates a very real economic impact. Someone, somewhere is paying the price for this pollution. The concept of charging polluters for the economic damage caused by their pollution is a well-established economic principal. Economics classifies pollution as a negative externality, a negative impact to society that is not reflected in the market price of a good. The very reason fossil fuels are so cheap and *wonderful* is because they are in effect subsidized by a host of negative externalities, one of which is not having to account for the cost of carbon pollution. If there's an artificial price in the market, it is the artificially low price currently paid for fossil fuel.
No image available
Comment
6 of 16
Anonymous
June 23, 2010
My carbon plantations of CO2 consuming trees do a better job at far less maintenance and extraction costs and yield valuable indirect benefits like removing dust and real pollutants from the atmosphere; increasing the amount of oxygen in the air; providing new habitat for wildlife; and in detoxifying underground aquifers.

Carbon is sequestered in wood for 100+ years; and even if burned, carbon char to enrich the earth is a benefit.

Algae that produce oil is interesting; but I'll take grove of fragrant blooming trees over a bubbling vat of yucky green gunk.
Comment
7 of 16
June 23, 2010
Recycling CO2 into fuels is environmentally sound and far smarter and more environmentally friendly than deep-earth sequestration.

That is a given, since the act of deep-earth sequestration still requires the exploitation of deepwater drilling or tar sands or coal-to-liquids (CTL) to get transportation fuels.

However, USING ALGAE TO RECYCLE CO2 INTO FUELS COSTS HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS/GALLON.

The refusal to look into the brutal economics of algae shows complete incompetence on the part of anyone who supports it.

First, Sapphire is planning to develop 1200 acres into racetrack ponds. The initial $135 million dollar grant is the first phase, in which they plan on making green crude - not oil - on 300 acres. The full 1200 acre facility costs, including the refinery and waste disposal units, will produce 1 million gallons of fuel/year, but the final price tag on that will be 1 Billion dollars, not 135 million dollars.

If we give that capital outlay a modest discount rate of 7%, and assume that the facility will operate for 30 years at full capacity, JUST THE CAPITAL COST COMPONENT for the fuels will be $80/GALLON!!!!

Then the cost of the fertilizer, electricity, and labor must be added.

There has never been a single GALLON of fuel made from algae that cost less than $400.00, and there never will be a gallon of fuel made from algae that cost as little as $50.

This is a a level of waste and stupidity that is on par with hydrogen or fusion.

What is truly sad is that it is possible to synthesize fuel from CO2 through chemical reactions, and the fuel would initially cost ~1% of the cost of algae and could quickly be competitive with oil in today's market. But the renewable advocates want vegetation to do the work so that they can think of it as "green" rather than having the work done by metal alloy catalysts in a cost-effective way that would actually BE "green", while being market viable.

If you'd like to learn more about VIABLE possibilities:
www.WindFuels.com
Comment
8 of 16
June 23, 2010
It seems to me the use of CO2 in greenhouses would help create larger and more productive plants which could be used as a substitute for more expensive crops which utilize petroleum for preparation and transportation of crops.Located near or on property owned by coal fired or gas fired boilers the CO2 could be cleansed,released into the green houses and then exit as oxygen.The water used by the boilers could be cleansed for use in the greenhouses as well as the CO2.
The resulting increase in food would help alleviate the increased use of arable land,for many of the greenhouses could be hydroponic and close to markets.
Comment
9 of 16
June 23, 2010
Good article, lots of nice info in there. Granted, we're in the preliminary baby-steps of algae oil, but it's the most viable alternatives to running bulk transport vehicles.
After all, this "yucky green gunk" has the better potential as a fuel source than, say, tieing a wind turbine to the roof of the bus.
Comment
10 of 16
June 24, 2010
Steven----" Secondly, using fossil fuel exhaust CO2 to make algae rather than sequestering it is not an acceptable long term answer because it still leads to large increases in atmospheric CO2. If you burn biomass to create the CO2 to accelerate the growth of the algae that's fine, but we should not be confused into thinking algae fuels make coal fired electricity generation (the likely source of CO2) environmentally friendly.
Steven"------------

What do you know? We agree.

------" The CO2 feedstock used by algae is in a concentrated form, thus it seems not really feasible to capture diluted CO2 from Power plants. Nevertheless Biogas produced from anaerobic digestion contains 40% CO2 which can be extracted at cost competitive prices.
You then produce biomethane from methanisation, the remaining CO2 can be recycled by using algae.

Axel"-------

Much better idea---besides, we need to treat sewage anyway.
Comment
11 of 16
June 24, 2010
Note--the Dutch locate greenhouses next to power plants and use some of the heat and CO2 to grow flowers. In general Europe uses a lot more district heating and captures heat we waste in creating electricity. Power plants should be required to conserve the heat they produce.
Comment
12 of 16
June 25, 2010
@mgreczyn: News flash: in real life carbon is not a pollutant, so your argument is moot.
Comment
13 of 16
June 26, 2010
Carbon is not a pollutant? That's like saying any plant in your garden that you don't want growing there is not a weed. The fact is, too much carbon (I assume that's your shorthand for CO2) _is_ a pollutant. It does not belong in the air at the concentrations that it is in now and those levels are still rising as I type this.
Comment
14 of 16
June 29, 2010
Good to see this progress with biofuels.
See where the unit price currently being paid for Liquid Carbon Dioxide Supply Services is $125 per ton. (http://www.gerbilnow.com/carbon-dioxide-for-profit)
Fossil fuel power station operators already have commercial opportunities that provide the incentive for capturing CO2. Maybe they lack the entreprenuerial know-how to take advantage?
Comment
15 of 16
July 1, 2010
How would you prevent algae in the open-pond facilities from blowing into lakes and streams during storms? Or hitch-hiking on birds? While algae-to-biofuel technology looks promising, I have seen no discussion on the possible threat to our aquifers caused by migrating algae.
Comment
16 of 16
July 2, 2010
That is like saying we should not grow grass and trees because they might get loose and grow somewhere we don't want them.

Compared to pouring millions of barrels of crude oil into our oceans and waterways---I'd say that is a pretty minor problem.
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

Janneke Pieters

View Janneke Pieters's Profile
About: I have freelanced on energy and electricity issues for the past five years and worked in the industry for ten years. I'm a former associate editor at Electric P... more »

Advertise With Us

REC Solar Kipp & Zonen PLANSEE SE Konica Minolta Sensing Americas, Inc Conergy Inc. Stoel Rives LLP Dow Solar
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