Exploring Microalgae as Solutions to Global Fuel Issues

In summary, Algae can be used to produce biodiesel, ethanol, and hydrogen, as options to the use of petroleum based fuels.
  • #421
mheslep said:
Once one has sugar

That's the part I wonder about - getting the sugar. I suspect that the process is not very efficient or more would be done.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #422
oilgae has an Ethanol from Algae forum. There isn't much activity there but a couple of posts were interesting.

http://www.oilgae.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=36&sid=1a86d55600fbc3be3327571b1d521e8f"

I suspect oilgae has a lot of commercial algae developers, who aren't really interested in giving up information for free.

The Algae forum over at biodiesel.infopop.cc seems to get a lot more activity.

http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/cfrm/f/1581066562"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #423
Cornyation: Good Days for Ethanol, Bad for Biodiesel

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...tion-good-days-for-ethanol-bad-for-biodiesel/

This [Biodiesel] much-smaller industry has had trouble attracting—and keeping–government support, unlike ethanol. And it is competing in a dramatically depressed market for traditional petroleum-based diesel that hasn’t recovered nearly as much as gasoline. Most biodiesel refineries have stopped production.

The National Biodiesel Board warned in a study last month that the industry could face thousands of layoffs if a federal biodiesel tax credit was allowed to lapse as scheduled Dec. 31, 2009. Conventional wisdom a few months ago was that the credit would be renewed. Then, Congress got caught up with health care…and the credit lapsed.

Michael Frohlich, NBB’s federal communications director, calls it “a pretty significant blow to biodiesel makers. Basically, the industry is treading water,” he says. He said the industry still expects a retroactive tax extension to be passed. But it could take until March, perhaps longer. “At that point you’ll already have seen a healthy amount of layoffs,” he predicts.
 
  • #425
I found this argument to be very effective when discussing the potential for algae. I'm glad to see it being used to get the message out generally. This issue isn't green, it's blood-red.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6_PRzP0R88
 
Last edited:
  • #427
Another twist on the algae story is its potential as a food source for humans. It is my understanding that back in the 1970's, NASA did some research on this. The subject also gained attention back in the 1990's. I remember some of the discussion about this but I don't know much about it. It happened to come to my attention recently.

Blue-Green Algae: Nature's Perfect Food

"Algae has been eaten by man for centuries, but scientists have only recently focused on its nutritional potential. Blue- green algae grows in Upper Klamath Lake in southern Oregon, far from urban pollution, under the most natural Conditions possible. Also known as Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, blue-green algae contains no heavy metals or harmful bacteria, and supplies the most complete range of amino acids, vitamins and minerals available in any single food. It is a virtual powerhouse of nutrition...
http://www.immunesupport.com/news/94wtr001.htm

Algae Burgers for a Hungry World? The Rise and Fall of Chlorella Cuisine
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3106856

Back in 1990, apparently McDonalds even gave it a go [p8 of 23]
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...WUQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=I4wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6782,2741854
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #428
If I recall correctly, even when you are using algae for fuel, that the parts that aren't converted to biodiesel can be used for animal feed, which would free up land for feeding people.

As it stands now, ethanol uses up land that could be used for food crops, so just displacing ethanol helps feed people.
 
  • #429
I can't be sure about this, but I do believe the algae bloom in the Upper Klamath Lake is the one that mysteriously died. One of our more prominent associates in the algae effort had first-hand knowledge of either this, or a similar situation in the same area. There were a couple of people harvesting the algae and making a small fortune. That was one of many examples that led to the conclusion on my part that open systems are unmanageable.
 
Last edited:
  • #430
Ivan Seeking said:
I found this argument to be very effective when discussing the potential for algae. I'm glad to see it being used to get the message out generally. This issue isn't green, it's blood-red.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6_PRzP0R88

Yep, and not just for us... it's hurting (in one fashion or another) EVERYONE involved. Hell, we could use modified E. Coli to treat sewage, separate the urine to recover phosporus, and the grey-water for the algae. We'd get something very much like diesel from the bacteria, we need the phosphorus to spare mining and for agriculure, and algae + bacteria to liberate sugars from cellulose, and conversion to fuel.

Given that, you don't need to use the algae as food, thereby denuding your critical operation. You could centralize this around Sewage, and bioreactors. It's just a matter of time (to make this less expensive/more efficient), and funding, and RESOLVE.
 
  • #431
Ivan Seeking said:
Another twist on the algae story is its potential as a food source for humans.

:smile: sorry but that justy made me burst with laughter. Brings new meaning to the term scum burger.

Edit: just saw the McDonald's link. Says that algae is included within the 1% seasonings, and is simply a binding ingredient. (kind of makes me want to go on a rant about the mush that goes into those things -- if it won't binsd without the algae, it must be pretty awful!)
 
  • #432
billiards said:
:smile: sorry but that justy made me burst with laughter. Brings new meaning to the term scum burger.

Edit: just saw the McDonald's link. Says that algae is included within the 1% seasonings, and is simply a binding ingredient. (kind of makes me want to go on a rant about the mush that goes into those things -- if it won't binsd without the algae, it must be pretty awful!)

We eat a LOOOT of algae actually, but it's highly processed. Your assesment of the McDonald's "hamburger" however, is entirely accurate. Mostly however, algae can be processed to form binding agents, molding agent (dental alginate for instance), etc. That said, I'd rather eat insects... they're higher protein, some genuinely taste good with seasoning, and it's not pond-scum. :biggrin:

Actually, I'd rather eat a steak, or barring that, well prepared tofu. Get some firm tofu, press-dry for 20 minutes, prepare with a marinade of soy, ginger, minced garlic, a dash of worsterchire sauce or fish sauce *same thing*, salt, pepper, and one extra element like honey, or chili pepper. Pan fry in its own juices with some veggies... yum. Steak... is better though, if not all the time. Mmmmm... pan seared, and finished in a hot oven. *wistful*

Sorry... what were we talking about originally? Something to do with fuel... :wink:
 
  • #433
...Also known as Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, blue-green algae contains no heavy metals or harmful bacteria, and supplies the most complete range of amino acids, vitamins and minerals available in any single food...

While I don't think consumers are going to make a mad dash for Algae Macs, the issue of starvation does come to mind. If the quote above is accurate, then perhaps algae farming is the simplest and most efficient means to quickly provide a sustainable food source for a starving population. Note that some strains double in mass as often as once every four hours. It might also be used as a supplement in areas that have a limited variety of food sources. It does take a lot of water to grow algae, but a large number of strains can grow in brackish or salt-water. I don't know how algae compares to other plants in terms of the nutritional value, per gallon of water used for growth. Algae systems might be competitive or superior to other farming options, in terms of water demand, if closed systems are used to prevent evaporation losses.

Also, if it has the highest nutritional density, so to speak, might it be the best medium for storing nutrients as long-term emergency food reserves?

It strikes me that, like oils, sugars, and hydrogen, which can used as or to produce fuels, nutrients are just another form of stored energy, so many of the arguments that apply to algae for fuel may apply in terms of algae as a food source. Presumably, as with oils [fatty acids] and sugars, the simplicity of algae makes it very efficient at energy [solar to food] transfer and storage. In fact, the oils and sugars used for fuel are much the the same as those we get from other plants in our diets.
 
Last edited:
  • #434
Ivan Seeking said:
While I don't think consumers are going to make a mad dash for Algae Macs, the issue of starvation does come to mind. If the quote above is accurate, then perhaps algae farming is the simplest and most efficient means to quickly provide a sustainable food source for a starving population. Note that some strains double in mass as often as once every four hours. It might also be used as a supplement in areas that have a limited variety of food sources. It does take a lot of water to grow algae, but a large number of strains can grow in brackish or salt-water. I don't know how algae compares to other plants in terms of the nutritional value, per gallon of water used for growth.

Also, if it has the highest nutritional density, so to speak, might it be the best medium for storing nutrients as long-term emergency food reserves?

It strikes me that, like oils, sugars, and hydrogen, which can used as or to produce fuels, nutrients are just another form of stored energy, so many of the arguments that apply to algae for fuel may apply in terms of algae as a food source. Presumably, as with oils and sugars, the simplicity of algae makes it very efficient at energy [solar to food] transfer and storage. In fact, the oils and sugars used for fuel are much the the same as those we get from other plants in our diets.

Ivan... you already probably enjoy at least ONE form of algae... it's typically used in sushi, but people think it's seaweed. "Nori" is pressed, dried, (and I think slightly fermented) algae, and it's what you get in sushi. Compare to Konbu, an actual sea-vegetable which forms the base of Dashi (basic broth).

BOTH can keep you alive for a VERY long time... rich in protein, carbohydrates (konbu literally glistens with carbohydrates) and those vitamins and minerals we need to live are there in spades. There is no doubt that algae are an amazingly dense energy supply, and it grows like... um... algae. Remember "Agar"? That's processed algae, and there's a reason it makes a wonderful culture medium.

That said, insects are easier to breed, require less water and processing, and are even more nutritionally dense in proteins and fats, which are critical to humans. I could imagine a mealworm+algae burger however, and it would be EXTREMELY healthy and about as dense as energy gets short of a sugar cube or gasoline. Both are easily flavoured, so it would be a mental issue for people, which as you point out, rarely survives in the face of starvation.

Hell, I've eaten crunchy BBQ mealworms, and frankly... they're pretty good. The mental issue is there, I won't lie, and I ate them ONCE... but the taste was far from unpleasant. As for Nori, TONS of people love it, and we already eat more algae than we know (see McDonalds again!... how many billions served? :biggrin: ) Then of course there are those used as food dyes, and now a source of antioxidants (and nutrients): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haematococcus_pluvialis

We have options beyond tofu or animals, but to be fair, a balance is likely the ideal, and far more sustainable.
 
  • #435
What do the insects eat? How much water do they require? The direct conversion of CO2 and water into long-chain hydrocarbons, via solar energy, makes algae growth the shortest energy path. But I can also see insects storing more energy through their diet than one could reasonably capture from the sun for algae growth. Other large-scale processes concentrate energy in the diet of the bugs.
 
Last edited:
  • #436
Ivan Seeking said:
What do the insects eat? How much water do they require? The direct conversion of CO2 and water into long-chain hydrocarbons, via solar energy, makes algae growth the shortest energy path. But I can also see insects storing more energy through their diet than one could reasonably capture from the sun for algae growth. Other large-scale processes concentrate energy in the diet of the bugs.

That really depends on the insect, but a lot of them eat "food" that humans, livestock, et al cannot eat. Catterpillers for instance, eat leaves that we can make little or no use of. Algae... it's a bit like the issue with photovoltaic cells... in theory as you say, it's PERFECT! In practice, storage and transfer of energy becomes an issue. Insects however, tend to get the majority of their water from their food, and otherwise require something on the order of a moist sponge. They are EXTREMELY efficient in terms of storage... and as for transfer... kill... cook... eat. Algae need to be processed (such as Nori is)... you can eat plenty of insects live if you chose.

Heck, some of the best insects could live on Poppler wood, which is fast growing, and no good as food. That same tree could be used as a method of extracting toxins from groundwater (already in use).
 
  • #437
Eh, now I'm raising an eyebrow. But I can see this all being quite dependent on the location and circumstances. In any event, one needs to consider the mass of food required by the bugs per unit of food yield for humans, however that is defined, and then the energy requirements to grow, collect, process, and distribute the bug food among the bugs. What is at the bottom of the food chain; what are the energy inputs to the system? Whats is the theoretical maximum capacity of the system in terms of land area per unit yield of food? How efficient is the energy transfer, from the energy source, to the mouth of a hungry human? A head to head comparison would seem to be worth the effort.
 
  • #438
One might even imagine that some bugs might eat algae. Does anyone know? Clearly it wouldn't be as efficient as humans eating the algae directly, but the bugs might be a preferable or complementary to the algae as a food source, as mentioned by frame dragger. It may also allow for wild/indigenous algae strains to be used as the base of the food chain, rather than the more difficult hybrid strains.
 
  • #439
Ivan Seeking said:
One might even imagine that some bugs might eat algae. Does anyone know? Clearly it wouldn't be as efficient as humans eating the algae directly, but the bugs might be a preferable or complementary to the algae as a food source, as mentioned by frame dragger. It may also allow for wild/indigenous algae strains to be used as the base of the food chain, rather than the more difficult hybrid strains.

Do insects eat algae?... I don't know offhand. I don't think many do however... at least, not ones that are in turn, edible by us. This, I will have to research. Generally speaking, aquatic insects prey on other aquatic insects, and small fish... and usually that's larval or other stage for the insect (mosquitoes, dragonflies, all underwater hunters until they mature). I KNOW that I can't think of a single species of insect that is anywhere NEAR edible which subsists on algae... after all, bugs just don't compete well with the other "algae-vores" (shrimp, crayfish, etc) which consider an insect to be a bonus snack.

Anyway those tend to be short lived or "lean until airborne", whereas worms, ants/ant-larvae, beetles/beetle-larvae and moth-larvae tend to be the best in terms of fat/protein content. In essence, they're already just nutritional storage devices, for a later form (or in the case of worms... just storage). That makes them absolutely ideal.

As for food, ants, once cultivated, would be pretty inefficient because they tend to eat other insects or plant matter to a destructive degree. Beetles tend to eat the same things WE do (flour, sugars, fruit)... which makes them pretty unsuitable, because as with using cooking oil... it's only useful on a relatively small scale. Moth larvae, and worms on the other hand... eat plant material that is completely inedible to most (especially mammals), and they have no purpose beyond eating and converting that. As eating them is as simple as... well... eating them... they don't require large-scale processing.

For serious comparison however... phew, I can't find much that isn't politically suspect, or just anecdotal. That said, compare a moth to an equal amount of soybeans, wheat, bulgar, rice... that would seem to be a place to start, but it's outside of my bailiwick. That said, Remember the other benefit of these eating machines... they poop. They poop what is essentially pure fertilizer; worm castings aka crap, are prized as such, and they're already raised for that purpose, then the worms are used as bait... they're fed everything from moldy bread, to newspaper.

Caterpillars and worms are also not notable for speedy escapes, so... farming them would be even easier. Both are also notable for their rapid breeding cycles (after all, they are bred LARGE scale for zoos, pet-owners, bait, etc). A lot of the issues have to do with who is willing to EAT them, not how hard they are to grow. After all, do we NEED ~99% efficiency if our food is eating our garbage? They also... are easy to cook (which incidentally, causes them to... well... **** the bed thus cleaning them and liberating fertilizer), and could be ground into paste, mixed with algae as a binder, and... well.. "Soylent Composite Insect + Grain? anyone?"

Realistically, that's easier than selling people on whole bugs for the time being. In the meantime, you've inspired me to chat with some friends and see if they might have have more insight or access to research on this. If I find anything concrete that answers our mutual questions, I will post it immediately.
 
  • #440
Ooooh, I just remembered what else eats algae... amphibians, snails and turtles... which we really can't afford to steal from so to speak. Although, we do raise frogs for food, it's a huge step down the efficiency ladder.
 
  • #441
Frame Dragger said:
Ooooh, I just remembered what else eats algae... amphibians, snails and turtles... which we really can't afford to steal from so to speak. Although, we do raise frogs for food, it's a huge step down the efficiency ladder.
I believe the Arthropods in general eat the majority of the algae on the planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krill" in particular out weigh homo sapiens 2:1.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #442
mheslep said:
I believe the Arthropods in general eat the majority of the algae on the planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krill" in particular out weigh homo sapiens 2:1.

True, but clearly we can't interfere with ocean ecosystems in harvesting algae for fuel... if we decimate krill, we are absolutely 100% ****ed. Period. I am thinking in terms of algae which can be raised, as I said earlier, in contained systems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #443
Going back to the subject of algae for fuel, this small company is claiming to have stumbled upon a technique to control what amounts to a chemical switch in the algae. This switch selects for the production of either oils or sugars. It has been one of the holy grails of algae research, so if true, it is a huge breakthrough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxA8KxuvJ1Q
 
  • #444
Ivan Seeking said:
Going back to the subject of algae for fuel, this small company is claiming to have stumbled upon a technique to control what amounts to a chemical switch in the algae. This switch selects for the production of either oils or sugars. It has been one of the holy grails of algae research, so if true, it is a huge breakthrough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxA8KxuvJ1Q

: Holy ****. I mean... this would be like finding a way to make logic gates from graphene alone, or synthetic diamonds from leftover tissues. :biggrin: I hope this is true!
 
  • #445
Frame Dragger said:
: Holy ****. I mean... this would be like finding a way to make logic gates from graphene alone, or synthetic diamonds from leftover tissues. :biggrin: I hope this is true!

Some strains are known to be good producers as a percentage of their total mass. For example, botryococcus braunii is famous for yielding up to 80% oil by dry weight, but this has never been well-controlled. Yields fluctuate dramatically. The reasons for this are not well understood. It was known that this switch exists and that controlling it would be one of the keys to making algae-oil fuel cost-competitive with petrodiesel. The energy is going to one or the other - to the production of either fats or sugars - so it is not a matter of claiming an energy gain, rather the same energy but in the more accessible form of fatty acids. In the end of course it determines the fuel yield per unit mass of algae grown - the bottom line.

Conversely, if one wishes to produce ethanol from algae, we want the switch tripped to produce sugars.
 
Last edited:
  • #446
Ivan Seeking said:
Some strains are known to be good producers as a percentage of their total mass. For example, botryococcus braunii is famous for yielding up to 80% oil by dry weight, but this has never been well-controlled. Yields fluctuate dramatically. The reasons for this are not well understood. It was know that this switch exists and that controlling it would be one of the keys to making algae-oil fuel cost-competitive with petrodiesel.

Yeah, I still don't understand why the yield fluctautes, and the opnions on the matter are so diverse as to be confusing (this is nowhere NEAR my field), but if they stumbled across this, I can live happily with this ignorance for a while. I'm just... pleased. :smile:

80%... with a reliable way to moderate the process... eat your heart out corn ethanol.
 
  • #447
Frame Dragger said:
Yeah, I still don't understand why the yield fluctautes, and the opnions on the matter are so diverse as to be confusing (this is nowhere NEAR my field), but if they stumbled across this, I can live happily with this ignorance for a while. I'm just... pleased. :smile:

80%... with a reliable way to moderate the process... eat your heart out corn ethanol.

A consistent 50% yield probably puts us in the neighborhood of 5000-7000 gallons of fuel per acre-year [gross], depending on the strain used, location, seasonal temps, topography, etc, and assuming that the growth rate is not inhibited by the technique used to control the switch.

I believe corn yields about 450 gallons of ethanol per acre-year, gross. Net, probably about zero gain. Some say it could be as high as a 30% gain. Some argue that the system yields a net energy loss.
 
Last edited:
  • #448
Ivan Seeking said:
Going back to the subject of algae for fuel, this small company is claiming to have stumbled upon a technique to control what amounts to a chemical switch in the algae. This switch selects for the production of either oils or sugars. It has been one of the holy grails of algae research, so if true, it is a huge breakthrough. ...
Significant, but wouldn't this still be several notches down in importance from the other impediments to commercial success, e.g. raw algae yield, net oil/sugar yield after harvest, container costs, water usage, CO2 required for yield, and so on?
 
  • #449
mheslep said:
Significant, but wouldn't this still be several notches down in importance from the other impediments to commercial success, e.g. raw algae yield, net oil/sugar yield after harvest, container costs, water usage, CO2 required for yield, and so on?

I would rate is as being highly significant. Growing algae is actually pretty easy. Getting the high yields - consistent 50% yields, for example - has been the big trick. Extraction processes and the rest are all making great strides simultaneously, so I don' see any real problems there. I see it as more a matter of having all of the pieces in place, with each being critical to the end product. However, if I was to pick one as the most important issue, it would be the consistent yields. Without that, the systems are unmangeable from an economic pov. There is no way to know the risk for any given year. As for CO2 requirements, there are many industrial sources to be tapped, including power plants, and a wide variety of industrial processes that release CO2, such as in the production of cement. For a closed system used to produce electrical power, the CO2 is preserved.

It is my view that for closed algae systems, given the free acreages of open oceans, some large lakes, and perhaps even some rivers, not to mention the natural temperature control, which is also critical, in principle, the operational cost of the farm is dramatically reduced such that ambient CO2 is sufficient to allow for profitable yields. The rate of growth is balanced against the operating costs at every step in the process. Eliminating the cost of land, while naturally regulating the temperature, changes the math dramatically.

Again though, it occurs to me that we don't know the energy cost of the technique that allegedly produces high yields. So we don't know that this solves the problem, even if it works.
 
Last edited:
  • #450
Ivan Seeking said:
I would rate is as being highly significant. Growing algae is actually pretty easy. Getting the high yields - consistent 50% yields, for example - has been the big trick. Extraction processes and the rest are all making great strides simultaneously, so I don' see any real problems there. I see it as more a matter of having all of the pieces in place, with each being critical to the end product. However, if I was to pick one as the most important issue, it would be the consistent yields. Without that, the systems are unmangeable from an economic pov. There is no way to know the risk for any given year. As for CO2 requirements, there are many industrial sources to be tapped, including power plants, and a wide variety of industrial processes that release CO2, such as in the production of cement. For a closed system used to produce electrical power, the CO2 is preserved.

It is my view that for closed algae systems, given the free acreages of open oceans, some large lakes, and perhaps even some rivers, not to mention the natural temperature control, which is also critical, in principle, the operational cost of the farm is dramatically reduced such that ambient CO2 is sufficient to allow for profitable yields. The rate of growth is balanced against the operating costs at every step in the process. Eliminating the cost of land, while naturally regulating the temperature, changes the math dramatically.

Again though, it occurs to me that we don't know the energy cost of the technique that allegedly produces high yields. So we don't know that this solves the problem, even if it works.

Asolutely! Look at the cultavation of Haematococcus pluvialis for extracting Astaxanthin; it's extremely easy to do with bioreactors and minimal water usage, especially compared to the alternatives. The trick isn't to reach "0" effort, it's competing with drilling for oil and mining coal.
 
  • #451
One problem that bugged me for a long time was this: What about when we have high seas? Won't that destroy the algae farm?

Answer: You sink the farm when you have approaching storms.
 
  • #452
Ivan Seeking said:
One problem that bugged me for a long time was this: What about when we have high seas? Won't that destroy the algae farm?

Answer: You sink the farm when you have approaching storms.

You sink it? I'm not sure what you mean, but it sounds interesting.
 
  • #453
Frame Dragger said:
Asolutely! Look at the cultavation of Haematococcus pluvialis for extracting Astaxanthin; it's extremely easy to do with bioreactors and minimal water usage, especially compared to the alternatives. ...
Visibly it is not easy to do economically.
 
  • #454
By sinking the farm, I was suggesting that the bioreactors would tend to be barely buoyant anyway, so they could easily be sunk to a safe depth for storms. A simple ballast system could be used to do this.
 
Last edited:
  • #455
Ivan Seeking said:
By sinking the farm, I was suggesting that the bioreactors would tend to be barely buoyant anyway, so they could easily be sank to a safe depth for storms. A simple ballast system could be used to do this.
Clever idea, but doesn't this imply the reactor has to be sealed and capable of withstanding some pressure, and if that is the case what is the economic advantage of placing the farm in the ocean (vs land or lake) and having to deal with marine operations?
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top