Exploring Microalgae as Solutions to Global Fuel Issues

[Ivan Seeking]

ASP? That is impressive, do you have a reference?

The Aquatic Species Program
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf

 

[baywax]

Solutions range from open ponds to highly technical bioreactor designs. The race is on for the most efficient and cost effective processes, and it is all highly proprietary as it is highly competitive. After all, we are talking about the race to replace Exxon et al. Energy is a trillion dollar a year industry.

The introductory bible of the industry is the review of the Aquatic Species Program, linked earlier.

This solution has been sitting on the shelf since the 1970s; the price of fuel was just too low for algae to be competitive. But we now have a whole new game at $3 a gallon and higher.

Are the people with the most profits (Exxon, Mobile, etc..) in the race?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Algae is catching on quickly, but until now solar, wind, ethanol etc have been the darlings of the industry. I know that some large energy companies are in play with algae, but I'm not sure who all is getting serious about it as the path to follow. Most of people with whom I've spoken who are working the cutting edge are unfunded or privately funded college professors and entrepreneurs.

Part of the problem for the traditional energy companies is that algae does not require huge drilling rigs and tremendously expensive exploration. It can be grown anywhere that we find moderate temps and sources of water. So algae will decentralize the energy markets, which is great for national security. We also eliminate much of the need for an energy infrastructure as it can be produced locally or semi-locally [note that the supply chain efficiency for petro, which is about 80%, wasn't included in our original numbers, so we immediately reduce our demand by 20% if looking at the total energy demand]. All of this threatens to dethrone the energy companies.

Ever hear of Sequential Biofuels? They are the number one supplier of biodiesel for much of the Western US.

Here in Oregon we just opened the first "alternative fuels only" station.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For those who missed it, check it out!
http://www.nearbio.com/

Also, there is one point that needs to constantly be stressed so I'll mention it again: Converting to BD from algae will inject about 1/2 trillion dollars a year into the US economy that is currently going to foreign suppliers. I need to check to be sure of the exact number, but this has been cited as being about 60% of our trade deficit - about $1400 dollars per year for every US citizen [which just happens to be about the same financial price that we are paying for the Iraq war].

This will solve the problem of GHG emissions because algae is carbon neutral; whether you believe in AGW or not.

Contrary to popular claims, "going green" does not mean economic disaster; in fact it will help to save the US economy and create millions of new jobs.

 

[rcgldr]

A saw a recent television program about a company Sofex, that is doing research on increasing algae blooms in the ocean by dumping fine iron dust into existing blooms. The goal was for the algae to take CO2 out of the air, and back into the ocean ("carbon sink"), where it would stay for a very long time (hundreds of years), but eventually would return, so it's not a permanent solution. However I got the impression that Sofex's main source of income would be due to selling greenhouse gas credits to poluting companies, without any actual proof that their activities were truly reducing CO2 significantly more that what ocean life does naturally.

http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2004/1june01.html

However, after more research, the benefits weren't as good as expected, and there's concern over seeding the ocean with massive quantites of iron.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/will_ocean_fertilization_to_remove_carbon_dioxide_from_the_atmosphere_work

My own question here:

What types of algae consume oxygen (the kind where blooms can kill off other forms of life in ponds, lakes, and rivers), and what types of algae produce oxygen?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Microalgaes used to produce oils and sugars consume CO2 and water to produce long-chain hydrocarbons and oxygen, so when you burn the fuel you release the carbon that was absorbed from the atmosphere in order to grow the algae - a net zero system. A list of the most promising strains considered in the aquatic species program is found in the review linked above, however there are at least thousands of strains that might be considered. In fact it is very difficult to get specific information about all but the most common strains as it seems that very little is known about most.

http://www.oilgae.com/ is a nice place to start after reviewing the ASP.

Note that NASA is using algae as a CO2 scrubber in testing for space travel.

Generally, wild algae strains are far less productive and will overtake the high producing strains. This is one reason why open ponds are problematic. However, in areas where indigenous strains are reasonably good producers of oil, open ponds may be practical. The bottom line is that typically the good oil producing strains are if anything difficult to keep alive without good controls. They require specific conditions in order to flourish. In fact this is the biggest problem encountered in the DOE program. The winter months were simply too cold for open ponds.

 

[baywax]

Algae is catching on quickly, but until now solar, wind, ethanol etc have been the darlings of the industry. I know that some large energy companies are in play with algae, but I'm not sure who all is getting serious about it as the path to follow. Most of people with whom I've spoken who are working the cutting edge are unfunded or privately funded college professors and entrepreneurs.

Part of the problem for the traditional energy companies is that algae does not require huge drilling rigs and tremendously expensive exploration. It can be grown anywhere that we find moderate temps and sources of water. So algae will decentralize the energy markets, which is great for national security. We also eliminate much of the need for an energy infrastructure as it can be produced locally or semi-locally [note that the supply chain efficiency for petro, which is about 80%, wasn't included in our original numbers, so we immediately reduce our demand by 20% if looking at the total energy demand]. All of this threatens to dethrone the energy companies.

Ever hear of Sequential Biofuels? They are the number one supplier of biodiesel for much of the Western US.

Here in Oregon we just opened the first "alternative fuels only" station.

Very cool! I would think that the major oil producers would have enough foresight to use their profits to ensure a future for their companies. But I also understand that they've invested billions in equipment, overseas invasions... er... marketing and exploration... and employee benefits. Is there no way that they can convert these assets into Algae research and development and beat the competition? America needs to lead (big time) in these innovations or become a follower and a dependent when it comes to the energy economy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When we first assembled our expert panel of advisors to discuss our technical plan and business plan, my business plan was blown out within the first few minutes - we can sell all of the oil that we can produce at twice the price estimated only six months earlier.

I was just informed that Oregon will now require that all diesel sold in the State contain at least 5% biodiesel.

 

[baywax]

When we first assembled our expert panel of advisors to discuss our technical plan and business plan, my business plan was blown out within the first few minutes - we can sell all of the oil that we can produce at twice the price estimated only six months earlier.

I was just informed that Oregon will now require that all diesel sold in the State contain at least 5% biodiesel.

That's Oregon for you! Bunch of hippies saving the planet again. Only this time getting rich in the process!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Heh, no hippies as far as I know, but this is in part a practical matter: The elimination of sulfur from the diesel, as is now federally mandated, results in damaged injection pumps due to insufficient lubrication. Due to its superior lubricity, adding as little as 2% biodiesel fixes that. In fact this advantage offsets the slightly lower energy density [by volume] of BD as compared to petro-diesel.

 

[baywax]

Heh, no hippies as far as I know, but this is in part a practical matter: The elimination of sulfur from the diesel, as is now federally mandated, results in damaged injection pumps due to insufficient lubrication. Due to its superior lubricity, adding as little as 2% biodiesel fixes that. In fact this advantage offsets the slightly lower energy density [by volume] of BD as compared to petro-diesel.

That's interesting to know that sulfur acts as a lubricant in diesel. I've also heard that ethanol will wear down injectors due to increased heat compared to gas. Is this something you've encountered?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have heard that there are issues with ethanol but I haven't read much about that. Brewnog would probably know.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Regarding the role of energy companies, I would expect that companies like Sequential Biofuels will eventually be acquired by companies like BP - let the little guys do the dirty work and then move in and take over. But, frankly, as long as we solve the problem, who cares?

Also, the correct language for the new standard is ULSD - ultra-low sulfur diesel - which allows no more than 15 ppm of sulfur.

 

[baywax]

Regarding the role of energy companies, I would expect that companies like Sequential Biofuels will eventually be acquired by companies like BP - let the little guys do the dirty work and then move in and take over. But, frankly, as long as we solve the problem, who cares?

Also, the correct language for the new standard is ULSD - ultra-low sulfur diesel - which allows no more than 15 ppm of sulfur.

Yeah, who cares. The technology will be world wide if the de-centralization factor weighs in with regard to algae as a source for energy. Then everyone can stay at home with their algae fields, forever. I wonder what the next issue to go to war about will be.

 

[OmCheeto]

Yeah, who cares. The technology will be world wide if the de-centralization factor weighs in with regard to algae as a source for energy. Then everyone can stay at home with their algae fields, forever. I wonder what the next issue to go to war about will be.

War? Let's go to war with those stinkin Mexicans. The New Mexicans to be specific. Time magazine had an article today, sponsored by CNN, payed for by WM(waste management) that said there is a company(Vertigro Energy(probably a stinkin American company)) that claims that they can produce 100,000 gallons of oil from algae, per acre, per year.

vs. um... 20 gallons per acre for corn fed bio-fuels.

The article stated that 1/10th of the state of New Mexico could produce all our energy needs. Today. And all we need is a bunch of cellophane.

hmmm...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

claims that they can produce 100,000 gallons of oil from algae, per acre, per year.

Uh, no. As I said, there are all sorts of wild claims out there, and many may be honest mistakes, but those sorts of yields are simply not possible.

The other pitfall is the cost per square foot of the bioreactor. Some designs apparently would work wonderfully but won't be competitive until we hit $15-$20 per gallon for gasoline.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The article stated that 1/10th of the state of New Mexico could produce all our energy needs. Today. And all we need is a bunch of cellophane.

Since NM covers about 122,000 sq miles, ten pecent would be 12,000 square miles - not too far off from what we were discussing earlier. So I wonder if you misread that and it said 10,000 gallons per acre-year...?

The US consumes about 146 billion gallons of gasoline each year. Using a 1:1 conversion, ignoring the advantages of going to diesel, and taking this over 12,000 sq miles, we would need about 19,000 gallons per acre-year. Factoring in the increased efficiency for diesel over IC engines would result in about a 30% reduction in the demand.

 

[OmCheeto]

Since NM covers about 122,000 sq miles, ten pecent would be 12,000 square miles - not too far off from what we were discussing earlier. So I wonder if you misread that and it said 10,000 gallons per acre-year...?

Nope. The "advertisement" stated 100,000. I don't think it was a typo either.
On their http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039" , they claim that a pond algae farm will produce 10k gal/acre yr.
Since their system is vertical, they presumably get 10 times the output.
Although I could not find the 100k number on their website. So that may be an interviewish kind of wishing number made up by the inventor.

The US consumes about 146 billion gallons of gasoline each year. Using a 1:1 conversion, ignoring the advantages of going to diesel, and taking this over 12,000 sq miles, we would need about 19,000 gallons per acre-year. Factoring in the increased efficiency for diesel over IC engines would result in about a 30% reduction in the demand.

My spreadsheet has confirmed your numbers.
Odd how an area just 100x100 miles can produce enough energy to run the nation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since their system is vertical, they presumably get 10 times the output.

Ah, they are playing games with the footprint as opposed to height. In other words, by making a taller structure, one can capture the solar flux that would illuminate the adjacent acreage.

 

[Dale]

Yeah, who cares. The technology will be world wide if the de-centralization factor weighs in with regard to algae as a source for energy. Then everyone can stay at home with their algae fields, forever. I wonder what the next issue to go to war about will be.

The water rights to fill up the ponds to grow the algae of course!

 

[OmCheeto]

Ah, they are playing games with the footprint as opposed to height. In other words, by making a taller structure, one can capture the solar flux that would illuminate the adjacent acreage.

So where do I find some 98 octane algae?
I've been thinking about this all day.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The water rights to fill up the ponds to grow the algae of course!

Which makes a good point: In the long run it would seem to make the most sense to use salt-water algae.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So where do I find some 98 octane algae?
I've been thinking about this all day.

http://www.utex.org/

 

[OmCheeto]

http://www.utex.org/

ummm...

http://www.utex.org
FAQ
Q: What strains can you recommended for biodiesel?
We are not studying this topic and you should check publications for information. http://www.oilgae.com/algae/oil/yield/yield.html

Well, I only need one gallon a day until my I get my poly-hybrid vehicle built.
So I'm curious about the process of turning the algae into biofuel.
But if you're not into giving out trade secrets, when does your company go public?

 

[baywax]

Which makes a good point: In the long run it would seem to make the most sense to use salt-water algae.

Do you have any info about the type of genetic modifications that might be done with algae for this application?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are plenty of strains of salt-water algae.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

ummm...



Well, I only need one gallon a day until my I get my poly-hybrid vehicle built.
So I'm curious about the process of turning the algae into biofuel.
But if you're not into giving out trade secrets, when does your company go public?

Oilgae has links to all of the information that you could want. There are no simple answers, but many different approaches to each aspect of the process can be found.

We hit a bit of a delay with the company but hope to be back on track shortly.

 

[Dale]

Which makes a good point: In the long run it would seem to make the most sense to use salt-water algae.

That is an interesting idea. In a lot of places you have desert regions right on the coastline, that would be ideal for such algae farms. But most places you would still have to pump the water inland even though you wouldn't have to desalinate it. I bet you would still get a net gain even a hundred miles inland. Of course, I wonder what sea-water runoff would do to the land "downstream"?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems to me that one would want to stay in the coastal areas for both of the reasons that you cited - salt contamination and energy.

Why do it on land?

 

[Dale]

Why do it on land?

I was thinking about that too, it has several advantages. Lots of surface area available with no property rights to worry about. Plenty of water. Easy access to worldwide markets. No need to level, grade, etc.

But containment would be difficult, particularly in the open ocean and particularly during big storms.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It has been suggested that the entire Salton Sea could be used for algae production, but I have no idea what the supply rate of water might be of if the idea is practical.

 

[mheslep]

It has been suggested that the entire Salton Sea could be used for algae production, but I have no idea what the supply rate of water might be of if the idea is practical.

Heh, appears it is not supposed to be there. A big oops.
http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=639

One of the world's largest inland seas, Salton Sea was created by accident in 1905 when increased flooding on the Colorado River allowed water to crash through canal barriers and for the next 18 months the entire flow of the Colorado River rushed downhill into the Salton Trough. By the time engineers were finally able to stop the breaching water in 1907, the Salton Sea had been born - 45 miles long and 20 miles wide - equalling 110 miles of shoreline. This 360 square-mile basin is a popular site for boaters, water-skiers and anglers. Most fish currently caught are Tilapia, but Corvina, Gulf Croaker and Sargo have been known to jump on a line. Kayakers, birdwatchers and other visitors can enjoy the site's many recreation opportunities. Because the sea's low altitude (227 feet below sea level), atmospheric pressure improves speed and ski boat engine performance.

 

[baywax]

But containment would be difficult, particularly in the open ocean and particularly during big storms.

Unless you're breeding killer algae why would it need to be contained? The answer may be because when you mass produce a product of nature, it inevitably becomes a different strain and incompatible with its naturally produced cousins.

The ocean-based fish farms along the BC coast have been affecting the wild salmon and other marine life for about a decade. They are contained in pens that are immersed in the open ocean. What's happening is the fish excrement is pooling on the ocean floor just below them and killing off the natural habitat. The cultivated fish are also infested with sea lice which will latch on to oceanic, wild hatchlings, killing them within a few days. CoHo Salmon runs and Steal Head runs are dwindling as it is, due to international over-fishing. With their offspring threatened by an encroaching sea-lice population, things don't look too good.

 

[Dale]

Unless you're breeding killer algae why would it need to be contained? The answer may be because when you mass produce a product of nature, it inevitably becomes a different strain and incompatible with its naturally produced cousins.

The ocean-based fish farms along the BC coast have been affecting the wild salmon and other marine life for about a decade. They are contained in pens that are immersed in the open ocean. What's happening is the fish excrement is pooling on the ocean floor just below them and killing off the natural habitat. The cultivated fish are also infested with sea lice which will latch on to oceanic, wild hatchlings, killing them within a few days. CoHo Salmon runs and Steal Head runs are dwindling as it is, due to international over-fishing. With their offspring threatened by an encroaching sea-lice population, things don't look too good.

Yeah, I don't know what the algae would do to other wild populations. It could be benign or it could be subtly detrimental like the salmon.

But my thought was actually economic rather than environmental. You want to contain the algae so that you can harvest it easily. That is really the same reason that the fish-farms are contained.

 

[baywax]

Yeah, I don't know what the algae would do to other wild populations. It could be benign or it could be subtly detrimental like the salmon.

But my thought was actually economic rather than environmental. You want to contain the algae so that you can harvest it easily. That is really the same reason that the fish-farms are contained.

I guess. Fish farming's the lazy way of fishing. It probably started in response to dwindling salmon runs. But, in the end, it only helps to ruin the industry and the salmon. There is a huge popular movement against farmed salmon too. You know, vote with your dollar. So they're not getting very far ahead in the long run.

I know it would cost more to contain the algae in tanks, but it wouldn't cost as much as oil does to extract, contain and basically muscle out of small countries. So why not design some containment tanks to avoid the risk to natural algae populations?

I was hiking along a glacial river near where it enters the ocean and, because of this thread, I was taking stock of the types of algae along the banks. Its a pretty large plant that seems to thrive well in both fresh and saline water.