Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Science

Filling Up On Algae 273

Posted by Zonk from the why-doesn't-nasa-ever-return-my-calls dept.
grqb writes "News.com is reporting that GreenFuel Technologies, a Cambridge, Mass. based start-up, is using algae fed with sunlight, water and emissions from power plants to make biodiesel. The benefits are that heavy polluters can cut back on their emissions and at the same time make biodiesel. The algae consumes carbon dioxide as part of photosynthesis and they also break down nitrogen oxide, reducing the amount of polluting gas released. Once the algae are grown, the conversion to biodiesel is a relatively simple process. The company uses technology licensed from a NASA project. The only barrier now is to prove that it is economically viable."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Filling Up On Algae More

Filling Up On Algae

Comments Filter:

  • Tsk! Tsk! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:32PM (#12673549)
    This is unAmerican and you hippies should be ashamed of yourselves! ;)

    • Re:Tsk! Tsk! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Luddite ( 808273 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:39PM (#12673584)
      >> This is unAmerican and you hippies should be ashamed of yourselves! ;)

      I'm not American, so hopefully I can get away with linking to www.greasecar.com [greasecar.com]

      If you're interested in running your vehicle on biodeisel or straight vegatable oil, it's a good place to start reading. Very interesting stuff..
      • Turning grease to biodiesel makes sense - but why algae? There seems to be a much better route right offhand: diatoms. Some are almost 50% petroleum by mass; no conversion needed except crushing and separation. Their shells are also worth something - diatomacious earth is used in a number of places.

        Also, why grow in tubes on land? What's wrong with a big floating, anchored bag offshore? I mean, it's not like people do fish farming in "3 meter high glass tubes" - talk about uneconomical... if it's an o
        • but why algae

          There are theories that algae can be used to produce more oil per acre than any other medium, and non-petroleum oil is one of the basic ingredients of biodiesel.

        • Re:Tsk! Tsk! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by shawb ( 16347 )
          First off, diatoms are a type of algae. I believe that they are alot slower growing and have more specific environmental needs than other algae, in particular green algaes. One of the reasons that they would be so slow growing is the frustule (glass shell) that you mentioned. Making the frustule is very energy intensive, and causes a somwhat slower reproduction rate. Not to mention that as diatomaceous earth is basically powdered glass, it is quite abrasive and would lead to much higer maintenance costs

          • Re:Tsk! Tsk! (Score:3, Informative)

            by Rei ( 128717 )
            Sorry, I should have been more specific: why producing biodiesel from algae, when you can just use natural oil production from a single type of algae?

            Producing biodiesel is inefficient; instead of relying on the diatoms' natural energy storage mechanisms (petroleum), you take sugar from other sources, ferment it into alcohol, and react the alcohol (and NaOH) with the lipids from the algae to produce readily combustible fatty acid esters. It's not very efficient no matter what method you use - you're losin

          • Hmm... but then again I question what the actual environmental gain would be on this. Any pollutants eaten up to make the biodiesel would have to be chemically removed from the stream (probably prohibitively expensive) otherwise they'll just come out of the tailpipe of the bus or whatever the diesel is powering. Might be more efficient to just use the fossil fuels to power the bus and use solar energy to power the electric grid. Otherwise you would be able to use the diesel created through this to run the

          • The whole point of this is that they are taking harmful waste products (CO2 and Nitrous compounds in smokestacks which purportedly lead to global warming and acid rain) and breaking them down. The biodiesel is just a happy side benefit that makes the whole project worthwhile. Being environmentally friendly isn't always bad for business.

            Except that this process is not "environmentally friendly". Even if it could consume the entire exhaust of a coal-fired powerplant, it is still an open-cycle system runn

    • This is unAmerican and you hippies should be ashamed of yourselves! ;)

      Nope, very American... development things with tax money and make people pay again for the benefits (Just like they do for Prescription Drug Development):
      As American's that paid Taxes for the NASA project, why is this not free for anyone wanting to develop it further? Now the price of this energy is not just the equipment, but the money to pay back the licensing fees plus if licensing is limited to only a few companies, they will be

  • Just like solar? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Spoing ( 152917 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:34PM (#12673560) Homepage
    "The only barrier now is to prove that it is economically viable."

    • Re:Just like solar? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:53PM (#12673662)
      Biodiesel is much more significant than solar. With the energy density similar to normal diesel fuel, you can run a car with it, vice solar (except some very unrealistic designs). If biodiesel is able to compete with normal diesel fuel, the entire political landscape of the world will change. The industrialized countries will no longer need to help Saudi princes build palaces. The money that is being exported will instead stay in the country boosting the economy. This will fuel an unprecedented period of economic growth.

      As a side benefit, it releases no net CO2 (burning - photosynthesis = 0). Just pray that the cost of oil continues to rise. At roughly $3.50 per gallon diesel, biodiesel will be more economical. Economies of scale will take over and old-diesel will be history.
      • Biodiesel is much more significant than solar.

        Biodiesel is solar. It uses solar energy to convert CO2 and water into vegetable oils. It requires sunlight just like photovoltaic solar cells. Its key advantage over photovoltaics and batteries is that it stores the energy in a way which will work with our existing infrastructure (internal combustion engines).

      • Re:Just like solar? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by kazem ( 205448 )
        You may not believe me or realize it, but aside from weapons, the Saudis spend most of their money on blue chip stocks, not palaces. Sure, they build palaces for themselves, but most of their oil money goes towards buying stock in IBM, MS, GE, and other huge companies.

        They know that oil won't last forever, so they're investing in their own futures with our companies and our successful economy. It's all one party, which is why they're our economic partners.

      • it still emits CO2 (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nietsch ( 112711 )
        It may be greener than follis fuel, but unless they start to feed non-fossil fuels to the powerplants that these algae plants get their CO2 from, if , you burn this biodiesel, you are still contributing to the greenhouse effect. The only thing that has changed is that the CO2 has delivered twice the amount of energy.
        So this is not an end-all solution to global warming, it only can halve the CO2 emissions, and we probably will need more.

      • Re:Just like solar? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by saforrest ( 184929 )
        As a side benefit, it releases no net CO2 (burning - photosynthesis = 0).

        No net CO2, but the buck has to stop somewhere.

        If Ye Olde Polluting Company (YOPC) decides to use their extra carbon emissions to make biodiesel when they would normally have been forced to cut carbon emissions altogether because of environmental laws, then some CO2 has still been added to the system. If YOPC decides to build a new factory when it wouldn't have done so otherwise because of the cost savings and lack of environmental

  • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fenodyree ( 802102 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:36PM (#12673569)
    The _only_? Oh, that should be simple, the *only* thing left eh?

    How many brilliant projects have failed to meet that last hurdle.

  • It will be economically viable, one day (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grqb ( 410789 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:37PM (#12673579) Homepage Journal
    So, like the same old story goes for all alternative fuels and energy, we'll just have to wait for peak oil [thewatt.com] to make it economically viable.
    • So, like the same old story goes for all alternative fuels and energy, we'll just have to wait for peak oil to make it economically viable


      Not necessarily... it just has to be cheap enough to be practical. If they can make it cheap/economical enough to compete with today's mined oil, then there is no need to wait for some future "peak event".

      • Seeing that I pay (at the pump) about $2.80/gal in Olympia, WA for biodiesel .. and run it in a vehicle that gets 50 mpg (VW Jetta Wagon TDI), I'd say it's pretty darned economically viable. *grin*

        I've calculated, though, that if I homebrewed it, I'd be paying $1.30 a gallon (bulk veggie oil is ~$1/gal, the amount of methanol required would be about $.30/gal...) plus I'll have more glycerine than I'll know what to do with. *grin*

  • obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by a_greer2005 ( 863926 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:38PM (#12673581)
    1)dont tend to your aquarium for 8 years
    2)???
    poor the contents of the aquarium into gas tank
    4)PROFIT!
  • They didnt go into detail on how they are going to transform it.

    Are they just going to toss it into a TDP plant (think turkey guts article from a while back) or some other technology specific to algea?

    • Re:Algea - Diesel?? (Score:5, Informative)

      by adpowers ( 153922 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:56PM (#12673673)
      Well, some varieties of algae can be pretty high in oil. Some are as high as 50% oil by weight. By crushing the algae, separating the oil, and performing transesterification (the same process used to convert soy or rape oil), you can get biodiesel from it. There has been a lot of talk in the biodiesel circles about using algae, so lets hope this group can bring it to market. BTW, people also talk about using algae in pools that capture the run off from, I believe, cattle grazing land. Not only does it clean the water, it also has a very nice byproduct.

    • Re:Algea - Diesel?? (Score:4, Informative)

      by gotih ( 167327 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @11:00PM (#12673698) Homepage
      They're probably using the high-oil algaes investigated by the University of New Hampshire here [unh.edu]. UNH says some algae are made of over 50% oil. algae are some of the most efficient photosynthesis machines around. once you've got the oil, it's just a matter of standard transesterification [wikipedia.org], a normal part of biodiesel [journeytoforever.org] production (and really, the only step necessary when you have clean oil).

  • That's nice but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by caryw ( 131578 ) <.carywiedemann. .at. .gmail.com.> on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:40PM (#12673590) Homepage
    from the article:
    3-meter-high glass tubes fashioned as a triangle--to grow algae
    How much biodiesel do you expect to get out of a 3-meter-high glass tube? Sounds to me like you'd need one hell of a lot of those just to fill one biodiesel 18-wheeler.
    I definitely applaud this step in the right direction, but it seems there would be much easier and more efficient ways to reduce emissions, without having to use the guise of obtaining a pinch of "biodiesel."
    --
    Fairfax Underground: Message board and public record search for Fairfax County, VA [fairfaxunderground.com]

    • Re:That's nice but... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Maniakes ( 216039 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @11:29PM (#12673821) Journal
      1 gallon of diesel = 128,000 BTU = 37.5 kilowatt hours.

      Sunlight's energy content is about 1 kilowatt per square meter.

      Assuming 12 hours of sunlight per day, and assuming the tube has an average cross section to the sunlight of 3 m^2, that gives us a theoretical maximum of:

      12 hrs * 3 m^2 * 1 kw/m^2 = 36 kw hr per tube per day.

      Or just under one gallon per tube. And that's assuming 100% efficiency. Biological processes usually have very high energy efficiencies (>80% IIRC), but some of that energy will be needed to maintain the algae's internal life functions (growth, repair, etc), so I'll use 50% as a rough estimate.

      At 50%, you'll need two tubes per gallon. Standard tanker trucks carry 5000 gallons, so you'll need 10000 tubes to fill a truck per day. Assume a 2.25 m^2 footprint (to make the math easy), that's a 22500 m^2 tube farm, or an area 150 m on a side. A little more than five and a half acres, or exactly 2.25 hectares.

      • Re:That's nice but... (Score:4, Informative)

        by puck01 ( 207782 ) * on Monday May 30, 2005 @12:11AM (#12673972)
        What I know about plants is that the best overall efficiency is about 10%. Algea, I'm not sure about. I suspect, however, that the 50% estimate is too generous. The best I could find [nih.gov] doing a google search was about 15%. The acutally photosynthetic process as I understand it is approximately 90% efficient. The problem as you already noted is all the house cleaning stuff these organisms must carry out.
      • At 50%, you'll need two tubes per gallon. Standard tanker trucks carry 5000 gallons, so you'll need 10000 tubes to fill a truck per day. Assume a 2.25 m^2 footprint (to make the math easy), that's a 22500 m^2 tube farm, or an area 150 m on a side. A little more than five and a half acres, or exactly 2.25 hectares.

        Here is a little perspective. I am visiting my parents in Texas. My dad just took me out to a well site that just went online. The well produces 24 barrels of oil per day. (55 gallons per barr

  • Is biodiesel the answer? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:40PM (#12673591) Journal
    When we start talking about how we ought to be focusing our energies (pun intended) on future sources of electricity and power, there seems to be two distinct tacks. The first is to rely on limited-pollution sources like Nuclear and Solar. The second is to build on existing combustion systems with Diesel and BioDiesel.

    I'm very unsure of the second choice's long-term viability as well as its efficacy in reducing pollution levels. After all, it is still burning the fuel and releasing those emissions back into the atmosphere. Forests act as carbon sinks. They absorb excess carbon from the atmosphere and release oxygen so we can breathe. However, when a tree dies, all that absorbed carbon is rereleased into the environment. Burning an oil derived from a carbon sink (like the algae described in the article) only takes excess pollutants from one place and puts it somewhere else. In this case it puts it directly back into the atmosphere as the result of combustion.

    The road ahead is long, but eventually we need to wean ourselves off of oil. As a pollutant it is second to none. As a political lever, it is a threat to the sovereignty of any nation that is dependent on its import. As a resource, it is limited and will one day run to levels insufficient to support our current usage.

    BTW, the text captchas are getting harder and harder to read

    • Re:Is biodiesel the answer? (Score:5, Informative)

      by grqb ( 410789 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:53PM (#12673658) Homepage Journal
      With biofuels though, the idea is that to make biodiesel, you grow a crop. When the crop grows, it will suck up the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere as was released when burning it as biodiesel or ethanol fuel. so the carbon cycle should be neutral.

      But, in saying this, growing crops for fuel is just not sustainable, for one thing it requires a lot of land, for another it sucks up all of the soil nutrients and so you can't continue to grow crops in the same location indefinitely.

      But there are a couple of things that are being done about this problem. For instance, the biotech industry doesn't want to use corn/wheat directly, they focusing on using the waste streams [thewatt.com] of agricultural products (such as corn stover) to extract sugars using advanced enzyme systems. We can also make ethanol from by products of making paper [thewatt.com] using the same techniques.

      • But, in saying this, growing crops for fuel is just not sustainable, for one thing it requires a lot of land, for another it sucks up all of the soil nutrients and so you can't continue to grow crops in the same location indefinitely.

        But, in saying this, growing crops for FOOD is just not sustainable, for one thing it requires a lot of land, for another it sucks up all of the soil nutrients and so you can't continue to grow crops in the same location indefinitely.

      • Re:Is biodiesel the answer? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Goonie ( 8651 ) <robert.merkel@b[ ... g ['ena' in gap]> on Sunday May 29, 2005 @11:09PM (#12673738) Homepage
        Further to your unsustainability comments, some simple back of the envelope calculations show that conventional crops can't make more than a small contribution to our transport fuel needs. I know, I did some for biodiesel [benambra.org] and ethanol [benambra.org]. Note that the net energy return from crops other than sugar for ethanol is so marginal to make it very doubtful that you'll end up with more usable fuel than you put in.

        Thermal depolymerization and this algae farming *might* be practical, but conventional crops to ethanol is a waste of time (or, at least, is not worth subsidising on environmental grounds).

        • What's wrong with just a small contribution to our transport fuel needs?

          If biodiesel can only produce say 2% of our diesel, that is 2% less we have to import. It is a silly arugment to say that it is a waste of time because it can only make a small contribution. Under that line of thinking why not stop growing strawberries? After all they only a make a small contribution to our nutrional diet. Lets drop brocoli, because only a few people eat it.

          Why is it when someone comes up with an alternative fuel
          • I've got no problem with biodiesel per se; I have a problem with greenies who say "biodiesel is the answer" when some very basic calculation suggests that biodiesel from conventional crops can only supply a very small part of our energy needs. So, in the greater scheme of things, it is of marginal relevance.

            In the greenhouse debate, there's far too much attention paid to transport fuel use and too little to the static energy sector. The main game is going to be shutting down today's coal-fired power plan

      • Lets consider the real endless waste stream, Sewage. Waste water treatment plants should be set up as energy collectors. Start with anaerobic digesters to break down waste products and produce methane. The methane can be collected to fuel the plant. The waste is then generally treated with chemicals to remove solids (flocculation) and remove nutrients. The waste should be run through an algae growth facility. Normal waste water is considered a pollutant mainly because of the nutrient load. That load should

    • Long term viability? How do you think algae grows? By taking carbon dioxide out of the air (or out of a factory's waste stream). Combusting the algae removes oxygen from the air and releases carbon dioxide. The amount of oxygen required to combust the algae is the same that the algae put into the atmosphere during its growth. The amount of carbon dioxide released is the same as the algae removed from the atmosphere during its growth. The net change is zero. The energy input is the sun, and like almost

      • Yes.. we use way too much energy.. right now we're releasing a lot of stored chemical energy that took a LONG time to be stored in the ground. Switching everything to nuclear power is also a short-term boost in energy usage.

        If we want to sustain our energy usage rate, we will have to decrease the earth's ability to hold heat in.. if we magicaly solve the production problem some day with a fusion source.. we will still have to work at removing CO2 from the atmosphere to allow all that extra heat we pump ou
    • A mature forrest (One where the oldest trees are beginning to die), all of the CO2 absorbed by the trees is replaced by the CO2 being emitted by the organisims breaking down the leaf litter. Indeed, during droughts, forests have been measured as _emmitting_ CO2.

      The only CO2 sinks on this planet are the oceans, where, interestingly, algae consume CO2, and their dead bodies sink to the ocean floor, where, the standard theory goes, they are compressed and heated and form - Oil!!

      There is indeed nothing new un
    • Burning an oil derived from a carbon sink (like the algae described in the article) only takes excess pollutants from one place and puts it somewhere else.

      True, but if (say) your nation's fleet of 18-wheelers is now re-emitting CO2 that had previously been emitted by power plants, that means that they aren't burning CO2 that was dug out of the ground separately just for them. So you are still in a better position that you would have been otherwise... instead of CO2 entering the atmosphere from both the

    • There seems to be this common fallacy going around that people these days believe. That is that combustion=bad. Well we have news for you. Everything from bacteria to human bodies employs combustion as the primary means of energy production. That's right. Our bodies burn carbohydrates with oxygen producing carbon dioxide.

      The number one way of producing energy always will involve burning something. Naturally burning fossil fuels will always be a dirty afair and one that puts billions of previously con
    • Nuclear is a limited pollution power source only under certain definitions of the term limited.

      Spent nuclear rods aren't something you want. Ever. Unless you want to kill people (or other living things).

      As far as pollution reduction via biodiesel, the burning of it produces a much smaller effect than petroleum products. That is because petroleum products are carbon that has been removed from the atmosphere. Burning it returns it to the atmosphere, and it takes much longer to remove it again than it does t

  • step 2 (Score:3, Informative)

    by Homo Stannous ( 756539 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:42PM (#12673594)
    Step 1: grow algae
    Step 2: refine into biodiesel
    Step 3: Profit!

    I always thought step 2 was the hard part, because it requires methanol (biodiesel is basically a methanol-fatty acid ester), and methanol is tough to make. It gets made by cracking petroleum catalytically at very high temperatures and pressures, which takes a lot of energy. Where are these people getting their methanol?

  • Similar technology - Methane Farming... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by guyfromindia ( 812078 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:42PM (#12673597) Homepage
    On similar lines, there is talk about using Methane Farming techniques to get bio-diesel.. Here is an article that says "Methane farming and Bio-diesel can meet the entire energy requirement of India." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/950 402.cms [indiatimes.com]
    From the article linked above : We (in INDIA) have the world's largest livestock population of 250 million, which produces close to 125 million tonnes of cowdung. Using this we can produce enough methane gas to entirely replace LPG and kerosene in cooking, and substitute petrol in transportation. Methane gas can also generate enough electricity to meet all requirements, at least in rural areas. The by-product can serve as excellent organic manure, substituting chemical fertilisers which require LNG as feedstock.
  • Effectively these guys take clean CO2, which is not a pollutant, and turn it into a horrible, asthma causing pollutant, by feeding it into a school bus engine which emits it as diesel soot...
    • What the hell are you suggesting the bus run on?

      If the choice is between burning biodiesel or burning petroleum-derived diesel; the biodiesel is much cleaner. In any case, there's all manner of funky new anti-pollution gear for diesels coming on line soon; one of the more important types are particulate filters [bosch.com].

      But, in any case, you sound like a global warming denialist, so having a rational discussion on pollution with you is pretty much impossible anyway...

      • No, I don't deny that the globe is warming - it has been warming for 11000 years - it probably isn't going to stop warming up any time soon either. Very long ago, the polar regions were as hot as the tropics is now, it may be heading that way again. The interesting thing is that mankind depends on global warming. Long ago, only a small portion of the earth around the tropics was not covered in ice. It is the warming trend that freed up the world from its ice cover, allowing us to multiply and farm the la
        • Why is it a good thing for the global population to keep growing? Can't humanity thrive and progress with even 1/10th the current human population? As far as I'm concerned, human population size is the REAL core of the environmental problem. We could use all the oil we wanted if there were only a few million of us and not impact the planet.

      • Okay, I am an environmentalist. I have a degree in conservation biology. And I also know that studies have pretty much proven that the earth's climate fluctuations are directly linked to... total insolation from the sun. The sun's total energy output fluctuates over time, and when there is more energy coming in, the earth warms up.

        But what about the perfect lock-step match between temperatures and atmospheric CO2 you ask? Easy. People talk about the tundra permafrost melting and releasing CO2 and su

  • Nova ran a show on this technology (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Quirk ( 36086 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:44PM (#12673606) Homepage Journal
    It's not a panacea but at least it's an innovative approach. Countries under the Kyoto Protocol might get points for using this. As an added bonus the boffins gather every morning for an algea slurpie. On tv they all chugged down the thick green slop while bravely smiling.
  • The only barrier now is to prove that it is economically viable.

    Ahh, but that's not so much of an issue. It can reasonably be assumed that the process will become more efficient as time passes and throughput increases, and oil will, of course, become more expensive. As these two trends progress, it can't help but become cost effective. It's only a question of *how* cost effective and when.

    Well, that and how long it is before I replace my aging 240sx with a TDI Jetta. I'm fairly certain those can be cheaply adapted to run biodiesel, yes?
    • Well, yeah. It's a bit complex though -- you pour the biodiesel into the filler neck, and then you put the fuel cap back on. Then, turn the key.
      • Really? I thought there was some fairly easy conversion process that had to be done, at least extra filtration of some sort. Cool, good to know.

        • Re:Viable? Just wait. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Nf1nk ( 443791 )
          The filter change only needs to happen if you have been running "normal" Deisel for a while. When you change over to Bio it disolves all the crud (from the pump fuel) on the inside of your tank and it ends up clogging the fuel filter.
          If you always ran bio no change is needed
        • over time biodiesel will corode rubber (just like veggie oil will). but the ultra low sulpher diesel (required in europe, soon required in cali) vulcanizes rubber (also bad). so, as of 1993, all diesels made in europe have no rubber (i HOPE us car makers kept up but i havn't been paying attention to 'em). a friend drives an '81 mercedes which he found to have no rubber parts so even used cars can be safe. another drives a '91 ford truck which had some pump seals a-splode. YMMV.

          so, if you buy somethi

    • Re:Viable? Just wait. (Score:2, Informative)

      by litecode ( 513948 )
      I drive a Jetta TDi Turbo Diesel. It will run almost anything claimed as "*-diesel" with little or no modification.

      Amazing how all the hype is pointing at gas-hybrids, yet (bio)diesel is where the technology is pointing. Why run a clean diesel engine with more (and cleaner processed) torque and power per liter, when you could dump money into oil company products.
    • The only barrier now is to prove that it is economically viable.

      Any technology that reduces a previously unaddressed type pollution can be made economically viable--you just have to apply such heavy fees to actually releasing the pollution that the technology in question becomes the cheaper alternative.

      In fact, that's the way it often happens.

  • Makes more sense than hydrogen (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Michael Woodhams ( 112247 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:58PM (#12673688) Journal
    For some time I've thought the future of automotive fuel lies in biodiesel rather than hydrogen. Hydrogen is just very hard to work with because of its low energy density and the fact it is normally a gas. Generation, transportation, storage and utilization all face large challenges.
    For biodiesel, all the steps except generation are already solved and the infrastructure in place, and the generation problems do not seem large. (Even without the existing infrastructure, I suspect biodiesel wins economically.)

    Generation from algae is particularly promising, as it doesn't require arable land, and can use salt water.

    Article [wikipedia.org] on biodiesel.
    • The problem with oil (or diesel) is that the supplies are getting behind demand and unless we switch to a more flexible source of energy we're fucked. Even if oil is cheaper now, wait till there is a 5% or 10% shortfall between supply and demand. $400 a barrel will not be unrealistic. Oil has a very inelastic demand curve ie. small shortages of supply cause incredible rises in price.
      • What does this have to do with the post you're replying to?

        If you were under the impression Michael was talking about petroleum, go back and read the post again.

  • At last... (Score:3, Funny)

    by moviepig.com ( 745183 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @11:00PM (#12673699)

    Biodiesel algae - a 'power plant' a mother could love.

    And soon, no doubt . . . Soylent Green - putting people to work...

  • The inventor! (Score:2, Funny)

    by 3770 ( 560838 )
    Did you hear who invented this?

    Al Gaeore!

    +5 Groaner!

  • Where are the numbers? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) * on Sunday May 29, 2005 @11:18PM (#12673779) Homepage Journal
    He says it makes economic sense but I didn't see the numbers in the article.

    What I have see are numbers that make the whole proposition somewhat marginal without advances in genetics of algae.

    To get an idea of what you are going to get out an optimal system (using Calchemy's Unicalc [calchemy.com]):

    50$/barrel_oil; 50gm_algae/(m^2*day); .8gm_oil/cm^3; .6gm_prepressed_oil/gm_algae; .7gm_oil/gm_prepressed_oil?$/(acre*month)

    = 1016.17 $/(acre*month)

    Please check for any errors, but it appears that under optimal conditions, meaning a sunny desert with warm nights year round and algae production consistently at the height achieved by ASP during their 20 year study, using a species modified to produce optimal oil and a consistently high price for oil, one can get $1000 per acre per month.

    We have $1000/month to make this realistic and to pay the rest of the expenses of the operation per acre.

    A covering will eat into that $1000 in two ways:

    1) Amortization (which has to be fast)
    2) Solar flux reduction

    Let's take out the solar flux from the covering first and say we lose 30% leaving us with $700 for the rest of the operation. Let's further say that we need half of that for expenses other than structure amortization, leaving us with $350. If we assume commercial lending rates of around 12% and zero amortization -- just debt service, we can afford $35,000 to cover an acre so with amortization it drops to sometning more like $10,000 to cover an acre.

    Covering these ponds sounds problematic under optimal conditions, let alone constructing bioreactors -- and we haven't even gone to climates with less total solar flux.

    Recalculating for volumetric production of oil:

    50gm_dry_algae/(m^2*day); .8gm_oil/cm^3; .6gm_prepressed_oil/gm_dry_algae; .7gm_oil/gm_prepressed_oil?gal/(yard^2*month)

    = 0.17636 gal/(yard^2*month)

    What this says is that the best you can expect, under optimal species and growth conditions, of any algae-oil system that relies on the sun for its energy, is for each square yard of solar-exposed pond to produce just over a fifth of a gallon of pressed lipid oil each month -- which you must then process into biodiesel through the normal methods. If you find other energy sources you can feed to algae, you might beat this but algae are optimized to consume solar energy so you have to be very skeptical of any claims that exceed this productivity level and really find out where the energy is coming from and how the algae are metabolizing it.

    Let me try to break down the parameters of the calculation:

    50gm_dry_algae/(m^2*day)
    This is the target productivity figure given by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's review of the last 25 years of algae biodiesel work. It basically says for a given area, how much dry algae you should be able to get out of an _optimal_ system per day -- optimal climate, species, solar flux at pond surface, etc. If you can economically create these conditions in your "back yard" then you can get that level of productivity. Find the NREL's review at:
    http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf [nrel.gov]

    .8gm_oil/cm^3;
    This is the density, or specific gravity of diesel. Diesel isn't quite as dense as water. This probably should have been the density of lipid oil but I didn't have that figure handy.

    .6gm_prepressed_oil/gm_dry_algae;
    The _highest_ oil content, of oil-producing algae reported by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's review, was 60%. This presumes algae grown under their high rate goal of 50gm_dry_algae/(m^2*day) but this growth rate has yet to be achieved with this high, 60% oil content (to the best of my current reading of the NREL report).

    .7gm_oil/gm_prepressed_oil
    This is a fairly optimistic 70% fig

    • PS (Score:2)

      by Baldrson ( 78598 ) *
      I just, literally while the parent was being rated up, verified with a $10 microscope from ebay (shipping was more) that my culture of arthrospira platensis [conncoll.edu] is exponentiating in some bottled water from Wally World! (I added some NaHCO3 and nutrients)

      W00T! [geocities.com]

    • I wish to subscribe to your newsletter...
    • One big factor is that these ponds will be using a CO2 source that is far more concentrated than atmosphere. I think that will substantially improve your yields though I haven't run the calculations to determine how efficiently the estimates of algae conversion of sunlight to biochemically stored energy.

  • methane (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ArbitraryConstant ( 763964 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @11:25PM (#12673805) Homepage
    Isn't it easier to produce methane directly from algae? That might not be quite as dense as other hydrocarbons, but it's not that bad and it's a lot better than hydrogen. It's also useful for producing oil from resources like the tar sands in Alberta (that requires a lot of natural gas eg methane).

  • In the End (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    > The only barrier now is to prove that it is economically viable

    In the end, this is all that really matters. BioDiesel always has and always will be a net energy loser. Meaning it takes more energy to produce it, then it consumes

    • Hahaha (Score:3, Interesting)

      by The Cookie Monster ( 129545 )
      What is it with this myth?

      I have heard this exact same claim made of of
      • Solar panels
      • Hydro dams - they silt up and become unusable
      • Nuclear power - only feasible due to goverment subsidies
      • Wind power

      And now I get to add biodiesel to the list.
      (I guess biodiesel is really just an organic solar panel anyway)

      You know what, in every instance it's a myth, every one of those produces significantly more energy over its lifespan than it takes to manufacture - with the possible exception of a solar panel in the arc

  • The Boston Museum of Science has a small exhibit on the technology right as you walk between all the exhibit halls (by the map of Boston with the buttons that light up various areas of the map).

  • Neat but who cares if it won't make a dent... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MSBob ( 307239 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @12:18AM (#12674002)
    It's time to wake up and accept that we are running out of oil very quickly [lifeaftertheoilcrash.net] and no gimmicks are going to fix the problem. This technology may be neat but it's certainly not going to scale to the forecast energy shortfall that may be as large as 10 million barrels per day by 2010.

    As far as oil supplies go, we are totally, royally and majorly fscked.

    • Absolutely, energy diversity should be the future. It would be a shame to get away from the impending oil crisis by relying on a resource that will also deplete. I would like to see an assortment of energy using vehicles in the world: electric, hydrogen, petroleum-based, solar?. Energy should be approached in the same way that we approach our finances - with conservation and diversity.

  • Benefit (Score:2, Insightful)

    by trime ( 733350 )
    Did anyone else read
    The benefits are that heavy polluters can cut back on their emissions and at the same time make biodiesel
    as
    Now you can produce even more industrial waste, and it might be economically to your advantage to do so?

    Perhaps I'm being too cynical... it seems like a great idea, but will it just be a justification for causing more environmental havoc if it is economically viable?

  • This is SO OLD! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chessie ( 22669 ) * on Monday May 30, 2005 @12:53AM (#12674181) Homepage
    there is nothing new here....

    josh tickell (don;t laugh, it's his real name)talked about this in his book From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank [biodieselamerica.org]. thats 8 years ago!
    he drove around in a painted mini-winnebago promoting bio/veggie burning waste oil for fuel.

    the notion is that algea are about 90% water, and on the order of 5% oils. growing the algea on large shallow ponds is cheap and easy. reduction of the algea into oils is pretty easy with centrfuges. then making it into bio while simple, is very energy intensive, heat it up to react, use nasty chemicals made with lots of energy etc.

    the end result was it was very energy intensive to make bioD, to make it economically viable. was, still is.

    you are best off reading more at biodieselamerica.org [biodieselamerica.org]

    before you start wining about diesel 'soot,' soot is caused by excessive SULPHER in the fuel. bioD has no sulpher, so huge reductions in emissions. USLD will allegedly be here in a couple of years.

    some of us ARE getting 45+ mpg in regular non-hybrid cars using regular diesel, bio, WVO/SVO plant oils. 25+ in 3/4 p/u. what do you drive? are you still driving mommy's SUV?

    figures how an out of work rocket scientist instead of a truely green pioneer gets the press and the seed money.

    that's america for you.
  • that the existing oil company "dinosaurs" won't take too kindly to any upstart muscling in on their nice lucrative fiefdom... do not be surprised if they buy up the upstarts and sit on the technology.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close