| Algae BioFuel On Sale Soon |
| Written by Hank Green | ||
| Sunday, 30 March 2008 | ||
|
Well, apparently folks could smell the green sludge on the horizon because Green Fuel Technologies just announced they had begun construction of their commercial scale algae plant while PetroSun announced they'd be taking their pilot algae farm commercial on April 1st. Now, this obviously isn't ethanol, with millions of gallons of production...or even cellulosic ethanol, with a wood-waste to fuel plant ready to go online this year, but it is a big deal. It's a big deal because algae don't just create energy from the sun...they create energy from the sun more effectively than anything else save photovoltaic panels. And, as you may have guessed, they're a heck of a lot cheaper than photovoltaic panels. Green Fuel Technologies is adding another environmental advantage, planning to hook their algae bioreactors up to the smoke stacks from power plants. So the algae will be using the sun to turned burned fuel back into fuel. Theoretically, this could become a closed loop. Burn fuel...feed exhaust to algae...harvest algae for fuel...burn fuel...etc. PetroSun's facility, on the other hand, has 1,100 acres of open ponds growing algae in Texas. Open ponds are cheaper, but it's more difficult to control which species of algae are growing, so less productive strains often take over. Also, you can't feed your crop with CO2 straight from a power plant. Via Gas 2.0 and GreenTech Media
Comments
(16)
...
written by nicster , March 31, 2008
YES!
written by Andrew , March 31, 2008
I have been telling people for ages that algae was a far saner solution than food stock based Solutions. In large part because they can be closed loop, and can produce multiple types of fuel, depending on type of algae.
And using a Chlamydomonas Reinhardtii type green algae, once we understand the two phase sulferless solution better, it could lead the way to a bio-hydrogen plant even, removing the CO2 from the cycle entirely. Sun Water -> Hydrogen-> Water.
Actually...
written by Bret , March 31, 2008
Actually closed loop would be better because you could have more of a CO2 rich atmosphere which should increase the growth rate of the algae.
I don't want to see powerplants anywhere
written by web.serf , March 31, 2008
This is a an encouraging step in the right direction. But hooking it up to a fossil fuel power plant is still introducing new carbon into the atmosphere. To stop the greenhouse effect, they have to get CO2 directly out of the atmosphere. Open ponds look like the best option here because there doesn't have to be a coal plant in the loop.
powerplants
written by nicster , March 31, 2008
I'm merely guessing but I think Hank's power plant reference was to a plant using the fuel produced by the algae. That would make it a closed loop. You could start it with atmospheric CO2 but, after that, the CO2 would merely run from farm to power plant to farm, etc.
Open or closed, the farm can run on atmospheric or powerplant-generated CO2. The important point is that CO2 output roughly equals CO2 input, thus making this technology carbon-neutral (other than the carbon stored in the algae), regarldless of whether the system itself is open or closed.
just temporary help
written by litteuldav , March 31, 2008
Look at this for what it is.
Algae production can use deserts to produce transportation fuels like biodiesel, because this is the denser and less volatile energy transport medium that masses can use. This is a temporary solution while waiting on the real solution, that is : Photovoltaic/ThermalSolar electric to Batteries/UltraCaps electric vehicles. Everything else is by far less efficient. Algae could also be used in remote desert location where a pipeline is cheaper than electric power lines, as long as these desert have water. But don't draw plans on the comet, every energy conversion is energy loss, breeding algae to burn them to produce electricity can only be interesting if it is damn cheap. Stop burning things to get energy. Combustion generates pollutants, that's the way things are.
April Fool
written by Jon , March 31, 2008
On April 1st...., sounds like an April Fools joke to me....
Not a closed loop or carbon neutral.
written by 123 , April 02, 2008
Feeding CO2 from a powerplant will not be a closed loop, the CO2 comes fron some form of fossil fuel, it is burned, turned into algae and then released into the atmosphere contributing to a net increase regardless, it simply adds another step. Like pissing your pants to stay warm in other words.
A step in the right direction
written by hongimaster , April 02, 2008
I think the idea of it is...
Algae Sun (energy) CO2 -> Fuel (ie something similar to Photosynthesis) Fuel O2 (burning) -> Energy CO2(ie something similar to combustion or aerobic respiration) CO2 (from burning) Algae Sun -> Fuel (cycle repeats using CO2 from combustion of fuels to generate new fuels, thus making the theoretical output as NIL CO2). However a previous poster was correct in saying that along every energy conversion there is energy lost. Though even they must agree that having Energy which effectively cuts down the majority of its net CO2 output is a very good thing indeed. Unfortunately we have only just started to scratch the surface with renewable energy. Although we have made leaps and bounds, Petrol and other fossil fuels have had centuries of use and thus centuries of development. A petrol car today would (arguably) be a lot more efficient than that of the first cars. All we need to do is be patient. We are all so panicked by the hype of global warming, that we are forgetting that some of these technologies have only been created in the last 5 (or less) years. We are demanding scientists and businesses change hundreds of years of thinking and suddenly come up with the hypothetical silver bullet to carbon emmissions over night. I personally think (coming from Australia) we need to do a lot more with solar-based technologies. It is truly the only infinite power source. (Well lets put it this way, if the sun stops giving off energy, we're all dead anyway). However solar power is still very basic, requiring huge cells or plants to make moderate-basic amounts of energy. But with time comes development and eventually technology will grow. I am sure in 20 years or so we will look back at how inefficient our solar panels were, or how primitive Algae fuels may seem. But all we need to do is give it time, money and patience. Nice work.
...
written by Alan Arnold , April 05, 2008
Algae is also a clean, sustainable and local source of carbon biomass for food, chemical and structural uses. As pointed out above, used as biofuel for internal combustion engines, algae recycles, but does not sequester, carbon. This is a stopgap to help our civilization get past Peak Oil. A company, Coskata, http://www.coskata.com/ has proprietary engineered bacteria that convert syngas = CO H2 from biomass into ethanol, perhaps these critters could be modified to eat the CO (sequestration) and leave the H2 for fuel cell use, as a next step into the electric economy, perhaps much cheaper and simpler than solar/wind etc dedicated to H2 production, or perhaps both, certainly better than the absurd idea of building nuke plants for no other purpose than process heat reformation of H2O into H2 (nukes have their place, but this is not it).
think wider
written by Nicola Terry , April 22, 2008
I don't know about these particular installations, but algae can do a lot more than just turn energy and sunlight into biodiesel. They can also help process biodegradable waste and the waste from biodiesel can be used for crop fertiliser, thus helping to recycle nitrogen and phosphorus as well as carbon and relieving the need for energy-intensive ammonium nitrate fertiliser.
Where is it?
written by Carrie , April 22, 2008
It's almost may, where's the algae farm?
Special Aide to Amory Lovins
written by Aaron , May 06, 2008
Is anybody doing agrichar with the pressings after the oil has been extracted? Seems like it could be a huge added value to the process, and yield great fertilizer.
Commercial viability
written by Bob , May 16, 2008
Bio-fuels have to become commercially viable for them to be brought to market. I think that the projects to develop aviation fuel from algae in Europe have the best chances for convincing the markets that bio-fuels are practical. If you look at being able to fly using an algae-oil derivative then you reduce extra CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels. These applications may lead to adoption of algae -diesel and hopefully an algae - gasoline product if the strains can be convinced to produce the exotic/lipids necessary to replace our fossil fuels. It would be nice if we could replace all the internal combustion engines we use overnight but I think tat find green power alternatives is a practical short-term solution!
the system is far from perfect.
written by KE , June 01, 2008
this system does not work to the degree that they've been claiming. They lost their head scientist; they made some questionable deals with oil magnates in regions where the blue-green algae can not survive, and they have breed the algae in such a way that it could become a major factor if introduced to a ecosystem.
executive director
written by b cole , June 14, 2008
Algae Commercialization:
Business Roundtable, Research, and Networking Forum - Jul 17, 2008 www.nationalalgaeassociation.com | ||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Science, technology gadgets and...baby seals. We're in a bit of an eco-mess, but we've got the brains to lick any problem. And that's why EcoGeek.org publishes up to ten stories daily about innovations that are saving the planet.
And if that sounds interesting to you, then congratulations, you're an EcoGeek.
Just last week I was 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
On second thought, though, isn't having a closed loop more of a perceived benefit than an actual benefit. After all, CO2 "pollution" isn't really a localized phenomenon. Any CO2 that comes out of the atmosphere is a good thing. Any CO2 that goes in is a bad thing. Doesn't much matter where the input or output happens. It's the net effect on a planetary basis that's the problem (or benefit).