In another thread we were debating the future of biofuels. One of the exciting alternatives is algae. One of the main problems it faces is the capital it takes to build large tanks of water to grow algae.

Well in Virginia they are moving forward with a pilot program to use waste water treatment plants as tanks. This helps solve several problems. One, you don't have to build tanks or find open land to buy to build tanks on. Two, the algae acts as a natural filter for the water, returning a less nitrogen rich water from the system. Three, waste water treatment plants maybe able to sell C02 offset credits to help pay for the project and make the fuel cheaper to produce.




But perhaps our most exciting initiative targets something else that is naturally occurring in coastal Virginia -- algae. To grow it, we make use of the state's moderate temperatures and abundant sunshine and water.

Moreover, in the initiative, scientists and engineers at Old Dominion University are taking advantage of a man-made resource that would otherwise be considered a pollutant -- nitrogen-rich wastewater effluent. We have installed bioreactors atop a Hampton Roads Sanitation District wastewater treatment plant in order to grow algae in effluent. These oil-rich organisms are harvested, dried, and converted into biodiesel fuel by means of a chemical process developed at ODU.


http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion/commentary.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-03-23-0074.html

I saw the chemical process on Invention Nation a couple weeks ago. If its the one I'm remembering correctly, the biodiesel creation process uses CO2 as well.

Algae has amazing potential and using it for an alternative fuel source makes more and more sense as the price of oil goes up. NOËL gave up on algae in the 90's when oil was $20 per barrel and has since started up new projects. Expect huge news in the next year or so.

The main reason you can't just use water treatment plants is due to the fact that algae in flat ponds is not very efficient. Much less so than normal solar PV. You need a lot of land. No problem because these little guys love waste water, power plant CO2 emissions, salt water (some of them) and can even thrive in deserts. I'm bullish on algae but don't forget they need tons of land. Tons! Also, it's not the ponds that cost too much. The cost they were referring to are the cost of the photobioreactors. The main advantage is increased land efficiency and closed system operation. These things have not proven cost effective... Yet. Again, keep your eyes open...

A couple guys are making a run at it. Here is a fun one


Solix addresses these problems by containing the algae in closed “photobioreactors”—triangular chambers made from sheets of polyethylene plastic (similar to a painter’s dropcloth)—and bubbling supplemental carbon dioxide through the system. Eventually, the source of the CO2 will be exhaust from power plants and other industrial processes, providing the added benefit of capturing a potent greenhouse gas before it reaches the atmosphere.

Given the right conditions, algae can double its volume overnight. Unlike other biofuel feedstocks, such as soy or corn, it can be harvested day after day. Up to 50 percent of an alga’s body weight is comprised of oil, whereas oil-palm trees—currently the largest producer of oil to make biofuels—yield just about 20 percent of their weight in oil. Across the board, yields are already impressive: Soy produces some 50 gallons of oil per acre per year; canola, 150 gallons; and palm, 650 gallons. But algae is expected to produce 10,000 gallons per acre per year, and eventually even more.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4213775.html


http://www.solixbiofuels.com/

Another one


PetroSun, Inc (Other OTC:PSUD.PK - News) announced today that its initial commercial algae-to-biofuels farm is scheduled to commence operations on April 1, 2008. The farm is located on the Texas Gulf Coast near Harlingen, Texas.


The facility, located in Rio Hondo Texas, will produce an estimated 4.4 million gallons of algal oil and 110 million lbs. of biomass per year off a series of saltwater ponds spanning 1,100 acres. Twenty of those acres will be reserved for the experimental production of a renewable JP8 jet-fuel.

http://gas2.org/2008/03/29/first-algae-biodiesel-plant-goes-online-april-1-2008/

Just kind of adding stuff on here to show the innovation that exsists around this kind of operation. This company is filtering C02 out of existing smoke stacks at traditional coal power plants and routing it into closed algae systems to make algae oil. Again, duel use for the win.

It isn't about stopping innovation, its about finding creative ways to use what we have to make our world better. And get rich doing it.


Website
http://www.greenfuelonline.com/index.html

Effeciency study
http://www.greenfuelonline.com/gf_files/Performance%20Summary%20Report.pdf

I've looked quite a bit at algae, but I have to say that while it holds tremendous possibilities it also is likely to never meant to be. The requirements of actually hitting these theoretical yields are much harder than most people imagine: you have to take into consideration temperature, nutrient injections, co2 injection, fluid flows, etc it is not that making algae fuel is simply a matter of finding the right kind and throwing it in a pond--there are a lot of engineering challenges as well.

The problem also is that since most studies have given up on open ponds you have to consider the costs and upkeep of closed photobioreactors.

Apparently Japan spent over $100 million on algae fuel research in the 1980's and did'nt have any meaningful results.

GreenFuels has not updated their website in over 6 months. And most every algae program I could find announcing their initial study went under before any results were shown.

I look forward to someone cracking it, but from my view I would rather take Algae fuel as a nice surprise to look forward to rather than anything we pin our energy future on.

Most of the hurrdles I've seen have to do with production costs. IE, it didn't make sense to produce diesel at $4 per gallon when you could produce fosil diesel at 35 cents a gallon. Two things have changed that equation since the 80's

First, obviously the price of diesel has changed and made making a profit much more likely.

Second, bio engineering has taken major strides forward in the last 20 years. In fact, most of the work being done today is on strain building. Finding strains that are growth tolerant and making them produce more oil.

I'm not expecting to drive down and see it on the corner pump next week, but I think its coming.

Most of the hurrdles I've seen have to do with production costs. IE, it didn't make sense to produce diesel at $4 per gallon when you could produce fosil diesel at 35 cents a gallon. Two things have changed that equation since the 80's

First, obviously the price of diesel has changed and made making a profit much more likely.

Second, bio engineering has taken major strides forward in the last 20 years. In fact, most of the work being done today is on strain building. Finding strains that are growth tolerant and making them produce more oil.

I'm not expecting to drive down and see it on the corner pump next week, but I think its coming.

From what I understand Greenfuels had trouble with harvesting the algae. They couldn't come up with a cost effective way to get the algae out of solution. Other then that, what they did worked fairly well. That is why I think the duel use solutions are going to be cool. Sharing the cost of production with water treatment or CO2 scrubbing can help create a viable situation that gets the innovation ball rolling toward a sustainable solution.

GreenFuels has not updated their website in over 6 months. And most every algae program I could find announcing their initial study went under before any results were shown.


I just pulled this off the Green Fuels web site (http://www.greenfuelonline.com/index.html)

Copyright ©2008 GreenFuel Technologies Corporation
I don't know what it means but I do know it's April 12, 2008

http://www.nanostring.net/Algae/CaseStudy.pdf

I have read Krassen’s report and it seems like the game is all over for algae. However... Listen to what Krassen is saying now (read below). Also, GreenFuel just received (last month) $92 million to build out it’s first commercial plant based on the results of it’s pilot plants (http://www.groovygreen.com/groove/?p=2805). What is going on here? Who to believe? I guess I’m just going to wait until all the other results are in and then decide. Krassen said it will cost over $30 for a gallon for algae oil. Individuals can buy algae oil wholesale but I don‘t know what the price is. Does anyone have an idea how much it currently costs? Links? I did find the following product:

16 OZ. FOR PROFESSIONAL USE. Produced in France from 100% Laminaria Digitata, the Algae Oil Complex offers the benefits of sea algae in a pure, highly concentrated, odorless form. It hydrates the skin with minerals and enzymes, detoxifies, stimulates blood circulation, invigorates the skin tissue and improves the skin elasticity.

The price is $38. This is an extremely refined product and has the huge markup that a skin care product from France usually commands.

If you read the following you might also be scratching your head over the algae issue:

Shell joins search for green fuel with plan to make diesel from algae

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3038075.ece

“Skeptics have suggested that the use of algae to produce biofuels is prohibitively expensive compared with conventional fossil fuels. One study, by Krassen Dimitrov, an academic in Brisbane, Australia, indicated that it would be uneconomic unless oil prices reached as much as $800 per barrel.
Yesterday, Shell dismissed this claim. “We believe it would be economically viable,” a spokesman said.”

Krassen Retorted:
“A point of clarification: the CaseStudy authored by me considers cultivation in industrial photobioreactors (PBRs), while HR Biopetroleum's approach is based on farming in open ponds. While open ponds have their own disadvantages, their costs are lower than PBRs so the Study and the $800 estimate is not directly applicable.
Krassen Dimitrov, Brisbane, Australia”

He then wrote in his Blog:

“If my assumptions are correct, algae open ponds will exceed the productivities of even the most productive agricultural systems, at a reasonable capital cost.

Open ponds were studied in the 80s by NREL and abandoned as uneconomical. The backdrop has changed significantly with oil at $110/bbl and carbon taxing taking place or imminent in many places. A healthy renewal of interest and activity has been going on with open ponds, the most interesting project being the HR Biopetroleum/Shell joint venture, in my view.”

Chevron, NREL To Collaborate on Algae-to-Biofuel Research

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=50468

“Chevron and NREL scientists will collaborate to identify and develop algae strains that can be economically harvested and processed into finished transportation fuels such as jet fuel. Chevron Technology Ventures, a division of Chevron U.S.A. Inc., will fund the initiative.”

Correct, Open ponds would make Algae a lot more viable.

The issue there is simply figuring out how to make it so the pond is not taken over by other less-oil producing species of algae.

Well there’s the hybrid approach. You keep the desired algae growing in photobioreactors and then daily release it to the open ponds. The ponds are basically flushed on a regular basis when the foreign species become a problem. That way you keep the good algae and tolerate the bad algae while enjoying advantages of each system (closed photobioreactors - pure, open ponds - cheap).

I'll wait to see what the brilliant scientists come up with at NREL. Let's hope the funding continues and even grows.

http://www.nanostring.net/Algae/CaseStudy.pdf

I guess to sum up. According to this paper, and the analysis looks pretty solid at first glance a photo-bio-reactor can produce roughly 1.24 gallons per square meter per year.

I like Texas' idea of the two stage approach.

I think the bigger issue with open ponds actually is the lack of sufficient CO2 concentrations to really hit the high yields Algae is capable of. After all, if the business plan is to use power plant CO2 as a feedstock and sell them carbon credits, then you have a problem if a lot of it is bubbling up into the air.

With open-air ponds, you'll likely go towards the lower end of yields (maybe 5,000-10,000 gallons an acre)

The issue with this is that the cost using a equal amount of land to just grow grasses to make cellulosic fuels and get maybe 2000 gallons/acre is likely less than 1/5 the cost of maintaining those ponds.

The issue with this is that the cost using a equal amount of land to just grow grasses to make cellulosic fuels and get maybe 2000 gallons/acre is likely less than 1/5 the cost of maintaining those ponds.

That goes against what Dr. Krassen said (in my post above):

“If my assumptions are correct, algae open ponds will exceed the productivities of even the most productive agricultural systems, at a reasonable capital cost."

There are a lot of costs in growing, harvesting, planting, rotating crops, etc. with traditional crops. Maybe you can give us some of the numbers you are working with that show how you came up with the 1/5 cost number.

I think the bigger issue with open ponds actually is the lack of sufficient CO2 concentrations to really hit the high yields Algae is capable of. After all, if the business plan is to use power plant CO2 as a feedstock and sell them carbon credits, then you have a problem if a lot of it is bubbling up into the air.

With open-air ponds, you'll likely go towards the lower end of yields (maybe 5,000-10,000 gallons an acre)

The issue with this is that the cost using a equal amount of land to just grow grasses to make cellulosic fuels and get maybe 2000 gallons/acre is likely less than 1/5 the cost of maintaining those ponds.

Can you site the estimates on 2000 gallons/acre for the grasses? I'm asking because I've not seen traditional estimates over 700-800 gallons per acre for other crops.

The reason I don't rule out a closed solution is the dramatic work being done with single cell organisms right now. We have lots of tricks right now and while I don't think there is a solution that grows quickly and produces the 40% oil (a key assumption in the 100,000 gallons per acre pipe dream). But I could definitly see a rugged middle point that could produce 25K - 30K per acre.

The problem with open ponds are that C02 can not be concentrated like it can in closed systems and water loss combined with foreign species invasion (on both a macro and genetic level) will always reduce the efficiency.

The key is always going to be harvest costs. I think growing will be solved, its just a matter of how much it costs to extract the oil. If we can come up with a biological (virus or other single cell catalyst) or an enzymatic catalyst that could dramatically reduce the cost.

I believe this in some form will be a part of our future. Craig Venter is working on stuff like this. And it might be that we end up simply skimming the fuel straight out of the reactors as the organisms produce a product that can go straight into the gas tank.

I just don't see how algae can be a dud when it produces soooo much more oil per acre than corn AND can be grown on otherwise worthless land. The CO2 and all those other inputs aren't needed to make this work, they just make it work better. I just find it hard to believe that they haven't already made this profitable. Seems simply enough water, light, algae! And little more than that.

I am obviously missing something. Sure you have a little overhead to get started but after that dollar inputs seem like they would be fairly low.

If you have hydrogen and CO2, you can make rather easily methanol.

From methanol you can make any fuel (in Germany a plant is build that creates normal fuels from methanol).

Hydrogen can be generated from solar.

CO2 air capture is still a little difficult, but the company www.grestech.com is working on it. The other things are proven technologies (although many improvements can be made).

See also the book 'The methanol economy'.

This becomes profitable with a oil price somewhere between 200 and 300 dollar a barrel.

Lucas