Biodiesel achieves economic viability?

I just happened across this article on slashdot: Start-Up  Drills Oil in Algae which describes a company coupling algae cultivation to CO2 waste from power plants. This is a really neat idea which provides an economic incentive for power plants to produce more energy and less pollution. I think this is arguably a better way to protect the environment than through law making, since profits are the only  guiding principle for most energy companies. Of course, increased use of biodiesel also means less money for Osama and other terrorists funded by foreign oil. I think that is a good thing too.

I have posted before on biodiesel, always to be confronted by skeptics that biodiesel is not economically viable since obtaining the oil from rapeseed or other conventional sources of vegetable oil would require vast tracts of farmland. They, of course, are correct. However, I always pointed out that the University of New Hampshire had conducted a study study assessing the possibility of obtaining biodiesel from algae. As the UNH study posits, obtaining oil from algae would require much less land area, which would also not need to be rich farmland; the article itself suggests growing the algae in the Sonora desert. To this suggestion, the skeptics noted that the UNH study was merely preliminary research and that no company was close to implementing an actual system of harvesting biodiesel from algae. I think the above article somewhat weakens this argument.

A quick overview of the companies vision is seen through this quote:

Power plant emissions are piped into the triangular bioreactors along with water. The algae, which are exposed to the sun, consume carbon dioxide as part of photosynthesis. They also can break down nitrogen oxide--thereby reducing the amount of polluting gas released.

Once the algae are grown, the conversion to biodiesel is a relatively simple process, said Berzin, who calls algae "little packets of oil." Biodiesel produced from the natural oils in soybeans can be used in existing diesel engines.

Interest in the plant product as a potential replacement to petroleum-based diesel appears to be rising. In a radio address over the weekend, ahead of a trip to the Virginia Biodiesel Refinery, President Bush identified biodiesel as "an alternative fuel that will help our country achieve greater energy independence."

To appease the skeptics, I will point out the limitations mentioned in the article:

Because it relies on solar energy to grow the algae, its products will work best in areas where there is a lot of sun. Berzin says that location has not been a problem yet.

Also, creating a large-scale operation with thousands of bioreactors requires a great deal of land. GreenFuel estimates that 70 percent of power plants in the United States have enough land and "food"--that is, carbon byproduct.

Still, nothing insurmountable. I think even the skeptical will have to admit that this is a big step toward energy independence and cleaner energy.

Update: Ericy in the comments calculated that "roughly 60 billion gallons/year. To put this in perspective, the U.S. uses approximately 60 billion gallons of diesel fuel every year." The details of his calculation can be found here

•  All I need now

  is one of those VW golf TDIs. I hear they can get over 50 mpg and drive just like a gasoline- engined equivalent.

  by ARingMD2B on Mon May 30, 2005 at 03:42:50 PM PDT

  •  My son has a VW TDI

    that he converted to run on greasil (used restaurant fry-oils). He gets  all the oil he needs  for free from a japanese restaurant near where he lives.

    The setup required to filter the oil before putting it in the tank is a little messy, and it requires a special heated fuel tank because veg oil is thicker than regular diesel fuel, but the car runs fine, gets great mileage, and as a bonus,  the exhaust smells like tempura.

    Honest.
    

    by shumard on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:01:45 PM PDT

  •  Have one of those things...

    Actually a Jetta.  Powertrain is identical - just the body is different.  You can get New Beetle too if you want to go that route.

    In recent years VW has been making the things more powerful and heavier, and in the process reducing the fuel economy.  I think it was in 2004 model year that they started some of this, and in 2006 the redesigned Jetta looks nothing like older ones.

    Until ULSD arrives in June 2006, most car manufacturers aren't going to spend a lot of effort on diesel cars in the U.S.  VW has been the one big exception - in Europe Honda now has a nice diesel, and there are others.

    by ericy on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:02:38 PM PDT

    •  Do the TDI engines hold up as well

      as other diesel engines? I hear the average diesel engine usually gets over 300,000 miles of usage.

      by ARingMD2B on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:05:20 PM PDT

      •  Engines hold up quite well...

        
        The engines have a good reputation, and 300K is easily doable.  Don't scrimp on regular maintenance though.

        A good place to read about TDI is www.tdiclub.com.  There is discussion about biodiesel there as well.
        

        by ericy on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:12:01 PM PDT

•  Willie loves him some biodiesel.

  I caught an ad he was in on RFD-TV.  Here's his site (and he mentions algae as a potential source, too.).

  Willie's site

  by RonV on Mon May 30, 2005 at 03:55:23 PM PDT

•  This Does Nothing ...

  Insofar as the generation of carbon dioxide is concerned; it doesn't reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere one whit.

  Any CO2 generated by the power plants in this scheme and then "eaten" by the algae is subsequently released into the atmosphere when the biodiesel made from the algae is burned.

  Biodiesel made from oil crops ... including algae ... that "eat" existing atmospheric CO2, however, is truly what is called "carbon neutral;" its combustion results in no net increase of atmospheric CO2 levels, the carbon in the biodiesel coming from the atmosphere in the first place.

  As an aside, I'll note that all other biomass fuels ... wood, alcohol and methane made from biomass, etc. ... are also carbon neutral.

  Alas, I have to conclude that Mr. Berzin, at least insofar as his claims of being able to "reduce pollution" with his bioreactors, is selling not biodiesel, but snake oil ... and with his background, he certainly knows better.

  Which, naturally, leads me to question his overall credibility. Why is he peddling these patently false claims?

  Don't mistake me; I keep hoping that I'll read, someday soon, that somebody, somewhere, is actually producing and selling biodiesel made from algae for what conventional diesel now costs, or even for less, and is actually making a profit doing it. The proces has great potential, but, insofar as I'm aware, that's all it has at the moment ... potential.

  by gwhayduke on Mon May 30, 2005 at 04:08:28 PM PDT

  •  I think you are missing the point

    you're right- the CO2 is rereleased when you burn the biodiesel. But I would hardly call the proposition "snake-oil." You basically get two uses out of the CO2 (from the initial burning at the power plant and the consumption in the car) for the price of one.

    I think you'll understand the point if you can answer this question: which fuel is better for the environment- biodiesel produced from the method mentioned in the article, or regular diesel?

    I really don't see any difference between the CO2 produced from this biodiesel and any other biodiesel. With regular biodiesel you have no net CO2 emission since the CO2 emmitted from the car is more than absorbed by the CO2 necessary to create the oil. With the biodiesel created in the manner mentioned above, the CO2 absorbed from the  power plants is rereleased by consumption by the car, but no CO2 that would normally produced from non-biodiesel consumption is released, meaning the net-emmission is the same as emission just from the plant, so it is as good as regular biodiesel.

    The mathematical logic behind this is pretty simple:

    regular biodiesel is like 0 + - 1 (CO 2absorption from algae) + 1 (release from car burning) = 0 (no net emission)

    this biodiesel is like 1 (power plant emmision) - 1 (absorption) + 1 (release) = 1 .

    Use of regular fuel is like 0 + 1 = 1 (net CO2 release).

    by ARingMD2B on Mon May 30, 2005 at 04:21:03 PM PDT

  •  No, it reduces pollution

    Yes, the CO2 still winds up in the atmosphere. But it gets used twice along the way: once to generate electricity, and once to power a car.

    By using the CO2 twice, it prevents us from having to pump more oil, which would release more atmospheric carbon.

    by vtdem on Mon May 30, 2005 at 04:26:22 PM PDT

    •  Correct.

      
      It isn't ideal - I would prefer solutions that emit no CO2, but this approach does help somewhat.
      

      by ericy on Mon May 30, 2005 at 04:57:23 PM PDT

      •  stuck with combustion engine

        not until fuel cell. IN the emantime we are stuck with combustion engine

        by fugue on Mon May 30, 2005 at 06:45:28 PM PDT

  •  Furthermore

    you ignore the potential for biodiesel for achieving energy independence. This is a factor not lightly ignored. Even if this biodiesel doesn't reduce CO2 emmissions (which it still does as I mentioned above), it still has much economic value, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and decreasing money for terrorists.

    by ARingMD2B on Mon May 30, 2005 at 04:27:14 PM PDT

•  Some thoughts

  When biodiesel's produced from conventional oilseed crops, there's also an animal feed byproduct. Even if the process does not fully replace energy inputs, you get the protien with reduced consumption, still a net energy saving.

  "Because it relies on solar energy to grow the algae, its products will work best in areas where there is a lot of sun."

  I pitched out local utility on siting greenhouses by their coalpowered plant over a decade ago. Even in Wisconsin winter, You'd get some photosynthesis where there's otherwise be none, and the plant has lots of waste heat, otherwise dumped in the river as 108 degree water. I'd thought to experiment with plants found by vocanic rims, as they'd be tolerant of high levels of acidic sulphur compounds.

  by ben masel on Mon May 30, 2005 at 04:32:16 PM PDT

  •  More

    If you used waste CO2 for a stalk crop line hemp, you could reharvest some energy (the hydrogen component) thru gasification, feeding the power plant, and sequester much of the carbon as charcoal.

    by ben masel on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:06:51 PM PDT

•   I did a rough calculation...

  
  back of the envelope sort to figure out how much BD could be produced if you fitted all coal burning plants in the U.S. with this technology.  I made some conservative estimates as to how much CO2 could be captured, and I came up with a figure of roughly 60 billion gallons/year.

  To put this in perspective, the U.S. uses approximately 60 billion gallons of diesel fuel every year.  I swear - I didn't fudge the numbers to make it work out.

  I ran the thing past some people, including the guy who wrote the UNH paper, and his reaction was that my estimates were too conservative - if all plants were fitted there would likely be more fuel than this produced.

  I could dig out a link - I did this all over on www.biodieselnow.com.

  UNH is working on a different approach - using agricultural runoff to 'feed' the algae instead of power plant flue gas.
  

  by ericy on Mon May 30, 2005 at 04:55:47 PM PDT

  •  If you don't mind

    could you please give some details of your calculations? I would love to see them (and scrutenize over them). This is a calculation worth carrying to completion, so even if you made a mistake, I doubt we would be displeased with the results.

    by ARingMD2B on Mon May 30, 2005 at 04:58:40 PM PDT

    •  I have it posted here...

      http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5278&whichpage=1

      I have the same username over there.

      by ericy on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:06:00 PM PDT

      •  1 slight criticism

        is that it seems you would get very close to 0% CO2 absorption (and thus very little BD production) at night. However, I think this is compensated by your conservative estimate of an average 50% CO2 absorption.

        by ARingMD2B on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:12:02 PM PDT

        •  #s

          I think even 50% is too generous. You'd want to keep pumping  in stack gas to maintain a high level, and the ensuing rapid growth, which means losing some out the back end, unless you've got a REALLY large area in production. It's not like exhaust gasses are in short supply. Capturing even 15% of all the exhaust Carbon from a coalfired plant is huge.

          by ben masel on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:18:00 PM PDT

          •  The company...

            
            has a pilot plant at MIT (they used flue gas from the campus heating plant), and they were actually measuring CO2 capture rates of between 40% and 80%.

            These are very valid concerns however - until we know how well this scales up to a full power plant, there is too much guesswork and uncertainty.

            by ericy on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:27:24 PM PDT

            •  There's a tradeoff

              between % of CO2 captured, and rate of algea growth. Too many variables to project where on that curve the economics are optimized.

              by ben masel on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:43:34 PM PDT

              •  True enough...

                
                Supposedly they are doing field trials this year at actual power plants - the idea being that they want to get a better hand on how well some of this stuff scales.
                

                by ericy on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:55:53 PM PDT

        •  I will admit...

          
          that this was the biggest fudge in the whole thing.

          On the other hand, nighttime electricity usage tends to be a lot lower, so it wouldn't be correct to simply scale by the number of daylight hours.
          

          by ericy on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:23:20 PM PDT

          •  Do you have any idea

            what the cost per gallon for BD produced this way would be?

            by ARingMD2B on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:33:33 PM PDT

            •  No clue...

              
              To put it in perspective, the cost of soy biodiesel is mainly the soy oil.  The cost of processing is relatively small.

              I suspect that their costs for the algal oil will mainly be the cost of the photobioreactors and associated equipment.

              My recollection is that this process also removed NOx and SO2 from the flue gas.  I asked whether it would be possible to use CO2 gas from a brewery or a bioethanol plant, and the answer was no - you need those other gasses to help feed the algae.  Thus there may be reduced plant operating expenses for the power plant operator which could offset the costs of installing all of the photobioreactors.
              

              by ericy on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:42:02 PM PDT

              •  If not reduced costs...

                Then tradeable pollution credits for the averted SO2 release.

                Next step is to look for markets or other direct uses for what's left of the algae after extracting the oil.

                by ben masel on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:49:40 PM PDT

                •  I take back the SO2 comment...

                  
                  The process consumes the NOx, which is still good.  I would rather it also ate the SO2, but I was just looking at the companies website, and they don't talk about SO2 at all.

                  There would literally be many many tons of stuff leftover after oil extraction.  I haven't seen discussions of what they intend to do - I could make guesses though.  I suppose it could make a good fertilizer, or perhaps it could be fermented, but this is just my own guesses.
                  

                  by ericy on Mon May 30, 2005 at 06:01:06 PM PDT

                  •  SO@

                    Might even make sense to run the stack gas through a room of sulpherphilic plants first, then thru your primary carbon capture.

                    by ben masel on Mon May 30, 2005 at 06:07:11 PM PDT

  •  Compatible

    Even using CO2 enrichment, you still need other nutrients, whether raising algea or leafy plants.

    by ben masel on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:02:37 PM PDT

•  How does this help with CO2 emissions?

  They are my biggest concern.

  by Cheez Whiz on Mon May 30, 2005 at 04:59:18 PM PDT

  •  Just saw the answer above.

    Sounds OK.

    by Cheez Whiz on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:00:04 PM PDT

•  Midwest Renewable Energy Fair

  http://www.the-mrea.org/energy_fair.php

  June 17-19 near Stevens Point, WI

  Couple hundred exhibitors, great music. camping on site.

  (ask for me at the Hemp Booth)

  by ben masel on Mon May 30, 2005 at 05:12:28 PM PDT

  •  I will be passing through WI on the 19th...

    
    If my schedule permits, I might drop by and visit for a few hours.

    by ericy on Mon May 30, 2005 at 06:29:21 PM PDT

    •  Spend as long as possible.

      top notch event.

      by ben masel on Mon May 30, 2005 at 10:16:14 PM PDT

•  It's not a viable possibility now, but if nanotech

  desalination becomes a reality, large quantities of otherwise arid land could become arable by way of largescale aqueducts into the interior west and elsewhere.

  by spot on Mon May 30, 2005 at 06:22:02 PM PDT

•  Growing algae in the desert

  What's wrong with this picture?  Water.

  The next big shortage of the world is water.  (It's already upon us in fact.)  Does it make good sense to use a commodity essential to survival to create one which isn't?

  by baba durag on Mon May 30, 2005 at 06:42:27 PM PDT

  •  Not with algae

    You are mostly right that there is a shortage of water. But the water shortage is really a shortage of clean, drinkable water. Algae actually grow best in waste/salinated water, so the shortage doesn't really apply.

    by ARingMD2B on Mon May 30, 2005 at 06:50:30 PM PDT

    •  Actually no

      When you blow the exhaust gases into the water you dirty it pretty quickly (not just CO2 and NOx in that stuff).  So constant resupply of water will be needed to keep it clean enough for growth.  To say nothing of evaporation from the sun, and the heating of the water by the gases.  It works out to a net loss of resources in the end.

      by baba durag on Mon May 30, 2005 at 06:56:23 PM PDT

      •  Clean enough for growth?

        I thought we established that the water need not be clean, and, in fact, was better if it were not clean. Evaporation is a problem, but could be mitigated through green houses and other means. Anyway, the point of the discussion here is not the UNH research proposing growing algae in the desert, but the new proposal to grow algae from CO2 released by power plant emissions.

        by ARingMD2B on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:07:02 PM PDT

        •  Looks like we're off cycle

          My response time is lagging yours.  See my post below about water quality.

          Greenhouses can help with evap.  But UNH's point is to use solar energy to grow algae, and feed them nutrients with waste gases.  Best source for solar is arid regions (they're arid for a reason :).  I was just responding to that.
          

          by baba durag on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:18:16 PM PDT

          •  Those are all good points

            and the authors of the paper acknowledge them. Still, I think the idea of coupling algae to power plant emissions is promising.

            by ARingMD2B on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:24:08 PM PDT

            •  I like the idea in principle

              But I think the water needs are a downside that may not be surmountable.

              by baba durag on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:26:50 PM PDT

        •  Actually...

          
          if you carefully read what Mike Briggs (the author of the UNH paper) has written lately, the Salton sea idea isn't really feasible for a number of technical reasons.

          Right now my understanding is that UNH is looking at agricultural runoff - this could be manure from hog farms or some such.  He cannot go into lots of details because there are IP and patent issues, so for now the Salton sea paper is the best we in the public have to go on even though what they are actually working on will look nothing at all like what is in the paper.

          In response to my calculation, Mike suggested that the system that UNH is developing might be able to produce an additional 40 billion gallons/year.

          Keep in mind that home heating oil and diesel fuel are very similar to one another.  This past winter people were starting to use something like B20 for home heating oil.

          by ericy on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:21:15 PM PDT

    •  Sorry

      Didn't complete the thought before I hit "Post".  But thank you for being diligent and pointing it out.  

      If you use wastewater, you have to get it there.  And you have to have enough growing ponds to provide for many times the actual biodiesel you need (so that you can harvest some while others grow).  So we're talking about a lot of water.  (Also, it isn't that algae grow best in skanky water, it's that they grow where high enough concentrations of nutrients exist in the water.  By the time that has happened in a water body the water is getting a bit nasty.  Algae growth then contributes to the further decline in water quality, and will eventually render a water body dead - killing even itself.)

      by baba durag on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:12:53 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for clarifying n/t

        by ARingMD2B on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:14:53 PM PDT

•  Complex solution

  In truth there is no one alternative but a whole range is needed. While recycling waste cooking oil to use in diesel engines in perfectly reasonable, in truth the amount of energy saved is probably a fraction of that used by the customers in getting to the resturant.

  Growing plants for oil extraction and livestock feed is excellent on several levels. Using the right plants it would be possible to fix nitrogen in the soil. This would replace much of the lost nutrients that vast acreages of monculture of food grains have caused. The USA anyway has huge amounts of biomaterial that could be fermented and distilled for vehicle use. If you were to stop adding that disgusting "corn syrup" to anything and everything instead of sugar, it could be used for this purpose. There are strong fiscal arguments for the US producing less food, particularly the huge surpluses, and using the land for fuel production. There are incidentally also strong arguments to do this to alleviate third world poverty and hunger as these supluses often have a devastating effect on local food production in particlarly Africa.  

  If large scale solutions like growing biomass for producing fuel for power stations in one way of reducing CO2 emissions, much can be saved by recycling other waste. Garbase for example can be processed to recover metals with the rest being used to fuel clean combined heat and power plants.  A combination of things like fluid bed burning and  emission control means this can be clean enough to use in the centre of cities and has numbers of advantages. The waste heat can be circulated to warm nearby homes or provide hot water. Burning means the organic materials are consumed and will not decompose into methane (a far more powerful greenhouse gas) and there is a considerable overall reduction in transport to land fill sites.  

  A lot could actually be saved not in the production but in the consumption process. Hugh savings could be made if all public buildings and work places were required to not heat above say 68 F in the winter or air condition below say 72F in the summer. Most people find a temperature range of 6 to 75 perfectly comfortable. Putting punative purchase taxes on conventional tungsten lamps would encourage the use of compact flurescent and halgen bulbs which consume less than 10% of conventional versions over their lifetime. Considerable savings could be made by redesigning highway and street lights to shine down only.

  There are other solutions for in home savings, some of which require legislation. As well as photo cells in roof panels, it is also possible to produce electricity in other ways within the home. One is a mini-wind generator and the other is a solution that is being offered in the UK. These are combined heat and power units for home use. They utilise natural gas (although presumably fuel oil could also be used). The output intially generates electricity and the reamining heat is used for domestic central heating and hot water. Again a combination of these like photo cells for the summber and combination heaters for winter would produce the necessary steady supply of power. In the UK (and here is where the legislation is required in the USA), these are wired up to the mains power supply but sell electricity back when the units provide more than is needed in the home. This negates the need for expensive and resource heavy storage solutions like banks of batteries. It also encourages ingenious solutions like re-fitting the wheels in old water mills to run generators. Often in the UK these have been converted to large family homes and the income from the sale of electricity more than meets the entire energy cost of the home.

   

  by londonbear on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:13:47 PM PDT