The New York Times blog asks, plaintively, when algae biofuels will be economically viable :-
https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/the-future-of-algae-fuels-is-when/
“January 25, 2011 ; The Future of Algae Fuels Is … When? : By TOM ZELLER JR. : As I write in Tuesday’s Times, a new study from the Rand Corporation, the global policy think tank based in Santa Monica, Calif., and formed more than 60 years ago to advise the American government on military issues, suggests that Department of Defense is wasting its time exploring alternative fuels. It raised particular questions about the near-term viability of algae-based fuels, which the study’s authors considered to be more or less laboratory-level stuff — and certainly not likely to scale up to any significant extent in the next 10 years. Given that the military has gone to great lengths to publicize its ongoing efforts to go green, and in particular, algae-green, the report did not sit well with with everyone…”
The eagerness around algae biodiesel seems to stem largely from those who want something to invest in, now that fossil fuels are starting to look like a liability :-
“…Certainly a number of investors continue to bet on the promise of squeezing oil from algae in amounts substantial enough to put a dent in the use of petroleum-based fuels. And dozens of companies and academic labs are busy chasing that dream. Despite all this, the Rand study’s lead author, Jim Bartis, remained steadfastly skeptical that the technology would be ready for prime time within the next decade — and certainly not ready for widespread military use…”
Highly crucially, hypothetical research has shown that the return on investment may not be very high :-
https://environmentalresearchweb.org/blog/2011/01/the-eroi-of-algae-biofuels.html
“…What Colin discovered was that the EROI of the Reduced Case and Literature Model were 0.13 and 0.57, respectively. This shows that we have much to learn for the potential of making viable liquid fuels. Additionally, Colin’s calculations for the experimental setup (and Reduced Case analysis) show that 97% of the energy output resides in the biomass, not the bio-oil For his idealized Literature Model, 82% of the energy output was in the biomass. While these results seem discouraging, we do not have much ability to put these results into context of the rate of development of other alternative technologies and biofuels. How long did it take to get photovoltaic panels with EROI > 1 from the first working prototype in a lab? We have somewhat of an idea that it took one or two decades for the Brazilians to get reasonable EROI > 1 from using sugar cane for biomass and biofuel production (Brazilian sugar cane grown and processed in Sao Paulo is estimated near EROI = 8)…”
Can it be that venture capital is chasing an imaginary rabbit down a virtual warren ?
For just $250 (ker-ching !) you can purchase a copy of an informative report, that just might explain it all :-
https://www.oilgae.com/ref/report/digest/digest.html
Interestingly, it is noted, “The yields of oil and fuels from algae are much higher (10-25 times) than competing energy crops”. Those “energy crops” would be the genetically modified food crops that are intended for the BioEnergy agri-industry, then.
And what at the food crops that the GM scientists want to splice with ?
I think we need to understand who has intentions for which crops :-
https://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/gene_stack_increases_biofuel_crop_productivity
“Gene stack increases biofuel crop productivity : Thursday, January 20, 2011 : By Jim Lane : In Illinois, Chromatin announced the successful first demonstration that genes can be assembled, stacked, and expressed in sugarcane using the company’s mini-chromosome technology…Developers, however, want to insert genes that offer improvements in multiple traits – when an organism has more than one gene inserted in this process – for example, for disease resistance, insect resistance, herbicide resistance – this is called a gene stack. In 2007, for example, Monsanto and Dow introduced an eight-gene stack (SmartStax) that contained eight herbicide tolerance and insect-protection genes, including Dow’s Herculex I and Herculex RW; Monsanto’s YieldGard VT Rootworm/RR2 and YieldGard VT PRO, Roundup Ready and Liberty Link tolerance genes. Gene stacking, thereby, is foundational in the drive for higher productivity from land crops…”
“…Not every plant genome is stable enough to support extensive cross-breeding in order to introduce desired genes. One of those is sugar cane. So, let’s say you wanted to introduce several genes, not just one – for example, insect resistance, herbicide resistance, disease resistance, higher sugar concentrations, and enzymes to enable better bagasse digestion. If you could do it at all in cane – and it would be a monumental, unprecedented achievement in cross-breeding, it would take, say 13 years or so to accomplish it. It has made changes at this level uneconomical. So that’s what the Chromatin breakthrough is all about. Creating a method to bring the sort of possibilities that have materially advanced yields in, say, corn and soy, to a whole new array of energy and food crops. Opening up the door for more rapid improvement of the underlying per-acre yields. Thereby reducing the amount of acreage needed to support, say, a cellulosic ethanol or renewable diesel processing technology. Increasing thereby the radius over which biomass can be transported at economically viable rates. Making the processing plants larger, and more cost effective. Speeding up the point at which a given technology can achieve parity with fossil oil. Pushing us faster towards the scaling of energy crops and biofuels…”
“Sugarcane and other feedstocks : Chromatin has wrapped itself into a worldwide exclusive with Syngenta in sugarcane – so, for improvements in the sugarcane genome, that’s where they will come from in so far as this technology is concerned. Meanwhile, Chromatin is pretty well wrapped up in terms of licenses for its technology in corn, soy, canola and cotton. And, Chromatin said last year that it would pursue opportunities in sorghum as a developer. But there are the energy canes, and the energy grasses like switchgrass and miscanthus. Or the woods like eucalyptus or poplar. Or the aquatic species, like algae. For those platforms, this is a licensable technology…”
Tampering with the genes of some of the most important crops in the world. That’s bold. Will we accept that ?
Syngenta are going to mess with sugarcane, all in the name of Climate Change alleviation.
And where will this sugarcane be grown ? In Brazil.
And who will be farming this sugarcane for BioEthanol use ? Dirt-poor people from the landless underclass, just as now.
So, corrupting the gene pool of one of the world’s most important food crops for some dubious possible gains in energy productivity, and still not resolving the human rights issues of how this is farmed.
What a revolution !
2 replies on “Algae BioDiesel Report Card : Fail”
Hi Jo,
Just read your report, interesting reading – what are your thoughts on carbon sequestration while producing algae based biofuels, utilising the deadland around power plants and reducing carbon footprints by 100’s of thousands of tonnes per plant?
I appreciate commerciality seems to be some way off but there are too many people knocking this when perhaps we need to embrace and develop the technology further.
Algae biodiesel bears the same properties as jet fuel with a little bit of blending this surely will ensure at some stage commercial development will take place.
With respect.
Ian
Hi Ian,
1. The problem with using carbon dioxide captured from coal-burning power stations as a chemical feedstock for the production of vehicle fuel is that it is not permanent sequestration – when the fuel is burned, the carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere – and there’s no capturing the exhausts of millions of vehicles to sequester it once more.
2. It’s true that if it is shown that algae biodiesel can be made efficiently using carbon dioxide feedstock from coal and other fossil fuel combustion thermal generation plant that it would displace significant amounts of petroleum based fuels – and this is an important goal both from the point of view of peak oil and energy security. However, what is likely to happen is that algae biodiesel will not be produced in very large quantities, so will not displace much petroleum based fuel. Instead, it could end up justifying the continued use of inefficient vehicles.
3. To reduce net emissions, the best thing to do would be to “fuel switch” from coal to Natural Gas burning plant, rather than pretend that carbon dioxide diversion into fuel justifies keeping coal plants open.
4. The best and first thing to do to reduce dependency on (foreign) oil and curb emissions is to roll out more fuel efficient vehicles. When peak oil starts to bite in around a decade, various forms of biofuels will become highly useful, but most of them have shown problems so far – bioethanol from corn is apparently a net carbon dioxide emitter, for example. If the new range of fuel efficient vehicles can be designed to take a range of fuels, such as compressed Natural Gas, compressed biogas, and other biofuels, with minimal adjustment, this would make these vehicles adaptable to changing conditions.
5. The medium-term solution for vehicles is probably a range of Renewable Gas fuels, and if batteries and fuel cells can be improved to use less rare earth elements and expensive catalysts, then the long-term solution will be all-electric vehicles – with the electricity all renewably generated.
Tell me if you have heard anything good about recent production figures from algae biodiesel, and I’ll applaud as long as the algae are not genetically modified !