THE Algae Thread (merged)

[ian807]

Ho. Hum. Heard it all before....

Cost per gallon?

$5-6/ gallon currently and coming down

EREOI?

positive

Cost in square feet of land?

Not sure how that's relevant

Cost in square feet of sunlight?

again not sure how that's relvant

Cost of fertilizer, and how do you transport it?

Depends on what you are growing

And how do they keep it from escaping into the environment and exuding either lipids or hydrocarbons in sufficient quantities to kill everything around it?

Huh? The stuff is already in the environment everywhere. In fact There are plans to harvest much of it right where it grows.

It doesn't take farmland. It doesn't interfere with any current food crops.

As for your "Ho Hum heard it all before" arrogant dismissal, please describe the two algae production processes that we've developed in the last year. In detail. Demonstrate to us your depth of knowledge on the subject.

Thanks!

You can go stick you head back in some books now...

You're kind of new around here, aren't you?

These breathless wonder stories about algae oil, fusion power, improved solar efficiency, or [insert favorite here] get posted just about every other month or so.

They have been posted in various places for years, since the mid-90s when I started tracking energy issues on the internet.

They're the Energy Source of the Future! (And they always will be).

So OK, let's hit the basics.

1) EROEI is positive. Neat, but by how much? Currently, 1 barrel of oil still nets us about 12 new barrels of oil. Worldwide EROEI as an aggregate is declining but still beats almost everything else. So the "How much" question is relevant. Corn alcohol is a non-starter because of low EREOI (less than 2 to 1).

2) Resources needed for production. In this case, land or water area, sunlight and fertilizer. Given that the production of palm oil for fuel is leading farmers to favor that over food crops in many parts of the world, the local folks, formerly used to "eating" tend to find this "relevant." As for fertilizer, if it's made from oil or transported by oil and your little algae farm would fail without either, it's not much of a solution.

3) Harvesting "right where it grows" implies either harvesting natural algae (low EROEI again), or breeding it to produce more lipids or hydrocarbons and releasing it into the wild. Generally speaking, algae that excretes oil directly into a lake or ocean is NOT a good thing, particularly since once started it would be impossible to stop. If you don't believe me, I have some land on the Louisiana coast to sell you.

Don't get me wrong. Eventually, we'll tweak algae or yeast or something to excrete hydrocarbons and sell the stuff just as we'll build out all other alternative energy sources. We'll have to. What's going to stop this from becoming a major energy player is scale and build-out time. I suggest you review SteinarN's numbers (Thanks for the useful information, SteinarN). This is on the borderline of "doable" and not at all in a timeframe that matters.

[eastbay]

Eventually we'll burn everything on this earth that is in any way shape or form combustible or convertible into energy. We'll keep at it until we've scraped this planet to bare sterile sand.

[dinopello]

Eventually we'll burn everything on this earth that is in any way shape or form combustible or convertible into energy. We'll keep at it until we've scraped this planet to bare sterile sand.

Yes, and that is ultimate holy grail - how might we burn the sterile sand?

[vtsnowedin]

This issue is what first brought me to peak oil. When oil gets scarce and expensive enough algae will have it's day.
A couple of points. One we don't have to replace all the oil we use today. We waste about a third of it and there will always be some oil so what we need is the gap between supply and the price/ demand at that time.
Two: Kentucky is big but west Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and the Mojave dessert in southern California are a lot bigger. So land and sunlight are not a problem.
Three: fertilizer may well be a limiting factor but if we locate plants across the south and where human and agricultural waste is available (think sewage plants and hog farms) We should be able to meet our real needs without undue hardship.
True there is no plant today making a single gallon for sale at a reasonable price but let oil get above $150 / bl and stay there for awhile and that will change.
Here is a source for some current news.
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articl ... &q=&page=2
Of course they are all about subsidies at this time as that's what makes their world turn until oil goes up.

[Gerben]

how might we burn the sterile sand?

I don't know about burning sand, but some types of rocks can react with CO2 to form silicon dioxide (sand). This reaction is exotherm (produces energy).

[MD]

They're the Energy Source of the Future! (And they always will be).
.

Full stop right there. Your mind is made up and I bet you aren't even working in the industry.

You're basing your opinion on "internet postings since the 90's"

blah.

Opinions by armchair experts.

I'm working IN the industry and ON the issues and we're making damn fine progress thank-you-very-much so you too can go stick your head back in whatever dark place you just pulled it from.

[MD]

Quote provided by a good friend:

"Man who says it can't be done should not interrupt man doing it."

[davep]

Quote provided by a good friend:

"Man who says it can't be done should not interrupt man doing it."

Whilst I agree that in principle it's a fine thing, my worry is that a lot of people seem to take it for granted that we can iron out the issues that have cropped up over the forty years or so of trying to get algae biofuel to work at a commercial scale.

I'll be happy when someone, anyone, starts viable commercial production. Until then I suggest we don't get too over-optimistic.

[ian807]

They're the Energy Source of the Future! (And they always will be).
.

Full stop right there. Your mind is made up and I bet you aren't even working in the industry.

You're basing your opinion on "internet postings since the 90's"

blah.

Opinions by armchair experts.

I'm working IN the industry and ON the issues and we're making damn fine progress thank-you-very-much so you too can go stick your head back in whatever dark place you just pulled it from.

I while away my days at a company that makes seismic data analysis and visualization software designed to find those lovely bright spots in 2d slices and 3d seismic volumes where the oil is trapped. We use stacked data only and generally present surveys in X,Y,T, not X,Y,Z since T to D conversion is sometimes a little questionable if you don't have enough well data to verify.

I used to work at Schlumerger, designing and writing the automated testing software for their well analysis software, then called "FracCade" which was mostly about reservoir analysis, fraccing (obviously) and pay zones.

And what do you do again?

[vtsnowedin]

[
I'll be happy when someone, anyone, starts viable commercial production. Until then I suggest we don't get too over-optimistic.

Do you see something else that holds more promise?

[MD]

Quote provided by a good friend:

"Man who says it can't be done should not interrupt man doing it."

Whilst I agree that in principle it's a fine thing, my worry is that a lot of people seem to take it for granted that we can iron out the issues that have cropped up over the forty years or so of trying to get algae biofuel to work at a commercial scale.
.

For one you need to dig a little deeper to find out just exactly how much effort has been poured into the industry historically as compared to currently, and additionally you need to take into account the energy markets as a whole specifically with regard to the changing status of FF within that mix.

The flood of sweet light has been washing everything else away for your 40 years, and more.

I'm telling you algae is rapidly reaching parity, because I'm watching it happen real time.

That's all.

Y'all can go back to your chanting now.

edit: of course it's not going to provide a "happy motoring" future...not that I ever said it would but some dimwit is sure to pop in and bang that drum once or twice or a thousand times.

[ian807]

Quote provided by a good friend:

"Man who says it can't be done should not interrupt man doing it."

Whilst I agree that in principle it's a fine thing, my worry is that a lot of people seem to take it for granted that we can iron out the issues that have cropped up over the forty years or so of trying to get algae biofuel to work at a commercial scale.
.

For one you need to dig a little deeper to find out just exactly how much effort has been poured into the industry historically as compared to currently, and additionally you need to take into account the energy markets as a whole specifically with regard to the changing status of FF within that mix.

The flood of sweet light has been washing everything else away for your 40 years, and more.

I'm telling you algae is rapidly reaching parity, because I'm watching it happen real time.

That's all.

Y'all can go back to your chanting now.

edit: of course it's not going to provide a "happy motoring" future...not that I ever said it would but some dimwit is sure to pop in and bang that drum once or twice or a thousand times.

Sigh. I hope you're right. I think you're wrong. Biofuels are just a part of the answer, hopefully enough to keep a few billion people from starving who probably will otherwise.

[eastbay]

how might we burn the sterile sand?

I don't know about burning sand, but some types of rocks can react with CO2 to form silicon dioxide (sand). This reaction is exotherm (produces energy).

Now THAT is funny! Thanks!

[SteinarN]

MD, you seems to work in the algae industry.

What is the efficiency of the algae, ie how large percent of the sun light is absorbed by the chlorophyll in the algae and how much of that is turned into something that can later be refined to usefull hydrocarbons?

[MD]

What is the efficiency of the algae, ie how large percent of the sun light is absorbed by the chlorophyll in the algae

Call it about the same as a solar panel, more or less. I don't know exactly because I don't see it a critical metric as so most of the processes grow mixotrophs, which means your useful biofuel component is coming from a combination of energy inputs. Waste stream mitigation is where you'll find a lot of activity, with some promising solutions bubbling up.

... and how much of that is turned into something that can later be refined to useful hydrocarbons?

That question can be answered with a little more precision, but just a little. Like all relatively young and diverse industries the metrics are all over the place, so you have to keep your unit conversion skills very sharp.

It gets even more fun when you start talking about the process streams and working through the step by step energy equations. The conversations get animated and confusing as much of the time is spent sorting units and terms. It gets comical at times, frustrating at others.

I'll try and bracket in an answer for you. The "theoretical limit" has been quoted at 30,000 gallons per acre per year. That's from a peer-reviewed publication somewhere. If you're curious about it you'll have to dig it the source yourself. To me it only serves as a nebulous order of magnitude barrier anyway.

From one end of the spectrum you can harvest it from open ponds yielding a few tons of biomass per acre-year.

From the other extreme, Exxon Mobil has published 2,000 gallons per acre-year as their current target.

The primary challenges to successful biofuel production are in algae's inherent resistance to steady-state grow conditions; and the energy required to harvest, dewater, and process the algae. You asked if I work in the algae business. I do. I'm actively working on overcoming the stated challenges, which means now is where I have to stop talking.

[MD]

Sigh. I hope you're right. I think you're wrong. Biofuels are just a part of the answer, hopefully enough to keep a few billion people from starving who probably will otherwise.

I don't see where we disagree. Biofuels are indeed part of the future. Billions are going to die.

I just prefer to "make a plan and work it" as our Pops is so fond of saying, and leave the handwringing to others.

[SteinarN]

The "theoretical limit" has been quoted at 30,000 gallons per acre per year.

Exxon Mobil has published 2,000 gallons per acre-year as their current target.

Ok, my WAG of one liter per 33 square meter per day would yeld the same as 11,700 gallons per acre per year.

Acording to Exxon Mobiles goal, the area of Kentucky would yeld only 3.4 mbd. Say the US fossil oil production is 2 mbd a few decades from now and the US wants to be self-supported with oil from conventional production and algae from an area like Kentucky, that means the oil consumption would have to decrease from the current 19 mbd down to 5.4 mbd, a reduction of 72 percent.

Say instead you wanted to produce 10 mbd, then an area of 305,000 square kilometer is necessarry. That's the area of Arizona or New Mexico or three quarter of California. A truly monumental task. And I wonder what the water requirement would be. How much water would evaporate each day from ponds covering all of desert like Arizona for example?

[davep]

Sigh. I hope you're right. I think you're wrong. Biofuels are just a part of the answer, hopefully enough to keep a few billion people from starving who probably will otherwise.

I don't see where we disagree. Biofuels are indeed part of the future. Billions are going to die.

I just prefer to "make a plan and work it" as our Pops is so fond of saying, and leave the handwringing to others.

I agree that biofuels are a part of the future. I'll just reserve judgement on algae biofuel until I see it get produced commercially. I'll be happy if and when it does though.

Any transition to biofuels will necessitate a power-down, obviously.

I'm not sure that billions will die, but let's leave that for another thread...

[davep]

[
I'll be happy when someone, anyone, starts viable commercial production. Until then I suggest we don't get too over-optimistic.

Do you see something else that holds more promise?

There is bound to be a mixture of solutions, without one silver bullet.

I'm looking at perennial agriculture (walnuts, chestnuts etc) that require no fossil fuel to grow and harvest. Also, the walnut oil could conceivably be used as biodiesel (if you're a heathen who won't put it on your salads!).

Woodgas could also be used in a pinch, and I'm still envisaging an on-farm ethanol plant (but this requires more time and effort than I can put in at the moment).

A little algae plant would be a great addition, but I'm not banking on it.

[dinopello]

A little algae plant would be a great addition, but I'm not banking on it.

I agree with you but there is a problem. Lots of things should be and are being considered. Each needs to be evaluated for effectiveness but also for potential side effects. But the problem is that people want to believe there is a solution that will seamlessly continue their current way of life and so are likely to interpret even fairly conservative announcements as just that. The problem with this is that the real hard restructuring type things then do not get support. Why do anything hard if the algae people are going to save my SUV and my 100 mile commute?