unh_hockey
pain is temporary pride is forever
Re: 5 dollar gas...are we ready?
lets see how much I remember:
Microalgae indeed possess the best potential from a liquid biofuel alternative when compared to other forms like corn, switchgrass and the like. I believe the enthalpy (??) for an algae fuel is closer to that of traditional gasoline than corn ethanol which is approximately one third. This means you get one third the energy released if you use corn based ethanol vs gasoline. Algae on the other hand *can* produce sufficient energy to run larger engines, even jets.
There are two schools of thought on the cultivation side, both with huge downsides. The first is the cheaper proposition and that is to grow algae in large open ponds and harvest the algae. The downsides are you have less control of the species and fatty acid content, and are suseptable to invaders making an additional step to remove impurities. The second proposition is costly and that is photobioreactors, or tanks. You have more control of nutrients and algae biology. One group , I think solazyme, grows algae hetrotrophically which means they use a sugar based feedstock to grow their algae.
The problem of biology is what companies like synthetic genomics are working on. Anyone can grow algae in their backyard, but the oil content is important since this is what you need to extract to get usable fuel. When I did our experiments for total fatty acids or TFA, our results showed that some strains got maybe 30% TFA, and still others got as low as 5%. Granted there are millions of strains out there, we looked at a small cross section and noticed large variations in growth and TFA.
John Benemen is considered by many to be to algae as admiral rickover was to the nuclear navy program. We met with him in 2010 at the san diego conference regarding this topic and proposed our idea to which he agreed was the only possible viable method going forward. Someone already mentioned it here - to use waste streams to produce algae. Algae can quickly sequester pollutants including nitrates and carbon dioxide. We found that only up to 6% of carbon by volume to be consumed.
Here is the bottom line. Our consumption for oil based fuels is massive. There will be *no* replacing it outright with any technology. As mentioned, one would need vast amounts of land dedicated to the cause. For algae, the space would be smaller than that of ethanol, but it would still be significant. The second big thing is that you need the process to be a net energy producer, not consumer. The entire product lifecycle must somehow yield more energy than it consumes. Oil is approaching a ratio of approximately 1 barrel/2 barrels ( use one barrel to produce two barrels) for ones like the tar sands. Im not sure what the best algae systems are capable of. I think corn ethanol is a net energy loser.
Will the technology be viable? Not sure. As already mentioned, we'd need the state of the art technologies synergistically working together to pull it off. It would be cool for sure.
lets see how much I remember:
Microalgae indeed possess the best potential from a liquid biofuel alternative when compared to other forms like corn, switchgrass and the like. I believe the enthalpy (??) for an algae fuel is closer to that of traditional gasoline than corn ethanol which is approximately one third. This means you get one third the energy released if you use corn based ethanol vs gasoline. Algae on the other hand *can* produce sufficient energy to run larger engines, even jets.
There are two schools of thought on the cultivation side, both with huge downsides. The first is the cheaper proposition and that is to grow algae in large open ponds and harvest the algae. The downsides are you have less control of the species and fatty acid content, and are suseptable to invaders making an additional step to remove impurities. The second proposition is costly and that is photobioreactors, or tanks. You have more control of nutrients and algae biology. One group , I think solazyme, grows algae hetrotrophically which means they use a sugar based feedstock to grow their algae.
The problem of biology is what companies like synthetic genomics are working on. Anyone can grow algae in their backyard, but the oil content is important since this is what you need to extract to get usable fuel. When I did our experiments for total fatty acids or TFA, our results showed that some strains got maybe 30% TFA, and still others got as low as 5%. Granted there are millions of strains out there, we looked at a small cross section and noticed large variations in growth and TFA.
John Benemen is considered by many to be to algae as admiral rickover was to the nuclear navy program. We met with him in 2010 at the san diego conference regarding this topic and proposed our idea to which he agreed was the only possible viable method going forward. Someone already mentioned it here - to use waste streams to produce algae. Algae can quickly sequester pollutants including nitrates and carbon dioxide. We found that only up to 6% of carbon by volume to be consumed.
Here is the bottom line. Our consumption for oil based fuels is massive. There will be *no* replacing it outright with any technology. As mentioned, one would need vast amounts of land dedicated to the cause. For algae, the space would be smaller than that of ethanol, but it would still be significant. The second big thing is that you need the process to be a net energy producer, not consumer. The entire product lifecycle must somehow yield more energy than it consumes. Oil is approaching a ratio of approximately 1 barrel/2 barrels ( use one barrel to produce two barrels) for ones like the tar sands. Im not sure what the best algae systems are capable of. I think corn ethanol is a net energy loser.
Will the technology be viable? Not sure. As already mentioned, we'd need the state of the art technologies synergistically working together to pull it off. It would be cool for sure.
Seriously, so, what, oil isn't going to last forever. This is true to a point. But what do you suggest. Giving up? Keep drilling for more oil and ruining the environment more and more? What are people going to do in 25 years for a fuel source? Or are we going to have some other replacement? I understand what you are getting at I just think your arguments against pursuing it are short sighted.
