Biofuels from Microalgae (Part 1)
The United Nations Environment Programme recently published its first Biofuels Assessment Report ever. Much of this assessment dealt with conventional biomass, and mostly, the report did a fine job saying some bio systems are good, some are not so, and much depends on how you do it. Global warming remediation and economics were dominant parameters, although water, state of the technology and other factors were considered.
Let me focus on what many think might be the most promising ultimate bio option. I've been surveying colleagues for several years now on biofuels from algae, and the speculations on potential cost are all over the map. But the potential is exciting, for it is said that you can grow several times (factor of two to ten, you pick a number) more biomass from an aqueous environment than on land. Mind you, this point remains debatable.
Part of the reason given is that terrestrial plants need to pass nutrients only through thin roots, defying gravity, while aquatic micro and macro species can use the total surface area. Plus, genetic engineering can more readily be applied for a micro system, which has an effective doubling time of hours, not weeks, months or years.
For this analysis, which comes in two parts, I will focus on microalgae grown in saline water on land. A follow-up article will review prospects for macroalgae (such as kelp), the form pioneered in the open ocean by Howard Wilcox as early as 1968, and now, mostly being investigated today by the Japanese. This early work mostly led to methane by fermentation and as feed for animals. Recent interest adds ethanol to the product mix. A fourth posting will blue-sky the prospects for actually attempting to utilize the effluent from ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) plantships to manage algal farms at sea.
My speculation is that terrestrial microalgal and marine macroalgal biofuels/feed systems are a decade away from commercialization if the price of oil by then exceeds $125/barrel. The combination of our sun, the ocean, microalgae, OTEC, and genetic engineering for sustainable marine biofuels (hydrogen, alcohols, biodiesel, etc.) is probably a generation or two away. This would be an element of the Blue Revolution. Thus, ultimately, there will be four postings.
I begun to be involved with growing algae in raceways a third of a century ago, and from then until now, have observed that federal funding was spotty and mostly non-existent. There was never a truly orchestrated national program and sporadic attempts at organization were thwarted by the fickle price of oil. There remain today too many unknowns and uncertainties, for the due diligence and science have not yet been performed. The fundamental engineering was never initiated, and remains a knowledge gap, for this work should proceed in parallel to someday mesh with the science. The National Science Foundation for the past few decades has tended to avoid funding energy projects, mostly a jurisdictional attitude in favor of the Department of Energy, but is finally beginning to recognize this deficiency and has initiated steps to take a more active role.
So let's get to the heart of the matter regarding terrestrial microalgal biofuels production: the eventual cost of production. In general, the price of crude oil is a good an indicator as any of what biofuels from algae facilities must meet to be competitive. Let us look at the numbers. Crude oil today costs $80/barrel, or $1.90/gallon. The current USA average is $2.73/gallon for regular gas. The ratio is 1.43, that is, gasoline costs 43% more than crude oil. This ratio was 1.64 in 2008, 1.85 in 2007 and 1.92 in 2006. The differential accounts for profits, taxes, marketing, etc., and will drop as the price of crude oil rises, unless, of course, there are added taxes.
One way of looking at this is if the best industry can do is produce biofuels for $5/gallon, then oil needs to go up to $220/barrel. If the production cost can be reduced to $3/gallon, then, oil would only need to rise to $126/barrel. My gut feeling is that $3/gallon will only be attained with considerable R&D over a period of 10 years or more, and maybe never.
However, there are various mechanisms to foster the earlier coming of biofuels from algae. One is to link the project to pollution control. The added value factor is worthy of consideration. A second, more ethereal, potential introduces the matter of life cycle costing, for if the financing can proceed with the confidence that oil will rise beyond $150/barrel, with the added attraction of government incentives, these operations might well attain prominence relatively soon, even if oil might only be in the range of $100/barrel.
(Part 2 will provide details on the above, and add biojet fuel to the discussion.)
Mike Signer: At the White House, Clean Tech Gets a Push
W.H. Climate Change Policy Director Carol Browner said, "I've been in and out of D.C. for twenty years, and there's sort of that tipping point that happens, where everyone who talks starts saying not 'if' but 'when.'"
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I just happened to read MIT's September/October issue of Technology Review on electricity:
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23044/
In particular, there is a table estimating the cost of new generating technologies in 2016 (but in 2007 dollars): (in cents/kWh)
Photovoltaic 39.6
Solar Thermal 26.4
Wind 14.2
Nuclear 10.1
Coal 9.5
Again, solar electricity is ten times the cost of what several respondents insist they can attain today. I, again, would urge these individuals to re-calculate the reality of your 3 cents/kWh declaration.
Sadly, the linked article doesn't provide any more information abour cost per kWh than what you copied. Most importantly, it doesn't show the calculations, so they're neither verifiable nor falsifiable. On that note, this handy tool [http://sharpusa.cleanpowerestimator.com/default.aspx] estimates that in my neighborhood, after local and federal incentives, a 3000W dc array (with charge controller & batteries? unlikely, but that's how it should be done!) would cost around $14,000. If the panels last just 30 years, the low end of PV lifetimes, then annual electricity cost is $467.
Of course, sharpusa.com doesn't show their calculations, either. Sorry. Later this week, I'll get some data together so that we can all three walk through the calculations together. I will cite verifiable sources for cost of materials: panels, charge controllers, inverter and batteries, and for labor costs, I'll just say what the prevailing cost is in my neighborhood. I wouldn't be surprised if that varies, but it should be significantly less than half the total. This will all be for rooftop solar. I suspect the reason that the heavily corporate-funded studies that are easiest to find are pegging the price so high is that for "solar farms" they include the cost of the land, which isn't a factor on a home one already owns. Finally, the total cost of installation will be divided by the projected lifetime of the system, which in turn will be based on verifiable MTBF or similar industry-standard, government-enforced estimating methods.
While this is not exactly biofuels from algae, much of the following comment track focuses on the cost of solar photovoltaic electricity. A table used is from Solar Buzz:
Guideline electricity generation costs today (cents/kWh)
Combined cycle gas turbine 3-5
Wind 4-7
Biomass gasification 7-9
Remote diesel generation 20-40
Solar PV central station 20-30
Solar PV distributed 20-50
Go to: http://www.solarbuzz.com/statsCosts.htm
While this is a 2009 posting, as one reader commented, he can buy PV panels for $2/peak watt where the article says $4/peak watt. Plus, for reasons that astound me, electricity prices of 1999 are provided, and costs end in 2002, so something seems out of order.
Mind you, my information sources pretty much agree with the above table, anyway, but WHAT CENTS/KWH COST FOR PV ELECTRICITY IS TRULY REAL TODAY? COMMENTS?
Good comment. Solar pv is now a commodity. The price varies from day to day, place to place, and vendor to vendor.
I think the sites that try to estimate prices are making several mistakes, in addition to the ones already listed. They are looking for the average price. For coal power plants, this may make some sense, but for commodities, you need to list high and low prices.
Google has said they i got installed rooftop solar for about 2-3$ per peak watt, others have claimed 2$ per peak watt. Nano Solar and others claim they are below 1$ per peak watt manufacturing costs. The local installer in the northwest said it would be about 6$ per peak watt for my home. I assume a ratio between cost of parts, large scale installation costs, and then estimate best cost smaller installations can get, if they pay cash and DIY the installation.
In Any case, for the right homeowners, these differences don't matter at all, because they can find solar installers who will pay for the installation, charge you the interest, and lower you monthly bill by more than those interest payments. So it free, and immediately reduces cost. Several commentators has claimed they got just this deal.
So I urge those in sunny places to go looking for these deals, and not accept the higher priced systems. And the DIY'ers should look into the low cost panels, and see if they can get help on the inverter and grid connect costs.
Though Algae looks pretty good, I am generally against growing our energy and fuel.
We should grow food, clothing, wood, plastics etc...
Then instead of polluting the world by dumping our waste,
We convert all our organic wastes into energy and biofuels.
Between waste biochar and rooftop solar, we can provide all the energy and fuels the world will every need, cheaper, safe, clean and forever. see my profile.
Yes, fermenting corn into ethanol is idiocy, and even sugar into this alcohol is insane. However, the beauty of algae is that the system can be placed where farms cannot survive (like deserts) using saline water.
Someday, perhaps even the open ocean can be cultivated for biofuels. Click on my HuffPo on the Blue Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-takahashi/the-dawn-of-the-blue-revo_b_145889.html).
By the way, solar photovoltaics on the roof are today a problem because coal, nuclear and wind power can generate electricity for 5-7 cents/kWh, while PV is more than 20 cents/kWh, and Scientific American recently reported the the cost really exceeds 50 cents/kWh. Where did you get your 3 cents/kWH???? Yes, there is the excitement of exotic thin films, such as has been announced by Nanosolar, but that prospect is far in the future.
You probably enjoy the blessing of electricity. One final rule of reality: if all of a city's municipal waste is converted into electricity, you will only be able to supply from 5-10% of the total consumption.
Yes, our society can subsist as you suggest, but with our current population, you will need to live as they did early in the past century. Conservation is great, and much more is needed, but the end of oil in combination with global warming will be traumatic for humanity, especially Americans.
The use a salt water is an advantage, I agree, and probably can be part of a desalination system too. But we are also over fishing out oceans, will this effect fish?
I get 3 cents per kwh from 2$ per peak watt on a good roof. over 20 years that's 3 cents per kwh. see my profile for the math. And pv panels last 50 years.
Remember tat the end user buys rooftop pv. So coals busbar cost includes profit for the coal company, and uses the grid, so the 5-7cen coal cost an average of 12 cents for the end user. Rooftop PV, decreased grid load and lower peaking afternoon grid needs.
1.55 per peak watt panels! retail! 090801
1.88 /Wp 090929 (Changes all the time)
http://www.atensolar.com/EPV.
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
complete grid tie systems for 3.9$/peak watt
Large installation are getting 2$ per INSTALLED watt.
This can provide all the fuels we will ever need.
In total, the upper limit of the bio-energy potential could be over 1000 EJ per year. This is considerably more than the current global energy use of 400 EJ.
http://www.uce-uu.nl/index.php?action=1&menuId=1&type=project&id=3&
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/company list of BioChar companies.
http://www.agri-therm.com/solution.html portable bio fuel oil BioChar units.
http://www.advbiorefineryinc.ca/news/ meat rending waste BioChar.
http://terrapretapot.org/
A presentation by the Bureau of Land Management that I saw on C-SPAN recently mentioned the fact that the Atlantic coast offers the potential to produce as much electricity as the entire current production capacity of the United States. The number is 20GW if I recall correctly. Nobody mentioned the variability statistics of that source while I was tuned in, but it seems likely that with additional wind farms in Texas, North Dakota and other Plains states, and rooftop solar across the southwest, we will have a significant energy surplus with enough diversification of sources never to dip below demand.
Regarding your disagreement with research, I observe that much of the southwest is also at high altitude, so in addition to much more than eight hours of sunlight most days, it is also more intense and I think your estimates are based on installing in sub-optimal conditions. Of course it's important to be realistic about the fact that in very rainy and overcast regions, solar PV will not be a complete solution, but the figures he quotes are attainable.
Finally, re: "Life cycle costing is not today a given"
The lifetime of many solar panels is guaranteed by the manufacturer, so I think research's claims are perfectly valid.
"One final rule of reality: if all of a city's municipal waste is converted into electricity, you will only be able to supply from 5-10% of the total consumption."
Suppose that utility electricity is all produced by Midwest and Atlantic shore wind turbines, and solar plants in the sunniest areas of the country. Then, all that remains is transportation, and that 5-10% of "total consumption" is equivalent to a larger percentage of the smaller demand for energy from transportation only. Besides, the production of that waste is a given. I think we should make it useful if we can.
Patrick,
While I realize that lots of things have to worked out in the wash, it is really good to have a lifelong expert throw around some numbers, so that those of us who are interested have some idea of a possible state of the energy art. Thanks! No one solution can begin to cover the frightening growing scarcity and expense of traditional energy resources, but it is very good to know that algae farming in one form or another might with reasonably economy add to the solutions mix. I very much look forward to your ongoing articles.
Dear Ron:
Well, this is about my 60th HuffPo posting, so I have by now covered most of the important sustainable resource issues. Plus, there are my two books on SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth (http://simplesolutionsbook1.com) and SS for Humanity (http://simplesolutionsbook2.com). You might also want to now and then click on my daily blog (http://planetearthandhumanity.blogspot.com). One hundred and twenty countries have now visited my site,
Thanks for your compliments. One never knows if anyone out there is reading what I write,,,or cares. I actually expected some negative feedback, for--and maybe this will become more obvious in Part 2--many have lost the reality of this option to embrace the romance. There definitely is hope, but only with a lot of expensive R&D and major breakthroughs.
Aloha.
Patrick,
You're beautiful, and I will follow the suggestions. I am so zoned out that so few seem to have any understanding of the energy scarcity that we are facing and the immediate urgency of it all. Hang in there, as I think it won't be too long before you and others like you will be a much larger part of the conversation. As to negative feedback on this particular blog, Algae farming seems to me the only sustainable bio oil solution that makes any significant sense, because it can potentially be produced vertically and those little buggers can be situated next to dirtier energy sources to eat carbon, i.e., it needn't take up vast land areas and possible mitigate other problems..
I will also be looking more carefully at the blogs in HuffPo Green and not just focusing on the articles. (g)
Have you written about Geothermal and could you point me to the right spot? I am so amazed that your state is getting 90% of its energy from oil, when you are setting on enough energy to power half the Pacific, or at least that's what I imagine. It seems that geothermal is perfect sustainable energy for those who have access because it's a baseline generating technology.
Dear Ron:
You can click on
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea//news/article/2008/01/the-state-of-geothermal-energy-technologies-part-2-51095
to read the Geothermal Energy Association's assessment of the world.
I was a reservoir engineer for the Hawaii Geothermal Project more than a third of a century ago, when, amazingly enough, in our first try, we actually drilled the hottest well in the world and began producing more than 3 MW. The effluent became the basis for new industries at Noi'i O Puna (http://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/IGAstandard/record_detail.php?id=2678). Unfortunately the combination of rain forest freaks, marijuana growers, Hawaiian activists and some local residents who were there to escape technology successfully campaigned to stop development. The Federal Judge who made that determination, David Ezra, is still in office. It's a lot more complicated than this, of course, but we long ago should have been producing more than the 30 MW currently being generated.
Finally, the billion dollar cable to bring this electricity from the Big Island to Honolulu is now a $2 billion brainstorm for wind power from Lanai to Oahu. The problem is that no one can afford this wheeling, unless, our well-positioned U.S. Senators can call it part of the National Grid System (ala National Highways) and pay for it.
Dear Patrick,
Thanks again for the resources, your efforts and for a peek into the sad state of affairs in your state. Logic and common sense are the lesser for it when lobbyists for established interests run amock, e.g., spending twice as much for intermittent energy when baseline energy could be mined for half the price with far less visual pollution and scarce resources. Heavens, they probably call you a crackpot or something similar.
I'm listening.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
