Algae-to-energy facility operational

[Smidge204]

World's first commercial demonstration algae-to-energy facility operational

According to the article, it's still not full size but it is producing under testing/demonstration conditions. BY 2014 they plan to be producing 100 barrels of "green crude" per day. Not nearly enough IMHO but it's a step in the right direction. Oil-demand-reducing technologies like vehicle electrification/hybridization can multiply the displacement effect on the fossil petroleum dependency and help make it ecologically viable. I personally think this approach is better suited for offsetting non-fuel petroleum needs and replacing fuel energy with something more direct (like solar, wind etc) which would be more efficient and direct.

The phrase "Completed on time and on budget" appears more than once which, in my view as someone with 15 years of construction industry experience, means it's almost certainly a lie. Stil, good to see progress!
=Smidge=

 

[evnow]

Cool. Of all algae companies I'm most bullish about Sapphire - mainly because they are not promising the impossible in terms of yield etc. Rumored to have been offered a "blank check" by Bill Gates.

 

[GRA]

Anyone know where there's any info on power and energy density, conversion efficiencies and production costs of fuel from this plant, or is this still all close-held?

[Edit] I had put my brain in gear and figured it out, but got a string error message and my post with all its math was gone - aargh! The short version is that it looks like this will produce about 0.01L/day/m2, or a power density of around 4W/m2. Not great, but better than most wind farms, assuming they can produce it commercially at that, that it's affordable, and it makes sense to do so.

 

[Smidge204]

AThe short version is that it looks like this will produce about 0.01L/day/m2, or a power density of around 4W/m2. Not great, but better than most wind farms, assuming they can produuce it commercially at that, that it's affordable, and it makes sense to do so.

Don't forget to consider distribution and end-use efficiencies. The oil substitute they produce can be used with maybe 20% efficiency when all is said and done, while electricity is around 80% efficient in most cases.
=Smidge=

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

love the idea but a rate of a barrel a day per 3 acres does not sound like it will scale well. there is no mention of the water need for this project as well

 

[GRA]

AThe short version is that it looks like this will produce about 0.01L/day/m2, or a power density of around 4W/m2. Not great, but better than most wind farms, assuming they can produce it commercially at that, that it's affordable, and it makes sense to do so.

Don't forget to consider distribution and end-use efficiencies. The oil substitute they produce can be used with maybe 20% efficiency when all is said and done, while electricity is around 80% efficient in most cases.
=Smidge=

Yes, my original post which had all the math (and which disappeared into its electrons) stated that the 4W/m2 considered only the gross output, and not all the embodied energy in growing, harvesting, refining, transporting etc. And like Dave, I want to know what the water usage is.

Oddly enough, the book I've been reading this week before this topic popped up is "The Biofuel Delusion: The Fallacy of Large Scale Agro-Biofuels Production":

http://www.amazon.com/The-Biofuel-Delusion-Agro-Biofuels-Production/dp/1844076814" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is undoubtedly the most tedious reading I've done this year. The book appears to have been written by academics for academics, and most of the first four or five chapters is incredibly dry and abstruse, primarily dealing with the methodology used in calculating metrics like Energy Return on Investment (EROI), Exo-somatic Metabolic Rates etc. Starting from chapter 5 and especially chapter 7 on, you finally get to the meat. Let's just say that it doesn't look good for biofuels, although (as far as I've gotten) they don't specifically cover algae-based biofuel.

They do calcs for US corn ethanol and Brazilian sugar-cane. The data for both is bad, the US case particularly so. IIRR, to replace just 10% of the oil used for transportation in the US by sustainably-produced corn-ethanol would require 48% of the US. population to be involved in agriculture, versus <2% now, and would require something like 5-7 times (I don't have the book handy and my memory is hazy. It might well be higher) the 175M hectares of land now under cultivation in the US FOR ALL PURPOSES for its production. I guess we can just import all our food (from where?).

The Brazilian case is a bit better, but not all that much, and has its own energy, population, land, environmental and socio-economic constraints.

I have no idea if algae-based biofuels would make sense and lack the ability to determine that myself, but everything I've read to date suggests the answer is no, and that at least with crop-based biofuels, rather than transform them into liquid fuel it's more efficient just to burn them.

Edit: I've now retrieved the book, and I find that I considerably understated the amount of land required in the section above I bolded. Here's the full quote, with my explanations in square brakets:

"Using the 11/1 ratio [calculation previously shown by authors] between gross and net energy supply of [corn] ethanol, we calculated that the net supply of 3 EJ of ethanol [10% of US transportation oil requirement] - a net flow of 140 billion litres - would translate into a requirement of gross production of 33 EJ - 1540 billion litres. This gross production would require:

• 148 Ghours of labour in biofuel production (almost 48 per cent of the labour supply that could be provided by the US workforce after absorbing all the unemployed!). This would require half the US workforce to agree to go back into farming and rural activities; and

• 5500 million hectares of arable land (More than 31 times the 175 million hectares of arable land in production in the US in 2005).

"Also in this case, we find a total lack of feasibility in using a self-sufficient corn-ethanol system aimed at reducing the dependence on fossil energy - 10 per cent of the transportation fuels - and generating zero CO2 emission. This lack of feasibility clearly indicates that the actual production of ethanol in the US is only possible because such a production is powered by fossil energy fuels!" [Emphasis in original]

 

[GRA]

Found this on algae-based biofuels:

http://sustainawatt.blogspot.com/2011/04/algal-biodiesel-vs-conventional-diesel.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The yield for the Sapphire plant, at 5,000 gallons/acre-year (1.5Mgal per year / 300 acres), falls right into line with the predicted yield in the article. Anyone got any other sources on algae biofuels they can recommend?

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

love the idea but a rate of a barrel a day per 3 acres does not sound like it will scale well. there is no mention of the water need for this project as well

~36,000 bbl/year @ $100/bbl = $3.6M/year

That's 37 years to make back the $135M investment assuming the plant costs nothing to operate or maintain and no other inputs are required.

Let's hope they have some other tricks up their sleeve to make the technology viable, because all the subsidies in the world won't make those books balance. The stat that the project provided 634 full time jobs certainly wouldn't impress Milton Friedman; you could have paid that many people $100k each to stand around digging holes and filling them in for half what this cost.

 

[AndyH]

They do calcs for US corn ethanol and Brazilian sugar-cane. The data for both is bad, the US case particularly so. IIRR, to replace just 10% of the oil used for transportation in the US by sustainably-produced corn-ethanol would require 48% of the US. population to be involved in agriculture, versus <2% now, and would require something like 5-7 times (I don't have the book handy and my memory is hazy. It might well be higher) the 175M hectares of land now under cultivation in the US FOR ALL PURPOSES for its production. I guess we can just import all our food (from where?).

The answer is bad because it appears that the starting assumptions are bad. The !175M hectares of land under cultivation (USDA "cropland") is a subset of our available farmland - this is only the prime, flat, easily machinable land with moderately deep soil. These numbers completely ignore the rest of our farmland. Only about 17% of our cropland is used for corn.

But that's still not the entire story.

In addition to cropland, the U.S. has 939,279,056 acres [380M hectares] of "farmland." This land is also good for agriculture, but it's not as level and the soil not as deep as "cropland." Much of this farmland could support perennial crops that don't require the soil to be plowed every year, or that allow annual crops to be cultivated as long as the soil is plowed on contour...

Blume "Alcohol Can Be A Gas" P27

Only about 7% of our farmland is used for corn.

We have plenty of alternatives that don't require using cropland or farmland. One is to use the ditches alongside of our major roads. If each county with moist ditches alongside their major roads planted a 10' strip of wild plants - like cattails, Jerusalem artichoke, and others; and if dry areas planted things like mesquite and other dry land plants, we could supply 40% of our current liquid fuel needs. Apparently we could replace gasoline completely by using only old-school fermentation of only the corn starch - this would still provide a higher quality animal feed than raw corn, and the rest of the plant could be returned to the soil, used for process heat, or used as a feed stock for a cellulosic process.

I'm not suggesting that we should simply replace gasoline and diesel with biofuels and carry on as we are. But I also don't think it helps the decision process to limit the options - unless the goal is to reinforce the status quo.

 

[evnow]

The main problem as I understand it with Algae is that
- if you use open ponds, how will you keep out other strains of algae/bacteria ?
- if you use closed reactors, it is too expensive

Anyway, here is what they say about their process ...

The process for making algae into fuel at a very high level is this: we grow the algae in open ponds with only sunlight, CO2 and non-potable saltwater in deserts. We harvest the algae and extract the oils from the algae biomass. We prepare for processing and refining using traditional refining methods.

 

[Smidge204]

love the idea but a rate of a barrel a day per 3 acres does not sound like it will scale well. there is no mention of the water need for this project as well

~36,000 bbl/year @ $100/bbl = $3.6M/year

"When completed, the facility will produce 1.5 million gallons per year of crude oil and consist of approximately 300 acres of algae cultivation ponds and processing facilities."

So 1,500,000 bbl/year @ $100/bbl = $150M/year, so it will probably have paid back its original investment cost by the time it's fully operational. That's also 5,000 bbl/year per acre, not 122 bbl/year as DaveinOlyWA was implying. Frankly I've no idea where that number even came from.

They do calcs for US corn ethanol and Brazilian sugar-cane. The data for both is bad, the US case particularly so. IIRR, to replace just 10% of the oil used for transportation in the US by sustainably-produced corn-ethanol would require 48% of the US. population to be involved in agriculture, versus <2% now, and would require something like 5-7 times (I don't have the book handy and my memory is hazy. It might well be higher) the 175M hectares of land now under cultivation in the US FOR ALL PURPOSES for its production. I guess we can just import all our food (from where?).

I think those numbers are severely overhyped, but this is a major component of why I hate corn/food derived ethanol in general. The only corn-based ethanol I can support is the kind you age in oak casks :lol:

Algae has, IMHO, two very important and very significant advantages other most other biofuels: It does not require arable land, and it does not require fresh water.

Hell, I just had a thought... build an algae facility a the mouth of the Mississippi river. They have HUGE problems with algae blooms in the gulf thanks to fertilizer runoff, so by using river water just before it goes into the ocean you get extra nutrients from all that runoff plus cleaning it up before pumping it back in. Two birds with one stone!
=Smidge=

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

love the idea but a rate of a barrel a day per 3 acres does not sound like it will scale well. there is no mention of the water need for this project as well

~36,000 bbl/year @ $100/bbl = $3.6M/year

"When completed, the facility will produce 1.5 million gallons per year of crude oil and consist of approximately 300 acres of algae cultivation ponds and processing facilities."

So 1,500,000 bbl/year @ $100/bbl = $150M/year, so it will probably have paid back its original investment cost by the time it's fully operational. That's also 5,000 bbl/year per acre, not 122 bbl/year as DaveinOlyWA was implying. Frankly I've no idea where that number even came from.

I made that mistake too initially, thinking this was a gold mine. Look at the quote again, they said 1.5M *gallons* not barrels. So divide by 42.

 

[WetEV]

5,000 bbl/year per acre

Photosynthesis is only about 11% efficient theoretical maximum, and about 0.1% to 1% efficient in real world plants and algae. This works out to about 60 to 600 bbl/year per acre. In ideal conditions as high about 7% total biomass has been observed (of which only a fraction would be biofuel), and the 5,000 bbl/year per acre is about 8%. I don't think that the 5000 number is reasonable.

Most real biofuel crops are around 0.3%. Sugar cane is at about 0.4%. 160 bbl/year per acre would be about 0.4%, a reasonable goal.

Lots of interesting issues need to be solved: maintaining the algae at a reasonable temperature, avoiding contamination, etc. All of this in needed to get to 160 bbl/year per acre.

I'd be impressed by 60 bbl/year per acre with reasonable inputs. No one has done this at a large scale yet.

 

[Smidge204]

I made that mistake too initially, thinking this was a gold mine. Look at the quote again, they said 1.5M *gallons* not barrels. So divide by 42.

Snaps and dang.

I'd be impressed by 60 bbl/year per acre with reasonable inputs. No one has done this at a large scale yet.

See above - 119 bbl/acre/year.
=Smidge=

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

its a 300 acre facility and put out 100 barrels so it 1 barrel per 3 acres. now, when you scale, some things only get slightly larger like the processing area, but a glance at the pix tells me the processing area already consists of a few % of total area.

plus, i have to say it has a significant water requirement. its hundreds of open ponds so what is the daily water need just to replace evaporation?

i am not against this project because its end line is where we need to be, but how much will it cost us to get there and can we improve that bottom line.

i am in a middle of a raging debate on FB about some wind farms put up at cost of $22/MW. but as i told them, sometimes you have to start out with $22 power to generate the backing and the interest to spur research to get $15 power which may lead to $10 power.

the oil companies had the same issue and were granted subsidies which is the problem we face today. the oil companies no longer need the support because the money flowed to them and spurred research and now they can do it profitably and dont need governmental handouts any more but instead of giving back the money, they have become accustomed to enjoying insane profits.

 

[GRA]

They do calcs for US corn ethanol and Brazilian sugar-cane. The data for both is bad, the US case particularly so. IIRR, to replace just 10% of the oil used for transportation in the US by sustainably-produced corn-ethanol would require 48% of the US. population to be involved in agriculture, versus <2% now, and would require something like 5-7 times (I don't have the book handy and my memory is hazy. It might well be higher) the 175M hectares of land now under cultivation in the US FOR ALL PURPOSES for its production. I guess we can just import all our food (from where?).

The answer is bad because it appears that the starting assumptions are bad. The !175M hectares of land under cultivation (USDA "cropland") is a subset of our available farmland - this is only the prime, flat, easily machinable land with moderately deep soil. These numbers completely ignore the rest of our farmland. Only about 17% of our cropland is used for corn.

But that's still not the entire story.

In addition to cropland, the U.S. has 939,279,056 acres [380M hectares] of "farmland." This land is also good for agriculture, but it's not as level and the soil not as deep as "cropland." Much of this farmland could support perennial crops that don't require the soil to be plowed every year, or that allow annual crops to be cultivated as long as the soil is plowed on contour...

Blume "Alcohol Can Be A Gas" P27

Only about 7% of our farmland is used for corn.

We have plenty of alternatives that don't require using cropland or farmland. One is to use the ditches alongside of our major roads. If each county with moist ditches alongside their major roads planted a 10' strip of wild plants - like cattails, Jerusalem artichoke, and others; and if dry areas planted things like mesquite and other dry land plants, we could supply 40% of our current liquid fuel needs. Apparently we could replace gasoline completely by using only old-school fermentation of only the corn starch - this would still provide a higher quality animal feed than raw corn, and the rest of the plant could be returned to the soil, used for process heat, or used as a feed stock for a cellulosic process.

I'm not suggesting that we should simply replace gasoline and diesel with biofuels and carry on as we are. But I also don't think it helps the decision process to limit the options - unless the goal is to reinforce the status quo.

Andy, much of the first several chapters of the book is devoted to what is included or left out of the calculations in various studies, and why. The authors point to the wide spread of results obtained by various studies and criticize the methodology in most of them (just as their methodology will be, and is criticized); in particular they criticize the 2006 study commissioned by the journal 'Science' in order to settle the argument, which did nothing of the sort.

For example, you mention growing on steeper land, but the book (and others) all include the environmental costs of doing so, including increased soil erosion, nitrogen run-off, the effects of monoculturing, even more overdraw of the Ogallala aquifer than is already occurring, etc. Growing along roads etc. all increase production costs through inefficient harvesting and boosts transport costs, and so on.

Now, I lack the knowledge to say 'this is right or this is wrong', and even the scientists are unable to come to agreement, but to my knowledge the consensus opinion at the moment is that corn or sugar-ethanol just doesn't make sense economically or environmentally. But I'm open to convincing otherwise, and will be happy to read any book or report you can recommend which says otherwise, and is peer-reviewed or at least takes its data from such a source - I'm not interested in the wildly optimistic speculations of enthusiasts, I want to see the numbers and what's behind them. I'm already trying to find many of the reports and books mentioned in this book and other sources, but that will take some time to acquire and read them, so anything you can point me to will be appreciated.

I would ask, however, that you also read some of the sources that reach conclusions different from yours, if only to make you mentally defend your views. I find that when we only read ideas that are in agreement with those we already hold, we get mentally flabby.

 

[GRA]

5,000 bbl/year per acre

Photosynthesis is only about 11% efficient theoretical maximum, and about 0.1% to 1% efficient in real world plants and algae. This works out to about 60 to 600 bbl/year per acre. In ideal conditions as high about 7% total biomass has been observed (of which only a fraction would be biofuel), and the 5,000 bbl/year per acre is about 8%. I don't think that the 5000 number is reasonable.

Most real biofuel crops are around 0.3%. Sugar cane is at about 0.4%. 160 bbl/year per acre would be about 0.4%, a reasonable goal.

Lots of interesting issues need to be solved: maintaining the algae at a reasonable temperature, avoiding contamination, etc. All of this in needed to get to 160 bbl/year per acre.

I'd be impressed by 60 bbl/year per acre with reasonable inputs. No one has done this at a large scale yet.

My understanding is that to reach the type of yields they are talking about, it's SOP for algae biofuel production to pump CO2 in (10% concentration). This is useful if you've got a powerplant nearby, but the total amount you can grow is then limited by the CO2 output, otherwise you're back to low levels of yield. See Smil, "Energy Myths and Realities".
[Edit] Correction. It's not in Smil, it's in Mackay, on page 284-285:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cD/page_284.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Andy, much of the first several chapters of the book is devoted to what is included or left out of the calculations in various studies, and why. The authors point to the wide spread of results obtained by various studies and criticize the methodology in most of them (just as their methodology will be, and is criticized); in particular they criticize the 2006 study commissioned by the journal 'Science' in order to settle the argument, which did nothing of the sort.

Thanks GRA - I appreciate the info.

For example, you mention growing on steeper land, but the book (and others) all include the environmental costs of doing so, including increased soil erosion, nitrogen run-off, the effects of monoculturing, even more overdraw of the Ogallala aquifer than is already occurring, etc. Growing along roads etc. all increase production costs through inefficient harvesting and boosts transport costs, and so on.

I understand - and have seen this in other papers as well. I think it's bad info because our industrial farm system is based on using heavy equipment and petrochemicals to work flat land to cultivate annual crops. If we look at the problem from that point of view, I agree completely about erosion, et al. But this is not the only way to solve the problem. There are many plants that are much better sugar/starch sources that are also perennial, and that don't need irrigation or fertilizer (and planting for cellulosic production makes it even better). This means no erosion (actually, it builds soil), no nitrogen run-off (because no nitrogen is added), no concerns with monocultures, and no aquifer depletion (no irrigation). I agree with harvest efficiency and transport costs, though localized production is better than a centralized industrial process as transport costs are significantly reduced when the fuel and byproducts are produced near their consumers. When you read 'steeper land' however, don't think of the side of Mount Shasta - the recommendation is to use the 'other' land that doesn't lend itself to navigation by a 120 foot wide sprayer, not land that must be accessed by mountain goat!

Bottom line - the environmental costs are due to the system used, and the majority of authors write after examining the problem from 'within the box' of the industrial farming system. Biofuels can be shown to fail when analyzed through that lens. But the picture is very different when one steps outside the system to see what WILL work rather than attempting to prove what WON'T work.

Now, I lack the knowledge to say 'this is right or this is wrong', and even the scientists are unable to come to agreement, but to my knowledge the consensus opinion at the moment is that corn or sugar-ethanol just doesn't make sense economically or environmentally. But I'm open to convincing otherwise, and will be happy to read any book or report you can recommend which says otherwise, and is peer-reviewed or at least takes its data from such a source - I'm not interested in the wildly optimistic speculations of enthusiasts, I want to see the numbers and what's behind them. I'm already trying to find many of the reports and books mentioned in this book and other sources, but that will take some time to acquire and read them, so anything you can point me to will be appreciated.

This is why I recommended Blume's book as a starting point - the author is an ecological biologist that's been teaching since the 1970s, has done experimental work with NASA, and has been a business owner/author/teacher/organic farmer and permaculturist since. Everything is documented and linked either to peer-reviewed sources or to real-world implementations. I recommend it not because it's "wildly optimistic speculation" from an enthusiast but is the best single source I've yet found. The book (and 10-part series on KQED) was seen as enough of a threat that Chevron threatened to pull their funding if the series and (original) book weren't cancelled... Again - the author is a trained scientist that has been 'in the trenches' actually growing/fermenting, using, and teaching bioethanol since about 1970 - it's not a literature review.

I would ask, however, that you also read some of the sources that reach conclusions different from yours, if only to make you mentally defend your views. I find that when we only read ideas that are in agreement with those we already hold, we get mentally flabby.

That's quite an assumption. Thanks though - I agree completely - that's how I went from being opposed to ethanol about 8 months ago to supporting it now. Please do share any links/sources you find useful!

 

[Herm]

My understanding is that to reach the type of yields they are talking about, it's SOP for algae biofuel production to pump CO2 in (10% concentration). This is useful if you've got a powerplant nearby, but the total amount you can grow is then limited by the CO2 output, otherwise you're back to low levels of yield.

They do talk about bioreactors in that article, so than means much higher capital costs and lower water losses. Growing algae requires lots of energy to keep the water moving and clean.

 

[GRA]

I've been out of town since last Friday (up in Tuolumne Meadows and down the east side of the Sierra, cycling and scouting current and future locations for charging), and have sort of lost the mental thread here so won't continue the discussion, but it seems we have substantial agreement on types of sources, if we (currently) reach different conclusions. I'll get ahold of Blume and read him, and I recommend that you read the book I mentioned (lay in a stock of No-Doz or energy drinks to get you through the first four or five chapters). I did have one comment further down.

Andy, much of the first several chapters of the book is devoted to what is included or left out of the calculations in various studies, and why. The authors point to the wide spread of results obtained by various studies and criticize the methodology in most of them (just as their methodology will be, and is criticized); in particular they criticize the 2006 study commissioned by the journal 'Science' in order to settle the argument, which did nothing of the sort.

For example, you mention growing on steeper land, but the book (and others) all include the environmental costs of doing so, including increased soil erosion, nitrogen run-off, the effects of monoculturing, even more overdraw of the Ogallala aquifer than is already occurring, etc. Growing along roads etc. all increase production costs through inefficient harvesting and boosts transport costs, and so on.

I understand - and have seen this in other papers as well. I think it's bad info because our industrial farm system is based on using heavy equipment and petrochemicals to work flat land to cultivate annual crops. If we look at the problem from that point of view, I agree completely about erosion, et al. But this is not the only way to solve the problem. There are many plants that are much better sugar/starch sources that are also perennial, and that don't need irrigation or fertilizer (and planting for cellulosic production makes it even better). This means no erosion (actually, it builds soil), no nitrogen run-off (because no nitrogen is added), no concerns with monocultures, and no aquifer depletion (no irrigation). I agree with harvest efficiency and transport costs, though localized production is better than a centralized industrial process as transport costs are significantly reduced when the fuel and byproducts are produced near their consumers. When you read 'steeper land' however, don't think of the side of Mount Shasta - the recommendation is to use the 'other' land that doesn't lend itself to navigation by a 120 foot wide sprayer, not land that must be accessed by mountain goat!

Bottom line - the environmental costs are due to the system used, and the majority of authors write after examining the problem from 'within the box' of the industrial farming system. Biofuels can be shown to fail when analyzed through that lens. But the picture is very different when one steps outside the system to see what WILL work rather than attempting to prove what WON'T work.

I would just add that the authors include the societal cost of employing more people more hours (and the food/energy costs of their families etc.) in biofuel planting/harvesting/production/transport, and comparing that with how many hours they could spend doing something else given industrial style agriculture, to compare Total Energy Throughputs.