Redesign the Paradigm

The two primary methods currently available for growing and harvesting algae are open pond systems and closed system photobioreactors (PBR). PBR’s create an enclosed growing environment for algae cultivation where light, air, and nutrients are supplied at regulated levels to ensure optimized growth. The following bullet points illustrate the problems versus benefits between the two systems.

Problems with open algae systems (pond)

• Light only effectively penetrates 2’ – 3” in ponds resulting in large amount of algae not receiving enough light which lowers yields
• Temperature fluctuations can effect algae growths and yields
• Open to contaminates or more hearty local varieties of algae which could take over the pond requiring draining and/or treatment
• Excessive evaporation

Benefits of open algae systems (pond)

• Less expensive to create and maintain

Problems with closed loop algae systems (PBR)

• Capital intensive – more expensive to set up
• Facilities require greater amounts of maintenance

Benefits of closed loop algae systems (PBR)

• Controlled environment – species integrity can be maintained
• Productivity increases – able to monitor complete system more efficiently
• Less evaporation
• Interior lighting can be adjusted for proper exposure levels

The production cycle for growing algae and harvesting oil and biomass in a closed PBR system is as follows:

Algae strains are usually started in small containers in a laboratory and then the culture is either transported directly into a PBR or to shallow specialized raceway ponds that have paddle wheels to maintain water flow. If the raceway pond method is utilized the algae are then allowed to multiply in these artificial ponds and once a satisfactory density is reached it can then be transferred to the bioreactor. The algae/water mixture is then poured into the bioreactor system’s tank where it mixes with water, CO2, and nutrients already present in the system. CO2 and nutrients can also be introduced later in the system. The algae are then pumped into racks of translucent plastic containers. These containers may consist of long polyethylene bags, polyethylene sleeves, plastic tubes, or glass tubes. It is here the algae are exposed to light for photosynthesis. Pumps may continue to force the algae through the system or gravity may be used to allow the algae to flow down through the containers. Types of bioreactors include air lift, tubular, and flat plate.

There are two methods of operation, batch and continuous flow. In batch operations once the algae is ready for harvest, in some cases as quick as 48 hours, the entire PBR system is drained and algae is removed from the system and the PBR is restocked. In a continuous flow system only the excess mature algae are removed as the system becomes overloaded. Continuous flow systems can potentially run for very long periods. They may require new cultures to be introduced occasionally to re-kick start the system. Great care in monitoring must be taken to avoid a collapse of the entire algae colony within the system.  If a collapse occurs it will require draining the system and starting over with a new culture. The advantage of the continuous flow is that air, CO2, nutrients, light levels, water mediums, and water temperature can be adjusted to create customized growing conditions. Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) which excrete lipids (oils) as waste can also be harvested in this manner.

Algae can grow in a number of different water mediums including saltwater, brackish water, and waste water. It can also grow in a wide range of water temperatures. CO2 requirements can vary as well but when optimized can increase oil yields; the general rule of thumb is 2.2 lbs. of CO2 inserted into the system for every 1 lb. of algae for its lifecycle. The preferred method to increase CO2 solubility and oil yields is to use fresh water in moderate temperatures.  Exposure to high (hot) water temperatures creates a metabolic burden in the algae that can slow growth rates. Lighting conditions are also critical to growth rates. Algae can grow successfully in different lighting levels. Bright light however, tends to degrade algal pigmentation and which can also lead to slower growth rates. 5% – 20% of full sunlight exposure subdues and preserves pigmentation creating a metabolic benefit that can lead to faster growth. This can easily be accomplished in a PBR system by adjusting internal lighting levels or by using plastic that are not 100% transparent or tinting in outdoor sections. Algae must be also be allowed a recovery period in darkness between 2 – 6 hours depending on species to allow for regeneration. Nutrient content and quantity can also be experimented with and adjusted depending on desired oil yield versus nutritional content in biomass residue.

When the growth cycle is completed and the algae colony has reached maturity it is ready for harvest (2 – 5 days dependant on species). The algae and water medium can be either completely drained from the system (batch mode) or harvested constantly in a continuous operation cycle. Operating in continuous cycle requires greater system monitoring and more precise administration of water, CO2, and nutrient levels but provides potentially greater yields. The algae can be harvested from the system by a number of different procedures or combination of procedures. The process usually involves some type of micro screening that allows water to pass through but retains the algae. This can be combined with centrifugation which involves high speed spinning and use of centrifugal force. Other methods include flocculation which uses chemicals or catalysts to promote formation of clusters which can then be easily gathered, or by froth flotation which involves grinding and crushing the algae repeated into froth and then skimming the surface for removal.

Once the algae has been dewatered and separated from the system it is allowed a period to dry. The lipids or oil must then be extracted from the dried algae. Again, there are a number of different methods available and can be used in combinations to increase efficiency.  One of the simplest methods is using oil presses to crush the algae. There are a variety of methods used for crushing and pressing including screws, expellers, pistons, and other traditional presses that have been used successfully for extracting vegetable oils. A second method involves using chemical solvents such as hexane, benzene, and ether. These chemicals when introduced to the algae cause the cell walls to rupture releasing the oils. Another method involves using enzymes in a water medium to deteriorate the cell walls eventually requiring the oil to be removed from the water medium as it floats to the surface. With this process the alga doesn’t have to be removed from the PBR system via dewatering but can simply be transferred into another section for enzymatic extraction. Ultrasonic waves can be used in conjunction with enzymatic extraction to expedite the processes.

What are left are raw oil and a biomass residue. The oil can be refined to produce bio diesel, jet fuel, and pharmaceutical components. The biomass residue can be broken down into protein, carbohydrates, and raw biomass.  The protein can be used for animal feed stocks, aquaculture feed stocks, and as a high quality protein source for human food and supplements.  The carbohydrates can be fermented into bio ethanol. The remainder of the biomass can be utilized as fertilizers and as a solid fuel source.

PBR’s can be placed anywhere even underground if artificial lighting is used. The ideal location would be to place the PBR in direct proximity to an existing coal power plant or similar CO2 producing facility and pipe the CO2 directly into the PBR or storage connected to the PBR. This would provide mutual benefits and create a synergistic system where algae oil can be used to help power the plant providing the CO2. Some of the CO2 will be returned to the atmosphere when the oil is burned as a bio fuel but even that is in essence net carbon neutral since the CO2 was either absorbed by the algae in the form of CO2 already present in the atmosphere or absorbed from CO2 about to be released from a smoke stack into the atmosphere. Water can be used in the PBR that is otherwise unsuitable for normal farming with the consequence of lower yield expectations. Although, brackish, brine or wastewater is an excellent source for other essential nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous, silicates, and sodium.

Bio algae production has a way to go before mass production expectations can be fulfilled. PBR efficiencies still require fine tuning. Government funding or subsidies would be a necessity especially for start up and small bio fuels companies. More research is required to isolate the most cost effective extraction processes. Despite these limitations, bio algae production from PBR’s represents one of the United States’ greatest opportunities for transition away from strictly fossil fuels, while providing a high protein food source for humans and as a feed stock for animal, poultry, and fish live stocks. It can also assist in the reduction of greenhouse gases by sequestering CO2. As production levels increase, PBR’s will be able to use their own oil output to run themselves removing the argument that it still requires fossil fuels to support bio fuel production.  

There are future applications that may transcend even the current benefits. Possible applications include using bio diesel to fuel power plants and transitioning cars to electricity. Larger trucks can still remain powered on petrol diesel / bio diesel blends. CO2 emitted from using bio diesel to power the facilities could be reinserted back into the PBR creating a near closed loop CO2 sequestration system. Another application involves powering the steam reforming or electrolysis processes are to common methods used for hydrogen production. The CO2 emitted by both the steam reforming process and the bio diesel used to power that process could be fed back into the PBR system. This process has been traditionally powered by fossil fuels and criticized severely since the energy (usually fossil fuels) used to create the hydrogen is greater than the energy output of the hydrogen. Another even more potentially beneficial use would be to extract hydrogen direct from the algae during photosynthesis.

Please add to or make constructive corrections that will improve this blog.

 http://ezinearticles.com/?How-To-Grow-Algae-For-Biodiesel&id=829645

http://www.biodieselnow.com/general_biodiesel_21/f/7/t/18423.aspx

http://www.oilgae.com/blog/2008/05/petroalgae-looking-to-test-commercial.html

http://www.oilgae.com/algae/cult/pbr/pbr.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/11/18/forget-biodiesel-algae-could-produce-hydrogen/

http://www.biodieselnow.com/algae1/f/13/p/4934/159825.aspx#159825

One of our planet’s fastest growing organisms is algae. It is literally the bottom of the food chain and has been able to survive and even thrive by replicating itself faster than all other species are able to eat it. Algae can grow at rates 100 times faster than current production food crops or plants that can be used for bio fuel, producing yields as high as 5,00 to 15,000 gallons in one acre per year. The U.S. currently uses approximately 450 million acres for crop production, and 500 million acres for livestock. For less than 10 million acres, or 1% of the combined land mass for crops and livestock, we could produce enough bio diesel to replace gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. These figures are based off of open systems, ie. shallow ponds, closed loop bioreactor systems can produce even greater yields per acre due to vertically stacked designs which increase the surface area.

Depending on the species, algae can go from germination to harvest in as few as 2 days. During harvesting, the water is drained and the biomass is extracted from the system via filtration or a high speed centrifuge process. The biomass can then be separated into lipids to provide a high grade vegetable oil and a high protein / high carbohydrate byproduct residue. The oil can be tailored to produce bio diesel, jet fuel, and heating / cooking oil. Algae lipids can produce oil yields of about 30% – 50% at harvest. Approximately 1/3 of that amount can be lost in the extraction and separation phase. The byproduct residue can be used as an organic high-protein food source, and/or as a feedstock for animals, fish and fowl. The carbohydrates from the byproduct can be refined into gasoline or fermented into ethanol. Another option is to use cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) because this type of algae excretes lipids as waste material. This reduces processing costs since it removes the need for extracting algae from the system and the lipids are continuously harvested from the water.

Algae can also sequester CO2, leaving oxygen as the byproduct and can be placed next to facilities that produce CO2 intensive hot fue gases. This process occurs naturally in open pond systems but the real value is to position closed loop algae based bioreactors next to energy and chemical plants with high amounts of fue gas (CO2, NOX, and SOX) emissions. The growing conditions for algae require CO2, sunlight, and water (brine or salt water acceptable), therefore providing a synergistic value to both algae production and green house emitting gas reduction. Algae are also capable of absorbing SOX and NOX the two primary contributors to acid rain. For every two tons of algae growth, one ton of CO2 is removed from the fue gas emissions. Industry emits CO2 twenty-four hours per day from their plume stacks. Algae requires approximately four hours of darkness per day for regeneration, requiring the use of dual closed loop bio-reactor systems with staggered hours and internal lighting to handle the load.

Possibly the most beneficial thing about bio-algae is that it does not compete with U.S. food crops for land or with population centers for potable water. Algae is a robust organism and highly adaptable to any environment. With a closed loop system, the space requirements are even further reduced and yield expectations higher. In addition, no green house gases or pollution are emitted by algae, and it does not require herbicides, pesticides or fertilizers for growth. Its byproduct can actually be a source of nitrogen based fertilizer. Finally, algae can be utilized to clean waste, brine, and salt water.

With all of the information that supports the uses and benefits of bio-algae, it causes one to wonder why this organism is not being hailed as the answer to a multitude of problems the U.S. and global economies are facing? Consider the following: bio-algae has few lobbyists or political action committees (PACs), it receives no government subsidies (it is not part of the farm bill), there are no subsidies for the refining process. Due to the lack of government subsidization, the private sector banks are unwilling to lend for infrastructure development since there is no government moderation of risk. In addition, there are growing concerns that as bio-algae development is stalled, patents (intellectual property rights) can be locked up by the larger corporations interested in preserving their status quo.

Bio-algae requires government sponsored subsidies for ongoing research, more efficient extraction, separation and refinement processing and to develop efficient, mass production capabilities. With this funding, bio-algae stands to assist us to meet the transportation needs of the civilian and military concerns regarding heavy trucks, ships and aircraft that use diesel. It can supplement existing petro-based diesel and help stabilize rising petroleum costs (possibly another reason that it is not being considered for subsidization). It also can provide economical feedstocks, reducing the need for corn and wheat based products and provide a high protein supplement for the world’s hungry. It represents one of the fastest ways to reduce increasing CO2 levels.

With all of these benefits to the U.S. it is up to the U.S. populace to demand that the government supports bio-algae as one of the main components in a sustainable, renewable energy program. This can be accomplished by either direct funding for government laboratories or university research, and through funding of start-up or existing bio fuel companies.

http://www.desertbiofuels.org-a.googlepages.com/GAS_sum_and_FAQ.pdf

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2009/06/book-review-green-algae-strategy.html

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/08/21/carbon-dioxide-sequestration-via-algae-biofuels-an-overview/

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/algaepower27feb07.shtml

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/August/Pages/MilitarySeesPromiseinAlgae-BasedBio-Fuel.aspx

Bio fuels have met resistance from a number of different sources. The oil industry and automobile manufacturers have lobbyists focused on ensuring that the energy transportation sector remains firmly entrenched in petroleum. A strong lobbying arm combined with significant campaign contributions to key congressman and senators has resulted in an emerging U.S. bio fuels industry steered into first generation ethanol production based on inefficient corn utilization.

There is no incentive for the U.S. oil industry to embrace bio fuels. The majority of the largest oil companies in the world are state owned and U.S. oil companies are finding themselves restricted from an increasing number of oil fields as foreign governments use their own oil companies to drill and produce domestically.  Even with the increased growth of state owned oil companies it is unlikely that oil production will be able to keep pace with world demand driven by China and India. Oil producers must maintain a delicate balance between meeting growing demand with enough product that high oil prices and acceptable profitability levels are guaranteed while not allowing prices to increase to the point where there is public outcry for a substitute.

In addition, oil producers have significant investments in current technology and extraction processes and would prefer to avoid expensive infrastructure and development costs associated with extensive deep water off shore drilling or oil extraction from shale and oil sands deposits. Currently, the U.S. produces 43% of demand domestically, three quarters of that comes from Texas, Alaska, California, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, the remainder is from off shore drilling. Deep water fields in the Gulf of Mexico like Tahiti and Jack #2 compare to Saudi Aramco fields but are 25,000 feet down and require intensive infrastructure costs for rigs that will be exposed to gulf hurricanes. Currently several companies are exploring deep water extraction with success but rig production costs are at $500,000 a day. The U.S. also  has the largest deposits of oil shale in the world located in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming but extraction is expensive and complex requiring mining (strip mining is cheaper) and super heating the shale to a resultant liquid for refining or pumping super heated  liquid (water intensive procedure) into the shale reserves then extracting it conventionally. Oil companies realize these two potentials would add significantly to U.S. production levels they prefer instead to continue drilling from less expensive surface deposits.

 Allowing substitutes, even blends as low as 5% threaten the balance and opens the door to increasing requirements from governments and the public for higher concentrations of bio fuels in the blends, which could potentially reduce the demand and price. Reductions in oil prices would also make deep water drilling and shale production cost prohibitive.

Automobile manufacturers and their vast network of suppliers have considerable investments in their production lines. Redesigning new fuel systems and requiring suppliers to provide suitable components represents major costs and time obligations. The automobile industry has also believed that the U.S. consumer prefers large powerful gas consuming vehicles over fuel efficiency and alternative fuels. There also appears consensus that ethanol and bio diesel are inefficient and unsuitable to meet consumer or trucking power demands. Those assumptions have since changed and resulted in a serious decrease of sales associated with the increased cost of petroleum.

The oil industry and automobile manufacturing lobbyists have successfully provided talking points to politicians, sympathetic new outlets, and radio personalities. The purpose was to attempt to convince the congress and the public of the inefficiencies of ethanol production pointing out (correctly) the net energy loss of corn based ethanol production (it requires more energy to produce the ethanol than is returned in energy output). How increasing corn based ethanol threatens the food supply by lowering corn based food crop availability to third world countries and increasing costs in the U.S. Both true when considering that corn is one of our largest commoditized crops responsible not only for numerous food products but also a multitude of additives demonstrating that corn based products are vital to the U.S. food supply.

At the same time, members of congress were also encouraged to maintain the status quo thus ensuring U.S. economic stability. The arguments were mainly based on: the drastic and expensive changes to infrastructure that will be required; that U.S. industry will experience unnecessary costs spread throughout numerous sectors, hitting especially hard energy, automobile, and automobile parts manufactures forcing their companies to redesign perfectly functioning systems for inefficient bio fuels that would not reduce greenhouse gases (net energy loss argument); while creating political problems associated with higher food costs (reduction in corn production for food), and result in considerable legislative requirements that would be fought strongly both in courts and in media circles.

Politicians were allowed to make some token gestures towards bio fuels like replacing MTBE with ethanol in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as long as the primary bio fuel was corn based ethanol. However as far as providing committed incentives for research and production infrastructure towards the true future of bio fuels that being cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel from halophytes, jatropha, and algae the efforts were gestures at best. In addition, consumers and automobile / large truck parts manufacturers were provided no incentives for converting fuel lines. Finally, there was no support for developing the distribution infrastructure necessary to transport the bio fuels.

U.S. consumers themselves have not voiced a strong enough public outcry to warrant the attention of congress. As long as the oil industry doesn’t allow prices to rise too rapidly (and oil futures traders are held in check) the U.S. consumer seems willing to pay more of their consumable income for gasoline and the higher prices of products due to increased shipping costs.

Another reason for the resistance to bio fuels includes the geopolitical ramifications associated with the reduction of foreign imports. Countries with a long standing history of importing to the U.S. have certain political influences built into those relationships they would just assume keep. A shift towards bio fuels would alter those political relationships and weaken bargaining positions of those countries in other politically necessary arenas. Having the world’s last remaining superpower a reliable trading partner ensures more than financial rewards, therefore foreign political pressure to maintain the status quo has also occurred.

Second generation high yield cost effective cellulosic ethanol is now a reality and able to provide synergies with waste management, logging wood wastes, unusable grasses / weeds, and feedstocks. It will not compete against food crops such as corn but actually utilize the crop residues for raw materials. Numerous companies are past prototype generation ready for mass production with proven technology and processes. Third generation bio algae can exceed yields in multitudes over any other biofuel and has the potential to revolutionize the diesel fuel market. Competing technologies are demonstrating real viability and cost effectiveness. The U.S. military has shown growing interest bio algae, significant since it is the largest consumer of diesel in the world. Fourth generation genetically altered microbes are in the research stage but stand to enhance existing biofuels while being able to sequester CO2. These new generation bio fuels are the real threats to the status quo since they will be able to supplement the growing world wide demand for gasoline and diesel and stabilize petroleum prices. They will be met with strong resistance from the aforementioned sources. It is up to the U.S. populace to demand government subsidization and favorable regulation to ensure this emerging industry is able reach mass production and economies to reduce quickly.

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/magazine/15-09/mf_jackrig

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm

http://cnx.org/content/m19515/latest/

In 2008, the United States used 128 million gallons of petroleum each day to produce diesel fuel for commercial trucks, trains and boats. 26 million gallons of bio fuels were also produced each day of which only 825,000 gallons per day was used for bio diesel production. The U.S. actually exported more bio diesel than it consumed. Bio diesel consumption was at 0.5% the rate of regular diesel. Its primary use was to supplement existing diesel thereby creating a blend product.

Bio diesel (a.k.a. mono-alkyl ester) is both a non-toxic and renewable fuel source. It can be produced from the transesterification of plant oils, animal fats, and microorganisms. Currently soybean and rapeseed oils are the primary feedstocks for commercial use, but serious consideration is being given to the jatropha plant, halophytes, and algae. Jatropha is a drought resistant bush (which means low water requirements) and can be grown in semi arid, rocky regions, and land generally unsuited for traditional farming. Halophytes are plants unaffected by salinity that can grow in swamps, marshes, and along seashores. Algae can be grown using seawater or wastewater utilizing a variety of different methods and has claimed to yield up to thirty times more than soybeans. These sources also don’t compete with food crops for land or entice third world farmers to switch to producing bio fuels instead of food crops due their higher market prices. Bio diesel production increases will create new farming and manufacturing jobs.

Biodiesel blends of B5, 5% bio diesel 95% mineral diesel (petroleum based) are suitable for any vehicle. In the U.S. most vehicle manufacturers approve B5 but become more restrictive for B10, B15 and B20 blends. In Europe B5 is accepted by all vehicle manufactures and blends up to B20 and even B30 are becoming more common place. Blends above B20 / B30 generally require engine modifications to avoid experiencing performance and maintenance troubles. Germany’s commercial vehicles and buses have such modifications and use B100 produced from rapeseed oil. Pure bio diesel (B100) provides the lowest emissions available for diesel. 

Biodiesel has become Europe’s most common bio fuel whereas ethanol is more common in the U.S.  Europe’s increasing use of biodiesel has proven beneficial to struggling U.S. producers and refineries in need of new markets due to low domestic consumption levels. Why isn’t the U.S. developing bio diesel technology and pursuing greater production? Why is Europe so far ahead of the U.S. in their use of bio diesel in their commercial and civilian vehicles?  Every large commercial truck in the U.S. should be using at least B5 to lower our demand for oil. Many U.S truckers and bus operators actually prefer B20 blends recognizing its superior lubricating quality, better ignition and combustion qualities, and reduction in exhaust emissions. We should be demanding subsidies for B20 fuel system modification for our large truck fleets to ensure that manufacturing warranties remain honored. We should also demand all service stations and truck fueling depots be required to offer B5 through B20 blends as they do in Europe.

Both the U.S. and Europe are still predominately using first generation bio fuels which require the transesterfication of food based crops like corn, soybeans, rapeseed and palm oil to create ethanol and bio diesel. Second generation bio fuels are past prototype generation and experiencing limited production runs in the U.S. These are the cellulosic ethanol varieties produced through thermo chemical gasification. Feedstocks in this category include switchgrass, wood waste, and corn stovers (stalks, husks, and leaves) and do not interfere with food production. First and second generation bio fuels use extraction process driven methods to increase crop yields.

The future of bio diesel resides in the third and fourth generation of bio fuels. Third generation bio fuels seek to improve yields through improving the feedstocks themselves instead of the processes. An example of third generation bio fuel would be algae. Some strains of algae provide high oil yields (50%) and rapid growth rates (2-5 days to maturity). Other benefits include biodegradable waste products, husks can be used as a cellulosic ethanol source after the oil is extracted, husks are also an extremely high concentration protein source that can be used as feed, and CO2 sequestration capability which encourage third generation bio fuel production facilities to be placed near CO2 producing manufacturing plants. Fourth generation bio fuels will consist of genetic engineered feedstocks designed to increase oil yields and provide for greater levels of CO2 sequestration. Examples would include genetically altered mustard plants designed for high oil yields, drought resistant, and able to grow in terrain unsuitable to farming. These will be combined with genetically modified microbes and single celled fungus that not only assist feedstocks to produce high yields but are able to reduce the process requirements and costs of treating waste material from landfill and sewage for bio diesel production.

Biodiesel’s future is not limited to commercial / personal vehicles. It will also be used to create commercial / military jet and ship fuels. Jatropha based bio diesel has already been used successfully in trial runs as a jet fuel mixture. Bio algae remains of interest to both the U.S. Air Force and Navy for possible forward deployment fuel production. The U.S. military is currently one of the largest consumers of diesel in the world.

Biodiesel has not been without its problems and setbacks. Bio diesel modifications can be expensive, void warranties, and be subject to state and local regulations. Bio diesel is not as suited to lower temperatures requiring additional additives which raise costs. Feedstocks like Jatropha used in arid climates or difficult terrain have lower yields and may only produce one crop per year. Algae harvesting can be challenging since random or local algae strains may overtake the farmed algae ponds and new technology production methods have proven complicated and energy intensive. However, the benefits can exceed the problems. Modification prices will come down once bio diesel becomes more prevalent. Jatropha and halophytes will enable U.S. and third world countries additional farming opportunities that don’t compete with food crops for land and resources. Bio algae and genetically modified microbes will provide yields unapproachable with plant and animal feedstocks and generate new jobs for infrastructure development and production.

The demand for petroleum will continue to rise soon offsetting the world’s ability to produce in pace with future demand. Bio diesel, even with massive increases in algae production cannot hope to be more than a supplement to petro diesel for years to come, but will help ease the pressure from the need to import petroleum.

To meet this demand, the U.S. should take a three part approach.

1) Establish Jatropha and halophyte farming in non-food producing terrains. Under no circumstance should any biofuel compete with food producing crops unless they will be involved in crop rotation. In addition, genetic research should continue to increase yields in difficult terrains and provide for more harvests per year.

2) Direct funding for research, subsidies and incentives to universities and bio fuel companies to determine which technologies and extraction process methods are most effective. The most viable candidates will then be eligible for second round financing for mass production. Current algae pond farming, while beneficial, are not going to provide the yields necessary to meet demand.  Vertigrow is an example of one of the best methods to date. In addition, a food and feed farming subsector should be developed to utilize the algae husks, which are an extremely high protein source which can be used for human foods, additives, or to feed farmed stock. This can be sold to third world countries to help alleviate the hunger problems. Note: algae is at the very bottom of the food chain, it survives by reproducing itself than everything else can eat it. It is a very fast growing and nutritious organism.

3) U.S. government funding for private sector, university and federal laboratory research for genetically modified microbes and fungus’.  The goal is to enhance feedstock oil yields and CO2 sequestration with genetically modified microbes that will also reduce processing requirements and provide sugars as a byproduct which can be used for ethanol production. This can also be used for landfill and sewage waste management thus creating a synergy that would eliminate up to 50% of waste material, reduce CO2, while creating biodiesel and sugars for ethanol.

If the U.S. were to spend $50 billion dollars to set up bio fuels research facilities, develop infrastructure transportation methods and financing for mass production facilities with economies of scale it would in the long run cost hundreds of times less than what we are currently spending to import oil.  Jatropha and bio algae technology is available to us now, fourth generation microbes are available and with a few more years of research to refine them will result in applications that could revolutionize transportation and significantly reduce our need for fossil fuels. Why are we holding back?

Please provide any comments, corrections, or ideas how to make biodiesel a reality

http://www.oilgae.com/energy/sou/ae/re/be/bd/po/jat/jat.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

http://www.desertbiofuels.org-a.googlepages.com/GAS_sum_and_FAQ.pdf

http://www.cyberlipid.org/glycer/biodiesel.htm

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/Myths_and_Facts.pdf

http://earth2tech.com/2008/03/04/wtf-are-fourth-generation-biofuels/

www.bioroute.co.uk/biodiesel.htm

In 2008 28% of total U.S. energy demand was for transportation, and petroleum was used to meet 93% of those transportation needs.  The remaining 7% is from a combination of natural gas (2%), electricity, propane, and bio fuels (2%). The principle bio fuel in use today is ethanol used primarily to supplement gasoline.

The U.S. consumed approximately 819 million gallons of petroleum per day (worldwide consumption was 3.55 million gallons per day). 581 million gallons per day or 71% of that petroleum was used for transportation. Petroleum use in transportation breaks down as follows: 64% for gasoline to fuel cars and light trucks (378 million gallons per day), 22% for diesel to fuel commercial trucks, trains, and boats (128 million gallons per day), and 9% to provide for jet fuels (52 million gallons per day).

In 2008 9.6 billion gallons of bio fuels were used in the U.S. (26 million gallons per day). Production rates have increased seven fold in the past thirteen years driven by high oil prices, mandates and incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that mandated the use of 9 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2008. That number will rise to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022.

Gasoline consumption in 2008 was 378 million gallons per day. Currently, we produce and refine domestically about 34% of all our gasoline needs. The rest must come from imports. In 2008 ethanol consumption was 9.3 billion gallons (25.5 million gallons per day). That equates to roughly 7% of gasoline consumption. Almost this entire amount has been used to supplement gasoline replacing MTBE when it was deemed hazardous and seeping into the groundwater.

Blends of gasoline and ethanol vary from zero to around 10% (E10). After 10% ethanol, vehicles need to be outfitted with special lines and injectors. The flex fuel modification cost for new vehicles is $200 when incorporated into vehicle mass production, but can be much more in older vehicles and void warranties.

The future of ethanol is not in corn which represents the vast majority of current ethanol production. The second generation of ethanol will be cellulosic ethanol that can be made from a variety of sources including switch grass, wheat straw, corn stover, wood chips, forest waste, fast growing trees, and other plant material. The advantage is that the whole plant can be used instead of only the grain. Raw materials can be collected from all over the country and production facilities can be located near potential sources and even be transportable. Subsidies or tax incentives can be and have been provided to farmers, loggers, and waste management companies to provide direct feeds into those production facilities providing benefits to both parties.

Cellulosic ethanol is not without its problems. Although Cellulosic material (basically anything carbon based) is readily available and less expensive than corn, the conversion process is more expensive and more complex. But even this is being over come; traditional methods have focused on enzymatic processes that have historically generated lower concentrations of ethanol. New methods use a thermo chemical gasification process which is more efficient, contains greater yield and is also competitive with sugar based ethanol production costs (Brazil’s method).

In addition, ongoing research from private ethanol companies, and national and university laboratories will continue looking at new methods of converting biomass, engineering and growing more productive strains of crops, and maybe even genetically engineering single organisms (microbes) capable of breaking down simple sugars and fermenting alcohols, thereby eliminating some of the conversion process and further decreasing costs.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has finally provided $385 million for six different companies utilizing slightly different bio refinery processes ranging from different types of thermo chemical gasification to concentrated acid and catalytic processes. The success of these companies and their processes will be monitored over the next few years.  By the time they become fully operational; the bio refineries may become eligible for additional financing and are projected to produce in excess of 225 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol each year (616,000 gallons per day). 

While these projections are impressive they fall far short of replacing the existing inefficient corn based ethanol production by many magnitudes. There have already been considerable investments from agribusiness, venture capitalists, and private equity groups who certainly don’t want their product overtaken by cellulosic ethanol. However, cellulosic ethanol can be an enabling technology that allows the harvest of two crops from each field; a food production crop from the grains and a biomass crop from the residual stalks, leaves, husks, etc. Existing ethanol refineries will continue to be required for many years before eventually being converted.

In order to move beyond prototype demonstrations and into mass production with large economies of scale, second generation cellulosic ethanol will need significant loan guarantees and federal and state grants, subsidies, and tax incentives. These projects are for the benefit of all Americans and are a vital element to our country’s ability to sustain itself, not simply for the profit generation of companies or to create wealth for investors. We need to stop being so concerned about the private sector’s return on investment (ROI). Investors assume risk and expect to be justly compensated if the venture proves profitable. However, in the event taxpayer money is used to subsidize infrastructure development for bio fuel refineries and production facilities, the U.S. government should either be adequately compensated for its investment before turning it over to private companies, or profitability taken out of the equation allowing ethanol into the U.S. market at cost of production via a non profit entity or state ownership through the DOE. The latter possibility forgoes government tax revenues from ethanol sales for lower prices to consumers. I am not really sure that state ownership option would work in the U.S. It does appear to work for many other countries since the majority of the world’s largest oil companies are now state owned and control 77% of oil reserves.

Cellulosic ethanol will be critical to supplement our gasoline until automobiles can be run on batteries or water. With China and India each creating a middle class at alarming rates demand for oil will soon exceed the ability to extract, refine, and distribute enough petroleum quick enough to meet that demand. It is no longer an issue of when or if we will hit peak oil in our lifetimes but simple supply versus demand. We cannot wait or throw token dollars at a few companies and their refineries.  Oil companies have already demonstrated reluctance to drilling the expensive oil rich off shore sites preferring instead to drill less in deep water, tap easier sources, wait for the next run on oil prices, and buy back their shares of stock. They are investing in bio fuel research at a rate of about 1% – 2% of profits, probably the same amount used to market themselves as energy providers instead of oil companies. It is quite substantial when you consider the billions they make each quarter, but they haven’t done much beyond that.

We need to choose a couple of promising thermo chemical gasification processes or develop our own (these technologies are only modifications to existing gasification technology  used by chemical companies for years ) and ramp up production of fast, easy to grow, drought resistant crops. Combine this with incentives for agricultural waste, forestry waste, and landfill waste to be made available as a raw material. Then provide for immediate infrastructure financing for the next generation of refineries and facilities. Finally provide tax or relief incentives for fuel line conversion while the federal government or states mandate the use of greater concentrations of ethanol in gasoline. At minimum all service stations should be providing E10 which require no conversion.

 http://www.eia.doe.gov/

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18227/

http://www.energy.gov/news/4827.htm

http://webecoist.com/2009/03/31/burning-green-15-cutting-edge-biofuel-sources/

The United States consumed 99.3 Quadrillion total btu’s of energy in 2008 (British thermal unit (Btu) is a unit of energy needed to heat 1 lb. of water 1 degree F). The breakdown follows below. What I found to be of interest is that for all the talk over the past several years regarding renewable energy we don’t produce or consume much of it. Solar is only one tenth of one percent of total consumption and it’s been around for 30 years. All the private equity money going into wind generation represents one half of one percent, and the bio fuels hope about replacing gasoline with ethanol and diesel with bio diesel appear to have stalled at about one half of one percent. I realize there are efficiency concerns and infrastructure costs related to establishing these sectors but for all the media discussion and political wrangling we have actually moved little.

When considering consumption by sector (table below), petroleum is primarily used for transportation (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel). Natural gas usage breaks down to 29% for electricity production, 29% for industrial uses and is utilized for building steel, glass, brick, etc. and 34% is for heating residential homes and commercial buildings. Coal has always been used for electric power generation and equates to almost half of the energy sources used to generate electricity. Nuclear is also almost exclusively for electricity generation as well and represents 20% of the energy sources used to generate electricity. All of these are considered non-renewable forms of energy.

U.S. Energy Consumption by sector for 2008:

• Petroleum                                      37.4%     36.7 Quadrillion Btu
• Natural Gas                                   24.0%     23.8 Quadrillion Btu
• Coal                                              22.6%     22.8 Quadrillion Btu
• Nuclear (Uranium)                           8.5%       8.9 Quadrillion Btu
• Renewable Energy                          7.0%       7.3 Quadrillion Btu

Breakdown of Renewable Energy sector for 2008

• Biomass                                        53%        3.9% of total sources of energy
• Hydroelectric                                 34%        2.5% of total sources of energy
• Wind                                               7%          .5% of total sources of energy
• Geothermal                                     5%          .4% of total sources of energy
• Solar                                               1%          .1% of total sources of energy

Breakdown of Biomass sub-sector for 2008

• Wood and wood waste                 64.5%     2.5% of total sources of energy
• Biofuels (ethanol & biodiesel)        23.5%       .9% of total sources of energy
• Garbage & Landfill gases               12.0%       .5% of total sources of energy

Although the total number for renewable energy comes in at 7% of consumption it is largely made up of wood burning in the biomass sub-sector and hydroelectric power generation both of which have been in use for years. The newer technologies of wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and bio fuels barely scratch 1.5% of total U.S. energy consumption. Total energy consumed from all sources indicates that traditional non renewable sources still dominate and will likely continue to dominate U.S. energy supply side.

When considering our nation’s demand for energy and how we use it, demand for transportation and electrical power generation make up more than half of that demand. Transportation represents 29% of energy demand. Electricity represents a 21.6% of energy demand. When considering electricity demand.  Industries and all their associated production facilities require 31% and electricity demand from industrial uses is 4.3%. The construction / maintenance of our commercial sector require 19% and electricity demands from commercial development are 7.8%. Residential construction represents requires 22%, and electricity demand for residential housing is 9.5%. The two most important energy demands regarding renewable energy is also for transportation and electrical power. 

Transportation needs are met through either importing petroleum/oil or domestically producing it. The United States produces 10% of the world’s petroleum and consumes 24%. We import 57% of our demand and, we produce 43% domestically. Of the 57% of our imports about half come from North and South America, including Venezuela. The Persian Gulf represents only 16% of our total imports, with 12% of that amount supplied by our ally Saudi Arabia. I am now wondering why there is so much diplomatic, military, and economic emphasis placed on a region that provides only 16% of the total imports of oil for our transportation needs.

More than half of U.S. Petroleum Imports Come from the Western Hemisphere

• Canada            19%
• Mexico              10%
• Venezuela          9%
• Others              10%

Remaining U.S. Petroleum imports come from the rest of the world

• Africa                   21%       (Nigeria              8%)
• Persian Gulf         16%       (Saudi Arabia   12%)
• Others                 14%

70% of all oil produced domestically or imported goes towards transportation, 24% towards industrial production, and 5% for residential / commercial heating oil. If we look at the transportation sector closely, oil constitutes 96% of the demand. The remaining 4% is made up of natural gas and biofuels. Even that is a bit misleading since the vast majority of the 2% from biofuels is ecorn based ethanol that is supposed to be used to supplement gasoline. Ethanol production has certainly seen its share of difficulties but remains the supplement of choice since it increases octane levels, and providing a safe alternative for oxygenation , and helps meet stricter emission guidelines.

62% of our oil imports are used for gasoline. Why is only 2% of ethanol being used with gasoline or as a replacement for gasoline? Ethanol is probably not going to be the sole replacement as an automobile energy source. It doesn’t have the high BTU/energy efficiency ratio that gasoline has, but it is a great supplement to our gasoline and we could be using it in greater concentrations. Current mixtures now range from 100% gasoline / 0% ethanol to 90% gasoline / 10% ethanol (E10). The E10 mixtures have had minimal negative effect on gas lines, but even E10 isn’t used throughout the country.

Second generation cellulosic ethanol can be a reality quickly. There are already cellulosic ethanol companies that have completed the prototype generation stage and are ready for full production. An additional bonus for cellulosic production is that it will not strain food crops or require thousands of gallons of water to produce one plant. We need to be stretching the use of existing oil/gas inventories and that can be done by integrating cellulosic ethanol. I don’t accept the arguments about it always costing $1000 to change fuel lines, injectors, etc. Once a mixture system for E15 or above is mandated, company’s will compete as they always do and drive prices down. So, why is this not being done immediately to relieve the pressure from all the imports? Maybe there are too many hands in the pot? Is big agribusiness trying to generate more demand from its biggest commodity cash crop, corn? Maybe big oil doesn’t like to have to share the profits with some upstart potential substitute? Maybe there is no rush to get the U.S. off of the imports from the Middle East because we really aren’t importing much from that region since 12% comes from our stable ally Saudia Arabia, leaving only 4% to come from other areas within the Middle East (essentially from Iraq). I certainly hope we end up with more oil from Iraq and that oil drilling rights do not end up in Russia’s hands for all that we have invested in the area.

Diesel and jet fuel make up another 31% of our oil imports. Both can be made from biodiesel. Biodiesel consumption currently represents less than one half of 1%. This technology has been around for a while and bio algae represents one of the greatest potentials in this field. Algae are the fastest growing organisms on the planet able to replicate themselves in a few days and some varieties can produce yields up to 50% oil. Why did all government funding get pulled from this potentially useful technology? Why is it that when a university has a breakthrough, a military defense contractor steps in and overtakes the project? Not that I don’t agree with running our fighters and transports off of biodiesel generated onsite via bio algae production, I would just like to see it fueling our semi-tractor trailers domestically as well. Trucking compannies could also benefit from access to simple inexpensive conversion processes that don’t void warranties. Perhaps federal tax incentives could be provided to trucking companies to help fund the conversion process for at least some trucks that are no longer under warranty. At the minimum the U.S. should be significantly funding research to try to increase the efficiencies of bio algae/bio diesel production.

The following breaks down the transportation sector:

Transportation    96% of all transportation needs are met by petroleum

• Gasoline              62%   Cars, Motorcycles, Light Trucks
• Diesel                  22%   Heavier Trucks, Buses, Trains
• Jet Fuel                 9%    Airplane
• Other                    5%    Cars, Light Trucks, Heavier trucks (2% from renewable energy)
• Natural Gas          2%    City fleet Cars & Light duty trucks

Energy consumption by vehicle type

• Cars & Trucks          60% of total energy used for transportation       – Gasoline
• Large Trucks            16% of total energy used for transportation       – Diesel
• Aircraft                      9% of total energy used for transportation        – Jet Fuel
• Boats                        5% of total energy used for transportation        – Gasoline & Diesel
• Agriculture                4% of total energy used for transportation        –  Diesel
• Trains & Buses          3% of total energy used for transportation        –  Diesel

In electric power generation, we clearly use non-renewable energy sources as well, and this constitute s almost 90% of electricity production. Renewable energy, when hydro-electric is taken out, is 2.5% and half of that is old style wood burning.

Electric Power – Used for electrical energy accessed through the grid

• Coal                                 48.5%
• Natural Gas                      21.6%
• Nuclear                            19.4%
• Hydroelectric                     5.8%
• Renewable Energy            2.5%
• Petroleum                         1.6%

Sources of the 2.5% Renewable Energy used for electric power generation

• Biomass                    1.3%
• Wind                           .8%
• Geothermal                 .3%
• Solar                           .02%

Percentage breakdown of the Biomass sources in electric power generation

• Wood and wood waste             70.2%
• Biofuels                                       3.7%
• Garbage & Landfill gases          26.0%

I am sorry, but these numbers seem ridiculous. I have heard all of the arguments about the inefficiencies of photo-voltaics, the poor birds hitting the wind turbines, and how geothermal is too expensive and can only be placed deep under water in volcanic rifts. But unless I’m mistaken, aren’t we one of the most advanced countries in the world? I cannot believe that we cannot come up with better electricity generation solutions than burning coal. Wasn’t this technology being used in the…1800’s?  Maybe in promoting our energy crisis we are simply guaranteeing that everyone stays in “crisis mode” and allows business as usual to continue. I do not think that there have been any serious attempts to do anything but keep the major players in place while throwing a few token renewable energy gestures out to the public. 

I wonder if oil and coal had to deal with the same litany of excuses of why things can’t be done as renewable energy has faced. How were they ever able to start production in the … early 1900’s? Personally, I am grateful that we have oil and coal, they have gotten our country to where it is today, but they are polluting our environment and they are technology from our grandparent’s day. (I know, they have made amazing incremental advances in production over the years). Maybe 100 years ago we didn’t tell each other how we couldn’t do something and instead we set out to do it no matter what. Well, I think we are passed that stage. Let’s pull our heads out of our proverbial oil tanks and set to work to provide an economically viable solution for renewable energy integration.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/

http://www.planetforward.org/pages/energy-consumption-by-sector

http://www.need.org/needpdf/infobook_activities/IntInfo/BiomassI.pdf

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence