Biogas Is Renewable Energy's Cinderella

[Fledermaus]

Examined at a fundamental level, the universe seems to begin in lofty abstractions that lead to prosaic realities. Thus mathematics encompasses physics, physics encompasses chemistry, chemistry encompasses biology, and it all leads to… well, us.

But then it gets very abstract again as we move from us to our very non-physical creations such as economics and government policy.

Maybe those abstractions get in our way sometimes. Consider for example that millions, indeed billions, are being invested in ethanol production in the U.S., and biodiesel is getting its fair share as well. Apparently some of what’s been driving the investment is those pesky abstractions, such as policy, and maybe even mere convention.

No doubt, ethanol and biodiesel both have their place. My purpose is not to argue that there is no need to invest in these alternatives, but rather to suggest that if we think they are worth that much investment, we may want to take another look at biogas.


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/03/why-is-biogas-renewable-energys-cinderella

[Turborama]

1. With all due respect to the author, algae makes those numbers look insignificant

Graphics from these articles:

http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/investing-algae-biofuel/253

http://www.svlele.com/algae.htm

-

These related articles are worth checking out, too:

http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/1755">Algae Diesel Meets US Standards

http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display.articles.oil-gas-journal.volume-108.Issue-10.General-Interest.Editorial-The-algae-advance.QP129867.dcmp=rss.page=1.html">Editorial: The algae advance

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/algaefarms.aspx">Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/uoa-cab110409.php">Clean algae biofuel project leads world in productivity

[kristopher]

2. With all due respect, there are significant problems with algae.

I'd advise you to be very, very cautious if you are looking at investing in anything related to it at this point since we have no way of picking the winners and losers yet. In the long term its widespread use looks probable, but the one thing you can count on if that happens is that it is going to be linked directly to biogas as a source of the concentrated carbon.

[TheWraith]

3. Nobody is saying dump your entire pension fund into the stuff.

But it's clearly superior to other crops as a feedstock source.

[kristopher]

4. Superior in what wy?

How do you obtain the high concentrations of CO2 that are required for high growth rates?

How do you "stir" the mixture to ensure even growth among the entire algal population?

If using open air ponds (the only economically proven production method to date) how do you guard against contamination by unwanted species?

How do you separate the algae from the water?

For something to be "superior" it has to be a best fit into a larger system. Algae shows a great deal of promise, but there are other approaches to obtaining liquid fuels that also show promise. The research into next generation biofuels is not even close to being at the stage where commercialization is on the horizon, and any company claiming they are near to bringing a process to market is a good warning sign for anyone wanting return on their investment.

If someone wants to support such research because they want to advance the cause, that is a wonderful and fulfilling use of personal funds. But it should be recognized that the money is a donation, not an investment.

[TheWraith]

7. In that it provides more oil per area without using land that could grow food.

"How do you obtain the high concentrations of CO2 that are required for high growth rates?"

We're already working on carbon capture methods; what better than to exploit those methods to provide CO2 for growing green fuel?

"How do you "stir" the mixture to ensure even growth among the entire algal population?"

Hydrojets seem the obvious answer.

"If using open air ponds (the only economically proven production method to date) how do you guard against contamination by unwanted species?"

Why guard against it? We're not growing food crops here, this is biomass for feedstock. We don't need to keep it pure.

"How do you separate the algae from the water?"

There's at least half a dozen ways, from standard micron-level filtration to evaporative condensation.

And who is talking about investment? We're talking about the base line science that makes algae the obvious choice for producing biofuels without taking up land that's better used growing food crops.

[joshcryer]

8. Captured carbon would not make "green fuel" and it would not be sustainable long term.

[TheWraith]

11. Perhaps not, but it could be a workable solution as we phase out coal.

If we effectively "recycled" the carbon we're currently just releasing into the atmosphere, we'd reduce substantially the overall carbon output. Meanwhile we can determine the most effective way to trap CO2 from the atmosphere and use that for growing biofuel.

[kristopher]

12. The carbon reduction compared to the cost of infrastructure is miniscule.

Oh, that's right. I forgot that you don't understand the idea of limited money and the need to pursue the most cost effective solutions. You are from the "wow that sounds like we can keep doing what we've always done" school of analysis.

[Massacure]

9. Algae does look like an interesting idea for fuel.

Ponds could be created in the desert southwest and manure from California's dairy farms dumped into them. Algae would grow just fine.

Keeping the algae strain "pure" and separating the oil would be the difficult part, and I'm not sure it would make the biodiesel process economical.

I would argue that it would be better to look at letting any strain of algae grow, to be harvested and dried with solar energy. Then I would use gasification and fischer-tropsch to create liquid fuel.

I don't have any idea would the economics would look like, but the process would be much more technologically feasible than transesterfication of pure algae oil.

[Fledermaus]

10. It is, but I prefer biological diversity.

Deserts are not lifeless. Often desert plants concentrate waxes and oils.

Future includes many feedstocks for biodiesel

By ANDREA JOHNSON, Assistant Editor
Friday, March 12, 2010 12:32 PM CST

Soy oil is used in about 60 percent of the biodiesel made in the United States today, but that is expected to change in the near future.

Dozens of potential feedstocks have been tested and many show promise.

With a grant from the Iowa Power Fund, Renewable Energy Group - an Ames, Iowa-based biodiesel company - tested 34 feedstocks.

Jojoba oil - An evergreen perennial shrub that grows in Arizona and Mexico, jojoba dehulled seeds contain 44 percent liquid wax.

http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2010/03/12/ag_news/agri-tech/tech10.txt

[kestrel91316]

13. So what are we supposed to do with our undigested sewage sludge????

Algae may be fabulous, but we still need to use what we cannot stop producing to generate some biogas.

[kristopher]

14. Algae require CO2 and fertilization

Coincidentally, when you compost waste you get biogas to burn, releasing a concentrated stream of CO2, and the nutrients for fertilizer.

You can also combine algae with fish farming (talapia or catfish) where the fish enrich the water with everything needed for algae, and then the algae clean the water of waste and replenish it with O2.


Or chickens...

Or hogs...

The agricultural sector has the potential to become largely self sufficient.

[OnlinePoker]

5. Just trying to get my head around the cycle

Does algae fix CO2 from the atmosphere which will then be re-released once it's burned, or does it's carbon source come from somewhere else during its growth phase (sewage, plant decay, etc)? If it's the second scenario, where is the net benefit to the atmosphere since it is still putting excess CO2 into the atmosphere?

[kristopher]

6. There are two carbon cycles.

One is geologic the other is biologic.

Some of the geologic carbon is constantly being released naturally (ie volcanoes, weathering rocks) and some of the biologic carbon is constantly moving to geologic repositories (organic material that is buried permanently away from oxygen, atmospheric CO2 absorbed by the ocean).

The problem is we have been accelerating the transfer of carbon from the geologic cycle to the biologic cycle by burning fossil fuels.

At 380ppm in the air, CO2 is too diffuse to support commercially high rates of algal growth in a pond unless the water is agitated in some manner to increase the surface area where the CO2 can be absorbed by the water. That requires energy, lots of energy. This is a hard constraint on the rate of algal growth and consequently the rate of production of algal oil.

The alternative is to use some sort of carbon stream. Exhaust from fossil fuel plants is the most obvious source and it would work well right now. Unfortunately the plan is to get rid of fossil fuel carbon streams so we can't predicate the existence of their replacement on them. WE want to leave the geologic carbon where it is, not just enhance how efficiently we use it.

Other carbon streams exist in the biologic cycle that are also able to be harnessed. When all biologic waste decays it releases its carbon content into the air. We can compost this waste (or use more complex processes that are being worked on) and capture the methane that is released as a fuel. When we burn that fuel for power, it releases a concentrated carbon stream that can be used for enhancing algae production. This is generally considered "carbon neutral" but in the present energy system, there are always upstream fossil fuel inputs would be counted when we are doing a rigorous inventory.