BioDieselNow - Renewable biodiesel fuel

Hi folks: New to this forum, but I've been involved with chlorella pyrenoidosa and other algae from a food/health/wellness perspective for the past eighteen years. I'm reading a lot here about the extraction of the lipid content of algae for conversion to biodiesel (and perhaps converting the carbohydrate content leftover to ethanol). My question is: why not burn the algae directly as a combustible fuel? This is not a new idea. It's been researched - and it works. http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg13718563.200-technology-algal-power-gives-a-clean-burn-.html "Technology: Algal power gives a clean burn" 16 January 1993 From New Scientist Print Edition ANDY COGHLAN Sunlight, a common algae and an internal combustion engine could together provide an alternative energy source that consumes no fossil fuels and releases no carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to contribute to global warming. A prototype system which produces 25 kilowatts of power has been developed at the University of the West of England at Bristol. Solar energy fuels the growth of the algae, which are then dried, ground up into a fine powder and burnt in the engine to generate electricity. Carbon dioxide produced during burning is fed to growing algae which recycle it through photosynthesis. The algae, called chlorella, are green single-celled plants which are abundant in nature. 'It sounds potty,' says Paul Jenkins of the university's faculty of engineering, 'but it works. The algae burn a treat.' He estimates that electricity from the process would cost around 3 pence per kilowatt-hour, comparable to the price of generating it from coal, gas and nuclear stations. Independent estimates by Davy Energy Environmental, one of the half-dozen partners in the project, echo these findings. One source in the oil industry who is familiar with the project says: 'It looks extremely promising as a way of converting solar energy into electricity. If he can achieve the yields (of algae) he's claiming, it's absolutely staggering.' Jenkins described the engine last week at a conference organised by the Institution of Chemical Engineers in Birmingham. He said that the notion of generating power by burning algae had been around for at least a decade. No one, however, had solved the problems of growing the algae economically and of linking them to an engine. He says that he overcame these problems thanks to three innovations, the first being the vessel for growing the algae, known as a Biocoil, the second the means to mill the algae to fine particles so that they burn with the same efficiency as the fine sprays of fuel and oil traditionally used in engines, and the third to integrate the algae-growing process with the engine. The Biocoil was originally developed by Biotechna, a London-based biotechnology company, for treating sewage. Jenkins adapted it for growing algae far more efficiently than if the microbes were grown the traditional way in lagoons. The Biocoil is a transparent vertical tube - around 5 metres high- through which the algae are constantly circulated in a nutrient broth. During the process, some of the algae are drawn off to provide fuel. Jenkins says the Biocoil is three times as efficient as ponds at harnessing sunlight for photosynthesis. The algae are also far easier to filter because they cling together in clumps in the Biocoil. The system passes the wet algae into a settling tank, filters them, dehydrates them in a dryer and mills them into fine particles less than 50 micrometres across. Then it pressurises the aerosol to 300 kilopascals, and feeds it into a standard dual-fuel engine. Such engines normally get started by burning oil, but are then driven by gas. In Jenkins's system, 95 per cent of the engine's fuel is algae, with oil providing the start-up step. Carbon dioxide generated by the burning algae is reabsorbed in the nutrient broth and recycled into the Biocoil. So far, most of the £60 000 cost of the project has been shared by the university and the Department of Trade and Industry. Jenkins's next plan is to build a 600-kilowatt pilot plant. He hopes to find Mediterranean partners as the engine would work even more efficiently in sunny climates. From issue 1856 of New Scientist magazine, 16 January 1993, page 18" Just thinking out loud ...

Because a KWH = $.05.

A gal of diesel = $4

There is 3413 BTU in a KWH. There is 130000BTU in gallon of diesel or 38x more BTU than 1 KWH.

38 x $.05 = $1.90.

Thus... algae oil is worth 2x more per BTU than algae electricity.

Oh yea... plus algae are only ~ 2% solar yield efficient and PV is over 10x more yielding per sq ft. So Im not sure algae to electricity will ever make sense.

Lastly... burning 'green biomass' is very dirty in the form of SOx, NOx and other nasties so exhaust scrubbers will be needed.

Froggy: I think you may have misread/misinterpreted both my question and the content of the article. The specific application in the article was power generation - but the electricity was being generated via a 'dual-fuel' internal combustion engine. Just because this was a stationary engine application does not preclude using finely-powdered algae as a biofuel in a modified vehicle. If the stumbling block preventing algae being used as a biofuel now is how to extract the oil, then this technology, developed more than fifteen years ago, would seem to provide a stepping stone between the status quo and future, improved algal fuel technologies.

P.S. The NOx and SOx emmission scrubbing technology is already developed - 'Blue-Tec' urea injection into the exhaust flow - as per Mercedes Benz.

English Tim:

P.S. The NOx and SOx emmission scrubbing technology is already developed - 'Blue-Tec' urea injection into the exhaust flow - as per Mercedes Benz.

I would be curious if this scrubbing technology is for green material. There is a considerable difference between .001% N of biod and 3%+ Nof unprocessed dried algae.

Regardless... my point was that of economics. Most consumers dont care how you do it, just get me unlimited 4$/gal fuel and your rich. But if your plan is to get the consumer electric... then you will have to be happy with 1/2 the end value/BTU.

 

By the way... for over 20 years, people have been talking about adding micro-milled lignin waste stream from the paper industry to liquid fuels like diesel. If your really interested in this topic, my guess is that lignin doping would be a good technology to study.

The paper industry burns this lignin material currently for steam and e' but because of my previous math... liquid fuels offer a premium over e' which is why the research into that method. 

In essence, all energy does not have the same value.

 

In a perfect world, algae fuels would enjoy a period similar to the petro-fuel rush, long before they discovered catalytic cracking, reforming and suchlike, where they just took out the first ends and discarded the rest.

Environmental responsibility was not even beyond the horizon.

Unfortunately, the reality is that algae based fuels will have to suffer the legacy of petro-fuels, and already be doctored to fulfil whichever environmental or health standard needs to be applied - for good, yet unfair reasons.

There's a patent on an internal combusion engine using powdered algae as fuel - here - http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=1995024548&IA=WO1995024548&DISPLAY=DESC

[quote user="froggy"]

Because a KWH = $.05.

A gal of diesel = $4

There is 3413 BTU in a KWH. There is 130000BTU in gallon of diesel or 38x more BTU than 1 KWH.

38 x $.05 = $1.90.

Using your math, therefore, diesel costs 10.5 cents per KWH, versus 5.0 cents for algae.

If one looks at this from a consumers standpoint, algae is less than half the price of petrodiesel as a source of energy

That's makes sound economical sense to me

Hey tim,

You should answer outside of the quotes.

I hate to be such a "$ = everything" but when it comes to answering why things arnt done, its the $ that is usually why. Present an economic argument and you can move a project forward. Do it for the 'earth' and the idea is vaporware until it can justify an economic argument.

By the way... coal cost $40/ton and has ~16,000,000BTU or ~ 1/10th the cost of petrol/BTU.

 

English Tim:

There's a patent on an internal combusion engine using powdered algae as fuel - here - http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=1995024548&IA=WO1995024548&DISPLAY=DESC   

 

Something that also has to be brought up here is the EROI of making the algal fuel, which needs to include  drying. Drying biomass from the aqua growth chamber with ~ .01% solids to ~98% solids is not trivial.

Froggy:

This forum software is not one that I am used to using quite yet.

When - not if - crude oil breaks through the $200 per barrel price, (and Goldman Sachs is now predicting this to happen before the end of 2008), then the economic argument for viable energy alternatives is straightforward.

These will no longer be seen as earth/environment issues, but as necessary endeavors to solve the logistical nightmare of supplying the ever-increasing energy demands of a fossil oil dependent society, which has long passed 'Hubbert's Peak'.

Drying algae in commercial production systems is not a slow or difficult process. Our chlorella pyrenoidosa supplier uses Alfa-Laval centrifuges and a Kochiwa spray-dry system to prouce 10,000 MT dry weight of the algae each year.

English Tim:

   When - not if - crude oil breaks through the $200 per barrel price, (and Goldman Sachs is now predicting this to happen before the end of 2008), then the economic argument for viable energy alternatives is straightforward. 

This is why energy prices needs to go up. High oil prices are good for everyone, they just dont know it.

English Tim:

   Drying algae in commercial production systems is not a slow or difficult process. Our chlorella pyrenoidosa supplier uses Alfa-Laval centrifuges and a Kochiwa spray-dry system to prouce 10,000 MT dry weight of the algae each year.

  I am well aware of many technologies that dry. Ofc we both know that the wetter the starting feedstock is, the less thermodynamic the process is.

But this point brings up another point of mine. Why dry algae @ .1% solids starting point when there is dairy and other ag manure @ 10+% solids, paper pulp sludge @ 40% solids, industrial food waste @ 90% solids, muni waste, ag waste, your lawn clippings...  why set up a system that dries .1% solid algal feedstock when all these huge feedstocks are just lying there digesting away?  The answer is simply one of economics and thermodynamics. Eventually, we will get to algae but first, lets work on the easy stuff. 

Also, I find that most 'drying' systems utilize fossil fuels that are cheap to do the thermodynamic work and sell the expensive green energy. This seems wacko but its very hard to find a pure renew thermodynamic system on the market.

froggy:

This is why energy prices needs to go up. High oil prices are good for everyone, they just dont know it.

I find that comment intriguing. High oil prices are only good for the oil companies and their stockholders.

If hyper-inflation and economic recession (or depression, I would say) caused by spiraling energy costs is so good for everyone, then please enlighten me with your reasoning behind that comment, as I myself cannot see that. Unless of course you mean that this will force alternatives to the forefront. You might want to read 'The Coming Economic Collapse', by Stephen Leeb, PhD, for some insight into the effect that this emerging scenario will have on the future of society.

We are going to need all of the above, and more, to replace the energy vacuum that will be left by the end of the 'cheap fossil oil' era.

Yep, you don't get something for nothing. Nothing, that is, but the solar energy that is trapped in algae and can be released as a fuel - either as a dense source of essential nutrients for human and animal metabolic needs, or as a petroleum/gas/coal alternative.

You appear to be totally against the idea of algae as a source of energy. Fossilized algae that has been powering this planet for the last 150 years.

English Tim:

froggy:

This is why energy prices needs to go up. High oil prices are good for everyone, they just dont know it.

I find that comment intriguing. High oil prices are only good for the oil companies and their stockholders.

If hyper-inflation and economic recession (or depression, I would say) caused by spiraling energy costs is so good for everyone, then please enlighten me with your reasoning behind that comment, as I myself cannot see that. Unless of course you mean that this will force alternatives to the forefront. You might want to read 'The Coming Economic Collapse', by Stephen Leeb, PhD, for some insight into the effect that this emerging scenario will have on the future of society.

I wouldnt mind a bit of economic collapse rather than a global ecological collapse. Its like a bandaide, one day or another,,, it needs to come off. You can do it now, you can do it later but its gotta come off. You can let it fester or you can do the right thing.

I also dont agree that there must be a global economic depression if oil goes to 200+.  There is no energy crisis, there is a liquid crude oil for fuel for cars crisis. The sun dumps so much energy on the earth that we need to dig coal to make more energy to run an air conditioner to pump that energy back out. There is plenty of energy. Plenty of ways of making it. Ever wonder why everyone complains about how the hydrogen economy doesnt make sense? It always turns out that its an economic issue. Or windmills. Or wave energy...you have any idea how much wave energy there is on the planet? How about PV? Certainly there is enough sand and other simple feedstocks to produce mirrors and PV. The reason they dont make sense? $/fossilfuel energy. The reason we dont have electric cars? $/bbl. The reason we are pollution our ATM, lakes, lands, oceans? $/coal.

Let me give a specific... The reason we have industrial chemical food and farms? $/bbl. The reason people are food rioting is because they cannot compete with industral oil farming of huge tracks of lands to feed cars and cows, not to feed people. For 50 years, the usa has dumped cheap subsidized industrail food on the world market. This has depressed the world food production so greatly for so many years that now that the root cause of the issue, cheap oil, is not a reality anymore, there is real trouble. A family of 5 can produce enough food to live 1 acre of land using simple ag techniques. Does this happen now? Nope. Why? because oil is too cheap, lets just industrial ag and chemical and pollute and farm the carbon out of the soil so that we can feed cows. To continue this madness is... um... well... madness.

I also see a direct link to the distruction of our soils to $/bbl. FDR talks about the value of soils to a nation. Not only has oil robbed the USA of its tresury, its robbed us of our most precious resource... our soil. Cheap oil has also made it unlikely that the ave person can make a living farming, how can they compete with tractors and cheap oil? They cant so they are kicked off the land thru economic warfare and the soil is mined.

Just because the last 100 years of pollution has been accounted for, do you think that its unfair not to count it now? What is a Ton of CO2 worth? Or how about the ton's of Hg emitted? In the past... people got off lucky. Guess what... in the closed system that is the earth... there is no getting off lucky. Paybacks's a bitch. You cant get an ecosystem out of balance because that check always comes due. And its coming due now. So... to not pay for the true pollution costs of fossil fuels now is only going to make that check worse. I, for one, am not willing to leave my kids with a national debt (I find that disgusting) and I am not willing to leave my lands polluted (likely even more disgusting). We gotta make some hard choices. Its easier if that hard choice comes thru economic means, rather than an alternative ecological collapse.

English Tim:

  You appear to be totally against the idea of algae as a source of energy. 

No, im just saying look at all the other sources that are dryer that we dont use. Until we do use those, why bother with the wettest of all biomass, waterplants. I am in favor of utilizing biomass that exists in the ecosystems presently. Cattail marshes. Algae washup. Fish kills. Human sludge. Get thru all of that, THEN, growing biofuels will make sense.

English Tim:

    You might want to read 'The Coming Economic Collapse', by Stephen Leeb, PhD, for some insight into the effect that this emerging scenario will have on the future of society. 

By the way... I have skimmed Dr. Leeb's book just a few days ago. It doesnt scare me as much as Dr. Ehrlich's Rivet popping hypothesis. I dont know... maybe its cuz Im an ecologist and not an economist.

 Froggy,

(Sarcasm on)

We have lots of hog lagoons here.  I like your idea of using wastes.  We can use hexane or a press to extract the oil from algae.  How do we extract the oil from hog wastes?

(Sarcasm off)

You seem to think that all forms of biomass are the same.  Some can be easily turned into transportation fuels.  Others are difficult or require expensive and conplicated equiipment that cannot be used by backyard or village producers.  Please stop trying to discourage oil from algae.  Or are you trying to prevent competition for big oil?

 

liberty1:

   Or are you trying to prevent competition for big oil? 

I thought you said you turned the sarcasm off???

liberty1:

Others are difficult or require expensive and conplicated equiipment that cannot be used by backyard or village producers. 

Are you trying to tell me that you will be growing your own fuel using algae in your backyard or village? You think algoil is not expensive and complicated equiipment? That you will be growing it in your backyard fueling your every need and desire... right in your own back yard pond I suppose?

liberty1:

How do we extract the oil from hog wastes?

If you would have bothered to read the whole of the thread, you would understand what we are talking about. Because you obviously havnt... I will have to sum it up for you.

Tim:  My question is: why not burn the algae directly as a combustible fuel?

Froggy: I think this is a valid idea but why grow algae and do this when you can get other biomass for free and do this. This way you remove garbage/pain AND get fuel. The economics is far better with a free feedstock than one that has to be paid for or grown.

Tim: Why does Froggy hate algae?

Liberty: Froggy hates algae so much that he must be a big oil shill.

 

Anyone else: I have an idea or am doing research

Froggy: I will dump on you because I am a legend in my own mind and so much smarter than everyone else.

Anyone else: Well not really.

 Froggy: Yes I am

Froggy: Yes I really am.

Froggy: I'm serious, I'm a genious!

Anyone else: Ok then

froggy:

English Tim:

  You appear to be totally against the idea of algae as a source of energy. 

No, im just saying look at all the other sources that are dryer that we dont use. Until we do use those, why bother with the wettest of all biomass, waterplants. I am in favor of utilizing biomass that exists in the ecosystems presently. Cattail marshes. Algae washup. Fish kills. Human sludge. Get thru all of that, THEN, growing biofuels will make sense.

Ok Blakec, in the context of this thread, can you justify trying to grow something that will cost money when you can get them for free and even a tipping fee?

I know people dont like critizism but jeeze get over it. This is a discussion site, Im discussing.