Converting green slime to oil is nothing new, But the people at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory have discovered a way to make black gold from algae in less than an hour. “In a sense, we are duplicating the process in the Earth that converted algae into oil over the course of millions of years. We’re just doing it much, much faster”. This is a close to alchemy as we will ever get, IMO.
Based in the article, the folks at PNNL have cut the turn-around time of converting algae into oil, gas, aviation fuel that may make it someday, produced on a large scale basis. “While a few other groups have tested similar processes to create biofuel from wet algae, most of that work is done one batch at a time. The PNNL system runs continuously, processing about 1.5 liters of algae slurry in the research reactor per hour. While that doesn’t seem like much, it’s much closer to the type of continuous system required for large-scale commercial production.”
I will defer to the experts in this field, but would not this be a viable alternative than drilling off the Gulf of Mexico or importing Saudi oil? There appears to be no waste product and this new discovery is a huge step in making it cost competitive versus traditional oil exploration.
“The products of the process are:
Crude oil, which can be converted to aviation fuel, gasoline or diesel fuel. In the team’s experiments, generally more than 50 percent of the algae’s carbon is converted to energy in crude oil — sometimes as much as 70 percent.
Clean water, which can be re-used to grow more algae.
Fuel gas, which can be burned to make electricity or cleaned to make natural gas for vehicle fuel in the form of compressed natural gas.
Nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium — the key nutrients for growing algae.”
http://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=1029
danfromwaltham says
thanks for the read.
Charley on the MTA says
Cleantechnica
Greentech Media
Renewable Energy News
The Energy Collective (includes fossil people as well)
All of these regularly post such mind-blowing innovations. The real trick is scaling and commercializing these ideas. But they give me optimism that we’ll be able to 1. kick fossil fuel’s ass, and 2. be better off economically for it, both in terms of cost of energy, and where that money goes. MA in particular has a TON to gain from further conversion to clean energy.
So there are global and parochial reasons to be enthusiastic for the sector.
jconway says
I got the great opportunity to see the algae made that was recovered from the MIT Coal Plant in person (can’t believe I used to take going to high school in Cambridge for granted), is there a viable market for that (recovering new sources of energy from bad sources)? Also could this be combined with a fuel cell vehicle and used within the existing petroleum infrastructure to make a quick conversion? I feel like the key to solving the chicken and egg problem is working with the chicken’s we have (existing vehicles/gas stations) to make cleaner eggs (emissions free vehicles, ideally carbon free refinement like the algae).
kirth says
The refining process may be carbon-free, but the use of the products is certainly not. This is a solution to a secondary problem, and encourages activities that are the primary problem. For us to survive, we need to stop burning oil instead of finding cheaper ways to produce it. Solar-powered electric vehicles are emission-free. Vehicles that burn fuel made from algae are not.
jconway says
And sorry if I belied my ignorance, part of the reason I framed it as a question. But back when I had a Motor Trend subscription I recall fuel cell
vehicles made by BMW and Honda (I think theirs is called an FCV) that ran in traditional gas but gave off zero emissions. Couldn’t algae oil the fossil fuel source and run in those emission free power trains thus significantly reducing or even eliminating emissions on both ends while maintaining the traditional gas station fueling infrastructure?
I don’t favor one method over the other-but this approach seems like it could be adopted in far less time with less cultural baggage than electric or solar vehicles. I’m thinking the problem is so dire I’d rather get the emissions and refining problem solved and worry about converting to a more sustainable fuel source later-
Charley on the MTA says
I think those are the biggest problems with so-called “drop-in” biofuels. The method described purports to be water-efficient, which would be good. Biofuels would be especially nice for planes …
I have this sense that electric stuff has more of the romance and enthusiasm now, since solar is getting so much cheaper, and Tesla and Chevy and Nissan are showing that electric vehicles are actually viable. The grid may be greening faster than fuels.
But hey, let a thousand algaes bloom — I wish biofuel all the success in the world, all things being equal.
Peter Porcupine says
http://hermes.mbl.edu/news/press_releases/2009/2009_pr_08_04.html
The Mass Military Reservation uses this fuel, and actually uses it to fuel PAVE PAWS, the NORAD facility on the base which scans the Atlantic for incoming missiles – it’s an outpost of 1st Space Control Squadron at Cheyanne Mountain (which I went to visit once).
It doesn’t have large commercial potential yet, but works well in a smaller contained projects.
SomervilleTom says
The process described requires high pressure and high temperature. Each requires external energy to be supplied to the process. No mention is made of the efficiency of the process — how much of the externally-supplied energy is available in the resulting synthetic oil?
I note that a major failing (just one of many) of the requirement to add ethanol to gasoline is the enormous energy (and carbon) imbalance required to produce that ethanol.
I get that the carbon impact (on the atmosphere) of the resulting oil is neutral because the carbon produced by the synthetic fuel comes from plants (algae) that have just captured that carbon from the air. It thus avoids the problem of releasing “old” carbon captured millions of years ago.
I’d like to know the energy balance of the contemplated production process. What is the ratio of energy produced to energy consumed?
I’d like to know the carbon balance of the contemplated process? How much carbon is emitted by the processes needed to sustain the pressure and temperature needed by this approach?
How does the energy and carbon footprint of this process compare to competing uses for that same external energy, such as hydrogen production using electrolysis?