Solazyme's process of growing the algae in the dark has a couple of advantages over approaches that use ponds or bioreactors. First, keeping the algae in the dark causes them to produce more oil than they do in the light. That's because while their photosynthetic processes are inactive, other metabolic processes that convert sugar into oil become active. Just as important, feeding algae sugar makes it possible to grow them in concentrations that are orders of magnitude higher than when they're grown in ponds using energy from the sun, says Eric Jarvis, a biofuels researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, in Golden, CO. (Jarvis is not connected to Solazyme.) That's in part because the sugar provides a concentrated source of energy. These higher concentrations reduce the amount of infrastructure needed to grow the algae, and also make it much easier to collect the algae and extract the oil, Jarvis says, significantly reducing costs. High capital costs have so far stymied other attempts to make fuel from algae. In spite of these advantages over other approaches, Solazyme's method for creating fuel is not yet cheap enough to compete with fuels made from petroleum, Dillon says. Indeed, Jarvis warns that one of the most expensive parts of making fuels from cellulosic sources is processing them to create simple sugars, a part of the process that Solazyme isn't focused on improving. But in the past 18 months, improvements in the amount of oil that the algae produce have convinced the company that competitive costs are within reach. Solazyme hopes to begin selling its fuel in two to three years, Dillon says. |
 |
|
||
| |||
Audio »
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Favorite
Print
E-mail
Comments
tsteeg on 02/22/2008 at 4:09 AM
1
bj on 02/22/2008 at 9:54 AM
24
We need to be putting our research dollars into things OTHER THAN BIOFUELS. Like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc. And start building REAL public transportation systems (remember trains?) that run on energy made from these alternatives.
juandegringo on 02/22/2008 at 10:35 AM
1
Moreover, instead of dancing-in-the-dark with algae, why throw the baby out with the bathwater by walking away from the investment required to develop a cost-competitive, algae-based biofuel from photosynthesis if it promises to: 1) convert CO2 emissions into oxygen to help balance the current decline in atmospheric 02 - a "minor" detail that "almost" everyone on the "green bandwagon" has conveniently ignored, and, 2) provides the highest energy content biofuel?
I'm all for investing in the other renewable technologies, and am not looking forward to seeing "The Attack of Frankenalgae", but I believe the environmentally-balanced, economic case can and should be made for development of solar-grown algae for the reasons above.
Why are we humans so inanely stupid? OK. OK. The two threads are not completely related.
killian on 02/22/2008 at 10:36 AM
54
ryuuguu on 02/23/2008 at 1:54 AM
5
prbenoit on 02/25/2008 at 10:04 AM
3
It is currently at or near the top of invasive species lists for virtually every southern state. Kudzu, as a member of the Fabaceae family, is a natural nitrogen fixer and, thus, grows rapidly across the landscape with no inputs (e.g., fertilizers). Given its perennial growth habit, its rapid growth rate, and the fact that kudzu has a high starch content (particularly its root system), its potential as a biofuel could be tremendous. However, to date, this potential has basically gone unstudied.
dian33 on 05/21/2008 at 8:45 PM
2
for alcoholism. Kudzu may be starchy but can it be processed in a way to produced oil. It could be used
for a host of other applications.
Batensmack on 05/29/2008 at 6:47 PM
1
We've got an superhole of kudzu, too.
jester on 06/21/2008 at 12:34 PM
1
solar nano on 02/22/2008 at 4:16 AM
9
Lee Dekker on 02/22/2008 at 2:55 PM
1
One reason it's worth pursuing fuel derived from algae and other renewable sources is because there is currently no substitute for liquid fuel used in jet transport. Nearly all the rest of our transportation needs could be covered by electricity. Continuing to use the same reciprocating piston design as steam engines built in the 1700s is getting a bit silly. Expecting reciprocating engines, burning liquid fuels, to continue providing over 99% of our transportation needs into the future is even sillier, biofuels or not.
Obviously a transition to electric transport is no small undertaking. But those with the biggest and loudest "can't do" attitudes on the subject also happen to be those making money on the current dead end liquid fuels reciprocating engine game.
The sugar question needs more explanation, but the way it's written in this article reminds one of a perpetual motion scheme.
solar nano on 02/23/2008 at 12:31 AM
9
No more wars, no outsourcing our dollars for fossil fuels, more jobs locally, no use of agricultural lands, all food left on the table, all electric transportation and utilities, no pollution. World wide affluence and people in control of their future. Simple! What are we waiting for???
FantasticReality on 02/24/2008 at 6:47 AM
1
DJTal on 02/27/2008 at 3:18 AM
114
Fuel from algae is interesting future technology , but it's not something that is available to us right now for fighting global warming .
dian33 on 05/21/2008 at 9:06 PM
2
jkljkl02 on 06/04/2008 at 10:52 PM
1
= Strictly speaking this is not so. In the 50's GE designed a jet engine for the military that ran on nuclear power. The engine was successful, but the project was canceled because of the concerns about hazards should the plane crash.
len hillegass on 02/22/2008 at 12:19 PM
1
Elroch on 02/23/2008 at 7:45 AM
28
The technology described here is not a whole chain, it is merely a biochemical processing step to convert sugar to useful oils.
To evaluate the value of this technology it needs to be examined in the context of an energy chain that includes growing the crop that is used to provide the substrate (sugars, cellulose) for the algae, and see what the overall energy efficiency is. Unfortunately this immediately means that the efficiency is going to be much less than 0.5%, as no crops (other than photosynthetic algae) capture more than 0.5%. Worse, this is reduced by a sizeable fraction due to the inescapable energy costs of fertilizer and transport.
The bottom line is that this looks like a useful chemical engineering technology, but there is a long way to go before replacing most fossil fuels with biofuels is feasible. In the end we need a much larger overall efficiency than a fraction of one percent to provide the energy that is needed.
nekote on 02/24/2008 at 3:08 AM
114
Either biologically based, materials based (silicon, GaAs, ...) or some mix of both.
The winner(s) have to reliably and continuously provide vast industrial quantities of energy that can reach, in a practically and cost effective way, the world's major population centers. And those winner(s) will provide that energy at the lowest tier of pricing, per unit energy, for their era of dominance.
The vast deserts of the planet would presumeably be the natural location for the initial collection of solar energy on such a vast industrial scale. Those deserts closer to the equator and major population centers would probably have competitive advantages of greater solar availability and lesser transport costs.
In essence, converting today's incident sunlight for our needs, rather than pumping / mining fossil fuels (which are really long ago solar energy that was bio captured and "sequestered" within the earth).
DJTal on 02/25/2008 at 4:51 AM
114
I agree that solar power is one of the best renewables . If solar power plants are situated in arid parts of the world then solar panels can provide shade for plants and animals growing underneath and actually lead to an increase in the growth of vegetation .
There aren't any renwables that are bad , we just need to learn how to use them in ways that benefit the wider environment .
nekote on 02/25/2008 at 6:38 PM
114
In truth, that could be just what will be required.
How about increasing the proposed daily solar capture and conversion to "convenient" energy forms beyond "current" needs and pump the excess collection (in suitable versions) *back* into all those tens of thousands of oil and gas wells and coal mines that we have been harvesting fossil fuels from? Say, put 10% of the algae oil harvest back into the ground, in a recoverable way.
In essence, "repaying" / re-sequestering the carbon based stored ancient sunlight we have been using to fuel our modern industrial era.
In effect, creating a vast "strategic petroleum reserve", in many places around the earth.
This would have the advantage of being able to, at worse, flare it off to regain CO2, should Global Cooling ever become the fear / reality du jour.
I don't think it wise to sequester CO2 in "permanent" ways that are going to make it difficult to *boost* CO2 / GHG, should that side of the coin ever befall mankind.
solar nano on 02/24/2008 at 9:45 AM
9
nekote on 02/25/2008 at 7:04 PM
114
50% conversion and 33,000 gallons / acre / year certainly would be an answer to many energy hungry prayers.
But nobody's there, yet, as much as they and the non-oil producers might wish.
I got my fingers crossed that algae / PV will soon genuinely attain numbers like that, on a vast industrial scale.
That should transform some (hot) desert rich locations - southwest USA, Australia, Saharan Africa, the Kalahari - from barren wastelands into productive energy collection regions.
That ain't gonna' make current oil producers very happy - having new competitors whose "well" never runs dry, once the inital capital is invested.
go_solar on 02/25/2008 at 8:09 PM
1
Jan 23, 2008" that talks about the source of sugar in this algae biofuel process. As some have speculated - it's from waste carbohydrates. I picked this up on Google's alert on algae biofuel.
solar nano on 02/26/2008 at 9:51 PM
9
nationalalgaeassociation on 02/28/2008 at 6:32 PM
1
Algae: The Next Biofuel
www.nationalalgaeassociation.com
xqbarr on 03/04/2008 at 9:02 PM
1
If biodiesel is directly yielded from the Solazyme process then an energy dense fuel has been created that is a 'shortcut' in comparison to say ethanol where distillation robs a high percentage of the yield.
I notice they have a contract with Chevron Technology Ventures.
cdlindahl on 03/07/2008 at 12:22 AM
1
FreddyG on 03/07/2008 at 2:50 PM
5
markjeromy on 03/12/2008 at 10:50 AM
1
moejama on 06/09/2008 at 4:47 PM
1
When it comes to producing heat, nothing beats fossil fuel other than nuclear power.
When it comes to most everything else, electricity is ideal.
That's why 75% of gasoline's energy potential is released as heat when used in your car. Hence why you need a massive cooling system running all the time. Internal explosions, by nature, primarily produce heat. The fact you catch some of that kinetic energy with the crankshaft is nothing compared to the heat radiating from the engine.
Why do you even bother posting when you obviously know nothing about the topic ?
Electric engines are more efficient. That's why trains have been using electric engines for decades. When on rails the rolling resistance is much lower, which means you can carry very large loads without losing as much fuel economy. This lets you carry around a giant diesel generator and huge tank of diesel. Overall you can get better efficiency this way, BUT probably more importantly is the electric engine lasts much longer and in most cases doesn't require a transmission since it have produce variable amount of force based on a variable amount of electricity.
Another novel way to use diesel generators is to encase them in water, this producing all the 'free' hot water you need since it's a waste product of internal combustion. This is a nice setup for home power since most homes put considerably energy in keeping tanks of hot water ready at all times.
Electric engines are great for transport because they are based on a simple REVOLVING magnet. This is the perfect thing to turn a car wheel.
Internal combustion must go through many moving parts to effectively turn the wheels of your car. A wheel hub electric engine directly turns 2-4 wheels and effectively cuts out the hundreds or thousands of moving parts in your engine.
Fossil fuel can only compete with electricity when it's being used for heat or in the case of turbines which are quite efficient. If you use the internal combustion engine you're doom