By now I have had at least a dozen people send me the link or ask me to comment on the recent DARPA announcement that they can produce algal oil for $2 a gallon. My fellow blogger Lou Grinzo has already made a few comments, and I share his skepticism. It is an extraordinary claim, to me ranking up there with “We have invented time travel.” Then again, if you invented the Internet, I suppose people tend to cut you a lot of slack.
But it is true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in this case I find the latter to be lacking. First, the claim:
US military to make jet fuel from algae
Scientists at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have already successfully extracted oil from algal ponds, and is now about to begin large-scale refining of the oil.
My son and I successfully extracted oil from algae as part of his 8th grade science project. Extracting oil is not particularly technically challenging. But here is where it gets interesting:
Special assistant for energy with DARPA, Barbara McQuiston, said unrefined oil produced from algae currently costs $2 per gallon, but the cost is projected to reduce to around $1. The refined and processed jet fuel is expected to cost under $3 per gallon.
My friend John Benemann once said to me that whenever people make claims like this, offer to buy all of the oil they have to sell. What you quickly find out is that they have no oil to sell. So that would be my question to Barbara McQuiston. If you can produce it for $2 a gallon, would you sign a contract to deliver it to me in volume for $3 a gallon? I suspect I already know the answer to that. It’s like the guy whose sign advertises the cheapest gasoline in town, but when you stop in his tanks are empty.
Perhaps McQuiston was misquoted. But anyone who has ever done a major project knows that unless construction is well underway, the claimed time schedule is completely unrealistic:
The refining operation would produce 50 million gallons of oil derived from algae each year and is expected to begin full-scale operations in 2011. Each acre of algal farm pond can produce 1,000 gallons of oil. The projects are run by private companies General Atomics and SAIC.
Digging a little deeper, I found this, which puts things in a bit more perspective:
SAIC Awarded $25 Million Contract by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Under this contract, SAIC will lead a team of industrial and academic organizations to develop an integrated process for producing JP-8 from algae at a cost target of $3/gal. SAIC and its team will develop technologies and processes to help achieve DARPA’s goal including integrating algae strain selection, water and nutrient sourcing, farming, harvesting, separation, triglyceride purification, algal oil processing, and economic modeling and analysis.
Hmm. That refers to ambitious goals rather than targets that have actually been achieved.
SAIC’s work on the contract will happen in two phases. Phase 1 will concentrate on technology selection and development, pilot plant site analyses, system integration, and economic modeling and analysis, culminating in a lab-scale production capability, preliminary production facility design, and the delivery of samples for testing. SAIC will also develop detailed commercialization and qualification plans showing a path to commercial and military systems viability. Phase 2 will focus on the final design, integration and operation of a pre-pilot scale production facility.
Those statements – from 3 weeks ago – don’t mesh at all with the claims from McQuiston. In Phase 2 they will build a “pre-pilot” facility? How on earth then could they have any idea of how much it is going to cost them to produce the oil?
No, I don’t believe they can produce algal oil for $2/gallon. I don’t believe anyone can, particularly if they are growing the algae in open ponds. I think back to my Interview with an Algae CEO, and his comment “Boy, you should see my electric bill.” The entire chain of algal oil production is energy and water intensive. So my suspicion is that McQuiston didn’t really mean that they can produce oil for that price. She may have stated that as a goal, and that got turned into a claim.
The other possibility is that because DARPA is a branch of the U.S. government, and government agencies need funding, maybe they are being a bit liberal with their claims in order to ensure funding.
I suspect that in a couple of years we will be doing the post-mortem on this one when we find that there is no $2 algal oil to be found anywhere.
Obviously making oil from algae is possible, all the oil we now get from wells came from metamorphosed algae and phytoplankton that lived millions of years ago.
The question is at what cost can a lab or plant speed up the process that took millions of years to do naturally?
In my view, it will cost much more than $2/gallon to substitute for the massive amounts of heat and pressure (energy) that Mother Nature supplied free of charge to convert algae to oil.
So we won't have $2 gal algae, but is there a cost where it will make sense, and more importantly, can it ever scale? If it were to cost $7-8 per gal, I believe that would still be a good price in the coming years/decades.
OD
I think Exxon would be tickled pink with a US commercial plant that could do $8 a gallon. They could then scale it up in a third world nation with cheap labor. Nothing promises more scale than algae. With process improvements,better yield strains….and peak oil,the price of algae and crude would certainly converge. Which would you rather be invested in heavily when that happens? Oh yeah….both.
I'm not sure algae is such a great thing for the US in the long run. There will always be cheaper labor elsewhere. That just means more oil imports.
They could then scale it up in a third world nation with cheap labor.
Maury~
Not only cheap labor, but cheap land. Their claim is 1,000 gallons/acre/year.
Annual oil consumption in the U.S. is ~378 million gallons/day, or ~138 billion gallons/year.
Using their expected yield, that would take 137,970,000 acres (215,579 miles^2) of algae ponds.
The area of California is only ~163,000 miles^2. Alabama is ~52,000 miles^2.
That means to produce all our oil from algae , we would have to cover land in area equal to California and Alabama with algae ponds.
Obviously, no one is talking about producing all our fuel from algae, but to do even some significant amount, a lot of land somewhere would have to be converted to algae ponds. It wouldn't work well in the southwest or other areas with low humidity — they already face water problems and rapid evaporation from open algae ponds would only make that worse.
I suggest some wet, warm, humid state be converted to algae ponds — I nominate Louisiana.
Louisiana isn't a good candidate Wendell. Coonasses won't work for 50 cents an hour. Who's going to work a week to buy a hamper of crabs when you can catch that in a few hours? I went trawling with a friend a couple weeks ago. We hauled in 400 lbs. of shrimp before lunch…and finished off a case of beer before supper. Louisiana isn't rich,but we eat like royalty.
The thing about large areas of Texas, and Arizona (to give an example) is that if you go down aways you will get water, but you will get "brackish" water. Algae will work just fine in brackish water.
It's kinda like RR said: "You do have to give a "little" leeway to anyone who invented the internet. Personally, I'm MUCH more stoked about the enzyme news from Novozymes, Genencor, and Zeachem.
BTW, I ran into this this morning, and, although, I have to apologize for going O/T so early in the thread, I think it's important. Especially, in light of the traction Searchinger,and a few have gotten with the whole "indirect land use" thing.
The amount of distillers grains exported in 2009 is equivalent to the feed value of 5.4 mmt (212 million bushels) of whole corn and 1.6 mmt of soybean meal, according to displacement ratios developed by Argonne National Laboratory. Assuming world average yield rates, 2009 distillers grains exports eliminated the need for nearly 5 million acres of corn and soybeans internationally.
Short article on Huge Surge in DDGS Exports
Who's going to work a week to buy a hamper of crabs when you can catch that in a few hours?
Maury~
Sounds like synergism to me. You could also raise crabs and shrimp in the algae ponds covering Louisiana.
I don't know where the people would live, but as I cross what used to be Louisiana on I-10, it wouldn't bother me to see miles and miles of slimy green algae ponds stretching to the horizon. (Though if you've ever been near an algae pond on a hot July day, you know the smell can get intense.)
I suspect everything from Shreveport south would make a mighty fine, gigantic algae pond just waiting to be harvested and turned into oil.
We do like synergy Wendell. Rice farmers grow tons of crawfish between harvests. Come up with an algae gumbo and we'll find a way to grow that too.
Like Rufus,I'm more excited about $2 cellulosic. Now we know how POET came about their $2.30 number. Novozymes says their enzyme works on a number of feedstocks. The Saudi's are right to be afraid. How well do you think algae ponds will do in the desert Kingdom?
How well do you think algae ponds will do in the desert Kingdom?
I think they'd have to cover it with a gigantic tarp to keep it from evaporating, and I'm not sure how the algae would grow w/o sunlight.
There's always camel dung. Loads of methane just waiting to be exploited.
The Saudi's won't be starving anytime soon. But,they can't be that excited about the future either. Not when they've convinced a growing population it's above manual labor,and the "last barrel" is priced at $80 and dropping. It might be time to tweak Wahabbi doctrine a bit. The King makes adjustments when it suits his fancy. He might want to start with the head chopping thing. Beggers can't be loppers.
We're down to about 115 Million Barrels of OIl in "floating" storage, and we seem to be going through it at close to a million barrels/day.
As I've been saying, sometimes around June, or July we'll cap that 1 million bbl/day well.
Meanwhile, the Saudis are planning a very expensive CO2 injection scheme for Ghawar, and are exploring deep sub-salt areas of the Red Sea.
This deal is going to look a lot different in six months, to a year.
You might want to consider a flexfuel.
What if peak oil does a big belly flop Rufus? The world is awash in biomass. Take a country like Equatorial Guinea. It consumes a whopping 1000 bpd of oil. It exports 500,000 bpd. I'm sure they'd love to export a few cellulosic barrels too. With its tropical climate,that shouldn't be a problem.
If you're Exxon,are you going to spend $100 a barrel drilling in the deep ocean when cellulosic can be made for $75 or $80? How much do you think the Saudi's can spend propping up Ghawar? They're getting something like 5 barrels of water for every barrel of oil now. I don't think Opec was blowing hot air last week. They're in real danger of being put out of business.
They could then scale it up in a third world nation with cheap labor.
If they need cheap labor, the technology is dead. There is a reason the third world is poor. Algal oil, or any other technology won't change that.
But where on earth did you get the idea that this technology was labor-intensive, Maury?
It wouldn't work well in the southwest or other areas with low humidity — they already face water problems and rapid evaporation from open algae ponds would only make that worse. I suggest some wet, warm, humid state be converted to algae ponds — I nominate Louisiana.
As I've said before, this will only work in open ocean. I nominate the Pacific.
Like Rufus,I'm more excited about $2 cellulosic.
$2 cellulosic is just as much a myth as $2 algal.
Now we know how POET came about their $2.30 number. Novozymes says their enzyme works on a number of feedstocks.
Careful that you don't fall into the (enzyme) technology is magic abyss, Maury and Rufus.
Optimist said ~ As I've said before, this will only work in open ocean. I nominate the Pacific.
I concur. I only suggested Louisiana with tongue-in-cheek to tweak Maury.
The point is it will take lots of area on which to grow algae to make any significant difference, and your right about the oceans. After all, the original algae that Mother Nature conveniently turned into oil for us mostly grew in oceans, usually at the mouths of major rivers.
Perhaps we could surround all those oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico with huge algae containment ponds, and make the oil platforms do double service.
"As I have pointed out, cellulosic ethanol technology is more than 100 years old. You heard it here, and you can hold me to it: There will be no breakthrough that suddenly makes it cost-competitive to produce."
It took a whole week to blow that prediction out of the water Optimist. $2 cellulosic is a reality. Commercial plants go online next year. There's no danger of it not scaling. With enzymes going for 50 cents a gallon,any monkey with yesterday's newspaper can make cellulosic ethanol.
It took a whole week to blow that prediction out of the water Optimist. $2 cellulosic is a reality.
LOL! Maury, you demonstrated your technical acumen yesterday by insisting that naphtha has a BTU value of 15,000 BTU/gal. Today, the claim that $2 cellulosic ethanol is reality is in that same vein.
No, I stand behind my initial comment. But what I also said was that there would be lots of press releases announces big breakthroughs. Here you have one (that clearly impressed you), but we have been getting those for years. If you look at the press release, the claim is based on POET's projection. But I will take bets that in 5 years we are still talking about the imminent commercialization – or we will have moved on to the next miracle solution.
RR
Novozymes’ new Cellic® CTec2 enzymes enable the biofuel industry to produce cellulosic ethanol at a price below USD 2.00 per gallon for the initial commercial-scale plants that are scheduled to be in operation in 2011.
Extraordinary advances in enzyme development have reduced the enzyme cost for cellulosic ethanol by 80% over the past two years and enzyme costs are now down to approximately 50 cents per gallon of cellulosic ethanol.
“Cellulosic ethanol will be cheaper,” says Steen Riisgaard. “Our partners expect production costs to fall below USD 2.00 per gallon once their first commercial scale plants are fully operational, and the cost will continue to drop in the future.”
I don't know how much clearer that could be. $2 cellulosic now. Cheaper as we go along. I didn't see any ifs,ands,or maybe's. And POET's estimate was $2.30 a gallon. Progress has obviously been made. You guys will still be claiming it can't be done when I'm filling up for .99 a gallon. LOL.
Maury, it is nice that claims impress you. Results impress me. I trust you know the difference. But you are applying a heavy dose of wishful thinking in reading the above. Novozymes says their partners expect certain things when commercial plants are built. And as we all know, expectations are always realized in this industry.
That's why I can go fuel up with CWT's turkey gut biodiesel; because their expectations were realized and they are making 4 billion gallons of petroleum replacement for $15 a barrel. Oh, wait. No they aren't. Despite a gushing story in Discover, the company went bankrupt. Of course you probably read that story and headed down to your filling station asking where you could get some.
You will learn to live with disappointment if you read these press releases and think claims like that mean "$2 cellulosic ethanol now." Believe me or not, I do know a thing or two about this. You should know that by now.
RR
This is an excellent post by RR, and also just so sad. This is what DARPA is doing? Making totally unrealistic claims? I guess trying to fit in with Defense Department culture.
If algae oil could be made for $2 a gallon, the private sector would have pioneered it years back.
One oddity about this is we could probably make $2 a gallon fuel from natural gas–methanol–a fuel safer than gasoline.
Or we could run CNG and LPG cars, again using domestic gas. I just got back from Thailand, and CNG and LPG vehicles are common, and I saw a brand spanking new LPG station off the 2 Highway, the nation's major north-south spine. Other nations are doing the CNG-LPG thing, not hatching "pre-pilot" plants and making crazy claims.
I sometimes wonder if the USA has lost the ability to make sensible policies at all. Certainly our energy policies often make little or no sense.
"Believe me or not, I do know a thing or two about this. You should know that by now."
I don't doubt you know some stuff Robert. I'm sure you know a lot more than me….about a whole lot of things. But,you made the mistake of ruling out technological advances. These guys dropped the cost of enzymes from $4.00 a gallon to 50 cents in just two years. I don't think a multi-billion dollar company like Novozyme is blowing smoke. They've partnered with companies around the world to make cellulosic ethanol. If they say $2.00 is a reality,I believe them.
But, you made the mistake of ruling out technological advances.
That is completely false. I have stated on many occasions that incremental advances are expected. What won't happen are the dramatic breakthroughs that suddenly enable large scale commercial cellulosic ethanol. The reason is fundamental, and I can go as deeply into that as you like.
These guys dropped the cost of enzymes from $4.00 a gallon to 50 cents in just two years.
No they didn't. The cost of enzymes has been high for many years, and has been slowly coming down. But they have been working at this for a lot longer than two years.
But enzymes are not the fundamental issue. If the enzymes were free, it still doesn't get around the fundamental problem: Biomass is not very energy dense, and when you have to input energy to release cellulose – only about 50% of the material – you start to run into some problems with your energy balance.
If they say $2.00 is a reality,I believe them.
That isn't what they said, that is simply what you chose to believe.
RR
"Advances in enzyme development have reduced the enzyme cost for cellulosic ethanol by 80% over the past two years and enzyme costs are now down to approximately 50 cents per gallon of cellulosic ethanol, according to Novozyme's figures."
Don't tell me what they didn't say. I'm not THAT stupid.
"That isn't what they said, that is simply what you chose to believe."
You got me there Robert. They said BELOW $2.00. Wake up and smell the roses man.
Novozymes said its new Cellic® CTec2 enzymes enable the biofuel industry to produce cellulosic ethanol at a price below US$ 2.00 per gallon for the initial commercial-scale plants that are scheduled to be in operation in 2011.
Don't tell me what they didn't say. I'm not THAT stupid.
I don't care what they said. They have been at this for a very long time – much longer than two years. But once again, you are missing the key point. You have never heard me suggest that enzyme cost is a show-stopper for cellulosic ethanol. So you are really barking up the wrong tree.
You got me there Robert. They said BELOW $2.00. Wake up and smell the roses man.
Maury, I have to be honest. Your beliefs are borderline delusional. That is not what they said. They said that based on the projections of their customers (POET), that is where they EXPECT to be. There is a very big difference in an expectation and your claim of "$2 cellulosic ethanol now." It just isn't true. Now you can believe anything you like, but if you are sitting around waiting on cheap cellulosic ethanol to make an appearance at your gas station, you are going to be waiting a very long time.
RR
"Your beliefs are borderline delusional. That is not what they said. They said that based on the projections of their customers (POET), that is where they EXPECT to be."
Alright Robert. I'm going to finish off a bottle of Scotch,punch myself in one eye and read it again with the other eye closed. Maybe I'll see whatever it is you keep wanting me to see. Chances are it'll still say $2.00 cellulosic though.
Btw,Novozymes wasn't the only company announcing a 50 cents a gallon enzyme. This stuff cost $5 a gallon just a few years back. I'd call that a monumental technological breakthrough of the highest magnitude.
Maybe I'll see whatever it is you keep wanting me to see. Chances are it'll still say $2.00 cellulosic though.
Maury, it is hard for me to boil it down any simpler. You said “$2 cellulosic now. Cheaper as we go along. I didn't see any ifs, ands, or maybe's.” The problem is that you don’t seem to understand the difference between someone making a projection (based on someone else’s projection, I might add), and what is really true today. Changing World Technologies made those sorts of projections, and none of them came true. So the point you are missing is that projections aren’t the same as facts.
Further, the fundamental problem here has never been enzyme costs. Expensive enzymes merely pushed it from very expensive ethanol to very, very expensive ethanol. You would do yourself a favor if you do some calculations. Figure up a reasonable cost for biomass, the actual yields from cellulosic processes, and then get your head around the biomass cost contained in the ethanol. What you will find is that there are some questionable assumptions built into that $2 projection. One is cheap biomass.
Then, understand this. The best enzymes in the world – even if they were free – still will result in ethanol in more than 90% water. Now start to wrap your head around just how you get that water out. What you will find out is that price projections for ethanol are very dependent on the price of the fossil fuels that enable them. That is the fundamental problem. You can never have a breakthrough that pushes cellulosic ethanol into the slam dunk category. If it is ever economical, it will only ever be marginally economical because of the how cellulose is turned into ethanol. Water is the fundamental problem.
RR
"What you will find out is that price projections for ethanol are very dependent on the price of the fossil fuels that enable them."
Cellulosic producers would be fools to use fossil fuels. You can't expect ethanol refiners to burn corn to make ethanol,but sawdust is another thing. Cellulosic will enable POET to get off fossil fuels for its ethanol too. These guys might end up producing more heat and electricity than they do fuel.
Feedstock costs aren't the problem you imagine. Not when you've got enzymes that work on a number of different feedstocks. One gets too expensive and you make the switch. Water might have been a problem when there was a reliance on fossil fuels. Not when half the biomass can be burned. I just don't see any hurdles left to jump Robert. Sure,they'll tweak it for years to come. But,the hump is clearly behind us.
Cellulosic producers would be fools to use fossil fuels…I just don't see any hurdles left to jump…the hump is clearly behind us.
You are no doubt correct Maury — no cellulosic ethanol plant would ever use fossil fuels to run the stills separating water and alcohol. Were I you, I'd run out tomorrow, take all my savings out of the bank, get a second mortgage on the house, and invest it all in a cellulosic ethanol enterprise.
I'm sure they'd welcome your investment.
Again, Maury, I am happy for you that you can read a press release that states a projection and take that as a fact. I can only imagine that this has led to disappointment in the past as optimistic press releases gave way to real technical issues. I can cite any number of press releases, exactly as the one you have cited, that never materialized. In fact, I would submit that most never materialize. So it isn't a good idea to count your chickens before they hatch. In this case, most of the time they never hatch.
Water might have been a problem when there was a reliance on fossil fuels. Not when half the biomass can be burned.
You are now designing processes in your mind that are completely divorced from the realities of heat and energy balances. First off, half the biomass is cellulose, and the other half ends up as water saturated lignin, and generally hemicellulose. When someone scales up a process that is able to take these sopping wet leftovers and use them to fuel a plant without bringing in coal or natural gas, then I will be truly impressed. But I won't hold my breath.
As I said, there will be numerous press releases indicating breakthroughs, and it will lead many people – just as it has you – to come to wrong conclusions about the status of the technology. That is a given. But in a couple of years, I will be saying "I told you so."
RR
"When someone scales up a process that is able to take these sopping wet leftovers and use them to fuel a plant without bringing in coal or natural gas, then I will be truly impressed."
What kind of idiot would try that? It's a lot simpler to burn half the biomass to process the other half. You act like this stuff is gold Robert. Would you believe people PAY to get rid of millions of tons of it every year? True,that won't always be the case. But,waste biomass won't be more expensive than coal or natural gas in this lifetime.
What kind of idiot would try that? It's a lot simpler to burn half the biomass to process the other half.
Maury, your grasp of this stuff continues to amaze me. How do you think this process works? You can't get the cellulose out without producing sopping wet leftovers. So if you burned half the biomass you would also be burning up your cellulose.
It is pretty easy to see why you see all of these amazing breakthroughs. You really don't know how any of this works.
But,waste biomass won't be more expensive than coal or natural gas in this lifetime.
That's only true for biomass that is problematic to deal with. That is not what you want in your process. Do you think POET is getting their corn cobs for free? No, most biomass costs significantly more than natural gas or coal. I know, because I am out there securing biomass. I am not basing my opinions on news releases.
RR
Meanwhile, in other news, Bill Gates has decided to forego investment advice from Maury. Instead, he is putting money into nuclear power.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/17/bill.gates.nuclear/
"The Microsoft-founder-turned-philanthropist said at a recent speech in California that … what he really wants is clean energy at half its current cost.
"To do that, he said, we'll need new technology. …
"Gates has invested tens of millions of dollars in a Bellevue, Washington, company called TerraPower, according to TerraPower CEO John Gilleland.
"TerraPower is working to create nuclear reactors that generate hyper-fast nuclear reactions able to eat away at the dangerous nuclear waste."
Eh? Hyper-fast nuclear reactions? Oh well, at least the guys at TerraPower will get some good lunches out of it.
Yay! Hyper-fast nuclear reactions!
Can we please have the version that transmutes base metals and spare nuclear waste into bioethanol…
…at 2c/gallon.
Oh and it would be nice if it teleported the feedstock at transluminal speeds from wherever it is available, for no energy.
Might as well teleport the end product direct to car fuel tanks too.
Anytime in Q1 2010 would be fine.
Corn Plus has been using a fluidized bed reactor to burn its syrup for years. Cuts their nat gas bill by half.
Poet intends to burn the lignin. Then there are anaerobic digesters for utilizing the "wet mess."
I said the other day that I've never had the slightest twinge of an urge to invest a nickle in any cellulosic processes. Today, I've changed my mind.
That homemade "kudzu shine" is looking more and more likely. And, I won't have to worry about getting that last ten percent water out. I'll just run it "hydrous."
Never take investment advice from a guy who goal in life is now blowing a fortune. Nukes blogs have their equivalents to algae, this one is called a traveling wave reactor.
The nuclear story of the day.
Loan guarantees pave way for first new U.S. nuclear reactors in years
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/16/obama.jobs/index.html
No matter how you produce heat you still need a steam plant. If you have an inventory fission products, you need a containment building. That is 90% of the cost of making electric with fission. Excuse me if I am not to interested in a genius at software and a pack of college professors advice about making electricity and protecting the public.
Eh? Hyper-fast nuclear reactions?
Kinu~
Same reaction here when I read that. Nuclear reactions are already about as fast as something can be. In my opinion, calling them hyper-fast is little more than hype.
Here are some images of nuclear explosions taken 0.001 seconds after the signal to detonate was triggered. Ultra-fast nuclear detonation images
…for fast fission reactors, the prompt neutron lifetime is on the order of 10−7 seconds.[7] These extremely short lifetimes mean that in 1 second, 10,000 to 10,000,000 neutron lifetimes can pass.
I don't know how it could get much faster.
Maury
Comments like this have been around for a long time. My favorite is
Kammen and his colleagues have developed a model–published in the Jan. 27, 2006 Science ….They find that ethanol from corn requires 95 percent less petroleum to produce than gasoline … but cuts greenhouse-gas emissions by only about 18 percent.
Cellulosic ethanol, by contrast, cuts greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 90 percent. That's mainly because producers of corn ethanol burn fossil fuels to heat fermentation tanks, while producers of cellulosic ethanol burn the lignin from their feedstocks.
If this were so then over the last few years we should have seen a slew of large (but not commercial scale) experimental facilities that would help in optimizing the ligin burning process.
Another problem is of course heating the fermenters is not that energy intensive – up to 40C liquid as opposed to the distillation train which require say 100C and vapor.
The best quote from said article Rapier poste (for me) is
The refining operation would produce 50 million gallons of oil derived from algae each year and is expected to begin full-scale operations in 2011. Each acre of algal farm pond can produce 1,000 gallons of oil. The projects are run by private companies General Atomics and SAIC.
That is interesting because I remember vaguely working on a process to convert the waste from a pig farm to usable fuel and I definitely remember the process taking 2 years. And that was small scale. Are they saying that they can turn around a new crop to that scale in two years?
I was suspicious too. See below, response to my enquiry of the DARPA press office:
Simon, the news story you're referring to originated from answers to questions that I've included in this note to you. I think if you stick to the original wording there is a different context to goals and timeline. Please read carefully and see if this helps. Rick
1. On the algae fuels development, she said there was a goal of producing fuel at a price of $3 a gallon in 18 months. Is that from the time the project was set up in January 2009, or from When we spoke? What date should I use as the target?
The program actually has a base goal and an option goal.
Base goal: The base goal is $2 per gallon triglyceride oil from algae with a projected cost of production of JP-8 less than $3 per gallon at 50 million gallons per year.
Option goal: The option goal is $1 per gallon triglyceride oil from algae with a projected cost of production of JP-8 less than $3 per gallon at 50 million gallons per year.
DARPA has achieved the base goal to date and will be working towards the option. We are seeing efficiencies that yield oil production from algae at approximately 3,000 gallons per acre. For the cellulosic conversion, we have accomplished 50% energy conversion for most feedstocks which is approximately 1,000 gal of oil per acre.
The first large-scale refinery implementations will start this year and come on-line in 2011. By that time, energy conversion from cellulosic feed to complex hydrocarbon fuel will exceed 30% efficiency and be approaching 50% efficiency. Oil from algae is projected at $2 per gallon, headed towards $1 per gallon.
2. In her web chat, she suggested the cost could go as low as $1 a gallon. Does she want to give me a little bit more detail about that? Is she still confident, is there an update?
See the above program goals on algae.
3. I see from the clippings that there are a number of firms involved in the algae research including SAIC and HR Petrochemicals. When she was talking about moving to a larger scale did she mean HR Petrochemicals project?
DARPA has two teams currently focused on algae: SAIC and General Atomics. HR Petrochemicals is not a performer on this program.
Moving to a larger scale referred to larger scale refinery facilities mentioned above in the answer to question 1.
4. In terms of distribution of Darpa grants, how much would be for the algae and other biofuels projects, and how much would be for greater efficiencies in PV cells? It's fine if this is expressed as a percentage or in dollar figures. I am just trying to show which areas are seen as most promising/priorities
The Department of Defense is looking at diversifying its fuel resources and a comparison is not possible due to the variety of uses each fuel source may have.
“I don't know how it could get much faster.”
Wendell provided a picture of an uncontrolled criticality of highly enriched uranium. The goal of a reactor is to have a controlled criticality to produce energy at a rate that can be used to produce electricity. The traveling wave reactor uses depleted for which there is an unlimited supply. One of the factors in maintaining criticality is the fast fission factor. The probability of fast fission is small which is why commercial nuke plants use slightly enriched uranium.
The US Government has spent over $2.5 billion dollars on algae research in the last 35 years and all we have to show for it are shelves full of useless patents. Algae have been researched at universities and in laboratories in the US for over 50 years, financed in significant part by government funds. One of the largest problems is that the research has been done in laboratories and at universities, using federal funds, and there is fear at that level that commercialization will ‘ruin it for them’. What it will ruin is the steady stream of ‘free’ money flowing from the DOE, NREL, the DOD, DARPA and other Washington-based agencies to University Row. It was most disconcerting to hear from more than one agency that the funds it awards are, by Congressional mandate, restricted to research. If we could invest one years’ worth of awards into commercialization instead of research, we could easily move this industry into commercialization. The research would be needed to improve technologies, but Microsoft and the American Petroleum Industry, among others, can confirm that this is a necessary component of any industry growth.
Federal agencies are incapable of commercializing anything. The only ones that are even remotely designed to earn money are those that regulate the financial institutions, and we all know that the American banking system has failed us miserably. Until someone in Washington who has power and authority to stop this steady stream of funding to nowhere, listening as the algae researchers continue to claim that they are 3-5 years away from completing their research, it’s too expensive and they need more time and money, they will receive grant money from the DOE, NREL, DOD and DARPA. Nothing will ever get commercialized at the university level. Until there is an industry, there is no value to the results of the research. Until development of this industry is taken out of the hands of the research community, and put into the hands of the business, not corporate, community, this industry will never support reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
The question you need to be asking is " Does the US really want to get off of foreign oil or do we want to continue to fund the algae researchers at the universities." The problem is we can grow, harvest and extract algae today with all "off-the-shelf" proven technology. We no not need genetic modification at all when there are existing algae strains currently on the market with 30-60% oil content. Algae production requires far less land and water than any other terrestrial crop (see page 194 of the DOE’s National Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap), which has the farmers in an uproar right now. The ethanol credits went away, allegedly shutting down an industry – can it really be that without the tax credit, years of time, effort and expense will be for naught, leaving us with unedible genetically modified corn fields? The DOE is still awarding grants for algae pond research when it was established years ago that all algae ponds get contaminated and will never produce enough algae to get us off of foreign oil. Stop wasting monies on research. We need algae production!
Kit P.
I understand the difference between an uncontrolled nuclear explosion and controlled criticality — it's the number of fissions and whether they are allowed to progress at a low, steady, sustainable rate through moderation; or expand exponentially and uncontrolled.
But in both cases, the time it takes an individual neutron to slam into a nucleus and break it apart releasing more neutrons would be the same, and that's what I don't know how you could speed up.
Manhattan Project scientists even had an expression for that time — a "shake" which was ~10 nanoseconds.
Perhaps Bill Gates can convince neutrons to speed up and slam into the next nucleus in half a shake, but I really doubt any neutron will take him seriously and instead just proceed at its regular speed.
With enzymes going for 50 cents a gallon,any monkey with yesterday's newspaper can make cellulosic ethanol.
So where are the monkeys that are doing this, Maury? Where can one buy this wonderful, abundant and cheap cellulosic ethanol? Why is Uncle Sam scaling DOWN his projections for cellulosic?
I think the only monkeys in this story are the ones believing all they read in those realistic press releases…
“convince neutrons to speed up and slam into the next nucleus in half a shake”
Sorry that I am not explaining this very well. Nixon was a president the last time I studied nuclear physics in a classroom. Neutrons from fission are fast. Light water moderated reactors (all commercial US nukes) slow down the neutrons to fission with U-235 (thermal fission as in the neutron is at thermal equilibrium). Both thermal fission and fast fission occur very fast.
There are lots of paper reactors. Nuclear engineering students find them very interesting. If you can get Bill Gates to invest they are smarter than me.
Thanks Kit P.
I had written a response about this topic in "theenergycollective.com" but it seems it´s lost in the cyberspace… I'll repeat the post here.
————————————
As Durwood Dugged and you have pointed out:
"most of the algae oil costs are energy costs in extraction, separation, drying and stabilization. It isn't probable that DARPA is any closer because of improbable cost differences between current research and what Mc Quiston is claiming for DARPA."
But apparently DARPA has a new system that can reduce dramatically the costs, even has been stated as “potentially transformative innovation” by the DOE:
Link 1
Link 2
There is a description of the harvesting system here.
And even a video of the system working.
What's your opinion? Could be this a key to a low cost algae oil?
Best.
What's your opinion? Could be this a key to a low cost algae oil?
No. It's like hydrogen. There isn't one key, it will take multiple keys. The real problem is that algae exist in dilute form in water. To grow them, they water, nutrients, and constant circulation. To harvest – to get the algae on the belt shown in that video – takes filtration and lots of pumping. Once you have the algae, you have to extract the oil. Once you have the oil, you have to refine the oil. There are lots of costly steps.
RR
To harvest – to get the algae on the belt shown in that video – takes filtration and lots of pumping.
Actually, I think you don't need filtration and pumping at all to make that harvester works, only dip the belt in the raceway pond. That´s probably why they can go with so small energy consumption (If it works as advertised, obviously).
Once you have the algae, you have to extract the oil. Once you have the oil, you have to refine the oil. There are lots of costly steps.
Yes, but how is getting oil out of dried algae, refining and making FAMEs any different that what is been made from oil seeds right now? It has costs but doesn't seem to be the lion's share of the costs.
Anyway, I agree with you that growing the algae in the desired way (high productivity and oil percentage on a cheap system)it would still be a key to get.
Best.
Actually, I think you don't need filtration and pumping at all to make that harvester works, only dip the belt in the raceway pond.
I don't follow the logic of the system. The belt dipped in wet is going to bring out wet algae. That is not going to be a very efficient way to harvest, and then you either need long residence times (big, slow moving belts) or a press to dry it.
Yes, but how is getting oil out of dried algae, refining and making FAMEs any different that what is been made from oil seeds right now?
That industry's health is in jeopardy, though, as they are finding they can't compete minus the $1/gal subsidy. There is no way that algae is going to come close to the cost of oil from soybeans to start with.
RR
My educated guess of how the system works is the main belt is dried by another belt by a combination of absorption and capillary actions, the red belt in this diagram. So, they claim you don't need to apply press to dry the algae (they say some waste heat is needed to get algae totally dry) what probably help separating the flakes from the main belt easily.
They explain about the belts in this other video. Look at what happens when the put the absorbent paper below the plastic membrane that acts as main belt.
An about the residence times, yes the belt looks slow, but they claim it can process 500 L/h at 3 g/L algae concentration, that's 1.5 Kg of algae per hour, not so bad for that little belt IMO.
Best.