Growing Algae as a fuel source (new Bay Area firm)

[n2doc]

GREEN VALLEY
NEW TECH: Environmentally minded ingenuity drives the latest business wave to plant its roots in the Bay Area
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007





Jonathan Wolfson, co-founder of Solazyme along with Harrison Dillon, holds up oil the company extracts from algae to create a clean biofuel, just one of many that are igniting a wave of green-tech investment and ingenuity in Silicon Valley. Chronicle photo by Michael Macor



The algae beneath Harrison Dillon's microscope could one day fuel your car.
Dillon's Menlo Park company, Solazyme, has tweaked the algae's genes, turning the microscopic plant into an oil-producing machine. If everything works the way Dillon wants, vats of algae could create substitutes for diesel and crude oil.
It's no accident he and his college friend Jonathan Wolfson founded their startup in Silicon Valley. In the last few years, the region has become the world's premier locale for "green tech," an industry where engineers and entrepreneurs literally want to save the world. And, in the process, the nation's tech capital could once again be transforming itself, just as it did when the personal computer and the Internet gave birth to generations of startup businesses with missions of their own.
But there's one big difference. Green tech is not about the digital ones and zeroes on which Silicon Valley was built. It's a major departure into the world of energy, largely foreign to the valley until now.
Green tech companies develop new energy sources, devise ways to use existing resources more efficiently, or design products that help the environment. High oil prices and concern over global warming have fueled their rise.
Many green technologies so far exist only in the lab. But investors are betting that green companies will one day make serious money. Venture capitalists pumped an estimated $3 billion into the industry nationwide last year. More than 20 percent of that cash went to the Bay Area, the No. 1 destination. Other high-tech hubs such as Austin, Texas, and the Boston suburbs snagged much of the rest.
Green tech, also known as clean tech, is Silicon Valley's latest incarnation.
This industry -- so young that not everyone uses the same name for it -- has taken root here for the same reasons that lured Internet, software and biotech companies. The Bay Area has the universities, research labs and business culture needed to nurture startups with big, weird dreams. And it has the money -- a huge concentration of venture capitalists eager to finance the next big thing.
"This is where the brains are," Dillon said. "You have everything you need to create a completely disruptive technology here."
Some of the technologies involved are unproven but have immense promise.
While Solazyme works with algae, other biofuel companies study switchgrass and corn stalks, looking for cheap ways to mass-produce ethanol, which can power cars and trucks. Others try to perfect biodiesel, made from a variety of crops.

more
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/04/MNG2EOF85M1.DTL

[mike_c]

1. with sufficient nutrients algae have high production and turnover rates...

...and presumably can be harvested continuously from chemostat-like growth tanks, but no one knows yet what the energy input to energy output ratio is going to look like. Intuitively, it seems to me that the gulf between POSSIBLE primary production and the amount of energy stored in fossil fuels is just unbridgable, and that the only real solution is to reduce energy use to nineteenth century levels, but of course that is not a retreat that society is ever going to make gracefully.

Still, if other energy technologies can provide industrial scale users, like electricity production and manufacturing, then biofuels might be able to meet a significant part of the need for things like transportation energy, especially if coupled with development of transportation alternatives that don't involve strapping engines to every individual and every freight load.

[papau]

4. Why doesn't 1000 times the current number of power plants offset the energy stored

advantage of coal/oil/natural gas?

Getting less output per plant would not seem a big deal in the overall scheme of things.

The algae power plant seems like a best of breed to me.

[mike_c]

5. I agree that algae-- especially algae engineered for high lipid production...

...is a step in the right direction, but I don't think biofuels will ever supply much more than a drop in the bucket of our present-- and growing-- energy consumption. The limiting factor appears to be the capacity for primary production at the earth's surface. We already appropriate a significant proportion of photosynthetic output for other purposes (see http://dieoff.org/page83.htm ). Improving the conversion efficiency of solar energy to chemical energy in algae can only help, but I'm afraid the gulf is just too broad:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/

In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter “containing 44×10¹⁸ grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet’s current biota.”(1) In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries’ worth of (all the Earth's) plants and animals.

Parenthetical addition was mine-- mike_c

[papau]

6. You've crushed my algae hopes with a bio mass production fact - below are a

a few articles that feed my hopes.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12834398/

Capturing CO2 from coal plants to turn it into biofuel

http://www.biodieselnow.com/forums/thread/32945.aspx

While GreenFuel Technology http://www.greenfuelonline.com has research-and-development costs that eat up the company's $2 million revenue stream from sales it does a lot of press(http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/151242). There is also both GreenShift Technology & Aquaflow Bionomic trying to make it in the commercial world with algae. So there are folks that seem to be developing algaes and the technology for large scale industrial use. I suspect others will join them over time. New England Clean Fuels, Inc Lexington, MA www.gs-cleantech.com has a "CO2 exhaust to ethanol" technology that appears to be in use.


In 2000 co2 sequestration using algae http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2000/tl_seq_ind1.html#physical these projects was an idea - but I do not know what happenned since in the Bush Administration. In 2002 http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,54456-0.html Wired reported on Melis Energy and its algae work.

The solar Power to biofuels via glass tubes filled with algea to produce a cellulose rich product that is captured from the tubing was discussed recently. My dream of course is bio-engineering to get oil-producing algea and then extract oil for biodiesel.

The 7/24/06 http://www.viewswire.com/index.asp?layout=EBArticleVW3&article_id=60826591 reported that:

The build-out of the clean-fuels industry has commenced in earnest. Nationwide, there are 101 ethanol mills, and another 40 are being constructed or expanded. General Motors Corp. is ramping up production of vehicles that can run on the high-octane home brew as well as gasoline. Commercial wind farms have cropped up in 34 states, with turbines dotting the rolling farmland near Walla Walla, Washington, and the marshes outside Atlantic City, New Jersey. Close to Las Vegas, Solargenix recently broke ground on a 64-megawatt solar thermal plant — the largest to be built in nearly 15 years. All in, research and publishing firm CleanEdge predicts that by 2015, sales of clean fuels will hit $167 billion. (That's more than the revenue currently generated by the U.S. airline industry.) "Renewables are poised to grow," insists Dan Goldman, CFO at clean-energy specialist New Energy Capital Corp., headquartered in Hanover, New Hampshire. "We're at a tipping point."

The switch from novelty to commodity is no sure thing, however. Securing capital remains difficult for new-fuel businesses, particularly those short on earnings. To obtain funding, CFOs at these outfits must convince lenders of the viability of often-exotic technologies — no easy sell. And regardless of fears about global warming, clean fuels will not catch on unless they cost as little as fossil fuels. That puts CFOs at alternative-energy companies squarely on the hot seat. "We're past the crunchy-granola stage," says Richard Baxter, senior technology analyst at Ardour Capital Investments LLC. "This is about money. If clean fuels aren't competitively priced, they won't last."

Algae Harvesting (Bio-Conversion)

* Pro: Double duty (smokestack cleaner, fuel source), produces ethanol and biodiesel, mitigates risk from CO2 cap, works at existing facilities.
* Con: Some carbon release, untested on large scale, algae farming tricky (tiny tractors).


http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/10/vertigro_algae_.html

October 07, 2006
Vertigro Algae Bio-Fuel Oil/C02 Sequestration System

Global Green Solutions Inc (OTC BB: GGRN.OB) has announced that it will fund a demonstration pilot plant of the Vertigro bio-fuel oil/C02 sequestration system developed by Valcent Products Inc.(OTC BB: VCTPF.OB)) of El Paso, Texas at an estimated cost of $ 2,500,000. The Plant will be built on Valcent's lands located in the El Paso area by mid July of next year. Global Green will have earned the exclusive world rights to a bio-fuel oil technology from Valcent on completing the pilot plant. Global Green will have earned a 70% joint venture interest, leaving Valcent with a 30% carried joint venture interest.

The Vertegro system consists of a series of closely spaced vertical bio-reactors constructed of thin film membranes allowing high levels of light penetration. This new bio-reactors are tailored to grow a species of algae that yields a large volume of high grade vegetable oil, which is very suitable for blending with diesel to create a bio-diesel fuel.

The membrane is configured for an optimum flow for the growth of algae. This dynamic system produces much higher algae growth rates than conventional static systems. It uses certain algae that consume up to 90% of their weight with C02 using sunlight as the energy source to drive photosynthesis. Approximately 50% of the dry weight of the algae is an oil suitable for bio-fuel blending with diesel and for other uses. When fully operational, the system yields a constant supply of algae which is harvested, dried and processed to remove the oil, leaving a residue of some 50% by weight, which can also be sold for a variety of commercial products. The system will be a continuous closed loop, which allows for a greater retention of water in the system, and eliminates cross contamination by other algae species.

Data received from Valcent's continuously operating test bed facility demonstrates that yields up to 4,000 barrels oil per acre, per year, at an estimated cost of $20 per barrel are achievable on a commercial scale. As a comparison, typically corn will yield up to one-half a barrel of oil per acre per year at considerably higher cost; palm oil, with highest yield of conventional sources, delivers approximately fifteen barrels of oil per acre per year. After a demonstration pilot plant is in operation, several production units that may total 1,000 acres may be built which would have the potential of producing approximately 4,000,000 barrels of oil per year, with significant carbon dioxide green credits and other commercial products. At that rate of production, Vertigro will sequester approximately 2,700,000 tons C02 per year which will be sold as a green credit within the emerging green credit system within the USA and within the Kyoto Protocols.

[mike_c]

8. my personal feeling is that the only way that biofuels will significantly...

...reduce dependence upon other high-density energy sources-- currently fossil fuels-- is through bioengineering on a truly planetary scale. I don't think this can be accomplished anytime soon, but even if it could, I'd question the wisdom of even attempting it. The potential for damaging the biosphere is immense.

Take the algal issue alone. Maximal energy production and economics will drive the bioengineering considerations. If we start with a wild alga we'll want to increase its lipid production but also its growth rate and resistance to invasion. In short, we'll want a tough bugger that can outgrow anything else and crank out lipids at the highest possible rate. This will also entail rapid nutrient depletion to support that growth, necessitating high (and energetically expensive) nutrient inputs. Algae with these characteristics can be harvested continuously in a chemostat arrangement.

All well and good so far, but those beasts are BOUND to get into the ocean sooner or later. We can't keep petroleum out of the ocean, so we will never be able to isolate an aquatic alga from it's natural habitat, where the engineered version is the ultimate invasive weed. And that's only one possible scenario for ecosystem disruption. What if the by-products of its lipid metabolism are toxic?

The fact that people are rushing ahead with this now suggests to me that these sorts of considerations will not give us pause when it comes to maintaining our energy consumptive societies. Frankly, biofuels engineering doesn't worry me as much as some other possibilities, like reliance on really dirty fossil fuels like coal. But I'm convinced that we'll burn everything we can for as long as we can to keep going, and if the fire goes out, the dark age that ensues will be a long and cold one.

[papau]

10. It seems the burning is a no win long term - so solar needs to be the only

option for power plants - with oil - biomass or drilled - reserved for other uses, and transportation based on plug in electric only.

At least that is the conclusion for long term result that I am coming to.

Short term biomass alcohol with e85 engines, diesel using biomass, solar/etc supplying plug in hybrids, algae doing both CO2 recapture and fuel production would seem to be the mix we have to use - if we want to actually minimize the human contribution to Global warming.

The hydrogen fuel cell concept as an aid to minimizing global warming or slowing the use of fossil fuels is one I can't get my arms around - but I attribute that to my lack of knowledge/understanding, since there is a lot of money going into it instead of the ideas that I think I understand and would want to push.

[papau]

7. Maybe there is hope - seems some question the Dukes conclusion.

Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption of Ancient Solar Energy,
Climatic Change 61:31-44


"In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we
burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44×10 to the 18
grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity
of the planet's current biota."(1) In plain English, this means that every
year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals.
The Jeffrey Dukes reference: Jeffrey S. Dukes, 2003. Burning Buried
Sunshine: Human Consumption Of Ancient Solar Energy. Climatic Change 61:
31-44.

Jeffrey S. Dukes
http://www.springerlink.com/%283g03jv45hn1puo45u2idm4ez%29/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,14;journal,26,215;linkingpublicationresults,1:100247,1#ContactOfAuthor1>1

(1) Department of Biology, University of Utah, 257 South 1400 East, Salt
Lake City, UT, 84112-0840, U.S.A.

Abstract: Fossil fuels developed from ancient deposits of organic material, and thus can be thought of as a vast store of solar energy from which society meets 80% of its current energy needs. Here, using published biological,geochemical, and industrial data, I estimate the amount of photosynthetically fixed and stored carbon that was required to form the
coal, oil, and gas that we are burning today. Today's average U.S. Gallon (3.8 L) of gasoline required approximately 90 metric tons of ancient plant matter as precursor material. The fossil fuels burned in 1997 were created from organic matter containing 44 × 1018 g C, which is 400 times the net primary productivity (NPP) of the planet's current biota. As stores of ancient solar energy decline, humans are likely to use an increasing share of modern solar resources. I conservatively estimate that replacing the energy humans derive from fossil fuels with energy from modern biomass
would require 22% of terrestrial NPP, increasing the human appropriation of this resource by 50%.


Comment: the Dukes numbers (presented by Karl) seem rather unusual

Global fossil fuel C consumption is currently ~ 7 x 10^15 g per year

Did the formation of 7 x 10^15 g of fossil fuel C require the consolidation
of 44 x 10^18 g of biomass C ?

This is a conversion efficiency of 0.0159 %

Seems amazingly low.

[mike_c]

9. overall, modern photosynthetic efficiency averages about 0.06...

...or 6.6%. http://www.upei.ca/~physics/p261/Content/Sources_Conversion/Photo-_synthesis/photo-_synthesis.htm

I don't know whether that author intended to include primary production or whether he meant to begin with biomass that already exists. Even so, I don't think that conversion efficiency is "amazingly low" at all.

Consider that photosynthesis has evolved to be as efficient as plants can make it. Biomass conversion to fossil fuels, on the other hand, was just a bulk process that was not subject to selection and improvement. The order of magnitude difference-- 10¹⁸ g C biomass yielding 10¹⁵ g C fossil fuels means 1000 g of plant biomass was needed to produce 1 g of fossil fuel. Given the energy density of fossil fuels, and allowing for considerable inefficiencies, that doesn't sound too far fetched to me, especially compared to the inefficiency of photosynthesis itself.

[papau]

11. Darn - well that hope lasted only a few hours! :-)

:-)

[Dogmudgeon]

13. Lucky you!

I nursed my algal bio-power hopes for years until I hit the same series of brick walls.

Biofuel will doubtless play a significant role in a number of economic niches, especially agriculture, but for primary power, it looks more like a choice between Coal, Nuclear, or nothing. Even as a pro-nuclearist, I find that having our choices so sharply constrained is unsettling at best.

But actually, I think we will rely on that old standby, Ruling-Class-Sparing Mass Death. Kill off 6 billion people of the 7 billion that will be alive in, say, 2020, and we'll have plenty of resources again. More than enough to manufacture and sell yellow ribbons to commemorate the Lost Six Billion.

The "good" news is that if you have a computer, you will probably be among those who will survive.

--p!

[n2doc]

12. This is wrong- and I will show you why

Last estimate I had was that total CO2 emissions were 7000 million metric tones, or 7 gigatonnes per year. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html . Now, the total primary production rate per year is 105 gigatonns C per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production
Way, way more primary production than ff production.

Where the author of the original article misleads (either deliberately or otherwise) is in the fact that, to create oil, coal or gas through geologic, natural, slow processes requires special conditions that are not found in most environments. And typically only 1 in 1000 molecules of organic matter produced by plants survives bacterial degradation and is buried for geologic timescales. And on top of that most buried organic matter either becomes CO2 or something called kerogen, which is useless for our purposes and mostly found in low concentrations in rocks. So yes, a huge amount of primary production had to go into making the Oil and gas we extract today. But the key here is that we can use close to 100% of the primary production in these algal systems. So we can be much more efficient than nature.

[XemaSab]

2. This is freshwater algae, I take it?

:shrug:

[NMDemDist2]

14. I'm thinking it's the brackish water stuff that is being checked in Australian

and here in my home town. we have salt lakes and plenty of brackish water. The county just gave a family here a couple million to do more research on the viability of our area for algae farms (as our good ol boys call em)

[XemaSab]

15. I would think it would be full of sulphur

if it was brackish...

[papau]

3. EXCELLENT - algae is the best way to sustainable energy in my opinion n/t

n/t