Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on November 5, 2013
Biofuel breakthrough: Quick cook method turns algae into oil
It looks like Mother Nature was wasting her time with a multimillion-year process to produce crude oil. Michigan Engineering researchers can “pressure-cook” algae for as little as a minute and transform an unprecedented 65 percent of the green slime into biocrude.
“We’re trying to mimic the process in nature that forms crude oil with marine organisms,” said Phil Savage, an Arthur F. Thurnau professor and a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Michigan.
The findings will be presented Nov. 1 at the 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh.
Savage’s ocean-going organism of choice is the green marine micro-alga of the genus Nannochloropsis.
To make their one-minute biocrude, Savage and Julia Faeth, a doctoral student in Savage’s lab, filled a steel pipe connector with 1.5 milliliters of wet algae, capped it and plunged it into 1,100-degree Fahrenheit sand. The small volume ensured that the algae was heated through, but with only a minute to warm up, the algae’s temperature should have just grazed the 550-degree mark before the team pulled the reactor back out.
Previously, Savage and his team heated the algae for times ranging from 10 to 90 minutes. They saw their best results, with about half of the algae converted to biocrude, after treating it for 10 to 40 minutes at 570 degrees.
Why are the one-minute results so much better? Savage and Faeth won’t be sure until they have done more experiments, but they have some ideas.
“My guess is that the reactions that produce biocrude are actually must faster than previously thought,” Savage said.
Faeth suggests that the fast heating might boost the biocrude by keeping unwanted reactions at bay.
“For example, the biocrude might decompose into substances that dissolve in water, and the fast heating rates might discourage that reaction,” Faeth said.
The team points out that shorter reaction times mean that the reactors don’t have to be as large.
“By reducing the reactor volume, the cost of building a biocrude production plant also decreases,” Faeth said, though both she and Savage cautioned that they couldn’t say for sure whether the new method is faster and cheaper until the process is further developed.
Current commercial makers of algae-based fuel first dry the algae and then extract the natural oil. But at over $20 per gallon, this fuel is a long way from the gas pump.
“Companies know that that approach is not economical, so they are looking at approaches for using wet algae, as are we,” Savage said.
One of the advantages of the wet method is that it doesn’t just extract the existing fat from the algae—it also breaks down proteins and carbohydrates. The minute method did this so successfully that the oil contained about 90 percent of the energy in the original algae.
“That result is near the upper bound of what is possible,” Savage said.
Before biocrude can be fed into the existing refinery system for petroleum, it needs pre-refining to get rid of the extra oxygen and nitrogen atoms that abound in living things. The Savage lab also is developing better methods for this leg of biofuel production, breaking the record with a biocrude that was 97 percent carbon and hydrogen earlier this year. A paper on this work is currently under review.
Once producing biofuel from algae is economical, researchers estimate that an area the size of New Mexico could provide enough oil to match current U.S. petroleum consumption. And, unlike corn produced for ethanol—which already accounts for half that area—the algae won’t need to occupy good farmland, thriving in brackish ponds instead.
The research, “The Effects of Heating Rate and Reaction Time on Hydrothermal Liquefaction of Microalgae,” was funded by the Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation program of the National Science Foundation. The university is pursuing patent protection for the intellectual property, and is seeking commercialization partners to help bring the technology to market.
20 Comments on "Biofuel breakthrough: Quick cook method turns algae into oil"
Arthur on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 12:53 pm
Good news to outmaneuver those who insist that renewable energy can’t work, because, you see, you need oil at the basis of the renewable energy pyramid.
Well then, here is your oil.
(not that we need bio-fuel, but this kind of news comes in handy as verbal ammo against those who want to sabotage a solar-based economy with erroneous arguments).
action on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 2:35 pm
Nothing will ever replace the functionality and power of the energy derived from oil.
Kenz300 on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 2:45 pm
Alternative energy sources are the future……
Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are safer and cleaner than fossil fuels.
When you add in the damage fossil fuels do to the environment there is no cost comparison.
The transition away from fossil fuels has begun.
ghung on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 4:19 pm
Jevons pretty much called it. Biofuels won’t replace or offset the consumption of fossil fuels, even if they somehow reach parity, economically and energetically. All of these energy sources are essentially “in addition to”, and will be used to increase consumption of other resources as societies attempt to bring more of their members into a ‘middle class’ lifestyle. The stories we are told say we’re all entitled to more, of everything.
Any comments that insist that humans, collectively, will develop some sort of renewable epiphany are pure bargaining. We’ll continue to burn anything we can, as long as we can. We prove it every day.
J-Gav on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 4:23 pm
Once the technology has found sponsors and is ‘brought to market,’ should that ever happen, we’ll see what it’s advantages actually look like … Until that time, I’ll stick with my skeptical position regarding anything which is supposed to ‘replace oil.’
MrColdWaterOfRealityMan on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 4:44 pm
Biofuels. Any biofuels, are only inefficient solar energy collectors. They will never scale up to replace the amount of oil we use to run an industrial civilization. They are great for localized, small scale applications, but that’s all. The inputs of area and sunlight limit their output.
No magic here. No panacea either.
Poordogabone on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 5:02 pm
Anything that you have to “cook” just to get oil, never mind the refining, has a low EROEI and in most cases relies on cheap NG to be commercially viable.
bobinget on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 5:04 pm
If this project worked at your kid’s science fair, it’s certain to fetch billions from refineries in royalties.
In cases of BIOFUELS the main drawback is always
scalability. Number one, it costs (fuel) big time to GATHER and Transport biofuel feedstock. Even If you try to heat future batches with the same fuel you just made, there will be deficit.
Now, if we could only get Congress to agree on a bipartisan bill to outlaw LAWS of thermodynamics,
we are at least halfway to energy independence.
For instance: it takes years of constant use before
solar panels actually pay for themselves. The same is true for steam turbine generators but pro fossil fuel
guys will stress renewable’s long amortization.
It all depends on how badly we need fuel as to how much we are willing to pay.
In Germany during WW/2, Nazis made gasoline from coal. In South Africa during the last stages of sanctions
determined segregationists copied the process.
In the same war, Japanese were so short of oil they
processed tons of cellulose to get a few gallons of
avgas for suicide Zeros.
foxv on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 5:20 pm
I was just about to say that MrCold
Scalability will be a big issue. Massive algae oil production requires massive algae growth which requires massive nutrient inputs.
These nutrient inputs are already used for food production with supply limits being reached at the bubble peak (see POT.TO)
Once again, Food or Fuel? Choose one because you can’t have both.
GregT on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 6:02 pm
Our species is facing near term extinction, because of our utilization of excess energy, beyond that which is naturally provided to the planet Earth, by the Sun.
We are so addicted to all of the ‘stuff’, that this excess energy provides for us, that we refuse to give it up. I suspect that, not unlike a heroin junky, we will continue to ‘burn’ whatever we can, until the planet is too ‘diseased’ for us to continue, or we all die trying. Whichever comes first.
DC on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 6:50 pm
Another ‘breakthrough'(?) that will ‘save’……what exactly? Who and what is this ‘breakthrough’ supposed to save?
Happy motoring?
CHEAP Happy motoring?(It sure wont be that)
The wall-mart economy?
Aside form the small issue that this is about X thousandths ‘breakthrough’ I have read about since at lest the 1980s, i fully expect this one to be like ALL the others.
It will never leave the lab, or its use, if it ever does get used, will be of zero consequence to me personally or to society at large.
Everywhere you look humans everywhere seem to worried about how to save the CURRENT model of ‘mobility’, and they want it cost $1.00 a gallon.
They also want it to be extracted and distributed by monolithic corporations, shipped in diesel rigs, to holding tanks in the current network of underground corporate fossil-fuel storage tanks. And then dispensed by $75,000 dollar pumps.
Would like a lottery ticket with that too?
Bio-fools wont save you Ken, you should look up the definition of ‘alternative’ because you don’t seem to know the meaning of the word-despite how often your canned Cut+Pastes use it. The last things these guys are interested in is ‘alternative’ anything. They are trying to keep things EXACTLY the way they are now. And they way things ‘are’ now-IS the problem.
There is no ‘transition’ going on. The only way I can get anywhere is via gaz-o-leen if thats what I ‘want’ to do. I can take a bus sure-buts not powered by your Hydrogen gas, or any other of the not-alternative hopium fuels you keep blathering about.
DC on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 7:14 pm
Forgot to add: I am pretty sure this ‘quick cook, will have to features not mentioned in the latest piece of digital hopium.
It will take energy…LOTs of eNergy.
And, that energy will come from NG, Oil, or Coal.
Kenjamkov on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 7:21 pm
You just need to find a brackish pond the size of New Mexico now.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 7:50 pm
When the general public finally realizes that there IS NO REPLACEMENT for cheap oil and that the days of economic growth are OVER, there will be a period of stunned silence heard around the world. That will be the calm before the storm. No amount of feel-good “everything’s going to be okay” renewable energy predictions or excess oil from fracked wells B.S. is going to work long-term. We are approaching the breaking point. Hold on tight, it is going to be a wild ride.
Harquebus on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 10:04 pm
How much of the algae oil goes back into the heating?
Norm on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 10:16 pm
I am in favor of growing algae and cooking into crude. But it will probly make tiny amounts and not solve the quantities needed. However there is no oil shortage. Just to the 7-11 they sell crankcase oil. On the shelf.
Physicsnerd on Tue, 5th Nov 2013 11:02 pm
An endothermic process to amaze the dazed and confused.
“filled a steel pipe connector with 1.5 milliliters of wet algae, capped it and plunged it into 1,100-degree Fahrenheit sand”
Amazing, simply AMAZING!
green_achers on Wed, 6th Nov 2013 12:43 am
Iffy. My very crude back-of-envelope calculation, using a lot of assumptions, comes up with an EROEI of about 9:1 for this process. Pretty impressive, yes? But that doesn’t include growing, collecting, processing and transporting algae, embodied energy invested in the plant, any energy used in the process other than raising the temperature of the algae, or the further refinement cited in the article. I wouldn’t invest my retirement in it just yet…
bobinget on Wed, 6th Nov 2013 12:50 am
Isobutanol to the Rescue
Since its founding in 1790 as the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service, the U.S. Coast Guard has had a history of implementing new technology within its fleet. During the U.S. Civil War, for example, the USRC Naugatuck boasted twin-screw engines, ironclad armor and semisubmersible technology that allowed it to increase or decrease the ship’s draft in shallow waters. Continuing its pursuit of maritime innovation and reinforcing its motto of Semper Paratus (Always Ready), the USCG is conducting a year-long engine test using renewable, isobutanol-blended gasoline through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with Gevo Inc., Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and Mercury Marine.
With a fleet of more than 2,000 cutter ships, boats and aircraft that conducted 19,790 search and rescues in 2012, cost-effective advanced biofuels that meet the USCG’s standards will help the organization break its reliance on foreign fuel sources and provide a stable fuel source in the event a conflict disrupts fuel supply lines.
Producing the Fuel
In 2011, the USCG began an alternative fuel study, motivated by the government’s desire to minimize its carbon footprint, says Michael Coleman, project manager for the U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center. From that initial study, the USCG researched different alternative fuels for their affordability, availability, safety and potential carbon footprint reduction. The USCG selected four fuels: natural gas, ethanol blends, biobutanol and biomass liquid fuels. “Out of those four fuels, we did a desktop evaluation including many technical factors including maturity, performance, physical safety and logistics,” Coleman says. “Out of those, we decided to proceed with biobutanol as our test fuel.”
For the engine tests, the USCG is sourcing the isobutanol-blended fuel from Gevo’s plant in Luverne, Minn. The USCG selected a blend of 16.1 percent isobutanol and gasoline because of its potential benefits in an aquatic environment. “The Coast Guard, along with many other folks in the marine industry, is very interested in next-generation biofuels instead of ethanol-blended gasoline,” says Brett Lund, chief licensing officer for Gevo. He adds ethanol-blended gasoline is currently not compatible with most boat engines and its solubility with water make isobutanol a more attractive option.
Gevo’s Luverne facility is a retrofitted ethanol plant that produces isobutanol using Gevo’s Integrated Fermentation Technology. Gevo is producing 8,700 gallons of blended isobutanol fuel at the facility for the Coast Guard tests.
Producing the fuel presented some challenges that Gevo had to overcome, says Lund. Yeast naturally wants to produce ethanol, and small amounts of isobutanol. “We’ve spent quite a bit of time, five years or so, using metabolic engineering to develop a yeast that makes, almost exclusively, isobutanol,” he says. He notes isobutanol is toxic to the yeast and causes it to perish, therefore Gevo also had to develop a tolerant yeast strain. As the isobutanol is produced in the broth, Gevo extracts the isobutanol vapor under vacuum and condenses it into a liquid. “That really allows us to get the isobutanol out of the process without having to use conventional distillation to remove the water,” Lund explains.
Setting Sail
After the initial alternative fuel study, the second phase of the isobutanol tests under the CRADA occurred over a three-month period in early 2013 using Honda outboard engines and craft, since Honda is one the major engine manufacturers for the USCG, Coleman says. In addition to material and benchmark testing, Honda also put the isobutanol blend through an endurance test prior to giving the USCG the approval of trying the fuel in its own boats, he explains. During Honda’s test, the engines operate at full throttle for eight hours a day over several months and then are taken apart and inspected.
The next round of fuel tests are in progress at the U.S. Coast Guard Training Center in Yorktown, Va. “The training center is basically an area where Coast Guard members can learn how to operate the different boat platforms, be it anywhere from standard boat handling procedures to the mechanics of those craft,” says Lt. Kevin Sorrell. The center is a convenient location for testing due to its availability compared to other operational units, he adds.
At the Yorktown training center, the fuel is being tested on a 38-foot special-purpose craft using Mercury outboard engines as well as a 25-foot response boat (RBS) that uses Honda outboard engines. “Both crafts are operationally used in the Coast Guard,” says Sorrell. “RBSes are basically stationed all throughout the United States. The special purpose craft is more of a law enforcement craft, specifically used down in the southern U.S., like the Gulf of Mexico and Florida area.”
“What we hope to accomplish with this project is to get the information that’ll give the Coast Guard decision makers the ability to make an informed decision on whether to proceed with butanol as an alternative fuel,” says Coleman.
If the fuel tests turn out for the better, a positive testimonial from the USCG could be quite valuable for the advanced biofuel and boating industry. “This is really the option they are most excited about for their fleet and their industry. The fact that it’s all home-grown and the isobutanol is 100 percent produced in the U.S. is also beneficial,” says Lund. “They, as well as other branches of the military, like solutions like that because you avoid some of the risk of being cut-off from fuel supply.”
“The nice part from our perspective is, if it’s good enough for the U.S. Coast Guard, it’s pretty much good enough for any marine application out there,” Lund adds. “Nobody runs their boats like these guys do.”
Author: Chris Hanson
Staff Writer, Biomass Magazine
701-738-4970
chanson@bbiinternational.com
bobinget on Wed, 6th Nov 2013 12:57 am
Ethanol is in Major Trouble Thanks to this Biofuel
by Maxx Chatsko, The Motley Fool Oct 27th 2013 8:38AM
Updated Oct 27th 2013 8:40AM
Halloween may be a week away, but the ethanol industry is hearing footsteps already. The American Society for Testing and Materials, or ASTM, recently established ASTM D7862, which defines performance requirements and testing methods for a variety of characteristics of butanol-blended fuel. It’s a giant step towards the creation of a national butanol industry that will help producers such as BP and DuPont , gasoline blenders such as Valero , pipeline managers such as Kinder Morgan , and drivers like you and me in a number of ways.
What it means for drivers
There are actually three different forms of butanol covered under the new standard that share similar physical properties. I’m going to focus on the commercialization of isobutanol, which I believe has the best potential to make an immediate impact on the nation’s fuel supply. Here’s how the fuel compares to ethanol:
Here’s the link for entire story:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/10/27/step-aside-ethanol-a-better-biofuel-is-coming/