BioDieselNow - Renewable biodiesel fuel

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/11/cellulosic-ethanol-reality-check.html

http://bioconversion.blogspot.com/

frankly i would be greatly impressed if anyone out there can get 70gal of clean, pump ready ethanol/ton of biomass. this would be a major improvement to the ~9gal/ton that exists now before adding all the costs to grow, transport, process and pump it.

a typical ton of biomass = ~13mBTU.

a typical gal of ethanol = ~75000BTU.

even at the 'theoretical limit' is reported to be 114gal/ton x 75000 = 8550000/13000000 = 65% of the energy is somehow wasted and this is the theoretical limit. so lets say that they can only do 75% of the limit due to 'conditions on the ground' = 85.5gal/ton would be a target #. so real world target would = 6412500BTU harvest/ton. less than 50% energy return on feedstock.

going further down the energy chain, we have the inefficiency of the combustion engine. ~ 25% efficient. and because of regulations of emissions and the gadgets that are needed to reduce pollution, that 25% is further reduced by 10%. i wont even add in coldstarts, the energy to make the motor and the lifespan of said motor and all the other inefficient ways that this system sux. we are now down to ~11%. so 11% of the energy from the original biomass is actually used to do actual work. and i have rounded up, infavor of the benefit of the doubt.

by the way, transportation fuel is only 25% of all the BTU's used by the USA. the elephant in the room is coal. ethanol does nothing for that but we seem to have already used up all the farmland...

the beauty of cellulosic ethanol is that all cellulosic biomass can be used. the curse of cellulosic ethanol is that ALL cellulosic biomass can be used. what is going back into the soil? how long before the rainforests are harvested for biomass energy? how long before everysquare inch of land is being sucked of energy and life by humans?  

there is 2 solution to this mess. 1, figure out a better way to extract energy outta the feedstock (which ethanol cannot do because of its limitations). 2,  to produce MASSIVE amounts of cellulosic biomass/acre so that the inefficiencies of the harvesting energy outta the feedstock is mitigated. in walks algae...but the infrastructure needed to ramp that kinda production is so very far down the road.

so in summery; i am very sceptical of the 70gal/ton Iogen claims. and even if they are correct, this still doesnt solve the problem that the world has. and the closer it becomes to being a reality, the worse the earth groans...  i agree, cellulosic ethanol is 'snake oil'!

Froggy,

You are a lunatic! I have been reading your gun battles on other threads: there we were: two against a hundred and how we beat those two up! Notwithstanding, I admire your fighting spirit. You dont lie down. Keep up the good work of challenging the bull that is sometimes written in these forums. I agree with what you are trying to say whole heartedly - if you cannot produce something competitively, it will not fly in this world. So keep looking until you find something that works. Unfortunately you cannot grow elephant grass everywhere and neither can you grow jatropha anywhere. So we have to do the best we can. Algae on the face of it looked like a good idea as it addresses your "elephant in the kitchen". In South Africa we know how much coal goes into power generation because we see the smog it causes. Doing something about it though will be a political challenge.

My situation is a bit different in that my approach is not one of trying to produce the ultimate snake oil. I want to be self sufficient. I am negotiating to buy a farm and essentially I want to make enough liquid fuel for my own use. Electricity will come for a digestor fed with manure. The exhaust from the engine is available to either vent or to try use it for something else. If I can get some oil out of the algae for biodiesel, I can run my tractor on it. The residue can either be fed to pigs or back into the digestor. So it is a sustainability thing for me. I do not have a hope in hell that it will be competitive, but what the heck, it will make me feel better.

That said, what are we going to do about the CO2 being pumped into the air on a constant basis? Algae at least has the capability of capturing the CO2. Even if we dont make liquid fuel, you can dry it with low temperature furnace gas (stack gas is produced 24 hours/day - you can use it to dry algae at night in particular). The dry algae could be pelletized and burnt in the boilers. Dual fuelling is already an established technology. The CO2 generated can then be recaptured as algae and so on. I really do not see the need to have to produce oil out of it - just use open raceways (expensive yes, but have you seen the cost of a coal powered power station lately?) with the most dominant natural algae doing its thing. That way you do not have to worry too much about monocultures and the potential for strain contamination. Also the natural local algae will also be more likely to cope with temperature swings and survive.

Just a thought...

Rex

 

rex:

Froggy,You are a lunatic! 

 ill take that as a complement.

rex:

That said, what are we going to do about the CO2 being pumped into the air on a constant basis? Algae at least has the capability of capturing the CO2. Even if we dont make liquid fuel, you can dry it with low temperature furnace gas (stack gas is produced 24 hours/day - you can use it to dry algae at night in particular). The dry algae could be pelletized and burnt in the boilers. Dual fuelling is already an established technology. The CO2 generated can then be recaptured as algae and so on. I really do not see the need to have to produce oil out of it - just use open raceways (expensive yes, but have you seen the cost of a coal powered power station lately?) with the most dominant natural algae doing its thing. That way you do not have to worry too much about monocultures and the potential for strain contamination. Also the natural local algae will also be more likely to cope with temperature swings and survive.

Just a thought...

if it is going to take a long time, the faster we start = the faster we finish. so we absolutely need to start now.

i agree with much of what u said. tho burning algae isnt so clean. yes its cleaner in many ways than coal but it also has alot more NOx than does coal, oil, Nat.gas. and after you dry it, pelletize it, transport it to ur farm and then burn it, jeeze ur right back into that circle of inefficiencies per ROI. also, i admire the freedom of self sufficiency, its hard to argue with. but if it takes you 20 acres of land to produce the energy that it takes 1 acre of super efficiency system at a somewhat centralized location, that is simularily hard to argue with.

also, if ROI is used, one must add ALL the investments. that = pollution, the cost of building hi-ways to haul, taking of land fertility thru the use of nasty modern petrol greenrevolution (bastardizing of the term if there ever was one) farming, the price of not producing food, water issues (crops = water resource) and others. all of those are investments we all make. its not only ur water, ur pollution, ur soil... if one uses that batch of investments in the formula, maybe biogas comes out as a great return. it just sux if ur the only one counting pollution whilst others get to blow dirty smoke up ur chimney for free (or even worse, subsidized pollution). and in my opinion, that is the real problem. give me that clean ROI formula and the whole game changes.

ill leave u with this quote by Henry Ford, "If i asked my customers what they wanted, they woulda said a faster horse".

Froggy,

I was actually thinking quite simply: the amount of algae that can be produced by capturing CO2 will never replace the all the fuel in a power station as it is a daylight only operation. Power stations on the other hand have a lot of relatively low grade heat that they send up the stack after the combustion process. So, if we could use this heat to dry the algae, we would not be imposing an additional energy load. To make the algae manageable for combustion, making it into pellets is about the easiest method I can think of. The pellets are co-fired in the boiler. This is already done using wood pellets making the conversion low risk. NOx can be attacked using SNCR (selective non-catalytic reduction) of the hot boiler gas by simply injecting ammonia into the hot >900deg gas stream. At these temperatures the NOx forms water and nitrogen at a very high conversion rate. Yes the cost of ammonia is there but it is a lot less than the energy benefit gained from subsituting out coal and from a reduction in SO2 removal (no sulphur in the algae) if the station is fitted with deSOx.

Maybe the ROI on the dams is not particularly good, but it will reduce GHG's substantially. Maybe that is the penalty that has to be paid for electricity.

Rex

Froggy,

Froggy,

I have also read somewhere that algae has a very good track record of capturing NOx. So, take that! While it generates more NOx, it also consumes/captures more NOX.

Rex

rex,

ok. u got me. u CAN do it. u could do everything u said. infact, i think Mike Briggs and Greenfuels are both working out this exact problem. sounds great to me. go nutz.

maybe ethanol production is our saving grace. maybe a 5% efficiency from chemical energy (carbohydrates)to a more useable chemical energy (ethanol) is good enough for our world. even tho everything u said could be correct, my problem is not with the process you have stated. my problem is with the efficiency of the ethanol process. the efficiency of using life to process one form of chemical energy into another form. ur analysis didnt actually go into that particular step and its that step that bothers me.

i dont disagree with ur analysis, i disagree with the premise of the thread; algae to ethanol.

again, if Ford woulda asked ppl what they wanted, they woulda said a faster horse. the problem isnt the horse, the problem is that the horse can only be so fast. that the horse can only be so efficient. no matter how u feed the horse, the horse can only do so much. sure u can give the horse meth, or u can give the horse better shoes, u can do alotta stuff to the horse, but the horse is limited. the problem is that ppl cannot think past the horse because that is all they know.

there needs to be a better way. not of producing biomass, of processing biomass.

This is possible, see following article: http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/7719.html

Regards,

Chris

I just joined the biodiesel Now web site and saw your email requesting lists of algae strains. I am in the process of building a small unit for algae growth. Did you get a list of strains and if so, can you give me some advise on selection of suitable strains? Thanks

go www.ecogenicsresearchcenter.org to the products list for  our collection of oil yeilding algae strains.

 marc

 

Ahto,

5-28-07, Are you still doing rescearch on Algae to ethanol?  I would like to share some thoughts.

Thanks,

Ed

ed@finderseekers.com

314-426-1784

Ahto

I read your blog of 09-19-2006.  Are you still continuing with your research?  How are you progressing?  I married an Estonian Girl and am interested in finding out what is going on with your research.  Do you see a real future to the algae to ethanol production methods presently available?  I would appreciate your comments on the matter.

Thanks

Raul 

Hello Raul!

I have concentrated 100% on lignicellulose to ethanol research.

My current opinion is that large scale algae production for biofuels will be commercially available in the near future, lets say after 5-10 years. I am just keeping eye on process development.

There is no technological obstacles to make biofuels (biodiesel, ethanol or biogas/methane) from algae the only problem is how to grow very large quantities of algae very cheaply.     

 

ahto:

There is no technological obstacles to make biofuels (biodiesel, ethanol or biogas/methane) from algae the only problem is how to grow very large quantities of algae very cheaply.   

Yet this is a very BIG problem.

The glycerine can be burnt in a genset to help power it all.

The glycerol co-product can be burnt in a genset to help power it all.

Its not a technical issue, its an economic one.

Give me 100$ a gal gaz and I can make ethanol out of grass clippings. But ofcourse 100$gal gaz would be outcompeted by other cheaper, easier forms of energy... which is my whole argument.

As i write this iam currently" FUCAN around" with ethanol from algae no i didnt use the" F "word.lololol

 FUCANS are polysaccharides (FCP's fucose containing polysacchirides) these are complex sugars... brown algae are the most viable candidates for ethanol production from algae, particularly macroalgae known as laminaria but there are many others. the Japanese are expert in the usage of these and a good many of these are  classified by japanese names like Ishige okamura ...actually, 21 species of brown algae have been studied. algae produce some of these sugars and sugar alcohols such as rhamnose,trehalose, and xylose,arabinose galactose,GLUCOSE,mannose, rhamnose  some Green algae contain starch that consist of 1000 sugar molecules these are held within cell walls which contain cellulose. fortunatly there are a whole array of enzymes available to  deal with these complex sugars some of these are notpolysaccharides in the true sense but are hard to get at never the less.Marcktech Environomics will be attempting to open this  untapped resource in the very near future. so  it is entirely possible that algae can provide both oils and sugars though the latter will require some cellulose hydrolysis and well as treatment by various enzymes such as amalase, pectinase etc.. enzymes are costly but can do the job the main question is as froggy pointed out, the economics....

 Marc

Hi Rex,

Biobutanol is real and being produced. Check out www.fossilfreedom.com.

I am busy with a PBR design and a big part of my future research will be aimed at producing butanol. Butanol can be used as a straight 100% petroleum replacement whereas ethanol has to be mixed with petrol.

Slippery,

The biggest advantage of butanol is that it can be used in unmodified spark ignition engines.  (To use more than 10% ethanol, the engine must be a flex fuel engine or be modified.)  It also can be transported the same way gasoline is.  It has much more power than ethanol. 

I really like what Patrick is doing at fossilfreedom and at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biogasoline/join

Patrick's big insight is that the butanol will release the oil from the cell,so by fermenting the algae, we can get both the butanol and release the oil from the cell.  So we get both a spark ignition fuel and a conpression ignition fuel from the same aglae.

There is another guy - David Ramey - who is working on butanol also.  (He is not using algae as a feedstock.) He claims he has some bacteria and a process that produces only butanol. 

This gives a good intro to butanol:

http://www.lightparty.com/Energy/Butanol.html

And David's site is: 

http://butanol.com/ 

Bobby