Biocrude from Algae Breakthrough: Quick Pressure Cook

University of Michigan engineers have devised a quick pressure cooking method of converting algae biomass into biocrude. They are achieving unprecedented yields, according to the researchers.

U.S. researchers say they can do in minutes what Mother Nature needed millions of years to accomplish: turn algae into a source of crude oil.

Scientists at the University of Michigan report they can "pressure-cook" algae for as little as a minute and transform an unprecedented 65 percent of the green slime into biocrude.

...The biocrude created in the "pressure cooker" contained about 90 percent of the energy in the original algae, he said. "That result is near the upper bound of what is possible." _UPI

The researchers speculate that their quick high temperature approach may have hit a "sweet spot" of sorts, allowing just the right reactions, and preventing the unwanted chemical reactions which might decrease biocrude yields.

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.

..."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. _PO

The researchers suggest that their quick thermochemical approach is likely to prove more efficient and economical than the traditional methods of drying the algae and extracting the oil. Current costs for algal oil extracted from dried algae exceed $20 a gallon -- not even close to being competitive. Savage and Faeth seem to think they can do much better with their new approach.

Of course, the U. Michigan quick pressure cooking is somewhat similar to other catalytic fast pyrolysis approaches -- including the favourite of Al Fin algal energy analysts, the IH2 approach.

The IH2 process can convert virtually any type of non-food biomass feedstock – including wood, agricultural residues, algae, aquatic plants and solid waste – to a liquid transportation fuel that is interchangeable with crude-oil-derived fuels, and is compatible with current fueling and vehicle infrastructure. According to GTI, the IH2 process differs from other biofuel technologies that produce crude or oxygen-containing intermediates that need substantial upgrading to meet current specifications for transportation fuels. _GTI Pilot IH2 Plant

The challenge for all of these thermochemical biomass to liquid fuels (BTL) approaches is to be able to produce a high quality product in volume at a competitive price.

It is the opinion of most Al Fin algal fuels engineers that high quality algal biocrude will not be able to compete with fuels from cheap natural gas, until cheap process heat from high temperature gas cooled nuclear reactors becomes available.

In the meantime, it is important for this type of research to continue, so that when the proper technological and market ingredients come together, the industrial scale processes will be ready to go.

Advanced biofuels such as this are a good idea, and their time will come. But governments should stay out of the natural competition between fuels and forms of energy, and allow markets to work things out.

Algae Biomass to Natural Gas Conversion 65% Yield

There are different ways that algae can be used to create fuels and chemicals. The conventional way that most people talk about -- the conversion of algal oils to fuels -- will not be perfected for roughly a decade or so. A much better and more timely way of converting algae to fuels, is via thermochemical conversion such as pyrolysis or gasification. Swiss Scientists are attempting to perfect one method of converting algal biomass to methane: catalytic hydrothermal gasification and methanation, or SunCHem, pictured below.

SunCHem Process of Catalytic Hydrothermal Gasification Methanation

Algae have one notable advantage over other sources of biomass: they "grow" much more rapidly. In favorable conditions, they can generate 30-55 tons of dry matter per hectare per year – five to ten times more than sources such as corn, soy, or sugar cane. "And above all, they can be cultivated without soil, simply in bioreactors exposed to sunlight, thus avoiding the use of fertile croplands that are needed for food production," Ludwig adds.

...The process presented this week, which goes by the name SunCHem, transforms the algal biomass into methane via catalytic hydrothermal gasification. "This device doesn't require any solvents and can use non-potable water," adds Mariluz Bagnoud, a scientist from EFPL's Environmental Engineering Institute. "In addition, the nutritive elements the algae need, such as phosphorus, are recycled in the process and re-injected into the culture medium. It is an important breakthrough because these resources are limited, too." Although the environmental impact is thus minimal, the yield is enormous: 60-70% of the potential energy of the biomass produced in these "photo-bioreactors" can be recuperated in the form of natural gas, with all the advantages that this represents in terms of transport and use – it can simply be injected into an existing gas distribution network. "We have examined the entire length of the chain, from the choice of algae type and how it's cultured to its transformation into natural gas, in order to identify the best solutions at every stage," explains Ludwig. "We're currently working on the regeneration of our ruthenium-based catalyzer." _Phys.org

Phys.org

The process depicted above is similar in many ways to the approach preferred by Al Fin bioenergy engineers: IH2 catalytic pyrolysis.

The biggest problem Al Fin analysts see with the SunCHem approach, is its plans to use expensive bioreactors, rather than much cheaper troughs or ponds. Growing algae for its biomass is much different than growing algae for its oil. With the biomass approach, you do not need to use expensive genetic engineering or maintain isolation of specific algal species. Instead, you are aiming for maximisation of biomass production, which may well occur with wild strains or mixed strains of algae.

Another problem with the process as pictured, is the dependency on methane to provide energy to the process. This parasitic use of methane to produce methane reduces yields and potential profits. Much better to find another, cheaper source of energy to drive the process.

As long as geological methane is relatively cheap, producing bio-methane makes little sense. Much better would be to produce diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, and high value chemicals from the algae. That is the approach taken by those who plan to utilise IH2 pyrolysis and similar approaches.

Since algae is one of the most prolific producers of biomass known, and since we have the technology to convert biomass to methane at relatively high yields, it makes sense to optimise this technology for the future, when methane is likely to become a key centre-piece for the energy economies of many nations -- at least in nations that reject nuclear energy.

But how much more efficient it would be to utilise nuclear process heat to carry out biomass to fuels or biomass to chemicals conversions! The antinuclear hysteria which has infested Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Italy, and other advanced nations, is incredibly destructive to their future well-being.

Much better for them to embrace the inevitability of nuclear power for the long term, and to work hard to develop cleaner, safer, more affordable and scalable forms of advanced nuclear power -- both fission and fusion.

Gasoline from Biomass at $2.00 per Gallon?

We have looked at GTI / CRI IH2 process of biomass to gasoline conversion several times. Brian Westenhaus reports on some recent advances in the process which increase the feasibility of near to intermediate term biomass-to-gasoline at affordable costs.

GTI anticipates full-scale commercial plants converting 2,000 tons a day will be operating by 2014. Such a plant could produce more than 300,000 gallons of fuel a day, if the larger scale plants operate at the same efficiency as the pilot plants.

The prime driver for the amazingly fast commercial launch is assessments by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., the technology has the capability to produce gasoline at a cost of less than $2.00 per gallon. _Brian Westenhaus

The report by GTI was given at the 244th meeting of the American Chemical Society, and detailed progress made at a 50 kg/day pilot plant.

Article abstract (ACS)

ACS Press Release

The Al Fin Institute for Advanced Bio-Energy has focused upon the use of IH2 for converting algal biomass to fuels, chemicals, polymers, and more. Algae -- both micro-algae and macro-algae -- are some of the most prolific producers of biomass on the planet -- land or ocean. Combining the biomass production of algae with the high quality biomass-to-chemicals conversion of IH2, would seem to be an advantageous approach to advanced biofuels at this time.

Progress toward another advanced approach to biofuels -- fermentation of branched chain alcohols

More progress in bio-butanol research

Advanced biofuels is not about ethanol from corn (maize). The old "food vs. fuels" debate was malformed from its outset, but it is becoming increasingly irrelevant as science and technology leave it behind.

H2BiOil vs. IH2: Can Pyro-Biofuels Set a Ceiling for Oil Prices?

Two approaches to hydropyrolysis + hydrodeoxygenation are attempting to set a practical price ceiling for how high petroleum prices can go on a free and open market. The first promoter of this technology was GTI / CRI, with their IH2 process (PDF). And now, Purdue chemical engineers have developed their very similar H2Bioil process, which they claim will be competitive with petroleum at a price of $99 to $116 a barrel.

The Purdue University-developed fast-hydropyrolysis-hydrodeoxygenation process for creating biofuels—H2Bioil (earlier post)—could be cost-competitive when crude oil prices range from $99 to $116 per barrel, depending upon the source of hydrogen, the cost of biomass and the presence or absence of a federal carbon tax, according to a new study by the Purdue team. Their analysis is published in the journal Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery.

H2Bioil is created when biomass, such as switchgrass or corn stover, is heated rapidly to about 500 °C in the presence of pressurized hydrogen. Resulting gases are passed over catalysts, causing reactions that separate oxygen from carbon molecules, making the carbon molecules high in energy content, similar to gasoline molecules. _GCC

More at the link above.

The Purdue chemical engineers are on the right track, but being academics rather than businessmen, they are not likely to be first to achieve a competitive marketable product. The GTI IH2 development team involves scientists, engineers, industrialists, and technologists who are involved in business, industry, commerce, government labs, and university labs. With its head start and broader development base, it is likely that the IH2 team will see daylight first.

What about the price target -- around $110 to $120 a barrel? As a price ceiling for oil, that is an acceptable target. But it is unlikely to be reached on a permanent basis for a long time -- long after hydropyrolysis + hydrodeoxygenation have become mature technologies. In other words, unless these teams can adjust their target price downward by 20% to 30%, they will not likely be competitive in fuels production for a few decades yet.

The reason for this unanticipated delay in the profitability for advanced pyrolytic biomass to fuels processes is the abrupt and ongoing global expansion of natural gas production. Natural gas can be converted to liquid fuels, high value chemicals, polymers, lubricants, fertilisers, etc etc more economically than can biomass. This is likely to remain true for the next few decades. The same is true for coal, and will eventually be true for gas hydrates -- the most vast hydrocarbon resource available on the planet.

What about those who claim that the Earth cannot produce enough biomass to provide all the liquid fuels needed by modern societies? Such people are clearly missing the point, and do not understand the economics of competing resources and products in the marketplace. Biomass to liquids (BTL) does not have to totally replace all other liquid fuels. It only has to be able to replace enough of them -- economically -- to make a difference in prices. How much BTL capacity would be needed to provide a price ceiling for petroleum (and GTL, CTL, KTL, etc) prices?

That depends upon how easily the BTL product can be moved onto global markets. The recent North American shale experience reveals how regional energy markets can become, if the product cannot be easily shipped onto the global markets.

If BTL producers had the ability to add 10% of current global liquids production to global markets, they could take the air out of most any oil price bubble. The ability to add 20% of current production to markets would come close to placing a cap on oil prices -- if the product was globally available. An additional 30% production volume over current production should be more than enough to constitute an oil price ceiling, particularly given current trends toward peak demand. But realistically, as GTL, CTL, KTL, BitTL, GHTL, etc. expand, they will set price ceilings of their own -- singly and in combination, as they become available over time.

Over the next 20 years, the widespread availability of gen IV HTGRs will facilitate the movement to unconventional liquid fuels -- and the placing of a solid price ceiling on oil.

To repeat: BTL is unlikely to be able to compete with GTL, CTL, BitTL, and KTL and GHTL, for the next few decades. But unlike fossil fuel resources -- vast though they may be -- biomass can be grown year after year, for billions of years yet. Some crops such as micro- and macro-algae produce several harvests per year.

Robert Rapier recently pointed to a study showing that advanced pyrolysis of biomass represents the most cost-effective form of biofuels production, at this time and in the foreseeable future. That is good to know, and we certainly need to proceed in developing such technologies -- so that they will be ready when they are needed.

Biofuels Technology Improves Rapidly, Despite NatGas Glut

Given the huge glut of natural gas in North America, you might think that biofuels developers and startups would throw up their hands and give up. Cheap, abundant natural gas produces electricity more economically than biomass, and can be used to make polymers, fuels, lubricants, and chemicals in a more straightforward manner than when using biomass or microbial approaches.

So why are biofuels and biomass companies persisting, swimming against the tide, as it were? Quite simply, it is because no matter how much natural gas exists in reserves, there are always limits. Natural gas prices are bound to increase as more and more uses are found for the valuable resource -- particularly gas to liquids (GTL) and the production of chemicals and polymers.

And when natural gas prices increase, biomass to liquids (BTL) and microbial fuels producers want to be ready to supply a high quality product -- using a feedstock that will never run out.

Two of the most promising projects in this area are UOP and Ensyn’s integrated biorefinery (IBR) pilot-scale project in Hawaii, and the IH2 project, led by the Gas Technology Institute (GTI),i with catalysts provided by CRI Catalyst.

Despite being pilot projects, both technologies are not far from commercialisation. Jim Rekoske, vice-president and general manager for Honeywell UOP’s Renewable Energy and Chemicals business, says UOP aims to be able to offer its system to customers for commercial sale in 3Q12, while the IH2 project is scheduled for commercial operation in 2014.

Vann Bush, managing director, energy conversion, GTI, told GTForum that based on an analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the anticipated cost on a product basis for fuel produced using the IH2 technology is around US$1.60/gallon for woody biomass, dropping to around US$1.36/gallon if a refiner has sufficient spare hydrogen capacity and opts to forego installing the reforming unit. This compares to the US Department of Energy’s goal of US$3/gallon.

...woody biomass tends to produce more gasoline than diesel via the IH2 process, while algael fuels tend to produce more diesel. Overall yields are also affected by feedstock. “The yields vary between say 70 gallons per ton to 157 gallons per ton. The worst yields we’ve had are with fairly high ash agricultural residues and the highest are with algae.”

Rekoske is particularly pleased with the yields UOP has seen so far – in the order of 300 gallons of renewable fuel per tonne of triglyceride feedstock, obtained from oil seed crops, algae and fats and greases. Given that overall yields are highly dependent on feedstock, direct comparisons between different biomass to oil product technologies cannot be made unless they both use the same feedstock.

“We’re achieving yields from the conversion facility and from our testing and laboratories that are much, much, higher than what we had anticipated, approaching the theoretical limits. We just did not expect to achieve yields that were that high,” he says

With both technologies, the final product slate is largely independent of the host-refinery’s complexity. This might make such systems more attractive to low-complexity refiners in regions with high biomass potential.

...In the future, there are two main options for refiners looking to use the IH2 technology. One involves the installation of both the main unit along with the components for conventional steam reforming/pressure swing absorption system, and the latter can be committed by a refinery with sufficient spare hydrogen capacity looking to reduce capital costs.

...Bush expects the IH2 technology to be built on a variety of scales. He expects that while many projects “would be at a scale that would be able to be fabricated in a shop and shipped to a site”, some “will be very large processing facilities and be built on site”. Bush says the scale would range between a few hundred tons per day to 2,000tpd “for most of the feed materials”. _Global Technology Forum

Here is another fascinating technological development in the quest for biomass energy. The biomass potential is immense, on this biological planet, and it is unlikely that entrepreneurs would overlook it for long.

There is always the problem of transporting large volumes of biomass from the field to the refinery. In the case of algae, you can always locate your growing facility close to the refinery, or vice versa. With bulkier biomass crops, you may have to use pyrolysis as a pre-treatment, as discussed in earlier postings here.

There is also the problem of hydrogen supply. The IH2 process is designed not to need outside hydrogen, although many other BTL processes will need outside sources of hydrogen to produce drop-in hydrocarbon fuels from biomass. As long as methane remains cheap, it is likely to be used as a hydrogen source for some BTL processes, as well as for CTL processes -- perhaps first in China, then spreading from there.

The potential global yield of advanced BTL is quite large, and should continue to grow as technologies improve and allow for larger yields on smaller areas of land or ocean. And since desert lands can be used for algae, drought-tolerant crops, and halophyte production, there will be no shortage of arable land for food production.

As you can see in the image above, it will take quite some time before humans exhaust the hydrocarbon resource -- particularly if they use high temperature gas-cooled modular nuclear reactors for industrial process heat in the conversion processes. But it is not likely that we will wait until finite resources are exhausted before we begin to utilise the essentially infinite resource of advanced BTL and microbial fuels.

An Early Start to the Keystone XL Pipeline, in Hopes of an Obama Defeat

Canadian company Transcanada Corp. has announced that it will begin early construction of the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline -- the leg from Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico. This section of pipeline is the most critical leg in terms of global oil markets, since it will help to reduce the gap between the WTI oil price and the Brent price.

Image Credit: The Atlantic

Unlike the northern portion of the pipeline, the lower section won't require approval from the State Department, since it doesn't cross any international borders. So it doesn't appear there's much environmentalists can do to halt it.

Although Transcanada -- not to mention the Canadian government -- would surely love to see the entire, 1,600-mile Keystone XL pipeline built out eventually, constructing its southern link is by far the most pressing piece of business for oil companies. In the long term, Canada wants to make sure there's a reliable way to ship its crude oil as production in Alberta's tar sands ramps up. For now, it's oil companies would be happy if just a bit more of their product could make it to a refinery. During the past few years, the surge of both Canadian and U.S. oil production has overwhelmed the pipelines leading from Cushing to the Gulf, which has created a giant glut oil sitting in the heart of the country. As a result, prices have fallen well below oil drilled elsewhere in the world. That's been a boon for nearby refineries and motorists in state like Colorado. But it's an obviously frustrating situation for the drillers.

Creating a new pipeline from Canada to Oklahoma obviously won't alleviate that backup. But when the southern portion of Keystone XL is finished in 2013, it's expected to move about 700,000 barrels a day, which would go a long way towards a solution.... _Atlantic

Certainly the defeat of US president Obama in the ballot box in November would be a boost for energy producers across North America -- from oil to gas to nuclear to coal -- and a huge boost for the US private sector economy.

Another boost for world oil markets, would be the removal of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, and a return to a more rational control of Venezuelan oil. Oil production in Venezuela has fallen under the bulbous bombast, and the oil sector is by no means the limit to Chavez' incompetence. He is much like the US' Obama in that regard.

Since Chavez came to power in 1999, he has wasted oil revenue buying votes and supporting countries such as Syria and Cuba. His decision to take 300 private companies into public ownership - many without compensation - has scared investors away.

The oil industry has been hit hard by Chavez’s policies. Not only did he reverse plans to let the private sector have a greater role, he raised production taxes and fired a large number of oil workers for political reasons – starving the state oil company of talent.

The 'Chavez effect' on oil production is easy to demonstrate: in 1998, when the price of crude oil hit a low of under $11 a barrel, Venezuela produced 3,167,000 barrels of crude oil a day. Twelve years later, despite record prices, output was only 2,090,000 barrels a day – nearly a third lower. _Moneyweek

We can all hope for the removal of both Obama and Chavez in 2012, for the sake of the world economy and world energy supplies.

One of the most serious oversights of peak oil lifers, is their lack of awareness that several nations have the capacity to increase oil production by at least 1 million bpd over current production levels, if they are willing to divert funds from political cronies and social welfare programs for purposes of upgrading and maintaining oil production equipment. Venezuela is merely one of these countries. I will leave it as an exercise for you to name at least two others which fall in this category. It isn't hard to do.

Here is an Australian look at the death of peak oil

What Can We Expect from Biofuels?

When it comes to using biology to create energy and fuels, we are given a lot of choices, and are generating many more that did not exist in the past. Brian Westenhaus looks at US biofuels in the context of government mandates and limits.

Brian points to a recent article in Biofuels Digest which makes a case for "cellulosic butanol," a 4 carbon alcohol which can be easily added to either gasoline or diesel fuels as a fuel extender. Butanol is also a reasonably good drop-in replacement for gasoline in unmodified gasoline engines. In addition, butanol can be used as a valuable feedstock for chemical synthesis.

The plans laid out by Brian and by the author of the piece in Biofuels Digest are reasonable. But there is a lot more to biofuels than alcohols and standard crop biodiesels -- such as biodiesel from soy or rape. Biofuels from thermochemical processes, biofuels from algae, and biofuels from engineered micro-organisms, are all lining up to make an impact.

If you really want to expand biofuels production quickly, a better way might be to utilise standard industrial and chemical processes, such as catalytic pyrolysis and synthesis. Biomass to fuels conversion using thermochemical means such as catalytic pyrolysis offers a great deal of potential in terms of scalable fuels production that is renewable into the indefinite future, year after year.

The IH2 biomass to fuels process (via GCC) summarised above is the most promising of the thermochemical biomass approaches, according to Al Fin analysts. Using rapid growing micro-algae or macro-algae as feedstocks, the potential growing area for biomass expands to cover most of the planet, freeing up arable land for food crop use. Multiple harvests per year allow for continuous, year round processing of fuels. The scalable nature of biomass pyrolysis and the ability to utilise a wide range of potential feedstocks, allows such enterprises to locate virtually anywhere, to contribute to economies of virtually any size.

When such an approach to biofuels production is combined with the process heat of a nuclear reactor, it is clear that such an approach to scalable fuels and chemicals production could be carried out anywhere from the middle of Antarctica to the middle of the ocean to the middle of any desert or top of any mountain on the planet.

It is true that the shale gas revolution makes biofuels production non-competitive with natural gas as a fuel and a feedstock in many areas. But it is also true that biomass of one kind or another can be grown virtually anywhere, particularly with the assistance of plentiful process heat. Natural gas, on the other hand, cannot be harvested anywhere, and can be expensive to transport over long distances where pipelines are not in place. It is also true that advanced gene-engineered microbial biofuels will eventually replace thermochemical production of biofuels, and that after that, nanotechnological production of fuels and energy will replace microbial production of fuels. But that will take time.

For now and the near future, biofuels from biomass may be best suited for remote areas such as islands and other geographically isolated places, such as Sub Saharan Africa. Wherever transport costs for hydrocarbon fuels are excessive, the door is open to biomass biofuels, particularly in the tropics and near tropics.

In the long run, thermochemical and microbiological biomass biofuels will also be utilised in the more advanced parts of the world, as better, more high-value uses for hydrocarbons are devised.

The Earth is a biological planet. And contrary to what you may hear from the carbon hysterics, this biological planet thrives on plentiful CO2. If CO2 levels were to drop too far, the resulting human dieoff from starvation would be massive.

More: Geoffrey Styles recently commented on this topic

Is Origin Oil Finally Beginning to Understand Algal Energy Timeline?

Al Fin energy analysts have been telling algal fuels companies about the preferred and viable sequence of product production for some years now. Is it possible that top algal fuels company, Origin Oil, is finally beginning to listen? More on this possibility from a news release:

OriginOil’s planned Biocrude System™ will integrate its own harvesting system with state-of-the-art biomass processing technology being developed under the recently-announced research agreement with INL, to convert raw algae into barrels of renewable crude oil.

...Dr. Deborah T. Newby, Project Manager at DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL) commented, “We are excited to work with OriginOil on its Biocrude System and leverage its algae processing expertise and technology. Algae is a high energy biomass and can function as a force multiplier to blend in other biomass waste such as from forestry and agriculture into a uniform renewable crude oil substitute. This may well support the U.S. military’s strategic fuels diversification program.” _Origin Oil News Dept._via_GCC

It is not clear why it is taking leading algal fuels startups so long to understand the evolving economics of their own industry.

Origin Oil's algal oil technology is quite advanced and state-of-the-art, but it is not ready to produce barrels of oil in high volume -- more like beakers of oil. The shale gas revolution has likewise been very unkind to the prospects for pure algal oil fuels in the marketplace, anytime soon.

Clearly if algal fuels companies are to impact the fuels market -- as opposed to markets for omega 3 oils and vegetable oils -- they will need a fast and dirty approach. Something like algal biomass pyrolysis with integrated hydrodeoxygenation and hydrotreatment (IH2). Which is what Al Fin energy analysts have been pushing for years now.

Pyrolysis of algal biomass is more logical than gasification, since some of the existing lipid in the algae might be condensed from the pyrolysis gases. With gasification, by contrast, everything is broken down to H2, CO, and spare change -- forcing you to start from scratch in synthesising what you want.

Is Origin Oil beginning to wise up to short to medium-term economic exigencies? We hope so. With the US military backing algal fuels producers and expecting a return on investment, they had better get on the ball.

More on the global project to expand biomass production beyond what is traditionally thought possible

Gene Expression Boosts Algal Biomass by 50 - 80%

Martin Spalding
Scientists at Iowa State University have taught algae to rev its biomass production engines at full speed -- even in the presence of artificially high CO2 levels. They succeeded in boosting algal biomass production by between 50% and 80% in high CO2 environments, as a result. This is a revolutionary discovery, since algae is already the most prolific biomass crop available, and grows in salt water, brackish water, wastewater, as well as fresh water.

In nature, algal growth is governed by the amount of carbon dioxide available. In relatively low carbon environments [such as Earth's atmosphere], two genes — LCIA and LCIB — are expressed to capture more CO2 and direct it into the cells, promoting growth. However, when algae live in an environment with enough CO2 to promote growth, the two genes shut down. The researchers found that expressing them, even in carbon-rich environments, significantly increases growth.

“Based on some prior research we had done, we expected to see an increase, probably in the 10 to 20 percent range” researcher Martin Spalding (pictured) said in a statement. “But we were surprised to see this big of an increase.”

Spalding first tinkered with each gene individually to see what effect it had on the algae, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Expressing them individually yielded a 10 to 15 percent increase in biomass. Expressing them together boosted it 50 to 80 percent.

The excess biomass naturally becomes starch, increasing the biomass around 80 percent. Using existing mutated genes, Spalding can direct the algae to make oil instead. That requires more energy, increasing biomass just 50 percent.

Algae are attractive biofuel feedstock because it grows quickly and thrives in everything from seawater to irrigation runoff to sewage. _Wired

Earth's atmosphere possesses pitifully low levels of carbon dioxide. If the levels of CO2 were reduced very far, all plant life on Earth would die, the gas is so scarce. Plant life craves more CO2, and typically thrives in greenhouses with artificial CO2 levels up to 3X atmospheric CO2 or higher. If producers could nearly double the biomass production of algae by exposure to high CO2 environments, the area required for algal growth for any particular target of production, would be cut in half.

Most analysts assume that it is the lipid component of algae that must be maximised in order to make algal biofuels and chemicals viable, but that is not necessarily true. Using a process known as IH2 (integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion), raw biomass can be converted to high value chemicals and fuels directly.

Eventually, it will become easier to tweak algae to produce very high volumes of oils and other particular chemicals directly. But that may take between 10 and 20 years. There is no need to wait for that, when IH2 technology can make algal fuels and chemicals affordable much sooner. Particularly when combined with augmented growth approaches such as devised by the Iowa State researchers.

This Is How Biofuels Can Make Monkeys Out of Energy Analysts

Image Source
Using the IH2 (integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion) technique developed by GTI, and licensed by Shell subsidiary CRI, making high quality gasoline and diesel directly from cheap biomass has suddenly become a viable prospect.

So far, New Zealand based company Aquaflow (PDF) appears to be taking the lead in developing practical uses for this technology. Aquaflow has an agreement with CRI to develop waste biomass to gasoline and diesel plants, and is planning the first of these plants in Queensland, Australia.

EERE PDF Image Source
Aquaflow is developing the use of a mixed feedstock approach to IH2 conversion, which is able to incorporate wood waste, agricultural waste (such as cane bagasse), and micro-algae biomass, among other forms of cellulosic biomass. Such an approach allows for a versatile approach to feedstock supply, allowing such plants to negotiate the best pricing for feedstock from a wide array of sources.

EERE PDF Image SourceWhile there are plenty of other approaches to producing high quality hydrocarbon fuels from waste biomass, the IH2 approach as approached by Aquaflow appears to be the frontrunner.

According to Al Fin energy analysts, micro-algae and macro-algae are the most prolific biomass crops available. They can be grown in salty and brackish water, as well as waste water. In fact, over 80% of the Earth's surface is suitable for growing algae biomass, due to the ability to grow algae in saltwater (oceans), in the deserts, or in freshwater.

It makes sense to combine the most prolific form of biomass with the most efficient process for converting biomass to high value fuels, at least in the short to intermediate term.

Long-term, we are likely to see synthetic biological approaches to producing fuels and chemicals which will be very difficult to compete against, for thermochemical approaches such as pyrolysis or gasification. On the other hand, once advanced nuclear energy technologies are finally adopted, there should be no shortage of cheap process heat available for driving a wide range of clean thermochemical conversions to fuel and chemicals -- including biomass to liquids, gas to liquids, coal to liquids, kerogens to liquids, bitumens to liquids, gas hydrates to liquids, etc etc.

Future of Energy Video Extravaganza

The following videos come from the day conference: What Will Turn Us On in 2030 (via Slate). Other videos from the event are available at the conference link above.

Why Nuclear


Why Biofuels?


Craig Venter on Synthetic Biology and the Energy Future


Everything You Heard Here Could Be Wrong


Article: Don't Count Oil Out by Robert Bryce

Opinion: Michael Lynch -- A new sense of energy security to be found in shale oil & gas?

A much discussed article going around the peak oil webosphere -- The Energy Trap. Who can find the faulty assumptions in the argument?

Craig Venter's team is moving on to a pure synthetic biology phase of its research on producing fuels from algae

The quickest way to get abundant fuels from algae is to find the wild strains which produce the most biomass the fastest, and don't bother with oil extraction. Simply pyrolyse the algal biomass and convert to fuels via IH2. Even a total dunce could beat Craig Venter and Exxon Mobil to the punch by about 10 years by taking this approach.

As to the future of energy: All of the above. But go easy on the solar, and it would be best to drop the big wind farms altogether.

This is Not Your Crippled Toothless Grandmother's Peak Oil

For "peak oil" to be worth thinking about, it should guarantee doom, catastrophe, destruction, and collapse. Without those things, peak oil is just a wanker's circle jerk, fit for the denizens of sites for doomers -- you know the ones. Weathering peak oil should come as easily as weathering Y2K, perhaps easier.

Above you can see but one of many reasons that doing without oil does not have to mean doom and collapse, unless you are a total worthless shite-for-brains. And the graphic does not even consider the potential of micro- and macro-algae, which are the most prolific biomass crops, and can be grown in saltwater without requiring cropland or soil.

Biomass-to-pyrolysis is a quick route to a crude biofuel which can be burned "as is" by industrial burners for heat. Finland is utilising that approach to help meet its "38% energy from renewables" mandate.

But we want more from our "quick pyrolysis biofuels," don't we, my precious? Oh yes, we want high quality transportation fuels that let us laugh at peak oil doomers shivering in the dark, from our greater, brighter heights. And that is why we utilise IH2 with our pyrolysis (PDF).

That way, we can make a wide array of fuels and high-value chemicals from waste ligno-cellulosic offal.

We can even pave our roads and bike trails using pyrolysis. It is a matter of choosing ingenuity over hysteria. Something peak oil doomers might consider doing, if they ever get tired of wanking around.

Re-inventing Oil: The Unstoppable Coming World of Synthetic Biology

If petroleum didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it. Nothing else comes close to oil when it comes to energy density, ease of handling, flexibility, convenience, cost, or scale...

...“There is one thing all energy transitions have in common: they are prolonged affairs that take decades to accomplish,” wrote Vaclav Smil in 2008....Smil, a polymath, prolific author on energy issues, and distinguished professor at the University of Manitoba, believes that while a “world without fossil fuel combustion is highly desirable … getting there will demand not only high cost but also considerable patience: coming energy transitions will unfold across decades, not years.” _The Persistence of Oil

Al Fin energy analysts agree with Vaclav Smil on both counts: Re-inventing oil is a good idea, and the transition from oil to a re-invented oil will take decades.

Synthetic biology is in the process of changing all the rules for making things. We already make life-saving medicines with some of the same tools that synthetic biologists are using. We are even making vehicular tyres using these tools. But we have just gotten started.

Khosla Ventures has started a new $1 billion fund that is specialising in synthetic biology ventures, and related technologies. The US Department of Energy is also funding synthetic biology projects with the aim of re-inventing oil creation. Craig Venter's Synthetic Genomics is being funded by Exxon Mobil to the tune of roughly $500 million to accomplish the same feat.

Oil is going to be around for a long time, because it is so very good at doing the things that humans need it to do. It takes nature between 100,000 and 1,000,000 years to make oil from once-living matter. Synthetic organisms should be able to produce oil in split seconds, using cheap raw materials plus sunshine or other readily available energy supply.

Why bother with all that high tech science when we can grow abundant algal biomass, and turn it into fuel using pyrolysis and IH2 treatment? Simple economics. Pyrolysis + IH2 requires a lot of energy and hydrogen. If you design your synthetic organisms properly, they can function at low temperatures and obtain their hydrogen from water.

The only way for advanced thermochemical biofuels conversion to compete with synthetic biology, is for the thermochemical process heat and hydrogen to be supplied by nuclear reactors. That approach is indeed likely to coexist with advanced synthetic biology fuels in the future.

Advanced Biofuels, Done Three Ways

1. Primus Green Energy uses gasification of biomass and Exxon's methanol-to-gasoline process, to convert biomass to gasoline.

Very broadly, the biomass-to-gasoline (BTG) process...gasifies biomass to produce a syngas rich in hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This syngas is cleaned and conditioned and then catalytically converted into methanol for use in the MTG process. In the MTG process, dimethylether (DME), the dehydrated derivative of methanol, is reacted over a ZSM-5 zeolite catalyst, on which the chain growth of molecules is sterically hindered, thus allowing only production of gasoline and lighter material. The gasoline product from the MTG process has more than 51 compounds, similar to straight-run gasoline in a petroleum refinery. This mixture is then separated using a process similar to that used in a gasoline refinery. The design utilized in the NREL model utilizes five distillation columns to separate the remaining gas, LPG, light gasoline, and heavy gasoline. The remaining gas is sent to the fuel combustor. The light gasoline continues without further treatment. The heavy gasoline could proceed through a durene isomerizer in order to eliminate the presence of the 1,2,4,5-tetramethylbenzenes by converting them to 1,2,3,5-tetramethylbenzenes. This stream would then be merged with the light gasoline. The two product streams are LPG and gasoline. _GCC

Note that this biomass-to-liquids (BTL) approach does not use the Fischer-Tropsch approach, but the more efficient Exxon methanol-to-gasoline (MTG) approach.
2. Sugars-to-isobutanol producer Gevo has signed an agreement with fuel distributor Mansfield Oil, for the distribution of isobutanol-based fuels to the petroleum market. (Source: GCC)
This type of collaboration creates an almost instant distribution infrastructure for advanced biofuels, by piggy-backing onto a pre-existing distribution infrastructure. Gevo uses a proprietary yeast to ferment sugars to isobutanol. The company is in the process of converting corn ethanol plants to produce the higher value, more advanced biofuel isobutanol. Gevo's profit margins are likely to improve as it utilises more economical sources for its sugar feedstocks, derived from cellulosic biomass, over the next few years. This Gevo webcast for investors is available for the next 30 days.
3. Finland's Neste Oil, producer of the highly advanced renewable diesel NExBTL, is collaborating with the Finnish Environmental Institute, to research Baltic Sea strains of algae for the purpose of using algal oils in its NExBTL product. (Source: GCC)
Neste hydrotreats bio-oils to convert them into a drop-in hydrocarbon replacement for petro-diesel. Neste's NExBTL is a superior fuel compared to both conventional bio-diesel, and compared to traditional petro-diesels. Algal oil production has the potential for the highest yields of any oil crop currently known. The focus of this research is on bringing costs of growing, harvesting, and oil extraction, down to competitive levels with other bio-oils.

Al Fin energy analysts anticipate that thermochemical approaches to advanced biofuels from biomass will be competitive with petro-fuels within five years -- assuming the price of oil continues to remain high (above $80 a barrel, 2011 US dollars). Gasification or pyrolysis, combined with either Fischer Tropsch or Exxon's MTG, are examples of thermochemical approaches to advanced biofuels from biomass.

Hydrotreating of bio-oils (Neste etc) is already competitive in particular markets, depending upon government policies, petro-oil prices, and feedstock bio-oil prices.

Algal fuels and advanced bacterial fuels are likely to take a bit longer -- up to ten years to profitability. But one possible shortcut to profitable algal fuels is the IH2 pyrolysis of algal biomass approach. Such an approach could achieve profitability within 5 years.

Scientists and engineers are researching dozens of approaches to advanced biofuels, in the attempt to speed up the conversion of sunlight to fuels faster than the 100,000 years or more that nature requires.

Better Nuclear Fuels; Better Biomass to Fuels Approach

Conventional nuclear power plants are able to burn only a small fraction of nuclear fuel. They are then forced to store the lion's share of this expensive fuel indefinitely, as "nuclear waste." Far from being waste, most of this unused material is incredibly valuable. How could nuclear reactors burn fuel more efficiently? Two candidates suggest themselves: thorium and depleted uranium, burned in safe, advanced breeder reactors.

Los Alamos National Labs has devised a new approach for refining thorium for nuclear fuel, which shaves almost 99.5% of the cost of processing -- reducing the cost from $5000 a kg to only $30 per kg. This LANL breakthrough is just one of several which will be necessary, before thorium can become the dominant nuclear fuel.

NextBigFuture presents an exclusive interview with Robert Petroski -- engineer for the Terrapower "traveling wave reactor" approach being spurred by Bill Gates and other Microsoft luminaries. Petroski discusses how abundant depleted uranium -- U238 -- can be used efficiently in advanced nuclear reactors, to replace the more rare and expensive fuels which rely on highly refined U235.

These breeder reactor approaches use much cheaper and safer fuels than are used in conventional reactors, and burn them almost completely, with far less waste left over. If all the money being thrown down the rat hole by governments for programs of carbon hysteria -- big wind, big solar, climate hysteria bureaucracies, etc -- were devoted to more rational energy strategies, these advanced nuclear approaches could stave off global energy shortages for many centuries or longer.

More: The Integral Fast Reactor has much in common with the evolving Terrapower approach. It is another approach to burning almost 100% of nuclear fuel -- primarily depleted uranium.

And for those who would like to believe in biofuels, but who cannot separate the idea of biofuels from the wasteful green agendas of the Obamas, Merkels, etc. -- there is the up and coming IH2 technology from CRI Catalyst. IH2 is "integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion," an advanced biomass-to-liquid fuels approach which has been covered favourably at Al Fin Energy in the past.

Now New Zealand algae company Aquaflow is working with CRI Catalyst of Texas, to efficiently convert algal biomass to liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Prolific species of algae are far more easily grown for their biomass -- at very high rates. Contrast such cheap and dirty high-yield algal biomass production with the more expensive, finicky, and complex process of trying to grow algae for oil production. All that was missing was a practical way of converting prolific algal biomass into valuable liquid fuels -- and IH2 appears to be a promising approach.

Advanced pyrolysis and hydro-treatment of biomass is not as sexy as breeder reactors, of course, but far more practical for decentralised production almost anywhere on Earth -- at a far cheaper price than nuclear reactors would cost.

It is good to know that science and engineering are working on several different fronts to provide the abundant energy that the future will demand.

Perhaps the Best Near-Term Biomass-to-Fuels Approach for Micro-crops

GCC
For years, Al Fin engineers have been saying that the quickest approach to convert algae to fuels economically, is via pyrolysis of algal biomass, rather than via harvesting of algal oils for biodiesel. Although the technology described below is not exactly what Al Fin specialists have described, PetroAlgae is partnering with CRI Catalyst in a novel pyrolytic approach to biomass-to-fuels, which may achieve economic break even first.

IH2 is an advanced pyrolysis technology which utilizes low pressure hydrogen together with a proprietary catalyst to remove virtually all of the oxygen present in the starting biomass...The technology is highly flexible and is economical for both small- and large-scale applications, according to CRI.

...CRI is a provider of catalyst and environmental systems technology to the global petrochemical producing community. PetroAlgae’s micro-crop technology employs indigenous, aquatic micro-organisms suitable to local climates and is designed to enable its licensees to produce a high-value protein product and residual biomass which may be converted to cellulosic hydrocarbon fuels and/or blend stocks via the IH2 technology at commercial scale.

This agreement is a direct result of successful tests converting PetroAlgae’s micro-crop residue into cellulosic hydrocarbon fuels and/or blend stocks using the IH2 technology provided by CRI. The two firms have agreed to continue to optimize the combined capability of their respective biomass production and conversion processes.

Commercial collaboration has already begun and is expected to result in a joint marketing agreement between the two firms in which PetroAlgae and its licensees will hold exclusive rights to IH2 technology for conversion of lemna (duckweed) biomass. _GCC

Using duckweed as feedstock is an interesting choice, since duckweed is a high-yield plant crop that grows on the surface of ponds much like algae.

But algae is a more prolific biomass crop than even duckweed, and I would not be surprised if Petro-Algae begins to use the IH2 technology -- or something very much like it -- for converting algal biomass to fuel.

Eventually algae growers will develop strains of algae which produce abundant oil which is easily and economically harvested. At that point algal biodiesel will hit the markets like gangbusters. Producers will then separate the oil for fuels, and use the biomass for secondary products such as feed, food, fertilizer, etc.

But for now, the most salient aspect of micro-algae is the prolific nature of its biomass production. That, and the ability to grow fast-growing algae in saltwater, brackish water, wastewater, etc. Why not take advantage of that characteristic now, while others are developing high-oil strains and cheap oil-extraction methods?

Growers can aim for high biomass yields in dirt-cheap open ponds, using non-potable water, and without worrying about maintaining monocultures. With reasonably cheap harvesting and drying methods, pyrolysis methods such as Petro-Algae and CRI's IH2 should produce a fuel with many uses.

Direct Conversion of Biomass to Gasoline & Diesel: GTI Hydropyrolysis

All Images via EERE (PDF)
The Gas Technoloogy Institute (GTI) is developing an advanced hydropyrolysis method for directly converting a wide range of biomass types directly to gasoline, diesel, and other high value fuels and hydrocarbons. The method is designated IH2, and utilises hydrogen scavenged from the biomass itself.  IH2 product is very low in water and oxygen, and claimed to contain 3X the heating value of standard fast pyrolysis oils.

GTI’s Integrated Hydropyrolysis and Hydroconversion (IH2) technology, which converts biomass directly into cellulosic gasoline and diesel hydrocarbon blendstocks

GTI’s IH2 technology is an advanced pyrolysis technology which utilizes low pressure hydrogen together with a proprietary catalyst to remove virtually all of the oxygen present in the starting biomass. (During the pilot IH2 project, CRI/Criterion supplied the IH2 catalyst.)

Features of the process include:

Feedstock flexible;
Fast biomass heat up maximizes liquid yield;
Hydroconversion with catalysts produces low-oxygen, low-acidity liquids;
Polynuclear aromatic components are not formed;
Self-sufficient process requires no supplemental water or hydrogen; and
High-quality renewable gasoline and diesel products are produced.

GTI says that renewable gasoline (RG) produced by the IH2 process results in more than 90% lower greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum-based fuels.

Compared to conventional pyrolysis processes this efficient, balanced approach optimizes the energy used to convert a range of non-food feedstocks into renewable transportation fuels or chemicals, according to GTI. As a result, the technology is highly flexible and is economical for both small- and large-scale applications. _GCC

The table above compares the IH2 process with two competing pyrolysis approaches for biomass to fuels.

The diagram above provides a rough scheme for hydrogen flow in the system.  The table below gives a brief step by step recipe for how the process aims to become self sufficient for hydrogen.   The project is still firmly within R&D stages.

In the race to renewable fuels-from-biomass, it appears that the thermochemical approaches of gasification and pyrolysis have roughly a 10 year head start on microbial fuels -- in terms of achieving potential to scale up to compete with petroleum infrastructure. If GTI's approach provides all the benefits promised, and is ready for scale-up in 3 years, one can almost see the price ceiling descending over the liquid fuels landscape.

Pyrolysis and gasification are much faster and simpler than most biomass to energy processes -- except direct combustion of compressed or torrefied biomass. The GTI process appears to be an important advance over standard fast pyrolysis.  GTI provides a time-to-market of roughly 3 years. That is not really such a long time to wait, given the promise.

More at EERE (PDF)