<DrumBeat: August 16, 2006The Oil DrumDrumBeat: August 17, 2006>

131 comments on Whither Cellulosic Ethanol?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on August 16, 2006 - 10:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Regarding Re. lignocellulosic ethanol, I am, bluntly, a skeptic

And

Much more important, this technology is not ready for policy decisions

I have a simple question. Why are we talking about it then?

Who killed the electric car?

That's what this biofuels "debate" is all about. The fantasy, the dream, that people will continue their happy motoring based on liquids from biomass converted to liquids. Forget it. Kunstler's right. We are still trying to invest in a lifestyle that has no future. That's why the subject is so popular.

Let's move on, OK?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on August 16, 2006 - 11:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The thing is, Dave, that we are in a war of ideas. If the other side wins this war, then we may stray far down a path, and waste a lot of time, before realizing that the "solution" is unworkable. If this fantasy is demolished at an early stage, then maybe more people will get serious about taking action to prevent the worst case scenarios envisioned by hardcore doomers.

That's why these biofuels threads are so popular, IMO.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dave Cohen on August 16, 2006 - 11:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Good point.

However, there are lots of other paths we are straying down. CO2 injection for recovery of stranded oil for one. Offshore drilling of America's continental shelves for another. Coal for everything -- power generation, conversion to liquids, you name it. If you believed all the propaganda, the US has more recoverable liquid reserves than Saudi Arabia. I'm not kidding. Biofuels is small potatoes compared to what I just brought up.

Small Potatoes

So, here we are talking about corn, switchgrass, God Knows What to make stuff to put in your car. Give me a break!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Todd on August 17, 2006 - 1:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It is imperative that the lumpen populace maintain their belief that life will continue as it is forever.  We all know that is the rationale for all this stuff.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on August 18, 2006 - 3:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
EXACTLY, I keep trying to bust some such propaganda but my attempts are not well received by the naïve and simple minded.

I just had an argument with Nick (after some with odograph and eric blair), but to the idiots crowd it is ME who is the "stalker".

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Wolfric on August 16, 2006 - 11:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If bio ethanol (be it from any source) is not efficient and will not be able to sustain the current demand,why do we keep talking about it?

I think the car way of living is a dead end.  Light rail and better urban policies (implemented by legislators or by pure necessity) is more of an answer.

However, I think we need a liquid fuel substitute for some applications.  

Can anyone tell me how good biodiesel from algae could be as a product (efficiency wise and EROEI wise)?  I know that in april or may a company in New Zealand did bring a technology to use waste water to produce algae in a closed system.  Do anyone think it's a viable technology?

Do I need to go trough the literature to know the complete picture or is this techology just not ready at all?

The University of New Hampshire seems to be a good start to read on this.  Is it a good place to start?

I ask all those question because biodiesel from algae is part of my simple solution system to peak oil.  I'm currently talking with many city officials and planers in my home town and in nearby town.  I dont want to promote a solution that is doomed at the start.

Also I'm preparing for a regional conference for september 23. I will do a speach on the problem and lead a workshop on solutions that can be implemented.

The local high school is also welcoming the idea of giving small conferences in diferent classes.  I plan to go talk in geophysics class, geopolitic class, biology and environmnent class and in the brand new nature and environment program. The later is a special program, much like a sport-study or music-study program.  

All the work I do here lean on being very credible and well informed.  I dont want to mislead people in first place.

Advices on this are welcome!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on August 17, 2006 - 12:23am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Algae has huge potential.  It also has a long way to go.

FWIW, current-technology batteries are more than sufficient to provide lots of personal mobility indefinitely.  New cells on the market like the A123Systems' cells used by DeWalt can make an electric which eats Corvettes for breakfast and gets an effective 135 MPG.  Don't count the car out.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Wolfric on August 17, 2006 - 8:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hi,

Has you certainly know, a battery is only a energy storage device albeit this one looks good.

How do you think you can power US normal current demand AND new incomming demand from car recharging using the same old electric generation technology?

You do know that unlike in Quebec most other places use coal, nat gas and oil to make electric power.

Also time and ressources are needed to produce and sell enough "any kind" of car replacement and Hirsh think that we dont have that time.  If you own an electric car and is not useful to you because the paradigm has shifted, do you think it will make you look powerful or ridiculous?

Here is the technology I think will be more useful :

  • light rail for people and goods (medium and long distance)
  • Buses and trucking (short to medium distances)
  • Walking, cycling and skiing (short distances)

That's why urban design will have to be rethinked.  That will happen no matter what the PTB will do.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Siggi on August 17, 2006 - 8:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hi,

in order to give you a rough idea of what is feasible in a big city with a very good public transport system:

Breakdown of personal trips in Berlin, Germany (1998)

Walking: 25%
Cycling: 10%
Public Transport: 27%
Cars, motor-bikes: 38%

Newer figures are not yet available.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on August 17, 2006 - 10:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
How do you think you can power US normal current demand AND new incomming demand from car recharging using the same old electric generation technology?
I think it can be done because I ran the numbers two years ago.

Besides, the problem isn't technology (though new technology improves things radically), the problem in the short term is fuel supply.  Given that we can cut fuel demand by a factor of 3 or better by burning oil in IGCC turbines and charging batteries compared to gasoline, the backup fuel supply might as well be oil.

Also time and ressources are needed to produce and sell enough "any kind" of car replacement and Hirsh think that we dont have that time.
He may be right, but parking the guzzling SUV's and driving our old beater econoboxes will buy us a fair amount of time right there.
If you own an electric car and is not useful to you because the paradigm has shifted, do you think it will make you look powerful or ridiculous?
How is an electric car not going to be useful to me?  If we wind up without electricity, everybody is screwed.  Besides, I can buy PV panels and make my own electricity.
That's why urban design will have to be rethinked.
Vehicles are replaced much faster than housing.  Urban design may change, but it's always going to trail things with shorter life cycles.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nagorak on August 22, 2006 - 1:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A few points:  

None of the technology that you deem to be useful can be pursued on an individual basis.  That's great if light rail is going to help with transportation in the future, but I can't go out in front of my house and start laying down track.  

Walking, cycling and skiing...maybe those will be useful in the future, but in current society they face serious limitations.  I could bike down to the trolley stop, but that doesn't matter because it doesn't go where I need it to.  I could bike to the store, but frankly I'd be afraid of doing so, because the streets are not designed for bikes, and drivers are very inconsiderate of bikes and view them as an annoyance.  Regardless, walking and cycling cannot work for me, nor for many others in current society.  At the current time they are impractical.  

Now, meanwhile, converting a car to EV is something you can both do yourself, and which will allow you to function practically in today's society.  Why the animosity toward EVs?  You think someone is going to look ridiculous for owning an EV?  No more ridiculous than everyone who owns cars and who can't afford to fill them up.  And what are we talking about, 20 years down the line when everything has changed?  I doubt anyone driving an EV today, or who is thinking about converting to an EV today and does not have one yet, is concerned about what comes to pass in 10 or 20 years.  When things are changed maybe the EV won't be needed.  I don't see how that makes you look ridiculous?  

I really have a hard time seeing how someone who converts to an EV can look ridiculous except if their motivation is purely economic, and then gas prices drop to $0.99 a gallon.  I'm sure quite a few are willing to take the risk of that in stride.  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mbkennel on August 17, 2006 - 1:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Obviously there are major process problems with algae, but it appears that the underlying energy physics---yield of fuel---is sufficiently high by enough of an order of magnitude to pursue it.

That may not be the case with ethanol etc: even if we solve all the nasty fermentation problems, what is the end yield?  Not very good.

And two titanic advantages for algae:

  •  Uses seawater, not fresh water
  •  Uses deserts, not fertile cropland

Re algae farms:

It seems that you have to keep them closed, so that they are not invaded by organisms which outcompete the fuel algae but do not produce useful endproducts, and reasonably warm.

And of course cheap.

What about arrays of water+algae filled waterbeds, clear on top (UV resistant of course), black on the bottom, made of cheap plastic, and "swimmming pool tech" connections and pumps to the oil separators?

Put them in the Sonoran desert or South Texas or South Australia or South Arabia (!), fill with seawater.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on August 17, 2006 - 4:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It seems that you have to keep them closed, so that they are not invaded by organisms which outcompete the fuel algae but do not produce useful endproducts, and reasonably warm.

And the cost of enclosing and maintaining  to obtain the oil-based watts VS making, placing and maintining PV cells is?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on August 17, 2006 - 9:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If it's as about as much as the cost of a greenhouse, it's still a lot cheaper than PV.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on August 17, 2006 - 10:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If it's as about as much as the cost of a greenhouse, it's still a lot cheaper than PV.

Ever looked into the regulations about greenhouses?

These days, you can't use glass... it has to re-enforced saftey glass.  And that increases the price.

So don't be too sure about the 'alot cheaper'.  Unless you don't use glass and use polycarbonite plastic.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on August 17, 2006 - 11:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Most of the greenhouses I see are made from plastic film.  Further, you could float this on top of an algae pond (like a bubble-wrap pool cover).  You'd still have to find some way to get CO2 to it, but the thing itself would be pretty cheap.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pstarr on August 17, 2006 - 1:35am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The National Renewable Energy Lab spent 30 years looking at algae oil production and closed its program in 1998 believing that the process was not going to work. The microorganisms are just not designed to produce lipids in a useful quantitiy and any talk of bioengineering and breakthroughs is just dreaming.

The research found that individual cell lipid production was not compatable with cellular reproduction and overall colony growth. Furthermore, microalgae are difficult to cultivate axenically. They are very vulnerable to bacterial contamination, pH fluxuation, and critical Co2 levels.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Wolfric on August 17, 2006 - 8:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I presume that's why researcher talk about closed system production for algae.

In 1998 the price of oil was only 20$.  I know that the biology has almost nothing to do with that, as I asked I'm more interested in the effectiveness of the solution.

Huge potential = R&D = huge risk = why wasn't done before?

Feasible = investment = jobs = just allocation ressources and effort.

Why in Wikipedia do they talk about the huge differences in yield?  From Wikipedia :

From 1978 to 1996, the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory experimented with using algae as a biodiesel source in the "Aquatic Species Program". A recent paper from Michael Briggs at the UNH Biodiesel Group, offers estimates for the realistic replacement of all vehicular fuel with biodiesel by utilizing algae that has a greater than 50 % natural oil content, which he suggests can be grown on algae ponds at wastewater treatment plants. [citation needed] On 2006-5-11. Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation from Marlborough, New Zealand announced it had produced its first sample of bio-diesel fuel made from algae found in sewage ponds.[4] Unlike previous attempts, the algae was naturally grown in pond discharge from the Marlborough District Council's sewage treatment works.

The production of algae to harvest oil for biodiesel has not been undertaken on a commercial scale, but working feasibility studies have been conducted to arrive at the above yield estimate. In addition to a high yield, this solution does not compete with agriculture for food, requiring neither farmland nor fresh water.

Independent results have shown that Green Fuel Technologies[7], a Cambridge, MA company founded by Isaac Berzin, has been successful in producing biodiesel growing algae on flue gas emissions from power plant smokestacks. Using a patented algae bioreactor, GreenFuel utilizes microalgae and a process of photomodulation to reduce emissions: 40% less carbon dioxide and 86% less nitrous oxide. This oil-rich algae can then be extracted from the system and processed into biodiesel, and the dried remainder further reprocessed to create ethanol. The company is testing their method at the MIT cogeneration facility and at an undisclosed 1000-megawatt power facility in the southwestern U.S. [citation needed]

Is it a good path to look into or does it smell stinky?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on August 17, 2006 - 8:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Is it a good path to look into or does it smell stinky?

The base unit of energy is the photon.   almost every algae scheme you have hardware being built to hold the algae, expose the algae to excessive CO2 and photons to obtain algae fat with fat.

You have capitol costs in running the reactor in addition to making the reactor.

VS

Taking PV cells and converting photons to hi-grade electricity.

All the algae schemes are therefore tied to large producers of CO2.  Somehow these CO2 producers will have to have enough photon gathering space to support the algae-photon gathering method.  Then they will have to have the space to process the fat algae.

How many CO2 producers have that kind of space?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Wolfric on August 17, 2006 - 9:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
In the province where I live, we have 98% of electricity generation done using large scale and very large scale hydraulic dam.  We are pioneer in those technology for many aspect of it and the high-voltage electric conductor has been invented in Quebec.  Unlike most of desert and prairie land of many places, we have many many rivers and lake.  I woke up every morning beside a lake that contains 31 billion barrel of water.  I even use it has a figure for the world oil consumption.  We dont have a water shortage around here.

We DONT need electric power generation, especialy using PV cell.  Look at the study done by Ted Trainer for bemol regarding PV cell feasability.

What we need is LIQUID fuel, thus the question about the efficiency of biodiesel from algae.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on August 17, 2006 - 9:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
We DONT need electric power generation,

Really?   On what basis are you making that assumption?   Based on the way we now live life?

especialy using PV cell.  Look at the study done by Ted Trainer for bemol regarding PV cell feasability.

Mr. Trainer analysis is flawed.   Horribly flawed.

Basic phyics shows that his analysis is flawed.

The biggest energy input into the biosphere is in the form of photons.  PV, Wind, water. organic liquids fuels from whatever source all owe the state from which we extract energy are because of the photons that hit the earth.

Without the running down of the Sun's fusion reaction, there is no energy or life on this planet.

Looking at his 'analysis' "Again a 15% loss in transmission "  The reality is that PV is used where it is generated 1st, then sent on the grid...if there is any extra power left.  So a 15% "loss" is flaws.

More of his 'analysis':
"The most significant problems for solar electricity supply are set by the need to store energy for supply at night. Storage in the form of hydrogen gas will be assumed here. "

Hydrogen storage?   Picking the storage form with the highest conversion penality.   There are other menthods, once you unlock your mind from the "we must keep things the way they always have been" mindset.   Like supply-based electrical metering.  

Tell ya what.... you want to accept Mr. Trainer's paper as some form of ultimate truth.  Fine.  Lets say that spending the money to create enought PV cells to power the nation is dumb.

Now you make the claimn What we need is LIQUID fuel,

Mr. Trainer says "Therefore the cost of a generating plant 87 million square metres in area would be $130.6 billion."
Iraq war spending to date: Overall, Congress has approved about $192 billion for the Iraq war itself,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0519/p01s03-usmi.html
Is $192 billion a fine way to keep what you demand LIQUID FUEL?

Yea, using the priamary energy source of photons in the most direct way is just SO costly.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Wolfric on August 17, 2006 - 11:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hi Eric,

regarding Trainer :

Mr. Trainer analysis is flawed.   Horribly flawed.
Basic phyics shows that his analysis is flawed.

gosh, I spent time trying not to sleep reading his paper, the hardest to read I had to in years, what a waste of time!  

I havent tought that the storage system using hydrogen was a waste of time and energy.  Altough I say to everyone that the hydrogen car is Ilusion :)

What study do you propose for me to read to get more accurate information regarding PV cell yield (that takes into acount capital cost for all the system)

What is the comparison of the capital and maintenance cost of a PV cell VS building a new hydro plant? Where we live we have a 5 month period where the sun is present only 5 to 7 hours a day.  My father is selling PV cell since 15 years and prefer selling small wind turbines because the yield is better.  I know wind is created by the sun also.

I also take into account that pure biodiesel is gelling at 4 celcius.  Thus the solution will only help when using mixed fuel.  Our local region is provided with fuel using mainly trucking and next year using train.  We are 300 km farther than the end of the oil terminal.  I dont expect us to get oil before larger cities get it.

Anyway, biodiesel fuel that could be used 6 month a year with the current capital already available is also the reason why I study the feasability of biodiesel from algae.

As for an electrical power generation, we have lots of capacity that is refrained mainly because people want to keep the river free from damming.  I think it's a good thing.  If the fuel economy bring the demand down a little bit, we may be able to cope with existing installation.

If we are able to produce biodiesel in an efficient way, we could also use that fuel to power the needed building and transportation equipment to keep the power grid installations humming.  Many electric dam are located in remote locations in northerm Quebec, we can reach them only using motor vehicles.  I dont think that an all electric (or hybrid) excavator or any building machinery is on an drawing board as we speak.  I dont think that it would work either.

I also have questions regarding the balance of system maintenance for any bio fuel powered technology.  Lubricants, hydraulic fluids, gasket, plastic and rubber is needed for any vehicle.  Will those material be available when needed?  I'm just raising a second issue here.  Altough I think replacement part would be available trough unused machinery or equipment because of fuel shortage.  You know, I have those questions running in my head at night.  But it does not refrain me from sleeping either.

As for the cost of war, in Canada we tought it was stupid from the start, we still think it's a stupid thing and I can tell that we will keep thinking it was stupid to start it.  But now it was started, you have the problem of being there.  I dont imply here that every americain were advocating it but I'm sure that it didnt bring forward a solution.  Whether we use military or not oil will peak. I have no power whatsoever in guiding the use of military for keeping the oil flow as it will diminish.  Is our country preparing for that? Is the US thinking about it? (yes) Is it going to make a difference afterall?  I'm just not sure and I dont have influence in that sphere.

In restropect, what I need to know is not if an other technology would be better or more efficient, I need to know if producing biodiesel from algea is a good idea.  If the system is flawed and results only murky, I will just put my energy and time elsewhere.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alistairC on August 17, 2006 - 11:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Strawman alert!

Algae don't need a specific source of CO2 to grow. The atmosphere is just fine. You don't need a closed reactor, a pond works OK.

I strongly suspect that the schemes where algae are grown in closed reactors with waste CO2, rely on carbon-tax or carbon-credit accounting systems for their overall added value.

What you actually need, at a minimum, for an algae operation is sunlight, air, a nutrient stream, an algae processing facility, and a bit of real estate. As an add-on to a large municipal sewage treatment operation, it looks like a winner. Certainly it is not in competition with PV : there is no actual shortage of photons.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Wolfric on August 17, 2006 - 12:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Certainly it is not in competition with PV : there is no actual shortage of photons.

Looking outdoor, I still see the sunshine :) so I guess you have a point!

I think that the company in New Zealand use an open technology and waste water pond from city sewage.  I think the capital cost would also be lower than a closed system.

I just finished reading Masanobu Fukuoka "the one straw revolution" and the other book.  I think that growing algae using the most natural processes are probably better than trying to use technology to do it.  

When studying a technology for power "harvesting or collecting", I also try to remove processes that use or transform energy by adding complexity to the design.  I have a feeling that we cannot produce energy, only harvest it. So if we add complexity to the system it will only use more energy to add and maintain that complexity.  Capital and maintenance cost is increased and somehow you have to take it into account in the long run.

As for the energy needed to harvest and transform the algae into a liquid fuel (altough I dont know the numbers) could refrain from obtaining a good EROEI ratio, I think the usefulness of the product could overcome the problem.

If we use the algae to transform hydropower (electricity) to biodiesel (HTL or ETL) is it a good way of thinking or is the technology simply not there?

Can a process like this use more current or energy than setting rail almost every where and producing electrical building equipment?  

Investment in capital and developpment in one or other technology has to take into account existing rolling capital.  It's like upgrading software, you dont start asuming everyone will buy a new computer.  I know that in the long run it may only be a bridge.  Is it a good bridge?  Do I have to put time trying to build an other bridge?  

Is anyone has information or papers I can read to know the shortcomming, problem, inherent system difficulties, stuff really preventing biodiesel algae development?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on August 17, 2006 - 1:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Strawman alert!

Thanks for letting us know that your post is a strawman.

Algae don't need a specific source of CO2 to grow. The atmosphere is just fine.

And these demonstration systems using regular old air are where?

As an add-on to a large municipal sewage treatment operation, it looks like a winner.

Given the energy input into the average waste system VS trying to gather sunlight on land to power a process that will generate  the same level of processing of the average waste processing plant, your "winner" claim is more of a "your winner" per http://www.netjak.com/review.php/537 than a workable idea.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
existentialtribalist on August 17, 2006 - 2:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
As an employee of a waste treatment plant don't get your hopes up for adding on an algae to fuel plant anytime soon.  The foot print of a wwtp is small so as to economize on land thru the use of mechanical advantage powered by lots of energy.  In my city we are the fifth largest consumer of electricity behind such entities as a BP research facility and a cookie bakery.  Wastewater treatment can be as simple as a treatment pond or as complex as our power hungry bacteria farm (that is really what we do raise small organisms and force them to work).  If our society had to go to pond treatment of anything from wastewater to fuel production the space needed is beyond my simple skills of calculation.  
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on August 17, 2006 - 4:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Pay attenetion to the parent post here!  (In fact, if you could post the energy used and a bit of analysis as a front page article would be a fine thing)

The amount of energy used to bring water to and from our homes  is shocking large.   Couple that with the cost of failue - cholera and other water borne death - and the whole algae will save us via capture of photons, is a pipe dream.

Cities along coastlines where wind turbines won't get destroyed in windstorms (hurricanes) have a chance to keep up a high energy lifestyle.  Why?  Because wind turbines in the water don't have to take up land around the city already spoken for with buildings.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alistairC on August 17, 2006 - 4:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'm talking about oxidation-pond type treatment plants, which already have the required real estate. The high-energy low-real-estate sewage treatment plant is a loser anyway, it'll have to go.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Vintermann on August 17, 2006 - 3:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Who killed the electric car?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.fandom/msg/01b5d27d94622692

The reality of technology and physics killed the electric car, just like it's threatening to kill every other alternative to oil.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.