37 comments on Biofuel progress, a report from Dubuque
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
37 comments on Biofuel progress, a report from Dubuque
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“Any coward can fight a battle when he's sure of winning, but give me the man who has pluck to fight when he's sure of losing. That's my way, sir; and there are many victories worse than a defeat.”
—George Eliot
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- Russia: There Is Life After Peak Oil
- Should EROEI be the most important criterion our society uses to decide how it meets its energy needs?
- Oilwatch Monthly - August 2008
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.






GAIA Host Collective
Thanks for taking such copious notes on farming energy efficiency, ethanol, and other efforts.. Looking forward to more articles about algae biofuels, with attention to energy balance, wastes, and water requirements. I wonder what the EROEI for excavating an underground growing facility is?
Almost nothing if you use already mined out space, that is the attraction. There are a number of places in the Midwest where the limestone was mined from underground leaving supported underground space under places such as Kansas City and Springfield, which have been turned into factories and offices. Because of the insulation and isolation it had advantages in certain industries, and has a very stable temperature. And it might be possible to use other mined out space - some of the metal mines, for example, leave rather large cavities.
You are never going to replace the sun efficiently. Electrical engineers understand this - their crowning achievement was the spread of 1% efficient light bulbs, currently being replaced by 10% efficient bulbs by the green movement. Algae do not live on CO2 - they live on sunlight, their energy source - which they store by building CO2 up into carbohydrates. They live on great scads of it, a kilowatt per square meter peak (around 200 watts average). A thin layer of slime might not use all of that sunlight - and so algae have evolved mechanisms to rise to the top when they need energy, and sink when they're full; Even if they hadn't, simple water pumps can cycle a tank very, very efficiently. Even largescale agricultural processes like cheesemaking do it on a few watts of handpower, often.
Plant biofuels exist to *HARVEST SUNLIGHT.* Sticking them underground is utterly counterproductive.
The United States has a great amount of land *aboveground* that it doesn't use - go find an alkali flat, for the love of Bob.
"LEDS at tuned frequencies" to grow biofuels should be an utter outrage for environmentalists, as long as anyone in the world is using coal for electricity generation.
The overall fuel consumption of this approach in tons of coal per mile, compared to using it to charge a battery in an EV, is literally hundreds of times higher.
I agree with Squalish, there is not even a theoretical possibility that underground growing will be energy positive. An EROEI of about 0.1 would be an upper limit based primarily on the lighting inefficiency. You have to wonder what is going on in peoples minds when the think of such projects. It makes coal to liquids look green.
1. Does anyone have numbers on the entire energy input chain into producing a gallon of biodiesel from algae?
2. Could a suntube-like approach work to bring in sunlight instead of using LED lighting? My concern would be with the amount of energy required to drill through rock to get to the various parts of the mining chamber.
3. Are there enough suitable* underground mines in the US (or the world) for an eventual 2 mmbd production? 10 mmbd production? How much does the current pilot plan to produce?
* Ones that are not:
- too unstable in their bracings
- flooded with heavy metal contaminated water
- composed of passages that are too narrow or winding
- too far from current infrastructure (roads, pipelines, etc)
The mine is the problem, not a solution. Light is the limiting issue. Algae could work on the surface if a suitable highly productive strain could be found. If the algae were perfect except for susceptibility to contamination, then a surface system in the desert with greenhouses or glass tubes might work.
Suntubes with surface sunlight concentrated with mirrors would probably be even less efficient than electric lighting since you would loose about 10-20% per meter due to reflection losses on the walls of the tube.
Anything you can do in your mine, I can do for a tenth the cost in a corrugated steel silo.
Even so, land is not the limiting factor (in most countries) for a massive industrial project like this - it works in the middle of nowhere even better than it works in the city, and it is highly mechanized.
I don't have numbers on overall efficiency of LED lighting, only that the cost per lumen for white light is so high (in lumens per dollar) that LEDs are practically useless for bulk lighting. Compared to arc lighting or flourescents, they cost 50-100x as much, without even matching efficiency. LED evangelists refuse to compare energy efficient lighting, and assume that their trends will continue forever.
Currently, the best choices for bulk lighting are all high intensity discharge: metal halide, sodium vapor, and sulfur lamps. You can pick up a 1 kilowatt MH lamp for 20 cents a watt, and it will give you 60-90 lumens per watt of high color accuracy white light, and last you 10,000-20,000 hours. None of these come in small sizes, and they are all delicate systems including a ballast, igniter, and warmup/ cooldown time. And sodium lamps are yellow/orange.
High efficiency flourescents can match them in most things, and beat them roundly in modularity + ease of use.
LEDs are excellent for portable/fixed colored directional or colored flood lighting, good for portable white directional lighting, and horrible for anything else.