Algae as Biofuel and Protein Source

PhotobucketI’ve promised myself that I’ll no longer procrastinate on my book on renewables.  In truth, I’ve been pretty good about conducting the interviews and sending them off for transcription.  But  the sheer volume of words to process and edit has been a bit hard for me to deal with, considering the travel and all the other things going on here.  This morning after breakfast, I spend three solid hours going through one eight-page interview — and that’s only one of 25 or 30. 

Fortunately, it’s deeply rewarding work.  The interview in question was conducted a couple of months ago with the Scripps Institution’s Dr. Greg Mitchell, one of the world’s most well-respected researchers on algae.  The process of reviewing his thoughts on the biology and economics surrounding the subject was a learning experience, and it re-enforced some of the themes that were common to a great number of these conversations. 

In particular, the single most frequently voiced point is the lack of congruity between our political imperatives and our true needs as a civilization.  For something to make sense to a politician, it needs to show demonstrable results in 2 – 3 years; if it doesn’t, he’ll be looking for another job.  By contrast, most of the changes that we need to make as a society require a longer-term focus — at least 10, and in some cases 20+ years. 

And algae may be the textbook example.  Algae and cyanobacteria (photosynthetic bacteria) produce biomass 10 – 50 times more efficiently than any terrestrial plant: corn, soy beans, etc.  If you look at the economics of algae, you’re going to get almost 40% biofuel molecules from the original biomass. And what’s the other half or so? It’s protein — that can be used to feed animals far for efficiently that the way we’re going about it today.  The whole subject shows incredible promise.

But where are the jobs — today — for algae?  How long would a politician last who suggested diverting funds into an area that didn’t offer massive amounts of employment in the very short term — especially in his home state? 

It’s a very difficult situation, which, to me, gets back to campaign finance reform.  Until we have leaders who can do what they think is right, we’ll continue to have boondoggles like bridges-to-nowhere, corn ethanol and other obvious rip-offs.

Biomass in the News

PhotobucketStephen Lacey does a wonderful job in his podcasts for Renewable Energy World, and, I think, covers a multitude of subjects comprehensively and fairly. This week, he pointed out that feed-in tariffs (incentives for utility customers to put renewable energy back onto the grid) have been effective around the globe in spurring on the development of a great number of different technologies. He went on to note that biomass thermal is a viable, commercially ready technology, and deserves same set of incentives that are according to solar, wind, etc.

The federal government abandoned algae-based biofuels in the mid-1990s, but seems to have come around on the issue. The Department of Defense recently gave Solazyme several multi-million dollar contracts to supply jet fuel. Solazyme grows algae in the dark, feeding it with a variety of biomass stocks, and converting the sugars to oil.

The company claims that this process is 1000 times more efficient than growing algae in sunlight. But isn’t it hard to really fall in love with renewable energy technologies that wind up burning hydrocarbons? If we’re going to do this, isn’t it better to concentrate our efforts on technologies like solar, wind, geothermal, etc. that don’t involve carbon emissions? I really don’t see where the passion for biomass comes from.