Posts Tagged by biofuel
Take a COOL Guess – the Fun Quiz on Clean Energy Today’s Topic: Biomass
| February 27, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Biomass |
Question: The dozens of flavors of biomass technologies are all rooted in making use of the chemical energy stored in the bonds of complex, organic molecules, which, in some processes, is released to reform biofuels, normally in the form of alcohol. What are the most common forms of these alcohols?
Answer: Can be found at http://2greenenergy.com/cool-guess-answers/8732.
Relevance: A number of 2GreenEnergy clients employ gasification technologies, using various combinations of temperature controls, catalysts, and metered introduction of oxygen to break down the biomass as cleanly as possible. Our favorite? Thermal anaerobic gasification, as represented by our client Resource Recovery Corporation, whose unique and patented process does not form carcinogenic clag as a byproduct.
Related posts:
[The Vector] Plan to Combine Biofuel and Carbon Capture Technologies
| February 18, 2011 | Posted by Aedan-Kernan under Biomass |
A Canadian research council has backed plans for a 50,000 liter algae-based biofuel plant in Halifax, Nova Scotia, with a C$5 million grant. The biofuel project aims to identify strains of algae that are already acclimatised to the local environment, making them easier to grow and less likely to cause ecological problems should they be accidentally released. Read More
Related posts:
[The Vector] Biofuel Bounces Back
| December 8, 2010 | Posted by Aedan-Kernan under Biomass |
A trainload of biofuel in Sweden Source: Bjoertvedt, Creative Commons
In the US, the biofuel industry is undergoing something of a revival. Mothballed plants are reopening. Across the globe biofuel industry leaders are extremely bullish about their ability to bring down operating costs, to generate fuels from sources that don’t compete with food crops, and to design fuels for special purposes such as aviation. Will the industry live up to its promises the second time round?
Click to read more on Biofuel Bounces Back
Related posts:
Liquid Ammonia as Fuel
| May 5, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Biomass |
In a recent post, Bill Paul points out that the reaction to the oil spill in the Gulf should be algae-generated biofuels. But why not liquid ammonia, as Peak Oil pundit Matt Simmons would suggest? As Matt old me when I interviewed him for my book on renewables (and then reminded me in a phone call the other day) anhydrous ammonia is an ultra-clean, energy-dense alternative liquid fuel, for which an enormous delivery infrastructure is already in place. With the exception of hydrogen (for there is virtually no delivery infrastructure) ammonia is the only fuel that produces no greenhouse gases (GHG) on combustion. Ammonia will power diesel and spark-ignited internal combustion engines, and can be manufactured from simply water and air using clean renewable energy.
I’ll see if I can see Bill to comment on this.
Related posts:
After Gulf Oil Spill, Focus Should be On Biofuels
| May 5, 2010 | Posted by BillPaul under Biomass |
TV’s talking heads seem to think that wind and solar power are the answer to reducing America’s oil usage. How stupid can they be? Wind and solar make electricity, which won’t be ready to power large numbers of motor vehicles for many years. Biofuel is the only short-term answer — not fuel-blending ethanol but fuel-substituting algae. I’m still waiting for one of TV’s talking heads to talk about the need for a massive program to put algae-derived gasoline refining on the map.
Related posts:
Making bio-fuel from Algae – by Guest Blogger Anil
| March 13, 2010 | Posted by Anil under Biomass |
With time ticking, the world is desperate to switch over to renewable sources of energy. And in a need to create one stable source of energy, all the options are being tried and tested. Thanks to the ongoing research, claims are being made of solutions replacing fossil fuels in one way or another.
In the light of the need to reduce in carbon emissions, there have been lot of attention to bio-fuels, especially those made from algae. There had been a flurry of venture capitalists (VCs), company investments and lots of attention from politics as well. Algae had been quite a promising option for preparing bio-fuels. It is assumed to be a low cost way to transform our current fleet so that they emit less carbon. The government is promoting algae fuel in a hope that it will cut down on the usage of mainstream fossil fuels.
Algae fuel production is a process in which during photosynthesis, algae and other photosynthetic organisms capture carbon dioxide and sunlight and convert it into oxygen and biomass. Up to 99% of the carbon dioxide in solution can be converted in large scale open pond systems.
Recently, the US Department of Energy (DOE) announced that they would offer up to US$85 million in funding for the development of algae based bio-fuels. The funding comes as a part of the funds released from the stimulus package, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The objective of the fund is to bring together a group of leading algae and advanced bio-fuels. Scientists and engineers from both universities and private firms are attempting to bring new technologies and fuels to market in an accelerated time frame.
The technology has its share of criticism as well. Researchers argue that algae fuel would not reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide because CO2 taken out from the atmosphere by the algae is released when bio-fuels are burned. However, they eliminate the introduction of new CO2 by displacing fossil hydrocarbon fuels. Algae fuel, due to some high profile investments in the recent past, is now being given utmost attention. However, researchers warn that too much shouldn’t be read into the future as of now. Despite all the efforts, algae fuel lags behind in the economies of scale.
Tomorrow, we’ll look at what some of the major players are doing in this space.
Related posts:
Algae as Biofuel and Protein Source
| January 20, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Biomass |
I’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.
Related posts:
Scripps Institution Speaks on Algae as Biofuel
| November 16, 2009 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
I just spoke with Dr. Greg Mitchell of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, as the basis for my book’s chapter on biofuels. Dr. Mitchell’s focus is on algae and cyanobacteria (a related photosynthetic, aquatic organism). He generously gave me a solid hour’s worth of proof-points that algae represents a critically important component in finding answers to civilization’s toughest questions on energy and food supply.
Biofuels store chemical energy that is ultimately derived from the energy of the sun. This potential energy is carried in carbon bonds that are then oxidized (burned) to produce useful work, e.g., heat energy to warm our buildings or kinetic energy to drive our vehicles. As an alternative to growing plants in sunlight, algae can be fed macronutrients, but the energy in those nutrients comes ultimately from the sun as well. Dr. Mitchell favors algae over other forms of cellulosic biofuels because “small is efficient”; a given amount of biomass in algae contains 10 – 50 times more energy than the same mass of terrestrial plants. About 35% of the mass in algae is converted directly into biofuel, and most of the rest becomes useable food.
As I’ve written in the past, I have been openly skeptical of the wisdom of biofuels, since they themselves are hydrocarbons. Why make and burn more of them if we’re concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere? Dr. Mitchell acknowledged the intuitive merit of this idea (or was just being kind?). But he points out that there is a lot to like about algae. Here are few points I hadn’t considered. Algae:
- does not require arable land for production
- is irrigated with salt water
- can photosynthesize using CO2 that comes from an external and controlled source
Dr. Mitchell showed me that there is enormous promise as this industry develops. The challenge at this point is a combination of the technological and the financial. Right now, in fact, there is indeed no industry — nor should there be, he says, while we take the time to pose and resolve a few basic and vitally important questions, e.g., the exact species to be developed, the methods of production and harvest, and the modes of processing and distribution.
Fascinating stuff. And more coming soon.
