I would think the emerging viable biopower industries will pull the world into the renewables era, before our governments will ever concur enough to do it through mandates. But for me that doesn’t mean individual nations can just throw up their hands and leave conversion to the whims of the market.

We’ve had that approach in the U.S. for decades, and it always defaults to the bust cycles of oil – which makes it dirt cheap again and snuffs out things like wind, solar and ethanol.

And we have screwed ourselves in the process. Half our disposable wealth is in the hands of a few principals of OPEC, and we’ve left our whole economy hostage to the next runup to $5 gasoline / gallon. And we had to protect the Saudi oil fields from Sadam’s army, and have to keep naval carrier groups at sea in the region. On and on.

You give these promising renewables a nudge with seed-corn grants and
tax credits, which Obama did with part of the U.S. stimulus of ’09, and proposes now a 2nd round of. It’s a pennies-on-the-dollar investment in a better future.

The below article summarizes the possibilities I’ve been reading about biodiesel (or biofuel), from algae. (I maintain we can all get in the effort with an algae pond at home… ;^)

—

September 15, 2009
Algae Biofuels: From Pond Scum to Jet Fuel

Exxon Mobil and genome expert Craig Venter hope to strike it green with oilgae, but a few obstacles remain on the path to commercialization of biofuel from algae.

by Chris Tachibana, Science Writer
RenewableEnergyWorld.com

Earlier this summer, Exxon Mobil announced that it plans to produce algae-based biofuels in partnership with Synthetic Genomics, a biotechnology company founded by human genome pioneer Dr. J. Craig Venter. Yet even with its US $600 million investment, Exxon representatives have said that large-scale production of algal biofuels is still “5-10 years away.” Indeed, there are many pros and cons to using algae as a biofuel feedstock, as well as hurdles to its commercialization.

“Generally, only a portion of the crude algal oil is suitable for making biodiesel, but all of it can be used to make gasoline and jet fuel.”
–Dr. Yusuf Chisti, Professor of Biochemical Engineering, Massey University

The Algal Advantage

Algae have indisputable advantages as a biofuel feedstock. Of all the green fuel options, “only algae appear to have the potential to provide the huge quantities of renewable oil required for substantially displacing petroleum-based transport fuels,” said Dr. Yusuf Chisti, Professor of Biochemical Engineering at Massey University in New Zealand, whose laboratory researches the cultivation and processing of algae for biofuel production.

Microscopic algae yield up to 100 times more oil per acre than soybeans and other common biodiesel feedstocks, according to Mary Rosenthal, Executive Director of the Algal Biomass Organization. Microalgae can be up to 80% oil by dry weight, although that number is for wild strains that are slow growers, according to Dr. Margaret McCormick of the technology company Targeted Growth. Genetically engineered microalgae, such as those created by Targeted Growth, approach 35%-45% oil by dry weight, but achieve dense cultures in one day. Through genetic manipulation, scientists can also control the oil composition, and generate strains specialized for particular growth conditions, such as high salinity or temperature extremes.

When grown photosynthetically, microalgae are a two-for-one environmental benefit — CO2 mitigation plus a renewable energy source. Microalgae can capture sunlight 20-40 times more efficiently than plants, and unlike corn- or soy-based feedstocks, they do not create a “food or fuel” dilemma. Some can be cultured using seawater. Finally, much of the groundwork for algal biofuels was done by the United States Department of Energy Aquatic Species Program, which developed strains, techniques and pilot programs from 1978-1996.

From Cells to Oil: Many Paths

The versatility of microalgae means it’s hard to predict the most promising avenue for harvest, processing and finally commercialization. While more than 40,000 wild algal species exist, algal biofuel leaders like Solazyme and Sapphire Energy use genetically selected or engineered strains for oil production, according to company representatives.

In addition to growing photosynthetically, with sunlight as an energy source and CO2 as a carbon source, microalgae can be grown heterotrophically, using sugar, glycerol or cellulosic biomass for energy and carbon. Solazyme uses the latter technique, which gives up the solar advantage in exchange for faster growth, a higher culture density for easier harvesting and a process that fits the existing industrial fermentation infrastructure. Solazyme’s heterotrophic cultivation requires growth in a closed tank system, or bioreactor. Other companies like Sapphire Energy and Solix Biofuels grow microalgae photosynthetically, Solix in photobioreactors and Sapphire Energy in ponds on non-arable land.

Once the microalgae are cultivated, biofuel manufacturers are faced with two major technical hurdles: harvesting and dewatering. Microalgae cultures can be 80%-90% water, so cells must be collected by settling, which is time-consuming, although this can be hastened with flocculating agents that cause cells to clump and precipitate. More high-tech methods like centrifugation and filtering are faster, but are more costly in both dollars and energy.

Once harvested, cells may be air- or sun-dried, requiring a large surface area and significant time, or they can be dried using heat or a vacuum, again increasing the cost and reducing energy efficiency.

Finally, extracting the oils is another challenge. Options include extraction with solvents like hexane, enzymatic digestion of cell walls, or physical disruption with ultrasonic sound waves or microwaves.

(Image left, shows Solazyme’s fermentation process. Credit: Solazyme)

The Exxon-Synthetic Genomics partnership genetically engineers strains to continuously secrete oil. Professor Chisti explains that in the future, microalgae might be engineered to “rupture at a certain age and release their oil content.” In either method, the complexities of collecting, drying and breaking open the algal cells would be bypassed since the oil could be harvested by simply skimming the culture.

Powering Trucks and Jets

Oil obtained from microalgae can be used as a straight vegetable oil fuel, but this requires a modified engine. Dr. Eric Jarvis, a scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), said that while the home hobbyist might enjoy modifying engines to use algae biofuel, “no one wants to do it at the commercial level.”

Biodiesel can be used in existing diesel engines and is produced by straightforward and established transesterification technology. This chemical reaction starts with simple triglyceride lipids, which are fats and oils from plants, waste foods or algae. The triacylglycerols are chemically reacted with alcohol, with the help of enzymatic or chemical catalysts. The resulting biodiesel has the characteristics of petroleum diesel and can be used alone or in a blend.

The big pay-off in algae biofuels will be as drop-in replacements for gasoline or jet fuel. Successful test flights have already been run on mixtures of petroleum and algal-based jet fuels. Chisti says, “generally, only a portion of the crude algal oil is suitable for making biodiesel, but all of it can be used to make gasoline and jet fuel.” For this, the fatty acids in the algal oils are refined by hydrogenation and hydrocracking.

NREL’s Jarvis believes the refinery pathway has the most flexibility, in part because the techniques are already established for petroleum. He says that “oil chemists know how to do the cracking and hydrogenation, so they can change the fatty acids into what they need.” Also, refining is necessary “to get the energy-dense targets like jet fuels. You can’t use ethanol on airplanes.” In addition, less refined products have problems with gelling, which Jarvis cautions, “you don’t want happening at 30,000 feet.”

Even with the proven potential of algal biofuels, cost-effectiveness is an issue. Biofuels currently compete with petrochemical fuels, which have economy of scale. A 2007 analysis of the economics of algal biofuels by Chisti suggested that a five-fold reduction in production costs was needed to compete with plant- or petroleum-based diesel. Now, Chisti says, “issues relating to climate change may leave us with no choice but to replace petroleum fuels with renewable, carbon-neutral algal fuels, despite a somewhat higher cost.”

Algal-based Biofuel Manufacturing Yields Valuable Coproducts

Algal biofuel manufacturers have another ace up their sleeves: coproducts. Algae excel at making complex organic compounds like B and C vitamins and beta-carotene that are used as fragrances, flavorings, pigments and supplements. These can sell for hundreds of dollars a kilogram, so harvesting both the coproducts and feedstock oils can potentially offer manufacturers another revenue stream and make cultivating and processing microalgae more economical.

Even after lipid and coproduct extraction, the remaining proteins and carbohydrates in the biomass can be used as animal feed, or fermented by anaerobic bacteria to generate methane. The coproduct strategy lets algae manufacturers achieve economic feasibility. Plus, the Exxon-Synthetic Genomics partnership gives algal biofuels a big publicity boost. Dr. McCormick of Targeted Growth says it’s “great for the industry…this shows that companies are looking to see how they can make algae work for them, and we welcome that investment.”

Chris Tachibana, Ph.D, is a science writer based in Seattle and Copenhagen, Denmark. Visit her website here

I disagree with you regarding solar power, and many other scientist too.

Solar power is not “reaching the point of profitability”, it has already reached that point.

You really need to do more study! Read the Scientific American of November 2009, page 38-46.

I refer of course to CSP-technology, NOT to photovoltaic.

Geothermal, hydroelectric, wind and wave energy score even better.

And NO, nuclear energy is NOT a good source of energy. The hidden costs are much larger than officially published. You in the USA don’t seem to be able to come up with a viable solution for long-term storage, do you!? What about long-term security. What about proliferation? What about all kind of immature states getting their hands on technologies that eventually might be used against us? How many more Iran’s do we need???

Please, use your common sense. We have plenty technology to generate all the power we need in a sustainable way.

The problem? Vested interests. Greed, egoism, and -I am sorry to say- plain stupidity amongst our political and industrial leaders. They lack both intelligence and ethics.

Let’s hope Mexico will be better than Copenhagen, but I fear for the worst…

I agree with your position that we should agree that we should be moving away from our oil dependency.

I’m sure we would disagree on how to implement that solution.

First to I would start drilling into the oil field that know about that are on our boarders that are currently being drill by other countries. Might as well not give away that oil for nothing. This would also lower the oil price world wide.

Bio diesel I would drop completely as it has not been cost effective, has not reduce carbon output, and has raise the price of food in the world and has cause people to starve because of such program. Plus as the government here in the USA has promoted it it has shovel money out the door to large corporations here and aboard. That is why you see the mega corporation have moved this way but they will snap back as soon as there is not outrageous profit to be gained. Bio diesel has been show to ware out engine sooner as well.

Wind power sounds nice but just can not produce the power yet without subsidies. So keep working on this as an experiment until we can make it more affordable.

Solar I think is reaching the point that it will be profitable if use in the correct context. Solar does not generate a huge amount of energy so keeping it local (on the building) does realize an energy savings. Large fields of solar power collectors will lose much of energy in transfer to the point of use. All energy transfers suffer from this.

Geothermal I do not know much about how productive it is. Scotland is using wave power with a number of different designs and is getting some of there energy from that.

Nuclear power is good source of energy that we have taken off the shelf to use but the rest of the world has not. We have some of the best designs for plants as well.

Let’s get more companies producing energy rather than less.

As much difference in opinion as there is between Progressives and Conservatives on economic and social issues, the matter of climate change actually affords a lot of concurrence – or should.

By sidestepping the direct question of scientific proof or disproof, and focusing on the many positives waiting to be had by oil-dependent nations whom break that dependency via conversion to renewables – biodiesel, solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and eventually hydrogen fuel cells;

– burns clean, reducing air and water pollution, and the industry expenditures to comply with present environmental regulations

– self-sufficiency – no more putting the economy at risk of skyrocketing gasoline pricing, and supply cutoffs from OPEC

– stops the massive transfer of wealth to oil-producing nations, meaning those dollars stay at home for a major boost to the indigenous economy

– stops the need for military involvements connected to protecting the oil supply. Military budgets can be reduced accordingly and used for deficit reduction and/or refunded to taxpayers

– energy efficient homes powered by renewables, ultimately save consumers money. Already has for those who’ve done it

– all of these products and fledgling industries related to green energy, represent the next big engine for economic growth in the nations on the forefront of same

Which is why China, some European nations, and mega-corps like Exxon and Shell, are moving on it already.

Global warming is all about “money” – taking money from wealthy countries to give to poor dictator states so they can line their personal bank accounts.

The UN IPCC is such a sham!!! The recent exposed emails and documents are more proof of the fraud being committed by socialists.

These people (Al Gore and others) should be charged with fraud and sent to jail!!

But we did find out that there is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. If you were actually listening however, that did not stop the politicians from pushing ahead to try to get something done anyway.

Throughout the earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, 4 out of 10,000 particles of atmosphere, unlike water vapor which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can not even pretend to control.

Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain to observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Just a side note it is pretty darn cold (record breaking) in most of the Northern hemisphere, large section of several continents not a small localized events this Dec-Jan.

IPCC climate-gate has shown how a 60 scientists, have manipulated data, deleted the raw data, save the “tricked” data, attempted to cover up, controlled who would be published to scientific journal, and mocked up computer model to prove “their so call scientific theory.” Don’t worry about these ponzi schemers getting their day in court they have powerful political allies that protect them from that.

“Ponzi schemers” now that sounds a bit harsh. If you have not been listening to what it means if we implement this type of legislation you will be paying through the nose forever to these well connected politicians who have set up businesses to manage these cap and trade dealing. Europe has already doing so and overall effect is a light increase .7 percent in CO2 emissions.

If you would like to still believe there is global warming coming hard and coming fast to a planet that you live upon that is fine. Just understand it is a belief in a dis-proven climate-change theory. No need to discuss the issue any further. It is time to act on your faith.

As we’ve noted in this Balk, the matter is a hard one to resolve to any sort of global consensus. The factions are distinct, and the risks are still in potential more than realized form.

I have a Times UK critique presented below.

Something that happened yesterday I do like; the negotiators were at impasses and the conference was heading towards total failure. Obama was scheduled to leave and the Chinese delegation was already at the airport. But faced with the prospect of leaving with nothing the U.S., China, India, Brazil and South Africa heads of state directly negotiated a 3-page document that the conference signed off on earlier today.

I think we can all see how that underscores what we need to get to – a legitimate community of nations. The world will never realize the progress it’s people need, with it’s leaders in George Bush mode. You’re not resolving any issue without the commitment to dialog. The face time amongst world leaders, is a form of practice-makes-perfect that in some ways we are only now beginning in this century.

So the more repetitions with these summits, the better IMO

—

From The Sunday Times
December 20, 2009

Barack Obama’s climate deal unravels at last moment

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

The United Nations climate change conference ended in recrimination yesterday without reaching a clear deal on emissions targets.

After a stormy session in Copenhagen, in which a vociferous anti-American minority brought the talks close to collapse, most countries agreed simply to “take note” of a watered-down agreement brokered by President Barack Obama and supported by Britain.

This accord — which had been drawn up in discussions with China and 30 or so other countries on Friday — sets a target of limiting global warming to a maximum of 2C above pre-industrial times.

Above this temperature, scientists say, the world would start to experience dangerous changes, including floods, droughts and rising seas.

Critics pointed out, however, that the agreement failed to say how this limit on rising temperatures would be achieved. It pushed into the future decisions on core problems such as emissions cuts, and did not specify where a proposed $100 billion (£62 billion) in annual aid for developing nations would come from.

Yvo de Boer, the head of the UN climate change secretariat, called it “basically a letter of intent … the ingredients of an architecture that can respond to the long-term challenge of climate change”.

Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam International, dismissed it as “a triumph of spin over substance. It recognises the need to keep warming below 2C but does not commit to do so. It kicks back the big decisions on emissions cuts and fudges the issue of climate cash”.

The deal was denounced when put early yesterday to a plenary session of the conference after Obama and other heads of state had flown home.

Delegates from Sudan, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia — who form an anti-American front — led the attack.

A Sudanese delegate, Lumumba Di-Aping, caused uproar when he compared the plan with the Holocaust. It was, he said, “a solution based on the same very values, in our opinion, that piled 6m people into furnaces in Europe”.

“The reference to the Holocaust is … absolutely despicable,” said Anders Turesson, Sweden’s chief negotiator.

Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd. Not for reposting on Balkingpoints…

BBC
updated at 21:30 GMT, Saturday, 12 December 2009

Police in the Danish capital Copenhagen say 900 protesters have been detained following a huge climate change rally.

The move came after youths threw bricks and smashed windows as more than 30,000 demonstrators marched to demand action at the UN climate change summit.

Similar marches have been held in cities around the world, calling for decisive action on global warming.

Meanwhile, ministers have started arriving to join other delegates at the UN summit which runs for another week.

Documents prepared by the conference’s leaders call on developed nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by between 25% and 45% of 1990 levels by 2020.

EU leaders are offering developing countries a three-year deal that would pay them 7.2bn euros (£6.5bn; $10.6bn) to help cope with climate change.

The exact target for limiting temperature rise is unclear amid disputes between various blocs.

‘Restrictive’ policing

Danish police estimate that some 30,000 people joined the march while organisers put the number at 100,000.

They marched 6km (four miles) across the city to the conference centre where negotiators and ministers are meeting.

After violence erupted, large numbers of mainly young people were detained.

TV pictures showed the police putting the demonstrators in seated lines on the street with their hands tied behind their backs. They were later removed on buses.

Henrek Suhr, of Copenhagen police, told the BBC that their intelligence had suggested a small group of people had planned violence.

“We thought… these people would make a lot of trouble in Copenhagen had we not arrested them, and we arrested them because they had done a lot of things before our arrests. They smashed some windows at the foreign ministry,” he said.

He rejected claims by climate protesters that some of those being held had been mistreated and denied access to basic needs.

Simon Sheikh, of the Australian social and political network “Get Up”, said he had witnessed the detentions from his apartment in the centre of the city.

“The police rounded up protesters in a pre-planned manoeuvre,” he told the BBC.

“It was unprovoked. They rounded up a group, including women and children, and pushed them into a store, before splitting them into groups and handcuffing them.”

Activists are arguing for an ambitious, legally binding agreement on emissions cuts to be signed by world leaders at the summit’s conclusion at the end of next week.

“This is the right time to shout out and let leaders know this is serious business for us all. Lets hope they listen,” Lin Che, a 28-year-old student from Taiwan, told Reuters news agency.

A number of famous figures said they would join the protest, among them Bollywood actor Rahul Bose, model and photographer Helena Christensen and former UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson.

‘Safe climate’

In Australia, where events were held as part of the country’s fifth Walk Against Warming, the largest protest was held in Melbourne.

The march closed with protesters spelling out the message “Safe Climate – Do It!” on the ground.

Organisers said aerial photographs had been taken and would be sent to delegates at the talks in Copenhagen.

In Adelaide, activist James Dannenberg told state radio: “We want [world leaders] to bring home a treaty, we want them to stand by the Pacific and our neighbours there.

“And we want them to deliver and ensure a safe climate future for us all.”

Thousands of demonstrators also gathered in front of Australia’s parliament house in the capital, Canberra.

BBC © MMIX

Fossil fuels would play transitional and then supplemental roles, but
America needs an Apollo Project to become energy independent by 2020. The technology is there to accomplish it with bio-fuels / bio-power – which makes win-win-win geopolitically, economically and environmentally.

But the tax credits and other coordination need to come from Washington, and specifically from presidential leadership. It won’t happen IMO simply with haphazard reliance on market forces, as we have done throughout the last century.