Blogs

Algae biofuels 101

Miriam Horn — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:16:41 PDT

This post is by Miriam Horn, a writer at Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of the New York Times bestseller, Earth: The Sequel.

Who would have thought that algae (a.k.a. pond scum) -- the microscopic plants whose "blooms" choke off life in lakes and estuaries -- would emerge as the hottest new energy crop?

But sure enough, dozens of start-ups, backed by millions of dollars in venture capital, are racing to find the best way to turn algae into fuel, with exciting results.

This isnât a new idea. The Department of Energy (DOE) began exploring algal biodiesel in 1978 during the Carter Administration (see history [PDF]). But that effort was abandoned a decade ago. Government researchers concluded that algal biodiesel could never be produced cheaply enough to compete with petroleum.

Now the DOEâs National Renewable Energy Lab has resurrected its algal fuel program, alongside a rush in the private sector.

What changed in the last ten years?

The price of oil more than tripled.
Wars and hostile regimes in oil-producing nations raised energy-independence as a national security concern.
Europe and the other Kyoto signatories capped carbon.
California set a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, accelerating demand for low-carbon fuels.
Advances in bioengineering enabled much higher algae yields.

Algae-based biofuels are not yet being made at scale. Researchers are still working out engineering and process challenges, and algae-based fuels still cost more than petroleum-based fuels. But that may soon change.

A uniquely well-suited fuel source

Algae are extraordinarily adaptable creatures. They can grow almost anywhere, including land utterly unsuited for agriculture.

Since they donât have to compete against food crops for land, they avoid the problems this can cause: spiraling grain prices, food shortages, and conversion of tropical forests and wildlife habitat to plantations and cropland.

These single-celled wonders also have other notable virtues:

Algae are stunningly productive - the fastest growing plants on Earth. They can double in mass in just a few hours, allowing daily harvest.
Algae are oily and compact, producing 30 times more oil per acre than sunflowers or rapeseed.
Algae donât need fresh water and can thrive in water thatâs boiling, salty, frozen, or contaminated -- even in sewage.
Algae can eat pollution. They neutralize acids, split the nitrogen oxides that cause smog into harmless nitrogen and oxygen, and convert carbon dioxide (global warming pollution) into oxygen and biomass.

When algae are harvested, their lipids can be turned into biodiesel (main product), starches into ethanol, and proteins into animal feed.

Ray Hobbs, who runs the Future Fuels program for Arizona Public Service, describes algae this way (quoted in Earth: The Sequel, page 112):

You are looking at the origins of life, an organism that has survived for three and a half billion years and created the conditions for other life to emerge. They are the root of the food chain. And so elegant. Single-celled algae can crack water with a photon into hydrogen and oxygen, then metabolize that hydrogen with carbon dioxide to sugar. We canât do that. We canât even fully understand it.

Three ways to grow algae for biofuel

Innovators are exploring three main ways to produce biofuels from algae:

Growing algae photosynthetically in open ponds (lowest cost, lowest control)

This is the line of experimentation started by DOE. Open ponds are cheap, but must contend with invasive species. Also, water demands are high due to evaporation.
Growing algae photosynthetically in closed bioreactors (higher cost, more control)

Algae "bioreactors" are enclosed containers exposed to sunlight. Closed bioreactors prevent contamination by unwanted species and reduce water use. But they cost more than open ponds because of the need for "photomodulation" -- exposing the algae to just the right amount of light.

Bioreactor systems have another important advantage: they can capture and reuse waste CO₂ from coal plants and other industrial processes. Skeptics note that when the algae are burned, they release the captured carbon into the atmosphere. But because algal fuel displaces petroleum fuel, net carbon emissions are significantly reduced.
Growing algae in the dark through fermentation (highest cost, highest control)

This is the approach of Solazyme in San Franciso. When algae are grown photosynthetically, they manufacture their own sugar from water, air, and light. Solazyme turns off photosynthesis by growing them in complete darkness and feeding them sugar.

Feeding sugar makes the algae produce more oil. Plus the energy-dense food allows the algae to be grown in much higher concentrations, reducing costs and easing harvest. On the downside, it puts the process back in competition with food crops, undercutting one of algal fuelâs unique strengths.

You can read a detailed profile of one company exploring the algae frontier, and interviews with the founders, in our new book, Earth: The Sequel.

X-Prize expanding

Hank Green — Thu, 01 May 2008 11:58:59 PDT

We love the X-Prize, right? It helped the private sector get into space and is now sponsoring a competition to create a commercially viable 100-mpg car.

But the competition isn't stopping there. The X-Prize Foundation has announced that it will be creating several new prizes for a variety of environmental categories with a total worth of $100 million.

Apparently, this new suite of X-Prizes includes the Automotive X-Prize and may also include (but isn't limited to):

Biofuels
Energy storage
Carbon capture
Solar
Water
Energy efficiency
Clean aviation fuel
The provision of basic utilities for developing nations

The basis for the need, says the CEO of the foundation, Peter Diamandis, is that progress is happening too slow.

Indeed, I tend to agree with him. Though the vast amount of news that we have to cover every day at EcoGeek is a testament to the fact that clean technology is developing quickly, solutions are not coming in fast enough.

The first new prize, for biofuels, will be launched later this year with others being rolled out over a two-year period.

The foundation hopes that each of the sectors in which it provides a prize has the potential to truly revolutionize the economy. And with 8% of venture capital funding in America already flowing into clean technology, it's likely that the foundation is right.

Details on the "Energy and Environment X-Prize Suite" (PDF) will continue to emerge throughout the next year. And while $10 million is a bit trivial in what could end up being a trillion dollar industry, it may be that the first $10 million is more important than the last $100 billion.

Via BusinessWeek

Ethanol and land use

Robert Bonnie — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:07:48 PDT

This post is by Robert Bonnie, Co-director of the Land, Water, and Wildlife Program at Environmental Defense Fund.

The New York Times recently reported that thousands of farmers are dropping out of the federal governmentâs Conservation Reserve Program.

The prices for corn and other crops are so high that conservation subsidies canât compete with what farmers can make by planting the land.

One reason for the high prices is the ethanol mandate in the energy bill Congress passed last year.

Shifts in land use from diverting food-producing land to grow crops for energy -- called "indirect land-use change" -- can potentially negate the environmental benefits of corn ethanol.

There is still much debate on how to measure it, but no question itâs important to consider. One recent study published in Science (Searchinger, et. al.) found that using croplands for biofuels causes a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions relative to gasoline when indirect land use change is taken into account.

Unintended consequences such as these highlight the danger of mandating a specific clean energy technology, and the importance of relying on performance standards instead.

What is "indirect land-use change"?

When food-producing land is diverted for energy production, the food that would have been grown on that land must be grown elsewhere. This prompts farmers to convert land not currently in production into cropland.

When grassland or forestland is cleared to grow crops, the carbon sequestered in the soil and trees is released into the atmosphere.

If a lot of new land is cultivated, the resulting carbon release can completely negate the benefits of using biofuels. The New York Times said as many acres as in Rhode Island and Delaware combined were removed from the Conservation Reserve Program, and thatâs just one corner of the country.

Not all the land was removed due to U.S. biofuel policy, but it plays a part. Some research has found that U.S. policies can contribute to deforestation in southeast Asia and the Amazon.

Assessing the impact of indirect land-use change is tricky, and experts disagree on how to quantify it. According to the Searchinger study, when indirect land-use change is factored in:

Corn ethanol nearly doubles greenhouse gas emissions relative to gasoline when considered over a period of 30 years, and emissions remain elevated for 167 years.
Even biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions relative to gasoline by 50 percent.

We canât say whether these numbers are exactly correct, but we can say that indirect land use effects -- particularly tropical deforestation -- are important to consider.

Shaping policy to reduce emissions

Government mandates for a specific technology to lower greenhouse gas emissions risk unintended consequences -- even higher net emissions.

An effective policy that ensures lower emissions has two key components:

A market-based system that rewards less carbon-intensive technologies and land-use practices, whatever they may be.

The Searchinger study suggests that a possible solution to the corn ethanol problem is to use waste products as a "feedstock" (raw material to produce biofuels). Unlike cultivated crops, waste products donât compete for agricultural land and drive up commodity prices. Sustainably produced cellulosic ethanol made from grasses and wood also may be a viable alternative. Another possibility weâll discuss in an upcoming post is using algae to make ethanol.

But a policy that specifically mandates corn ethanol doesnât encourage exploration of these other options.
Performance standards based on full lifecycle analysis, including emissions from tropical deforestation and other indirect land use changes.

There is some recognition of this in current policy, but also an important gap. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Low-Carbon Fuel Standard and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) both require consideration of indirect land use in assessing emissions.

But the EPAâs RFS exempts corn ethanol from existing facilities from having to meet lifecycle emissions standards.

Biofuels may have a role in our energy future, but only if theyâre produced in ways that lower emissions. Performance-based standards and market incentives can prevent the unintended consequences of mandating the wrong technology.

Earth Day 2013: Envisioning the future

By Andrew Demaria — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:18:43 PDT

Earth Day 2008 is upon us. Shouldn't we all take into account issues like dwindling natural resources, water pollution, and climate change every day? Is one day really enough?Â

Earth Day kicked off in 1970. It was established by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson to "thrust the issue of environmental quality and resources conservation into the political dialogue of the Nation."

Thirty-eight years later, it has done just that-and more. The day has gone international, and so too have the environmental issues that we all face.Â

Getting the issues on the national agenda is one thing. Encouraging and integrating policy from the solutions already at hand is proving to be another.Â

Looking forward, what can we achieve in say, five years... by the time Earth Day 2013 rolls around?Â

I asked this question of Lena Hansen, senior consultant with RMI's Energy & Resources Team. She leads the Institute's work on renewable energy and biofuels, and has additional expertise in demand-side management and carbon strategy for corporations, industry, electric utilities, and governments.Â

Her answer was quite profound, and practically speaking, more than achievable:Â

By Earth Day 2013, the United States will have passed meaningful carbon legislation. Whether in the form of a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program, this legislation will renew the U.S.'s reputation as a world leader in environmental responsibility, and will support private sector innovation around efficiency and whole-system design.Â

In conjunction with this carbon legislation, individual states will have begun to adopt energy efficiency and renewable energy policies and programs that are at least as aggressive as those currently on the books in California.Â

Leading utilities will have shifted their forward planning efforts away from coal-fired power and towards an increased reliance on energy efficiency and renewable energy.Â

This transition can be achieved through the development of strategies that address the variability of wind and solar power, and the implementation of business models that allow utilities to profit from the sale of ânegawatts.' [Negawatts are units of energy saved by using power more efficiently or at a more suitable time, and therefore made available to other applications.]Â

To facilitate this increased reliance on energy efficiency, leading engineering and design schools will have incorporated whole-system design principles into their core curriculums.Â

Education, innovation, and policy -- all driving toward a world in which we use energy more efficiently, more thoughtfully.Â

Is Earth Day still a protest, or a day that's furthering the calls for action?Â

Andrew Demaria is Rocky Mountain Institute's Director of Content.

5 ways to turn CO2 into cash

Benjamin Jones — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:34:29 PDT

These days, many experts are saying that weâre not going to be able to stop climate change just by decreasing emissions. To dig our way out of this hole, they say, weâre actually going to need to take carbon dioxide out of the air.

The first instinct has been to bury the CO2. Just pump it into the earth and try and forget how ashamed we are of these massive quantities of CO2. But a new breed of entrepreneur has sprung up, saying "If we have this CO2, why don't we do something useful with it?"

Obviously, we've got to get rid of all that carbon, but if folks can make some money and lower the cost of sequestration while they're doing it ... then that's just icing on the cake.

So here are five of the ways in which people are hoping to make bank with the millions of tons of CO₂ that are pumped out of coal plants and into the atmosphere every day.

Feed it to algae, and then turn the algae to fuel
You may know that biofuels can be made from algae. You may also know that algae thrives on carbon dioxide. A company called GreenFuel Technologies has put two and two together, and is using captured CO₂ to grow algae, which will then be made into biofuels.

But this isn't the only company working on it. There are dozens of start-ups working to create different techniques and algal strains that will allow them to maximize carbon capture and minimize costs.

Earth2Tech recently had a writeup on 15 of the top algae biofuel startups. Of all of the techniques listed there, algae farming with CO₂ is probably the most mature technology, and the first fuel-producing plants are already going online.

And, of course, we don't have to worry about ever running out of a market for biofuels. As long as we're creating CO₂ by burning fuels, there will be a place to burn biofuels.

Turn it into plastic
Recently the American Chemical Society saw a proposal to use captured CO₂ to produce polycarbonate plastics, like those used in CDs and DVDs. The idea is to take carbon dioxide emissions, and instead of sequestering them in the ground, trap them in resilient products.

This approach makes sense because it relies largely on sequestering carbon in disposable products, like plastic forks and water bottles. So, basically, we'd be sequestering carbon every time we threw away plastic.

Landfill sequestration seems like a pretty wasteful way to go to me, but it's certainly better than the alternative. But even with the amount of disposable plastic we consume in the world, we would have plenty of CO₂ left over if all of it was turned to plastic.

Make sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
Joe David Jones, CEO of Skyonic, has created a process that captures CO₂ as it exits power plant smokestacks and mixes it with sodium hydroxide to form baking soda. This process, called SkyMine, also removes heavy metals and dangerous pollutants and coverts the CO₂ into sodium bicarbonate.

Baking soda has a variety of uses on the commercial market, and this process could help make carbon capture more economically viable. Even if the baking soda is not sold, because it is solid it is immensely easier to store it in old mines or landfills than it would be to sequester gaseous CO₂ beneath the ground.

The real question is whether the world can produce enough sodium hydroxide to keep the process going.

Calcium carbonate
A company called Carbon Sciences has a new process called GreenCarbon, which, at the base of things, turns carbon dioxide into useful stuff. The GreenCarbon process mixes the CO₂ with crushed calcium minerals, one of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust.

The end result is calcium carbonate, an industrial chemical that's used in thousands of applications, from PVC to paper to toothpaste and, in its pure form, as wall board and chalk. Because calcium carbonate is used in just about everything, thereâs a huge market for it, and depending on the quality, it can sell for hundreds of dollars a ton.

The question remains, though ... is there enough of a market? The CEO of Carbon sciences says yes, but we're skeptical since a single coal plant could produce millions of tons of calcium carbonate per year.

Convert it directly into fuel
Sandia National Laboratories is working on creating fuel directly from CO₂ without any pesky biological intermediaries like algae. The carbon dioxide would be super-heated to around 1,200 C and mixed with water to create various hydrocarbons of the sort we're already burning in our cars. All of that heat, of course, is energetically expensive, but Sandia is hoping to use leftover heat from nuclear or utility-scale solar thermal power generating plants. The process basically reverses combustion, and is only economically viable if the energy can come from cheap, clean sources.

The good news is that it can be scaled up much more easily than algae production, which requires thousands of acres of space to soak up the CO₂ from one coal plant.

In conclusion
There's no one solution to this problem. We'll probably start out pumping most of it underground, while turning a good portion of it into fuel. But I expect that, in the next 20 years, when power producers start having to pay the true costs of releasing CO₂, techniques for creating useful products with that CO₂ will multiply.

Depending on where coal plants are and what resources they have around them, project planners will have to figure out what are the most economically viable things to do with the CO₂.

If there's a lot of calcium deposits around, they'll be creating calcium carbonate, but if there's a lot of sun and ample space, maybe algae farms will pop up around the power plant.

In any case, we'll see an entire economy spring up around actually using our societies primary waste product. And not only is that just good policy, it's a gigantic economic opportunity.

Eco-mythbusting

Trystan L. Bass — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:28:24 PDT

Think CFLs aren't worth it because of all that mercury? What about the idea that recycling costs more than chucking junk in a landfill? Hear the one about wine corks being endangered?

These and other myths keep many folks from going green and helping the environment. But a little bit of fact-checking shows that you can clean up the planet in lots of small, easy ways. And you may save some money too.

Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) save energy and money, that's a fact. But the incredibly tiny amount of mercury they contain has scared off some people.

I can't remember the last time I broke an incandescent bulb (maybe when I was a teenager?), and I've never cracked any of the CFLs in my house and garage. If it did happen though, I'd head to the Environmental Protection Agency handy guidelines for cleanup and disposal. No big deal!

Recycling is another no-brainer that occasionally gets harassed. Sure, you might have to sort bottles from cans in the bins, but that's better than creating a mountain of garbage. The benefits of recycling are huge -- less trash in the landfills, energy saved from not using virgin resources, and more jobs are created.

The City of Fort Collins' recycling program notes that recycling aluminum saves 95% of the energy that it would take to mine new aluminum. The Curbside Value Partnership (PDF) estimates that recycling 10,000 tons of waste creates 36 jobs -- but dumping that same waste into a landfill only creates six jobs.

Biodiesel has been the source of many eco-myths lately. I pointed to recent studies that decried biofuels, while also mentioning that different types have different impacts. Clayton B. Cornell goes into more depth on biodiesel and separates it from ethanol. Useful info if you want the real deal, not just the hype.

Have you heard that making little changes won't help the environment? What one person does can't possibly matter? Not so. In a detailed article on Bankrate.com, a spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defense Council reminds us that if everyone in the U.S. bought just one package of 100% recycled paper napkins instead non-recycled ones, we'd save 1 million trees.

And if you do want to go green on a larger scale, it's not that hard either. Building an eco-friendly house doesn't have to be expensive or horribly complicated, according to the home gurus at HGTV.com. Start with a tight building envelope, use low-flow toilets (which are mandatory anyway), and choose from the thousands of mainstream products that will make your new home or remodel sit more lightly on the earth.

For the garden out back, don't fall for those myths about composting either. The process doesn't have to be a lot of smelly work, and you can even compost in an urban setting. You'll keep useful organic matter out of the trash and improve your soil.

The myths just keep piling up! From computer sleep mode (which could waste 20% of your energy bill) to driving with the windows down (same as the AC), we get suckered in. Some folks even question whether local food really is better for the planet.

And what about that cork myth? Yep, there's a rumor that good old-fashioned wine bottles with natural corks are bad because the cork trees are endangered. Not so. Green Living Online says that the trees aren't chopped down to make wine corks -- the bark is merely stripped. The trees aren't damaged at all, and this has been going on since time immemorial.

So drink up -- you can enjoy life while saving the world.

Carectomy week in review

Joshua Liberles — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:37:52 PDT

America ends its affair with autos

Last Saturday, Lady Liberty formally announced that her long-standing affair with the automobile was over, once and for all. The original Miss America decided to call it off in honor of the New York Auto Show, with support from her friends at Streetsblog.

Streetsblog staged the event, dubbed âThe End of the Affair,â at the Jacob Javits Center in Manhattan, where the auto show is held annually.

In California, it pays not to park

If someone paid you to park your car at home and find an alternate way to get to work, would you take the money and run? Angelenos and commuters throughout California are cashing in on a new program that pays them to take transit or their own two legs, instead of their cars.

Ethanol production is spreading the dead zone

The large âdead zoneâ that grows in the Gulf of Mexico every summer is nothing new. The toxic runoff of nitrogen fertilizer used on conventional crops in the Midwest leads to a huge swathe of sea that is incapable of sustaining life.

Corn is the biggest culprit in creating these environments, and now that the U.S. is looking to biofuels as a solution to its energy needs, the problem's only getting worse. Bush signed legislation at the end of 2007 that will triple the amount of corn ethanol produced over the next several years.

New York City council approves congestion pricing

On Monday, the New York City Council voted in favor of Mayor Michael R. Bloombergâs proposal to introduce congestion pricing on the clogged streets of Gotham. The measure passed in a 30-20 vote. Itâs up to state legislators in Albany to pass the plan before it can be implemented. If Albany does approve the measure, the city would be eligible for $354 million in federal grants for improvements to existing mass transit.

Algae biofuel on sale soon

Hank Green — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:36:05 PDT

Just last week I was gushing about all of the press algae biofuel had been getting and without even a single company with a commercial scale plant online.

Apparently folks could smell the green sludge on the horizon because Green Fuel Technologies just announced it has begun construction of a commercial scale algae plant. Meanwhile, PetroSun announced it will be taking its pilot algae farm commercial on April 1st.

Now, this obviously isn't ethanol, with millions of gallons of production or even cellulosic ethanol, with a wood-waste to fuel plant ready to go online this year, but it is important.

It's a big deal because algae don't just create energy from the sun -- they create energy from the sun more effectively than anything else save photovoltaic panels.

And, as you may have guessed, they're a heck of a lot cheaper than photovoltaic panels. Green Fuel Technologies is adding another environmental advantage, planning to hook its algae bioreactors up to the smoke stacks from power plants.

So the algae will be using the sun to turned burned fuel back into fuel. Theoretically, this could become a closed loop. Burn fuel ... feed exhaust to algae ... harvest algae for fuel ... burn fuel, etc.

PetroSun's facility has 1,100 acres of open ponds growing algae in Texas. Open ponds are cheaper, but it's more difficult to control which species of algae are growing, so less productive strains often take over. Also, you can't feed your crop with CO2 straight from a power plant.

Via Gas 2.0 and GreenTech Media

Florida city soon powered by poo

Hank Green — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:23:40 PDT

With a logo like that, one might not expect MaxWest Energy to be in the business of converting human waste sludge into energy -- but that's what it does.

MaxWest has just partnered with the city of Sanford in central Florida to create a sludge-to-energy plant. The plant will convert the sludge that comes out of Sanford's water treatment plant into carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which can both be combusted.

So the waste will be taken care of, and as the sludge ultimately came from biologics (the corn and cows that Sanfordites eat) it's pretty much carbon neutral.

Of course, there's a financial benefit as well. Over the life of the MaxWest contract, the city of Sanford will save about $9 million over the cost of burning natural gas for the same energy.

Via Renewable Energy World

Algae, algae, everywhere

Hank Green — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:41:43 PDT

I've been a little inundated by algae lately. First, I finished a chapter in Earth: The Sequel all about algae biodiesel, and then I ran across a profile of algae start-up Solena at the NYTimes.

And then I got an email from Sam at GreenFuelsForecast about its summary of the history and future of algae biofules. And just moments ago, Katie from Earth2Tech emailed me a story on the top 15 aglae start-ups!

Wow! Seems to me like March 2008 is algae's official tipping point!

The news, my friends, is good. Algae is the best plant out there for converting sunlight to energy. It's 100 times better at creating usable energy per acre than corn is.

And tons of new and old companies are trying different strains of algae and different ways of growing them and using them to clean the flue gas coming out of power plants.

Algae, it turns out, eat NOx emissions without trouble, and, of course, grow much faster in higher concentrations of CO₂. The only problems are sulfur dioxide, which can acidify the water (just like it does to rain) and kill the algae, and mercury, which can accumulate in the algae and make them dangerously toxic.

Welcome to the future, where single-celled plants eat our pollution and power our cars. Who'd a thunk ...

Biofuels good or bad?

Trystan L. Bass — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:48:13 PDT

Recent studies published in the journal Science suggested that growing crops to process into fuels creates as much greenhouse gas as using fossil fuels.

The New York Times and other publications quickly jumped on this report by saying biofuels were worthless.

However the issue is a lot more nuanced than the headlines imply. Clearing forests to create farmland does have a negative environmental impact, and this is happening in parts of the world such as Brazil.

But in the U.S., existing cropland is being used for ethanol production from corn. This has pros and cons as well.

An article in Plenty magazine goes into more depth about these biofuel concerns. It also profiles one Seattle-based company that's working to bring locally produced biofuel to the Washington area.

Another aspect of biofuel is cellulosic ethanol. This is fuel made from the stalks and stems of plants -- essentially the waste products. MIT's Technology Review writes about several companies starting to process this type of biofuel.

Right now, it's not as cheap to make as traditional biofuel, but the technology holds promise.

No one fuel is likely to replace all of our oil needs immediately. And biofuels aren't yet a perfect solution. What the studies in Science remind us is that it's important to look at the complete picture, from start to finish, when we evaluate the environmental impact.

Solar beats soy biodiesel

Philip Proefrock — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:01:15 PDT

Lots of people are getting excited about all the various technologies for using biofuels as a replacement for fossil fuels. Plant-based fuel may present a short-term option. But looking at the different kinds of energy production that are possible gives some insight into the best directions to promote in terms of long-term efficient energy production.

A study cited on EV World compares different crop- and direct-production methods of generating energy in terms of miles per acre per year. This gives some eye-opening information.

At the bottom end of the scale is soybean biodiesel, which can provide only 2,400 miles per acre per year. Corn ethanol is more than six times as efficient, yielding 18,000 miles per acre per year. But because of the relatively slow rate of production from plant-based fuels, these options fall far below the productivity of directly produced energy.

The same acre can produce 10 times as much energy from wind as it can from corn ethanol -- 180,000 miles per acre per year. But both corn ethanol and wind power pale in comparison with solar photovoltaic power, which can produce more than 2 million miles worth of transport per acre per year.

This is not to completely dismiss biofuels. The cost of an acre's worth of solar PV arrays is more than 100 times more expensive than planting an acre of corn. Many biofuels can be produced on marginal lands that are ill-suited for solar. And cellulosic ethanol can even be produced from waste, effectively making it a zero land-use fuel.

Presumably the comparisons are based on sites that are optimal for each mode of generation. A site that is highly suitable for harvesting wind energy may not be a good site for growing corn, and vice versa.

The infrastructure and the existing "car parc" (the entire fleet of all vehicles in the country) is also going to take decades to turn over to the point where a significant proportion of the vehicles on the road are electric vehicles.

Both a mix of energy sources and regionally appropriate choices need to be part of a comprehensive energy plan. But this offers a useful comparison that suggests where the best allocation of resources should be focused in terms of long-range planning for our energy future.

Link: EV World (chart halfway down the page)

100 million gallons of ethanol from waste

Hank Green — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:03:16 PDT

Range Fuels has already begun building the country's first cellulosic ethanol plant in Georgia. The plant has a goal of producing 100 million gallons of ethanol per year using leftovers from Georgia's giant timber industry. Unfortunately, right now Range Fuels only has enough money to build 20 million gallons per year of capacity. The money to do that came mostly from government grants.

But now Range has announced that they've raised another $100 million from Khosla Ventures and an unnamed energy company. The injection of funds will allow range to meet it's 100 million gallon per year goal, hopefully by 2009.

Range's technology gasifies the plant cellulose using a technique created to turn coal into liquid fuel. After the gasification, turning the wood chips into ethanol is fairly trivial. Unfortunately, the process is much more expensive than the processes that turn corn into biofuel.

But the expense of the process, it turns out, is less important once corn prices start skyrocketing due to increase demands both for food and ethanol. Wood chips on the other hand are pretty much free. This is how Range hopes to make up the difference in cost, hopefully scaling up to the point where its ethanol is actually cheaper than both corn ethanol and gasoline.

$100 million definitely won't hurt the attempts to achieve this goal.

Via CNET Clean Tech

18 months until oil-pooping bacteria

Hank Green — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:05:05 PDT

Craig Venter has his own scientific institute. He led the private effort to sequence the human genome and was one of Time Magazine's 2007 most important people.

And he's building new life, producing DNA that, once inserted in bacteria, can force the little bugs into becoming solar-powered crude oil factories.

The new organisms, which Venter says should be multiplying in the lab in the next 18 months, would need high concentrations of CO₂ (say, from the smokestack of a coal plant) to convert to oil at maximum efficiencies. He can alter the octane of the fuel by altering the genes of the organism and, by selecting the best of thousands of molecules, he can "unnaturally select" the most efficient oil producers.

They're calling it 4th generation biofuel, and you can expect that it will be only the first application of this fascinating and somewhat alarming new technology.

You can hear Venter himself explain the possibilities of this new technology with Chris Anderson at the recent TED conference in this video.

Via TED

Earth: The Sequel

Fred Krupp — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:17:30 PDT

This post is by Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Earth: The Sequel tells the story of an exciting race that is just beginning -- the race to develop low-carbon energy in time to turn our greatest environmental crisis into our greatest economic opportunity.

Many people have expressed surprise that Iâd write a book like this about a problem so serious. And global warming is serious. With each passing year, scientists get more and more alarmed at the increase and extent of disturbing impacts. But this book is not about the doom and gloom of global warming. In fact, itâs just the opposite.

Earth: The Sequel is about hope, invention, ingenuity, entrepreneurialism, capital markets, commerce, and profit. These are words that most people don't think of when they hear the term "global warming," and they especially don't expect to hear them coming from me. After all, I'm an environmental lawyer running one of the country's most respected and influential environmental groups, advocating for good environmental policy.

I wrote this book because, after 20 years of studying global warming and trying to craft solutions to stop it, I know that government policy alone is not the answer. Enacting a hard cap on carbon will play a key supporting role, but the starring role belongs to American commerce.

The stars are the ingenious inventors and risk-taking entrepreneurs who are creating flying windmills, artificial carbon-eating trees, and breakthroughs in solar and biomass technologies. The book explores how we will reinvent everything from cars to concrete, and replace the old, dumb, centralized electrical grid with a smart, multidirectional energy network.

The vibrancy of our future lives largely depends on our winning this race - a race both to stop global warming, and to win the upside of new opportunities if we do. We can win and win big, or we could lose and lose big. It's both the scariest and most exciting race of my lifetime.

I wrote Earth: The Sequel to describe the race and change the conversation about global warming. I want others to know about the real people doing the real work that will change our lives, and I want to inspire people to embrace a new and different future, rather than be afraid of it.

Earth: The Sequel is available in stores now, so I hope you'll take a look. Please let me know what you think.

(moreâ¦)

Lying biodiesel pumps

Hank Green — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:16:20 PST

This could end up being quite a hit to the bio-diesel industry.

Scientists at the Wood's Hole Oceanographic institute tested the biodiesel mixes flowing from pumps all over the nation and found that they were not what they said they were.

Only 10% of pumps actually delivered the mixtures advertised. Most biodiesel pumps advertise B20, a blend of 20% biodiesel, 80% regular diesel. This mix allows a wider range of trucks to use the fuel and stretches the supply of biodiesel.

Unfortunately, in the fuels tested, the actual amount of biodiesel in the fuel ranged widely from 10% to almost 75%. And while the 10% is discouraging, because the environmental gains are decreased, the 75% is what's really scary.

Cars and trucks that haven't been converted to run on higher concentrations of biodiesel can be damaged by concentrations that high. This damage, and concerns from the trucking industry, are actually why the study was done in the first place.

Now here's the real bad news. This lax regulation by the biodiesel industry is threatening its largest contracts, including a gigantic deal with the Department of Defense.

Looks like the honeymoon is over. It's time for some real regulations on the biodiesel industry.

Via WBCSD

A consumer's guide to biofuels

Lena Hansen — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:17:49 PST

Lena Hansen is a senior consultant with the Energy and Resources Team at Rocky Mountain Institute.Â

Crude oil prices recently topped $100 per barrel for the first time. That's bad news for consumers, because it means gasoline and diesel prices will likely hover at historic highs for some time to come.Â

Luckily, more sustainable alternatives to oil are gaining attention and popularity.Â

One of the most discussed replacements is "biofuel" â any liquid fuel derived from biological material such as trees, agricultural wastes, crops, or even grass.Â

The two most common biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel. Each of these has its own unique characteristics and feedstocks (required raw materials).Â

Here's some straightforward information to help you understand what ethanol and biodiesel are and decide whether these biofuels are right for you.Â

Ethanol

Ethanol is the most widely used biofuel in the United States. Last year, we consumed 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. You might have ethanol in your car's fuel tank and not even realize it.Â

Why? Ethanol is a substitute for gasoline. It's also an oxygenate â a type of fuel additive that's needed to make your car run smoothly. In many states, the regular gasoline you buy at the local filling station might already contain 2, 5, or even 10 percent ethanol by volume.Â

Ethanol is an alcohol that's traditionally made from sugar or starch crops, like corn or sugarcane. Of course, as demand for ethanol grows, demand for corn will grow as well â likely resulting in more-expensive corn.Â

That's why a new way of making ethanol is being developed that doesn't use food crops. Instead, the "cellulosic ethanol process" makes ethanol from woody crops like trees and grasses. That's a lot better for many reasons, but it's also currently more expensive.Â

RMI is working closely with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and others to help bring down that cost and commercialize cellulosic ethanol. NREL, along with several private companies working in this field, believe that we could see cost-effective cellulosic ethanol in as few as 3-5 years.Â

Biodiesel

Unlike ethanol, biodiesel is a substitute for diesel fuel â it can't be mixed with gasoline. Since we use much less diesel than gasoline in the U.S., there's also much less demand for biodiesel.Â

However, the biodiesel industry is growing quickly. In 2005, more than 75 million gallons of biodiesel were produced in the U.S., primarily from soybeans. Any vegetable oil crop can also be used.Â

The process of producing biodiesel is much more straightforward than the process for producing ethanol, but there's also less room for technological innovation.Â

How sustainable are biofuels?

We often hear that biofuels are "green" â that they are one of the key resources for reducing the impacts of climate change. When it comes to sustainability, though, the most important thing to remember is that not all biofuels are created equal.Â

"Sustainability" comprises many factors â climate-change impact, of course, but also other environmental impacts such as water pollution, soil erosion, and ecosystem preservation. The following table outlines some of the impacts of different types of biofuels:Â

	Conventional ethanol (from corn)	Advanced ethanol (from cellulose)	Biodiesel
Reduces climate change impact (reduction compared to gasoline)	25%	85%	80%
Growing feedstocks can result in water pollution	X	Â	X
Growing feedstocks can result in soil erosion	X	Â	X
Potential to compete with food crops	X	Â	X

So while corn ethanol is moderately better than gasoline from a climate perspective, it has a number of other negative environmental impacts.Â

Biofuels and you

Even though cellulosic ethanol -- one of the most sustainable of the biofuels â is not currently available at filling stations, other biofuels are. Using biofuels now can increase the market demand for those fuels, eventually leading to more investment in advanced biofuels.

So how can you start using biofuels?Â

First of all, if your car runs on gasoline, ethanol is the appropriate biofuel to consider. If you want to use more than 10 percent ethanol (which may already be in the gasoline you use), try E85 â a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline â which is available at more than 1,200 filling stations around the country. To find the nearest E85 filling station, visit the Department of Energy's interactive map, which is constantly updated.Â

However, not all cars can run on E85. To do so, your car must be a Flex Fuel Vehicle (FFV), which has been specifically adapted to run on high blends of ethanol. Several automakers sell FFVs as standard models, and there are more than 4 million FFVs on the road today.Â

If your car is an FFV, it will be labeled as such on the inside of your gas cap. You can find a list of FFV models at Yahoo! Autos.

Â If your car runs on diesel, biodiesel may be appropriate for you. Visit the National Biodiesel Board for more information on using biodiesel and to get a map of filling stations.

Earth-friendly chocolate road trip

Trystan L. Bass — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:19:57 PST

About My Planet reports on a uniquely fueled trip from the United Kingdom to Africa. Two Brits are driving a truck that's using 2,000 liters of biofuel produced from waste chocolate.

My first question was -- who would waste chocolate! I'd sooner eat it than burn it in a car. But these guys got 4,000 kilos of candy "mistakes" from a major confectionery company and turned it into biodiesel. And it cost less than oil too -- only $1.16 a gallon. I guess at that price, it's cheaper to gas up with chocolate than eat it.

The biotruck expedition will conclude with "the first ever carbon-negative driving expedition across the Sahara Desert." Go candy racers, go!