Alternative Fuel | December 01, 2006 |
Carbon Capture: The Algae Alternative
As I reported, the most intriguing aspect of this technology is its ability to use CO2 emissions from power plants to feed the algae, thereby capturing CO2 and creating a feedstock for biodiesel at the same time. In a Press Release on De Beer's Infiniti Biodiesel Website, company Chairman Frik DeBeer claims “When algae are introduced to a rich carbon source, such as the flue gas emissions of a power plant, they propagate exponentially compared to traditional agricultural crops and do not compete for land or water that might otherwise be used for food production.”
Also in a press release , this time from the Institute of Science in Society, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho calls green algae for carbon capture and biodiesel a "sustainable option overlooked."
What's more, it appears that using algae as a feedstock for biofuels is far more efficient than other sources. De Beers claims it can produce 92,000 liters of fuel from one acre of algae, compared with a mere 350 liters produced from a more typical sunflower seed farm.
Meanwhile, another company, GreenShift Corporation's subsidiary Veridium is working on similar technology based on blue-green algae discovered thriving in a hot stream in Yellowstone National Park.
These technologies appear to be far less expensive and easy to implement than carbon sequestration, so what's the catch? Why aren't more people talking about this?
For one, this isn't really the equivalent of carbon sequestration, since the CO2 will ultimately be released when the biodiesel is burned. As I understand it, it basically means we get to release the CO2 twice – one from the power plant, where it's captured and fed to the algae, then again from the tailpipes of vehicles burning biodiesel made from the algae.
So this is really CO2 "parking" rather than CO2 "capture" eh?
I'll look into it more and keep you posted.
Reddit
Digg
Stumble
ShareThis
Comments By Readers
Michael, this is something we are looking into. The trick is to find tested, bankable, and commercially ready technology that is deployable at scale. To my knowledge, although people are obviously closing in on it, we are not quite there yet.
Michael:
Lawyers deal in semantics. As a lawyer, rather than a scientist, let me weigh on this.
"Carbon parking" sounds very temporary. "Carbon sequestration" sounds very techical. To me, coverting CO2 to O2 and C and then reconverting it to dodecane (DIESEL) using algae sounds like RECYLCING CO2, not "parking" it.
Just my tow cents.
Stephen -- thanks for your insight on this. It seems that, with the South African deal, GreenFuel must be getting very close. Do you know what the limiting factors are at this point? What would you want to see before you'd be willing to impliment this at your site?
Rod -- I used the term "parking" because, unlike sequestration, this is a very temporary way to capture carbon. I know better than to argue semantics with a lawyer, however (I'm married to one), so I'll agree w/you that "recycling" does a good job of explaining that the CO2 emitted from one process is effectively re-used by another process before it ends up in the atmosphere. Thanks!
Just so that everyone is aware, the South African company mentioned above has been exposed on an investigative TV program as being somewhat less than above board. Run by ex-cons and persons currently being prosecuted for fraud.
http://www.carteblanche.co.za/ (1 April 2007)
Why don't they burn the biodiesel in the powerplant so they can capture the resulting CO2 again?
Wouldn't that close the carbon loop?
And if all cars were to be electric-powered, there would be no CO2 emitted.
Any idea what the electricity price would become if power plants were legislated to capture the CO2 using the algae method?
Yes it may just be "carbon parking" rather than sequestering. But it is still a reduction in CO2 emmissions. The CO2 from the plant is then emitted by the cars. But this is less than it being emitted by the plant AND another source emitted by the cars. Its progress.
It is, essentially, the same as sequestering. It's just that instead of putting carbon back underground, you're just not taking more out. The net benefit is the same.
It depends. If your goal is simply to keep C02 atmospheric concentrations stable, then recycling is as good as sequestration, provided that the biodiesel reduces the equivalent amount of fossil fuel taken out of the ground. However, if you want to reduce C02 concentrations, you will need to permanently sequester the C02.
Otherwise, algae capture is such a no-brainer that there must be a catch somewhere: it seems too good to be true. I would want to research this thoroughly before I would recommend pursuing algae capture exclusively.
Most of the CO2 comes from the ocean because of warming due to the suns radiance, which cycles and fluxes over spans of 100,000 years. The CO2 eventually ends up back in the ocean in limestone and other sinks. Algae in the Oceans are a very good sink for CO2. Perhaps with nano technology and nuclear energy humans could learn how to make things out of the sequestered carbon.
It will take a long time before bio fuels can replace oil. Electric power vehicles would probably be the final result.
A NASA researcher showed that CO2 was over emphasized as a GHG as it has self limiting levels and a sharp decreasing effect as it accumulates past 200 PPM. NASA all but discredited the researcher of 30 years experience and he left in frustration. NASA did not want to lose it's funding.
Once again it's follow the money to get to the real truth! Don't worry, big government will take care of you, be happy with the left over- lords.
Algae/Co2 capture systems have many more potentials than just biodiesel, such as feed stock protein sources etc. The algae solution will allow the tree huggers (like myself) to be close to ok with coal plants (extraction is still an issue). Algae is currently not a food source (at least the species used for that purposes) and are more easily genetically manipulated to get the end product we want. Ole T Boone should include (as well as Gore) this as part of the energy package.
Post Your Comment