Take Your Algae Biofuel News With a Grain of Salt

A study released this week says Algae fuels may not be worth it. But critics point out that the study’s data were old – some more than ten years old.

It’s a picture-perfect example of how when it comes to arguments over renewable energy, it’s always good to check your sources.

The Study

Bearing the difficult title “Environmental Life Cycle Comparison of Algae to Other Bioenergy Feedstocks”, the study concluded that Algae for biofuel isn’t as good for the environment as other potential fuel-crops such as switchgrass, canola and corn.

(“What’s that?” you say. “Isn’t corn ethanol bad?” Keep reading…)

One of the study’s lead authors was Andres Clarens, an assistant professor of civil engineering at the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department of the University of Virginia. The New York Times had him explain his findings:

The main reason for this is that fertilizers have to be directly delivered to the pool of water that algae is growing in… And fertilizers are very energy intensive to produce.
Corn and switchgrass can draw nitrogen from soil, which reduces the overall amount of fertilizer required, he said. In addition, crop rotation can help replenish soil nutrients.
“Nutrients are going to be the limiting factor,” Dr. Clarens said. “We’re humans. We need to eat dinner, and you can’t expect to have algae that provides a bunch of energy without feeding it nutrients.”

And it’s true that fertilizers – mostly petrochemical-based – have a nasty carbon footprint. That’s why, for instance, corn-based biofuels have turned out to be such a carbon disaster. But… algae?

Critics cry “Foul!”

The Algal Biomass Assocation responded,

“...We expect such research to be based on current information, valid assumptions and proven facts. Unfortunately, this report falls short of those standards with its use of decades old data and errant assumptions of current production and refining technologies.”

Where’s the issue? Older studies did indeed use fertilizers, but these were small-scale pilot projects. Current plans for large-scale operations call for using wastewater, which is full of nutrients, instead of taking clean water and adding nutrients.

Riggs Eckelberry, chief executive of the algae biofuel company Origin Oil, told The New York Times,

“Identifying wastewater is a homerun for algae production, probably the best there is,” he said. “There are lots of nitrates, and algae love dirty water — they can remove toxins, such as medical drugs from that water.”

And it gets even better: energy is currently used treating wastewater, so using it to grow algae saves that CO2 as well.

The Happy Ending

The authors of the study complained that many of today’s algae companies use proprietary processes – they say that with everybody keeping trade secrets, they shouldn’t be blamed for using ancient data (and in the algae field, 10 years back is practically the dark ages).

It appears Mary Rosenthal of the Algal Biomass Association is talking with Clarens about cooperating on a follow-up study. That should make everybody happy - and provide everyone with accurate and up-to-date science.

(Originally appeared at Tenthmil.com)

Biomass or Biomess?

One of the things we should have learned from the corn to bio-ethanol mess of the past five years is: haste makes waste.

The subsidies that were supposed to help create a sustainable industry and help small farmers instead turned into a massive hand-out to big agriculture, and drove up prices on corn and other food when it was diverted to fuel - and the socalled green bioethanol turned out to cost almost as much CO2 as fossil fuels.

Now, the Washington Post reports the same thing is happening with wood biomass. Subsidies that were supposed to create green fuel are instead warping the market:

In a matter of months, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program—a small provision tucked into the 2008 farm bill—has mushroomed into a half-a-billion dollar subsidy that is funneling taxpayer dollars to sawmills and lumber wholesalers, encouraging them to sell their waste to be converted into high-tech biofuels. In doing so, it is shutting off the supply of cheap timber byproducts to the nation’s composite wood manufacturers, who make panels for home entertainment centers and kitchen cabinets.

Of course, subsidies are an important tool for jump-starting the green economy. But not the way the wood biomass subsidies were written.

Biomass energy representatives, such as the Biomass Power Association president, Bob Cleaves, said those subsidies are critical to support a sector that currently supplies half of the nation’s renewable energy (the other half coming from wind, solar and other sources). Seven of Maine’s 10 biomass energy plants would have shut down without the new influx of funds, he said.

“The industry needs help,” Cleaves said. “Is the country not prepared to spend half a billion dollars on half the country’s renewable energy resources?”

The Agriculture Department, for its part, says it has no choice but to implement the subsidy the way Congress envisioned it under the 2008 farm bill. That legislation made no distinction between a waste product with little market value, such as corn husks, and the sawdust that sells for roughly $45 a dry ton.

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) is looking into the problem, and so is the Office of Management and Budget. So hopefully that means we’ll be seeing this fixed fairly quickly. Everyone agrees that some form of subsidy for biofuels is a very good thing - when it encourages the market in the right way.

But pellet mill owners such as the Rolf Anderson, chief executive of Bear Mountain Forest Products, said the program will eventually create an incentive for people to bring small pieces of wood left by loggers out of the forest, which will give companies like his a cheap and steady stream of raw materials.

“It opens up economic opportunities. It opens up healthier forests, and it helps companies and individuals save on their energy costs,” said Anderson, whose company is based in Oregon.

The problem with subsidies, though, is once companies start getting millions of dollars from the public trough, they lobby hard to keep the flow coming. Why? Because companies can easily afford to donate tens of thousands of dollars to campaign coffers if it means millions of dollars in government funding. The 2008 Farm Bill that contained this biomass provision was widely derided as a bloated mess that ended up pouring billions into Big Ag without really helping out struggling farmers.

What can you do? Write your Senators and Representatives and tell them to get it right.

(Originally appeared at TenthMil.com)

Termites and hydrogen

Searching for a miracle... a fuel source that is actually efficient.

Ethanol has been a disaster, barely breaking even in energy output, not doing well at all in carbon footprint, and driving up the price of corn and other grain. Time to try something else.

Hydrogen hasn't been much better, so far - it's still not cost effective. We simply don't have an industrial process to make it cheaply and in bulk. Wouldn't it be nice if we did? Termites, and the microbes in their guts that allow them to digest wood, could change that.

Termites? Termites!

A worker termite tears off a piece of wood with its mandibles and lets its guts work on it like a molecular wrecking yard, stripping away sugars, CO2, hydrogen, and methane with 90 percent efficiency... Offer a termite this page, and its microbial helpers will break it down into two liters of hydrogen, enough to drive more than six miles in a fuel-cell car. If we could turn wood waste into fuel with even a fraction of the termite’s efficiency, we could run our economy on sawdust, lawn clippings, and old magazines.

Check out the article... it's fascinating.