Could algae-based biofuels suffer the same fate as the now much-discredited corn-based ethanol? They might, if we don’t find ways to reduce algal fuel’s environmental impact, according to a new study.
After the race to turn corn into fuel helped spark a global spike in food prices, clean-energy proponents turned their sights to so-called “second-generation” biofuel stocks. These include non-food crops like switchgrass and algae, as well crop waste and lumber waste. Algae have been widely considered to have especially great potential, since they can be grown in marginal areas that don’t compete with prime food-growing farmlands.
But there’s a problem — or, rather, several problems — with that idea, according to a team of researchers from the University of Virginia. Their new study finds that growing algae for fuel is more energy- and water-intensive than other biofuel crops, including switchgrass, canola and corn. Oh, and it also produces more greenhouse gas emissions than those other sources.
“Given what we know about algae production pilot projects over the past 10 to 15 years, we’ve found that algae’s environmental footprint is larger than other terrestrial crops,” said Andres Clarens, the study’s lead author. “Before we make major investments in algae production, we should really know the environmental impact of this technology.”
One solution could be to grow algae in ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities. That way, producers could use the wastewater as a source for phosphorus and nitrogen, two nutrients that algae needs. That strategy would also prevent those nutrients from, as they now are, being discharged into local waterways.
Another plus is that feeding algae with phosphorus and nitrogen from wastewater reduces the biofuel’s fossil fuel footprint, since those nutrient are currently produced using petroleum.
It’s a situation the Virginia researchers have seen before.
“People were investing in ethanol refineries, but then we realised that it takes a lot of petroleum to grow corn and convert it to ethanol,” Clarens said. “By the time you get done, you’ve used almost as much petroleum to make ethanol that you would have if you just put the oil straight into your car.”
Today’s limitations, though, doesn’t mean algae doesn’t have potential. In addition to not competing with food crops, algae tend to yield more energy than other biofuel crops like corn or switchgrass. Their high fat content also promises to make refining more efficient than with other fuel stocks.
Still, significant hurdles still stand in the way of algae becoming a cheap and easy source of fuel. And those hurdles need to be removed soon before we put too many eggs in algae’s basket.
Both governments and energy companies are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars for algae research. Last year, for example, ExxonMobil said it was investing $600 million into the quest for algal biofuels. And just last week, the US Department of Energy announced it was directing $78 million in economic stimulus funds into algae fuel research.
“If we do decide to move forward with algae as a fuel source, it’s important we understand the ways we can produce it with the least impact, and that’s where combining production with wastewater treatment operations comes in,” Clarens said.
Tags: biofuels
Additional comments powered by BackType
The balance of the Yin and Yang.Sugar and a work and the structure of the photosynthesis.Initiation and termination. The end and an opening. Is big; is small. Is small; is big. Mass. Density. Explosive power. Energy.
Not surprising that there has been a study that has indicated any form of alternative fuel that may challenge big oil is going to be bad. Ethanol was not the reason food prices increased. Rampant speculation and high oil prices were the main cause. Corn ethanol is not the ultimate answer but it can play a major role and open the door to other alternatives, like algae. Big Oil will keep trying to slam that door shut.
And just how much energy is wasted transporting a barrel of oil from a foreign country, to a refiner, to a gas station? How can America continue spending $1 trillion per war to defend its oil fields in other countries? Algae has potential, this article is a hack job.
To ezshooter:
It’s easy to say this article is a hack job, but you offer no particulars. The study seems to make sense. The deal is that we won’t get something for nothing. I think the closest we can get to that is solar, because anything we use now is just distilled solar energy. Alas, there are issues with solar energy, too.
The primary cost of algae growth is the CO2 presently being bottled in.
The utilisation of CO2 from varied sources and delivered to algae growers is feasible and being tried and tested.
Origo Industries proved capturing CO2 from a vehicle and feeding it to algae for re-use over 12 months ago, now the company is shrouded in silence.
There is no ethanol curse, except as a possible reason why the media continues to publish such non-information and demostrate their lack of competence by repeating political claims, not scientific evidence.
Obviously Clarens, from his comments, is not much of an expert on biofuels. Ethanol was not responsible for food price increases, ethanol production results in almost twice as much energy produced as consummed in its production, and algae projects are continuing to increase because of their carbon dioxide consumming and protein production potential. This so-called authority should not have been quoted in this article, unless the author wanted to showcase his lack of research and knowledge on the subject.
Quite true, but I would even go further: since plants only use 4% of solar energy, whereas some PV panels now use 16% or more, they have a clear disadvantage. We examined algae biofuels in detail last year (see http://www.bcic.ca/media-and-press/publications/life-sciences-publications) and think that the current approaches will not work. Pumping tonnes of water to grow a few algae is energetically and financially unsustainable. We would need to think of entirely different concepts to grow algae if we are to succeed.
Hmmmm….Ethanot from corn became big and researchers came up with a reason to discredit it, but offered no numbers in those articles. Algae based fuels are becoming a real possibility and once again articles with no numbers or data to back it up are attacking algae. Show me numbers. If a company starts building houses with solar panels will we see articles talking about how the sun is responsible for global warming? Do your journalistic duty. Tell me some numbers. Who paid for the Virginia research study. Can I use the dat from the study and reproduce the results independently? Did the authors verify this information? What happened to the two source idea for artivles?
Ever heard of the new, closed loop system? Running water with algae in it through soft, clear plastic tubing in a glass room, so that the algae is able to be farmed within two days of its setup.
Hey,
nothing we are discussion right now/today is THE solution. But it seems to me that the powers that “be” try everything to stay in control of distribution. Anything that can be done Off-grid (at home) is discouraged…
It would be interesting to see who funded the study…anyone?
Daniel
Once again Big Oil has payed one of their many think tanks groups to come up with a “study” discrediting their competition.
This article is misleading. They talk about how algae has a higher carbon footprint that corn but it only need to compete with oil! If it is cheaper and better than fossil fuel and takes no crops away from us the it should be highly considered. It also yields more energy than corn, sugar, or any other crop used to make ethanol.