(unlike corn / 1 crop per year)
converts CO2 to O2
- some over 50% Oil
converts easily to Bio-Fuel
The podcast transcript explains an exciting ALGAE technology ready
Pond Scum or Planet Savers?
Pond scum just might be the answer to
solving the CO2 woes of the Industrial Age. Host Bruce Gellerman
visits with Dr. Isaac Berzin, founder of GreenFuel Technologies
Corporation. Berzin is working on a prototype that uses algae to
convert power plant emissions into biofuels. (5:15)
Pond Scum or Planet Savers?
GELLERMAN: A few years ago, Isaac Berzin traveled from Israel to
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with two goals in mind--to
get his post doc in chemical engineering and save the world.
Smokestack emissions bubble through algae-filled
tubes at MIT's Cogen plant. (Photo: Ashley Ahearn)
Well, he got his degree and now he's closing in on the other goal:
saving the world from global warming by using one of the most
primitive forms of life: algae...you know, the yucky stuff that grows
on the side of fish tanks and swimming pools...pond scum...just don't
call it that in front of Berzin.
BERZIN: Okay, they're not pond scum, they're great. So, I want you
to think differently. They're not ugly or whatever. They're the
GELLERMAN: Clearly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But
according to Berzin, algae-- primitive one cell plants--are the
world's champs at photosynthesis, capturing the suns rays and
converting it to chemical energy. That makes the microscopic plants
very special, and potentially very useful, in reducing greenhouse
gases. On his laptop, Berzin shows me a video of the algae up close
BERZIN: So, what you're going to see on the screen now is a
microscopic view of the algae. Belly dancing around, they have a
little mustache. They touch each other with the mustaches.
GELLERMAN: So, this is a plant? It's a one-celled plant?
BERZIN: Algae are the fastest growing plants on Earth. Their
doubling time is measured in hours. My kids ask me, 'oh Daddy it's so
cute. It's like pets. So, what do you do with them in the end?' I say,
'uh oh, I burn them.'
GELLERMAN: Berzin grows algae because they're super rich in oil. In
some species, oil accounts for half the little creature's body mass.
In fact, algae synthesize 30 times more vegetable oil per acre than
plants like sunflowers or rapeseed. The algae biodiesel can be used to
run engines, or converted into methane or fermented into alcohol. And
here's the best part: algae eat carbon dioxide for breakfast, lunch
and dinner. And one thing the global warming world has too much of is
CO2 from fossil fuel burning power plants.
GELLERMAN: Not far from his office, Berzin takes me to his algae
laboratory. It's outside on the roof of MIT's 20 kilowatt power plant.
A yellow brick smokestack towers overhead, and some of the power
plant's exhaust is fed through a row of Plexiglas tubes. Inside, the
gooey green algae feed on the CO2 and NOX, nitrogen oxide.
GELLERMAN: Can you describe what we are looking at? It looks like,
I don't know, water gurgling through a bunch of tubes.
BERZIN: Actually, in professional terms it's called a bioreactor.
It's nothing but three tubes connected together with some sea water
and algae in them. And you can see the bubbles bubbling through the
system. And you can kind of look at the bubble and follow it, and in
the ten seconds or so that the bubbles are spending in the bioreactor
80 percent of the CO2 is moved and 85 percent of the NOX. And at the
end of the day you harvest the algae, whatever was growing during the
day, you take out of the system. It's like a cow you milk it and you
make biofuels from the algae.
GELLERMAN: So, you're a farmer, you're a high-tech farmer.
BERZIN: Yeah, that's exactly the point. It's really, really a new
age of farming.
GELLERMAN: Granted, this prototype is just small potatoes. But,
theoretically, if you created an algae bioreactor twice the size of
New Jersey, you could supply the entire petroleum needs of the U.S.
The motto for Berzin's company is "waste not, profit more."
Algae tubes stand alongside a smokestack. (Photo:
BERZIN: We believe that if you want to make an environmental
revolution it should not come as the law. Okay? It should come as a
great business. And if it's a great business, it has life of its own.
So, you don't come to the power industry and tell them, 'you guys are
the worst polluters and I have to shut you down. I have to fine you
for every...like a carbon tax, whatever.' I think that's the wrong
approach. I think the right approach would be, 'guys, you're throwing
all this CO2 away? Are you crazy? Let's make more money.' And that's
how the world will change. That's how it will become a reality.
GELLERMAN: So, I was taught, you know, if it sounds too good to be
true it usually is. What am I missing?
BERZIN: I'll tell you what the problem is. You have to produce
algae in a cost that will be cheap enough to compete with fossil
fuels. Then you think, 'wait a minute, what does this technology
need?' It needs land, and you need water, and you need CO2. So, CO2 is
not an issue. You're located next to a CO2 generating facility. Water,
you get to use any quality of water. Treated sewage water, brackish
water, ocean water, any water available. The third thing is, the land,
usually near these big power plants, no one wants to live. It's
non-fertile land. Nothing grows there even. So, you don't really
compete with agriculture. So, how realistic this is? We believe it is
GELLERMAN: Isaac Berzin...founder and chief technology officer of
Greenfuel Technologies Corp. You can see for yourself if algae are
pond scum or planet savers; check out our web site: loe dot org.
Corn = net
81 gallons bio-diesel / acre
vs. Soy = net 41 gallons / acre
ALGAE = up to 15,000 gallons / acre
R-Squared Energy Blog:
Biodiesel can be produced from crops, such as soybeans. The
reported EROI for biodiesel from soybeans is 3.2(2). Note
that this is over double the EROI for ethanol, and that
doesnít even account for the higher efficiency of the diesel
engine. Soybeans yield about 40 bushels per acre, which
translates into around 60 gallons of biodiesel per acre.
This is far short of the 350 gallons or more of ethanol that
can be produced from an acre of corn, but we have to take
into account the net energy produced. Given that the real
energy return of grain ethanol is around 1.3, it took the
energy equivalent of around 350/1.3, or 269 gallons of
ethanol to make the 350.
We netted out 81 gallons. For the
soybeans, it took 60/3.2, or 19 gallons of biodiesel
equivalent to produce the biodiesel, for a
net of 41. But
recall that 1 gallon of biodiesel is worth 2.25 gallons of
ethanol when both are used in their respective engines, so
the biodiesel yield is "worth" 2.25*41, or 92 gallons of
ethanol. (Please note that these calculations are
approximate. If I were going to try to publish this
somewhere, I would convert everything into BTUs to calculate
the net yields.)
However, I do not wish to make the argument that we should
be making biodiesel from crops, unless we are doing so from
by-products left over from food production. Production of
biodiesel (or ethanol) from crops canít make a significant
dent in our current usage of motor fuels. Fortunately, there
may be a better way. A couple of years ago, I ran across an
article that really caught my attention. It was my Reference
a report by Michael Briggs at The University of New
Hampshire. Briggs explained that biodiesel can be produced
from algae, at yields as high as 15,000 gallons per acre!
Briggs did a number of calculations of the feasibility and
cost of replacing the entire motor fuel supply of the U.S.
with biodiesel. I checked his calculations and read his
references, and his analysis - based on experiments
conducted by NREL - appeared to me to be spot on. In his own
words, regarding the acreage that would be required:
In the previous section, we found that to replace all
transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8
billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one
quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To
produce that amount would require a land mass of almost
15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider
that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises
120,000 square miles.
Enough biodiesel to replace all
petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000
square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the
Sonora desert (note for clarification - I am not
advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in
the Sonora desert. This hypothetical example is used
strictly for the purpose of showing the scale of land
required). That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly
9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres
currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over
500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals.
It would be preferable to spread the algae production
around the country, to lessen the cost and energy used in
transporting the feedstocks. Algae farms could also be
constructed to use waste streams (either human waste or
animal waste from animal farms) as a food source, which
would provide a beautiful way of spreading algae
production around the country. Nutrients can also be
extracted from the algae for the production of a
fertilizer high in nitrogen and phosphorous. By using
waste streams (agricultural, farm animal waste, and human
sewage) as the nutrient source, these farms essentially
also provide a means of recycling nutrients from
fertilizer to food to waste and back to fertilizer.
Regarding the costs, he writes:
In "The Controlled Eutrophication process: Using
Microalgae for CO2 Utilization and Agircultural Fertilizer
Recycling", the authors estimated a cost per hectare of
$40,000 for algal ponds. In their model, the algal ponds
would be built around the Salton Sea (in the Sonora
desert) feeding off of the agircultural waste streams that
normally pollute the Salton Sea with over 10,000 tons of
nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers each year. The estimate
is based on fairly large ponds, 8 hectares in size each.
To be conservative (since their estimate is fairly
optimistic), we'll arbitrarily increase the cost per
hectare by 100% as a margin of safety. That brings the
cost per hectare to $80,000. Ponds equivalent to their
design could be built around the country, using wastewater
streams (human, animal, and agricultural) as feed sources.
We found that at NREL's yield rates, 15,000 square miles
(3.85 million hectares) of algae ponds would be needed to
replace all petroleum transportation fuels with biodiesel.
At the cost of $80,000 per hectare, that would work out to
roughly $308 billion to build the farms.
The operating costs (including power consumption, labor,
chemicals, and fixed capital costs (taxes, maintenance,
insurance, depreciation, and return on investment) worked
out to $12,000 per hectare.
That would equate to $46.2
billion per year for all the algae farms, to yield all the
oil feedstock necessary for the entire country. Compare
that to the $100-150 billion the US spends each year just
on purchasing crude oil from foreign countries, with all
of that money leaving the US economy.
I spent a lot of time reading through his references (some
are very long reports), and I could not understand why we
werenít massively funding this research. It turns out that
NREL stopped funding the program in 1996. The reason remains
unclear to me, but this concept had given me hope that there
might be a viable alternative out there after all that
didnít require us to turn all our forests into farmland. I
spent a lot of time wondering just how I could involve
myself in this area and contribute. I did e-mail Michael
Briggs and we had a nice discussion, and I came away
convinced that he knew what he was talking about. So why on
earth werenít we all over this? Frankly, I still donít know
the answer to that.
Biodiesel Plus Carbon Dioxide Recycle
Fast forward to 2006, and newspapers across the country picked up the
story that Isaac Berzin, of MIT, is using algae to quickly recycle
carbon in carbon dioxide rich exhaust stacks from power plants (3). What
a brilliant, brilliant idea! Why didnít I think of that? By doing this,
he is able to double up on the benefits. First, the carbon dioxide gets
converted back into plant material instead of going directly into the
atmosphere. This would be a way of sequestering the carbon, provided the
algae was properly disposed of. The story reports:
Fed a generous helping of CO2-laden emissions, courtesy of the power
plant's exhaust stack, the algae grow quickly even in the wan rays of a
New England sun. The cleansed exhaust bubbles skyward, but with 40
percent less CO2 (a larger cut than the Kyoto treaty mandates) and
another bonus: 86 percent less nitrous oxide.
That alone is incredible. But that isnít all:
After the CO2 is soaked up like a sponge, the algae is harvested
daily. From that harvest, a combustible vegetable oil is squeezed out:
biodiesel for automobiles. Berzin hands a visitor two vials - one with
algal biodiesel, a clear, slightly yellowish liquid, the other with the
dried green flakes that remained. Even that dried remnant can be further
reprocessed to create ethanol, also used for transportation.
One key is selecting an algae with a high oil density - about 50 percent
of its weight. Because this kind of algae also grows so fast, it can
produce 15,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre. Just 60 gallons are
produced from soybeans, which along with corn are the major biodiesel
Now thatís ethanol I can live with. Finally:
For his part, Berzin calculates that just
one 1,000 megawatt power
plant using his system could produce more than 40 million gallons of biodiesel and 50 million gallons of ethanol a year.
That would require a
2,000-acre "farm" of algae-filled tubes near the power plant. There are
nearly 1,000 power plants nationwide with enough space nearby for a few
hundred to a few thousand acres to grow algae and make a good profit, he
I hope this guy is extremely successful and makes a billion dollars. He
has the potential here to make a contribution to society that most of us
only dream about. As he himself said "This is a big idea, a really
powerful idea." I couldnít agree with those sentiments more.
There are some comments and more links at the end of his blog - so you
might want to research those.
And the blog author's email:
ALGAE = up to 15,000 gallons / acre
(at great danger & expense)
ďHydrogen EconomyĒ a Boondoggle:
"hydrogen economy" receives much media attention, there are serious
problems with hydrogen as transportation fuel. The first is hydrogen gas
is extremely explosive. Hydrogen must be pressurized to 250 atmospheres
for use as fuel, requiring corrosion-resistant tanks that don't rust,
spring leaks, and explode.
low energy density requires fuel tanks 14 times as large to yield the
same driving range. To get a 1,000 mile range, a tractor trailer needs
168 gallons of diesel. Hydrogen vehicles would require 2,360 gallons of
hydrogen, stored at 250 atmospheres. Dedicating that much space to fuel
storage would drastically reduce how much trucks could carry, while the
costs of high-pressure, corrosion-resistant storage tanks --
main options for producing hydrogen, generating from water and
extracting from other fuels, both have energy efficiencies below 100%,
(takes more energy to produce than you get).
vehicles (currently $1 million each to produce) would need a widescale
hydrogen fuel distribution system. With a single hydrogen fuel pump
costing $1 million, installing six at each of the 176,000 fuel stations
across the US is over $1 trillion - costs completely avoided with
biofuels that use our current infrastructure.
Click Here for
vs. Hydrogen info
Thanks to Michael Briggs, University of New Hampshire
Physics Department and Bio-Diesel Group, for the information!
According to 1994 data, algae ponds 5-times the size of Colorado
would turn around global
warming since algae multiplies so quickly and
produces so much oxygen per square foot.
While the U.S. government has enormous information that a fraction of
current U.S. farm land growing algae could
easily replace foreign oil at a fraction of the cost, the U.S. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) stopped funding research into this in
1996. Since then there's been almost NO U.S. government funding provided
for what is probably our best chance to reverse global warming. The
independent researchers in America are operating from private funds
while inefficient options like corn and hydrogen are
promoted. (Other countries' governments may be properly funding their algae
of researchers, each providing $9000 to be a part of the "algae"
network, have created
"International Network on Biofixation of Greenhouse Gases and CO2
Abatement with Microalgae." Their website gives this history
of commercial algae research:
"Microalgae cultures have been investigated as a source of renewable
fuels for almost fifty years. The initial concept was to grow algae in
municipal wastewaters, harvest the algal biomass and convert it to
methane fuel. By the 1980's the R&D emphasis shifted to microalgae
production in large-scale processes with fuels as the only outputs.
"In the mean-time, a microalgae food supplement production industry
developed, starting in the 1960ís in Japan for the production of
Chlorella, followed by development in the U.S., Taiwan, Australia, China
and other countries of production processes for Spirulina, Dunaliella
and recently, Haematococcus. At present, about 5 000 tons of food- and
feed-grade microalgae biomass are produced annually in large open pond
Typical Commercial Microalgae Production Facility, Kona, Hawaii. (This
one being 90 acres).
Note: green ponds culturing Spirulina and red ponds with Haematococcus
(Courtesy of Cyanotech Corp.)
"A plant in Hawaii is using the flue gas from a small power plant to
supply the CO2, required in microalgae
production. Microalgae ponds are also extensively used in many
countries for wastewater treatment and at least one plant in
California is using the methane obtained from the harvested algal
biomass to produce electricity.
"The Microalgae Biofixation Network provides a structure and
mechanism by which expertise can be shared, critical mass reached and
research projects co-ordinated to help focus R&D efforts on the most
promising approaches towards practical applications."
There's much more info on Microalgae, and how much CO2 algae can
"capture" at the: "International Network on Biofixation of Greenhouse
Gases and CO2 Abatement with Microalgae"
Algae vs. FOREIGN OIL
According to Michael
Briggs, to move the US from dependence on foreign oil, would take
approximately $308 billion to build
farms. Thereafter, the operating costs (including power
consumption, labor, chemicals, and fixed capital costs (taxes,
maintenance, insurance, depreciation, and return on investment) would
equate to $46.2 billion per year
for enough algae farms, to yield all the oil feedstock necessary for the
entire country. Compare that to the
$100-150 billion the US spends
each year purchasing crude oil from foreign countries, with all of
that money leaving the US economy.
Click here to see
Michael Briggs article and cost
comparison of Algae vs. Foreign Oil - including a table showing
Algae payoff of open pond capital costs within 4 years, and saving
US $75+ billion per year thereafter, etc., leading to this dilemma:
"Organic" Algae vs. Algae Open Ponds: Pesticides/Genetic
(Note: less than one half of one percent of all US farmland is organic)
In a series of emails with Michael Briggs:
Mike: The cost estimates in my article were based on estimates
to build open ponds. The biggest problem is takeover by
low oil strains.
The fundamental problem is that low oil strains always grow faster than
high oil strains (takes more energy to make oil, which slows their
growth), so they will always take over an open system. You can do a
hybrid photobioreactor-open pond system with nutrients limited in the
open pond portion for part of the lifecycle, but if you do pure open
ponds, the only way to make it work would be to engineer high oil algaes
to be resistant to some poison that you would dump in the pond, i.e.
Monsanto's "Round-up Ready" approach with land crops, something I'm not
a fan of.
Tami: While I'm also not a fan of Monsanto GMO and poisons, it
seems that if you use "poison" for foods in America, you could
certainly use it for algae - since the algae would be used for fuel.
The algae wouldn't only be used for fuel. The economics are much better
if you also use the protein from the algae as animal feed or
fertilizer. That's why in my article I say that that's not really a
viable option, and that we are instead focusing on photobioreactors -
which need more development to bring down their capital costs, to make
Tami: I think our country should compare the cost of open ponds, using
Monsanto approach with the only product a bio-fuel, to the photobioreactor
where you get "organic" algae for bio-fuel and protein for animal feed/fertilizer.
It seems we could start with open ponds in "normal" American farming
approach, while continuing R & D on photobioreactors to make them both
viable and competitive.
Get "ALGAE To
Oil" Info Out!
ALGAE is probably the best way to reduce
Daryl Kollman, founder of the blue-green algae company, Cell Tech, (see
Algae Pond Project)
multiplies so quickly and produces so much oxygen per square foot that
ponds with a total surface area five times the size of Colorado would be
enough to start to reverse our growing CO2 problem." His
was to have algae ponds worldwide on farms, with the algae converting
CO2 to O2, and continually plowing the algae into the soil for
fertilizer (putting over 60-some elements into depleted topsoil).
Enough biodiesel to replace all U.S. petroleum transportation fuels and
our dependence on all foreign oil sources could be grown in 15,000
square miles / approximately 9.5 million acres. Yet the U.S.
government is pushing the very explosive, expensive and
zero net energy
Hydrogen and almost equally inefficient Corn options.
government needs to quit looking at hydrogen and corn and begin massive
and wholesale funding and grants for algae. New state agri-business of
algae farms? Or grants for ocean farming?
Algae farms 5 times in size of the state of Colorado would begin to turn
around global warming. What about "algae farms" 10 times that size?
Converting CO2 into O2, reversing
global warming, reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And the
algae wouldn't only be used for fuel. Michael Briggs says the economics
are much better if you also use the protein from the algae as animal
feed or fertilizer.
The profit motive alone gives us reason to move forward quickly. What a
-------------- and --------------
Conservation/New Energy reduces "future" CO2
Algae reduces EXISTING CO2!
Yes, if we