crude oil from algae

[dragon]

RICHLAND, Wash. – Engineers have created a continuous chemical process that produces useful crude oil minutes after they pour in harvested algae — a verdant green paste with the consistency of pea soup.

The research by engineers at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was reported recently in the journal Algal Research. A biofuels company, Utah-based Genifuel Corp., has licensed the technology and is working with an industrial partner to build a pilot plant using the technology.

In the PNNL process, a slurry of wet algae is pumped into the front end of a chemical reactor. Once the system is up and running, out comes crude oil in less than an hour, along with water and a byproduct stream of material containing phosphorus that can be recycled to grow more algae.

With additional conventional refining, the crude algae oil is converted into aviation fuel, gasoline or diesel fuel. And the waste water is processed further, yielding burnable gas and substances like potassium and nitrogen, which, along with the cleansed water, can also be recycled to grow more algae.

While algae has long been considered a potential source of biofuel, and several companies have produced algae-based fuels on a research scale, the fuel is projected to be expensive. The PNNL technology harnesses algae's energy potential efficiently and incorporates a number of methods to reduce the cost of producing algae fuel.

"Cost is the big roadblock for algae-based fuel," said Douglas Elliott, the laboratory fellow who led the PNNL team's research. "We believe that the process we've created will help make algae biofuels much more economical."

PNNL scientists and engineers simplified the production of crude oil from algae by combining several chemical steps into one continuous process. The most important cost-saving step is that the process works with wet algae. Most current processes require the algae to be dried — a process that takes a lot of energy and is expensive. The new process works with an algae slurry that contains as much as 80 to 90 percent water.

"Not having to dry the algae is a big win in this process; that cuts the cost a great deal," said Elliott. "Then there are bonuses, like being able to extract usable gas from the water and then recycle the remaining water and nutrients to help grow more algae, which further reduces costs."

While a few other groups have tested similar processes to create biofuel from wet algae, most of that work is done one batch at a time. The PNNL system runs continuously, processing about 1.5 liters of algae slurry in the research reactor per hour. While that doesn't seem like much, it's much closer to the type of continuous system required for large-scale commercial production.

The PNNL system also eliminates another step required in today's most common algae-processing method: the need for complex processing with solvents like hexane to extract the energy-rich oils from the rest of the algae. Instead, the PNNL team works with the whole algae, subjecting it to very hot water under high pressure to tear apart the substance, converting most of the biomass into liquid and gas fuels.

The system runs at around 350 degrees Celsius (662 degrees Fahrenheit) at a pressure of around 3,000 PSI, combining processes known as hydrothermal liquefaction and catalytic hydrothermal gasification. Elliott says such a high-pressure system is not easy or cheap to build, which is one drawback to the technology, though the cost savings on the back end more than makes up for the investment.

"It's a bit like using a pressure cooker, only the pressures and temperatures we use are much higher," said Elliott. "In a sense, we are duplicating the process in the Earth that converted algae into oil over the course of millions of years. We're just doing it much, much faster."

The products of the process are:

Crude oil, which can be converted to aviation fuel, gasoline or diesel fuel. In the team's experiments, generally more than 50 percent of the algae's carbon is converted to energy in crude oil — sometimes as much as 70 percent.
Clean water, which can be re-used to grow more algae.
Fuel gas, which can be burned to make electricity or cleaned to make natural gas for vehicle fuel in the form of compressed natural gas.
Nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium — the key nutrients for growing algae.

Elliott has worked on hydrothermal technology for nearly 40 years, applying it to a variety of substances, including wood chips and other substances. Because of the mix of earthy materials in his laboratory, and the constant chemical processing, he jokes that his laboratory sometimes smells "like a mix of dirty socks, rotten eggs and wood smoke" — an accurate assessment.

Genifuel Corp. has worked closely with Elliott's team since 2008, licensing the technology and working initially with PNNL through DOE's Technology Assistance Program to assess the technology.

"This has really been a fruitful collaboration for both Genifuel and PNNL," said James Oyler, president of Genifuel. "The hydrothermal liquefaction process that PNNL developed for biomass makes the conversion of algae to biofuel much more economical. Genifuel has been a partner to improve the technology and make it feasible for use in a commercial system.

"It's a formidable challenge, to make a biofuel that is cost-competitive with established petroleum-based fuels," Oyler added. "This is a huge step in the right direction."

The recent work is part of DOE's National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels & Bioproducts, or NAABB. This project was funded with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds by DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Both PNNL and Genifuel have been partners in the NAABB program.

In addition to Elliott, authors of the paper include Todd R. Hart, Andrew J. Schmidt, Gary G. Neuenschwander, Leslie J. Rotness, Mariefel V. Olarte, Alan H. Zacher, Karl O. Albrecht, Richard T. Hallen and Johnathan E. Holladay, all at PNNL

link

[Borgholio]

That's pretty neat. I recall experiments with algae where they have huge tubes of the stuff in the desert producing hydrogen gas that can be collected and used for fuel.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, not so enthusiastic. If it leads to a cheap method of producing oil, one of dirtiest power sources, that may mean further problems down the road for mankind.

[Magis]

Actually, not so enthusiastic. If it leads to a cheap method of producing oil, one of dirtiest power sources, that may mean further problems down the road for mankind.

Oil is dirty by what metric? If you're referring to greenhouse gas emissions, you can be relieved because algae-generated oil is approximately carbon neutral, and can even be a carbon negative process.

[Steel]

Actually, not so enthusiastic. If it leads to a cheap method of producing oil, one of dirtiest power sources, that may mean further problems down the road for mankind.

Oil is dirty by what metric? If you're referring to greenhouse gas emissions, you can be relieved because algae-generated oil is approximately carbon neutral, and can even be a carbon negative process.

It depends on the source of the carbon though. In a useless sense oil from the ground is carbon neutral as no carbon is created, just moved around. The problem is that it goes from being sludge in the ground to being CO2 in the air. If you produce oil with the algae extracting carbon from the air then you can get carbon neutral oil, but that is not common and less efficient than using other carbon sources, and that means when burnt we get more CO2.

That aside, one of the major problems with this is that your algae get sick and die quite often, and after a pretty short amount of time the algae evolve to not produce oil any more. They don't like making oil, it doesn't benefit them and its not particularly healthy for them to be sitting in it all day, so theres a strong selection pressure to stop wasting energy making oil and make more of yourself, so the ones that turn off the gene do better and the population quickly stops doing what you want.

This means that you have to very frequently stop your reactor, clean out all traces of the goop and restock it from lab fresh stock. This is very time consuming and expensive. That leaves out the necessary energy input and associated costs.

[Guardsman Bass]

I'll believe it when I see it. There has been hype for algae oil production since the 1970s, and none of it has panned out because that kind of mass algae cultivation tends to uneconomical for fuel-producing purposes.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, not so enthusiastic. If it leads to a cheap method of producing oil, one of dirtiest power sources, that may mean further problems down the road for mankind.

Oil is dirty by what metric? If you're referring to greenhouse gas emissions, you can be relieved because algae-generated oil is approximately carbon neutral, and can even be a carbon negative process.

Burning oil can never be a carbon-neutral process and burning oil products is what we most commonly do for the internal combustion engine. Due to the problems of extracting oil and retail prices of oil products rising ever higher, internal combustion engine alternatives are being rapidly sought: electric cars and hybrids as a medium step. Even in the aviation industry experiments with hydrogen propulsion carry on since the late 80s.

A cheap and reliable oil production process would abruptly end these developments and allow us to carry on with the simplicity of the internal combustion for decades if not centuries. Thankfully it seems that no such process can be found in the immediate future, neither for oil nor for coal. The finite nature of these resources is perhaps the only reason why their use may end in the future, and I sure hope it stays that way.

[Azazal]

I'm wondering why they're calling it a revolutionary change. I read about this ten years ago with turkey offal instead of algae. Did a little digging and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

Some selected highlights:

Thermal depolymerization (TDP) is a depolymerization process using hydrous pyrolysis for the reduction of complex organic materials (usually waste products of various sorts, often biomass and plastic) into light crude oil. It mimics the natural geological processes thought to be involved in the production of fossil fuels. Under pressure and heat, long chain polymers of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon decompose into short-chain petroleum hydrocarbons with a maximum length of around 18 carbons.

An approach that exceeded break-even was developed by Illinois microbiologist Paul Baskis in the 1980s and refined over the next 15 years (see U. S. patent 5,269,947, issued in 1993). The technology was finally developed for commercial use in 1996 by Changing World Technologies (CWT). Brian S. Appel (CEO of CWT) took the technology in 2001 and expanded and changed it into what is now referred to as TCP (Thermal Conversion Process), and has applied for and obtained several patents (see, for example, published patent 8,003,833, issued August 23, 2011). A Thermal Depolymerization demonstration plant was completed in 1999 in Philadelphia by Thermal Depolymerization, LLC, and the first full-scale commercial plant was constructed in Carthage, Missouri, about 100 yards (91 m) from ConAgra Foods' massive Butterball turkey plant, where it is expected to process about 200 tons of turkey waste into 500 barrels (79 m3) of oil per day.

Changing World Technology applied for an IPO on August 12; 2008, hoping to raise $100 million.
The unusual Dutch Auction type IPO failed possibly because CWT has lost nearly $20 million with very little revenue.
CWT, the parent company of Renewable Energy Solutions, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. No details on plans for the Carthage plant have been released.
In April 2013, CWT was acquired by a Canadian firm, Ridgeline Energy Services, based in Calgary

So I'm not one to believe the hype until it's actually up, running and producing crude that is delivered to market.

[slebetman]

Actually, not so enthusiastic. If it leads to a cheap method of producing oil, one of dirtiest power sources, that may mean further problems down the road for mankind.

Oil is dirty by what metric? If you're referring to greenhouse gas emissions, you can be relieved because algae-generated oil is approximately carbon neutral, and can even be a carbon negative process.

Burning oil can never be a carbon-neutral process and burning oil products is what we most commonly do for the internal combustion engine.

Well, think about it. Algae (and indeed plants in general) don't/cannot extract carbon from water. But they produce hydrocarbons as an end product - crude oil. So where does the carbon come from? Air. Which means that whatever carbon you release back into the air by burning the hydrocarbons was extracted from the air in the first place - carbon neutral.

Contrast this with fossil fuels which shifts carbon from the ground into the air.

[K. A. Pital]

I am thinking about the pollution that cars and roads create in inner cities. It is technically a continous shift of the burden.

[Steel]

I am thinking about the pollution that cars and roads create in inner cities. It is technically a continous shift of the burden.

But if there was a place with a significantly higher atmospheric carbon content, then that is exactly where you should stick your carbon scrubbing fuel machines! Cleaner air and more productive fuel maker! If only there was the technology...

[K. A. Pital]

I am thinking about the pollution that cars and roads create in inner cities. It is technically a continous shift of the burden.

But if there was a place with a significantly higher atmospheric carbon content, then that is exactly where you should stick your carbon scrubbing fuel machines! Cleaner air and more productive fuel maker! If only there was the technology...

I would say that it is prudent to think about not emitting carbon in the first place. You know. Making electricity in a centralized way, spreading it to efficient batteries running a fleet of electric automobiles and extensive railway-based transport networks.

[Borgholio]

Making electricity in a centralized way, spreading it to efficient batteries running a fleet of electric automobiles and extensive railway-based transport networks.

That's basically the biggest argument in favor of electric vehicles. Easier and more effective to control pollution from one massive central power plant than from thousands of individual vehicles.

[Irbis]

Besides the fact algae like to drop oil production genes and pollution problem, there is this bit:

Nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium — the key nutrients for growing algae.

We might run out of phosphorus even for normal crop fertilizers soon, burning it for this is just sawing the branch on which we're sitting even faster.

[Zeropoint]

1) The article points out that phosphorus is one of the system outputs, so it seems highly likely that no phosphorus is consumed in the process--you put phosphorus into the algae at one end and get it back at the other.

2) Unless you're doing nuclear transmutation, phosphorus--or any other element--doesn't "go away" when you use it. When our current phosphorus sources start to get expensive, it'll become more economical to recover and recycle the phosphorus from the other end of the system and close the cycle.

[Irbis]

1) The article points out that phosphorus is one of the system outputs, so it seems highly likely that no phosphorus is consumed in the process--you put phosphorus into the algae at one end and get it back at the other.

That is extremely optimistic assuming they can get 100% of it and not lose it, in say crude oil output part.

2) Unless you're doing nuclear transmutation, phosphorus--or any other element--doesn't "go away" when you use it. When our current phosphorus sources start to get expensive, it'll become more economical to recover and recycle the phosphorus from the other end of the system and close the cycle.

Yes, it goes away, washing to the sea from the soil. Take a quick look at the problem overview here, not only we're polluting the oceans with it, we will eventually go past peak production which will be a problem because only about 50% of humans depend on fertilized food. Now. With soil depletion and population growth this problem will get worse.

Close the cycle? How? By encasing every river in a pipe?

[Zeropoint]

If it's in the sea, it's not GONE, is it?

[Vejut]

Nope. But it IS likely at a very low, difficult to recover concentration.

[Irbis]

If it's in the sea, it's not GONE, is it?

If it is in so low concentrations filtering it would cost thousands per ton, it might well be. Remember, it's not some random industrial mineral, it's something that affects price of food. We can't just 'pay more' for it, not without seeing huge famines and riots in poorer countries first.

Also, in the sea it contributes to algae blooms, devastating events we don't need more of.

[Sea Skimmer]

Talking about runoff problems when the algae would be grown in bags or closed ponds is kind of silly, reuse of the water is one of the many advantages of the idea. However its not happening any time soon, nobody can break past yielding about 1000 gallons per acre of land at the moment, and something more like 10,000 an acre is required to make it economically viable on a mass scale. This article is about a better means of extracting the oil from the algae, but that means little if the algae just doesn't make that much oil.

I recall reading that Exxon recently gave up on algae oil after spending 800 million dollars trying to make it work, and declared that they doubted it would work without actively gene splicing the algae to a degree not yet possible with present technology. Given how much money they have to blow on R&D, and the appeal of endless oil without building 2 billion dollar oil platforms or the liability of uncontrolled oil spills, well, its not a good sign for the technology at all.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If it's in the sea, it's not GONE, is it?

If it is in so low concentrations filtering it would cost thousands per ton, it might well be. Remember, it's not some random industrial mineral, it's something that affects price of food. We can't just 'pay more' for it, not without seeing huge famines and riots in poorer countries first.

Also, in the sea it contributes to algae blooms, devastating events we don't need more of.

Protip: Learn to read

This is being done in a closed system. As in, all the water is recycled.

Step1--> Step2-->Step3-->StepN-->Step 1 repeat at nausium. So you end up with the same amount of phosphorus at the final step in the cycle as in the beginning. The same with nitrogen, which is not in gaseous form, but rather in the form of water-soluble nitrates and nitrites which are already fixed and ready to be taken up by the next generation of algae. Sure you might have some loss in the oil extraction, but those losses are going to be marginal given that you are probably looking at inorganic phosphate ions that are water soluble but not soluble in hydrocarbons

Issues with phosphorus... there are ways. Setting up catchments along the margins of agricultural fields for example. Have phosphorus runoff? Well then, catch it in an artificial wetland and then mulch the resultant very healthy and abundant algae and plant material.

[energiewende]

I am thinking about the pollution that cars and roads create in inner cities. It is technically a continous shift of the burden.

Carbon dioxide is not toxic to humans. To the extent burning oil creates dangerous ambient pollution at all, it's due to heavy metal impurities. I would expect algae-produced oil to contain very little of those.

[Borgholio]

Carbon dioxide is not toxic to humans.

Um, yeah it most certainly is...

[energiewende]

"CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals."

CO2 can displace oxygen causing asphixiation at concentrations far above those encountered as a result of engine fumes in open spaces. It is not poisonous in low concentrations.

[Singular Intellect]

Carbon dioxide is not toxic to humans.

Um, yeah it most certainly is...

You wouldn't claim water is toxic to humans even though it doesn't take much of it to kill a human being.