The rapidly growing global demand for oil combined with all number of supply issues has increased gas prices over the last year. This we all know. Fortunately Americans are responding to this as any economist would predict. As the prices rise the demand for alternatives also rises. Some people are responding reasonably by directly altering their behavior. Andy I, for example is a big proponent of biodiesel. Unfortunately others are trying to alter the behavior of others via the government. I’ve gone on and on here about such things. Some proposals are good and others are completely horrible.
Today some information about algal biodiesel came my way from fark (where else?). I’ve read about it before to some extent. This article in particular focused on how Dr. Isaac Berzin, an MIT rocket scientist, believes algae can be combined with coal burning power plants to reduce carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions while creating biodiesel and ethanol.
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 says.
Initially this looks good — so good I would expect that oil companies would buy this technology then bury it to prevent it from seeing the light of day. We all know those loonies who believe those bullshit conspiracy theories. I almost had to smack someone who believe a pharmaceutical company would bury a cure for diabetes that it bought for $30 million. “It’s all about the money.” Exactly, and having sole possession of something so radically advanced would bring in a tidy profit. But I digress. There are some questions and observations about these numbers worthy of being presented.
- This technology “can produce 15,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre. Just 60 gallons are produced from soybeans, which along with corn are the major biodiesel crops today.” No word on if any dollar-per-gallon subsidy exists for this since the fuel doesn’t come from corn or soybeans. This could be bad news for the Iowans investing in farm grown biodiesel. I am still loathe to get our food and fuel from the same source. Hell, we have a lot of land, but not that much. According to the CIA, the US has about 430 million acres of arable land. Assuming 300 million Americans and max production, each person could get about 90 gallons of biodiesel per year. As it is in this country, we use about 20 million barrels (not gallons) per day. That equates to just about 1,000 gallons of oil per person per year. Nine percent ain’t bad, but that is assuming maximum capacity.
- So agri-biodiesel really doesn’t look that good. It’s not useless, but it ain’t that grand. Let’s say we do get some of these 2000 acre farms set up, a hundred of them. I’m going to combine those 40 million gallons of biodiesel and 50 million gallons of ethanol and say that they can substitute for about 2 million barrels of oil. For a hundred such facilities, we can replace roughly 3 percent of our oil use. So with widespread use this could be somewhat doable.
- I’m amused by the arbitrary size of the “farms” used. 2000 acres is exactly the same size as the proposed maximum footprint for drilling in ANWR. Here 2000 acres is written off as almost nothing. When it comes to drilling, 2000 acres is a tragedy.
- These “farms” though, aren’t like corn fields. You can’t just knock down the trees and till the soil. We’re talking about 2,000 acres of “rows of fat, clear tubes.” Glass tubes? Plastic tubes? 2000 acres of glass will take a lot of energy to produce. 2000 acres of plastic will require a lot of oil for all that polymer. So this seems like it would be a rather large capital investment.
So this is a technology to keep your eye on. Remember that all these numbers are just estimates and that I’m working with numbers that may or my not be correct to start with. But I hope it adds a little depth to your understanding of what we’re looking at.
Land….you want land….take a trip down to Mexico and see how much unused land there is. As corn is a pretty rigid crop, I am sure it could handle the soil conditions down there, especially as it would be produced solely for fuel and not human consumption. As for the useage that you calculated, I know from speaking to AndyI that his car gets much better mileage than a standard fuel car. I know that it will not make that much of a difference in the calculation (54 mpg vs 28mpg) but it is a valid point. And the tubes….well how big are they? Maybe we can find an already used good that could be recycled for this purpose…..say tennis ball cans!
This is true. And maybe Andy I can provide the info before I look it up. Are comparable diesels always more efficient, and by how much? I mention this because if it’s a matter of simply driving an efficient vehicle, well we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion if people were already driving more efficient vehicles.