Algae: The Next Generation of Green Energy
Coal industry should consider funding algal-based biofuel research to aid in greenhouse gas reduction and carbon sequestration
Christopher Johns and Steven Le Ethics in Science Spring 2012 Algae: The Next Generation of Green Energy:
Coal industry should consider funding algal-based biofuel research to aid in greenhouse gas reduction and carbon sequestration
Tag Words: Clean Energy, Biofuel, Algae, Green Energy, Global Warming, Gas Crisis, Oil Dependency, Corn Ethanol, Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Nuclear Power, Renewable Energy
Authors: Steven Le and Christopher Johns with Julie M. Fagan, Ph.D.
Summary Our issue dealt with the failure of the United States to have an efficient alternative energy source, which could eventually develop into a replacement for regular petroleum gasoline. As of now the United States has tried other alternatives to generate cleaner and greener energy, however none of these has proved to be quite efficient enough for mass production. Each presents their own drawbacks, and for this reason, we sought to find a potential alternative clean energy source practical for the mass market. Through our research genetically engineered algal biofuels provided the answer to what we thought could be a possible alternative energy reservoir. With continued research and development, it is not a mistake to say, that algae could be the answer to our energy crisis. In the end we created a collection of what types of energy sources the United States has been relying on, and why algae could trump all of them. Using this information we formulated a research proposal and video to show the benefits of algal-based biofuels, in order garner more support for the industry and increased funding for research and development.
Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLSguFxXtCg&list=UUts4_1WyqXMmVDfu9ZffstA&inde x=10&feature=plcp
Introduction:
As the globe continues forward with the consumption of valuable fossil fuels, concerns about the consequences are becoming more and more relevant. People need to be made aware the stores of the earth’s natural fossil fuels are not a never ending supply, because eventually Earth will eventually run out at the high rate industrialized nations are consuming them. Unfortunately there is no way to speed up time in order to make up for the loss stores of natural fuel, which leaves the human race with only a few reasonable options. One of the possible solutions is to look for alternative fuels that will eventually replace the consumption of fossil fuels. This would be the most beneficial. Not only will alternative fuels help our country break its dependence of foreign oil, but it will also promote a cleaner environment, especially when the effects of the excessive burning of fossil fuels have become quite apparent. With a look into a brighter future we would like to bring to light the alternative energy choices used today, and review their pros and cons. Ultimately, we would like to promote a newer choice of alternative fuel, which stems from genetically modified algae, and show how this new develop can be cost effective and more efficient than other alternative methods tired in the past. First, we will address America’s oil dependency and other alternative fuel options that have been exercised. Second, we will talk about the new genetically engineered biofuels from algae, in regards to where it is in development and what is needed to progress with this new alternative energy option.
America’s Dependence on Fossil Fuel
(CJ) In more recent times the American dependence on fossil fuel and foreign oil imports have become an important topic of discussion. Being dependent on anything is not a good habit to find oneself in, however in the United States situation, it has become unavoidable. The U.S. has topped its crude oil consumption at around 7 billion barrels per year, and over half of that amount comes from imports (Ganos). With the high amount of crude oil imported into the country, the U.S. economy experiences a lot of strain, which in turn lowers the overall living standard of American households. If the price for crude oil continues to rise, a $25 dollar increase per barrel will result in approximately 1% decrease of gross domestic product. As the payments of oil continue to be allocated towards the same oil producers, their bank accounts continue to grow, which increases their leverage over US capital markets (Deutch, and Schlesinger).
Not only does this dependence leave our economy at the mercy of the overseas oil companies, but it proceeds to dictate our foreign policy as well. Unfortunately as the companies build up increasing amounts of high revenue from their oil exportation, the easier it becomes to enact policies that oppose those of the United States. This leads into another problem, in which the “political realignments that constrain the ability of the United States to form partnerships to achieve common objectives” (Deutch, and Schlesinger). Countries will begin to adopt policies in order to secure the continuation of oil imports. Not only may this cause some political strain, but it may also cause some general unrest in the people of that nation.
The overall goal in the end is to be completely dependent on home grown resources to feed the energy needs of the country. Unfortunately, the United States is not completely there, because the technology to look for alternative energy sources have not been fully perfected yet (Ganos). Although some may not think about the depletion of oil on this planet, the sad truth is that this depletion is closer than one may think. This situation referred to as “Peak oil,” or the point in time at which the maximum rate of extraction occurs for a specific well, a field, a region, or the world, after which extraction quickly declines (Ganos). This projection for the world’s peak oil may occur in the next decade, which should be a glaring sign to the United States’ oil policies.
However one of the major issues about this dependency, which is quite misunderstood, is that the high-energy prices will not go away if the United States just stops importation. Make no mistake, the oil prices will drop a little bit, but it is foolish to think that gas will once again be as cheap as it was in the early 1990s. With the diminishing sources for oil all around the globe, the demand for oil will not go away, which make prices, even for domestic oil, continue to rise. If the United States has any hope in becoming more oil independent it is going to have to encourage domestic companies to increase their oil production and search for new sources to sustain the high demand in the United States. Not only will help alleviate the strain on oil importation, but it will also encourage other countries to become more oil independent as well (Deutsch, and Schlesinger). This problem of oil dependency will not be an easy one to solve especially if the United States continues to rely on oil as a main energy source. However, there have been some changes made to look for alternative energy methods. Cars, one of the major problems with this oil dependency, are becoming increasingly more energy efficient. More cars are relying on larger fractions of biomass-derived liquids such as ethanol, but some engineers are looking for further expand the possibilities of cars running only on electricity (Deutch, and Schlesinger).
In the end, the United States is making changes get out of this oil dependency rut it has dug itself into. Not only has it put the United States in an uncomfortable position economically and politically, it has helped to cause increasing environmental problems dealing with global warming. Hopefully with added awareness the United States will continue to support alternative energy options, which will reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and help reduce the accumulation of environmental damage accrued over the last few hundred years.
Ethanol as Energy
With the new advancements in technology over the past few years, the United States has been looking for ways to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. Not only is it costing our country a lot of money to import oil from foreign countries, but also burning of these fuels has been producing harmful effects to our planet. With the onset of global warming due to excess green house gas in our atmosphere, and the ever rising oil prices, the need for alternatives to fossil fuels is becoming more and more of a necessity.
Unfortunately, while many of these alternative fuels may look good on paper or in the production labs, a lot more thought needs to be worked in as to how automotive engineers can effectively construct a cost effective vehicle. While an automotive engineer can create a projected model of automotive efficiency, the bottom line is really whether or not it can be affordable as well. If what they produce is not nearly as cost effective as owning a standard car, the continual consumption of fossil fuels will never be stopped (Allen). However one option given to this problem has been the development of biofuel from ethanol.
Luckily the development of ethanol has received a lot of support from the government, especially when it is seen as a way out of our dependence on foreign oil. President Bush gave a lot of support towards the development of ethanol. During his time in office, he brought forth the Advanced Energy Initiative, which created a renewable energy standard for the United States. This standard said by 2012 the US will require 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel to be circulated around the country, as well as improved tax benefits for anyone that used either one. This new legislation put into projection over a 90% increase of alternative fuel use, when compared to the nation’s ethanol and biofuel consumption at the time of enactment (Allen). However, one cannot claim that ethanol will be the savior to the United States fossil fuel consumption and oil dependence. Ethanol presents itself as a perfect solution, being made from all natural sources and leaving a much smaller carbon imprint, but no alternative can be absolutely perfect. The ethanol produced for alternative fuel production is a mix of 85% ethyl alcohol and 15% gasoline. Overall the octane rating is over 100 and burns a lot cooler and cleaner as compared to regular gasoline from the pump. The performance for this mix, known as E85, on paper should be better than a regular gasoline engine, with its higher compression ratio and thermodynamic efficiency; however cars are unable to take advantage of this. They need to retain the ability to run on regular gasoline as well, preventing the car from utilizing the full benefits from the E85 (Allen).
Another major topic of discussion is whether the energy produced by the ethanol, makes up for the energy cost to produce it. According to the Department of Energy, “the growing, fermenting and distillation chain actually results in a surplus of energy that ranges from 34 to 66%. Moreover the carbon dioxide that an engine produces started out as atmospheric carbon dioxide that the cornstalk captured during growth, making ethanol greenhouse gas neutral. (Allen).” As shown by the Department of Energy, the production of ethanol actually saves energy and leaves no carbon dioxide increase after it is burned in the car. Overall, ethanol seems to triumph over the two major issues of environmental impact after it is burned in the car and whether it is efficient to produce. However there are some other major issues that need to be considered.
One of the major downsides to E85 is how corrosive the alcohol is on the engine itself. Since alcohol is chemically known as being a corrosive solvent, anything in the car that is exposed to the fuel must be able to survive its harmful effects. The solutions to this problem are not cheep. The engine will either have to be coated in some sort of plastic or stainless steel, in order for the engine to have some sort of reliability. This leaves the question of whether or not it would be cost-effective to produce cars of this nature. Another problem is the way in which corn is grown to produce the amount of ethanol needed. While some may only think of the effects the emissions will have on the atmosphere, the environmental effects of the growing the corn must also be considered. Corn needs a lot of pesticide and fertilizer as well as heavy equipment and transportation (Allen). These excess pesticides and fertilizers could seep into rivers, causing major environmental impacts, like algal blooms as seen at the Mississippi river delta. These blooms cause extreme anoxic environments, causing a lot of death in the waters around it (Libes). In the end Ethanol does give the US a good choice for alternative means to fuel cars besides conventional gasoline. There are some drawbacks to consider about its cost-effectiveness and efficiency, however with more production this could be a definite option to meet future energy demands.
Nuclear Power
Recently the dangers of nuclear power have been rekindled due to Japan’s nuclear crisis, caused by numerous earthquakes and tsunamis hitting the country last year. Due to the numerous nuclear plants affected by this disaster, it has overtaken Chernobyl as being the worst nuclear disaster in history (Tachuchi). In March of 2011, Japan saw one of the reactor cores become damaged by an explosion and while another reactor went up in flames, spewing radioactive material into the atmosphere. A lot of this radioactive material was being swept into the Pacific Ocean, which on one hand saves populated areas from the harmful effects but on the other hand will cause environmental problems along the coast (Tabuchi).
Since heavy radionuclides have a low solubility in water, they instead tend to accumulate in ocean sediments. These heavy isotopes have extremely long half-lives, and may include caesium-137, strontium-90, and plutonium-239. Unfortunately they may accumulate in some marine organisms, like the algae Porphyra umbilicalis, which lives in the proximity of a reprocessing plant in England (Lalli and Parsons 255-256). Most of the effects of the bioaccumulation in marine organisms exhibit similar effects as to those seen in humans. This includes higher susceptibility to cancer, impaired immune systems, and genetic defects causing growth deformities. Any number of these effects can be seen with radioactive material sweeping into the ocean off the coast of Japan (Lalli and Parsons 255-256).
Stemming from this disaster and others like it, which includes the Chernobyl disaster about 25 years ago, discussions of whether nuclear power is really worth the danger have begun to resurface. One of the leading nations in the discussions has been Germany, and after seeing the results of such a disaster it has declared it will shut down all of its nuclear power by 2022 (Galbraith). On the other hand the United States has begun to examine the waste disposal problem of its own nuclear waste. Considerations of disposing the waste in the Yucca Mountain in Nevada have always been proposed, but now with worries of radiation leakage, like those in Japan, this idea has mostly likely been put to rest (Galbraith). The world has seen the risks of storing nuclear waste on site, and wants to avoid having a radioactive waste breach like Japan.
Although Japan’s disaster did cause a worldwide scare over nuclear power, the advantages of it cannot be overlooked. Apart from the disaster in Chernobyl and Japan, the safety record of nuclear power has been superb. No deaths have been recorded up until these two major diasters, and nuclear power actually saves lives with the avoidance of coal burning plants. These coal plants emit thousands of particles in to the air, which have been linked to killing many Americans each year (Carbon). In theory nuclear power is environmentally clean, because it emits no carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to effects of global warming. The only real environmental problem comes down to waste disposal. However if the wastes can be buried deep underground, they will leak no radiation and can be considered harmless (Carbon). The US Environmental Protection Agency has decided that as long as waste does not exceed 15 millirems per year for the first 10,000 years after it is disposed of, there will be no repercussions. This will be the standard for all waste disposal throughout the United States. The EPA has projected that this low level of exposure leaves only a 1 in 100,000 chance of developing a fatal cancer. Surprisingly, this dosage of radiation is twenty times less than background radiation humans are normally exposed to every year (Beckjord). Compared to the waste produced by coal and natural gas into the atmosphere, nuclear power is the answer environmentalists have been looking for.
Overall, nuclear power can be a safe option that produces a lot of energy, while at the same time creating much less environmentally harmful waste as compared to coal and natural gas plants. However there is still the chance of nuclear disasters, and this possibility is a risk some nations, like Germany, are not willing chance. Although nuclear power has had very little life threatening situations, Chernobyl and Japan leave strong blemishes on its historical records. The Chernobyl disaster left around 50 people dead (Carbon), and Japan had to displace more than 136,000 people because of the danger of exposure to radioactive particles being emitted from nearby plants (Smith). At the same it has exceeded Chernobyl leaving over 1,000 dead from the explosion of a building housing a nuclear reactor (Talmadge, and Yuir Kageyama). Disasters like this cannot be overlooked, but if nuclear power can be effectively and safely maintained, it could offer an excellent source of clean energy.
Wind Energy
Another increasingly popular form of energy has been wind energy. Recently, the United States has passed Germany to hold the name of the country with the most wind power and does not plan to look back. By the year 2030 the Department of Energy hopes to incorporate wind energy into about 20% of the nation’s electricity supply (Bradsher). However in order for this to happen it will require significant expansion of the transmission infrastructure and system operational changes. Hopefully by drawing wind energy from a larger geographic area, wind energy will be less expensive and more reliable as an energy source (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). According to the American Wind Energy Association, “wind projects account for more than a third of all the new electric generation installed in recent years, while over the last six years, domestic wind turbine production has grown twelvefold, to more than 400 facilities in 43 states (Bradsher).” Most of this progress can be attributed to recent support from the government, which has made wind energy more marketable. The government has provided a federal stimulus package which offers extended tax credit and other incentives for investment in the wind energy industry (Bradsher). Without the continuation of support from the government, the advancement of wind energy will not be able to be competitive, especially in the creation of new jobs.
However, there are some posed risks to investment, which the government has become aware to after the financial collapse of Solyndra in 2009. In general support for this industry could amount to a lot of new jobs, with a project of around 78,000 jobs by this year (Bradsher). However in order for this to happen there needs to be an extension of the production tax credit. This is the part which raisers some concern to those who are allotting these tax credits. Some companies like Solyndra, a maker of solar modules, helped to destroy the reputation of alternative energy companies after it went bankrupt. Unfortunately the company was under a 2009 stimulus package, which provided government loan guarantees for clean-energy products. Now in order for a company to can any tax credit at all the companies need to prove their stability, so the taxpayers are not throwing their money at a sinking business (Badsher).
Although Solyndra may caused some bad publicity towards alternative energy companies, the benefits of alternative energy, like wind, cannot be forgotten. Investing in wind energy is one of the best ways for the United States to reduce its carbon footprint, because there are no byproducts produced. With more and more money put into the development of new technology to make this industry more efficient, the less the US will have to rely on burning fossil fuel for energy (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). Hopefully this can help alleviate some of the issues the US has seen with its oil dependency. With reduced spending on fossil fuels, the government can direct some of that money towards additional transmission of electricity across the country. The NREL has stated, “…consider that just over 70% of the US population gets its power from the Eastern interconnect. Incorporating high amounts of wind power in the Eastern grid goes a long way towards clean power for the whole country (NERL).”
Wind energy really offers the United States an excellent option to reduce its reliance on high priced fossil fuels, while giving it a better outlook towards the future. Although there are some that remain skeptical on investments in alternative energy companies, with continued support the companies can continue to develop. The government needs to decide, which industry would be the most viable option to help avoid the every rising fuel costs in evitable in the future. Wind energy gives the government a good case for investment as one of the clean energy options for the upcoming decades.
Solar Energy History (SL) While solar energy becomes a continuing and rising issue in renewable and alternative energies, the concept is not novel. The United States Department of Energy gives insight that the earliest use of solar energy was in 7th century B.C. when humans would utilize magnifying objects such as glass to consolidate the sun’s rays to produce fire. Solar technology first began its development in 1776 when Swiss scientist Horace de Saussure was responsible for the creation of the solar collector, or known as “hot boxes.” Early discoveries also included Edmond Becquerel’s discovery of the photovoltaic properties of electrolytic cells in 1839 and Charles Fritt’s conceptualization of utilizing thin selenium wafers as the first solar cells in 1873; these discoveries acted as precursors of the achievements of gradual increases in efficiency of solar cells to over 20% for the next century (Department of Energy, 2002).
Solar Renewable Energy Certificates
States who establishes a program called the Renewable Portfolio Standard mandates utility companies, the primary electricity suppliers, to have certain amounts of electricity generated in the total energy grid coming from solar energy; utility companies that fail to generate the minimal threshold would undergo penalties from the state government, in which each state varies with its policies. For example, in New Jersey, utility companies are penalized by paying a Solar Alternative Compliance Payment, or SACP. However, Solar Renewable Energy Certificates, commonly known as SRECs, serve as an incentive to generating electricity through solar energy (NJ Clean Energy, 2011).
When a utility company generates 1,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, one SREC is earned and is reported into a tracking system. The company, SRECTrade, Inc., a company founded in 2007 to sales management of SRECs, stated that, “the sale of SRECs is intended to promote the growth of distributed solar by shortening the time it takes to earn a return on the investment” (SRECTrade Inc., 2010). Like holding shares in the stock market, the intention was to provide monetary incentives to electricity suppliers to sell their SRECs on a premium price near the end of an energy year (Flett Exchange, 2011). Furthermore, in order to promote SRECs over paying the SACP, one SREC tends to be more valuable than the SACP. In New Jersey, SRECs are worth approximately $250 more than the SACP in 2010, in which the SACP is around $693 (NJ Clean Energy, 2011).
There are seven states with SREC markets: Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Other states such as Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia are eligible to sell into other state SREC markets but do not have established markets in their own states. There are also nine other states that do have Renewable Portfolio Standard regarding solar requirements, but those states currently do not have an SREC market or eligible to sell into other state SREC markets . In 2005, New Jersey was the pioneering state with its Clean Energy Program establishing a Renewable Portfolio Standard (SRECTrade Inc., 2010).
SREC prices are not fixed and are influenced by market forces such as supply and demand. A state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard may contribute to the demand, because each state may differ of how many kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity goes into one SREC. The supply comes from the generation of the kWh of solar-based electricity that allows a utility company or electricity provider to purchase SRECs (SRECTrade Inc., 2010). A third possible determinant of SREC prices are state solar compliance penalties such as New Jersey’s SACP (Ashton, 2011).
SREC Prices Declines and Market Plateaus
During the late 2000s, the SREC prices held steadily rendering SRECs and solar-based electricity production as economically favorable choices for utility companies or primary electricity suppliers. However, in the beginning of the energy year for 2012, which began on June 1, 2011, SREC prices have declined greatly due to solar development booming quickly over the past several years, thereby surpassing the New Jersey Renewable Portfolio Standard quickly; in generalized economic terms, the supply of solar-based electricity generation is more than the demand of solar-based electricity from New Jersey’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. This is somewhat a similar pattern when SREC prices in Pennsylvania fell by 70% when there was an oversupply of SRECs coming from abundant generation of solar-based electricity (Flett Exchange, 2011).
Because SRECs are not integrated on the federal level and undergo various state markets, solar energy is undergoing a time where the market does not serve as the incentive for the acceleration of solar-based electricity. CFO and Vice President of Sol Systems, George Ashton, stated, “where SREC markets can no longer support solar development, the solar community will apply pressure to politicians to increase demand to support job growth in one of today’s few industries reporting job growth: solar” (Ashton, 2011).
State legislators in New Jersey attempted to modify the Renewable Portfolio Standard through General Assembly Bill A2529 “concerning energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements,” but such legislation was conditionally vetoed by Governor Christopher Christie citing disagreements about larger solar projects generating 10,000 kWh being exempt from a review for SREC eligibility by the Board of Public Utilities and the Department of Environmental Protection (Christie, 2011). Because the vast differences in states participating in the market such as SREC prices, varying political environments, varying Renewable Energy Portfolios, and varying bureaucracies, a nationwide initiative of making solar energy a prevalent and permanent source of energy will not be a reality for many years.
Algae – Introduction
During times where a gallon of oil is on the brink of costing Americans on average five dollars, the American dependency on foreign oil is not an economically sustainable and environmentally sustainable method of obtaining and utilizing energy. As dependency on oil is a sustained issue in American politics since the 1970s, alternative methods after alternative methods were used resulting in unintended consequences from the storing of nuclear waste and the Three-Mile Island incident hindering the progress of nuclear energy to stagnation of positive market forces to provide incentives for the production of more solar-based electricity. Advocates for algal-based fuels claim that algae are one of the cleanest processes to obtain oil and products used for fuel.
Algae are aquatic and autotrophic organisms with the photosynthetic properties that utilize sunlight and carbon fixation processes to produce byproducts such as glucose, lipids, and other organic compounds for the organism to thrive. A sunlight absorbing green pigment called chlorophyll found in organelles called chloroplasts elicit photosynthetic capabilities. There are two groups of algae: microalgae and macroalgae. Microalgae have historically been used for other applications such as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, nutrition, and health. However, microalgae’s carbon dioxide capturing and sequestration abilities are several areas of focus for biofuel production (Carlsson et al, 2007).
There are many genera in macroalgae, some containing unique properties that may advantageous for algal biofuel production. For example, Macrocystic pyrifera, commonly known as giant brown kelp, has two unique properties: “a high light absorptive capacity” and “a doubling of its weight every six months” (Carlsson et al, 2007). Other genera of seaweed hold unique characteristics from the Alaria’s ability to float and thrive in colder waters in the Arctic Ocean to the high productivity and commonly cultivated qualities of the Gracillaria genus (Carlsson et al, 2007).
Current Uses of Algae
Red, green, and brown seaweed are the main types of macroalgae developing and forming layers on rock surfaces, which captures photons from the sun tenfold efficiently in comparison to the plankton population. These are the commonly known seaweed known for its multiple uses in human civilization (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2003). Far East and Southeast Asian countries like Japan, China, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines incorporated into its cuisine for the past several centuries. Nori, known as purple laver or Porphra umbilicalis, is notoriously known in the sushi bars all over the world as the seaweed sheet wrappings for sushi. Wakame and Kombu, from the Laminaria species, are other types of seaweeds prevalent in Japanese cuisine (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2003).
Throughout history, seaweed was utilized for its ability to retain water and for its possession of adequate nitrogenous and potassium, which such a quality allowed seaweed to become a quality fertilizer and soil conditioner source in comparison to present chemical fertilizers. From Cornwall, United Kingdom to Puerto Madryn, Argentina, seaweed was mixed into sand, left alone to ferment, composted, and utilized on farmlands. Many farmers have receive promising results in higher yield of crops when seaweed extracts are incorporated into farmland, but there currently lacks a biochemical elaboration on what in seaweed promotes improved crop yields (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2003).
There are other uses for algae. Cosmetics such as creams, lotions, soaps, bath salts, and masks contain alginate or carrageenan, which are essentially seaweed extracts. European livestock such as cows, sheep, and horses that lived near bodies of water consume large brown seaweed and genera of different seaweed like Laminaria and Ascophyllum that would wash up onto land (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2003).
Process to Obtaining Algal Biofuels
The process to obtaining algal biofuels is simplified to several steps: algal cultivation, algal harvesting, algal oil and hydrocarbon extraction, and conversion of oil and hydrocarbons into biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol, which are environmentally favorable substitutes to the petroleum-based oil extracted from the ground (Ferrell, 2010). The first step of algal cultivation encompasses the growth and development of algae, which will require resources such as land, water, and nutrients. In terms of demand for land to produce substantial amounts of algal biofuels, the United States Department of Energy indicates that in order to replace all of the United States’ use of petroleum-based oil, there would need to be approximately 15,000 square miles of land for algal cultivation, which is less than 0.5% of the total land area of the United States and several thousands of square miles bigger than Maryland (Hartman, 2008).
Harvesting and extraction can be “energy-intensive and can entail siting” issues due to a lack of ideal system that can minimize energy input in the harvesting, extraction, handling, and drying of algal collections from its cultivated environment (Ferrell, 2010). Triglycerides, the lipid molecule of focus, would be extracted from the cell membranes, in which the remaining biomass, known as algal residue, are by-products of the conversion reaction which can be used as “animal feed, enzymes, fertilizer, bioplastics, and surfactants” (Ferrell, 2010). While algal biofuel advocates claim the positive effects for the environment, some skeptics claim that there are concerns on the use of chemicals in the current extraction process that may pose unintended health risks for its potential toxicity (Ryan, 2009).
Furthermore, the algal residue remaining from the extract process can be treated by pyrolysis and liquefaction, which thermochemically decomposes the residue into bio-oils. Both bio-oils and algal oil like crude oil require refinement via conversion or biochemical pathways such as “transesterification, fermentation, anaerobic digestion, gasification, pyrolysis, liquefaction, and hydroprocessing” (Ryan, 2009). Transesterification is one of the most common processes in which triglycerides are converted into fatty acid methyl esters, commonly known as FAMEs. This process can be done thermochemically or can be done through chemical catalysts such as methanol, ethanol, and/or sodium ethanolate. Once the reaction occurs, biodiesel can be separated from by-products through the addition of ether and salt water and vacuum filtration. Lipases may be an environmental friendly alternative to the use of chemicals that may pose environmental risks and higher energy input, but lipases are too expensive, too scarce, and can be destroyed by the presence of methanol and glycerol; as a result, this establishes a need in biochemistry and biotechnology for the research and development of optimal protein structures (Ferrell, 2010).
Algae’s Overall Benefits as Biofuels
Besides being a potentially environment friendly source of biofuels, microalgae have a potential to produce oil hundredfold in comparison to soybeans or other crops used to develop biofuels (U.S. Department of Energy, 2008). In addition, microalgae has around thirtyfold of energy yield more than soybeans (Hartman, 2008). Unlike corn and other crops, algae will not require arable land to be cultivated, in which photoautotrophic environments such as open or closed ponds and heterotrophic environments such as closed photobioreactors used for fermentation and algal reproduction would suffice for adequate cultivation (Ferrell, 2010). As a result, algal cultivation would not result in taking away outputs from agriculture, thereby not affecting food prices. Another quality is the flexible water environments from seawater and wastewater in which algae can also be grown (U.S. Department of Energy, 2007).
Algae have an ability to produce a diverse array of different biofuels such as ethanol, biobutanol, biomethanol, biogasoline, and biodiesel from the conversion of algal lipids in the following applications like combustion, anaerobic production of methane, and ethanol production from fermentation. The remaining algal residue may be used for to create co-products such as animal feed and industrial enzymes (U.S. Department of Energy, 2007).
Algae’s Obstacles & Needs to Progress
Algal biofuels are not available in the market, and there remain many obstacles to the commercialization of algal biofuels. With current technology utilized today, the price of algal biofuels would be $8 per gallon, double the price of soybean-based biofuels and petroleum-based gasoline (Ryan, 2009). However, the U.S. federal government established a Renewable Fuel Standard as a result of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which mandates 36 billion gallons of biomass or biologically derived fuels by 2022. Several years later when the Obama administration took over the government, Obama’s plan to stimulate a recession-inflicted economy included $800 million to further general biofuel research provided by the Biomass Program from the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Farrell, 2010). As stated by Farrell, “many years of both basic and applied science and engineering will likely be needed to achieve affordable, scalable, and sustainable algal-based fuels” (Farrell, 2010). The United States Department of Energy outlined several ideas for research and development of algal biofuels. Biotechnology and biochemistry will play a vital role in attempts to elucidating lipid and protein biochemistry and algal genomics to tackle the areas from the development of a stable lipase to transesterify triglycerides into FAMEs to the regulation of lipid production in algae. Furthermore, systems design and engineering will be key to the optimizing the cultivation, harvesting, and extraction of algae by lowering energy input (U.S. Department of Energy, 2008).
A Proposed Solution to the Problem
Setting mandates of 36 billion gallons of biofuels from EISA will not suffice to accomplishing such goals. As of now, the United States Department of Energy is investing $85 million in 30 algal biofuel projects. It will take long-term investment and support from federal and state politicians to improve the technologies and basic research needed to advance the cause of algal biofuels. In February 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama gave a speech at the University of Miami, which proposed a plan of $14 million of research and development grants for algal biofuels (Lane, 2012). Such a proposal has met with opposition by U.S. Republican Senators that claims the President is “out of touch” and unreliable on energy policy after the failure of the solar company Solyndra (Miller, 2012). With the political atmosphere fueled by a contentious election cycle, this project hopes to establish a long-term grant system that not only sets a lump sum grant of $14 million for algal biofuel research but a sustained grant system from 2013 to 2022 to meet the obligations set forth by EISA.
SERVICE PROJECT:
United States Department of Energy
We chose to send our research proposal to the United States Department of Energy, because their programs goals most closely matched our own. They are supporting the Clean Coal Power Initiative, which is providing government co-financing for new coal technologies that can help utilities cut sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury pollutants from power plants. The latest goal of this initiative is going to focus on developing projects that utilize carbon sequestration technologies, and/or beneficial reuse of carbon dioxide. Luckily our proposal for algal-based biofuels covers both of these areas, and should be highly considered as an option for investment. Not only will the algae help sequester carbon, but they essentially reuse the carbon dioxide to produce biomass. This gives coal power plants a practical and ideal way to reduce their carbon footprint and put the excess carbon dioxide to good use.
Cover Letter
To whomever it may concern, We would like to prose a viable option to parallel your goals in the Clean Coal Power Initiative. Steve Le and I are both seniors at Rutgers University studying in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences. We both care about the environment and decided to do a service project which would combine both of our interests. Steve, majoring in Biotechnology, first brought up the idea of genetically engineered microalgae used to produce biofuel at the beginning of the semester, and myself, being a Marine Biology major, found the idea to be quite compelling. After researching into the processes of growing algae to produce biofuel, examining the costs and benefits, looking at past alternative energy attempts, weighing different options, and examining clean energy initiative projects, we came to the conclusion that algal-based biofuels would be a perfect investment opportunity for carbon sequestration and the reuse of carbon dioxide. With more research and development Steve and I believe this could help solve the energy crisis in the United States, and reduce our carbon footprint on this earth. We hope that you will consider our proposal, and look into more research and development of this concept. Thank you for your time, and we wish you the best of luck for the future of your initiative.
Sincerely,
Christopher Johns and Steven Le
Contacts: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] – Prof. Julie M. Fagan, Ph.D.
Research Proposal for Investment in Algae-based Biofuels
Why should there be more research towards the development of algal biofuels, and what benefits would it have compared to other energy sources?
What characterizes algae? How does this process work? Why is this alternative better than others already tried? How can it reduce the atmospheric pool of greenhouse gases? What can be done to improve the development of this source of alternative energy in the United States?
One of the main problems our country is experiencing today is the depletion of its natural fossil fuels, to the point where more effort needs to be put into alternative energy sources. One of the major leaders in breakthroughs involving clean renewable energy has been in the algal biofuel department. Not only has it proven to be a definite solution to the problems faced in other natural energy sources, but it offers a way out of the constant input into the atmospheric pool of greenhouse gases. Most people do not realize that phytoplankton inhabit three quarters of the earth’s surface and draw down as much carbon dioxide as all the terrestrial plant life combined while accounting for half of the global primary production. These unicellular photosynthetic organisms can grow almost everywhere as long as conditions are ideal for reproductino. Some of the most numerous primary producers are cyanobacteria, notably Synechococcus and Prochlorococcus. Along with chlorophyll, these photoautotrophs use bacteriochlorophylls and phycoerythrins as photopigments for primary production. However growth of these organisms can be limited by varying factors in the marine environment, like sunlight and nutrients (Libes, 2009). Key growth requirements include sources of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium; these nutrients must be available in certain ratios in order for a bloom to occur. In most marine algae their C:N:P ratio is usually around 106:16:1, this is also known as the Redfield Ratio (Libes, 2009). However one of the major characteristic which makes algae a prime target for biofuel is their high lipid content, especially when they are under any environmental stress (Bruton, Lyons, Lerat, Stanley & Rasmussen, 2009). The higher the lipid concentration the algae are able to produce, the more can be put forth towards biofuel production. This makes phytoplankton, or sometimes referred to as microalgae, the most ideal group for biofuel production. Luckily the process of fuel production from algae is not a very complicated one, and really only requires four major steps: algal cultivation, algal harvesting, algal oil and hydrocarbon extraction, and conversion of oil and hydrocarbons into biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol, which are environmentally favorable substitutes to the petroleum-based oil extracted from the ground (Ferrell, 2010). Algae will grow in water as long as there is enough sunlight and the proper amount of nutrients to undergo photosynthesis. They can either be grown in open ponds, which can be very shallow, unlined, with a source to mix the water like a paddlewheel, or the more expensive option is to build a bioreactor (Knoshaug, 2011). Although the open pond might be less expensive it does have its own drawbacks as well. Since it is an open system, there is the chance for the outside environment to influence the growth and production of the algae in the open pond. One might have to worry about rain influx and other weather conditions, as well as outside recruitment of other types of organisms which could contaminate the algae culture. Even though the bioreactors might be more expensive, it might be worth the extra money. A closed system will allow the farmers to have more control over the conditions in the reactor, along with what nutrients are being added or how much solar energy the algae are receiving. There is also less of a chance for contamination, which could save money in the long run, especially if farmers need to start cultures over again due to recruitment of foreign species to the culture (Kroshaug, 2011). However there is the chance that temperatures could become very hot inside, and oxygen could build up which could cause harmful feedback on some algae species. After the algae have reached the proper biomass they can be harvested using a number of different techniques. They can separated by centrifugation, filtration, flocculation, dissolved air floatation, and sedimentation, which are all well suited to remove particles form a large amount of liquid (Knoshaug, 2011). However some research needs to be done in order to find more efficient means to extract the algae form the water. Triglycerides are the main target after the algae has been dried, and can be found and removed from the cell membranes (Ferrell, 2010). The left over biomass can be used for other means like animal feed, or the remainder can be put back into the system providing a source of organic carbon for new production. Overall the byproducts of production can very easily be recycled (Knoshaug, 2011). One of the major questions companies may want to address will include why they should put money into algal biofuel investment. There have been many other attempts to develop energy sources from corn, soybeans, and other crops; however these sources present the major of problem of also being huge food sources for the United States. Farmers would have to allocate large parts of their crops for these biofuels, but the amount they would need to turn over to the energy companies will possibly be more than they can afford ("Biofuels: the promise," 2008). Here lies one of the major benefits of algal biofuel production. Since algae are not one of the major food sources in the United States, all of the production can go towards producing fuel. Algae farmers will not have to worry about losing money in the food market, because there is little to no demand for it, as compared to corn and soybeans. These crops can be saved to meet the food demand of the United States, and Algae can be cultivated to help alleviate demand for oil. Some might worry algae will cause competition for land, because it requires similar nutrients and sunlight, however algae will not cause increased competition. Photoautotrophic environments such as open or closed ponds and heterotrophic environments such as closed photo bioreactors used for fermentation and algal reproduction would suffice for adequate cultivation (Ferrell, 2010). Due to the extremely variable conditions algae can grow in, this leaves some flexibility, and will not put too many constraints on the conditions in which algae farms will need (US Department of Energy, 2007) Another benefit is the ability for algae blooms to sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide for growth. There have always been talks of ocean fertilization in which large amounts of iron, or any other limiting nutrient, are dumped into the ocean to induce a bloom. The bloom will help then provide a sink for the excess carbon dioxide that has been building up in the atmosphere with the increased burning of fossil fuels. Hopefully the drawn down carbon dioxide will end up buried in the deep ocean water, which takes about 1000 years to reach the surface again in some cases (Buessler; et al, 2008). Since marine algae put almost all of their energy into reproduction, an entire bloom population can replace itself in about a week, making them ideal for a continuous sink for atmospheric carbon, as compared to land plants. In order for land plants to replace themselves, it would take an average of 20 years, so it is not a surprise that phytoplankton draw in almost as much carbon dioxide as plants (Falkowski, 2002). However one of the major issues of this lies with the affect it will have on the overall ocean dynamics. With increased draw-down of carbon dioxide into the ocean, this will lead to more acid conditions, causing some instability in marine ecosystems especially with calcium carbonate dependent organisms like Emiliania huxleyi or coral reefs (Caldeira and Wickett, 2003). However terrestrial blooms of algae for biofuel provide a safe sink for carbon dioxide, because it will have complete isolation from any marine environment. A large carbon dioxide sink would provide a lot of benefit to plants which burn coal for energy, since there have been restrictions implemented to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere. Companies which burn coal for fuel could use this to their advantage. As the coal is burned for energy, the emissions could be used to produce large algal blooms. This would create an extremely beneficial way to cycle carbon out of the atmospheric pool, and back into the environment to produce clean energy. In order to make this whole algal-based energy concept a reality there still needs to be more investment from supporters to fund the necessary research. The goal to offer algal-based biofuels to the mass market for main stream consumers can be achieved if more efficient methods of harvesting and extraction are implemented (Knoshaug, 2011). One of the major problems with other sources of biofuel was the fact the production process was just not efficient enough. Although algae-based production still proves more efficient that corn or soybeans, improvements still need to be made if it’s going to take the place of petroleum-based fuel. There is also still the problem of picking a strain of algae which will have the most successful proliferation, and have the ability to resist any attempts of outside recruitment. If the algae strains are constantly getting contaminated from outside sources, there will never be enough triglycerides to meet the energy demands for production. This leads into another issue of whether the energy for production will balance out the energy output (Kroshaug, 2011). If the two cannot balance each other out, companies are most likely not going to investment money into development if it proves inefficient. Unfortunately until the United States finds an adequate substitute for petroleum-based fuel, the problem will not go away. Our country is going to need to find some solution eventually, which will require investment into some kind of alternative energy. There has been a lot of trial and error thus far with nothing really sticking in the fuel market for the long term. With the many benefits algae-based fuel can offer, more investment can only make this option even more efficient. Algae can produce more biomass in less space compared to corn, soybeans, and other crops, it will not have to compete with the food market, it can quite quickly in large quantities, and it can offer a sink for atmospheric carbon. Not only would algae solve the ever growing energy crisis but it will also present a solution to global warming issues. Investment in this alternative energy should be of utmost importance, because as investors continue to remain indecisive about where money should be allocated, the need for a solution will become more and more vital to the country. WORK CITED
Allen, M.. "Crunching the numbers on Alternative fuels." Alternative fuels to gasoline. Popular Mechanics, 2006. Web. 26 Feb 2012.
Ashton, George. “SREC Price Determinants in 2011.” Renewable Energy World. 2011. >http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/02/srec-price-determinants- in-2011> Accessed on February 24, 2012.
Beckjord, E. S.. "The future of nuclear power." . Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003. Web. 26 Feb 2012.
Biofuels: the promise and the risks. (2008) The World Bank, 70-71. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/2795087- 1192112387976/WDR08_05_Focus_B.pdf
Bradsher, K.. "Wind power." New york times. New York Times, 2012. Web. 27 Feb 2012.
Bruton, T., Lyons , H., Lerat, Y. , Stanley, M., & Rasmussen, M. B. (2009). A review of the potential of marine algae as a source of biofuel in ireland.Sustainable Energy Ireland,
Buessler, K. O., et al. (2008). Ocean iron fertilization—moving forward in a sea of uncertainty. Science, 319, 162.
Caldeira, K., & Wickett, M. E. (2003). Anthropogenic carbon and ocean ph. Nature PublishingGroup, 425, 365.
Carbon, Max W. Nuclear Power, Villain Or Victim? : Our Most Misunderstood Source Of Electricity. 2nd ed. Pebble Beach Pub, 1997.
Carlsson, Anders S., van Beilen, Jan, Möller, Ralf, and Clayton, David. “Micro- and Macro- Algae: Utility for Industrial Applications.” 2007.
Christie, Christopher. “Assembly Committee Substitute for Assembly Bill No 2529.” 2011
Department of Energy. “Algal Biofuels.” 2008.
Deutch, John, and James R. Schlesinger. United States. Council on Foreign Relations. National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency. Washington D.C.: , 2006. Print.
Falkowski, P. G. (2002). The ocean's invisible forest: Marine phytoplankton play a critical role in regulating the earth’s climate. could they also be used to combat global warming? . Scientific American , 54-61.
Ferrell, John and Sarisky-Reed, Valerie. “National Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap.” 2010.
Flett Exchange. “NJ SREC Prices Drop In Anticipation of An Oversupply” Flett Exchange. 2011.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Other Uses of Seaweeds.” FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. 2003.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Seaweeds Used As Human Food.” FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. 2003.
Galbraith , K.. "A new urgency to the problem of storing nuclear waste." . N.p., 2011. Web. 26 Feb 2012.
Ganos, T.. "Breaking U.S. Dependence On Foreign Oil ." http://forbes.com. N.p., 2012. Web. 27 Feb 2012.
Hartman, Eviana. “A Promising Oil Alternative: Algae Energy.” The Washington Post. 2008.
Knoshaug, E. P. (Mar.). Algal biofuels: The process. Retrieved from http://www.aiche.org/uploadedFiles/SBE/Restricted/SBEOnlyNew/031137(1).pdf
Lalli, Carol M., and Timothy R. Parsons. Biological Oceanography an Introduction. 2nd. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Ltd., 2010. 255-256. Print. Lane, Jim. “Obama Touts Algal Biofuels” BiofuelsDigest. 2012.
Libes, S. (2009). Introduction to marine biogeochemistry. (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Inc.
Miller, Sunlen. “ABC News; Gas Prices, Algae: Senate GOP Claims Obama ‘Out of Touch’.” ABC News. 2012.
Nation Renewable Energy Laboratory. United States. U.S. Department of Energy . NREL Study Shows 20 Percent Wind is Possible by 2024. 2010. Web.
NJ Clean Energy Program. “SREC Registration Program.” 2011.
Ryan, Catie. “The Promise of Algae Biofuels.” Cultivating Clean Energy. 2009.
Smith, Matt. "Death toll climbs in Japan as work goes on at nuclear power plant." . CNN, 2012. Web. 26 Feb 2012.
SRECTrade, Inc., “SREC Background.” 2010.
Tabuchi, H.. Japan faces potential nuclear disaster as radiation levels rise. New York Times, 2011. Web. 26 Feb 2012.
Talmadge, Eric, and Yuir Kageyama. "Explosion at Japan nuclear plant, disaster’s death toll rises ." Chicago Sun-Times March 2011, n. pag. Web. 26 Feb. 2012. Letters to the Editor
The JG Press, Inc. ATTN: Biocycle Op-Ed 419 State Avenue Emmaus, PA 18049
To Whom It May Concern,
First and foremost, let us introduce ourselves. Our names are Steven Le and Christopher Johns. We are both fourth year students studying Biotechnology and Marine Sciences respectively, and we wanted to combine both of our interests to address the issue on carbon sequestration via algae and the potential benefits of algae-based carbon sequestration near coal plants throughout the United States. Investing in research and development on algae-based carbon sequestration may not only serve to save thousands of jobs, but it may serve to produce thousands of more jobs. Recently, the Obama administration announced new rules that will restrict new coal power plants from producing a certain amount of carbon dioxide to combat one of the probable causes of climate change. The new guidelines set forth by the Obama administration gives coal power plants an opportunity rather than a disadvantage.
The technology is rudimentary, but the concept is promising. The carbon dioxide emitted from coal power plants can be captured and sent into apparatuses that contain algae, in which algae is given access to water and sunlight to undergo photosynthesis to produce organic matter such as hydrocarbons which can be converted to biodiesel. Algae may also serve to lower the emission of inorganic substances such as nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, and other compounds found in acid rain. In a 2007 article of Science Daily, a team of engineers at Ohio University created a simple bioreactor predicting that in three years, a bioreactor as big as 1.25 million square meters could be a reality.
Unfortunately, a bioreactor of such size is not a reality five years later, but several companies like OriginOil show promise to unconventionally marry algae and coal power plants together by assisting the process of extracting hydrocarbons from crude algal by-products for the preparation of biodiesel. Furthermore, a lot more must be done in algal-based biofuels research from biotechnology and biochemistry elucidating lipid and protein biochemistry and algal genomics to discover and synthesize proteins that assist in the hydrocarbon conversion to engineering the tools and apparatuses that efficiently extract oil from crude algal mixtures. We believe the coal power plant industry is given an opportunity to revitalize itself as a significant role-player in renewable energy with technology that showcases such promise on an economic and environment standpoint.
Sincerely,
Steven Le Rutgers University The Targum of Rutgers University
To Whom It May Concern,
Gas prices have become a very hot topic of conversation nowadays, especially as they reach around four dollars per gallon in many places around New Jersey. Unfortunately, since this problem is becoming ever more apparent, the sad truth is that gas prices will never reside to what they were ten years ago. Even if the United States decreases its dependency on foreign oil, the demand will still remain high, which will keep the price up. Domestic oil will become scarcer and scarcer, which brings up the need for a solution to this problem. Although there have been many different attempts to search for alternative energy sources, none have seemed to have caught on in the public yet. One of the major moves was towards corn-based ethanol for fuel, but still it was plagued with some major issues. In the overall picture it burned much cleaner than regular gasoline, but the alcohol based fuel was very corrosive to car engines. The solutions to this problem, like coating the engine in stainless steel, would not be cheap, and create higher prices for ethanol-fueled cars. Another possible problem dealt with environmental effects, because in order to supply a practical amount of ethanol for fuel, farmers would have to grow expansive corn crops to meet the need. In the end this might do more harm than good. It would possibly create more emissions from farm machinery to harvest this corn, and cause an overabundance of pesticides. This could lead to further problems with eutrophication, and upset ecosystem balance with the added input of fertilizers. However one solution, which offers another source of alternative energy via genetically modified algae, could provide the answer to our fuel crisis prayers. Not only is the turnover rate of algae much faster than that of corn, but their byproducts that are not used for fuel can produce fertilizer for the next generation of algae. This new potential source will require less space than corn crops, and overall it will produce more fuel per acre. With talks of a growing atmospheric pool of carbon, due to the constant burning of fossil fuels, algae farms will also provide a possible sink for CO2. The algae will take in CO2 during photosynthesis, and this CO2 will be converted into essentially cleaner fuel. Without the added source of additional carbon from car emissions, it will reduce the atmospheric pool of CO2. The concept for this idea is not exactly new, because there have been speculations about ocean fertilization as a possible sink for CO2. Unfortunately this poses a greater issue, because they are unsure of how it will affect ocean dynamics. Luckily this possible terrestrial sink of CO2 does not have to deal with this problem. Overall the benefits from algae seem to be quite impressive, and it makes me wonder why there has not been stronger investment in research and development of this industry. As a fuel alternative, algae should be considered a forerunner in this field. If the Navy feels using algae biofuel is worth a try in their cargo ships, then why should the automobile industry not consider this as an option as well? If we continue to delay this process, and make no attempts to wean our country off of this oil dependency, our society is going to continue to pay the price for it. Not only at the gas pumps, but in our attempts preserve our planet’s environment and resources in the future.
Christopher Johns a SEBS/SAS Senior majoring in Marine Biology/German Literature