Biodiesel is a diesel-equivalent fuel processed from biologically sourced feedstocks.

Chemically it is referred to as a Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) or Ethyl Ester (FAEE).  The term diesel refers to a specific fraction of a mixture of hydrocarbons that distil from crude oil within a defined boiling range. The increasing quantities of diesel-equivalents being obtained from sources other than crude oil have led to the term petroleum diesel, being used to distinguish crude oil derived diesel from diesels obtained from other sources.  While biodiesel is a diesel-equivalent – meaning it can be readily used in blends with conventional diesel fuel, or neat (100 percent), in vehicles with diesel engines – it should be evident from the foregoing that it is chemically distinct from petroleum diesel.  

In 2007, several million metric tons of biodiesel was produced globally.  Of this production, Asia accounted for 10 percent, South America 4 percent, USA 17 percent and the European Union 65 percent, as can be seen in the figure below:

Global Production of Biodiesel

(metric tons)

 

+ Click image to enlarge

 

 

FAME:

Conventional biodiesel is produced by processing plant or animal products or wastes through transesterification. Shown below is the formula scheme for the production of FAME from triacylglycerols.  Fatty acid methyl esters today are the most commonly used biodiesel species, whereas FAEE so far have only been produced in laboratory or pilot scale. 

 

+ Click image to enlarge

 

GLYCERINE (or glycerol):

About 10 percent by weight of biodiesel production is the by‑product glycerine, resulting from the separation of the backbone of the triglyceride (or triacylglcerol) by the chemical action of methoxide on the alpha carbons.  Europe experienced an oversupply of glycerine compared to existing demand due to by-product glycerine from biodiesel production.   A discussion about this major by-product is an important consideration in the production of biodiesel and it is covered at length in this report.

Esterification-Based Processes:

The new AXENS-IFP ESTERFIP-H™ heterogeneous (solid) catalytic, continuous biodiesel process is aimed at producing cleaner biodiesel (VOME, vegetable oil methyl ester) and by‑product glycerine at lower cost than conventional FAME processing.  Using heterogeneous catalysts eliminates the need for catalyst recovery and washing steps and associated waste streams required by processes using homogeneous catalysts.

The BIOX co-solvent process is a new biodiesel process developed in North America.  BIOX is reported to have been successfully demonstrated in a laboratory and pilot plant scale.  The BIOX process has lower potential feed costs but somewhat higher utility costs than conventional FAME processing.

Supercritical processing uses relatively high temperatures and pressures so that the reaction times can be very short.  It produces a fatty acid ester from oils and fats, but through a process quite different from conventional FAME processing.  

Valcent Products, Inc. and Global Green Solutions, Inc. have developed a joint venture (Vertigro Energy) which includes the growing and harvesting of algae and extraction of vegetable oil from the algae for biodiesel production. The Vertigro technology was developed by Valcent in recognition and response to a huge unsatisfied demand for vegetable oil feedstock by biodiesel refiners and marketers.

OTHER RENEWABLE LIQUID BIOFUELS

Developments in biodiesel processes, as highlighted above are occurring concurrently with developments in other diesel-equivalent renewable biofuels.  Whereas biodiesel is produced by processing natural oils and fats biomass (plant or animal products or wastes) feedstock through transesterification, a product referred to as renewable diesel is produced by processing similar biomass feedstock through a refinery-type process called hydrotreating.

There are also processes involving high temperature gasification of cellulosic biomass (e.g., crop residues, woody crops or energy grasses) to produce syngas which is subsequently catalytically converted to make diesel range fuels using Fischer-Tropsch technology.  Another type of process involves anaerobic thermal cracking of cellulosic biomass into pyrolysis oil, which can be further treated (for example by hydrorefining) to give a fuel similar to diesel.   These cellulosic biomass feed processes allow the use of essentially limitless biomass as feed, but have some drawbacks compared to natural oils and fats-based processes.   In addition to process descriptions, the advantages/disadvantages of these alternative processes are covered in the report.

Non-Esterification Based Processes:

Apart from feedstock flexibility, NESTE OIL’s NExBTL® renewable diesel process includes excellent fuel properties that meet the highest requirements of automotive industry, as well as remarkably low exhaust emission levels.  The first NExBTL® plant came on-stream in summer 2007.  As with other biofuels already available in the market, the NExBTL® products should benefit from the tax relief aimed at encouraging production of biofuels.  Rather than making a by‑product of glycerol, this hydrogenation-based process makes propane by-product.

Petrobras described its in-refinery natural oil processing approach, which it calls H-BIO, as a new technique to refine low-sulfur diesel.  This is fuel from vegetable oil, and is the result of research carried out by the Petrobras Research and Development Center (Cenpes).

UOP and ENI have developed a technology for converting vegetable oils to renewable diesel (so called “Green Diesel”).  The Ecofining™ process hydrogenates triglycerides and/or free fatty acid feedstocks such as pretreated vegetable oils (e.g., rapeseed, canola, soybean, palm, and jatropha) and animal fats (e.g., tallow).  The resulting paraffins are then isomerized to create a high quality hydrocarbon known as green diesel.

Shell has entered into a partnership with CHOREN to provide advanced biofuels for both gasoline and diesel engines. Shell is providing its version of the Fischer-Tropsch technology.  Separately, Carbo-V technology is aimed at Fischer-Tropsch production of biodiesel fuel branded “SunDiesel®”.

The Canadian firm Dynamotive is the chief proponent of the anaerobic thermal pyrolysis process.  Such processes typically produce complex mixtures of light and heavy oxygenated materials and other compounds, and char residues. Various developers are working on upgrading fuel quality.

As a long-range fermentation alternative to crop, gasification or pyrolysis-based oils for biodiesel, one company has been investigating the possibility that yeasts, molds, fungi, or bacteria can be genetically optimized to produce oils in closed manufacturing systems fed inexpensive biomass substrates.

Choosing a process technology for a biofuel plant largely depends upon the quality of the feedstock, the plant capacity, and the quality requirements for the finished product and its by‑products.  Feedstock is the largest cost component in the manufacturing of biodiesel.

FEEDSTOCKS

Biodiesel, either as FAME from transesterification of natural triglycerides as exemplified by Axens-IFP’s new Esterfip-H™, or as the emerging hydrocracked natural triglyceride products such as are being introduced by Neste Oil and Petrobras, can be made from a wide range of natural fats, oils and greases (or FOG).  These include Virgin refined vegetable oils, crude vegetable oils, rendered fats (which are co-products of animal slaughtering and processing), post-consumer waste oils such as from commercial or industrial food frying operations (“yellow grease”), so called “brown grease” (the waste greases that accumulate in public sewers and waste treatment systems), and fish oils.  

The best plants for biodiesel feedstocks are those efficient at converting solar energy into chemical energy.  Some experts believe that algae is set to eclipse all other biofuel feedstocks as the cheapest, easiest, and most environmentally friendly way to produce liquid fuel.  

Jatropha curcas (a tropical/subtropical plant) is seen by many to be the perfect biodiesel crop.  Unlike other biodiesel crops, jatropha can be grown almost anywhere including deserts, trash dumps, and rock piles.  The latter point means environmentalists and policy makers don’t have to worry about whether jatropha diverts resources away from crops that could be used to feed people.  

Feedstock options are assessed at length, the advantages / disadvantages and cost considerations, as well as a detailed discussion of the food versus fuel issue.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND BIODIESEL MARKET

There is a trade off between feedstock cost and investment cost that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Comparisons of the cost of production estimate for the following are detailed and calculated in the report:

• Biodiesel (fatty acid methyl esters) via conventional transesterification of vegetable oil (base-catalyzed) technology
• Biodiesel (fatty acid methyl esters) via Axens’ Esterfip-H ^TM technology
• Renewable diesel via Neste Oil’s NExBTL® technology
• Conventional petrodiesel

Various sensitivities have been explored to illustrate the effects of variations in certain parameters on the base case economics presented.  These results can also be used to make approximate comparisons between cases for which detailed economics have not been provided, by adjusting for capacity differences, alternative feedstock valuation etc.  The sensitivities examined include the cost of raw materials, capital investment, and economy of scale.

The biodiesel market is multi-faceted, presenting varied opportunities for market entry and distribution modes.  Generally, all of these could use various blends of bio- and petro-diesel.

These reports are for the exclusive use of the purchasing company or its subsidiaries, from Nexant, Inc., 44 South Broadway, White Plains, New York   10601-4425 U.S.A.  For further information about these reports contact Dr. Jeffrey S. Plotkin, Vice President and Global Director, PERP Program, phone: 1-914-609-0315;  fax: 1-914-609-0399;  e-mail:   jplotkin@nexant.com  or Heidi Junker Coleman, phone: 1-914-609-0381,  e-mail address:  hcoleman@nexant.com 

As reported by Virginia Cooperative Extention

With energy prices reaching historical highs, biodiesel

as an alternative fuel is increasingly attracting attention.

Currently, biodiesel is made from a variety of

feedstocks, including pure vegetable oils, waste cooking

oils, and animal fat; however, the limited supply

of these feedstocks impedes the further expansion of

biodiesel production. Microalgae have long been recognized

as potentially good sources for biofuel production

because of their high oil content and rapid biomass production.

In recent years, use of microalgae as an alternative

biodiesel feedstock has gained renewed interest

from researchers, entrepreneurs, and the general public.

The objective of this publication is to introduce the

basics of algal-biofuel production and the current status

of this emerging biodiesel source.

Current Feedstock for

Biodiesel Production

Biodiesel can be made from any oil/lipid source; the

major components of these sources are tricylglycerol

molecules (TAGs, figure 1). In general, biodiesel feed

can be categorized into three groups:

stock

1. Pure Vegetable Oil

The first group is pure oils derived from various crops

and plants such as soybean, canola (rapeseed), corn,

cottonseed, flax, sunflower, peanut, and palm. These

are the most widely used feedstocks by commercial

biodiesel producers. The oil composition from vegetable

crops is pure; this cuts down on preprocessing

steps and makes for a more consistent quality of

biodiesel product. However, there is an obvious disadvantage

for vegetable oils as the biodiesel feedstock:

Wide-scale production of crops for biodiesel feedstock

can cause an increase in worldwide food and commodity

prices. Such a “food vs. fuels” debate has reached

national attention when using vegetable oils for biodiesel

production.

CH

CHO–OCHCH

CH

2O–OCHCH2CH2 …….. CH2CH3 |2CH2 ……… CH2CH3 |2O–OCHCH2CH2 …….. CH2CH3

Figure 1. Molecular structure of tricylglycerols

2. Animal Fats

The second group of feedstock for biodiesel production

is fats and tallow derived from animals. Compared

to plant crops, these fats frequently offer an economic

advantage because they are often priced favorably for

conversion into biodiesel. Animal fat, however, has its

own disadvantage when used for producing biodiesel.

Because it contains high amounts of saturated fat, biodiesel

made from this feedstock tends to gel, limiting

widespread application of this type of fuel, particularly

for winter-time use (Wen et al. 2006).

3. Waste Cooking Oils

The third group of biodiesel feedstock is comprised

of recycled oil and grease from restaurants and food

processing plants. The use of recycled oil and grease

is often highlighted in the mainstream news because it

utilizes waste products that can otherwise be disposal

problems. However, recycled oils have many impurities

that require preprocessing to ensure a biodiesel

product of consistent quality. Preprocessing also makes

the biodiesel production process more complicated and

costly (Canakci and Van Gerpen 1999, 2001).

Microalgae as a Feedstock

for Biofuel Production

Michael B. Johnson, graduate student, Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech

Zhiyou Wen, Virginia Cooperative Extension engineer, Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech

2

Background of Algae

Macroalgae vs. Microalgae

Algae are organisms that grow in aquatic environments

and use light and carbon dioxide (CO

There are two classifications of algae: macroalgae

2) to create biomass.

and microalgae. Macroalgae are the large (measured

in inches), multi-cellular algae often seen growing in

ponds. These larger algae can grow in a variety of ways.

The largest multi-cellular algae are called seaweed; an

example is the giant kelp plant which can be more than

100 feet long. Microalgae, on the other hand, are tiny

(measured in micrometers), unicellular algae that nor

grow in suspension within a body of water.

mally

Macroalgae & Microalgae

Algae as a Bioenergy Source

Algae can also be used to generate energy in several

ways. One of the most efficient ways is through uti

of the algal oils to produce biodiesel. Some

algae can even produce hydrogen gas under specialized

growth conditions. The biomass from algae can

also be burned, similar to wood, to generate heat and

electricity.

Algal biomass contains three main components: carbohydrates,

proteins, and lipids/natural oils. Because

the bulk of the natural oil made by microalgae is in the

lization

form of TAGs (figure 1)—which is the right kind of oil

for producing biodiesel—microalgae are the exclusive

focus in the algae-to-biofuel arena. Microalgae grow

very quickly compared to terrestrial crops. They commonly

double in size every 24 hours. During the peak

growth phase, some microalgae can double every 3.5

hours (Chisti 2007). Oil content of microalgae is usu

between 20 percent and 50 percent (dry weight,

ally

table 1), while some strains can reach as high as 80 percent

(Metting 1996; Spolaore et al. 2006).

Table 1. Oil content of microalgae

Microalga

Oil content

(% dry weight)

Botryococcus braunii 25–75

Chlorella sp. 28–32

Crypthecodinium cohnii 20

Cylindrotheca sp. 16–37

Nitzschia sp. 45–47

Phaeodactylum

tricornutum

20–30

Schizochytrium sp. 50–77

Tetraselmis suecia 15–23

Source: Adapted from Chisti 2007

Compared with terrestrial crops—which take a sea

to grow and only contain a maximum of about 5

son

percent dry weight of oil—microalgae grow quickly

and contain high oil content (Chisti 2007). This is why

microalgae are the focus in the algae-to-biofuel arena.

Table 2 lists the potential yields of oil produced by various

crops and compares these values to oil yields from

an open pond growing microalgae.

Table 2. Oil yields based on crop type

Crop

Oil yield

(gallons/acre)

Corn 18

Soybeans 48

Canola 127

Jatropha 202

Coconut 287

Oil Palm 636

Microalgae

1 6283–14641

Source: Adapted from Chisti 2007

1

dry biomass

Oil content ranges from 30 percent to 70 percent of

Other Uses of Algae

In addition to producing biofuel, algae can also be

explored for a variety of other uses, such as fertilizer,

pollution control, and human nutrition. Certain species

of algae can be land-applied for use as an organic

fertilizer, either in its raw or semi-decomposed form

(Thomas 2002). Algae can be grown in ponds to collect

fertilizer runoff from farms; the nutrient-rich algae can

then be collected and reapplied as fertilizer, potentially

3

reducing crop-production costs. In wastewater-treatment

facilities, microalgae can be used to reduce the

amount of toxic chemicals needed to clean and purify

water. In addition, algae can also be used for reducing

the emissions of CO

2 from power plants.

Seaweeds are often used as food—for people and for

livestock. For example, it is often used in food preparation

in Asia. Seaweed is rich in many vitamins, includ

A, B1, B2, B6, C, and niacin. Algae are also rich

ing

in iodine, potassium, iron, magnesium, and calcium

(Mondragon and Mondragon 2003). Many types of

algae are also rich in omega-3 fatty acids, and as such,

are used as diet supplements and components of livestock

feed.

The Synergy of Coal and Algae

One advantage of using algae biomass for biodiesel

production is the potential mitigation of CO

from power plants. Coal is, by far, the largest fossilenergy

resource available in the world. About onefourth

of the world’s coal reserves reside in the United

States. Consumption of coal will continue to grow

over the coming decades, both in the United States

and the world. Through photosynthetic metabolism,

microalgae absorb CO

farm is built close to a power plant, CO

the power plant could be utilized as a carbon source

for algal growth, and the carbon emissions would be

reduced by recycling waste CO

clean-burning biodiesel.

2 emissions2 and release oxygen. If an algae2 produced by2 from power plants into

Algae Mass-Cultivation

Systems

Most microalgae are strictly photosynthetic, i.e., they

need light and carbon dioxide as energy and carbon

sources. This culture mode is usually called photoautotrophic.

Some algae species, however, are capable of

growing in darkness and of using organic carbons (such

as glucose or acetate) as energy and carbon sources.

This culture mode is termed heterotrophic. Due to high

capital and operational costs, heterotrophic-algal culture

is hard to justify for biodiesel production. In order

to minimize costs, algal-biofuel production usually

must rely on photoautotrophic-algal growth using sun

as a free source of light—even though it lowers

light

productivity due to daily and seasonal variations in the

amount of light available.

Photoautotrophic microalgae require several things to

grow. Because they are photosynthetic, they need a light

source, carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic salts. The

water temperature should be between 15°C and 30°C

(approximately 60°F to 80°F) for optimal growth. The

growth medium must contribute the inorganic elements

that help make up the algal cell, such as nitrogen, phos

iron, and sometimes silicon (Grobbelaar 2004).

phorus,

For large-scale production of microalgae, algal cells

are continuously mixed to prevent the algal biomass

from settling (Molina Grima et al. 1999), and nutrients

are provided during daylight hours when the algae are

reproducing. However, up to one-quarter of algal biomass

produced during the day can be lost through res

during the night (Chisti 2007).

piration

There are a variety of photoautotrophic-based, microalgal

culture systems. For example, the algae can be

grown in suspension or attached on solid surface. Each

system has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Currently, suspend-based open ponds and enclosed

photobioreactors are commonly used for algal-biofuel

production. In general, an open pond is simply a series

of outdoor “raceways,” while a photobioreactor is a

sophisticated reactor design that can be placed indoors

(greenhouse) or outdoors. The details of the two sys

are described below.

tems

Open Ponds

Open ponds are the oldest and simplest systems for

mass cultivation of microalgae. In this system, the

shallow pond is usually about one-foot deep, and algae

are cultured under conditions identical to their natural

environment. The pond is designed in a raceway con

in which a paddlewheel circulates and mixes

the algal cells and nutrients (figure 2). The raceways are

figuration,

typically made from poured concrete, or they are simply

dug into the earth and lined with a plastic liner to

prevent the ground from soaking up the liquid. Baffles

in the channel guide the flow around the bends in order

to minimize space.

The system is often operated in a continuous mode, i.e.,

the fresh feed (containing nutrients including nitrogen

phosphorus and inorganic salts) is added in front of the

paddlewheel, and algal broth is harvested behind the

paddlewheel after it has circulated through the loop.

Depending on the nutrients required by algal species,

several sources of wastewater—such as dairy/swine

lagoon effluent and municipal wastewater—can be

used for algal culture. For some marine-type microalgae,

seawater or water with high salinity can be used.

4

Open ponds

Harvest Feed Paddlewheel

Baffle Flow Baffle

Figure 2. Open pond system

Although open ponds cost less to build and operate

than enclosed photobioreactors, this culture system has

its intrinsic disadvantages. Because they are open-air

systems, they often experience a lot of water loss due to

evaporation. Thus, open ponds do not allow microalgae

to use carbon dioxide as efficiently, and biomass production

is limited (Chisti 2007). Biomass productivity

is also limited by contamination with unwanted algal

species as well as organisms that feed on algae. In addi

optimal culture conditions are difficult to maintain

tion,

in open ponds, and recovering the biomass from such a

dilute culture is expensive (Molina Grima et al. 1999).

Enclosed Photobioreactors

Enclosed photobioreactors have been employed to

overcome the contamination and evaporation problems

encountered in open ponds (Molina Grima et al. 1999).

These systems are made of transparent materials and

are generally placed outdoors for illumination by natural

light. The cultivation vessels have a large surface

area-to-volume ratio.

The most widely used photobioreactor is a tubular

design, which has a number of clear transparent tubes,

usually aligned with the sun’s rays (figure 3). The tubes

are generally less than 10 centimeters in diameter to

maximize sunlight penetration. The medium broth

is circulated through a pump to the tubes, where it is

exposed to light for photosynthesis, and then back to

a reservoir. A portion of the algae is usually harvested

after it passes through the solar collection tubes, making

continuous algal culture possible. In some photobioreactors,

the tubes are coiled spirals to form what is

known as a helical-tubular photobioreactor. These sys

sometimes require artificial illumination, which

tems

adds to production costs, so this technology is only

used for high-value products—not biodiesel feedstock.

Either a mechanical pump or an airlift pump maintain

a highly turbulent flow within the reactor, which prevents

the algal biomass from settling (Chisti 2007).

Photobioreactors

The photosynthesis process generates oxygen. In an

open raceway system, this is not a problem as the oxygen

is simply returned to the atmosphere. However, in

the closed photobioreactor, the oxygen levels will build

up until they inhibit and poison the algae. The culture

must periodically be returned to a degassing zone—an

area where the algal broth is bubbled with air to remove

the excess oxygen.

Also, the algae use carbon dioxide, which can cause carbon

starvation and an increase in pH. Therefore, carbon

dioxide must be fed into the system in order to successfully

cultivate the microalgae on a large scale. Photobioreactors

require cooling during daylight hours, and

the temperature must be regulated in night hours as well.

This may be done through heat exchangers located either

in the tubes themselves or in the degassing column.

5

Exhaust

Air

Degassing

column

Fresh

medium

Cooling

water

Pump

Solar array

Harvest

Figure 3. Schematic tubular photobioreactor

The advantages of enclosed photobioreactors are obvious.

They can overcome the problems of contamination

and evaporation encountered in open ponds (Molina

Grima et al. 1999). The biomass productivity of photobioreactors

can average 13 times more than that of

a traditional raceway pond. Harvest of biomass from

photobioreactors is less expensive than from raceway

ponds, because the typical algal biomass is about 30

times as concentrated as the biomass found in raceways

(Chisti 2007).

However, enclosed photobioreactors also have some

disadvantages. For example, the reactors are difficult to

scale up. Moreover, light limitation cannot be entirely

overcome because light penetration is inversely proportional

to the cell concentration. Attachment of cells

to the tubes’ walls may also prevent light penetration.

Although enclosed systems can enhance biomass concentration,

the growth of microalgae is still suboptimal

due to variations in temperature and light intensity.

After growing in open ponds or photobioreactors, the

microalgae biomass needs to be harvested for further

processing. The commonly used harvest method is

through gravity settlement or centrifuge. The oil from

the biomass is extracted through solvent and further

processed into biodiesel.

Research and Development

of Algal-Biofuel Production

Algal-biofuel research originated in 1979, when the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) initiated a research

program called the Aquatic Species Program (ASP).

The program was closed in 1995 due to a budget reduction.

Over the 16-year project period, ASP pursued

research in three major areas.

The first area was the study of the biological aspect of

microalgae. It included screening and collecting a variety

of algal species to access their potential for high oil production,

investigating the physiology and biochemistry

of the algae, and using molecular-biology and geneticengineering

techniques to enhance the oil yield.

The second research area was the development of algal

mass-production systems. Several demonstration culture

systems located in California, Hawaii, and New

Mexico were conducted during the project period.

However, in these outdoor systems, it was difficult

to maintain the algal-oil production capacity originally

obtained in the laboratory scale, and researchers

encountered a severe contamination of undesirable

native species. It should be noted that DOE suggested

open ponds as the major system for algal-biofuel production

because of their relative low cost. The cost of

enclosed photobioreactors was still prohibitive due to

capital and maintenance costs, particularly for production

of biofuels.

The third research area was analysis of the resource

availability, including land, water, and CO

2 resources.

DOE concluded that there were significant amounts of

land, water, and CO

In summary, after 16 years of research, DOE

2 to support the algal-biofuel technology.

concluded that algal-biofuel production was still too

expensive to be commercialized in the near future. In

its research, three factors limited commercial algal pro

the difficulty of maintaining desirable species

duction:

in the culture system, the low yield of algal oil, and the

high cost of harvesting the algal biomass.

In recent years, with energy prices reaching historic

highs, algal-biofuel production has gained renewed

interest. Both university research groups and start-up

businesses are researching and developing new meth

to improve algal-process efficiency, with a final

ods

goal of commercial algal-biofuel production. The

research and development efforts can be categorized

into several areas:

1. Increasing oil content of existing strains or selecting

new strains with high oil content;

2. Increasing the growth rate of algae;

3. Developing robust algal-growing systems in either

open-air or enclosed environments;

4. Developing co-products other than oil;

5. Using algae in bioremediation; and

6. Developing an efficient oil-extraction method.

One way to achieve these goals is to genetically and

metabolically alter algal species. The other way is to

develop new growth technologies or to improve existing

ones so that the same goals listed above are met.

6

However, it should be noted that this new wave of inter

has yet to result in a significant breakthrough.

est

Economics of Algal-

Biofuel Production

The production cost of algal oil depends on many factors,

such as yield of biomass from the culture system,

oil content, scale of production systems, and cost of

recovering oil from algal biomass. Currently, algal-oil

production is still far more expensive than petroleum

fuels. For example, Chisti (2007) estimated

diesel

the production cost of algae oil from a photobioreac

with an annual production capacity of 10,000 tons

tor

per year. Assuming the oil content of the algae to be

approximately 30 percent, the author determined a pro

cost of $2.80 per liter ($10.50 per gallon) of

duction

algal oil. This estimation did not include costs of converting

algal oil to biodiesel, distribution and marketing

costs for biodiesel, and taxes. At the same time, the

petroleum-diesel price in Virginia was $3.80 to $4.50

per gallon.

Whether algal oil can be an economic source for biofuel

in the future is still highly dependent on the petroleum

price. Chisti (2007) used the following equation to

oil

estimate the cost of algal oil where it can be a competitive

substitute for petroleum diesel:

C

algal oil = 25.9 x 10-3 Cpetroleum

where: C

microalgal oil in dollars per

gallon and

C

in dollars per barrel

algal oil is the price ofpetroleum is the price of crude oil

This equation assumes that algal oil has roughly 80

percent of the caloric energy value of crude petroleum.

For example, with petroleum priced at $100 per barrel,

algal oil should cost no more than $2.59 per gallon in

order to be competitive with petroleum diesel.

Algal Biofuel in

the Near Future

Algal biofuel is an ideal biofuel candidate which eventually

could replace petroleum-based fuel due to several

advantages, such as high oil content, high production,

less land, etc. Currently, algal-biofuel production is

still too expensive to be commercialized. Due to the

static cost associated with oil extraction and biodiesel

processing and the variability of algal-biomass production,

future cost-saving efforts for algal-oil production

should focus on the production method of the oilrich

algae itself. This needs to be approached through

enhancing algal biology (in terms of biomass yield and

oil content) and culture-system engineering. In addi

using all aspects of the microalgae for producing

tion,

value-added products besides algal fuel—such as in an

integrated biorefinery—is an appealing way to lower

the cost of algal-biofuel production. Indeed, microalgae

contain a large percentage of oil, with the remaining

parts consisting of large quantities of proteins, carbohy

and other nutrients (Spolaore et al. 2006). This

drates,

makes the residue after oil extraction attractive for use

as animal feed or in other value-added products.

References

Canakci, M., and J. Van Gerpen. 1999. Biodiesel pro

via acid catalysis.

ductionTransactions of the ASAE 42:

1203–10.

Canakci, M., and J. Van Gerpen. 2001. Biodiesel pro

from oils and fats with high free fatty acids.

duction

Transactions of the ASAE

44: 1429–36.

Chisti, Y. 2007. Biodiesel from microalgae.

Advances

Biotechnology25: 294–306.

Grobbelaar. J. U. 2004. Algal nutrition. In

Microalgal Culture: Biotechnology and Applied Phycology

ed. A. Richmond, 97–115. Ames, Iowa: Black

Publishing.

Handbook of.well

Metting, F. B. 1996. Biodiversity and application of

microalgae.

477–89.

Journal of Industrial Microbiology 17:

Molina Grima, E., F. Acien Fernandez, F. Garcia

Camacho, and Y. Chisti. 1999. Photobioreactors: Light

regime, mass transfer, and scale up.

Journal of Biotechnology

70: 231–47.

Mondragon, Jennifer and Jeff Mondragon. 2003.

of the Pacific Coast

ISBN 0 930118 29 4.

Seaweeds. Monterey, Calif.: Sea Challengers.

Spolaore, P., C. Joannis-Cassan, E. Duran, and A. Isambert.

2006. Commercial application of microalgae.

Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering

101: 87–96.

7

Thomas, D. N. 2002.

Seaweeds. Washington, D.C.:

Smithsonian Books; London: Natural History Museum.

ISBN 0 565 09175 1.

Wen, Z., R. Grisso, J. Arogo, and D. Vaughan. 2006.

Biodiesel Fuel

, Virginia Cooperative Extension

publication 442-880.

http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/442-880/

(accessed November 4, 2008).

Acknowledgements

The authors express their appreciation for the review

and comments made by Bobby Clark, Virginia Coop

Extension agent, Shenandoah County Office;

erative

Bobby Grisso, Extension engineer, biological systems

engineering, Virginia Tech; John Ignosh, area specialist,

biological systems engineering, Virginia Tech; and

Wenqiao (Wayne) Yuan, assistant professor, Depart

of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Kansas

State University.

ment

]]>

Published by Mark Biomass Rules

Envion Envion, a Washington, D.C., startup, aims to turn plastics into fuel — with minimal mess.

Entrepreneurs have been trying for years to turn low-value wastes into high-value products. Waste plastic is among the lowest in value, and gasoline or diesel fuel the highest, but machines to do that conversion usually consume a lot of energy and get gummed-up by leftover material that they cannot convert.

Now a company in Washington, D.C., is trying out a new way — heating the plastic to a very carefully controlled temperature range, with infra-red energy.

The company, Envion, is expected to cut the ribbon on Wednesday morning on a $5 million plant that it says will annually convert 6,000 tons of plastic into nearly a million barrels of something resembling oil. The product can be blended with other components and sold as gasoline or diesel.

“We are the world’s largest oil consumer and the world’s biggest producer of waste,’’ said Michael Han, chairman and chief executive of the company.

This process will convert one to the other for about $10 a barrel, he said.

Montgomery County, just north of Washington, D.C., apparently agrees, at least to the extent that it is giving Mr. Han a free supply of plastic and a spot at its waste transfer station to set up shop.

Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland was scheduled to speak at a ceremonial opening on Wednesday.

A day earlier, Mr. Han pointed out bales of plastics waiting to be shredded and fed into his machine, including planters, McDonald’s large-sized beverage cups, margarine containers and other materials typical of what suburban residents put out in blue bins once a week for pick-up.

His machine can digest the blue bins, too, he said.

Indeed, the machine will take everything except PET (the bottle with the “1’’ on the bottom) because those have a higher value on the recycling market, he said.

He will process the caps, though.

(Nationwide, 50 million tons of plastic waste are generated annually, according to the company.)

The finished product looks like a slightly murky lemonade and smells somewhere between gasoline and diesel fuel. One company has already agreed to buy the material for blending into motor fuel, and Mr. Han said he in discussion with others. Envion would like to license its technology for use around the world.

Mr. Han and other company officials were a little vague on some details, which they said were proprietary, but the plant essentially consists of a two-story-high chemical reactor with aninternal agitators (for mixing up the soup) and heating elements that give off infra-red energy.

Another trick is to limit the amount of oxygen.

Because the process is driven by electricity and not with an open flame, the temperature can be tightly controlled, so most of the material — about 82 percent, according to the company — becomes liquid fuel.

Company executives predicted that they would have to shut down to clean out leftover sludge two to four times a year (conventional processes get clogged much faster).

The sludge can be burned for energy too, but it has much lower value.

Production depends on the plastic used as feedstock, but each ton of waste will produce 3 to 5 barrels of product, according to Envion. Producing a barrel consumes between 59 and 98 kilowatt-hours — two or three days’ worth of electricity for a typical house. The price of electricity per gallon comes to 7 to 12 cents, the company says.

Todd Makurath, the director of global brand management at the company, said that because it was all electric, it could be monitored over the Web, with just two employees on site, one to use a front-end loader to dump shredded plastic into the intake hopper and another to “watch for red lights” on the alarm system.

“This could be transformational in how we handle plastics,’’ Mr Makurath said.

Aurora Biofuels Aurora Biofuels says it has developed a more voracious CO2-gobbling strain of algae, which produces an oil that can be converted into biofuel.

A California start-up, Aurora Biofuels, says it has cultivated algae that doubles production of biodiesel by absorbing more than twice as much carbon dioxide as conventional strains.

According to Robert Walsh, the chief executive of the company, Aurora’s breakthrough was to develop algae mutations that can ingest carbon dioxide regardless of the intensity of sunlight.

“Algae have a built-in mechanism to be effective at low light and as it gets brighter during the day their uptake of carbon dioxide levels off,” said Mr. Walsh. “We’ve been able to go in and alter strains by natural mutation to cause the algae to deal with light across the whole spectrum. The algae continue to uptake CO2 through brighter light and are more productive.”

He said Aurora has built a pilot facility “between a 7-Eleven and the beach” near Melbourne, Fla., and that for the past several months the new algae strains have been producing a gallon of biodiesel a day in an Olympic pool-sized pond.

An algae-derived substitute for gasoline is the great green hope of the nascent biofuels industry. Aurora is one of dozens of start-ups vying to bring an algae-based product to market that will be competitive with petroleum but does not take farmland out of food production, an issue that has plagued the corn ethanol industry.

But significant hurdles remain — including finding ways to profitably extract and process the oil from the algae.

Like some of its competitors, Aurora will offer power plants and other carbon emitters the opportunity to sequester their emissions by feeding carbon dioxide into ponds to stimulate the growth of algae.

Christoph Benning, a Michigan State University professor of biochemistry whose work involves algae, serves on Aurora’s scientific advisory board. He said the data Aurora has shown him confirms the company’s claims.

“They’ve proven that their proprietary strain can increase carbon sequestration and the ability of algae to utilize CO2 and grow higher biomass,” said Mr. Benning, who is compensated for his work on the Aurora advisory board.

Mr. Walsh said the challenge for Aurora is to commercialize its scientific advance. “We’ve proven we can do it at Olympic-pool size — can we do it at 50 acres? Can we maintain the costs at scale?” he said.

The company plans to have a demonstration plant capable of producing 1,000 gallons of fuel a day in operation by the second quarter of 2010. A full-scale production facility is to follow in 2011.

Aurora has raised $25 million from investors that include Oak Investment Partners, Noventi Ventures and Gabriel Venture Partners.

Mr. Walsh said that financing will be sufficient to see Aurora through the construction of the demonstration plant.

BOARDMAN — On paper, making fuel from plant materials looks like a simple five-step process.

You start with a bundle of twigs. Separate the cellulose, add enzymes, then let the brew ferment. A couple of chemical processes later, you’re powering a car with a product that quite literally grows on trees.

In reality, large-scale ethanol production has only rarely been able to compete with the cost of a barrel of oil. And with the recent recession, the dream of cheap, renewable fuel seems even further from reach.

But former oil executive Jim Imbler, who now heads a Colorado biofuels company called ZeaChem Inc., thinks he might have found the key to profitability in Oregon.

And it lies in Boardman, home to one of the nation’s largest hybrid poplar tree farms, grown by Portland-based GreenWood Resources.

“We’ve done the math, and we can compete with $40- to $50-a-barrel crude oil,” said Imbler, based in Lakewood, Colo. “We’re really excited to get going in Oregon.” Backed by $40 million in venture capital, ZeaChem plans to build a demonstration plant in Boardman that will convert Oregon hybrid poplar trees, grass and agricultural waste into ethanol.

Using an innovative technology, the biorefinery could mean a breakthrough for the biofuels industry, on a quest to meet federal mandates for alternative fuels.

Experts believe cellulose, found in nearly every plant, tree and bush, may be the future for abundant, affordable ethanol. And Oregon, with its vast tree farms, forests and farmlands, is poised to be a field of dreams for the industry, recently criticized for relying too heavily on corn, pitting food resources against fuel.

“Corn is a very energy intensive crop,” said Rick Wallace, the state’s biofuels coordinator. “Biomass has a smaller carbon footprint, and we have a lot of it here. There are a lot of benefits for Oregon if we can develop these technologies.”

By the end of the year, ZeaChem plans to break ground on a five-acre site owned by the Port of Morrow. It hopes its tests, using eastern Oregon wheat straw and trimmings from the Umatilla National Forest, will eventually lead to a commercial plant that pumps out up to 50 million gallons of ethanol a year.

But like many biofuels entrepeneurs on a sprint to the next generation, ZeaChem is gambling on the unknown. Across the Northwest, corn ethanol plants that attracted millions of dollars in public and private investment now stand idle.

By all accounts, ZeaChem’s technology looks promising.

“(Their technology) has a very big potential,” Wallace said. “But can it be done at a commercial level economically? We don’t know these answers yet. If they do, it’s a real benefit to Oregon. “

Links to Oregon
Dozens, if not hundreds, of companies are racing toward cellulosic ethanol production, which must meet a federal mandate of 16 billion gallons by 2022.

ZeaChem’s secret weapon: a bacterium found in the guts of termites. The bacterium, acetogen, ferments cellulose into acetic acid, which can eventually be turned into ethanol.

The company’s demonstration plant, unlike some other technologies, will use a variety of plant materials, producing about 1.5 million gallons of ethanol a year.

“We can feed softwood trees, hardwood trees, corn cobs,” Imbler said. “If you think about a termite, it doesn’t really care. Our vision is to become a technological skunkworks.”

ZeaChem, with 30 employees and a lab in California, says its patented process offers higher yields at lower cost, with a lower carbon footprint than other methods. The bacterium can also be used to make another, more valuable chemical, ethyl acetate, a solvent in varnishes and lacquers. It enables the development of other lines of business, turning plant material into solvents for paints or chemicals used in plastics.

“We believe ZeaChem is the leading advanced biofuel company,” said Paul Batcheller, a partner in South Dakota-based PrairieGold Venture Partners, a major investor in ZeaChem. “One thing is that their yields translates to a huge economic advantage. I think Oregon has a great advantage in terms of feedstock and marketing the project.”

Oregon offers fertile ground for the company’s giant leap. For starters, the state may provide a financial sweetner: ZeaChem has applied for the state’s Business Energy Tax Credits, which would be worth about $6.5 million.

Another key reason for locating in Oregon: proximity to GreenWood Resources, which owns the 26,000-acre hybrid poplar tree farm in Boardman. The company also owns 6,000 acres near Clatskanie and accounts for 90 percent of the state’s poplar production.

“We love hybrid poplar because its the best deal we can find now,” Imbler said. “If you have something that can grow cheaper, faster, we’re all for it. But I think the hybrid poplar is hard to beat.”

When it comes to growing trees fast and inexpensively, GreenWood Resources is a well-known expert. Its poplars, through traditional breeding methods, can grow 10 to 15 feet each year. The company’s partnership will provide a steady feedstock near the test plant.

“They’re going to need feedstock 24-7 once they get to the commercial level,” said Jake Eaton, GreenWood’s managing director of global acquisitions and resource planning. “We can optimize high yields and produce a low-cost dedicated feedstock.”

Studies show hybrid poplar is a fairly efficient feedstock for cellulosic ethanol. The partnership allows GreenWood to develop trees for a growing market in cellulosic-based chemicals and ethanol.

“From what we can see, they have the best technology out there,” Eaton said.
Recession and risks But making fuel out of plants is not the hard part. After all, scientists over the past year have turned coffee grounds into biodiesel and watermelon rinds into ethanol. Big oil companies are investing billions of dollars into growing algae.

The challenge is to build a commercial plant, which will take lots of plant material and money.

ZeaChem’s project comes at a turbulent time for nation’s ethanol industry, shaken by bankruptcies and failures over the past year. Along with other agricultural industries, biofuels rode the rollercoaster commodities market to its heights last year, only to have prices collapse with the recession.

The fallout from the credit crisis delivered a double punch, freezing access to credit and private capital for new research and construction. Then early this year, oil prices fell, making it difficult for ethanol producers to compete at the pump. So far, all commercial ethanol plants in the U.S. use corn.

“A number of plants misread the commodity markets,” says John Urbanchuk, a Pennsylvania-based expert in agriculture and biofuels with LECG LLC, a global consulting firm. “A lot of people thought that corn prices were going to continue to climb, and they were unable to cover their commodity positions.”

A wave of bankruptices and closures has followed, leaving idle corn ethanol plants and stalled projects across the Northwest.

Cascade Grain LLC, built a $200 million ethanol plant in Clatskanie last year and filed for bankruptcy protection in January. The plant ran for just six months before it was shut down.

In Longview, Wash., Northwest Renewables broke ground on a $100 million corn ethanol plant three years ago. Last week, the company announced the project, on hold for some time, would become a biomass plant with an uncertain timeline.

In Boardman, Pacific Ethanol’s plant continues to pump out 40 million gallons a year, despite filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in May. The plant uses mostly corn from the Midwest, said company spokesman Paul Koehler.

Now, however, the prospects might be getting brighter for ethanol. Oil prices have increased, and corn and natural gas prices, the two largest costs in the industry, have fallen.

“The outlook today is brighter than six or seven months ago,” Urbanchuk said. “The profitibility picture looks better.”

The long-term prognosis for the industry is for steady growth, mostly due to government environmental policies that ensure demand for ethanol, in particular, cellulosic ethanol. Unlike corn, biomass holds the promise of greater efficiency, and it doesn’t compete for food resources.

For 2009, federal mandates require production of 11 billion gallons of biofuel, of which 100 million gallons which must come from no-corn feedstock. By 2022, cellulosic ethanol must make up nearly half of the government’s required 36 billion gallons of biofuels.

“The industry responded quickly to demand, and now we’re seeing demand and supply move into balance,” said Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Washington-DC- based Renewable Fuels Association. “But there’s so much more growth that’s projected, those closed facilities may once again fire up as the economics of the industry improve.”
Implications for Oregon
In Oregon, the push for renewable fuel and energy has big economic implications. Many parties now eye Oregon’s forests for biomass, from wood pellet manufacturers to utility companies. And many others, from foresters to timber fellers to environmentalists, are pinning their hopes on a new, green market for Oregon wood.

Biofuel projects will likely bring new jobs into rural areas hard hit by years of mill closures. And they will put the state on the map in a growing industry.

“We don’t have the corn or the soy the Midwest does,” said Wallace, who works with different state departments in developing biofuels. “We need to get into (cellulosic) biofuels, if we’re going to play. I think we’re going to see more projects like this.”

In Boardman, ZeaChem’s project will create 75 construction jobs and 20 full-time jobs once the plant is running. If the company builds a commercial plant, dozens more jobs could be added.

“We’re excited about that potential,” said Gary Neal, general manager of the Port of Morrow. “There’s going to be a great utilization of the products and biproducts of the region, good paying jobs. We just see lots of pluses, and it’s good for the environment.”

Beyond jobs, developing local sources of fuel will mean more money stays in the state, Wallace said. In 2008, Oregonians spent $8 billion fueling up their cars and trucks. While some of that money goes toward taxes, most of the money spent on transportation fuels goes out of state.

Ultimately, finding uses for the state’s biomass will be good for the forests, said Mike Cloughesy, director of forestry for the Oregon Forest Resources Institute. The state has about 4.25 million acres capable of providing biomass by forest thinning projects, which would prevent wildfires.

“There is more than enough material to go around,” McCloughesy said. “Anything that makes more markets for biomass creates more opportunities for active forest management.”

Amy Hsuan: 503-294-5137; amyhsuan@news.oregonian.com

President Obama has pledged to transform the nation’s energy policy and has made renewable energy a cornerstone of the $787 billion stimulus package, but so far the money for energy-related projects has been slow to leave Washington.

In February, Obama made a point of signing the stimulus package at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, where he inspected its rooftop solar energy system and was introduced by the president of the company that installed the panels. Seven months later, the Energy Department is among the agencies with the slowest pace of stimulus spending.

Although energy officials have approved billions of dollars worth of stimulus proposals, the department’s records show that only a fraction of those funds have been disbursed — less than two percent of the total $36.7 billion in funds authorized to the department. By contrast, the Agriculture Department has spent about 15 percent of its stimulus funds and the Commerce Department about seven percent.

Matt Rogers, the senior advisor to Energy Secretary Steven Chu for the Recovery Act, said his agency has moved as quickly as possible while making sure the money is going to high-quality projects. “We are making very good progress,” he said. “Every week we continue to move more money out the door.”

This week, however, the department’s inspector general reported that it has continuing questions about the department’s ability to manage and track the effect of its stimulus spending. “We are concerned that the Department’s information systems supporting Recovery Act activities may be unable to handle significant increases in workload or provide appropriate mechanisms to ensure that funds are accurately tracked and reported,” Inspector General Gregory H. Friedman wrote in the report.

The internal report parallels the concern of some economists and energy analysts about the pace at the Energy Department.

“They have announced some grandiose programs, but what have they actually done?” said Matthew Kahn, an economist at UCLA who specializes in energy and the environment.

“A lot of money has been allocated but not very much has been spent,” said Joel Kurtzman, a senior fellow at the Milken Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., and an expert on renewable energy. He said science and industry have “made tremendous strides” in the technology for solar and wind energy. “Let’s get those up and running,” Kurtzman said.

The renewable energy industry also has suggested that the administration has not moved fast enough. In May, trade groups representing solar, wind, geothermal and other energy companies wrote to Obama complaining that crucial loan-guarantee programs were being stalled because of bureaucratic delays, at a crucial time when credit had dried up. Kenneth W. Hansen, a Washington attorney advising the trade groups, said this week that only a portion of those programs have since been set in motion.

The stimulus package includes tax and spending provisions to weatherize low-income homes, modernize the nation’s electric grid, train workers for green jobs, make federal buildings more energy efficient, and help build an industry that manufactures batteries for electric cars. It also includes 17 provisions designed to help boost the solar industry.

Rogers said that the department’s plan included three phases. The first was tax incentives to individuals, designed to help put a floor under the economy. The second was grants to the states. The third phase is a set of competitive awards that aim to provide long-term and enduring investments in the nation’s energy future.

“We are just now getting into that third block,” Rogers said. As an example, he pointed to last month’s announcement of $2.4 billion in grants to speed up the manufacturing and use of electric vehicles and batteries, the largest single investment in advanced battery technology for hybrid and electric-vehicles ever made. The announcement said that the money would go to 48 separate projects.

“The intent is to build a battery and advanced technology infrastructure in the United States,” Rogers said. “We are trying to build a set of industries that last for decades.”

On the day he signed the stimulus bill into law, Obama, surrounded by workers from the solar and wind industries, emphasized the importance of the alternative energy provisions. “Because we know we can’t power America’s future on energy that’s controlled by foreign dictators, we are taking a big step down the road to energy independence and laying the groundwork for a new green economy that can create countless well-paying jobs,” Obama said in his remarks. “It’s an investment that will double the amount of renewable energy produced over the next three years.”

Obama was introduced at the ceremony by Blake Jones, president and chief executive of Namaste Solar of Boulder, Colo. In a recent interview, Jones said his company was one of the ones that saw a quick benefit from the stimulus package. The stimulus bill, he said, spurred sales of residential rooftop solar systems by allowing for an existing federal tax credit to be combined with a new Boulder County program that provides loans for residential projects that install solar systems or make energy efficiency improvements.

“We were on the verge of laying people off when the Recovery Act passed,” Jones said in an interview. “It let us know things were absolutely going to get better. We’ve hired a few more people and best of all we’ve got optimism for the future. It’s no longer gloom and doom. We’re planning for things to get better.”

Because of the recession, Jones said, all the company’s commercial projects had been postponed. Last week, the company announced that one of those projects, to install a solar energy system at the Louisville, Colo., headquarters of Eldorado Artesian Springs, Inc. was back on schedule – because under the stimulus the company could receive a cash incentive rather than taking a tax credit. Though the stimulus package was signed in February, the rule permitting that change was not adopted until July.

“There’s no doubt it would have been better if it was faster,” Jones said, speaking about both the rule change and the release of stimulus funds in general. But he added, “You need a balance between implementing provisions in a responsible way and making sure the stimulus hits the market quickly.”

Some economists and energy experts are asking not only if the pace of spending is fast enough but whether the administration is realistic in trying to use those funds for two purposes — to get the economy moving as well as change the way Americans use energy.

“The question is whether you can kill two birds with one stone – the two birds are ending the recession and de-carbonizing the economy,” Kahn said. “Economists like the two Obama goals but some are skeptical whether both can be accomplished.”

Kurtzman, of the Milken Institute, added that the Obama administration has not moved quickly enough to begin the crucial task of upgrading the nation’s electric grid. He said modernizing the grid could be the key to success or failure in energy policy because it is crucial to speed the use of alternative energy – to move electricity from remote locations of the country that produce wind or solar energy, for example, to more populated areas that need it.

A so-called smart grid would also allow for greater energy efficiency by allowing customers to turn appliances on and off when energy is least expensive, and it would help to cut the threat of energy blackouts.

Obama talked about the importance of modernizing the electric grid at the stimulus signing ceremony last February. “Today the electricity we use is carried along a grid of lines and wires that dates back to Thomas Edison, a grid that can’t support the demands of clean energy,” Obama said. “That means we’re using 19th and 20th century technologies to battle 21st-century problems like climate change and energy security.”

Seven months later, Kurtzman said, not enough progress has been made. “When it comes to the grid, almost nothing has been spent,” Kurtzman said. “What you need is to start building new parts of the grid – you need to get the plans done quickly and break down some of the regulatory hurdles so you can upgrade the grid.”

The stimulus package contains a total of $11 billion for the electric grid, including $4.5 billion in grants to modernize the grid being administered by the Energy Department. Kurtzman said that isn’t nearly enough.

Rogers, the Energy Department official responsible for the stimulus, said that the department has already received more applications for work on the smart grid than it can fund.

“My boss the secretary is an impatient man. I’m an impatient man. We would always like to be able to do things slightly faster,” Rogers said. “This is a lot of money. We should be able to have a meaningful impact on energy efficiency.”

Our Perspective:

In all the advances made in growing this great country of ours, the government has always played a major role. They have always supplied the stimulus.

America was brought together under the rail system.

The workfare program helped to rebuild America after the depression.

America’s vision helped to build the space program.

We are at a crossroads. To do nothing will only hurt our own economic ability to compete in the global market.

Many advances are being made in alternative energy. With the current downturn in the economy, the public is hesitant to participate, even though the ROI have come down dramatically.

The governmental sector must lead this evolution in alternative energy. Don’t just make money available, they must participate. 

Create the vision, participate and lead, Our future economic stability is dependent on it.

Let us know your thoughts?

As biofuel and biodiesel fuel energy gain popularity around the world we are seeing new tactics in the biodiesel biofuel Feedstock game to keep up with green fuel production. Let’s look at the current feedstock oils that dominate the biofuels Industry: Palm Oil, Soybean Oil, Jatropha Oil, Sunflower Oil, Canola Oil, Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO), Used Cooking Oil (UCO), Animal Fat, Yellow Grease and Honge Oil Are all currently used to produce clean renewable energy.

Let’s face it, in the United States Restaurant owner operators are now wise to the renewable energy game and have begun to charge biofuel producers for the waste vegetable oil they have to offer. The National Renderers Association (NRA) has an international members list over 132 members strong with the majority of them located in the USA. Large companies like Griffin Industries Inc. have far reaching service contracts with restaurants and factories that produce waste oils. These oils are then resold for as much as $3.50 USD per gallon for use as ingredients to Organic fertilizer, specialty proteins, flavor enhancers and biodiesel biofuels.

Some biodiesel innovators in this game have come up with unique practices to overcome this lack of supply and high demand for the yellow grease needed for biofuel production. Some are actually contracting with farmers to grow and produce the virgin oil for them, some biofuel entrepreneurs are selling the oil from the farmers to restaurateurs at discounted prices with contracts stating the virgin oil provider will receive the oil again, once the restaurant owner has used the vegetable oil to completion.

 The game may have changed once again when restaurant owners see the new energy system that utilizes waste vegetable oil to power their utility needs. You actually can have a utility cost savings and reduce your carbon foot print. This power system turns your facilities waste vegetable oil and grease into electricity and hot water for your restaurant and makes your used cooking oil worth $2.55 per gallon, not the 10 to 25 cents restaurants might be selling it for currently – or the cost of having it hauled away. The system also provides additional revenue through renewable energy credits and carbon credit trading, or LEED credits toward Green Building Certification.

Some biofuel innovators have gone overseas to purchase feedstock oils from Malaysia, South America or Nigeria Africa to get the most oil for the least expensive price. The key to the game is to control your feedstock oil price, but the game is becoming more difficult for those without a solid game plan for vegetable oil feedstock control.

About the Author Victor Garlington has been a long proponent of bio-fuels and produces bio-fuel for his own vehicles. He is currently helping others discover alternative fuels as a solution to high fuel prices. He can be contacted at victor@70centsagallon.com or http://www.70centsagallon.com/feedstock.html This article is sharewareas long as the entire article is left intact including this notice. Copyright © 2009 Victor Garlington

Clint Wheelock — June 14, 2009

Posted in Newsroom | No Comments »

By Robert Kaper, Naval Air Systems Command Public Affairs

Patuxent River, Md. (NNS) — The Naval Air Systems Command fuels team is gearing up for biofuels flight tests in an F/A-18 Super Hornet at Patuxent River, Md., by next spring or summer, according to NAVAIR’s fuel expert.

Rick Kamin, Navy fuels lead, explained that before “biofueling” the plane, the team will first conduct laboratory and rig tests at Pax River, followed by static engine tests with the Super Hornet’s F414 engine on a test stand at the Lynn, Mass., facility of manufacturer General Electric. The static tests will take place “probably in the December-January time frame,” Kamin said.

The NAVAIR fuels team is also getting ready to kick off a similar effort to test and certify biofuels for use on ships.

The upcoming tests are part of a larger effort to test and certify promising biofuels in support of the Navy’s energy strategy to enhance energy security and environmental stewardship, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“Our major goal is a drop-in replacement” for the Navy’s petroleum-based fuels, Kamin said. “The field won’t know the difference.”

Fuels derived from plants are considered carbon neutral. Burning them doesn’t increase the net amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because the carbon they contain was originally absorbed from the air as the plants grew.

NAVAIR has asked for 40,000 gallons of JP-5 jet fuel from bio-based feedstocks in a request for proposal (RFP) issued by the Defense Energy Support Center. Initial laboratory analyses and rig testing will consume 1,500 gallons; the static engine tests, 16,500 gallons; and the flight tests, 22,000 gallons. The feedstocks targeted are not used for food.

Kamin said fuels received from the JP-5 RFP may include those made from oils produced by plants such as camelina, jatropha and algae.

“We won’t know for sure what we’re going to get until the procurement process is completed,” he said. The contract signing is expected to take place this month.

Camelina, also known as gold-of-pleasure or false flax, is in the same family as rapeseed, the source of canola oil. Often considered a weed, camelina is cultivated today for the high quality oil its seeds produce, both for human consumption and conversion to biodiesel.

Jatropha is a tough woody plant that can grow in arid conditions unsuitable for most food crops. Its seeds produce oil that’s unfit for human consumption but can be converted to fuel.

Algae can be grown in vats or ponds under controlled conditions that maximize output and harvesting efficiency. Algae’s oil is produced within individual cells.

Oils harvested from the plants are refined into fuel with conventional petroleum refinery processes.

Two commercial biofuels that will not be tested are ethanol, now blended with gasoline, and biodiesel. Ethanol is unsafe for shipboard use because it ignites too easily, and its lower energy content would significantly reduce aircraft range.

The biodiesel sold commercially today consists of oxygen-containing compounds called esters. Although they burn well, esters absorb water too readily to be suitable for the Navy’s maritime environment.

For the upcoming static and flight tests, the biofuels will be mixed in a 50-50 blend with conventional petroleum-derived jet fuel to provide the necessary specification properties. Biofuels are not as dense as conventional jet fuel, have less lubricating ability and contain no aromatic compounds, a group of chemical compounds able to penetrate the rubberlike materials that make up gaskets and seals.

“Aromatics are critical for seal swelling,” Kamin noted. “The easiest way to get these properties back in is with a blend with petroleum-based fuels.”

Kamin emphasized that the Navy will not be producing any biofuels itself. Fuel for all military services is purchased by the Defense Energy Support Center.

“We’re responsible for fuel specification requirements. Our main responsibility is to test and certify the alternative fuels for inclusion in our specifications,” he said.

The fuels team will initially apply three categories of standard tests to the fuels received in response to the RFP: analytical chemistry – using instruments such as a mass spectrometer to determine chemical composition and structure, “wet chemistry” – determining the fuels’ response in specific chemical reactions and rig test properties such as water separability, to determine how the fuels will react in aircraft and in conditions typical of Navy operating conditions, which include long-term storage.

“Storage stability is a unique military and Navy requirement not required in the commercial world,” Kamin noted.

“We’re trying to certify by families, to come up with a spec for an approved class of feedstocks, such as oil shale, petroleum, hydrotreated renewable or coal,” he said. The specifications of each family will be determined initially through the full battery of chemical analysis, physical properties, static engine tests and flight tests.

The Navy plans to have test and certification completed on the most promising alternative fuel candidates no later than 2013, Kamin said. As each candidate is approved for use, it will be added to the Navy’s JP-5 (aircraft) and F-76 (ship propulsion fuel) specifications. Once in the specification, the Defense Energy Support Center can buy the fuel to meet Navy requirements from the lowest-cost provider. Actual usage in the fleet will depend on industry production capability.

For more news from Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, visit www.navy.mil/local/nawcadpr/.