Boeing Helping to Develop Algae-Powered Jet 326
jon_cooper writes "Air New Zealand, Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation and Boeing are working together to develop and test a bio-fuel derived from algae. Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation began operating in May last year after it met a request from the local council to deal with excess algae on sewage ponds. Boeing's Dave Daggett was reported this year as saying algae ponds totaling 34,000 square kilometers could produce enough fuel to reduce the net CO2 footprint for all of aviation to zero."
Re:cost... (Score:1, Informative)
Fantastic. Now calculate the VOLUME of hydrogen necessary to get anything useful done. Hint: it's way too much. Factor in the cryogenic storage, the materials issues, and you've got a non-starter right out of the gate, if I may mangle some metaphors.
Re:Save the Fish (Score:5, Informative)
The fish deaths are not due to oxygen deprivation from the algae; rather, some algae blooms produce toxins that kill off fish. In smaller waters (like ponds and slow-moving rivers) algae exerts downward pressure on fish populations by outcompeting other organisms in the fish's food web.
While low oxygen concentrations are sometimes observed in waters with a high algae content, this is typically due to low aeration and warm water.
Re:cost... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, they're talking about converting the harvested algae into bio-jetfuel, not straight hydrogen. It's pretty easy to get biodiesel from algae--extract the oil, then some fairly simple chemical reactions yield fuel that will work in any modern diesel engine with no modifications. This is nothing new. What's interesting is this company is working with Boeing and adding or changing a step in the conversion process to derive a fuel from algae suitable for jet engines instead of diesel engines.
Hydrogen isn't all that great as a combustion fuel. Energy density is weak, it's expensive to produce, store and transport and the added temperature and pressure regulating gear adds a lot of dead weight--which is especially bad for an aircraft.
It's not that hard to come up with that land... (Score:4, Informative)
Regardless, many companies are experimenting with this and it is much more efficient then corn or any other sort of biofuel production. As for the 34,000 square kilometers, you don't need ponds to do it. Many companies are using clear plastic bags to do it. Think zip-lock bags. The algae only needs water, sunlight, and CO2 to reproduce, and fast. This process can take place anywhere, even in non-desirable desert lands that get plenty of sunlight. The land is cheap, not in competition with cities and other industries because quite frankly, it is a desert. I imagine that once this becomes viable (still in the research and refinement stages) Arizona and New Mexico will have a major industry popping up.
Re:Save the Fish (Score:3, Informative)
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6904249
Where are these numbers from... (Score:4, Informative)
Based on a research conducted by the National Renewable Energy Lab, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf [nrel.gov], a 1000 square meter out door pond at Roswell, New Mexico was used to grow algae with controlled conditions (Ph value, CO2...). Algae could grow at a peak value of 50 gram/m^2/day and average value of 10 gram/m^2/day. Then some people on the good old internet translated (manipulated) this number as algae can grow at 10-50 gram/m^2/day. Then the number was redefined as biofuel can be produced from the pond at a speed of 10-50 gram/m^2/day. An acre is 4047 m^2. So that's 40470-202350 gram/acre/day and 14,771,550-73,857,750 gram/acre/year. Diesel density is 850g/liter, and one gallon is 3.7854 liter, so one gallon of diesel is 3218g. Then the pond production rate become 4,600- 23,000 gallon/acre/year, then some other people at the Wiki thing estimated 10,000-20,000 gallon/acre/year, and then comes the Boeing number.
I really hope we can fly cleaner, but, man, there is a dead fish smell.
If You're About Saving the Planet... (Score:2, Informative)
If you are all about saving the planet, is it o.k. to eat an endangered, or near endangered species [newsbusters.org]?
old research (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is a lack of existing stakeholders able to make it happen. We already have corn, nuclear, wind, and solar lobbies getting their piece of the government handouts (and public interest), but there aren't many people sitting on massive algae resources and a large bank account. Biodiesel from palms has become big business, especially in Malaysia, but algae will provide a huge improvement in yields.
Yield of Various Plant Oils (Lipids)
Crop / Oil in Liters per hectare
Castor 1413
Sunflower 952
Safflower 779
Palm 5950
Soy 446
Coconut 2689
Algae 100000 (order of magnitude due to large variance in yield by species)
http://www.oilgae.com/algae/oil/yield/yield.html [oilgae.com]
The nice part about using algae is that marginal land (desert or poor soils) can be used, and high nutrient waste streams are excellent feedstocks, e.g. the American southwest and the Salton Sea.
Re:Not actually Algae powered (Score:3, Informative)
The algae strings together the more desirable longer hydrocarbon chains, as well as concentrating them within the algae cells. Longer molecule chains usually mean a higher energy density. While you could just anaerobically digest the waste and produce methane (the shortest hydrocarbon chain), methane has a much lower energy density compared to biodiesel, not to mention that you would be handling a gas instead of a liquid. You also lose that bonus of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere with anaerobic digestion.
In crudest form, think of the algae as a solar power covnerter that utilizes nutrients in the waste to accelerate its production while removing CO2 from the surrounding air (after it is dissolved in the water).
Re:I am confused... (Score:3, Informative)
It's not quite that simple (Score:1, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication [wikipedia.org]
Re:Save the Fish (Score:5, Informative)
In a system where the algae is harvested for biodiesel, this is not a concern, since dead algae doesn't accumulate.
Re:34k square kilometers... (Score:3, Informative)
Travel all over the West, sometime, through the mountains, or through the forests. Get away from cities or the coasts, for that matter. You'll see what I mean.
Not to mention that, but there's a lot of wasted space on building rooftops.
Solar, small-scale wind, or algae would all be viable on a large percentage of building rooftops, if people start thinking small-scale and cheap.
There is *no* magic silver bullet. However, if large numbers of people chip away small pieces at a time (local production and reduction in consumption), we could end any energy crisis and at least produce a large percentage of what we consume.
The reason I am game is an end to terrorist funding and a start to energy independence.
Re:34k square kilometers... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know what you mean by "practical", but keep in mind that less than 10% of US land is developed while an additional 15% is used for farmland and an additional 35% for pasture land.
That means there are roughly 4 million square kilometers of unused land in the US. So 34,000 square kilomenters is less than 1% of the unused land. A meaningful chunk, no doubt, but there is still lots of empty land out there.
Another way to look at this is that approximately 125,000 square kilometers of formerly used farm and pastureland was removed from use between 1982 and 1997. In other words, you would only have to put back into production one-third of the land taken out of production between 1982 and 1997.
Notes: I use "less than 10%" for developed land, because the only estimate I could find was 4.3% in 1997 and I know there has been significant development in the last ten years, but I can't imagine developed land has more than doubled in that time period. Similarly, the numbers listed for 1997 for farmland and pastureland were 16% and 36%, respectively, but both have been in long-term decline for decades. Finally, the 125,000 square kilometers of land removed from agricultural production is net of development. That is, there was actually 225,000 sqkm taken out of production but 100,000 sqkm was developed for other uses, netting 125,000 sqkm net removed from use.
All numbers taken from this EPA report:
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/html/roeLandU.h
Re:serious response to funny post (Score:5, Informative)
There are many instances where the effective clearway is a body of water.
These ponds do not need to be so deep that they would constitute a hazard for the plane sinking into the depths. In fact if they were less than a meter deep and the bottom was firm (concrete) the water would actually provide a relatively safe place for the plane to come to rest (dissipating a great deal of energy).