New Algae Biofuel from Sapphire Energy "Chemically Identical to Gasoline"

We'll see if this ever comes to market.

Sorry to double post but what I meant by that was, can we build Algae farms big enough to douse America's thirst for crude. I don't think so. Maybe 1% of that thirst, but come on, we burn Hundreds of Millions of Gallons of Crude a day. That algae has to work over time and then some!

I may be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure there's a rather large difference between "crude oil" and "gasoline". One burns in my car's engine to make it go, the other is basically black/brown sludge.

I've been curious about this algae since news first started surfacing about it, but nothing I've read has clarified this difference. Crude oil needs to be processed quite a bit in order to turn it into actual gas (or diesel, or plastic, or any other variety of petroleum products).

-----
author responds: Chris, there is a big difference between crude oil and gasoline. Sapphire has claimed that they have created a fuel that is identical gasoline and are only using the 'green crude' moniker because I suppose it sounds catchy.

Other than that, Sapphire isn't really letting any specific details out the bag.

I believe that this "Green Crude" is one of many steps in the right direction, but I want to see more details on this before I'm willing to believe that it will be just like gas but CO2 neutral.

Also, I can't source it because I spoke with a GM rep about it, but GM is working with a company on very similar findings. But they are not making a CO2 free fuel, its biofuel and that normally means there are some emissions.

Anyway I hope to see more of this as I'm a car guy and a renewable energy guy and I want the best but I don't want to lose my old cars.

Even if we can produce this fuel in quantities large enough to supply all of today's oil needs at today's prices, demand will continue to grow in developing countries, and so prices of liquid fuels will continue to rise relative to electricity. The incentive will still be there for personal transportation to go more and more on-grid, either through EV and PHEV or through the expansion of rail.

And no matter how good we get at power vehicles electrically, our airplanes and, most likely, our ships will continue to need fuels, not batteries, to run. With ships, we might replace diesel with nuclear. But not planes, and I see no possibility of air travel not continuing to grow.

We should encourage better fuel production without losing sight of the broader need to use more efficient means of transportation. Covering one m2 of land or water with plants, algae, or cyanobacteria to make biofuels in inevitably less efficient than covering it with solar power to make electricity.

Please fix the first line: Isn't there A saying that anything that sounds TOO good to be true, probably is? In that light, here we go.

I find this article incredibly misleading. From the start, you give the impression that Sapphire's claim is 'too good to be true'. Your language throughout adds to this impression. Then, next thing we know, it's actually the replacement of fuel with this that is 'too good to be true'. Except then it isn't. It's a discussion on whether it is the right thing to do, the right direction to be pursuing.

Your article is about 'is this the right way to go', not 'is this too good to be true'. Did you just pick a catch phrase and try and run with it?

it's LOSE sight. please use correct grammer.
Loose = not tight.
Lose = something vanishes

In January of this year, at a meeting of the Engineers Club of Sun City, Arizona. A.P.S. ( the local power company) gave a presentation in which they explained their plans to build such a plant south of Phoenix, below Gila Bend. They were very upbeat about it's possibilities

Take a look at this video and pay particular attention to the very last statement made by the spokesman.

http://www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html

What I don't like about their website is the lack of any corporate information including any way to contact the company, investment info or who runs the organization and their credentials. Already a bad PR move.

massive change is needed.. but this would be a would huge step in the process... if this is a truly carbon neutral fuel... and the entire petrol transport infrastructure can change... Then we have slammed that carbon train to a stop and can now work on backing it up.

If this is economically viable in the short term it could be a great development in "greening" the transition between fossil fuels and other energy sources.

Eric: I think you're a little confused about what carbon neutral means. it means that the amount of CO2 emitted from burning the fuel is offset by the amount of CO2 consumed by the growth of the bacteria, thus the net emitted CO2 is zero. Having a fuel that burns with no CO2 released is impossible (in our environment at least)

On a side note:
Why does every treehugger article have to turn into an enviro-rant?

Is it not enough to report on a development, give an opinion and ask for comments without leading to the mid-article "but..." and then listening a bunch of reasons the world is doomed, this won't help and we're all going to die... (I may be exagerating a bit).

And tomorow we should all boo the sunrise.

Change is san incremental thing. lets here it for innovation and not lament that we don't know wher the next one is.

Amusing off-topic rant....

"Switching to cleaner energy does nothing directly to address over consumption of natural resources, biodiversity loss & habitat destruction, the gross land-use disaster that is suburban sprawl, and soil degradation resulting from destructive agricultural practices. Nor will it address the 10,000 pound elephant in the environmental room: Unchecked population growth."

I trust we're not expecting Sapphire Energy to solve all of these issues, too. What's the view like from up there on the soapbox? Cheer up....it's ok to be an environmental activist without always looking at the glass as half-empty.

Environmental sustainability is a complex problem that will have to be addressed from multiple directions. Displacing petroleum-based fuels is just a piece of the puzzle. If we're being realistic, there is going to be a demand for liquid fuels for the forseeable future. Electric vehicles will continue to grow, but it will be some time yet before they reach critical mass, and there will likely be some applications which can never be converted to all-electric power.

Maybe algae-biofuels can never be created in sufficient quantity to displace today's demand for fuel. But combining these technologies with other developments targeted at reducing overall demand (hybrids, phev's, mass transit, etc) will hopefully help us to arrive at a sustainable solution down the road.

Lets stop all the talk about population control. That is also a very dangerous slippery slope. Probably more so then global warming. Lets be real here there is more then enough resources to go around even for twice the amount of people we have. The problem is that very few people control %90 of those resources and they see to it that they will never get distributed fairly. Their system of exploitation led us to the coming environmental disaster but can lead to far more imminent social disaster if we give them the idea that our population is what is causing the problem and they have to do something about it. I would hate to see future genocide camps in the world be green washed monstrosities with even the slightest hint of legitimacy.

Everyone in the world can eat and live to a high standard with out leading to an environmental collapse with developed and developing technologies in sustainable living and a smart use of space. We might not be able to support over lords to fly over our heads in their own private planes but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

Lets stop all the talk about population control. That is also a very dangerous slippery slope. Probably more so then global warming. Lets be real here there is more then enough resources to go around even for twice the amount of people we have. The problem is that very few people control %90 of those resources and they see to it that they will never get distributed fairly. Their system of exploitation led us to the coming environmental disaster but can lead to far more imminent social disaster if we give them the idea that our population is what is causing the problem and they have to do something about it. I would hate to see future genocide camps in the world be green washed monstrosities with even the slightest hint of legitimacy.

Everyone in the world can eat and live to a high standard with out leading to an environmental collapse with developed and developing technologies in sustainable living and a smart use of space. We might not be able to support over lords to fly over our heads in their own private planes but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

I have heard that resurchers are developing a non hormone dependant contraceptive. If it can be made non dosage dependant, it could be placed in the world's beverage supply. I don't believe there should be any more children born for the next 25 years, than only enough to replace deaths. We need an international treaty enforced by United Nation's police.

I agree with the author in as much as this has the potential for being a step in the right direction. Like other commentors have suggested, it seems likely that no matter what, many facets of our transportation infrastructure will be run on petrol-type fuels - I think that air travel is a perfect example of this - and technologies like this do tie into our energy future.
It seems though that this small upstart is going to be coming up against a petroleum industry that is making record profits and has plenty of money and incentive to squash this innovation at any point along the way unless they are cut into the deal either by buying Sapphire up or by developing a similar product themselves. Either way, not to be a total pessimist or anything, but it seems like the gatekeepers of our oil aren't going to be too keen this one.

Interesting post - I long for the day when we don't have to couch every positive piece of news with an equally negative commentary.

A company had found a way to create a fuel that can be derived from transforming photosynthesis in to fuel. That is a massive step forward. As more of this positive news comes on board I look forward to treehugger telling me about it. Even if whatever the technology is can only make a 1 or 2% dent in current supply - it is still a million times better than doing nothing and having no positive effect.

Cheers - Eric
blog.pickuppal.com

"Everyone in the world can eat and live to a high standard with out leading to an environmental collapse"

Nope, sorry. There's a boatload of problems with what you say:

Define "high standard". Do you mean a high standard like Americans have today? Or do you mean the high standard of say, Americans in the 1920s? Or perhaps you mean the luxuriously high standard that people in the Ukraine enjoy compared to people in Gabon? Because if everyone in the world were living at today's American standard, we'd all be starving to death and the ice caps would have already melted.

If everyone were living at the Ukraine's standard tomorrow, then maybe, just *maybe* we might avoid starvation and total global catastrophe. But every American would be absolutely outraged at the "apalling" conditions under which they'd be living.

We have one of two problems. Either there are too many people in the world, or your expectations for a standard of living are way too high. Keep in mind that as Treehugger demonstrates every day in the comments, Americans aren't going to budge an inch when it comes to lifestyle changes.

Also keep in mind, that the lesson capitalism teaches us is that your high standard of living comes at the cost of someone else, working their fingers to the bone to make a pittance. The reason that it's not visible in the US is because America has exported its sweatshops and smokestacks.

I have to say, this kind of attitude bothers me. Of course this doesn't solve all our problems. No one thing can solve all problems — unless the one thing is the mass extinction of our species. Sometimes it seems like that is all that will satisfy the extremists. This is just the kind of thing that turns the people away from embracing environmental thinking. People read this and think, "it's no use, there are just too many problems. In fact, my very existence is destroying the world."

Bah!

Stating that something is carbon neutral is something that is easy to do, but actually achieving it is a whole other ballgame. In fact, it is almost impossible for this project to be carbon neutral as that statement does not take into account the infrastructure and environmental costs associated with the large scale production of fuel from this source. This stuff will need to be transported, maintained, cultured (using god knows what chemicals to stimulate growth), and a plethora of other processes in order to achieve its final destination as a fuel that is actually usable. If we don't take into account the processes necessary than it would be easy to place this label on just about anything. Look at nuclear as an example. We've all seen the adds that state that nuclear doesn't produce emissions, but this statement fails to consider the pollution from its processes such as storage, mining, and waste disposal. The phrase "carbon neutral" is a scam at best, lets just call it carbon reduced and stop lying to ourselves. Maybe then we'll be able to aim for carbon neutral activities as a notional goal and continue to strive for something better.

I think this is interesting. I would not expect ANY technology to provide the perfect solution to energy and social needs.
When it comes down to it, petroleum gave the collective society a massive boon to progress and technological change, the car, distributed electricity, computers, etc: a lot of good, and some bad too. The surplus of energy it has provided for the last maybe 130 years gives us the opportunity to use that surplus as it dwindles down, and invest it into finding less centralized ways of utilizing the resources available.
There is no magic pill that will cure everything. I think we should start to shift our focus from finding the "next petroleum", to spreading out our energy needs amongst many different technologies and methods. If algae can provide 1% of our energy needs, that's pretty good. Last time I checked, solar provided around .7%. Wind's a bit higher. All these technologies require energy themselves to be created: at this time grid energy, which is coal, gas or nuclear. Refining silicon to make a solar panel actually consumes a lot of electricity. But I feel it is a worthwhile venture. It gives a long term gain over a short term gain.
I think multiple power sources and de-centralized (de-corporatized) power is also a benefit. Nothing against the corporations, but giving too much power to one entity is a problem (Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely)
I believe the goal is to progressively find the least harmful ways of satisfying our needs to stay warm, eat, live comfortable lives, protect our fellow creatures and maintain balance.
We have an opportunity here. This is the beginning of a new era, good or bad.
150 years ago, people's alternatives were wood, peat and dung...

I'm sure they're not saying just yet, but it's worth wondering--how many liters of water will it use up to produce one liter of this algae-based fuel?

I strongly defend the cautionary angle presented in this article. Sure, "gasoline" from algae is a great innovation. However, we must face the reality that our car dependent lives/communities undermine our collective quality of life on so many levels - global warming, traffic deaths/injuries, lost time, infrastructure cost,personal cost, etc, etc. The most dangerous stance we can take is to believe that new technology will keep the cars running and all of our problems will be solved. This thinking will keep us from making the real changes in our lives that must be taken - change that will improve our lives.

We are largely mistaken when we see energy supply as the problem, because if we could all look at the larger picture we would see that cars are the problem - the common denominator among a long list of problems.

Good. Now here is something a vertical garden would be able to produce which might help carry the costs of actually building a vertical garden high rise. I'd prefer to see something indoors, where they would be able to not only grow it in more controlled circumstances, but they'd be leaving the bays and estuaries alone.

They could also "grow" methane underneath the algae and clean grey water back into drinking/food safe water, for growing the rare rainforest medicinals & heritage vegetables. Vegetables, we've been losing because of the accidental cross breeding witth genetically modified food.

Why have just seed banks, if we could actually grow these rare foods for sale to high end restaurants & countries looking for stronger varietals which don't need the support GM crops do?
If we're really smart, we'll also grow coral & harvest it for medicinal uses and transplanting it into areas where the coral has been hard hit by our fishing nets.

Firstly @ anthony

"Covering one m2 of land or water with plants, algae, or cyanobacteria to make biofuels in inevitably less efficient than covering it with solar power to make electricity."

I was under the impression that solar were still fairly inefficient - sure they are great and all, but it's not like they capture 100% of the energy that hits them...

Plus there is a real negative vibe about this it seems - when we already know that algae in our oceans is currently responsible for more oxygen production on the planet than any other plant by a massive margin - and remembering that our oceans cover 71% of the planet we can make some pretty big farms with minimal sea-life impact. Also lets be aware that the fundamental way a plant creates oxygen is photosynthesis - which as we all know consumes co2 - so the creation of farms large enough to produce oil in commercial quantities would logically suck down a very large portion of co2 and convert into what sounds like a substance that is pretty dense in carbon terms - admittedly as soon as we burn it we release all that carbon again - but even with developing markets requiring greater quantities of fuel, if this method provides it then it's relatively speaking very scalable whilst still remaining carbon neutral - yeah more gas is burnt, but more algae sucks back the co2 to make new gas - as a 'problem stabilising' solution this sounds miraculous and conceivable - and the problem does needs to be stabilised before it can be reversed - since the whole current infrastructure is geared around "crude oil" and "gasoline" this solution could be a very quick fix - much quicker than getting decent electric cars into every home, or developing a way to truly make hydrogen realistically viable etc. If we can buy the time to develop greater cultural changes and more efficient energy then that is in my mind an amazing feat - because when you look at it, we (as a population) really did all start way too late to actually avert a serious energy/environment crisis.

Great news to find alternative fuels...Assuming that this technology can be developed, I'd hope we're not be as short sighted as we were with fossil fuels. Years ago I spent time working as a boat patrol on a small fresh water lake (approximately 4 miles of perimeter) We had a stretch of hot humid and stagnant weather that rapidly produced an algae count that depleted the oxygen levels in the water, killed tens of thousands of fish, and produced unhealthy environments for people and other wildlife. The scale at which this solution would test our fresh water supply sounds like a serious concern. What measures are being taken in the research and development of this solution to deal with possible threats to our fresh water and ecology?

I thought that the original post struck the right tone and balance. In the comments, 1% became our eyeball milestone for a significant incremental shift from fossil fuels and we'll need all the one-percents we can get but here's a technology that will offset the need for 20% of our transportation fuel- this is agroundbreaking, science-shattering, stop-the-press, mind-blowing development, commercializable now! The occupant(s) of 1 out of 5 cars ride in someone-else's car. Small, painless changes to our habits could produce huge positive effects for our environment but many of us (maybe not so many here on Treehugger) want to keep on doing what we've always done while we wait for new technology to be thrust upon us that will let us continue our profligate use of cheap (yes, it's still cheap) energy. As to population: There ARE too many of us and that's one more mindless habit for which we're going to have to accept personal responsibility. There won't be a jackboot-enforced eradication program; again we'll need to understand where we live and the effects we produce and the real costs in dollars and quality of life and make conscious decisions. In the developed world, our economies and sense of prosperity (which encourages us to believe that we can afford to make more people) are based on an unsustainable pyramid scheme that depends upon more new workers to support us old guys in our retirement. In some countries there is already a labor deficit but that must be met with a shift in expectations and patterns of consumption, not more babies and roads and shopping centers.

Gary

Just to try to clear a few things up.

The biodiesel from algae is a result of the green slimey stuff having a large amount of lipids in it's make-up. Lipids=oil. No different from the cooking oils that have been repurposed for biodiesel. What's leftover (the "husk" of the algae, if you will) is carbohydrate. This can be fermented into alcohol and thus provide a "gasoline" to be burned in those engines that run on it. What Sapphire is doing to create it's algae gasoline I'm not sure. But there is no reason to doubt that they are capable of doing it.

As far as algae meeting the enormous needs of our current transportation infrastructure is concerned there is this to be cosidered: Algae has the greatest yield per acre than any other bio fuel by a factor of something like 10 to 25 times depending on what it's being compared to. It has the potential of creating 33,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre per year. In order to replace ALL of the oil imported into the U.S. each year about 10,000 square miles of land would need to be dedicated to algae production. While that sounds like alot it's only a fraction of the amount of land that is used for farming in this country. And given that algae production can take place on non-arable land there is no need to sacrifice food producing farmland for it's production.

Besides Sapphire there are other companies (Valcent, Solazyme, etc.) that are getting into this area of biofuel production.

This indeed has the potential to revolutionize the transportation infrastructure in this country, but so few people know about it (most notably, it seems, the presidential candidates). Everyone needs to be in contact with their representatives to encourage them to do whatever they can to advance this and other clean, renewable energies. Time is getting short.

To those posters who wonder what "chemicals" are used and how much water: The process is completely natural. It's algae afterall. No harsh chemicals needed. As for water use, in what is called a "closed reactor" system of growing the algae, most of the water is recycled. Also, fresh water is not necessarily a requirement. Brackish water will do just fine. Finally, when it comes to the energy source for it's production, most of it is from the sun. As far as energy for shipping/transport of the stuff goes, at some point it shouldn't be any different than the current petrofuel situation. Trucks and trains burning biofuel to transport biofuel. BTW, the stuff can be used for jet fuel as well.

I know it may be hard for people to believe but this really could be a world changing developement.

Oh, and I don't work for any of these companies, honest. I just want more people to be aware of this.

from my understanding of this (and I'm expert, just someone who reads and lot), the last two posts (Gary and Sparverius) have the correct answers regarding algae as a bio-fuel. There's also an algae bio-reactor at MIT that is completely carbon neutral. The energy it creates actually runs the reactor and the processing of the fuel and there energy left over...

Okay, bad typing in my earlier post...I meant to say "I'm NO expert in this..."
it's Friday, after all!

Any time you burn hydrocarbon (even if it is "green crude" using conventional combustion technology, you will get CO2 in addition to other oxidized additives. Assuming everything that the company promises is true, and that it is virtually carbon neutral, it still does not negate the fact that you will have nitrous compounds and sulfur mixtures when you burn ANY hydrocarbon with air. Even ethanol, supposedly the cleaner substitute to gasoline, still gives off significant byproducts that can constitute harmful pollution (O3, NO2, etc...). So even if the green crude is for real and carbon neutral, it does not guarantee that other harmful particulates will not be produced when you use the same old combustion technology to extract that energy. The author is right that while this step is in the right direction, we must exercise plenty caution in assessing whether it is the most environmentally beneficial thing to do. Personally, and excuse my bias here, I think the cleanest way is to run automobiles from electricity generated from renewable means. But thats topic for other discussions...

I definitely think this is the wave of the future for energy. So much can come from these algae companies. First the algae biodiesel and then the ethanol and then throw it all into a methane digester. Then anything left you can burn and scrub for the nutrients the algae need plus the CO2 from the incineration.