This page has been archived and is no longer updated

 
August 11, 2009 | By:  Justine Chow
Aa Aa Aa

Debunking Biofuels (or not): Part 3

For the past month, I've been bashing biofuels. Corn energy crops lead to expanded land use and higher carbon emissions; oil palm is even worse in the tropics. Should we just chuck the whole thing in the great collective waste-bin where once-promising ideas go?

Perhaps not. Before the biofuel movement retires to hang out with universally stigmatized ideas such as eugenics and bubble fusion, we should consider what it promises.

According to a New York Times article published July 14, 20091, Emil Jacobs, Vice President of Research and Development at Exxon Mobil Research and Engineering Co., claims that Exxon has done just that.

The oil company has privately invested in many different biofuel options, and literally sampled the different approaches to biofuels. As recently as July, they've placed their chips on algae-based biofuels-$600 million worth of their confidence to be exact.

Why algae? 

Unlike the energy crops I recently wrote about, algae is not a land-based crop limited by arable growing conditions. They can be grown in open ponds, saltwater, and even closed photobioreactors-large clear tubes filled with nutrient-laden water exposed to sunlight, that can be placed practically anywhere.

Additionally, algae can grow much faster and produce 15 times more oil per acre than other biofuel crops. Genetic engineering of the algae and the enzymes used to refine the oil can make that number even higher2.

Algae biofuel is sometimes referred to as "third-generation" biofuel. First generation biofuels consist of the energy crops like corn and oil palm.  Second generation biofuels consist of the woody, inedible parts of plants such as the otherwise unusable pulp from sugarcane and certain grasses-full of promise, but overall too inefficient and expensive to process.

Let's hope that the old adage holds true for algae: the third generation's a charm. As of August 4 2009, there are 56 startups working on just this issue3, so wherever algae leads, it'll take quite a lot of money with it.

Moreover, early this January, Continental Airlines actually tested out algae-derived biofuel on a commercial plane (without paying passengers of course).  They used a 50-50 blend of algae and normal jet fuel on a 90 minute flight, and so far so good.  With this encouraging test behind them, the aviation industry hopes to use algae biofuels for their regular flights within five years4.

This is big.

So what happened to solar, hydrogen, and wind energy? The current problem with these renewable energy sources is that they're not very efficient on such a large scale. The use of transitional energy sources like biofuels is prudent, but even algae biofuels contribute some carbon dioxide emissions.

The kind of progress scientists have made from inefficient corn-based bioethanol to the development of algae production of jet fuel underscores why investment in energy research is so crucial. Ultimately, all of these temporary solutions have their costs and need constant improvement. We should not make the switch to biofuels or any other "crutch" fuels and feel accomplished-if anything, the use of them should signal increased urgency to develop even greener energy sources that have no emissions at all.

 

For a good overview of the differences between first and second generation biofuels, check out this Scitable article: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Sustainable-Bioenergy-Genomics-and-Biofuels-Development-44571

And here's some more data about the comparison between first and second generation biofuels and algae oil production: Chisti, Yusuf. (2008) Response to Reijnders: Do biofuels from microalgae beat biofuels from terrestrial plants? Trends in Biotechnology 26 (7) 351-352.

Sources:

     1.   Howell, Katie. "Exxon Sinks $600M Into Algae-Based Biofuels in Major Strategy Shift." Business, New York Times. July 14, 2009.

     2.   "Algae: Biofuel of the Future?" Science News, ScienceDaily. August 19, 2008.

     3.   Saint John, Jeff. "Algae Company Number 56: Plankton Power." Biofuels, Greentechmedia. August 4, 2009.

     4.   "First Flight of Algae-Fuelled Jet." Science and Environment, BBC. January 8, 2009.

photo by Steve Jurvetson (flickr) 

1 Comment
Comments
August 20, 2009 | 10:22 AM
Posted By:  Hillary Sanders
Great - what about some info on if algae derived biofuel is actually good - how much more/less Co2 does it release, how much does it cost, how is it produced, etc..

Sigh, somebody else should also comment on these cool articles!
Blogger Profiles
Recent Posts

« Prev Next »

Connect
Connect Send a message

Scitable by Nature Education Nature Education Home Learn More About Faculty Page Students Page Feedback



Blogs