Making Renewable, Carbon-Neutral Oil — From Algae
A San Diego start-up says it is using algae to make oil that can be refined into gasoline and other fuels that are both renewable and carbon-neutral, and it plans to produce 10,000 barrels a day within five years.
That's a fraction of the 20 million or so barrels of petroleum the United States consumes each day, but Sapphire Energy says "green crude" production could ramp up to a level sufficient to ease our dependence on foreign oil, if not end it altogether.
Company CEO Jason Pyle says the algal oil is chemically identical to light sweet crude and compatible with America's $1.5 trillion petroleum infrastructure, making it a direct replacement for oil. Although the algal fuels refined from it emit as much carbon dioxide as conventional fuels, the company says the emissions are offset by the photosynthetic process that uses sunlight, water and C02 to create algal crude.
"At the very worst, it's carbon neutral," Pyle says, calling the fuels a "benchmark for an entire new industry" and "a paradigm change."
Energy experts and air quality regulators say they'll withhold judgment on those claims until they've seen a production-to-combustion analysis of the fuel's emissions. But they say Sapphire could be on to something.
Making fuel from algae is nothing new, and a lot of organizations, from the smallest start-up to the biggest oil companies, are trying to find the best way to do it. But most of the effort has been on replacing diesel fuel or kerosene. Sapphire wants to replace petroleum.
"We designed it to be a completely fungible product with crude oil," Pyle says. He says the company has refined its algal crude into 91-octane gasoline, diesel fuel and kerosene chemically identical to conventional fuels. He wouldn't disclose how the process works or what it costs but said it is competitive with deep-water oil drilling and extracting petroleum from tar sands.
Sapphire also avoids the food-for-fuel debate that has plagued crop-based biofuels because it uses algae and works on non-arable land with non-potable water. Pyle wouldn't say where Sapphire plans to build the demonstration plant it will have running later this year, but it's reportedly working in Oklahoma and may locate its facilities in the South and Southwest. It hopes to have a full-scale plant up and running within five years, producing 10,000 barrels of green crude a day. The company has lined up more than $50 million in funding from investors like ARCH Venture Partners.
Ramping up to that level of production without killing the algae can be tricky, one expert said, and the environmental impact of green crude remain to be seen. Even if it is carbon neutral, the algal fuels will emit pollutants that contribute to smog and ozone, says Don Anair of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"You're still going to get combustion emissions. You aren't eliminating those with algal fuels," he says, echoing a point the California Air Resources Board made. Still, Anair is cautiously optimistic.
"The fact that there is a lot of interest in finding a better way to fuel our transportation system is encouraging," he says. "This is one avenue to pursue that has very good potential."
Photo by Sapphire Energy.
Posted by: TR Bob | May 29, 2008 4:01:14 PM
OK, so it's not *completely* "green".
Big whoop.
If it means we don't have to keep sending boatloads of cash to backwards dictatorships in the middle east, I'm all for it.
I for one would rather be paying money to some company in California, than funding Chavez, the Saudis, or any part of OPEC.
Bring on the Algae!
Posted by: TSU | May 29, 2008 5:16:38 PM
I like the idea. Even if the fuel isn't any greener when we burn it, it will leave less pollutants than current oil drilling does.
Posted by: S James | May 29, 2008 5:16:40 PM
This is all forgetting that over half of crude doesn't end up being used for any form of energy generation. A carbon neutral replacement for crude petroluem is once crucial aspect of the solution.
Ditching fossil fuel and scooting around in renewable-powered electric cars won't save the world, we still need all kinds of chemicals shampoo, fertiliser through to food additives. It's very difficult to find such products with zero petroleum used in the product, it's manurfacturing and packaging.
Posted by: womprat | May 29, 2008 5:18:13 PM
this is very neat. its effectively solar energy, because energy from the sun is used by the algae to make the crude, and then released when the crude is burned.
Posted by: HK Mort | May 29, 2008 5:22:36 PM
Trees are really just solar batteries. The energy from the sun is used by the tree to make fiber/tissue which we then chop down and burn or make houses or even, creepily enough, tree-houses. And then another tree grows in its place. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Posted by: sunbattery | May 29, 2008 5:37:35 PM
This isn't new news. There are a whole bunch of ventures working on algae to replace gasoline, not sure why Wired didn't catch onto this and expand into a broader look at that research/industry. It reads like the adaptation of a Sapphire press release, not good journalism. What they forgot to mention is you could use the Co2 from a conventional power plant to feed the algae the carbon they need to make fuel.
Posted by: Persistence | May 29, 2008 5:38:51 PM
big oil is not going to like this.
san diego start up vs. big oil interests.
hmmmm....
Posted by: ben | May 29, 2008 6:23:48 PM
Wired, someone, settle the debate about the thermodynamic potential of algae. It shouldn't be a debate, but, apparently, it is.
Does algae have the sun-collection capability to make it "chemically identical" to crude? Some seem to disagree.
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/01/12/patzek_algae/print.html
Posted by: Justin | May 29, 2008 6:28:30 PM
Check out vertigro! So much potential but how do you distribute it? Major oil companies will not sell this stuff so how do you get it to market?
Posted by: avatar | May 29, 2008 7:23:24 PM
At least five times a year for my entire adult life the media reports some amazing new discovery or invention that will revolutionize our approach to some significant problem and essentially eliminate it. Then we never hear about it this wondrous solution again.
Posted by: Joe | May 29, 2008 7:24:53 PM
What a fantastic idea! Quit buying oil from those who would love to kill us, quit drilling up the seafloor, no more super-tanker spills, no more using food for fuel, potential carbon-neutrality... whats not to LOVE about this??
Posted by: Brandon | May 29, 2008 7:27:58 PM
This would reduce carbon emissions - whatever is emitted by the burning in cars is taken in again by the algae (roughly). Depending on what the efficiency is, it's comparable to electric cars.
Posted by: Bob | May 29, 2008 7:53:41 PM
As many happy tech stories as I hear promising to solve all of our problems I've learned to doubt anything good.
10,000 barrels per day. Multiply it by 10 or 20 and it might barely be noticeable.
Also production costs comparable to tar sands and deep sea production will ensure that prices can never drop to the cheap levels of a few years ago.
Posted by: Matt | May 29, 2008 8:20:56 PM
Chemically IDENTICAL to light sweet crude... for some reason, I kinda doubt that.
Posted by: Noah B. | May 29, 2008 8:32:56 PM
It's carbon neutral if it can contain the CO2 from combustion. Like it or not until there is a sufficient way to capture and contain emissions from vehicles and disperses the carbon emissions into appropriate locations it will still be a problem.
IE, it wont reduce the ozone killing emissions from LA, or the million lawnmowers in north america.
A lot of people seem to forget that it's not the existence of carbon that's the problem. It's the combustion of it into the atmosphere that's a problem.
Posted by: Adam | May 29, 2008 8:36:55 PM
"This isn't new news. There are a whole bunch of ventures working on algae to replace gasoline, not sure why Wired didn't catch onto this and expand into a broader look at that research/industry...not good journalism..."
Posted by: Persistence | May 29, 2008 5:38:51 PM
"Making fuel from algae is nothing new, and everyone from the smallest start-up to the biggest oil companies is trying to find the best way to do it. But most of the effort has been on replacing diesel fuel or kerosene. Sapphire wants to replace petroleum."
-Wired
--Cory
Posted by: Cory | May 29, 2008 9:06:23 PM
I highly doubt it is carbon neutral. Sounds like it should be, but then we do some studies and find out it might not be, but I don't care. We need something now to get us to something else in the future. Here's the problem. Too many businesses get in the news telling us about their great products, and then we never here from them again. Is this a real solution or just something that'll end up not working again? Here's the keywords in the article right here. "He wouldn't disclose how the process works or what it costs but said it is competitive with deep-water oil drilling and extracting petroleum from tar sands." Competitive? How competitive is what we need to know. Those are the expensive ways to get oil. We don't need another expensive way to get oil. We already have that. We need a cheap way. If we end up paying the same amount either way we haven't really solved anything. Plus, how does a company buy it if they won't say how much it costs? So, the key information we need to know is if when this technology is scaled up, does the process become cheaper mass production style, or does it become more expensive limited supply style. Since we don't know how the process works we don't know. Of course, how does one run out of algae? Well people probably thought the same thing when they first discovered oil. I don't know how it all works.
Posted by: MS | May 29, 2008 9:34:25 PM
I’m all about saving the planet! But this idea is only one of many very, very small way of doing so. I believe there are better ways………….like ahhhhhh…….buying a used compact car; instead of buying a “bran-new eco-friendly car” that uses Renewable, Carbon-Neutral Oil that took a crazy amount of energy to make. Like recycling…….it takes more energy to recycle trash than it does just to dump it. There is no free lunch! But hay….I’m all about Kermit the Frog! He’s green, but unfortunately he caused a lot of pain to the earth when all the children wanted to see his movie the “Muppets Go to Hollywood” Think about it? All those cars driving to the movie theater! Oh...the horror!!!
Posted by: Up-Chuck | May 29, 2008 9:42:02 PM
Whatever happened to the startup that was manufacturing diamonds? (big Wired cover story)
If you can't fight "Big Diamond", What makes you think that "Big Oil" won't make an offer that Saphire CAN'T refuse.
Posted by: rick go | May 29, 2008 10:13:51 PM
The claim of "carbon neutrality" for a fuel that is burned begs for a deeper analysis. I'd like to see a "plant to pump" analysis.
Even if it proves out, though, it's not necessarily a good thing, viewed from the big picture. Relying on increasing supplies of biofuels to supplement petroleum will hold down petroleum prices and keep internal combustion engines on the road longer. The net result will be more CO2 emissions.
I suspect there is simply no way around it. If we want to cease having an impact on atmospheric CO2, we have to get off of the whole burning fuels thing.
Posted by: Urgelt | May 29, 2008 11:49:53 PM
But imagine how many barrels it would be worth if everyone took it as their patriotic duty to do safe hypermiling and reduce driving. (See hypermiling in the Wikipedia and elsewhere.)
Posted by: BluChunx | May 30, 2008 2:00:24 AM
It will be interesting to see the confirmed results of this algal fuel in terms of its emissions ratio to photosynthesis and CO2 carbon storage capacities.
I am concerned about ozone emission and smog...living in a big city really gets me congested sometimes because of all the traffic.
What of fuel cell technology? Should this perhaps be the direction of choice?
www.med-p.org
Posted by: Jean-Paul Gagnon | May 30, 2008 2:24:55 AM
Ok, I think you guys ( by that i mean commenters)need to look up the definition of "Carbon neutral". For a fuel to be Carbon neutral is can't add CO2 to the atmosphere when burned and that will be true for any fuel derived from plants that get the carbon in their structures from the CO2 in the air. Now, algae take CO2 from the air (dissoleve din the water they live in) and combine it with water to make sugars and other carbohyrates, and in this case also som long CH chains known as oils.
Posted by: Theis | May 30, 2008 2:26:29 AM
Ok, I think you guys ( by that i mean commenters)need to look up the definition of "Carbon neutral". For a fuel to be Carbon neutral is can't add CO2 to the atmosphere when burned and that will be true for any fuel derived from plants that get the carbon in their structures from the CO2 in the air. Now, algae take CO2 from the air (dissoleve din the water they live in) and combine it with water to make sugars and other carbohyrates, and in this case also som long CH chains known as oils.
Posted by: Theis | May 30, 2008 2:27:03 AM
Ok, I think you guys ( by that i mean commenters)need to look up the definition of "Carbon neutral". For a fuel to be Carbon neutral is can't add CO2 to the atmosphere when burned and that will be true for any fuel derived from plants that get the carbon in their structures from the CO2 in the air. Now, algae take CO2 from the air (dissoleve din the water they live in) and combine it with water to make sugars and other carbohyrates, and in this case also som long CH chains known as oils.
Posted by: Theis | May 30, 2008 2:27:10 AM
Ok, I think you guys ( by that i mean commenters)need to look up the definition of "Carbon neutral". For a fuel to be Carbon neutral is can't add CO2 to the atmosphere when burned and that will be true for any fuel derived from plants that get the carbon in their structures from the CO2 in the air. Now, algae take CO2 from the air (dissoleve din the water they live in) and combine it with water to make sugars and other carbohyrates, and in this case also som long CH chains known as oils.
Posted by: Theis | May 30, 2008 2:27:14 AM
Theis:
Theis:
We're not talking about the algae itself. We're wondering about the process as a whole. Like with other alternatives that were supposed to be carbon neutral. Some studies found out they may not be.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/studies-say-bio.html
Plus another interesting one.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/04/ethanol_fuel_gr.html
But that's just an early study. We don't know for sure. It It's the process as a whole I wonder about. Like, if this does release CO2 then how high up does it go? Is it stuck in the atmosphere where the plants can't get it back? Does it take twice as much energy to make as you get out of it? If it does then you'll have to use another energy source to make it, or you'll waste all your algae trying to turn it into fuel for more algae. I know, those are just silly examples, but you get my point. Is it really a carbon neutral process or does it just look like it because we don't know everything?
Posted by: MS | May 30, 2008 3:37:54 AM
Typical comments from the peanut section. Yeah, we've all seen seemingly good ideas (like cold fusion) which could not stand up under independent verification. Still, it is the ingenuity of the human mind to continue to strive and investigate. As long as serious scientists keep working, eventually we will find good answers. Even if this alga-oil is not 100% carbon neutral, as long as it does not add dangerous levels of other chemicals to the combustion mix, it is a step in the right direction. If we can break the cycle of increasing dependence on foreign oil, that can only be good.
As for the conspiracy peanut section, yes, big oil could work against this (even if it is proven to be based on great science), however, it will only take one well funded company to back this then everyone will try to copy it.
As someone who has lived long enough to have experienced the development of modern polymers and silicon-based semi conductors, I know that more amazing discoveries are around the corner. Drop the pessimism and go with progress -- even incremental progress.
Posted by: George | May 30, 2008 4:29:12 AM
Since drilling the oil out of the ground just adds CO2 to the air, this sounds like a nice compromise to recycle it more from the air. Here's hoping for good results and a start.
Posted by: Mooman | May 30, 2008 5:23:46 AM
gee, I wish they would just sell the "recipe" so people can make their own at home and put greedy big oil OUT OF BUSINESS.
Posted by: John Jones | May 30, 2008 6:05:59 AM
@womprat
This is basically crude from algea. ALL those products will be able to use it in production. THAT is the advantage over trying to replace diesel directly.
@Matt
Get used to it. Cheap energy is over. Petrolium is running out, like it or not. It IS a finite resource. The price is going up because supply is finite (not just limited, finite) and too many people want energy. This will not lower prices, but it might just allow you to note freze in winter, even if it does not let you drive your hummer to work every day.
Posted by: Spider | May 30, 2008 6:11:35 AM
This is an interesting find...although its still not the answer. We need to move completely away from consuming natural resources. Making oil out of algae, corn, grass, etc...will only put a band-aid on a critical issue.
...and greedy oil companies have nothing to do with high gas prices. SUPPLY AND DEMAND has everything to do with high gas prices. To put this more in perspective, we were greedy. The people are to blame with their SUV's and 100 mile commutes...and this list could go on.
But we are also in a time, where the people can make the difference to build an entirely new infrastructure. Its us that has to decide our own fates. We've let our government decide for us for far too long and look where its gotten us...
think about it
Posted by: Def. Prolyphiq | May 30, 2008 7:54:45 AM
This is an interesting find...although its still not the answer. We need to move completely away from consuming natural resources. Making oil out of algae, corn, grass, etc...will only put a band-aid on a critical issue.
...and greedy oil companies have nothing to do with high gas prices. SUPPLY AND DEMAND has everything to do with high gas prices. To put this more in perspective, we were greedy. The people are to blame with their SUV's and 100 mile commutes...and this list could go on.
But we are also in a time, where the people can make the difference to build an entirely new infrastructure. Its us that has to decide our own fates. We've let our government decide for us for far too long and look where its gotten us...
think about it
Posted by: Def. Prolyphiq | May 30, 2008 7:57:26 AM
Here in Tampa, we have an excess of gypsum from phosphate mining. Dumping it is causing algea blooms.
It would be great if we could create the blooms that turn into oil.
We also have the sunshine here in Florida to grow the stuff.
Posted by: SirLanse | May 30, 2008 8:01:07 AM
I wonder how much energy is required in the growing, harvesting, and processing in the algae to turn it into usable "crude". If all that energy is considered, is this really a viable energy source? I hope it is, because I'd hate to think about what happens when we start hitting the downward slope of the oil supply (i.e. we are consuming more than we can pump out of the ground/seabed).
Posted by: Joe | May 30, 2008 8:05:31 AM
To all the nitwits who think the mysterious Big Oil guy is going to find ways to shut this down, obviously y'all got your heads stuck somewhere where the sun doesn't shine.
Think about it, the "Big Oil" companies are in business to make money, just like any other business.
Their business model to take oil in its raw form and refine it into stuff they can sell, whether its gasoline, diesel, or any number of other products derived from oil.
Should making refinable oil from algae is cost effective, one can be sure that ANY oil company will want to either invest as a joint partner or even license the technology and produce the algae oil themselves.
.
The "drilling for oil" process is not what the oil companies are all about. It is just that currently, oil production comes from deep underground and to get at it, one must spend anywhere from a million dollars to several hundred million dollars to drill for it, and that's just for drilling on land. Offshore drilling and the cost to sink just one hole can go up into the billions of dollars.
.
So, back to all the idiots that think the oil companies won't like this, think again. The larger oil companies have a lot of refineries that need oil to refine. They generally buy oil from any source, even from their competitors. The smaller oil companies' stock value is generally based on their expected oil reserves. No oil reserves, bankrupted oil company (unless they do an ENRON on themselves). Thus, the smaller oil companies are always looking to increase their reserves. One can be sure that they are looking at ANY form of renewable energy to INVEST in, not to drive out of business.
.
I am all for this "algae to oil" process. As TSU stated, I would much rather keep our oil money in the U.S. instead of funding middle eastern countries whose ultimate goal is to either convert everyone else to Islam or kill us.
.
@John Jones
Growing algae and converting it to oil can be done "at home". All it takes is some knowledge on how to grow the right type of algae, have the equipment to then bake and pressurize the grown algae to convert it to oil, plus have enough acreage to grow enough, probably on the order of at least one acre for individual use along with living in a warm climate so the algae can grow year round, then be able to refine the oil into gasoline which requires all sorts of government regulations and EPA regulations, so yes, you can do it at home.
But since you made the statement about doing this at home without thinking through the simple process of actually doing it, then you are a moron.
Posted by: TR Bob | May 30, 2008 8:18:51 AM
For more information on the "algae to oil" process, please check out:
http://www.oilgae.com/
The website along with all the related links should answer most intelligent people's questions on the subject.
Posted by: TR Bob | May 30, 2008 8:28:25 AM
A minnesota company developed a way of converting essentially any oil to useable fuel. Rather than try and hype what I though was an impressive technology, I'l just give you a link to the story... be sure to watch the video to get the full impact of what they've invented.
http://wcco.com/energy/algae.energy.independence.2.731183.html
enjoy!
Posted by: Grant | May 30, 2008 9:35:11 AM
I don't see why it couldn't be identical to light sweet crude, where do you think oil came from... plants of course.
And there will be no one solution to all of our problems. Electric vehicles cause emissions from the electricity the use, hydrogen vehicles are way too expensive and right now there is not an efficient way to create it, bio-fuels use a lot of water (another finite resource in a lot of areas) and create local pollutants just like gasoline (smog).
But a combination of these will reduce the amount of money we export, create numerous jobs in manufacturing and engineering, reduce local pollutants that cause asthma and respiratory problems (and potentially cancer), and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Short term we need more investments in wind energy (renew the production tax credit that is set to expire at the end of this year!), hybrid and electric vehicles, efficiency improvements in commerical and residential buildings, and further development of geothermal plants, among about 30 other things.
Also, any vehicle can reduce the amount of fuel it uses and pollution it creates by using some simple and safe driving techniques, check out cleanMPG.com
/rant
Posted by: Peter | May 30, 2008 9:43:32 AM
I love the people that say this won't help because it's low volume. New technology already is. Every new achievement is started as a handmade prototype, then developed for suitability for mass production. Give it time, not criticism, in the development stages.
Posted by: Don | May 30, 2008 9:49:30 AM
If it can scale and his projections are correct about cost ($60 per barrel to make extracting oil from tar sands worthwhile) then you wind up with gas at $2-3 a gallon.
*
At any time oil holding nations can just start selling oil at $20-40 a barrel and bankrupt these guys. Before someone invests enough money to replace 20 million bpd, they are going to need a guarantee they won't be undercut. I'm all for that guarantee if it means a stable price and a stable source. There are other methods of turning carbon and hydrogen atoms into the molecules that are diesel and gasoline. Regardless of the method (and there are competitors) large scale substitution of crude oil won't happen until at least 2020.
Posted by: muD | May 30, 2008 9:50:49 AM
Joe above has a comment that was cynical but accurate. Id like to help tuen it into something positive.
So hey wired.. why not help track this stuff for us, maybe even in a wiki format. Put up a static page where we can keep tabs on these thigs like saphire energy and each of those other wonder fuels out there.
Then we can find out over time which of these are just vaporware (most) and which need some help to become reality.
Posted by: david b | May 30, 2008 10:03:43 AM
It's green alright. CO2 neutral means no net CO2 production and that is what this does. I'm just wondering how much surface area they need to produce those 10.000 barrels...
Posted by: finn | May 30, 2008 10:05:11 AM
OR we could just stop using inefficient internal combustion engines and use electric engines. Wow, what a freakin thought.
Posted by: john q | May 30, 2008 10:06:53 AM
Biolfuels are carbon neutral when they can be produced at a rate in equilibrium with the consumption. But it is a false equilibrium when you take biomass that would otherwise be sequestering some carbon in sediment and burn it. This approach if it truly uses marginal lands and salty dirty water to produce algae could be truly carbon neutral or of even a net benefit. But the trick is to make it least land intensive. How many acres per car/house electricity/etc per year is this going to take? Multiply that by how many cars/houses/people and see if this makes any sense beyond a percent or two of production.
Posted by: Pat | May 30, 2008 10:24:42 AM
For those of you who don't understand why this is carbon neutral:
Fossil fuels: Carbon that has been stored UNDER GROUND for hundreds of thousands of years is burned. CO2 that was previously not in the atmosphere is released into the atmosphere. Net result = more carbon in the atmosphere.
Biofuels: Carbon that comes from the atmosphere as CO2 is converted into fuel by adding energy through photosynthesis. This fuel is then burned, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. There is no increase in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
Pretty simple, guys.
Posted by: mike | May 30, 2008 11:32:26 AM
And all this time I have been fighting algae in my pool. who knew I was sitting on my own "oil field".
This is actually great, but what about water shortage issues?
Posted by: tom | May 30, 2008 11:39:18 AM
Using algae to produce fuel we are over-dependent on certainly makes more sense than using corn. It would be a grand enterprise for us to go in this direction for oil production, but I think it will depend on the majority of the financing to come from private enterprise. Big oil companies will block this just as they've blocked the move to more fuel efficient vehicles.
Posted by: stephen s | May 30, 2008 11:42:48 AM
Using algae to produce fuel we are over-dependent on certainly makes more sense than using corn. It would be a grand enterprise for us to go in this direction for oil production, but I think it will depend on the majority of the financing to come from private enterprise. Big oil companies will block this just as they've blocked the move to more fuel efficient vehicles.
Posted by: stephen s | May 30, 2008 11:44:04 AM
This is promising.
If only people would realize that global warming is a myth; CO2 comprises 3% of greenhouse gases, and is not even terribly effective at retaining heat (H20, what makes up those big white fluffy things in the sky, is much more effective); despite record numbers of C02 in the atmosphere, the global temperature has not increased since 1998.
Once this debate is placed in the proper context of energy independence, it will be feasible.
Posted by: Adam | May 30, 2008 11:46:24 AM
Carbon neutral or not, this is an important half-step towards weaning ourselves off carbon fuels and all the problems which come with them (due to current methods and locations). Eventually we need to be in the zero-emission zone. But in the near term, this solution is a significant improvement over the current process for all the reasons previously noted. This new avenue for producing oil should be pursued vigorously while zero-emissions technology comes up to speed.
Posted by: Alex Santos | May 30, 2008 12:06:30 PM
Adam, H2O is not a green house problem. The amount of water in the atmosphere can not increase because water rains out most of the time when it get to 100% relative humidity. CO2 is a problem because the amount is increasing in the atmosphere
Posted by: Jack May | May 30, 2008 12:24:49 PM
"This is actually great, but what about water shortage issues?" -- Tom
The article states that the process uses non-potable water. Unless I'm mistaken, the water shortage issue wouldn't be a problem in that case.
Obviously this isn't a cure-all solution to our energy problems, but it looks like it would work well in concert with other innovations in this area. A big challenge is that crude oil was used for so many things that people tend to assume that the solution has to be an enormous single solution. In reality, though, it's going to take a lot of smaller advancements in a lot of different areas in order for this to work.
Posted by: cat | May 30, 2008 2:06:30 PM
******** ALGE*** IS IT????
there plenty ,
Here
at *****
~~~~~ ** WIRED ***
Posted by: halfwatt0 | May 30, 2008 2:24:02 PM
So the theories about oil bubbling up from organic matter deep in the earth may not be so crazy after all.
Posted by: Kirk | May 30, 2008 2:26:13 PM
Pump some back into the ground. Bingo- carbon negative.
Posted by: JP | May 30, 2008 3:13:15 PM
I call it snalgae oil
Posted by: Wisedudex | May 30, 2008 3:17:06 PM
Bingo. Global warming is a myth. Look at how paranoid we are about the climate: NOAA predicts a heavier than average hurricane season and gas prices go higher, meanwhile they predicted the same thing for the last two exceptionally light seasons. There is evidence of climate change (warming) on Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. My Ford Explorer certainly is not causing that. Research sunspot cycles and the climate: It is a much more likely cause. Every generation through history has invented a doomsday scenario. Instead of being mythologically based ours is scientifically based. Face it: Meteorologists and climatologists can not even predict tomorrow's weather accurately.
In 10 years we will laugh at global warming.
Posted by: john noonan | May 30, 2008 4:24:06 PM
If we take the roughly 20 million Barrels a day we consume divided by the 10,000 Barrels a day one of these facility's could produce. We would get roughly 2000 of these facility's we would need to produce our daily consumption of oil. Put one of these in an industrial park in several cities across the US sounds like a good Idea to me.
Posted by: Seamus | May 30, 2008 4:51:32 PM
REALLY INTERESTING! http://www.amazing-world.eu.tf
Posted by: Gino de Mondo | May 31, 2008 12:31:50 AM
Is this scalable? What nutrients are the algae going to require? The stuff that is growing on our ponds is there largely because of fertilizer run-off which is made from natural gas. I'm starting to think that the big picture isn't just being ignored but intentionally obscured by assholes looking to make a fast buck and by the willing lemmings (i.e. Wired readers and people on this blog) who cannot imagine a world without a motor whirring in their ears.
Posted by: Sean | May 31, 2008 7:18:37 AM
You can see more articles on Algae oil and biodiesel that has been studied for many years at Universty of New Hampshire http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/index.html
This is nothing new but something being researched and enhanced more every day.
It is time to end our dependence on foreign oil,and come up with even more innovative ideas.
We all know that giving money to countries that do not care about equal treatment of all people is like dealing with the devil.
People need to conserve more and stop whining about the need for more of everything.
USA is not the only country buying oil or gas but we have the largest amount of people that love large vehicles with large engines.
Any type of fossil fuel,natural or manmade will never be enough if that's all your going to use.
If you can not afford a new car with better gas mileage,maybe swap your gas engine out for electric or hybrid.BTW.. There is no future in diesel either and truckers allready know it.
Who ever thought ripping up railroad tracks was a good idea for atv trails was an idiot.Railway can haul alot more ton's with alot less fuel and help build small town america back up with cheaper,faster access.
New Hybrid trains and tracks are a better investment than more highway projects.Use some Algea oil to power new trains.
Hey check out the old towns where the trains (( used )) to stop.The trains were the lifeblood of smalltown america,linking them to larger cities with people ready to just jump on a train and see all of our country.
Posted by: Hank | May 31, 2008 11:44:18 AM
Here is a direct link to an algae article written at the University of New Hampshire that I just gave --> http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Posted by: Hank | May 31, 2008 11:55:02 AM
I find it strange that whenever a new technology comes along that has the potential to be beneficial to not only to our nation, but to the humanity as a whole, there always seems to be someone just waiting to nay say it; attributing it to some "liberal-enviro-commie" cause. It seems to me that at the end of the day, anything is better than what we have now, and anything that can ween us from OPEC oil is a good thing.
In addition to any potential benefits to environmental, national security etc, you can be sure that no one will be giving these technologies away for free, which brings up the issue of potential economic benefits. And as with any new technology, it will always be expensive at first, then get cheaper as time goes on until the new technology becomes the status quo.
Posted by: Rokkett77 | May 31, 2008 3:00:30 PM
[I]"...wouldn't disclose how the process works or what it costs but said it is competitive with deep-water oil drilling and extracting petroleum from tar sands."[/I}
Competitive? LOL . What's the point? So they want us trade from one greedy power monger to another?
Posted by: What's the Point? | May 31, 2008 3:58:01 PM
The next step is to sequester the CO2 from the car as it drives, and use that on-board to promote fuel growth. I understand it might mean missing out on windfall profits but it would be the real way to go "carbon neutral." Cars produce a lot of wasted heat, and have a fairly large surface area that both can be used to promote algae growth.
I'm sure it's not that simple, but doesn't that seem like the Holy Grail of the automobile world? A car that sequesters its own CO2 emissions into the fuel it burns...seems perfect.
Posted by: Jackson Cafazzo | Jun 1, 2008 4:44:27 AM
COOL
I hope it works. Less drilling. Less gas prices. Save ANWAR.
Posted by: John | Jun 2, 2008 7:44:14 PM
I don't care if it pollutes more than regular oil, lets stop sending money to OPEC and keep the cash here! Oh, and by the way, if this was gonna fall by the wayside, I would be suprised to see Venrock is invested in Saphire Energy... we all know they invest in go-nowhere companies like Apple and Intel.
Posted by: SrHorrible | Jun 4, 2008 6:49:44 PM
After all I've been reading about WHY oil prices are soaring, I'm most excited about this possibility for future help. I just hope it's not too late. The situation is really all about supply and demand and the U.S. is not the only country now demanding oil. Up and coming China and India are screaming for it too. The supply is simply not keeping up with the demand. I'm afraid in the near future we are going to see $6-7-8.00 per gallon prices on gas for vehicles and that will translate into higher costs on food, clothing and other essentials that have to be shipped. We must be independant from foreign oil and we must have enough resources to help run our economy. I'm sorry, I really don't want to live in a log cabin and gather wood evey fall to heat the house and cook my food on a wood-burning stove. If we aren't more careful.....
Posted by: There is a point! | Jun 12, 2008 2:27:24 PM
A few responses to the comments.
I hate the expression "carbon neutral" because it invites a lot of people placing metrics down. Think of this as carbon recycling. The carbon is taken in by the algae then released when burned. It's a heck of a lot more intelligent than pulling carbon out of the ground and burning it.
Secondly, many of those developing this product are proposing placing algae production near power plants (or the like) to harvest the carbon being pumped into the atmosphere. It will take a lot of CO2 to feed all those little algae plants.
Quick note to the conspiracy folks. Your correct. Big oil won't be buying this. They'll be making it themselves. They are already researching it.
Finally, check out this website for a better understanding of the process and what it means for us (all of us, including the Muslims!)
http://www.valcent.net/s/Home.asp
Posted by: Andy | Jul 7, 2008 1:37:56 PM
I think it is greener because in the process of refining it, less toxic substance produced unlike petroleum. This also alert the oil companies to bring on new energy sources.
Posted by: me | Jul 8, 2008 12:37:18 PM
It appears some folks making comments do not understand the definition of "Carbon Neutral". In this product the algea consumes carbon dioxide in order to grow (just like all plants do). When the oil extracted from this plant is burned, it will release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. The NET change in carbon in our atmosphere is ZERO because only the carbon absorbed by the algea during the growth phase may be released during the burning phase. No NEW carbon can be created through this process.
Fossil fuels like crude oil are simply plants from millions of years ago. These plants absorbed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during the time they grew and then were subsequently buried in the ground through natural geological processes. So in a broad sense, fossil fuels are carbon neutral, though by releasing 100 million year old carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere, we are going to change the more recent chemistry of earth's atmosphere.
By switching to a current plant that effectively uses today's solar energy to create the oil we need to power our cars and industry, we can better maintain earth's atmospheric chemistry (the kind humans have evolved in). There is a healthy debate about global warming, and no one is certain how much it will impact us, but the fossil fuels WILL run out.
My opinion is that this product may be our best hope to end our dependency on fossil fuels (both foreign and domestic).
Posted by: Mike | Oct 13, 2008 5:27:02 AM
I have been reading about planned, start up, soon to be on stream etc etc for years. Have'nt seen any companies saying that they have succeeded. Anybody out there that has actually made any oil in viable quantitites yet? Love to hear your story.
Posted by: Leon van der Nest | Oct 22, 2008 4:40:49 AM
Do you need cast acrylic tubes for algea production etc.I can help save big bucks, cost ten cents on dollar ,I kid u not.www.angelfire.com/pro2/frisky
912 462 7212
Posted by: ROBERT WIENER | Nov 20, 2008 9:09:58 AM




EDITOR: Joe Brown |

web sites:
10,000 barrels a day won't make that big of an impact on our total daily consumption. If it works, then ramping it up with even more algae farms can make a big dent in our oil imports.
Granted, it doesn't help reduce the overall CO2 emissions as it just recycles it. What it will do is to replace imported oil, help reduce our foreign debt, and provide fuel for the long term as our economy slowly replaces fossil fuels with cleaner, greener energy sources.
.
Hmmm.... algae is generally green. Would it then be considered green energy?
.
I'm sure all the nitwits will nitpick this concept apart, finding all sorts of negative vibes about it.