Butanol production breakthrough at University of California

[D Tibbets]

GIThruster, I was referring to Nicolas Tesla, not the sports car. He spent a large amount of time and money trying to build a broadcast power system. As far as local heating, it of course depends on the frequency, and the intensity. Transferring power gradually to any total amount is trivial. Transmitting this energy to a car at many thousands of Watts per is a different matter. Size of the antennas needed to collect this energy, yet alone transmit it is important. Consider a previous series of threads talking about orbital solar collectors (or orbital fusion plants) and transmitting the power to the Earth's surface. Hugh antennas are required. An alternative may be a laser or maser. Presumably the antennas could be smaller (car size?) but the intensity would have to be correspondingly higher, so again the sounds of frying. Some resonate selective effects might help the undesirable side effects, but that would still leave the antenna size and the huge problems of a heterogeneous environment. What happens when you enter a tunnel, especially if you have to stop for awhile. What if you are behind a large semi. The batteries may have to be as large as conventional plug in electric vehicles.

Note that in my previous post I did not mention electric gas hybrids. These are reasonable with current technology - at least if consumers did not demand high peak horsepower capacities.

Dan Tibbets

[GIThruster]

It's not wrong. I wrote "PLANTED". You don't plant algae, you grow it in vats the infrastructure for which is tens of thousands of times more expensive than planting corn or especially grass.

Or you scoop it out of algal blooms that occur in the ocean with planting anything.

Indeed, there are ENORMOUS tracts of the equitorial Pacific that are what is known as HNLC (high nutrient, low chlorophyll) zones. The only reason there aren't gigatonnes of algae there now is due to a lack of MICRO nutrients like iron. Minute additions of iron to such waters will bring on an impressive algal bloom. Then just scoop it up.

Furthermore, many of the algae in such blooms are reflective of incoming solar radiation, lowering the heat input into the ocean and cooling (minutely) the Earth. An nice added benefit.

Maybe Tuvalu(?) should start that kind of harvest rather than spending huge bucks on PV cells.

I've likewise heard of these relatively sterile areas in the oceans, that all they needed was some iron, but my recollection was that people were concerned implanting them with iron would cause blooms that would absorb much more energy than the oceans do currently, and this would cause a serious climate change. Now you have me wondering which way 'round it is.

Schemes I've read in the past include centrifuging the algae to get the oils out, which is where much of the cost is. If you're growing algae terrestrially between glass plates, it's not exposed to air which makes the system more efficient, but the plates and pumps are what costs so much. The idea here is though, that the algae moves along through a cycle, and when it gets to a place where it's at optimum for harvest, the pumps cause it to leave the system for centrifuging. In this way you avoid harvesting algae before it's built up the optimum oil concentration, or too late after it's started to feed on its own oils. Simply skimming off a pond in the back yard isn't going to be nearly as efficient. Harvesting algae at just the right time is more difficult than corn or grass, hence the fancy glass plate system.

Also IIRC, centrifuging algae is more efficient than harvesting oils from grass or corn because of the lack of fibre. IIRC, there's no real attempt to separate the oils from corn at present. The whole thing goes into a mash which makes it less efficient because you're dealing with much larger volumes of matter. All these options are a lot more spendy than sucking crude from the ground.

[KitemanSA]

I've likewise heard of these relatively sterile areas in the oceans, that all they needed was some iron, but my recollection was that people were concerned implanting them with iron would cause blooms that would absorb much more energy than the oceans do currently, and this would cause a serious climate change. Now you have me wondering which way 'round it is.

The man who first noted the phenomenon stated "give me a tanker full of iron and I can cause an ice age". Indeed, while "carbon credits" were a big thing, there were several companies planning to implement this. But in those cases, they relied on the algae dying and settling to the bottom, taking the carbon with it. There was grave doubt that the plan would have sequestered cabon for any significant length of time. My suggestion is to harvest the algae and use it for biomass.

Schemes I've read in the past include centrifuging the algae to get the oils out, which is where much of the cost is.

Actually, centrifuging is usually done to get the algae out of the water.

If you're growing algae terrestrially between glass plates, it's not exposed to air which makes the system more efficient, but the plates and pumps are what costs so much. The idea here is though, that the algae moves along through a cycle, and when it gets to a place where it's at optimum for harvest, the pumps cause it to leave the system for centrifuging. In this way you avoid harvesting algae before it's built up the optimum oil concentration, or too late after it's started to feed on its own oils. Simply skimming off a pond in the back yard isn't going to be nearly as efficient. Harvesting algae at just the right time is more difficult than corn or grass, hence the fancy glass plate system.

Yup, but all that rigamaroll is due to the antiquated methods used to extract the cabonaceous fuel from the algae. Recent advances have obviated the need for most of the energy intensive parts of the process. Look up "Hydrothermal Carbonization" a.k.a. HTC.

Also IIRC, centrifuging algae is more efficient than harvesting oils from grass or corn because of the lack of fibre. IIRC, there's no real attempt to separate the oils from corn at present. The whole thing goes into a mash which makes it less efficient because you're dealing with much larger volumes of matter. All these options are a lot more spendy than sucking crude from the ground.

Actually, the single most expensive part of getting the oil is drying the algae first. The SECOND most difficult is getting the oil out of the cell. Crushing the cell wall with presses is the typical way to process DRY algae. After that, extracting the oil from the ooze is fairly easy. HTC eliminates the need for these two parts of the process.

[GIThruster]

HTC doesn't produce fuels. It produces soil.

[D Tibbets]

A brief search reveals that HTC doesn't produce soil in the sense of ground up clays and rocks which are not a fuel. It is a process of reducing carbon chains- polymers, oils, starches into smaller chains, and possibly even to pure carbon. It appears to be adjustable, and energy positive (it is an exothermic process). I don't know if it would be a good way to produce liquid fuels (it may be similar to the process used by the failed company that tried to convert turkey parts and waste into useful liquid fuels- the process worked but the economies and business model failed). It seems the chemical engineers could probably tune it to achieve almost any small chain hydrocarbon - diesel like or feedstock for fermentation. It might be best for producing solid feedstock for power plants by replacing or at least supplementing coal. Assumeing it is somewhat similar to the above mentioned plant, dehydration is not necessary , and thus an expensive step is bypassed.

http://scienceforums.com/topic/11884-hy ... ation-htc/

PS: The link says it is exothermic, this seems counter intuitive if the feedstock is short chain carbon polymers. Reducing ethanol to carbon and hydrogen and oxygen gas would certainly consume energy, Converting it to carbon , and water (add extra oxygen) may be exothermic in part. I'm uncertain. Certainly burning Ethanol to water and CO2 releases energy, The balance between the end product of CO2 and carbon may not allow for total profitable energy release. I'm uncertain of the mechanics, but I suspect this energy balance becomes profitable only once a certain carbon chain length is reached. Perhaps not at the level of simple sugars (6 carbons), but with long chain oils, cellulose, and starches(?- these are already partially oxidized (basically the same proportions of carbon and oxygen atoms)) the net results may be exothermic. The cellulose is also a sugar so it may not contribute to the positive energy balance, but if the concentration of oils is high enough, the dominate effect may be exothermic, or at least much less energy costly to drive the system.


Dan Tibbets

[GIThruster]

It's a way of earning carbon credits by sequestering carbon. It's like making charcoal. Set stuff on fire and cover it with soil, the lack of air creates charcoal rather than ash. Its exothermic as you're burning stuff, just you're not burning it completely enough to release carbon into the air. You get carbon credits for this. Just because its exothermic does not mean however it's economically viable to use the heat produced. I don't think anyone does that when making charcoal.

[KitemanSA]

Nope, what you are describing is pyro-carbonizing which is different. And Dan's description is also off a bit.

HydroThermal Carbonization (HTC) is a method for reducing the OXYGEN content of carbohydrates. It doesn't do anything to lipids (well, at least not a lot and only incidentally). It is an improvement over pyrolytic carbonization in that it eliminates O2 by removing H2O while PC removes O2 by releasing CO2. With HTC, you retain ~100% of the carbon as low O2 carbon species (fuels).

Indeed, HTC is perhaps the BEST way to release the oils from algae because the process attacks the carbonhydrates that make up much of the cell wall, opening it up to other agents like hexane solvents. After the process you are left with liquids (lipids), solids (charcoal like granuales) and an aqueous solution of the main nutrients in the cell. The aqueous solution makes a great fertilizer. If buried, the carbon granuals make a great soil conditioner (not a fertilizer), and the lipids can be turned into bio-deisel. The granuals can also be burned like coal or converted to syn-gas like coal.

[GIThruster]

HTC does not separate the hydrocarbons from the carbon. If you want to do that you need to create syngas which takes more energy than you will get from burning the hydrocarbon as a solid. You can find a complete treatment here:

http://www.mpg.de/974909/F001_Focus_020_025.pdf

especially including the charts and explanation on page 25.

[KitemanSA]

HTC does not separate the hydrocarbons from the carbon.

Hmmm. Where did I state that it seperates the two? I stated it removes some OXYGEN from the carbohydrates leaving a solid charcoal like substance and other products. Coal isn't pure carbon either.

[GIThruster]

Just saying, the issue is complex because to make a transportation fuel from algae, you still need to invest more energy than you get out when you burn the butanol.

There are lots of complex processes like this, but none of them make bio-fuels cost competitive with fossil fuels.

Obviously, there are other issues than cost, but I think there's a wealth of knowledge available concerning biofuels and any significant move toward biofuels, will indeed drive fuel and food prices up. IMHO, that's not a move we ought to make when we have hopes for better options.

Let's fund the better options!

[KitemanSA]

Just saying, the issue is complex because to make a transportation fuel from algae, you still need to invest more energy than you get out when you burn the butanol.

What has that got to do with the HTC issue? And as an aside, where is your supporting data? And dont give me tripe about other processes. I've already noted that other processes are difficult and energy costly.

There are lots of complex processes like this, but none of them make bio-fuels cost competitive with fossil fuels.

Yet. Maybe never, if something better comes along. But if we want energy dense fuels, we need a source of carbon, and HTC processed algae may be the best, taking all factrors into account.

Obviously, there are other issues than cost, but I think there's a wealth of knowledge available concerning biofuels and any significant move toward biofuels, will indeed drive fuel and food prices up. IMHO, that's not a move we ought to make when we have hopes for better options.

Wow, you seem stuck on thinking food vs fuel. The process described by me actually allows for fuel and MORE food. But heck, don't think outside your prejudice set. Ignorance is bliss!

Let's fund the better options!

Go right ahead.
Oh, I see. You mean let ME fund YOUR better option.

I got a suggestion. Stop ALL subsidies and let the market provide the decisions.

[GIThruster]

Kite, go digest the paper I referenced.

[KitemanSA]

Kite, go digest the paper I referenced.

Do you mean this one?
http://www.mpg.de/974909/F001_Focus_020_025.pdf
If so, I fail to see how this supports your contentions.

[GIThruster]

Wow, you seem stuck on thinking food vs fuel. The process described by me actually allows for fuel and MORE food. But heck, don't think outside your prejudice set. Ignorance is bliss!

Food v. Fuel is always an important issue when you're looking at growing fuel. My "prejudice set" was formed when I was TA'ing a course in Environmental Ethics at PSU from 1993-1995.

Anytime someone decides to grow fuel instead of food, food prices will be impacted. While proponents of bio-fuels will always argue about this, the statistical evidence is pretty clear, as is the dictate of common sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_vs._fuel

[GIThruster]

There are lots of complex processes like this, but none of them make bio-fuels cost competitive with fossil fuels.

Yet. Maybe never, if something better comes along. But if we want energy dense fuels, we need a source of carbon, and HTC processed algae may be the best, taking all factrors into account.

One more time, HTC does not produce transportation fuel. At best, it produces a slurry that is much like powdered coal and water. In order for the product of HTC to be used as a fuel, it then requires more energy to convert it to something like butanol, than is released by the butanol itself.

If you read the linked paper you'll get this. HTC is not intended to create bio-fuel. It's intended to sequester carbon. There is no benefit to creating the coal slurry that is the product of HTC as an intermediary step in creating things like butanol. No benefit. The only exception to this, is to use a fuel cell that directly converts the coal like slurry product of HTC into heat, but this would require completely new engineering for all vehicles, because HTC DOES NOT PRODUCE TRANSPORTATION FUEL.

Are we clear? HTC does not produce useful biofuels. It produces powdered coal slurry.