Exxon Mobil lauds algae-based biofuels

UPI ^ | Jan 20, 2010 | staff

[Titus-Maximus]

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates, Jan. 20 (UPI) -- A solution to expand the options for renewable energy resources is through the use of biofuels produced by algae, Exxon Mobil executives said in Abu Dhabi.

Emil Jacobs, vice president of research and development for Exxon Mobil, in a speech before the delegates at the 2010 World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi said that with energy demands expected to rise by 35 percent in the next 20 years, all viable energy options must be explored.

"We believe that biofuel produced by algae could be a meaningful part of the solution in the future to produce an economically viable, low net carbon emission transportation fuel," he said.

Exxon Mobil in September announced it had teamed up with Synthetic Genomics on a $600 million partnership to develop algae for the use in biofuels.

[Titus-Maximus]

Is it real, or is it Green Cover?

Algae in the future.

[Army Air Corps]

Well, crude oil is just old algae anyway.

[Question Liberal Authority]

Almost all "fossil" fuel is made from algae. There is more life in the sea than there is on land. Most of the life on Earth is microscopic.

All Exxon Mobil is doing here is controlling the process. In nature, the algae live their little algae lives, they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean, and over years, pressure converts them into hydrocarbons. Exxon is proposing to farm them and squeeze them into oil themselves.

You could do the same thing with lawn clippings or vegetable peels if you have a mind to, but this is more efficient.

It's much more efficient than growing corn, harvesting the seeds, extracting oil, refining the oil, and then throwing away 99% of the plant. That's the sort of stuff that only makes sense if you're subsidized by the government.

[dsrtsage]

Oh, its real, and viable. I have been following algae biodiesel for at least 5 years now, and I whole-heartedly support it. It is the only “green” energy I support, not because I’m an econut, but because its a brilliant idea, I think its viable, can use existing technology and infrastructure, doesn’t need subsidies, and does not require either lots of land, nor crop land if you do it right. Plus, the waste can be either burnt in a coal plant, be used as fertilizer, or even used for feed. Its win, win, win.

[Question Liberal Authority]

The thing is, you can make oil a million billion different ways and you will never run out. HOWEVER, if the enviroweenies decide that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, then this stuff is just as 'anti-green' as any other fuel source.

The argument in the 1970's energy crisis was that the world was running out of oil. But we don't ever need to run out of oil. Ever. So 'conservation' is no longer the issue. In the 1970's, burning oil meant lots of actual pollution (ozone, carbon monoxide). But now, we have the technology to burn 'clean' hydrocarbons. Remember how people used to commit suicide by closing the garage door and leaving the engine running? You can't do that anymore, because your car doesn't emit enough carbon monoxide.

[Question Liberal Authority]

its viable, can use existing technology and infrastructure, doesn’t need subsidies, and does not require either lots of land, nor crop land if you do it right.

Which is why an American company has to go all the way to the United Arab Emirates to develop the stuff. None of the usual parasites over here can get their fingers in the pie.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The older theories of fossil fuel formation (popular when I was in elementary school) posited that coal comes from macro-scale vegetation (trees, leafy plants) and oil from animal matter. There wasn’t any niche in there for algae.

I hope the algae pits pan out, to mix a metaphor. It would help the USA get closer to energy independence as well as mooting any lingering debate over CO2 anthropogenic climate change guilt. But those tanks are going to need copious amounts of water. Would we be willing to sacrifice, say, Lake Michigan in order to get all the gasoline the USA needs?

[Frantzie]

If it screws the Saudis and their neighbors - I support it.

Another green energy or unlimited energy that can work is geothermal. Running pipes under warm ground with gas or water to generate steam. Areas west of the Miss have warm ground. The caldera in Yellowstone is real warm.

Geothermal is a like a free nuke reactor. Same principal to generate steam to run turbines.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Bacteria produce ethanol. Why can’t algae produce an oil? Best thing is that the algae produces oil for free.

[Blood of Tyrants]

OOPS! I mean YEAST produces ethanol.

[Chaguito]

Geothermal is super, except that in Northern California, at least, the migration of steam/heat is slow enough that over time there isn’t enough heat to keep things going. Unocal really worked hard to make it work. There certainly may be better fields to work with, including Yellowstone, if you don’t get blown to the moon sometime in the near future.

[Question Liberal Authority]

Most science is biased toward multi-cellular organisms, but the vast majority of life on Earth is microscopic. You're really just a transportation system for bacteria and the like. Even PETA rarely gives a second thought to killing billions of organisms with a single dab of soap.

those tanks are going to need copious amounts of water. Would we be willing to sacrifice, say, Lake Michigan in order to get all the gasoline the USA needs?

My swimming pool will bloom an unbelievable amount of algae in short order if left unattended. One of the biggest problems municipal water plants have is algae. That's why phosphates are banned in detergent - not because they harm life, but because it's basically algae fertilizer.

Algae is not difficult to grow, and once you harvest it, you can re-use the water over and over and over again. Near as I can tell, it would take about 220,000 square miles of algae farms at the rate of 2,000 gallons / acre to replace all of the oil in the USA. But that's to replace every single drop of fossil fuel, and it's possible that the numbers would improve with more advanced technology.

[Question Liberal Authority]

We really should tap the energy of Yellowstone, if only to take the pressure off of it. Yellowstone is actually an enormous volcano, and the next time it blows, it will extinguish all life for thousands of miles.

[Bigjimslade]

This sounds great but when the heck can we stop worrying about whether these solutions are “low carbon emitting”. I hate to think that there is some great solution out there being held up because it emits as much carbon as oil.

[Fred Hayek]

The yield you cite is for common pond scum algae. What is being researched is a bioengineered algae operating in an enclosed system. The yield per acre/year is at least an order of magnitude higher. It will blow away corn based ethanol.

[Fred Hayek]

because it emits as much carbon as oil.

Yet the algae consumes CO2. And the nutrient soup could be derived from some other waste stream. However I’m too optimistic, since the greenies are convinced that all technology is killing Earth Mother Goddess Gaia.

[Moonman62]

From what I’ve read, the water that comes back up is extremely caustic and damages the plumbing and machinery.

[Campion]

HOWEVER, if the enviroweenies decide that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, then this stuff is just as 'anti-green' as any other fuel source.

No, it's really carbon-neutral: it takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, converts it into fuels, you burn the fuels, regenerating the carbon dioxide, and so on. The net energy input comes from the sun, so effectively it's just bottled solar energy. There's no net CO2 gain for the atmosphere.

(Of course, this argument assumes that econuts can be swayed by facts and logic, and we all know how well that works ...)

[Frantzie]

??? From what I know the piping goes under hot ground and water or gas is pumped under ground and heated and it goes through a loop. I had thought it was water but supposedly a certain gas works better. The ground temps can be in excess of 200 deg F.

The only issue I coul dsee if underground piping could be damaged due to tremors. This grounds is usually hot due to underground activity.