
Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab - nreece
http://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=1029
======
seren
> The system runs at around 350 degrees Celsius (662 degrees Fahrenheit) at a
> pressure of around 3,000 PSI, combining processes known as hydrothermal
> liquefaction and catalytic hydrothermal gasification.

I wonder what it the energy ROI of the whole process. It is not mentioned in
the article, so it is not sure it is positive.

~~~
dagw
_it is not sure it is positive._

It's certainly very negative. The advantage is you can use things like solar,
hydro or geothermal energy to heat the system. Even turning 1000MW of
geothermal energy into only 100MW of crude oil can be worthwhile since you
can't run an internal combustion engine on geothermal energy.

~~~
AndrewDucker
But is it better than turning that geothermal energy into electricity and
transmitting it to a battery in an electric car?

Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a need for oil. Just wondering
what the efficiencies are for each route, and whether this process means that
we don't even need electric cars any more (doubtful, but I thought I'd ask)

~~~
chaz
Gasoline has tremendous energy density compared to other forms of storage. If
you need that energy to be portable (like in a car or truck), you may still
want to use petroleum.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density)

~~~
grecy
Right, but that doesn't mean anything when we're only getting ~16% efficiency
in our ICE.

~~~
farinasa
Good thing we have been doing better than that for some time now.

>The MAN S80ME-C7 low speed diesel engines use 155 grams (5.5 oz) of fuel per
kWh for an overall energy conversion efficiency of 54.4%

>The efficiency of a combined cycle gas turbine system can exceed 60%.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Fuel_economy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Fuel_economy)

In fact, it's shameful how underutilized diesel engines are in this world.
Same with stirling engines.

~~~
ramchip
(That's a marine engine though. Larger engines are more efficient.)

~~~
farinasa
Maybe so, but 16% is misrepresentative of ICE's as a whole.

------
ChuckMcM
And this boys and girls:

 _" "Cost is the big roadblock for algae-based fuel," said Douglas Elliott,
the laboratory fellow who led the PNNL team's research. "We believe that the
process we've created will help make algae biofuels much more economical."_

Is why we won't run out of 'oil' at any time. Even at $500/barrel equivalent
there is a point where if you must have 'crude oil' you can make it for a
price. Of course at that point its a 'renewable resource' which is kind of
funny.

I am glad the PNNL guys have gotten this down to a continuous process. The
NASA folks who were showing it at Yuri Day a few years ago were still making
algae in batches.

~~~
crpatino
> Even at $500/barrel equivalent there is a point where if you must have
> 'crude oil' you can make it for a price.

Sorry, but this is just ignorant nonsense. EROEI is what counts here, not raw
"profits".

If your $500/barrel price point was calculated using inputs that require total
energy investment equivalent to 2 barrels of oil @ $150/barrel... this is a
stupid way of burning perfectly good and relatively cheap natural oil in order
to get half the amount of expensive, artificial oil. You are basically
engaging in a price arbitrage scheme between yesterday's oil market and
tomorrow's oil market (and betting your shirt that you can safely surf the
wave ahead of the price adjustments).

The only reliable way to make a profit out of this is to secure government
grants, subsidies, or some other type of funding that lets you hedge your
looses. Wait... PNNL, NASA.... never mind.

~~~
ChuckMcM
My claim is that the energy equation is independent of oil availability. We
aren't going to "run out of energy" as some people postulate. Knowing that is
helpful sometimes.

You might want to check the EROEI numbers for algae fuels, the NASA paper
suggests that they are lower than they are for oil. They make that claim based
on lower transportation costs (feedstock is made 'onsite' of the refinery),
and a simpler refining process. None of the drilling or pipeline investment
but the "farming" aspect (moving the water around) offsets that pretty much.

[1]
[http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/OMEGA/](http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/OMEGA/)

~~~
crpatino
Your original claim was that because of economic laws ($500/barrel argument)
we will never run out of petrol. (ergo, will be able to find a way to violate
laws of physics, because we want to).

If you now want to change your argument and discuss why and how is this
technology going to solve our energy problems, I am all ears.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Thanks for the clarification, I'm guessing I worded it poorly.

First, a nit pick, I said "oil" (not petrol) but petrol is a product made from
oil and mentioned in the article so its not a big deal.

My claim is that we can make "petrol" out of the air if we want [1]. It does
_not_ violate any laws of physics (or thermodynamics). Using petrol to make
petrol this way is not effective since the translation leaves you will less
petrol than you started with. Using power supplied by a nuclear reaction (as
an example) to make petrol this way will convert locally generated nuclear
power into transportable "chemical" aka "petrol" power. As most of the energy
in the fischer-tropsch process is heat you can use concentrated solar just as
easily. the electrical energy used is primarily in running the cooling pumps.
Given that "oil" (and from oil, petrol) can be made out of renewable feedstock
(CO and H2), I claim we won't ever "run out".

The economic principle I was alluding too was substitution, where an equally
effective good at lower cost replaces a good at higher cost in the market. If
petrol is $10/liter, cars powered by electricity will replace cars powered by
petrol. That is an economic substitution of equal function at a lower cost.

On the Algae process. At least the NASA version required much less heat and
cooling the the fischer-tropsch process and in the NASA case no arable
farmland (you can grow algae in clear tubes bolted to the sides of buildings
if you want). Providing yet another alternative to acquiring long chain
hydrocarbons that are more cost effective to create than using a nuclear
reactor connected to a Fischer-Tropsch reactor. The challenge of algae systems
has been capturing a low marginal cost of additional oil from a process that
was not continuous (you want to make a gallon you pay the cost of running the
cycle for 1,000 gallons regardless). If however you can make a gallon for the
marginal cost of producing an extra few gallons of algage scum, then you can
amortize your costs more effectively and carry less risk. Both of these things
encourage adoption and production.

Is that clearer? And for the record I don't think I've changed my argument at
all here, just filling in the bits which you might have missed.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-
Tropsch_process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process)

~~~
crpatino
Ok, I get what you mean. I was aware of the Fische-Tropsch process, though I
would lie if I say I understand how it works. In the proper context, I
understand why you are excited about this new technology hinted in the
article.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I do not think either of these will _fix_ the
energy problems we are facing. I do believe Fischer-Tropsch could play a part
on the solution, and this new technique would be even better at it. Namely, a
EROEI neutral-ish way to concentrate a diffuse energy source into a highly
packed storage medium for strategic purposes (i.e. transportation, since
carrying around the fuel is kind of a hard requirement)

------
beat
Something to keep in mind, and the source of much misunderstanding in
alternative fuel discussions... there are really three different systems
involved! Energy capture, energy storage, and energy conversion (converting
stored energy to work).

Energy capture: Fossil fuel has the unpleasant problem that the energy was
captured long ago, over very time-consuming (millions of years) natural
processes. So it carries two flaws: burning it destabilizes the atmosphere,
and it's a fixed resource that will eventually run out. In the long game (>100
years, when humans could be around for millions more), nuclear fission has the
same problem. So the only really stable, long-term sources of energy are solar
(including indirect solar like wind) and geothermal (including indirect
gravitational energy like tidal).

Energy storage: This is where liquid and gas fuels have a huge win and battery
storage has a huge lose. It's probably impossible for batteries to achieve the
density and convenience of gasoline and other liquids. They're safe, easy to
handle, etc. Even though electric motors are several times more efficient than
combustion motors, liquid fuel storage efficiency more than makes up for it.
Plus it requires no change to existing infrastructure.

Energy conversion: This is more about how it's used. We want vehicles, right?
So we have to consider the operational goals and constraints of vehicles.

~~~
robhu
If we're talking about stable long-term energy sources that aren't yet
ready/cost effective, then nuclear fusion is another option.

~~~
beat
Nuclear fusion isn't an option because it's not technologically feasible at
positive EROEI (that may change someday, but it's basically science fiction
now).

Positive EROEI on numerous forms of solar is already there and in production.
It just can't beat fossil fuel on a cost/power basis. That's an economics
problem, not a technical problem.

------
jl6
One of the main problems humanity would have in recovering from a collapse of
civilization would be the absence of fossil fuel reserves that we used to
bootstrap civilization the first time round. Could this process be run in a
low-tech manner to synthesise the oil necessary to get us back up running
again?

~~~
mesaaz
At the risk of overgeneralizing our particular species/planetary history, the
point you raise has been suggested as an explanation for the Fermi Paradox by
Ugo Bardi and John Michael Greer.

If another life-bearing planet eventually evolves an intelligent species, than
it certainly evolved an equivalent of our phytoplankton, zooplankton, and
plants, the precursors of fossil fuels

As the intelligent species develops it eventually discovers its planet's
equivalent of fossil fuel. But it does not understand that this extremely
power-dense source has no true substitute, until it is too late.

~~~
crpatino
If you find this idea interesting, you may want to check Greer's online sci-fi
novel: Star's Reach - A Novel on the Deindustrial Future.
[http://starsreach.blogspot.com/](http://starsreach.blogspot.com/)

The idea is, agrarian societies 300-odd years ago were very "evolved" forms of
human environments. Current industrial civilization is the first raw, buggy
attempt of a different kind of human ecology... and we have a bumpy ride ahead
of us (much like men after the latest Ice Age had to learn this agriculture
thing over centuries/milenia to get it right)

~~~
mesaaz
Thanks for the suggestion, I will check it out.

------
wil421
Doesnt this take away from the real issue of fossil fuels? Pollution,
increased CO2 and climate changes.

Lets say this could scale and be economical tomorrow. Does anyone think the
oil companies would let that happen or let their price per gallon at the pump
decrease.

~~~
shortly
> Doesnt this take away from the real issue of fossil fuels? Pollution,
> increased CO2 and climate changes.

No. Any CO2 released when these fuels are burned has to come from the algae.
The algae gets it from the air. So CO2 is cycled, but not added to the
atmosphere.

~~~
wil421
For my understanding, the problem with the fossil fuels is that they are
trapped in the ground and we are releasing the carbon that was trapped in the
ground into the atmosphere.

~~~
ams6110
That is true for fossil fuels. But for oil produced from algae, the carbon
came from the atmosphere or the immediate surface environment, so it's not
introducing any "new" (or long-sequestered) carbon.

------
lucaspiller
Assuming you get the energy for the process to make it from renewable sources,
how 'green' would the useful energy in terms of fuel be at the end?

~~~
kaybe
As green as it gets, since the CO2 that is released from burning the fuel has
been taken out of the atmosphere by the algae a short time before that. The
only issue is to take care of the byproducts and algae production process,
which can create local pollution issues - cheaper not to do it, but nothing
that hasn't been done before in sufficient scale.

~~~
njharman
> As green as it gets

The massively polluted by oil derivative combustion atmospheres of L.A.,
Mexico City and Beijing beg to differ.

~~~
crpatino
I think the original question was more in terms with carbon footprint, which
would be indeed neutral (as long as it happens to have a positive EROEI, which
is not even mentioned in the article).

Of course local pollution is a concern, but it will always be wherever there
are high concentration of people around.

------
patrickdavey
If there's one book I would encourage people to read on this subject:
[http://www.withouthotair.com/](http://www.withouthotair.com/) .. written by a
Cambridge Theoretical Physicist. Free download.

It simply puts real numbers against various different ways of getting our
energy, and in terms of EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested).

------
ARothfusz
I don't understand the introduction: "0:15 as part of an effort to reduce use
of traditional fuels like oil 0:19 which contribute to climate change"

How would using algae as a source of oil not contribute to climate change?
You'd still burn it in all the old familiar ways.

~~~
tsomctl
Because in the process of creating the oil algae uses carbon dioxide. The net
cycle is 0.

------
th3byrdm4n
I don't see any posts about it and I'm naturally curious. Can someone explain
why this doesn't impact our understanding of where the crude oil of nature
comes from?

------
dclusin
Oil is a wonder molecule that is used as an input in thousands of industrial
processes. Burning it to extract energy is just the use case people
understand. Which is unfortunate.

~~~
maxerickson
If you are going to say something like that you should at least say "extract
energy".

~~~
dclusin
Good point. Fixed that.

------
peg_leg
I'm still against it. Burning caloric mass for energy when so much energy is
around us is just plain ignorant. We need to move to solar and wind power.

~~~
mseebach
The energy content in algae comes from the sun, so this is solar energy, just
being captured in the form of liquid hydrocarbons instead of electricity.

~~~
xexers
I understand that... but aren't you still going to have smoggy cities with
biofuels? Even if they are net carbon neutral, they suck up carbon while being
produced and then are burned in cars driving in the city, thus creating smog
in the city... smog which has all kinds of health problems.

~~~
mseebach
Yes, cars still pollute, although the bad smog we're seeing in eg. China has
more to do with unclean combustion and no or poor filtering than is has to do
with hydrocarbon fueled cars per se.

The reason a scalable carbon-neutral liquid hydrocarbon solution is attractive
is that it's a drop-in solution to CO2 emissions. Battery-powered cars are
neat and might well be the way of the future, but it's a very long play. Even
if we had the money to replace all cars on the face of the planet with
Priuses, there are some very significant constraints on the production on
batteries in the form of rare earth minerals. Also, even if you did that,
there's still trucks, ships and airplanes to address, never mind that most of
the planet's electricity isn't exactly cleanly produced. The carbon-neutral
liquid hydrocarbon solution on the other hand would be applicable without any
of those constraints.

------
Shivetya
and with the Mexican government stepping away from restrictions of foreign
investment in their oil fields will technology like this ever take off or need
too?

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/north-america-to-
dr...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/north-america-to-drown-in-oil-
as-mexico-ends-monopoly.html)

~~~
VLM
LOL no Mexicos Hubbert peak was about a decade ago. Cantarell is bouncing
along empty, Chicontepec is useless, economically unviable for geological
reasons. And they don't have much else worth mentioning. (edited to add, duh
I'm obviously talking about geological petroleum reserves not some kind of
racial/cultural commentary)

Its kind of like guano "production" from a century ago... Once its removed and
shipped out, its gone, and all the money in the world isn't going to make
shippable product appear out of thin air.

You're talking about two different scales. MX will never pump more oil than
they did at peak a long time ago. That doesn't mean fat stacks of cash can't
be made on the downslope or political intrigue can't be useful. For example,
petroleum revenue declines are already causing a financial / political crisis
in MX so transferring the blame from PEMEX to "vague groups of rich
foreigners" is a wise political move as its always better for a local to blame
the foreigners than the other locals. So the Cantarell tank is almost empty,
almost entirely pumped out; better to blame Exxon than the CEO of PEMEX, at
least if you're the leader of MX, at least on paper (the actual guys running
MX are the drug gang leaders, which is a whole nother topic... take away
petroleum revenues and legalize weed in the USA at the same time and MX would
make Somalia look rich which is a crisis not just for MX but their neighbor to
the north, which as a real political issue is why the USA will never legalize
weed until long after the oil downslope is all resolved in MX... intentionally
collapsing a neighboring country with a completely permeable land border is
almost as dumb as the idea of the war on some drugs)

~~~
maxerickson
What's the case for marijuana being more than 5% of Mexico's economy?

(I read a little bit that suggests that is a reasonable estimate of the
maximum size of the U.S. market; the numbers are wishy-washy because use is
not especially well characterized. U.S. tobacco consumption is ~7% of the
Mexican economy, for the sake of establishing some sort of scale.)

~~~
VLM
One problem with weed and mexico and percentages, is are you talking about
dollar figures, which doesn't mean much, or land area indirectly under cartel
control, which given news reports is more like 95% than 5%, which has indirect
economic effects (every beheading results in $X lower tourism revenue, etc).

In comparison, 5% of the american economy would be bigger than waste services
but smaller than non-durable manufacturing aka toilet paper and the like.
Needless to say those guys in the USA don't control significant territory or
intentionally behead people other than crazy industrial accidents. If the drug
biz is 5% in MX it certainly has more impact than most other 5%-sized biz
sectors.

~~~
maxerickson
So you think lower marijuana revenues would exacerbate drug violence and help
consolidate cartel power? Because you said the impact of marijuana
legalization on Mexico makes it politically untenable, and I don't see the
case for that when I look at the relative size of those revenues and make some
arrogant guesses as to how they are distributed.

The 5% figure is a ballpark estimate for marijuana, not drugs in general.

------
okeemokee
This article is a reminder of why our planet is doomed. This is probably as
good as it gets today in terms of renewable fuels. The competition? Dig a deep
hole and attach a hose. We are so screwed.

