Corn biofuels worse than gasoline on global warming in short term ? study | Environment | theguardian.com

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/20/corn-biofuels-gasol

BIOFUELS: Study casts doubts on GHG savings of fuels made from corn stover, cobs -- Monday, April 21, 2014 -- www.eenews.net

http://www.eenews.net/stories/105999814

Worse than gasoline? New study delivers a major blow to corn biofuels - Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/21/worse_than_gasoline_new_study_delivers

Ukraine Seeks Renewable-Energy Boost to Counter Russia - Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-17/ukraine-seeks-to-boost-biomas

Green Car Congress: UC Davis process produces gasoline-range hydrocarbons from biomass-derived levulinic acid; field-to-tank yield of >60% claimed

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/02/20140204-mascal.htm

Blue-green algae a five-tool player in converting waste to fuel

In the baseball world, a superstar can do five things exceptionally well: hit, hit for power, run, throw and field. In the parallel universe of the microbiological world, there is a current superstar species of blue-green algae that, through its powers of photosynthesis and carbon dioxide fixation, or uptake, can produce (count 'em) ethanol, hydrogen, butanol, isobutanol and potentially biodiesel. Now that's some five-tool player.

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-blue-green-algae-five-tool-player-fuel.ht

Green Car Congress: DEMA consortium targeting direct production ethanol from algae at less than $2/gallon

The EU-funded project DEMA (Direct Ethanol from MicroAlgae) is working to produce bioethanol directly from cyanobacteriaa microalgae found in almost every terrestrial and aquatic habitat, including in oceans, lakes and damp soil, and on rocksfor less than €0.40/liter (US$2.00/gallon).

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/09/20130903-dema.htm

Ethanol Weakens Against Gasoline on Signs of Lower Consumption - Businessweek

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-07-02/ethanol-weakens-against-ga

Brazil biodiesel output hits record, prices fall - BNamericas

http://www.bnamericas.com/news/oilandgas/brazil-biodiesel-output-hits-

Algae startup Sapphire Energy pays off its loan for algae farm Tech News and Analysis

Algae fuel startup Sapphire Energy says it's reached a milestone: it's paid back a large loan to the U.S. government. Some energy-focused startups are actually doing OK.
http://gigaom.com/2013/07/31/algae-startup-sapphire-energy-pays-off-it

Green Car Congress: JBEI researchers engineer bacterium to produce diesel-range biofuel using CO2 as sole carbon source

A team of researchers with the US Department of Energy (DOE) Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI) has engineered the bacterium Ralstonia eutropha—a microbe now used to produce biodegradable plastic—for the production of fatty acid-derived, diesel-range methyl ketones. A paper on their...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/07/jbei-20130726.htm

Green Car Congress: Full genome map of oil palm indicates a way to raise yields and protect rainforest; single gene controls oil palm yield

A multinational team of scientists has identified a single gene, called Shell, that regulates yield of the oil palm tree. The Shell gene is responsible for the oil palm three known shell forms: dura (thick); pisifera (shell-less); and tenera (thin),...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/07/palm-20130725.htm

Green Car Congress: Alaska Airlines to buy sustainable biofuel from Hawai`i BioEnergy

Alaska Airlines and Hawai`i BioEnergy LLC signed an agreement for the carrier to purchase sustainable biofuel for its aircraft. Founded in 2006, Hawai`i BioEnergy is a consortium of three of Hawai`i largest landowners and three venture capital companies who plan...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/07/aa-20130725.htm

Video: 16 yr-old Turns Algae to Biofuel and Wins Intel Science Award

Evie Sobczak is a freakin' rock star, and you want to know her. Why? Because what started out as Evie's 8th grade science fair project just won Intel's International Science and Engineering Fair. That's a big deal because, as Sobczak puts it, "It's, like, the biggest science fair ever!"

Evie's project is, in a nutshell, a chemical/catalyst-free process in which algae is processed into fuel-grade ethanol. In addition to collecting her algae stock from the type of blooms common in Florida (ensuring that no special processes or algae strains are required), Sobczak designed and engineered all of the equipment for her project herself, creating a totally chemical-free way to grow algae, extract the oil, and use it as biodiesel. Plus, her process produced as much as 20 percent more oil than current methods, which could make biofuels even cheaper (compared to gasoline) than they already are!

You can check out Evie's summary of her project, in her own words, below. Enjoy!

Source: Tampa Tribune, via Grist.
The post Video: 16 yr-old Turns Algae to Biofuel and Wins Intel Science Award appeared first on Gas 2.

http://gas2.org/2013/06/21/16-yr-old-evie-sobczak-turns-algae-into-bio

Op-Ed: Big Oil Tells More Lies About Ethanol, Only Idiots Believe Them

In a move that should surprise no-one, the whining cry-baby rich-boys at Big Oil are butt-hurt over the latest federal court ruling that upholds the EPA's E15 mandate. In a legal brief filed with the US Supreme Court, the American Petroleum Institute - a powerful, well-funded lobbyist group that represents more than 500 oil and natural gas companies - insisted that transportation fuels containing 15 percent ethanol (E15) could damage cars and trucks.

Should we believe them?

Obviously, the answer is a resounding "Haha! F**k no we should not!"

Let's get one thing clear: the oil industry does not give one fat rat's ass about the health, safety, future, or security of you, me, or anyone else. The horrible people involved in the oil industry have proven, again and again - from Washington DC to Canada to Saudi Arabia to the Mississippi Gulf - that lining their own pockets with cash is more important to them than the your continued health or your children's clean drinking water. Still, that hasn't stopped them from faking a concern for your safety.

That's right kids, Big Oil would now have you believe that E15 is downright dangerous! Bob Greco, API's director of downstream and industry operations said that a switch to E15 "could also put motorists in harm's way when vehicles break down in the middle of a busy highway. We are asking the Supreme Court to step in and protect consumers by striking down EPA's dangerous E15 mandate before it's too late."

Too late? Too late for what? OMG ... they mean we might die! This scare-tactics-scumbag Bob "Greasy Pete" Greco is actually implying that switching to E15 is more likely to get you killed than toxic drinking water.

The worst part of all this is that there's a bunch of 70-80s out there who probably believe this nonsense ... and at least one or two of those idiots are already on the Supreme Court. *ahem* Thomas and Scalia *cough-cough*

Big Oil, in the guise of the API and GOP puppet groups like the AAPS, is spending untold millions and billions to fabricate whatever evidence they can to keep them from having to compete with any other fuels. They're clearly running scared, since - even with petroleum's massive government subsidies, many times more than ethanol - they're not exactly winning the hearts and minds of young Americans.

Op-ed: Everyone working with the API in their bid to block ethanol fuels should die a scandalous, camel-driven, bestiality-related death somewhat sooner than later.

For those of you interested in reading things on your own and forming your own conclusions, I've included a number of links throughout this article, and the original text of the story is quoted, below. Enjoy!

The U.S. oil and gas industry on Tuesday bolstered its argument for the Supreme Court to strike down the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to allow a higher blend of ethanol in newer automobiles.

In a legal brief filed with the high court, the American Petroleum Institute, which represents 500 oil and natural gas companies, insisted that transportation fuels containing 15 percent ethanol could damage cars and trucks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled last August that trade groups representing the automobile, food and other industries did not have sufficient grounds to challenge the use of the new blend known as E15. In response, API appealed to the Supreme Court in February. The high court could make a decision about whether to hear the case soon.

"E15 could leave millions of consumers with broken-down cars and high repair bills," said Bob Greco, API's director of downstream and industry operations. "It could also put motorists in harm's way when vehicles break down in the middle of a busy highway. We are asking the Supreme Court to step in and protect consumers by striking down EPA's dangerous E15 mandate before it's too late."

API's brief was filed as a response to assertions by ethanol backers who have asked the Supreme Court to let the previous ruling stand.

The EPA, which approved the new blend in January 2011, gave the OK for it to go on sale last June. The blend, which has been approved for use in cars and light trucks built since 2000 but is banned from older vehicles and light equipment, has been slow to get off the ground. Only a few stations in the Midwest, including a half dozen in Iowa, have sold the E15 blend.

Ethanol groups said appeal to the Supreme Court was the latest sign of desperation by the oil and gas industry.

"API is basically presenting evidence to prove they will do whatever they can to keep from having to compete with any other fuels," said Ron Lamberty, senior vice president for the American Coalition for Ethanol. "Big Oil will take any approach available to delay E15 implementation while continuing its public smear campaign against it."

Source: DesMoines Register
The post Op-Ed: Big Oil Tells More Lies About Ethanol, Only Idiots Believe Them appeared first on Gas 2.

http://gas2.org/2013/06/11/op-ed-big-oil-tells-more-lies-about-ethanol

For Powering Cars, Solar-Electric Is 'Orders Of Magnitude' More Efficient Than Biofuels

Climate Progress recently reported on a study that found both economic and environmental benefits if homes in the northeastern United States upgraded older heating systems by moving from heating oil to switchgrass. However, one point to emphasize was the findings were specific to those circumstances - the region, the homes, and that particular use.

Switchgrass was not nearly as good an idea for electricity generation or transportation fuel. Further confirming the need for a diversity of renewable solutions to our energy needs, a recent study determined that electricity generated by solar beats out biofuels for powering cars under myriad scenarios.

The report, put together by a team from the University of California, Santa Barbara and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and published in Enviornmental Science and Technology, compared five different approaches to see what was the most efficient way to power a compact passenger vehicle for every 100 kilometers driven:

1. Battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) run on electricity from solar power.
2. Battery-electric vehicles run on electricity from switchgrass.
3. Internal combustion vehicles (ICVs) run on switchgrass biofuel.
4. Battery-electric vehicles run on electricity from corn.
5. Internal combustion vehicles run on corn-based biofuel.

The analysis considered land-use, greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel use, and took into account the production and use life cycles of both the fuels themselves and the vehicles they power.

In terms of land-use, solar significantly out-performed all other options. It performed modestly better than switchgrass in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and significantly better than corn-based biofuel. Solar was actually equal or slightly worse than switchgrass when it came to fossil fuel requirements over the totality of the life cycle, but it still out-performed corn-based internal combustion. (And, of course, gasoline.)

So all things considered, a pretty clear win for solar-powered electric battery vehicles:

A write up over at Green Car Congress has more details on the assumptions and variables in the study's modeling.

"PV is orders of magnitude more efficient than biofuels pathways in terms of land use - 30, 50, even 200 times more efficient - depending on the specific crop and local conditions," Roland Geyer, a UCSB Bren School of Environmental Science & Management Professor, told Science Daily. "You get the same amount of energy using much less land, and PV doesn't require farm land." The central bottleneck, as the report notes, is the low efficiency of photosynthesis:

Biofuels for ICVs and bioelectricity for BEVs use photosynthesis to convert solar radiation into transportation services, that is, they are sun-to-wheels transportation pathways. While photosynthesis has a theoretical maximum energy conversion efficiency of 33 percent, the overall conversion efficiency of sunlight into terrestrial biomass is typically below 1 percent, regardless of crop type and growing conditions.

"Today's thin-film PV is at least 10-percent efficient at converting sunlight to electricity," Geyer explained - hence solar's superior performance. In fact, the WWF's Solar PV Atlas found that as far as land-use goes, solar is so efficient that less than 1 percent of global land areas would be needed to supply all the world's electricity needs in 2050.

Traditional corn-based biofuels are problematic on all sorts of levels: Carbon emissions from agricultural production over their full life cycle largely wipe out any carbon benefits at the point of actual vehicle use. They compete with human food supplies and food cropland, driving up global prices and contributing to global poverty and instability. And new cropland sequesters less carbon from the atmosphere than the grassland or forest it typically displaces.

Switchgrass and other cellulosic biofuels, while they avoid disrupting food supplies, are not immune to these other flaws either. On top of that, their commercial viability at any time in the near future is far from certain.

For the clean car fleet of the future, electrical and hybrid vehicles relying on a grid powered by solar - and presumably wind, hydroelectric, and such - still appears to be the way to go.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/27/1783781/for-powering-cars-

KLM To Offer Weekly Cooking Oil-Fueled Flights

The Dutch airline company KLM has started powering planes with a fuel mixture that is 25% used cooking oil, and 75% jet fuel (or at least, at least it was made from cooking oil). These regular flights represent a big step forward in alternative fuel flight.

The cooking oil used is obtained from restaurants in the U.S state of Louisiana. The oil was formerly used to fry catfish, cracklins, and other treats. After being used to prepare your food, it is refined at a plant near Baton Rouge, Louisiana, then carried to New York for use in the passenger jets. I'm sure it would feel good to eat at a restaurant that donates its oil to help reduce emissions.

Some believe that it smells like fast food, but, it is claimed to be totally safe for the jets, and reduce emissions by up to 80%. Using it is just like using jet fuel, and it is unnoticeable to pilots. These advantages are wonderful.

As usual, there is a downside, as most new technologies require work to get off the ground: The cooking oil-based fuel is cost-prohibitive. It may be difficult to expand this to struggling airlines that can hardly afford basic, normal operation. But if the costs come down, this could be a very reasonable response to ever-increasing oil prices.

"A lot still has to happen before biofuel will be available on a large scale and for it to be economically competitive in relation to fossil-fuel kerosene," KLM said in a statement. "We cannot achieve this alone. We absolutely need the commitment and support of all the relevant parties: business, government and society.".

The jets used are of the Boeing 777 type, and they will undergo 25 transatlantic test flights, as other jets have done.

Source: BBC

The post KLM To Offer Weekly Cooking Oil-Fueled Flights appeared first on Gas 2.

http://gas2.org/2013/03/19/klm-to-offer-weekly-cooking-oil-fueled-flig

How Electricity, Water And Food Could Be Produced In Desert Areas With Minimal Ecological Footprint

1) Concentrated Solar Power 2) Saltwater greenhouses 3) Outside vegetation and evaporative hedges 4) Photovoltaic Solar Power 5) Salt production 6) Halophytes 7) Algae production

The first pilot plant in a program of installations that can sustainably produce crops, electricity, biofuels, and even plants for re-vegetation efforts in a desert environment is now up and running in the Middle Eastern nation of Qatar.

The Sahara Forest Project, which brings outfits from both Qatar and Norway together, uses desert air, sunlight, and saltwater as inputs for a system that aims to be environmentally sustainable, beneficial for local human development, and financially viable over the long term. As the project's CEO, Joakim Hauge, puts it: "The Sahara Forest Project is all about taking what we have enough of, like saltwater, CO2, sunlight, and deserts, to produce what we need more of: sustainably produced food, water, and energy." The hope is that the pilot project can be scaled up to installations in drier and desert climates around the world.

Essentially, the plant takes multiple sustainable technologies and integrates their inputs and outputs into a single multistage system, thus minimizing both waste and ecological footprint:

• Standard solar power and concentrated solar power: Arrays of mirrors create concentrated solar power by aiming sunlight to superheat seawater into steam. That steam can then drive turbines to create electricity, and the heated seawater is then used throughout the greenhouse system. Additional sustainable electricity is generated from arrays of standard solar photovoltaic panels.
• Saltwater for fresh water and cool air for greenhouses: Hot desert air is pulled through a flow of seawater as it enters the greenhouses. This both cools and humidifies the air, creating optimal growing conditions for the agricultural crops within. At the far end of the greenhouse, the air is heated by flows of sun-heated seawater and then encounters pipes of cooled seawater, which causes the humidity to condense into fresh water that is then used for crop irrigation.
• Outdoor vegetation: Outside the greenhouses, the seawater passes through further evaporators to create humidity for vegetation sheltered outdoors. These include trees for desert reforestation, local vegetation, various forms of crops and livestock feed, and specific forms of plants naturally adapted to salt water which serve as feedstocks for bioenergy production and other uses. At the end, remaining seawater is collected into evaporation pools for the production of salt.
• Algae biofuel production: Lab-grown algae, which have been shown to generate up to 30 times more biofuel per acre than other plants, are grown in saltwater pools to create biofuels without taking up agricultural land or crops that double as food for humans.

The basic advantage of the Sahara Forest Project is that it doesn't use any fundamentally new or experimental technology - it merely recombines established technologies in creative ways.

At the same time, at least one of its goals - growing plants for reforestation - may be overly ambitious. "Trying to grow trees in the Sahara desert is not the most appropriate approach," Patrick Gonzalez, a forest ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley, told National Geographic back in 2010. "I can imagine that this scheme and type of technology in limited cases might work in certain areas like Dubai, where they're used to making palm-shaped islands and 160-story-tall buildings."

But for the more modest goal of returning a desert to its natural former ecosystem, "it would be more effective, but less flashy, to work with local people on community-based natural-resource management."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/30/1515871/sahara-forest-proj

Anti-ethanol Propaganda isn't 100% Wrong, Just 100% Crazy

Yesterday, I found myself clicking around a website that called itself "smarter fuel future". The distortion of facts to fit fictions and lies by omission committed throughout the site would be laughable, if they weren't so readily accepted by some of the mental midgets (mental little people?) that frequent this site's comments section from time to time.

I welcome the wingnut contingent, though. I'd like to say something here about keeping things honest and objective, but the reality is that a pageview's a pageview, right?

Right.

SO, in the interest of calling the anti-ethanol people out on their ridiculous bullshit keeping things honest, let's address some of the nonsense I read on the "smarter fuel" website. People with an IQ below 90, prepare to comment sarcastically without understanding the logic of what you are about to read.

The specific link that came to my attention from an ad on Gas 2 that was emailed to me by a confused reader. It linked to this page that talked about vehicles and small engines, so let's start there.

Please click the link and notice the heading "Decreased Fuel Economy". The "smarter fuel" site reminds us that "smarter" is a relative term almost immediately here, committing 2 logical fallacies at once. The "smarter fuel" website (like most ethanol detractors) points to the 100% correct fact that ethanol contains about 30% less energy by volume than petroleum gasoline. They specifically say "vehicles fueled with ethanol cover fewer miles per gallon than those running on conventional gasoline. The higher the ethanol blend, the lower the fuel economy, meaning consumers must fill up at the pump more frequently." The first fallacy in the "Decreased Fuel Economy" argument is here: the informal fallacy of equivocation, or "the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)." In this case, "fuel economy" and "miles per gallon" can mean many things, since "fuel" is a vague and intentionally misleading term, and "miles per gallon" implies "miles per gallon of gasoline". Think about the statement another way: if you substitute the vague term "fuel" with the specific term "petroleum gasoline", I think (hope) that arguments made against ethanol from a basis of "decreased petroleum gasoline economy" becomes a laughable objection to ethanol. They are literally saying "the higher the ethanol blend, the lower the amount of petroleum gasoline will be used", and there, RIGHT THERE, is their core complaint ... because they are either oil company employees or the idiot pawns of oil company marketers who never took (or, more likely, passed) a formal logic class.

Education FTMFW, amirite?

Beating a dead horse just a bit, I'd like to point out that (even if you accept that whoever wrote it simply too stupid to realize their logic is horribly flawed) this is strictly an appeal to short-sighted convenience, and places "more trips to the pump" ahead of concerns about foreign oil dependence, environmental damage that comes from extracting oil from the ground, the huge amounts of resource-draining government oil subsidies, the wars fought over a finite (non-renewable) energy source, and the numerous health problems associated with burning petroleum fuels. In scientific terms: all this anti-ethanol hysteria is crazy-talk.

Moving on, let's talk about the next heading, "Damage to Vehicles and Performance". The site says "Beyond the damage to your wallet, ethanol can also damage vehicles and affect performance - corroding metals, causing rubber to swell and causing engines to break down more quickly. Some ethanol blends should not be used on certain engines and motors at all. EPA's E15 waiver covers only 2001 and newer motor vehicles." All of that, by the way, is 100% true. Alcohols can dry out the organic rubber o-rings and fuel lines in many automotive fuel systems, causing them to crack, leak, and require replacement. If not enough fuel is getting to your engine because of a fuel leak, your car will stop running and require maintenance. You may need to replace several feet of rubber fuel lines with ethanol-safe line, at a retail cost of about $6/ft. O-rings cost a few cents.

That doesn't sound quite as scary as "break down", does it?

Those of you who are not too young or too senile to have long memories will recall that a lot of this bickering and fear-mongering sounds pretty similar to the hubbub raised in the 70s when the US government banned the use of lead as an octane-boosting fuel additive. The transition away from leaded fuels was fought by the oil companies, who didn't want to have to find new ways to refine fuel for higher octane. Claims were made that vehicles designed to run leaded fuel would experience knock conditions that could damage engines' efficiencies and hurt fuel economy, even leading to break downs.

Sound familiar?

As with ethanol, the claims made against unleaded gas were true. The changeover was long, lasting form 1975-1986, and it was expensive. Automakers had to build engines with tighter tolerances that ran hotter to burn the unleaded fuel, while oil companies had to find newer and cheaper ways to make higher-octane fuels available to the public. Change costs money, and the people who will have to spend that money will fight doing so, tooth and nail, long after reason has failed them.

Why was lead used in the first place? Leaded gasoline was discovered on Dec. 9, 1921, at the General Motors research labs in Dayton Ohio. GM researchers had been testing fuel blends since 1916, trying to stop engine "knock." Knock is caused by early detonation of fuel inside a combustion chamber due to compression, which pushes the engine "backwards" causing a knock-like sound. Knock was a hug problem in early internal combustion engines, and was a problem that was preventing the development of higher efficiency, higher compression engines that could generate more power. GM researchers tried many different additives and found quite a few that worked well. Ethyl alcohol (ethanol) from cellulosic materials became Detroit's strong preference. "Of course," Thomas A. Midgley of GM wrote in a memo to his boss, GM research vice president Charles Kettering, "alcohol is the fuel of the future." Oil companies, however, resisted the use of alcohol, and pushed for lead - which was (all together now) cheaper.

That's right, kids. We knew 100 years ago that alcohol was the way forward, but we decided to put all that aside in favor of a substance that was known to be toxic just because it was cheaper.

Thankfully, someone got their head out of their ass long enough to put pen to paper and legislate lead out of our fuels. That move away from lead in gasoline was motivated by public health. It was expensive, to be sure, but it was money well spent. Cases of lead poisoning are way down, and the average lead content in Americans' blood is much lower than it was in the 70s and 80s.

Today, the move away from gasoline is similarly motivated by public health. Carbon emissions cause heart attacks and respiratory problems and kill millions every year. Thousands of soldiers - American and otherwise - die in land wars over oil. Inconceivable fortunes in government spending subsidize oil companies and lobbyists, and pay them to produce twaddle like the "smarter fuel" site, all in an effort to convince the most impressionable among us that their vote should be cast this way or that, so that they can save their fortune just a little while longer. "Don't think too much about the future," they say. "In the future, we'll be dead."

Sorry, oil-advocate douchebags. My kids will be alive in the future. They're pretty cute, so they'll probably breed and then their kids will be alive in the future. I'd like for them to have some clean air to breathe, some water to drink, and maybe some scenery that isn't shimmering purple from oil slicks. As such I would like to ask, sincerely, that all you anti-ethanol hysterics douse yourself in your precious gasoline and die in fires. (this is the part where we all send letters to the men and women in congress who opposed the EPA's move and tell them we hate them)

Sources: Smarter (ha!) Fuel Future, Radford University, and a bunch of others, linked-to in the text.
The post Anti-ethanol Propaganda isn't 100% Wrong, Just 100% Crazy appeared first on Gas 2.

http://gas2.org/2013/01/20/anti-ethanol-propaganda-isnt-100-still-100-

Oil From Algae: The Goal 10,000 Barrels A Day By 2018

Sapphire Energy has built the world's first large-scale farm to grow algae and produce crude oil. If all goes according to plan, commercial production of perhaps 10,000 barrels a day will begin in 2018.
Algae have major potential, even the U.S. military is looking into algae as fuel source. Algae grow fast, do not need food, and build up oil in their cells after being exposed to sunlight and CO2. Algae is grown is salty ponds, so algae farms can be built on land where not much else will grow - thus the land is readily available and inexpensive. Into each pond go genetically engineered single-celled algae that mature in five days. The mature algae is then taken from the pond and put through a thermo-chemical "wet extraction" process that separates the oil.
Sapphire Energy has spent $60 million on 70 algae ponds that are each the size of a football field and a refinery for oil separation. The site sits on 2,200 acres of land in Columbus New Mexico. Oil refining began in the summer of 2012 and the first barrels of oil have aired hit the market.
Sapphire Energy's chief executive is Cynthia Warner. Ms. Warner's previous job - head of global refining at oil giant BP. To date Sapphire Energy has raised about $300 million to fund their operation.
So what is the problem; why is algae oil not a mainstream product? Simply put, it is expensive to make. Reports say it costs around $5,000 to produce 1 ton of algae. If there is 30% oil embedded in that ton, then that converts into around $50 per gallon of oil. And that is before extraction and conversion. Additionally, the energy needed to produce the oil from the algae costs more than the algae would put out.
Yes production costs are a problem. However, that does not mean that there is not potential in this new form of green oil production. Sapphire Energy plans for commercial production of 10,000 barrels of oil from algae a day beginning in 2018.
Source: money.cnn.com
Andrew Meggison was born in the state of Maine and educated in Massachusetts. Andrew earned a Bachelor's Degree in Government and International Relations from Clark University and a Master's Degree in Political Science from Northeastern University. Being an Eagle Scout, Andrew has a passion for all things environmental. In his free time Andrew enjoys writing, exploring the great outdoors, a good film, and a creative cocktail. You can follow Andrew on Twitter @AndrewMeggison
The post Oil From Algae: The Goal 10,000 Barrels A Day By 2018 appeared first on Gas 2.

http://gas2.org/2013/01/14/oil-from-algae-the-goal-10000-barrels-a-day