« Mitsubishi Fuso Introduces Aero Star Eco Series Hybrid Bus | Main | Ceres Raises $75 Million in Late-Stage Financing »
GreenFuel Technologies and APS to Test 3DMS Algae System on Coal-Fired Plant
27 September 2007
 |
| The GreenFuel Engineering Scale Unit (ESU) greenhouse structure at the Redhawk plant. Click to enlarge. |
This summer, GreenFuel Technologies and Arizona Public Service Company (APS) were able to grow algae successfully at APS’ Redhawk natural gas power plant at levels 37 times higher than corn and 140 times higher than soybeans using CO2 from a natural gas-fired power plant as input to the GreenFuel system.
The growth rate—an average productivity of 98 grams/m2/day (ash free, dry weight basis) and reaching a high peak value of 174 grams/m2/day—surpassed previous lab growth rates and exceeded all expectations going into the project. The results provide evidence of the financial viability of using the emissions of a power plant to grow algae for the exclusive purpose of creating biofuels, according to the partners.
The system under test was the GreenFuel 3D Matrix System (3DMS), one of GreenFuel’s algal-based Emissions-to-Biofuels portfolio technologies. Contrary to known culturing systems like ponds or tubular systems, the 3DMS system uses a proprietary productivity enhancement technology designed to increase the photosynthetic active area per areal footprint. Enhancement of Surface to Volume Ratio (SVR) by the matrix significantly boosts areal productivity.
At this productivity level, GreenFuel’s system is ahead of other biomass production methods.
—Professor Otto Pulz, president of the European Society of Microalgal Biotechnology and head of the IGV Institute’s Biotechnology Department in Germany
APS and GreenFuel Technologies will now attempt to replicate that success, this time, using emissions from a coal-burning power plant. The project is moving to APS’ Four Corners Generation station, a coal power plant located in Farmington, NM.
GreenFuel’s Emissions-to-Biofuels technology uses algae to recycle CO2 from the stack gases of power plants and other commercial sources of continuous CO2 emissions. At the Redhawk Power Plant, specially designed pipes captured and transported the CO2 emissions from the stack to specialized containers holding algae. In the presence of sunlight, the algae consumed CO2.
Once enough algae is grown, it is harvested, and its starches are turned into ethanol, its lipids into biodiesel and its protein into high-grade food for livestock.
While feeding CO2 from a power plant to algae is not new, turning the algae grown at a power plant into biodiesel and ethanol was ground-breaking when first accomplished in the fall of 2006 by APS and GreenFuel. The project marked the first time that algae grown on-site by direct connection to a commercial power plant had been successfully converted to transportation-grade biofuels. Once this was accomplished, the companies set out to prove the process’ financial viability by expanding the project. It was during this ramp-up that the companies achieved the high growth rates.
Moving to a coal plant is the next progression in this evolving technology. The Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has been providing technical assistance throughout the process.
Greenfuel is also working on coal-fired plant projects with the Sunflower Integrated Bioenergy Center in Kansas and NRG Energy in Louisiana.
APS, Arizona’s largest and longest-serving electricity utility, serves more than 1 million customers in 11 of the state’s 15 counties. With headquarters in Phoenix, APS is the largest subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corp.
Resources:
September 27, 2007 in Biomass, Emissions, Fuels, Power Generation | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/21951980
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GreenFuel Technologies and APS to Test 3DMS Algae System on Coal-Fired Plant:
Comments
I really hope they can make this work. The protein produced for livestock could drastically reduce the amount of land necessary to sustain livestock production in the U.S.
Beyond reducing the C02 emissions of electrical generation and transport (combined, aggregate) this tech could significantly reduce the GHG emissions of agriculture (net, replace crops otherwise grown with FF inputs with native grass/trees)
A lot of naysayers will come in and bash this, but....
In order to survive we must keep hope alive.
Posted by: GreenPlease | Sep 27, 2007 6:35:30 AM
GreenPlease, forgive for informing you that you're very ill informed. There is no need to reduce the amount of land involved in producing livestock. In fact, due to factory farming the only livestock that spends most of its time outside is cattle. Furthermore, the cattle generally are given land that is in-between crops or unfit for growing grain. The only place the algal protein will have use is in feed lots (where it has the potential to displace something in the feed mix). The way to reduce greenhouse gases in agriculture are the same as everywhere else. People are either going to need to eat less in aggregate, eat less meat, or give farmers and their suppliers cost-competitive renewable energy sources.
Posted by: Michael | Sep 27, 2007 7:57:41 AM
Lol, weren't they bankrupt? Their photobioreactor plan has clearly been abandoned, so now they're using greenhouses.
Also, don't forget that in winter, yields tend to drop to very low levels, sometimes close to zero.
I'm not sure that a company that wasted millions on a flawed concept and fired half its staff just months ago, will succeed this time by suddenly taking a totally different approach.
I wouldn't put a dollar in it, but I admire those who do.
Posted by: Ares | Sep 27, 2007 8:12:58 AM
Not that I'm bashing this but eventually doesn't the carbon eventually get released when used as a fuel? It isn't a closed system for CO2. It just makes more efficient use of fossil fuel. Fossil fuel carbon still gets released eventually into the atmosphere. Unlike sources where the carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere to be made into fuel, in this scenario, the CO2 is from long term geographical deposits. If you're using it anyway, I guess it's a good idea to lower the CO2 emissions overall but in the long term, I would be wary of linking this tech with carbon production tech. People should be looking at ways to conserve more as well as just looking at ways to extend our unsustainable lifestyles even further.
Posted by: AYM | Sep 27, 2007 8:46:37 AM
@ Michael -
I think GreenPlease was referring not to land used to grow feed for cattle, pigs, chicken and fish. Corn stover is part of that mix, but a lot of grain and soy beans is grown purely as feedstock. Afaik, an area the size of Belgium is clear-cut in the Amazon rain forest each year, just to grow more soy beans for European cattle farmers. After just a few growing seasons, the soil is depleted and the industry moves further inland.
http://www.we-feed-the-world.at/en/index.htm
@ AYM -
this type of intensive algaculture is not carbon neutral, nor has anyone claimed that it was. The premise is that by using each carbon atom twice as fuel, it would reduce the GHG footprint of domestic coal by displacing imports of foreigh oil for the transportation sector. We'll have to see if there is a net reduction in GHG emissions, for now this is mostly about energy security.
This next phase of trials will test if flue gas from coal-fired plants is clean enough for algaculture. So far, only flue gases from natural gas combustion were used.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Sep 27, 2007 9:28:52 AM
I'm glad to see them making progress after they've had so many problems. National Geographic has some details of their new growth system. Apparently they're using plastic bags instead of rigid bioreactors now. I really hope it works, but I've learned not to hold my breath.
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 27, 2007 9:53:43 AM
Having just read the Conocco-Philips/ADM article about the Bio-Oil, I'd have to wonder if the two processes make sense to be combined? I'd have to think that there is plenty of waste heat from these power plants to drive the pyrolysis process.
I'm all for whatever energy carrier pathway is the most efficient, but given that the algae process works best in sunny, arid areas, I'd have to think that the water demands for ethanol could be a strain on those areas.
Posted by: Angelo | Sep 27, 2007 10:23:22 AM
Coal and specially Oil and NG fired power plants are doomed in the long term because the feed stocks will hopefully run out before too much global damage is done.
All azimuth electrification, specially with clean electrical energy from Sun, Wind, Waves, Geothermal, Hydro and Nuclear is the most sustainable solution.
Farming will produce all the proteins required if we don't use our agricultural land to produce fuel for our liquid fuel guzzlers.
However, there is nothing wrong to use agriculture + forest + domestic + industrial wastes to produce liquid fuel + other products + energy.
Posted by: Harvey D | Sep 27, 2007 10:38:28 AM
This technology doesn't need fresh water for algae growth and could actually be used to clean waste water. Salt water may also be used for many algae of course and I can think of many places that have plenty of sun year round and no end of ocean front-those same places that facilitated the need for this technology!
Now if they used this process and pumped a percentage of the algae back into the oil fields then we could have a carbon -ve process.
Posted by: Br5y | Sep 27, 2007 12:20:18 PM
@ Br5y -
growing algae for the express purpose of carbon sequestration is an idea I haven't read about before, but it's quite interesting. One potential problem is that water laden with high concentrations of the stuff will actually foul a lot of machinery. Perhaps Tesla pumps could manage, or else peristaltic designs.
Your idea could even be applied to active oil fields that are already being injected with water to pressurize the remaining oil. In that context, the algae might block pores in the rock, reducing the risk of water breaking through.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Sep 27, 2007 1:22:41 PM
So how is this any different than an overly elaborate coal-to-liquids process?
Or more specifically, how is it any different than the H2Car process. (Assidee from being far less efficient)
http://greyfalcon.net/h2car
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Sep 27, 2007 2:30:48 PM
By the way, GreenFuels specifically isn't looking so good.
http://media.cleantech.com/1422/bowling-for-greenfuel
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Sep 27, 2007 2:34:51 PM
Br5y - not sure if you were responding to me. If so, I was not referring to water needed for the algae growth, but the water that would be needed to produce ethanol. I was making an assumption that the starches that they harvest would be used to produce ethanol on site, but maybe that is not the case?
Posted by: Angelo | Sep 27, 2007 2:59:13 PM
GreyFlcn:
From that article, it seems like a Pyhrric victory of sorts:
Metcalfe put it this way in a note to GreenFuel staff: "Our current third-generation engineering scale greenhouse grew algae faster than expected ... however, this very success triggered failure, as we could not harvest the rapidly growing algae quickly enough. Their unexpected density limited light and nutrient supply, which caused them to start dying. As a result, the greenhouse had to be shut down."
Emphasis added. So, there's the redesign of their system currently in testing. I hope it works. But even if they fail, there's more than one company working on this. And their research will still be very valuable.
And how is this different from CTL? Unlike straight CTL, the CO2 is, in effect, being used twice. Once when the power plant burns the natural gas/coal, and once again when it goes into a vehicle as biodiesel. This results in a net reduction in the plant and vehicle's carbon footprint. A very good thing.
Assuming they can create a system to make it work economically. Which is in itself a long shot.
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 27, 2007 3:21:52 PM
98 grams/m^2/day of dry biomass works out to about 318 tons/acre/year. A modest Miscanthus yield is considered to be about 14 tons/acre. And we get two bites at the CO2?
Heck, sign me up. If nothing else it's a very good hedge against traction batteries not coming along as quickly as we hope. And hey, if the batteries do work out we'll still capture some percentage of the power plant's input carbon that we can feed right back into it again, raising the number of times each atom of "deep carbon" can be recycled before finally escaping as CO2 into the atmosphere...
Posted by: rob | Sep 27, 2007 5:41:03 PM
Ares,
The effective radiation in the area is quite high at all seasons. Grayflcn would cover it with thin film electric generation. There is some water intensive open field crop production, but that suffers some from reduced winter temperatures. This is “protected culture” using inexpensive materials and waste heat to overcome that problem. The plastic film “harvests” fresh H2O by condensing it from the plant exhaust. Given the potential for hail damage, they may need to go to a more resilient plastic sheet, of which several are readily available, starting at about 10X the cost per unit area for the material, and probably double the instillation cost, which is not insignificant in the price of the “solar collector” part of the system,
While not an ultimate solution, this has some real promise for making actual progress, at least on the feedstock production end of the system.
Sometimes - make that often times – a good basic concept meets failure from being over “geeked”. Start-up money frequently comes easier if the word patent is prominent in the pitch.
Posted by: WhiteBeard | Sep 27, 2007 5:41:36 PM
Guys, this is solar by another name. The inputs are actually pollution, and not just carbon. Supposedly this algal process dramatically reduces NOx as well.
These oils can also potentially be used for other kinds of chemistry. Nobody has done a credible job discussing total system efficiency and the cost per gallon of biodiesel, bioethanol, and high-protien feed (probably akin to alfalfa), but the hope is that the co-products, and perhaps some pollution offsets or carbon tax credits could make this very attractive south of the Mason Dixon line and on to California.
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | Sep 27, 2007 6:09:11 PM
GreyFlcn, I agree that Greenfuel's former technology wasn't going to fly. The article at your link just confirms that.
However, the characteristics of the failure (too successful for its own good) are cause for cautious optimism: the system can work, technically. The capital cost ($120/m² was quoted) is bound to be slashed by the switch from polycarbonate tubes to polymer film enclosures. When crude hits $100, the price of fuel will be in the region of $3.50/gallon; it won't take much more to make this stuff competitive.
The criticism of the carbon source is on-target; however, the algae don't care where the carbon comes from. This system would work just as well on CO2 from a biogas-powered generator on a farm, or from combustion (or carbonization) of crop wastes or grasses. By turning otherwise-lost carbon into fuel or food, the algae system could be a part of closing carbon loops and going carbon neutral or even negative.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Sep 27, 2007 6:51:59 PM
Greenplease,
"Eat more Chicken!" (or more soy, beans and nuts) in order to reduce methane GHG released by ruminating livestocks such as cattles.
To avoid releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere, process the algae in nearby facility and separate out the oil from the protein and carbohydrate. Use protein and carbohydrate as food or animal feed, and gasify the oil to produce H2 to run H2V, while capture the CO2 from the gasification process to grow more algae.
Voila, a photosynthetic H2-and-food-production scheme that produces food for human and livestocks, and H2 fuel for transportation. Waste biomass (dung and pyrolyzed agricultural wastes) can be used to fuel the power plants, thereby completing the cycle. Steam turbine power plants can run straight from bio-oil, biogas, or even dry biomass without much needs for expensive transportation-grade fuel processing, as long as the acids from the smoke tack is scrubbed before releasing into the atmosphere. The sulfur and phororus and nitrous are valuable for the chemical industry.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Sep 28, 2007 11:07:16 AM
There is a lot of CO2 released when fermenting ethanol, capture that and feed it to the plants. No sense letting it go to waste.
Posted by: sjc | Sep 29, 2007 12:58:04 PM
I think we should all remember that this technology is still in early development. Once mature, the process could produce huge amounts of oil-laden algae that not only could yield huge amounts of diesel fuel and the closely-related heating oil, but also the oil can be run through a catalytic converter to create kerosene (jet engine fuel) and gasoline (automotive engine fuel). And the solid "waste" from the initial processing can be turned into ethanol, animal feed and/or plant fertilizer!
The best thing about oil-laden algae is that some forms could grow even in seawater, which alleviates the major concern of needing to use fresh water to grow the algae.
Posted by: Raymond | Sep 30, 2007 11:32:32 PM
I'd be a lot more impressed if they could combine this with atmospheric CO2 capture, so it wouldn't be dependent on a large combustion CO2 source.
I've thought these kinds of people should focus on algae that grow in saline, highly alkaline water, which could double as a solution for CO2 extraction (sprayed into the air, perhaps). Alkaline lakes support some of the highest photosynthetic productivity in the world, precisely because the abundant bicarbonate allows the algae to grow without exhausting the carbon supply.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Oct 4, 2007 8:35:04 AM
Paul, take a look at my Sustainability essay from last November. I proposed that the supply of liquid biofuels be drawn exclusively from algae grown on the carbon byproduct of electricity production (from biomass). None of these systems care where the carbon comes from.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Oct 4, 2007 3:27:50 PM
My family has a large clothing recycling operation in California. We process about 300,000 lbs of clothing a month 3/4 of which we ship around the world for pennies
a pound, causing use of alot of energy. I have heard that what is not used for attire in third world countries is used to burn for fuel- probably adding to pollution. A small percentage of the remaing 1/4 we keep to sell here. The rest ends up in our local landfill where they produce natural gas. This is pretty much standard for the industry. I have always thought there needs to be a more efficient at sorce way to utilize this material. I believe it is possible that this algae maybe the way for someone to make it profitable and clean to recycle clothing and other waste for energy.
Posted by: joe | Aug 17, 2008 5:05:07 PM
SAY IT ! ! --- 350 ppm of atmospheric CO2 is the tipping point for climate change, we are currently at 385 ! ! ! !
Posted by: Marvin Rothfusz | Aug 31, 2008 10:19:16 AM
