DOE to Award Up to $85M of Recovery Act Funding for Algal and “Drop-in” Renewable Hydrocarbon Fuels
17 July 2009
The US Department of Energy (DOE) will award up to $85 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the development of algae-based biofuels, including renewable hydrocarbon fuels; and advanced, infrastructure-compatible cellulosic biofuels—i.e., “drop-in” renewable hydrocarbon fuels.
DOE is seeking consortia of scientists and engineers from universities, private industry, and government to develop new methods to bring the new biofuels to market in an accelerated timeframe. The partnerships are intended to enable cross-fertilization between multiple disciplines and provide the breadth of expertise necessary to develop new technologies to produce biofuels that can be used in today’s fueling infrastructure—e.g., renewable aviation fuels, renewable gasoline, and renewable diesel—from a variety of biomass feedstocks.
DOE expects to select two to three partnerships and fund projects over three years. The new Funding Opportunity Announcement (DE-FOA-0000123) identifies two separate topic areas: Algal Biofuels R&D and Advanced, Infrastructure-Compatible Biofuels R&D.
Topic Area 1: Algal Biofuels Consortium/Consortia. There are many areas where R&D is needed to fully realize the potential of algae. These R&D needs were explored at the 2008 National Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap Workshop. DOE says that the contributions form that workshop, along with comments being gathered through a DOE Request for Information on the draft Roadmap, will serve as an important source of information for DOE in pursuit of mechanisms to help accelerate algal biofuels commercialization.
DOE suggests that successful Algal Biofuel Consortia will take a research and development approach to investigate the potential for algae to commercially produce a variety of biofuels, such as renewable gasoline, diesel or jet fuel. It is anticipated that the partnerships selected from this Topic Area will develop the framework for sustainable algae production that is ultimately required for this technology to reach commercialization.
DOE has identified three broad technical areas of interest under this Topic Area. Applicants may address one or more of these key areas, in whole or in part.
Feedstock Supply - Strain Development and Cultivation. Investigate and develop a variety of algal strains from different environments, e.g., marine, freshwater, brackish/saline, wastewater, etc. Algal screening should at a minimum cover the growth physiology, metabolite production, and strain robustness. Investigate multiple designs for cultivating algal strains, whether they are closed, open, or hybrid systems in order to successfully develop a sustainable system.
Feedstock Logistics - Harvesting and Extraction. Feedstock logistics include harvesting, dewatering and extraction of fuel producing lipids and carbohydrates from algae. Depending on the extraction methods employed, processing technologies, such as flocculation/dissolved air filtration, flocculation/sedimentation, filtration, centrifugation and others may be investigated. Current methods of lipid extraction using solvent systems, transesterification, mechanical rupture, and others may be investigated. Examining other mechanisms that bypass the need for harvesting algal biomass and the extraction of fuel intermediates is also encouraged.
Conversion/Production - Accumulation of Intermediate and Synthesis of Fuels and Co-products. Conversion technologies capable of producing biofuels from whole algae, such as pyrolysis, enzymatic digestion followed by fermentation, and gasification, may be investigated. Conversion of oil extracts to biofuels may also include investigations of chemical transesterification, and catalytic cracking. An investigation of potential co-products from algae may be addressed and may include deriving additional energy from residual algal biomass (e.g., anaerobic digestion).
All possible pathways, including but not limited to direct synthesis of ethanol and other advanced biofuels that bypass the need for subsequent conversion, may be investigated.
Successful partnerships will likely span many institutions, DOE says. Therefore, the management plan will be evaluated for strategic methods that maximize the exchange of information and existing capabilities (e.g. instruments, facilities, and administrations). Researchers will be required to publish their findings, share foundational research at meetings and make available unmodified algal strains with desirable properties that have been identified during this funding period.
DOE also strongly advises the adoption of a Laboratory Information Management (LIM) system, such as the ones currently in place at the Bioenergy Research Centers, as a centralized data storage and sharing platform. DOE encourages the Consortium to license non-exclusively the technologies it develops to the general research community to ensure an accelerated path towards algal biofuels nationally. Participants in the Consortium may devote time to developing educational programs and community outreach events.
Topic Area 2 - Advanced Infrastructure Compatible Biofuels Consortium. An enormous investment has been made in the liquid hydrocarbon fuel infrastructure over the last 100 plus years and DOE says that it is desirable to continue to reap the benefits of that investment.
This infrastructure is based primarily on petroleum-derived hydrocarbon fuels that have specific physicochemical properties that enable them to be distributed to, and utilized in, a wide variety of end uses. This Topic Area seeks applications to develop biomass-based alternative fuels that are capable of simply being “drop-in” replacements for the hydrocarbon-based fuels currently being used in these systems instead of trying to adapt the systems to different fuels.
This Topic Area also seeks applications to develop new and innovative approaches for the conversion of biomass to advanced biofuels that are infrastructure compatible, essentially going beyond current technical pathways for producing hydrocarbons from biomass feedstocks.
Examples of current technical approaches for production of hydrocarbons from biomass would be the Exxon-Mobil’s “Seven Step Methanol to Gasoline” process or any configuration of gasification coupled to conventional Fischer Tropsch synthesis. Applications proposing either of these two approaches, will be considered mature technologies and will not score favorably under merit review Criterion 1. Proposed Technologies are expected to be “Next Generation” and, optimally, address issues related to cost, conversion efficiencies, energy density, performance attributes, sustainability, and greenhouse gas footprint.
DOE says that it is not trying to be prescriptive in the technical approach to achieving the stated objectives of producing hydrocarbon fuels from high impact biomass feedstocks. Applicants can propose any technology(ies) they feel provides the best pathway resulting in infrastructure compatible hydrocarbon fuels starting from biomass feedstocks.
DOE does note that it is desirable to have a technology that is “feedstock ambiguous”—i.e., able to process a wide variety of biomass types without requiring significant changes to process operability. DOE envisions that a number of approaches are potentially capable of achieving this goal based on chemical, thermochemical, bioconversion or a combination or hybrid of these.
However, the best pathway(s) must take into consideration the cost competitiveness (relative to petroleum derived fuels), energy density of the resulting fuel, sustainability of the overall process, and the net greenhouse gas emissions for the technology. The conversion feedstock is intended to be cellulosic, but non-food natural oils will be considered provided the technology using this feedstock can be shown to meet the same performance criteria and high impact status stated above.
Although DOE will consider non-fuel co-products in an application technology pathways resulting in co-products, other than liquid transportation fuels, comprising more than 30% on a weight basis of the starting biomass, will be considered a non-optimal use of biomass feedstock.
DOE anticipates that a successful Consortium will investigate 4-6 strategies at the onset. From these strategies the Consortium will then develop a deeper understanding of one to three process design(s) from the down-selection process executed within the first year.
It is highly desirable that the technology proposed for development by the Advanced Biofuels Consortium be advanced to the stage where it is ready to undergo Process Development Unit (PDU) scale testing by the end of year three.
An accompanying Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) will also be published as part of the final technical report at the end of year three.
Applications are due 14 September 2009.
Oceans are being depleted of fish; Forests have been more than decimated; Biofuels are depleting vast tracks of land of fertility. Why encourage this mis-use of the earth? Co-generation can save much energy and CO2 anywhere fuel is burned for heat. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 17 July 2009 at 05:40 AM
Henry you confuse. The intergalactic banging of drums is to halt the use of fossil fuels. Here we have a long touted, renewable, sustainable, green, low land impact form of solar energy (via photosynthesis.) And you complain.
Are some people just arbitrary misanthropes? Opposing anything human beings elect to do because they are human beings? I'm getting tired of all the negative reaction to positive changes on Earth. Where are the friendly interstellar people? Is there any hope or optimism in this galaxy? Or is it virtually prohibited?
Kirk out...
Posted by: sulleny | 17 July 2009 at 10:13 AM
Just another diatribe from Henry.
Posted by: Mannstein | 17 July 2009 at 11:32 AM
I think its a pipe dream, however I hope I'm wrong. Producing algae for the sole purpose of fuel will most likely always be expensive. I've grown the stuff and yields are only impressive in very optimized laboratory settings.
Once the BEV cars become dominant these biofuel ideas will die.
Posted by: Mike H | 17 July 2009 at 12:37 PM
True, algae biofuel may be expensive but we will eventually have no choice. The days of cheap oil are over. I don't think that liquid fuel is going anywhere because it is relativly light weight and has high energy density. Every one should check out this book; "Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller"
EVs may take over most day to day commuting, but over the road driving will most likely only make since with a liquid fuel that can be refilled quickly.
We may have to reinvent the way we travel.
Posted by: Brian | 17 July 2009 at 01:42 PM
Algae might after all not be the perfect fuel-source, but they are still in any way certainly a very good alternative to most of actual agriculture. Faremost of the actual square miles of ecosystems wasted on agriculture are sacrificed for the production of animal feed. That should also be transformed to algae(at 10% of the area). It's much more ecofriendly and much more healthy. Although the principal incentive for algae mass-production at the moment is fuel, once mature, the technology will be the advent of another green revolution like we haven't seen before. It could solve all the problems Henry is so concerned of.
Posted by: Alain | 17 July 2009 at 05:26 PM
Unless there is a tremendous breakthru for batteries, liquid fuels will still be needed for heavy trucking and RR's and heavy construction equipment.
RR's may some day convert to nuclear engines (as submarines do).
Pie in the sky now, but algal farms might some day be floating on the ocean and thus not impacting land.
Posted by: danm | 18 July 2009 at 12:33 PM
Is this really a "Drop In" system requiring no new infrastructures...or:
What is the solar efficiency of Algae to fuel to HEV vs. solar PV for BEV and solar PV to H2 to FCV and to H2-ICE-HEV?
I suspect that the solar efficiency will be in the order of well under 1% from sun to oil, in comparison to solar PV to electricity of 15% or more. See this link:
http://www.dotyenergy.com/Markets/Micro-algae.htm
This will mean vast and complicated infrastructure must be built and maintained daily to ensure the proper growth, harvesting and processing of algae. The surface area used is 15-10 times that requird for solar PV, with all complicated piping pumping network. Practically, an enclosed ecosystem by itself in desert area in order to eliminate loss of water via evaporation. CO2 must be piped in at concentration well above atmospheric...again more costly infrastructure...The oil harvested must be separated from the algae mass, refined or de-esterized...more infrastructure cost.
Someone will need to do the math before concluding that this "Drop In" system will save on infrastructure cost, in comparison to solar and wind electricity to BEV and to H2.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 18 July 2009 at 06:20 PM
Roger, presumably that's exactly what this funding is intended to do. However, with 200-300 tons per acre/year - it is hard not to see that algal oil and the siginificant byproducts (feed, nutrients) will not be a viable energy alternative.
Posted by: sulleny | 20 July 2009 at 10:48 AM