...For large-scale fuel operations capable of producing consistent yields over extended time periods, it’s quite a different story. While the cheapest forms of algae production are uncovered open water systems, these present challenges associated with contamination, temperature control, CO2 utilization, evaporation and maintenance. The preferred approach uses closed systems which provide better environmental conditions for accelerated growth. These “farms” require significant capital to cover construction, maintenance and operations, including harvesting. It can also require lots and lots of water, about 350 gallons for each gallon of algal biofuel oil produced.
A study undertaken at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory investigated some key conditions that will have to be met if biofuel algae were to replace 17% of U.S. petroleum as President Obama claimed possible. Nark Wigmosta, a hydrologist and the lead researcher for the study, stated: “Algae has been a hot topic of biofuel discussions lately, but no one has taken such a detailed look at how much America could make…and how much water and land it would require—until now.” The study looked specifically at production farms using open, outdoor fresh water ponds applying current technology, and considered such factors as suitable land use, topographical features, weather patterns and sky conditions available in the contiguous U.S. states. This information was correlated with requirements needed to produce 21 billion gallons of algal oil… which was equated to 17% of petroleum imports used for transportation fuel in 2008.
Their conclusions, published in Water Resources Research, estimated that growing that much algae will require a land area roughly the size of South Carolina, and about 25% of all U.S water currently consumed for crop irrigation just to compensate for evaporation. The locations will have to be in regions with optimum sunlight conditions and close access to carbon dioxide sources. In addition, there will need to be access to large sources of energy to keep the ponds from freezing in cold winter climate areas, and for processing the algae into fuel. This, of course, will reduce net energy benefits....
The reality of the pond scum process is that it will have little net gain and will be much more expensive than Obama thinks. Fracking takes less water and produces more energy. The pond scum plan is just another form of inefficient energy that will be expensive and wasteful of resources. It is another product of the carbon phobia that infects the anti energy left.
Comments
Post a Comment