Nuclear as a transition energy source? New information....
Today’s post: Weds, 3-26-2008
Nuclear power plants using uranium are NOT a renewable energy source. (The amount of uranium that can be mined & used is finite & can be all used up.) And, nuclear power plants have serious problems or potential problems with safety in operation, security risks, & waste disposal.
And, even without the political challenges stemming from those problems, they have long lead times to build & take very large capital outlays.
In addition, they may not help global warming all that much since they produce power by using heat that they create directly that was not present in the locations where they are installed before the nuclear plant at each location was installed there.
However, they do have some legitimate advantages & there might be a relatively safe way to deploy some of them as a way to accelerate the transition to renewable energy & away from fossil fuels. The two most important points supporting this were not known to me until very recently. And, most people do not now know them as yet.
Nuclear power plants do NOT produce any CO2. If run properly, they produce very reliable power that is unaffected by lack of sunshine or wind.
In the United States, nuclear plants can produce power that does NOT depend on imports of either petroleum or natural gas -- or on burning coal with its CO2 & air pollution problems.
I’ve known those things for quite a while.
And, since I believe solar & wind power and other renewable sources will grow to provide all the energy we need & have been aware of the risks, particularly the security risks, of producing materials that can be used to release radioactivity or build nuclear weapons by terrorists or comparable governments, I have been mostly against considering more nuclear power plants as a way to turn off our reliance on fossil fuels.
I think & continue to think that our major efforts need to be aimed at increasing renewable energy sources, making our economy dramatically more energy-efficient, & creating disincentives for use of fossil fuels
Recently however, I’ve learned something that gives me a sound reason to think nuclear power plants might be worth considering as a transitional energy and power source. And, & I’ve learned something that might be used to make using them considerably safer than it otherwise might be.
For me, these two points definitely re-open the discussion on something I considered a dead issue.
1. Adding new nuclear power plants has a significant advantage a physicist who is both very knowledgeable & a bit of a fan of nuclear power told me about that I did not know before.:
While solar power & biofuels are just now beginning to have any kind of reasonable positive payback time in terms of the ENERGY needed to build them, the payback time for the energy required to build nuclear reactors is less than 3 months.
He said that at today’s state of the art, it takes more like 20 years or more for solar cells & that’s if they are in ideal locations.
And, we are just beginning to learn how to create biofuels that give us more energy than it costs to produce them so there even IS any positive payback time for the energy used to create them.
This suggests that using the energy from nuclear reactors to provide the new energy needed to produce very large amounts of solar cells & biofuels might make doing so more doable & happen sooner.
And, building new nuclear power plants would help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels & on fossil fuels imported from outside the United States.
2. Here’s the other point I learned about recently that has the potential to make creating & running new nuclear power plants both faster AND safer & more secure.
I’ve known that since 50 years ago, the United States Navy has had nuclear powered submarines.
What I did not know or was just barely aware of until just a few weeks ago is that the United States Navy uses nuclear power plants to power an increasing majority of ALL its ships. Further, it has done so with an extremely good safety record. The ex Navy man who spoke up an a discussion on energy issues I attended recently said that in addition, there are large numbers of men who leave the United States Navy each year who have been properly & adequately trained to operate these nuclear reactors who would be delighted to have good paying jobs using those skills.
This suggests a potential solution of how new nuclear power plant might be used with some degree of safety.
We could make all nuclear power plants a three way joint venture between the United States government as a financing catalyst, which would dramatically shorten the time lag in bringing these plants online reliably; the United States Navy & other armed forces onsite at every nuclear power plant to provide 24 hour a day, seven day a week security, & private companies to handle the management & the sales of the energy produced.
The United States Navy has proven that it can operate nuclear power plants safely; & the contractors that serve it know how to build nuclear power plants that can be run safely.
There are still huge costs involved & serious risks with nuclear power plants. But I wanted to pass on that there are two reasons not generally known by most people to at least consider building new nuclear power plants as a transitional energy source to help create renewable energy & energy independence in the United States.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Progress on electric cars....
Today’s post: Weds, 3-19-2008
Fossil fuel for cars & trucks is now one of our biggest uses. It definitely is the most visible one to the average person.
Biofuels are one way to power cars & trucks that will help replace fossil fuels. But initially they will be in limited supply. And, they still produce some air pollution in the cities where they are used. Using current technology, they are also mixed with fossil fuels NOT as total replacements.
Since most of the use of electricity is during the day for businesses & for air conditioning & for lighting at night before 11:30 pm & some after 4:30 am with light use from 10:30 am to 5:30 am,
there is existing electric generation capacity not now being used between about 10 PM & 6 AM, particularly between midnight & 4 am.
And, we can both use renewable sources to generate electricity and get increasingly better control of pollution generated by other, centralized sources than we can individual cars & trucks that burn fossil fuels. (As we will cover in next week’s post, some nuclear power as a transition use may also work.)
That means that a major shift to electric cars & plug-in hybrids can help free our cities of air pollution & be a major step to weaning our economy away from fossil fuels.
So drivable, acceptable, cars & trucks that run on electricity or as plug-in hybrids are an important piece of our switching to an economy that runs on renewable energy.
Plug in hybrids are coming. But real electric cars as opposed to slightly supersized golf carts may be available first.
Tesla Motors is close to production on its electric sports car. And, has plans for a sedan within a few years.
This has gotten car enthusiasts’ attention in part because the Tesla Roadster gets good enough acceleration to be very competitive with the best street racers & muscle cars.
It definitely appeals to people who want both performance and to support renewable energy & energy independence at the same time.
What may be less well known is that most electric cars will have better acceleration available at the driver’s demand than most gasoline powered cars – not just the electric sports cars.
Here are two articles relating to this theme.
The first one is about one of the more significant companies that will compete with Tesla Motors.
( I added some paragraphing to the article to emphasize some key points that I think deserve it that were made by the CEO, Jeff Boyd, who was interviewed.)
The second is about a minivan like electric car conversion.
( This article was in an online source called VentureBeat )
“Q&A with Jeff Boyd, CEO of Miles Electric Vehicle
Chris Morrison March 5th, 2008
Everyone knows the name Tesla Motors. High-profile VC fundings, a high-performance sports car and its layoffs have gotten the company endless coverage. However, there’s also a slew of lesser-known electric car companies. One of the handful with real potential (and real funding) is Miles Electric Vehicle, a Santa Monica, Calif. company with plans to release a highway-speed electric car, the XS500, in 2009.
Miles already sells a few low-speed models, but the XS500 will be the most acceptable to Americans — with a top speed of over 80mph, a range of over 120 miles, and the looks and features of a normal car, unlike some all-electric designs that many people find downright bizarre (see some examples here). The planned price is in the $35,000 to $40,000 range, cheaper than Tesla’s Whitestar, which is aiming for $50,000. The company caught my attention with a recent $15 million financing, so I called up CEO Jeff Boyd for a quick interview.
Do you think you’ll get competition from bigger companies?
We hope that there is a lot of competition. A decade ago, the all-electric car failed, for a variety of reasons.
But at this point, we’ve got the catalysts: The homeland security issue, the emissions issue — this is no longer a fad, a niche market or a matter of curiosity. We think it’s a revolution, and we hope manufacturers all over the world are working in the area.
It’s going to take a lot of work and money to make the dream come to fruition. There’s plenty of market to go after, and we anticipate being one of many.
Will you be competitive with larger automakers?
From a technology standpoint, we feel that we can compete. As far as branding and distribution, the traditional automakers are very advanced and mature. But there’s plenty of room in the market when there’s an emerging business. If you look at the US selling 16 million new cars a year, Europe doing a similar number and about 50 million total around the world, there’s no reason we shouldn’t have enough sales to make a business. We welcome competition, we want everyone to jump in so we can reduce our reliance on foreign oil and change how we handle transportation.
Tesla has taken a lot of money — nearly $150 million to date, with more than twice that planned in the future. Will you need to take less money than Tesla has to commercialize?
We don’t anticipate needing anywhere near that amount of money. Our original private funding and the first round of our equity financing looks like enough to continue research on the XS500 and expand our distribution model.
Where does design come in?
There are three keys to our business model. First and foremost, we want to be all-electric. Second, we want to be completely safe and meet all the regulations. And third, we want to be low-cost. In order to be low cost, we’ve adapted chassis that have already been manufactured. Rather than starting with a clean sheet of paper and coming out with a completely new chassis design for our low or high-speed vehicles, this is allowing us to keep our costs down. If we’re going to bring a car out that will really change our reliance on oil, it needs to be cheap. [ed. note: It’s also worth noting that Miles manufactures its vehicles on cheap production lines in China. Tesla also used a pre-existing chassis for the Roadster, but it was a very expensive model from Lotus.]
The cost is still high for the XS500 — will prices come down?
The cost of lithium ion [batteries], which is right now still a fairly expensive technology, will come down over time. We also have a five year development plan with a variety of models in it. The next model after the XS500 is a small cross-over unit that will be priced lower. Whether we can reduce the price on the XS500, we’re not sure. But even if we don’t, we’ll be bringing out lower-cost models over the next two to three years that will expand the market for all electric vehicles.”
….
“Will electric cars be competitive with plug-in hybrids?
I’m not aware of any [plug-in] hybrids that are very close to production. We’re a little over a year away, so we think we’re maybe two or three years ahead of most plug-in hybrid vehicles. We applaud the efforts of the ethanol, hybrid, hydrogen, fuel cell communities, but fundamentally, we think those are transitional technologies toward all-electric. In effect they [all-electric cars] have zero emissions.
About half of our electricity is from coal, but the technology exists to change that. It’s within our grasp to generate electricity without any emissions.
We also like all-electric because the US electric utility grid is capable of handling the charging requirements of a lot of vehicles without expanding greatly.
You took funding from a private equity firm, Angeleno Group, rather than a venture capital group. Why?
The principals [directors] of Angeleno Group have been associated with Miles Rubin [the company’s founder] for many years, so it was natural as we developed for them to reach out to us. We weren’t seeking investors, but upon engaging we were impressed with their true commitment to alternative energy. When you enter a partnership like that, it’s helpful if it goes beyond the cash infusion. If they can help with planning and business development, it can really be meaningful.
What sort of future do you envision? Acquisition, IPO, staying private?
We really don’t have any plans to do any more than continue on the path we’re on, as a private company.”
I found this info online looking for electric cars on Yahoo. I had also heard that there were Scion conversions. So far the progress has been on the boxy minivan model not the more car like Scion model. And, the conversions are a bit pricey. But it IS progress.
And, it shows what some of the potentials are for electric cars when cheaper lithium ion batteries are installed into cars as they are manufactured & the companies realize economies of scale to bring the cost down.
“Scion Electric Car Conversions”
"AC Propulsion, a California-based company that just debuted its eBox, a converted Toyota Scion xB with an electric engine. After you bring your own Scion, AC Propulsion will do the deed for $55,000. So what're the specs on the eBox? We're glad you asked: 180 mile range, top speed of 95 mph, and you can get a full charge in five hours right from your garage's wall outlet. Sure, that sounds like a lot for a car that's ordinarily pretty freakin' cheap (~ $18,000), but when you think that you'll never have to buy gas again over the life of the car, it just might be worth it."
"Sure, a few companies have recently introduced plans for two-seat electric sports cars in the $70,000-$100,000+ price range, but the eBox offers similar performance on a platform that can carry five adults. And the eBox is currently taking orders for delivery in 2007. It is true that I cannot afford $70,000 for a car right now, but if I could, I would insist on buying one that could haul my whole family of four. The eBox fits that bill without any struggle. The fact that it can blow away a Mustang GT is only icing on the cake. "
1. www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=152318 eBox Scion XB conversion
2. AC Propulsion's Scion xB electric car conversion keeps getting better ...
www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=1172
3. AC Propulsion converts stock Scion xB into fully electric "eBox" car ...
... AcPropulsion, ebox, electric car, Electric Car, toyota scion xb, Toyota Scion Xb ... gas costs $4 per gallon, that the Scion normally gets 30 MPG, and that you drive ...
engadget.com/2006/12/11/ac-propulsion-converts-stock-scion-xb-into-fully-electric
4. Play Video YouTube - My Scion xA EV Electric car conversion project
We're converting a Scion xA from a gas car to a fully battery electric vehicle! ... ZAP Xebra and GEM Electric Car Race. 00:58 From: Xebranut. Views: 8,477 ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdmM4iO4W9c - 113k –
X * X* X* X* X*
As more electricity becomes available from renewable sources & the costs of electric cars & plug-in hybrids come down, we will make substantial progress to transport that is NOT dependent on fossil fuels. And even in the nearer future while some of our electricity comes from sequestered coal fired plants & nuclear, electric cars & plug-in hybrids will help drop the air pollution in our cities a lot.
So, three cheers from here for electric cars & the people who make them.
X * X* X* X* X*
Brad & I believe the switch from fossil fuels & an energy wasteful economy to an economy that is based almost 100 % on renewable energy that is very efficiently used is the new phase of the "industrial revolution" as much as the development of the internet -- perhaps much more so in fact.
This blog is dedicated to helping speed this conversion.
Today’s post: Weds, 3-19-2008
Fossil fuel for cars & trucks is now one of our biggest uses. It definitely is the most visible one to the average person.
Biofuels are one way to power cars & trucks that will help replace fossil fuels. But initially they will be in limited supply. And, they still produce some air pollution in the cities where they are used. Using current technology, they are also mixed with fossil fuels NOT as total replacements.
Since most of the use of electricity is during the day for businesses & for air conditioning & for lighting at night before 11:30 pm & some after 4:30 am with light use from 10:30 am to 5:30 am,
there is existing electric generation capacity not now being used between about 10 PM & 6 AM, particularly between midnight & 4 am.
And, we can both use renewable sources to generate electricity and get increasingly better control of pollution generated by other, centralized sources than we can individual cars & trucks that burn fossil fuels. (As we will cover in next week’s post, some nuclear power as a transition use may also work.)
That means that a major shift to electric cars & plug-in hybrids can help free our cities of air pollution & be a major step to weaning our economy away from fossil fuels.
So drivable, acceptable, cars & trucks that run on electricity or as plug-in hybrids are an important piece of our switching to an economy that runs on renewable energy.
Plug in hybrids are coming. But real electric cars as opposed to slightly supersized golf carts may be available first.
Tesla Motors is close to production on its electric sports car. And, has plans for a sedan within a few years.
This has gotten car enthusiasts’ attention in part because the Tesla Roadster gets good enough acceleration to be very competitive with the best street racers & muscle cars.
It definitely appeals to people who want both performance and to support renewable energy & energy independence at the same time.
What may be less well known is that most electric cars will have better acceleration available at the driver’s demand than most gasoline powered cars – not just the electric sports cars.
Here are two articles relating to this theme.
The first one is about one of the more significant companies that will compete with Tesla Motors.
( I added some paragraphing to the article to emphasize some key points that I think deserve it that were made by the CEO, Jeff Boyd, who was interviewed.)
The second is about a minivan like electric car conversion.
( This article was in an online source called VentureBeat )
“Q&A with Jeff Boyd, CEO of Miles Electric Vehicle
Chris Morrison March 5th, 2008
Everyone knows the name Tesla Motors. High-profile VC fundings, a high-performance sports car and its layoffs have gotten the company endless coverage. However, there’s also a slew of lesser-known electric car companies. One of the handful with real potential (and real funding) is Miles Electric Vehicle, a Santa Monica, Calif. company with plans to release a highway-speed electric car, the XS500, in 2009.
Miles already sells a few low-speed models, but the XS500 will be the most acceptable to Americans — with a top speed of over 80mph, a range of over 120 miles, and the looks and features of a normal car, unlike some all-electric designs that many people find downright bizarre (see some examples here). The planned price is in the $35,000 to $40,000 range, cheaper than Tesla’s Whitestar, which is aiming for $50,000. The company caught my attention with a recent $15 million financing, so I called up CEO Jeff Boyd for a quick interview.
Do you think you’ll get competition from bigger companies?
We hope that there is a lot of competition. A decade ago, the all-electric car failed, for a variety of reasons.
But at this point, we’ve got the catalysts: The homeland security issue, the emissions issue — this is no longer a fad, a niche market or a matter of curiosity. We think it’s a revolution, and we hope manufacturers all over the world are working in the area.
It’s going to take a lot of work and money to make the dream come to fruition. There’s plenty of market to go after, and we anticipate being one of many.
Will you be competitive with larger automakers?
From a technology standpoint, we feel that we can compete. As far as branding and distribution, the traditional automakers are very advanced and mature. But there’s plenty of room in the market when there’s an emerging business. If you look at the US selling 16 million new cars a year, Europe doing a similar number and about 50 million total around the world, there’s no reason we shouldn’t have enough sales to make a business. We welcome competition, we want everyone to jump in so we can reduce our reliance on foreign oil and change how we handle transportation.
Tesla has taken a lot of money — nearly $150 million to date, with more than twice that planned in the future. Will you need to take less money than Tesla has to commercialize?
We don’t anticipate needing anywhere near that amount of money. Our original private funding and the first round of our equity financing looks like enough to continue research on the XS500 and expand our distribution model.
Where does design come in?
There are three keys to our business model. First and foremost, we want to be all-electric. Second, we want to be completely safe and meet all the regulations. And third, we want to be low-cost. In order to be low cost, we’ve adapted chassis that have already been manufactured. Rather than starting with a clean sheet of paper and coming out with a completely new chassis design for our low or high-speed vehicles, this is allowing us to keep our costs down. If we’re going to bring a car out that will really change our reliance on oil, it needs to be cheap. [ed. note: It’s also worth noting that Miles manufactures its vehicles on cheap production lines in China. Tesla also used a pre-existing chassis for the Roadster, but it was a very expensive model from Lotus.]
The cost is still high for the XS500 — will prices come down?
The cost of lithium ion [batteries], which is right now still a fairly expensive technology, will come down over time. We also have a five year development plan with a variety of models in it. The next model after the XS500 is a small cross-over unit that will be priced lower. Whether we can reduce the price on the XS500, we’re not sure. But even if we don’t, we’ll be bringing out lower-cost models over the next two to three years that will expand the market for all electric vehicles.”
….
“Will electric cars be competitive with plug-in hybrids?
I’m not aware of any [plug-in] hybrids that are very close to production. We’re a little over a year away, so we think we’re maybe two or three years ahead of most plug-in hybrid vehicles. We applaud the efforts of the ethanol, hybrid, hydrogen, fuel cell communities, but fundamentally, we think those are transitional technologies toward all-electric. In effect they [all-electric cars] have zero emissions.
About half of our electricity is from coal, but the technology exists to change that. It’s within our grasp to generate electricity without any emissions.
We also like all-electric because the US electric utility grid is capable of handling the charging requirements of a lot of vehicles without expanding greatly.
You took funding from a private equity firm, Angeleno Group, rather than a venture capital group. Why?
The principals [directors] of Angeleno Group have been associated with Miles Rubin [the company’s founder] for many years, so it was natural as we developed for them to reach out to us. We weren’t seeking investors, but upon engaging we were impressed with their true commitment to alternative energy. When you enter a partnership like that, it’s helpful if it goes beyond the cash infusion. If they can help with planning and business development, it can really be meaningful.
What sort of future do you envision? Acquisition, IPO, staying private?
We really don’t have any plans to do any more than continue on the path we’re on, as a private company.”
I found this info online looking for electric cars on Yahoo. I had also heard that there were Scion conversions. So far the progress has been on the boxy minivan model not the more car like Scion model. And, the conversions are a bit pricey. But it IS progress.
And, it shows what some of the potentials are for electric cars when cheaper lithium ion batteries are installed into cars as they are manufactured & the companies realize economies of scale to bring the cost down.
“Scion Electric Car Conversions”
"AC Propulsion, a California-based company that just debuted its eBox, a converted Toyota Scion xB with an electric engine. After you bring your own Scion, AC Propulsion will do the deed for $55,000. So what're the specs on the eBox? We're glad you asked: 180 mile range, top speed of 95 mph, and you can get a full charge in five hours right from your garage's wall outlet. Sure, that sounds like a lot for a car that's ordinarily pretty freakin' cheap (~ $18,000), but when you think that you'll never have to buy gas again over the life of the car, it just might be worth it."
"Sure, a few companies have recently introduced plans for two-seat electric sports cars in the $70,000-$100,000+ price range, but the eBox offers similar performance on a platform that can carry five adults. And the eBox is currently taking orders for delivery in 2007. It is true that I cannot afford $70,000 for a car right now, but if I could, I would insist on buying one that could haul my whole family of four. The eBox fits that bill without any struggle. The fact that it can blow away a Mustang GT is only icing on the cake. "
1. www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=152318 eBox Scion XB conversion
2. AC Propulsion's Scion xB electric car conversion keeps getting better ...
www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=1172
3. AC Propulsion converts stock Scion xB into fully electric "eBox" car ...
... AcPropulsion, ebox, electric car, Electric Car, toyota scion xb, Toyota Scion Xb ... gas costs $4 per gallon, that the Scion normally gets 30 MPG, and that you drive ...
engadget.com/2006/12/11/ac-propulsion-converts-stock-scion-xb-into-fully-electric
4. Play Video YouTube - My Scion xA EV Electric car conversion project
We're converting a Scion xA from a gas car to a fully battery electric vehicle! ... ZAP Xebra and GEM Electric Car Race. 00:58 From: Xebranut. Views: 8,477 ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdmM4iO4W9c - 113k –
X * X* X* X* X*
As more electricity becomes available from renewable sources & the costs of electric cars & plug-in hybrids come down, we will make substantial progress to transport that is NOT dependent on fossil fuels. And even in the nearer future while some of our electricity comes from sequestered coal fired plants & nuclear, electric cars & plug-in hybrids will help drop the air pollution in our cities a lot.
So, three cheers from here for electric cars & the people who make them.
X * X* X* X* X*
Brad & I believe the switch from fossil fuels & an energy wasteful economy to an economy that is based almost 100 % on renewable energy that is very efficiently used is the new phase of the "industrial revolution" as much as the development of the internet -- perhaps much more so in fact.
This blog is dedicated to helping speed this conversion.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Potential Good News on biofuels....
Today’s post: Weds, 3-12-2008
Using arable land to grow biofuels is beginning to look increasingly like an undesirable idea for many reasons.
It competes with growing food & growing food in a health-supporting & sustainable way. And, it tends to lead to chopping down trees & rainforests that now remove CO2 for free & releasing CO2 when this & tilling that land are done. (Using agricultural & cooking wastes & maybe growing things like switch grass in less arable land or using switch grass or soybeans for biodiesel in a crop rotation system may still be good ideas though.)
The good news is that we may soon have a way to grow biofuels on rocky, arid/or nonarable land.
I live in the Silicon Valley as does my colleague Brad. So I see our San Jose Mercury newspaper.
Recently their columnist who writes a variety of commentary of interest to people here, Vindu Goel, reported on the many startups now exploring the use of algae many of which are located here.
The ones that can be easily installed on rocky, arid/or nonarable land look the most promising to me. They will have the least environmental impact. Many of these areas, as we have recently done a post on, also get abundant solar energy, so the electricity to power converting algae to biofuels will be available onsite as well. Further, today, NPR online news had a story pointing out that crops grown for biofuels are potentially likely to disruption from drought. Growing algae is NOT.
Here is Vindu Goel’s article. I found it extremely well done.:
“Grow algae for biofuel
Vindu's View: Algae startups chase green slime dreams
By Vindu Goel
Mercury News
Article Launched: 03/07/2008 01:00:00 AM PST
At Solazyme, a company based in South San Francisco, various forms of Algae... ( Pauline Lubens )«12345»
Related Sections
Green Energy: All about alternative energy
Green Living: Consumer oriented news you can use for a greener lifestyle
There's a certain poetry in the notion of jet planes shooting across the sky, powered by pond scum.
Throw in the prospect that fuels made from algae could slow global warming, replace petroleum and make a fortune for their creators, and the vision becomes irresistible. Dozens of start-ups, in Silicon Valley and around the world, are chasing green-slime dreams.
It's a daunting but important quest. With oil prices topping $100 a barrel and rising concern about manmade climate change, we need to find renewable fuels that reduce our dependence on petroleum and cut our carbon emissions.
"Algae has a chance to save the planet," said Michael Fertik, who is quietly working on a startup, Mighty Algae Biofuels, in addition to his main job as chief executive of ReputationDefender in Menlo Park. "It's not a category killer. It's category Armageddon."
Well, hopefully not Armageddon. But you get the picture.
Microscopic, single-celled algae have been around for billions of years. The simplest of plants, they are quite efficient at converting light, water and carbon into oily compounds called lipids that can be extracted and processed into diesel fuel, gasoline, crude oil, even salad dressings and skin creams.
"Algae are the original oil producers," said Jonathan Wolfson, chief executive of Solazyme, a South San Francisco company that is trying to grow algae in giant fermentation tanks more typically used for beer. "The last time you filled up your car, the gas came from oil that very likely originated with an algal bloom 100 million years ago."
The challenge for entrepreneurs like Wolfson: How do you convert algae into usable oil on a massive scale at a price comparable to pumping petroleum out of the ground?
It is, as the techies like to say, a non-trivial problem.
First, you have to find the right species of algae. Then you have to figure out the best way to make it grow. Then you have to devise a method for getting the oil out. Then you have to refine it into something that can run your car or an airplane. To top it all off, volume needs to be high enough to drive the cost down to $2 or $3 a gallon from about $20 now.
"People think all we have to do is grow this stuff, extract the oil and here we go," said Al Darzins, a group manager at the National Bioenergy Center, part of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL spent two decades researching algal oils before federal policy makers decided ethanol had more commercial promise. Just recently, the lab resumed its algae work.
NREL studied algae in open ponds, an industrial farming approach used by some companies, including LiveFuels of Menlo Park. While ponds have the advantage of being relatively cheap, it's hard to control temperature and water loss. Unwanted algae species can also take over the pools.
Another strategy, advocated by companies like Mighty Algae and GreenFuel Technologies of Cambridge, Mass., is to grow algae in special containers, or bioreactors, which can be manipulated to optimize the plants' exposure to sunlight and nutrients.
High capital costs are the biggest problem with bioreactors, said Rich Hilt, a LiveFuels co-founder who left the company but still follows the industry. GreenFuel ran into financing trouble last year, forcing the company to slash its staff and bring on Bob Metcalfe, co-inventor of Ethernet technology, as CEO. (Fertik claims his small team has licked the cost problem through a "galactically cheaper" design.)
Solazyme is pursuing a third path, one I find especially fascinating: growing algae in the dark in large tanks and feeding them sugar to supercharge their growth. "It's a thousand times more productive than the natural process," said Harrison Dillon, a geneticist and patent lawyer who serves as the company's president and chief technology officer.
Solazyme says it has already made thousands of gallons of high-grade biodiesel and even light sweet "biocrude" with its processes, which can use anything from chemical waste to wood chips as a source of carbon.
The company, which raised $10 million in equity financing and $5 million in debt last year, is still experimenting with different feedstocks, algae species and oil extraction methods. Scores of containers with telltale green scrawls dot the lab and computers are constantly measuring conditions in the fermentation tanks.
Dillon said he hopes to reach commercial-scale biodiesel production in two or three years. Refiner Imperium Renewables of Seattle and petroleum giant Chevron of San Ramon have already signed partnership agreements with the company.
To help pay the bills, Solazyme is using its technology to make specialty oils for the cosmetics industry, including one ingredient that could fetch more than $20,000 a liter.
Darzins and other experts caution that economical algal oil production is at least five years away and could take up to a decade. Rival biofuel technologies, such as the bacterial oil generation being explored by Bay Area startups LS9 and Amyris Biotechnologies, could prove to be more successful.
Still, the algae efforts are well worth pursuing. Recent research suggests that existing biofuels like ethanol and diesels made from soybeans and oil palms cause more environmental harm than they're worth.
Scientists estimate that a commercial algae farm could probably produce 5,000 gallons of oil per acre of land, compared to around 50 gallons an acre from soybeans and 600 gallons an acre from palm oil. Depending on the species and the manufacturing process, the algae could also be grown in the desert or other inhospitable places so they wouldn't tie up valuable land that could be used for food crops.
The potential of algae has certainly seduced investors, from the prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalists to the poor suckers conned into giving money to De Beers Fuels, a South African company that collapsed last year in a web of deception.
"There's a lot of overpromising, and there's going to be a heck of a lot of people underdelivering," said Wolfson.
He doesn't plan to be one of them."
Of particular interest to me also is that Solazyme may be able to increase production&/or locate its algae biofuel producing tanks in the shade of photovoltaic panels or trees or in areas with very little to no sunshine.
X * X* X* X* X*
There is also significant progress being made in Spain in this area.:
(The links in these listings from Yahoo won’t show on my blog; but cutting & posting the exact word on Yahoo (or Google) should dredge them up for you.)
Green Car Congress: Repsol YPF Leads Biodiesel Research Project
Robert Bosch Spain—suppliers of automotive components including diesel ... And their algae can be used to produce ethanol and biodiesel at the same time. ...www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/repsol_ypf_lead.html - 37k
Green Car Congress: Repsol YPF Leads Biodiesel Research Project
Robert Bosch Spain—suppliers of automotive components including diesel ... And their algae can be used to produce ethanol and biodiesel at the same time. ...www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/repsol_ypf_lead.html - 37k - Cached - Similar pages[ More results from www.greencarcongress.com ]
Green Car Congress: Repsol YPF and Acciona Energía to Invest $365 ...
However, all of southern Spain would be an ideal place for photovoltaic solar ... see link for new ethanol feedstock from algae... it uses CO2 to grow... ...www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/repsol_ypf_and_.html - 23k -
Portugal & Spain are understandably interested in alternative energy & have the kind of sunny land that works for this kind of biofuel & solar energy.
Of the countries around the Mediterranean Sea, Portugal, Spain, & Israel have the most going on now in renewable energy efforts from what I’ve read. But all of the other countries around the Mediterranean & many of the countries in the Middle East have similar land.
X * X* X* X* X*
Brad & I believe the switch from fossil fuels & an energy wasteful economy to an economy that is based almost 100 % on renewable energy that is very efficiently used is the new phase of the "industrial revolution" as much as the development of the internet -- perhaps much more so in fact.
This blog is dedicated to helping speed this conversion.
Today’s post: Weds, 3-12-2008
Using arable land to grow biofuels is beginning to look increasingly like an undesirable idea for many reasons.
It competes with growing food & growing food in a health-supporting & sustainable way. And, it tends to lead to chopping down trees & rainforests that now remove CO2 for free & releasing CO2 when this & tilling that land are done. (Using agricultural & cooking wastes & maybe growing things like switch grass in less arable land or using switch grass or soybeans for biodiesel in a crop rotation system may still be good ideas though.)
The good news is that we may soon have a way to grow biofuels on rocky, arid/or nonarable land.
I live in the Silicon Valley as does my colleague Brad. So I see our San Jose Mercury newspaper.
Recently their columnist who writes a variety of commentary of interest to people here, Vindu Goel, reported on the many startups now exploring the use of algae many of which are located here.
The ones that can be easily installed on rocky, arid/or nonarable land look the most promising to me. They will have the least environmental impact. Many of these areas, as we have recently done a post on, also get abundant solar energy, so the electricity to power converting algae to biofuels will be available onsite as well. Further, today, NPR online news had a story pointing out that crops grown for biofuels are potentially likely to disruption from drought. Growing algae is NOT.
Here is Vindu Goel’s article. I found it extremely well done.:
“Grow algae for biofuel
Vindu's View: Algae startups chase green slime dreams
By Vindu Goel
Mercury News
Article Launched: 03/07/2008 01:00:00 AM PST
At Solazyme, a company based in South San Francisco, various forms of Algae... ( Pauline Lubens )«12345»
Related Sections
Green Energy: All about alternative energy
Green Living: Consumer oriented news you can use for a greener lifestyle
There's a certain poetry in the notion of jet planes shooting across the sky, powered by pond scum.
Throw in the prospect that fuels made from algae could slow global warming, replace petroleum and make a fortune for their creators, and the vision becomes irresistible. Dozens of start-ups, in Silicon Valley and around the world, are chasing green-slime dreams.
It's a daunting but important quest. With oil prices topping $100 a barrel and rising concern about manmade climate change, we need to find renewable fuels that reduce our dependence on petroleum and cut our carbon emissions.
"Algae has a chance to save the planet," said Michael Fertik, who is quietly working on a startup, Mighty Algae Biofuels, in addition to his main job as chief executive of ReputationDefender in Menlo Park. "It's not a category killer. It's category Armageddon."
Well, hopefully not Armageddon. But you get the picture.
Microscopic, single-celled algae have been around for billions of years. The simplest of plants, they are quite efficient at converting light, water and carbon into oily compounds called lipids that can be extracted and processed into diesel fuel, gasoline, crude oil, even salad dressings and skin creams.
"Algae are the original oil producers," said Jonathan Wolfson, chief executive of Solazyme, a South San Francisco company that is trying to grow algae in giant fermentation tanks more typically used for beer. "The last time you filled up your car, the gas came from oil that very likely originated with an algal bloom 100 million years ago."
The challenge for entrepreneurs like Wolfson: How do you convert algae into usable oil on a massive scale at a price comparable to pumping petroleum out of the ground?
It is, as the techies like to say, a non-trivial problem.
First, you have to find the right species of algae. Then you have to figure out the best way to make it grow. Then you have to devise a method for getting the oil out. Then you have to refine it into something that can run your car or an airplane. To top it all off, volume needs to be high enough to drive the cost down to $2 or $3 a gallon from about $20 now.
"People think all we have to do is grow this stuff, extract the oil and here we go," said Al Darzins, a group manager at the National Bioenergy Center, part of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL spent two decades researching algal oils before federal policy makers decided ethanol had more commercial promise. Just recently, the lab resumed its algae work.
NREL studied algae in open ponds, an industrial farming approach used by some companies, including LiveFuels of Menlo Park. While ponds have the advantage of being relatively cheap, it's hard to control temperature and water loss. Unwanted algae species can also take over the pools.
Another strategy, advocated by companies like Mighty Algae and GreenFuel Technologies of Cambridge, Mass., is to grow algae in special containers, or bioreactors, which can be manipulated to optimize the plants' exposure to sunlight and nutrients.
High capital costs are the biggest problem with bioreactors, said Rich Hilt, a LiveFuels co-founder who left the company but still follows the industry. GreenFuel ran into financing trouble last year, forcing the company to slash its staff and bring on Bob Metcalfe, co-inventor of Ethernet technology, as CEO. (Fertik claims his small team has licked the cost problem through a "galactically cheaper" design.)
Solazyme is pursuing a third path, one I find especially fascinating: growing algae in the dark in large tanks and feeding them sugar to supercharge their growth. "It's a thousand times more productive than the natural process," said Harrison Dillon, a geneticist and patent lawyer who serves as the company's president and chief technology officer.
Solazyme says it has already made thousands of gallons of high-grade biodiesel and even light sweet "biocrude" with its processes, which can use anything from chemical waste to wood chips as a source of carbon.
The company, which raised $10 million in equity financing and $5 million in debt last year, is still experimenting with different feedstocks, algae species and oil extraction methods. Scores of containers with telltale green scrawls dot the lab and computers are constantly measuring conditions in the fermentation tanks.
Dillon said he hopes to reach commercial-scale biodiesel production in two or three years. Refiner Imperium Renewables of Seattle and petroleum giant Chevron of San Ramon have already signed partnership agreements with the company.
To help pay the bills, Solazyme is using its technology to make specialty oils for the cosmetics industry, including one ingredient that could fetch more than $20,000 a liter.
Darzins and other experts caution that economical algal oil production is at least five years away and could take up to a decade. Rival biofuel technologies, such as the bacterial oil generation being explored by Bay Area startups LS9 and Amyris Biotechnologies, could prove to be more successful.
Still, the algae efforts are well worth pursuing. Recent research suggests that existing biofuels like ethanol and diesels made from soybeans and oil palms cause more environmental harm than they're worth.
Scientists estimate that a commercial algae farm could probably produce 5,000 gallons of oil per acre of land, compared to around 50 gallons an acre from soybeans and 600 gallons an acre from palm oil. Depending on the species and the manufacturing process, the algae could also be grown in the desert or other inhospitable places so they wouldn't tie up valuable land that could be used for food crops.
The potential of algae has certainly seduced investors, from the prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalists to the poor suckers conned into giving money to De Beers Fuels, a South African company that collapsed last year in a web of deception.
"There's a lot of overpromising, and there's going to be a heck of a lot of people underdelivering," said Wolfson.
He doesn't plan to be one of them."
Of particular interest to me also is that Solazyme may be able to increase production&/or locate its algae biofuel producing tanks in the shade of photovoltaic panels or trees or in areas with very little to no sunshine.
X * X* X* X* X*
There is also significant progress being made in Spain in this area.:
(The links in these listings from Yahoo won’t show on my blog; but cutting & posting the exact word on Yahoo (or Google) should dredge them up for you.)
Green Car Congress: Repsol YPF Leads Biodiesel Research Project
Robert Bosch Spain—suppliers of automotive components including diesel ... And their algae can be used to produce ethanol and biodiesel at the same time. ...www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/repsol_ypf_lead.html - 37k
Green Car Congress: Repsol YPF Leads Biodiesel Research Project
Robert Bosch Spain—suppliers of automotive components including diesel ... And their algae can be used to produce ethanol and biodiesel at the same time. ...www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/repsol_ypf_lead.html - 37k - Cached - Similar pages[ More results from www.greencarcongress.com ]
Green Car Congress: Repsol YPF and Acciona Energía to Invest $365 ...
However, all of southern Spain would be an ideal place for photovoltaic solar ... see link for new ethanol feedstock from algae... it uses CO2 to grow... ...www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/repsol_ypf_and_.html - 23k -
Portugal & Spain are understandably interested in alternative energy & have the kind of sunny land that works for this kind of biofuel & solar energy.
Of the countries around the Mediterranean Sea, Portugal, Spain, & Israel have the most going on now in renewable energy efforts from what I’ve read. But all of the other countries around the Mediterranean & many of the countries in the Middle East have similar land.
X * X* X* X* X*
Brad & I believe the switch from fossil fuels & an energy wasteful economy to an economy that is based almost 100 % on renewable energy that is very efficiently used is the new phase of the "industrial revolution" as much as the development of the internet -- perhaps much more so in fact.
This blog is dedicated to helping speed this conversion.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Good news & bad on renewable energy….
Today’s post: Weds, 3-5-2008
There have been several really positive news stories lately.
Some time ago the large Silicon Valley technology company, Applied Materials bought a thin film solar company. Since then they have been quietly growing a quite large volume of sales in solar. They are large enough that this has become a quite substantial business already.
Now it’s just been announced that they have signed a deal, apparently with a company in China to build enough solar electricity generation –IN THIS ONE DEAL –that by itself it will increase current world-wide solar electricity generation by about 1/12th or 8 % above its current levels. They are using large arrays of large format, “garage door” sized, thin film panels in a solar energy farm to do this.
This is great news for three reasons. It shows we are beginning to get large scale increases of electricity generated from solar sources. The announcement said that they already are able to do this for about what a fossil fuel plant can do per kilowatt generated costwise. And, by simply continuing to build more capacity, the economy of scale alone will allow them to soon cut costs by another 15 to 20 %. That will make solar cost LESS than fossil fuels for generating electricity. Third, if this solar energy farm is located IN China, it will likely replace a new coal burning plant that otherwise would have been built to generate this electricity.
Secondly, it has been announced that both General Motors & Daimler will begin making & selling hybrid cars using lithium ion batteries.
That’s also very good news for several reasons. It means the energy efficiency of the fleets of cars these two large companies make & sell will begin improving sharply over time. And, as they & other companies perfect using lithium ion batteries, all electric cars like the Tesla cars & plug-in hybrids will increasingly be common & used widely.
Lithium ion batteries are so much lighter & more compact than batteries using heavier metals this is now looking more & more likely. Further, it suggests GM now expects it to MAKE THEM MONEY to make more energy efficient cars. And, if they once manage to do that, all major car manufacturers will do so as well.
Combining these two stories strongly suggests that within 20 years we will increasingly be able to use solar generated electricity to power our cars & SUV’s – or at least provide the majority of their energy needs with solar generated electricity.
These are very large players. So these stories are extremely good news.
The bad news is that not ONE of the three major candidates for President of the United States has yet begun to run as their most important campaign issue that they are the best candidate to lead the conversion of the economy of the United States & the world to run on renewable energy.
We are already about 20 to 40 years late in doing this to avoid serious economic problems from global warming & are within just a few years of the deadline to avoid great depression levels of economic disaster caused by global warming.
Secondly, oil prices have more than tripled in just the past few years. The resulting increase in gasoline prices this has caused have begun to exert a strong braking effect on disposable consumer spending. If increased world wide demand continues to rise faster than new supplies are developed – which looks likely – gasoline prices could easily triple again in 10 years. That won’t be kind to our economy or to people holding on to their jobs. And, this is a very real near-term problem.
Third, the money spent by the United States, Western Europe, Japan, & China on imported oil is directly & indirectly funding terrorists from the countries that have oil to export. This is a very dangerous situation that threatens our national security.
To avoid really harsh economic problems & slow global warming we must have as our next President a leader who will lead an extraordinary, focused effort by virtually every able person in the United States to switch our economy to one powered by renewable energy that we are increasingly efficient at using.
The comparison to the Manhattan Project is apt for this. But it really needs even more than that. It will require an effort comparable to all of what the United States did to win World War II.
John McCain clearly values national security. And, as a Republican, he likely wants to keep our economy & the businesses that make it up strong.
Barack Obama has written in his Audacity of Hope book statements that suggest he knows something about this issue; & most of his stated policy on energy listed on his campaign website is reasonably good. And, he clearly has inspirational leadership ability.
Hillary Clinton has said nothing to suggest she is against renewable energy. And, while Bill Clinton was our President, he did more to advance energy efficiency & renewable energy than is generally known.
But, so far not ONE of them has made this issue the main theme of their campaign.
Gentlemen, Lady, the handwriting is on the wall & has been for quite some time.
It’s the energy economy stupid!
I think the first of the 3 candidates who notices that & runs as the best person to lead us in that area -- & who explains how our economy, our jobs, & our way of life depend on us making this change, will be our next President.
Anything any of you reading this can do to get this to them or the people running their campaigns would be much appreciated.
Today’s post: Weds, 3-5-2008
There have been several really positive news stories lately.
Some time ago the large Silicon Valley technology company, Applied Materials bought a thin film solar company. Since then they have been quietly growing a quite large volume of sales in solar. They are large enough that this has become a quite substantial business already.
Now it’s just been announced that they have signed a deal, apparently with a company in China to build enough solar electricity generation –IN THIS ONE DEAL –that by itself it will increase current world-wide solar electricity generation by about 1/12th or 8 % above its current levels. They are using large arrays of large format, “garage door” sized, thin film panels in a solar energy farm to do this.
This is great news for three reasons. It shows we are beginning to get large scale increases of electricity generated from solar sources. The announcement said that they already are able to do this for about what a fossil fuel plant can do per kilowatt generated costwise. And, by simply continuing to build more capacity, the economy of scale alone will allow them to soon cut costs by another 15 to 20 %. That will make solar cost LESS than fossil fuels for generating electricity. Third, if this solar energy farm is located IN China, it will likely replace a new coal burning plant that otherwise would have been built to generate this electricity.
Secondly, it has been announced that both General Motors & Daimler will begin making & selling hybrid cars using lithium ion batteries.
That’s also very good news for several reasons. It means the energy efficiency of the fleets of cars these two large companies make & sell will begin improving sharply over time. And, as they & other companies perfect using lithium ion batteries, all electric cars like the Tesla cars & plug-in hybrids will increasingly be common & used widely.
Lithium ion batteries are so much lighter & more compact than batteries using heavier metals this is now looking more & more likely. Further, it suggests GM now expects it to MAKE THEM MONEY to make more energy efficient cars. And, if they once manage to do that, all major car manufacturers will do so as well.
Combining these two stories strongly suggests that within 20 years we will increasingly be able to use solar generated electricity to power our cars & SUV’s – or at least provide the majority of their energy needs with solar generated electricity.
These are very large players. So these stories are extremely good news.
The bad news is that not ONE of the three major candidates for President of the United States has yet begun to run as their most important campaign issue that they are the best candidate to lead the conversion of the economy of the United States & the world to run on renewable energy.
We are already about 20 to 40 years late in doing this to avoid serious economic problems from global warming & are within just a few years of the deadline to avoid great depression levels of economic disaster caused by global warming.
Secondly, oil prices have more than tripled in just the past few years. The resulting increase in gasoline prices this has caused have begun to exert a strong braking effect on disposable consumer spending. If increased world wide demand continues to rise faster than new supplies are developed – which looks likely – gasoline prices could easily triple again in 10 years. That won’t be kind to our economy or to people holding on to their jobs. And, this is a very real near-term problem.
Third, the money spent by the United States, Western Europe, Japan, & China on imported oil is directly & indirectly funding terrorists from the countries that have oil to export. This is a very dangerous situation that threatens our national security.
To avoid really harsh economic problems & slow global warming we must have as our next President a leader who will lead an extraordinary, focused effort by virtually every able person in the United States to switch our economy to one powered by renewable energy that we are increasingly efficient at using.
The comparison to the Manhattan Project is apt for this. But it really needs even more than that. It will require an effort comparable to all of what the United States did to win World War II.
John McCain clearly values national security. And, as a Republican, he likely wants to keep our economy & the businesses that make it up strong.
Barack Obama has written in his Audacity of Hope book statements that suggest he knows something about this issue; & most of his stated policy on energy listed on his campaign website is reasonably good. And, he clearly has inspirational leadership ability.
Hillary Clinton has said nothing to suggest she is against renewable energy. And, while Bill Clinton was our President, he did more to advance energy efficiency & renewable energy than is generally known.
But, so far not ONE of them has made this issue the main theme of their campaign.
Gentlemen, Lady, the handwriting is on the wall & has been for quite some time.
It’s the energy economy stupid!
I think the first of the 3 candidates who notices that & runs as the best person to lead us in that area -- & who explains how our economy, our jobs, & our way of life depend on us making this change, will be our next President.
Anything any of you reading this can do to get this to them or the people running their campaigns would be much appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)