HydrogenCars,Algae,CarbonSequestion=FAILED?? Surrogates=Hit, HealthCare Needs Your SUPPORT NOW!
Stafford Williamson
October 19, 2009
The Big Losers in Energy
"The Big Losers in Energy" was the title of the brief article about an MIT conference known as EmTech09 held recently in the world famous MIT in Boston. I was going to resist the temptation but what the heck: Are they putting "dumb" in the water supply there now, or is it a side effect of H1N1 pandemic? I mean, seriously, can a conference at one of the world's leading post-secondary institutions, with legendary post-graduate work being done there in all manner of fields, actually conclude that hydrogen vehicles, algae, and carbon capture and storage are all unlikely to "ever" be economically viable?
That is clearly what this article states.
The article is, in fact, subtitled with exactly that conclusion: " Several people holding the purse-strings agree that algae, hydrogen vehicles, and carbon capture and storage won't make money." It does blame Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu for some of the sentiment because of statements he made about hydrogen, " going to be [a technology for] the distant future. In order to get significant deployment, you need four significant technological breakthroughs. That makes it unlikely."
Similarly, the article, if not the conference attendees, make it sound like the final nail in the coffin of algae for biofuel when David Eyton, the executive in charge of research and technology at BP says that he doesn't think that the economics of photosynthetic algae will ever come down to a price point that people are willing to pay. But I wonder if he is using the same crystal balls that didn't imagine world oil markets of recent times hitting $140 per barrel either. And in any case, BP is actually still enthusiastically developing biofuels from heterotrophic algae that convert sugar into oils without sunlight (an obvious potential public relations nightmare in the, albeit mostly phony, food versus fuel conflict that doesn't seem to concern them very much at this point [while it is still more theoretical than practical too]). To some, this position is also an obvious challenge to the wisdom of Exxon-Mobil's $600 million commitment to algae that included $300 million to Synthetic Genomics the firm who are attempting to develop advanced strains of algae, especially ones which excrete their oils so that "harvesting" is just a matter of skimming the oil from the surface of the ponds in which they grow. That "trick", if sufficiently effective for releasing the lipid content, could significantly change the economics of photosynthetic algae.
As for carbon capture and sequestration, I don't disagree that there are certainly economic challenges to the techniques, but chilled ammonia has already achieved a greater than 90% capture rate from coal-fired electric generating plants, so the sequestration step is the part that remains of questionable economics. There is not much question that few, if any other fuels will be able to compete with the cheap fossil carbon from coal mines. "Clean coal" may remain an illusion, but "cheap coal" can afford to pile on a lot of both pre- and post-combustion expenses before it becomes less economic than most alternatives.
What I hoped Secretary Stephen Chu would bring to the discussion when he entered that post was the perspective of broad and innovative overviews of energy as an interdependent and complex matrix of interactions. He does seem to be able to see the individual innovations as they hold tremendous promise, but sometimes he falls short of the vision to see the big picture. For instance, in the discussion of hydrogen, in the interview cited above Dr. Chu talks about hydrogen as an energy storage "battery".
This is a concept that has been kicking around in wind power generating circles for a couple of years. It is a WONDERFUL idea, but Secretary Chu has (and probably much of the industry as well have) missed the point. Dr. Chu qualifies his enthusiasm by saying that we need a better, more efficient method of hydrolysis to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water in order to make this kind of storage practical. That's where the wheels fall off this cart. You don't need a "better" or more efficient method of hydrolysis to make it worthwhile.
That is like saying, "We have a waterfall of coins flowing over Niagara Falls, but it isn't worth trying to catch them because the nets we have don't have openings small enough to catch all the pennies, nickels and dimes. All that money is going to flow right through them. All we can catch are the quarters and half dollar coins." Okay, it's an imperfect analogy, but the concept is that wind doesn't blow only at peak demand hours, nor does it limit itself to only how much is needed to meet peak demand even when the times do match. In almost every situation wind turbines remain idle though most of most nights because the demand is not there, even though the wind often is. The solution, then, is to store the available electric power that can be generated when the wind is blowing but not needed by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, and storing that as fuel for generators to burn when power is required. Since the power transmission capacity is already there at the wind farms, there is no need to transmit the gas somewhere else to be burned, it can simply be stored "on site". Ultimately it hardly matters at all what the electric cost of the electrolysis process may be, because if you don't use the power of the wind when it is blowing, it is lost forever. If you do use it and it is only half as efficient as converting the motion of the blades directly to electricity, you are still generating revenue when you were previously generating none (though some capital costs are obviously necessary to accomplish this).
One of Dr. Chu's other arguments about the non-viability of hydrogen for transportation is that we currently obtain most hydrogen by extracting it from natural gas (methane). That means that our "clean" hydrogen is actually a "fossil carbon" source fuel. Not very attractive in terms of climate change. But if hydrogen was generated by hydrolysis of water using wind power as the energy source, we are half way there (with reference to Secretary Chu's four major obstacles to hydrogen for transportation fuel [see the above referenced interview]). Add some pipelines to ship the hydrogen around the country and we get to the three-quarters point. That may seem like an extreme step taken too facilely in this broad discussion, but it could also be a way to make carbon capture more practical and financially more appealing at the same time, and thus, but taking an integrated overview, make clear a vision of the future that benefits significantly from that kind of vision.
In this instance, carbon capture from electric generating facilities in particular could be "shipped" via pipeline to sequestration sites. While I have not been convinced that underground storage is either practical, safe or desirable, I do believe that under-sea storage appears to be viable, and common delivery systems via pipelines might make that practical. Still, it would be my preference that we pipe all that excess carbon dioxide to various sites where it can be used to feed algae. Most of the predictions of failure of algae on an economic model are heavily mired in the doom and gloom school of how much of the energy in sunlight can algae really put to use in photosynthetic activity. The readily accepted models tend to have what I consider to be unrealistically constrained limits on photosynthetic efficiency in the range of 8 - 11%. I was encouraged just this past week to see at least one researcher modeling economics that included not just the 8% assumption, but also one based on a figure of 27% of photosynthetically active radiation energy. My underlying premise is that shipping carbon dioxide away from the electric generating facility that is creating it has value, and the feeding of it to algae as "food" also has value. At minimum one has to draw the conclusion that the combination of both activities also must be considered in the value of the overall operation, and therefore that although either one might not be economically viable on their own, the combined benefits of "clean and green" algae and electricity has a greater value that either of those alone as well.
The recently released financial model from Origin Oil Inc. proposes that some very high value chemical byproducts will be needed to be created in the processing of algae downstream of the oil extraction in order to achieve economic viability. This model was developed in cooperation with Desmet Ballestra the international fats and oil processing company, and with Orineo Renewables regarding pricing and value added product strategies. It provides for a variety of divergent paths in exactly how one might exploit existing markets to achieve profitability. It is a clear refutation of the assertion that algae cannot become profitable. But clearly, too, it is only with intentionally narrowly defined parameters that the EmTech09 participants (or the reporters creating that story) can fail to see that it is readily possible to combine a set of best practices to arrive at some form of financially self-sustaining algae cultivation, even if it is not purely as a one product operation whose only output is biodiesel for transportation.
Party Time
Just in case you missed mention of this in my previous column, please, whether you live in one of those "Blue Dog" Democratic Senator or House Representatives' districts or not, contact your local Democratic Party officials to remind them that they can bring the weight of the party to bear on the Health Care Reform votes with warnings that Party support may not be available to incumbents who failed to support the "public option", the only part of the INSURANCE REFORM that give any of it any "teeth".
Surrogates
It may not be Bruce Willis' best film of his career, or even of this century so far, but there is lots of great "action" yet a kind of "sanitized" violence since most of the violence occurs to robot replacement bodies of the 'real' people who sit at home in their housecoats and pyjamas letting their muscles atrophy while 'working' their 'real' jobs out in the 'real' world (that almost universally isn't except in the same sense as "Second Life" avatars are today). But there is certainly some interesting and ironic symbolism in who the "villain" turns out to be and the "anti-hero" twist. (Saying more would be disclosing too much.) Surrogates is worth a look and well worth the price of admission, which, at today's movie ticket prices is an accomplishment in itself.
Happy Thoughts
There are, hopefully, and happily, not a lot of people in my exact state of health, but I must say that I am impressed (finally) with what the right combination of therapies can do. In my case it is mainly prescription drugs which have made it possible, but a change in medicines has tamed my blood pressure from what was usually something in the range of 145 over 95, to a very "correct" 120 over 75 on a typical daily measurement, and reduced my racing heart rate from fairly commonly 115 to 95 at rest to readings around 70 to 75 (and sometimes lower), while maintaining oxygen saturation in the blood in the high 90's percent range. My shortness of breath has lessened, though not completely gone, but I have been having to "wear" oxygen for even mild activities. Taking no chances, I've had my (regular) flu shot, but definitely on my way to much improved health compared to recently.
Love and warm wishes,
Sincerely,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
http://daochienergy.com
"The Big Losers in Energy" was the title of the brief article about an MIT conference known as EmTech09 held recently in the world famous MIT in Boston. I was going to resist the temptation but what the heck: Are they putting "dumb" in the water supply there now, or is it a side effect of H1N1 pandemic? I mean, seriously, can a conference at one of the world's leading post-secondary institutions, with legendary post-graduate work being done there in all manner of fields, actually conclude that hydrogen vehicles, algae, and carbon capture and storage are all unlikely to "ever" be economically viable?
That is clearly what this article states.
The article is, in fact, subtitled with exactly that conclusion: " Several people holding the purse-strings agree that algae, hydrogen vehicles, and carbon capture and storage won't make money." It does blame Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu for some of the sentiment because of statements he made about hydrogen, " going to be [a technology for] the distant future. In order to get significant deployment, you need four significant technological breakthroughs. That makes it unlikely."
Similarly, the article, if not the conference attendees, make it sound like the final nail in the coffin of algae for biofuel when David Eyton, the executive in charge of research and technology at BP says that he doesn't think that the economics of photosynthetic algae will ever come down to a price point that people are willing to pay. But I wonder if he is using the same crystal balls that didn't imagine world oil markets of recent times hitting $140 per barrel either. And in any case, BP is actually still enthusiastically developing biofuels from heterotrophic algae that convert sugar into oils without sunlight (an obvious potential public relations nightmare in the, albeit mostly phony, food versus fuel conflict that doesn't seem to concern them very much at this point [while it is still more theoretical than practical too]). To some, this position is also an obvious challenge to the wisdom of Exxon-Mobil's $600 million commitment to algae that included $300 million to Synthetic Genomics the firm who are attempting to develop advanced strains of algae, especially ones which excrete their oils so that "harvesting" is just a matter of skimming the oil from the surface of the ponds in which they grow. That "trick", if sufficiently effective for releasing the lipid content, could significantly change the economics of photosynthetic algae.
As for carbon capture and sequestration, I don't disagree that there are certainly economic challenges to the techniques, but chilled ammonia has already achieved a greater than 90% capture rate from coal-fired electric generating plants, so the sequestration step is the part that remains of questionable economics. There is not much question that few, if any other fuels will be able to compete with the cheap fossil carbon from coal mines. "Clean coal" may remain an illusion, but "cheap coal" can afford to pile on a lot of both pre- and post-combustion expenses before it becomes less economic than most alternatives.
What I hoped Secretary Stephen Chu would bring to the discussion when he entered that post was the perspective of broad and innovative overviews of energy as an interdependent and complex matrix of interactions. He does seem to be able to see the individual innovations as they hold tremendous promise, but sometimes he falls short of the vision to see the big picture. For instance, in the discussion of hydrogen, in the interview cited above Dr. Chu talks about hydrogen as an energy storage "battery".
This is a concept that has been kicking around in wind power generating circles for a couple of years. It is a WONDERFUL idea, but Secretary Chu has (and probably much of the industry as well have) missed the point. Dr. Chu qualifies his enthusiasm by saying that we need a better, more efficient method of hydrolysis to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water in order to make this kind of storage practical. That's where the wheels fall off this cart. You don't need a "better" or more efficient method of hydrolysis to make it worthwhile.
That is like saying, "We have a waterfall of coins flowing over Niagara Falls, but it isn't worth trying to catch them because the nets we have don't have openings small enough to catch all the pennies, nickels and dimes. All that money is going to flow right through them. All we can catch are the quarters and half dollar coins." Okay, it's an imperfect analogy, but the concept is that wind doesn't blow only at peak demand hours, nor does it limit itself to only how much is needed to meet peak demand even when the times do match. In almost every situation wind turbines remain idle though most of most nights because the demand is not there, even though the wind often is. The solution, then, is to store the available electric power that can be generated when the wind is blowing but not needed by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, and storing that as fuel for generators to burn when power is required. Since the power transmission capacity is already there at the wind farms, there is no need to transmit the gas somewhere else to be burned, it can simply be stored "on site". Ultimately it hardly matters at all what the electric cost of the electrolysis process may be, because if you don't use the power of the wind when it is blowing, it is lost forever. If you do use it and it is only half as efficient as converting the motion of the blades directly to electricity, you are still generating revenue when you were previously generating none (though some capital costs are obviously necessary to accomplish this).
One of Dr. Chu's other arguments about the non-viability of hydrogen for transportation is that we currently obtain most hydrogen by extracting it from natural gas (methane). That means that our "clean" hydrogen is actually a "fossil carbon" source fuel. Not very attractive in terms of climate change. But if hydrogen was generated by hydrolysis of water using wind power as the energy source, we are half way there (with reference to Secretary Chu's four major obstacles to hydrogen for transportation fuel [see the above referenced interview]). Add some pipelines to ship the hydrogen around the country and we get to the three-quarters point. That may seem like an extreme step taken too facilely in this broad discussion, but it could also be a way to make carbon capture more practical and financially more appealing at the same time, and thus, but taking an integrated overview, make clear a vision of the future that benefits significantly from that kind of vision.
In this instance, carbon capture from electric generating facilities in particular could be "shipped" via pipeline to sequestration sites. While I have not been convinced that underground storage is either practical, safe or desirable, I do believe that under-sea storage appears to be viable, and common delivery systems via pipelines might make that practical. Still, it would be my preference that we pipe all that excess carbon dioxide to various sites where it can be used to feed algae. Most of the predictions of failure of algae on an economic model are heavily mired in the doom and gloom school of how much of the energy in sunlight can algae really put to use in photosynthetic activity. The readily accepted models tend to have what I consider to be unrealistically constrained limits on photosynthetic efficiency in the range of 8 - 11%. I was encouraged just this past week to see at least one researcher modeling economics that included not just the 8% assumption, but also one based on a figure of 27% of photosynthetically active radiation energy. My underlying premise is that shipping carbon dioxide away from the electric generating facility that is creating it has value, and the feeding of it to algae as "food" also has value. At minimum one has to draw the conclusion that the combination of both activities also must be considered in the value of the overall operation, and therefore that although either one might not be economically viable on their own, the combined benefits of "clean and green" algae and electricity has a greater value that either of those alone as well.
The recently released financial model from Origin Oil Inc. proposes that some very high value chemical byproducts will be needed to be created in the processing of algae downstream of the oil extraction in order to achieve economic viability. This model was developed in cooperation with Desmet Ballestra the international fats and oil processing company, and with Orineo Renewables regarding pricing and value added product strategies. It provides for a variety of divergent paths in exactly how one might exploit existing markets to achieve profitability. It is a clear refutation of the assertion that algae cannot become profitable. But clearly, too, it is only with intentionally narrowly defined parameters that the EmTech09 participants (or the reporters creating that story) can fail to see that it is readily possible to combine a set of best practices to arrive at some form of financially self-sustaining algae cultivation, even if it is not purely as a one product operation whose only output is biodiesel for transportation.
Party Time
Just in case you missed mention of this in my previous column, please, whether you live in one of those "Blue Dog" Democratic Senator or House Representatives' districts or not, contact your local Democratic Party officials to remind them that they can bring the weight of the party to bear on the Health Care Reform votes with warnings that Party support may not be available to incumbents who failed to support the "public option", the only part of the INSURANCE REFORM that give any of it any "teeth".
Surrogates
It may not be Bruce Willis' best film of his career, or even of this century so far, but there is lots of great "action" yet a kind of "sanitized" violence since most of the violence occurs to robot replacement bodies of the 'real' people who sit at home in their housecoats and pyjamas letting their muscles atrophy while 'working' their 'real' jobs out in the 'real' world (that almost universally isn't except in the same sense as "Second Life" avatars are today). But there is certainly some interesting and ironic symbolism in who the "villain" turns out to be and the "anti-hero" twist. (Saying more would be disclosing too much.) Surrogates is worth a look and well worth the price of admission, which, at today's movie ticket prices is an accomplishment in itself.
Happy Thoughts
There are, hopefully, and happily, not a lot of people in my exact state of health, but I must say that I am impressed (finally) with what the right combination of therapies can do. In my case it is mainly prescription drugs which have made it possible, but a change in medicines has tamed my blood pressure from what was usually something in the range of 145 over 95, to a very "correct" 120 over 75 on a typical daily measurement, and reduced my racing heart rate from fairly commonly 115 to 95 at rest to readings around 70 to 75 (and sometimes lower), while maintaining oxygen saturation in the blood in the high 90's percent range. My shortness of breath has lessened, though not completely gone, but I have been having to "wear" oxygen for even mild activities. Taking no chances, I've had my (regular) flu shot, but definitely on my way to much improved health compared to recently.
Love and warm wishes,
Sincerely,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
http://daochienergy.com
Print
Email
