Honeywell & Airbus To Turn Algae Into Jet Fuel

mystermarque alerts us to an announcement by Honeywell, JetBlue Airways, International Aero Engines, and Airbus about a program to develop jet fuel from algae and other biomass. They hope to supply nearly 1/3 of the demand for jet fuel from these sources by 2030. A Wall Street Journal blog points out that even if this program's goals are met, we will be worse off by 2030 in terms of jet kerosene released into the atmosphere, assuming that the rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace.

A blogger says it's bad...

[pete_norm]

A Wall Street Journal blog points out that even if this program's goals are met, we will be worse off by 2030 in terms of jet kerosene released into the atmosphere, assuming that the rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace.

I guess we better do nothing then and abandon this project...

So what?

[Uncle Focker]

A Wall Street Journal blog points out that even if this program's goals are met, we will be worse off by 2030 in terms of jet kerosene released into the atmosphere, assuming that the rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace.

Maybe, maybe not. Why should that stop people from trying to make at least some sort of positive gain on this front? I'm getting rather sick of these naysayers who have to crap on every attempt at some new technology because it's not going to be the be all, end all solution to the problem at this exact moment in time.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[rubycodez]

where does algae get its carbon?

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you dense? Where does the electricity come from for electrolysis? How are you going to transport said hydrogen? Mass transit in America? Fat chance. Americans are too ingrained with their love of cars as if their cars were more precious than family members.

Re:Some assumption.

[homer_ca]

You're talking about economists here, and economists have no problem extrapolating exponential growth indefinitely to the future, never mind the physical limits of the planet. You're right about US aviation collapsing. Anybody who can afford it, meaning corporate VPs and up, are abandoning commercial flights in droves. You'd be a fool not to.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[rubycodez]

haha. anyway, the grandparent poster was talking about people with their head up their ass when that's where he stores his. taking carbon from the air to release it back again is better than what we're doing now.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Starteck81]

Sorry for the bad Monty Python reference. :-)

I completely agree with you. At least when you pull the carbon from the air and put it back you are maintaining an equilibrium instead of bringing carbon stored in the ground an releasing it into the air.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[WinPimp2K]

I used to think like that but:

A few major problems with your solution

1> Salt water is only mostly water. Where are you going to dump all the waste (something like 25Kg of salt per 1000 liters)
2> Hydrogen by itself is fairy hard to handle - it escapes most containers, and it makes metals brittle so pipelines (and engines - think about the pressures inside an engine cylinder and what happens when your engine block and cylinders become very britle)will have some severe problems.
3> although #2 touches on it, hydrogen will need an entirely new support infrastructure - I did not see that mentioned before you start profiting.
4> Along with that new infrastructure, you will have an entirely new level of security issues. I invite you to consider the explosive potential of a hydrogen tanker being used by "youths" as an improvised FAE.

But I am in agreement that we should be building nuclear power plants - I would try to find more ways to replace fossil fuels with electricity as well as finding more non-fossil alternatives.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Cedric Tsui]

Sorry man. You really don't understand the carbon cycle.

You should know that the majority of organic material (like leaves or algae) and the carbon they contain does not get trapped away from the atmosphere. For the most part, dead organic material slowly decays releasing that carbon back into CO2.

Using algae as a source of fuel can decrease the amount of carbon we are pulling out of deep sequestered sources. It would decrease global CO2 concentration as the source of carbon is part of a closed loop. We'll be pulling carbon out of the air when we grow more algae.

On another note. Electrolysis is not easy. Right now, electrolysis terribly inefficient and needs platinum electrodes. There's a reason that hydrogen today is produced by cracking oil and not extracted from water.

Re:Some assumption.

[garyrich]

Just because the airlines can't make money doesn't mean that people won't fly and won't fly more and more. Airlines have never made a long term profit since the Wright brothers. Despite that people fly more and more and the presence of the airlines are a big stimulus to the economy.

Does anyone remember when all the US flights were grounded after the twin tower bombings? The US economy came to a complete halt.

This is also obviously global, not just US. China is the big grower in flight miles in the next 30 years.

A WSJ blog...

[Dog-Cow]

A Wall Street Journal blog points out that even if this program's goals are met, we will be worse off by 2030 in terms of jet kerosene released into the atmosphere, assuming that the rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace.

IOW, idiots are still allowed to post on the internet.

If 30% of the demand is met from biomass, that's *still* 30% less kerosene used and released into the atmosphere. What an idiot.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Andrew Kismet]

Create algae farms. Harvest in sustainable %. Maintain good oxygen output while enabling harvestable fuel.

To repeat the strip-mining, unsustainable forestry attitudes of the 19th and 20th centuries would be foolish, damning and unconscionable.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[NotBornYesterday]

But if they're doing this to somehow trick themselves into believing that they are "helping the cause" then they need to pull their head out of their ass.

We can't transition to your nuke/hydrogen world overnight. In the meantime, we need to do something to lower net CO2 output. Algae gets is carbon from the world around us. Turning algae into fuel only recycles it. Pumping crude out of the ground and burning it is a net increase in CO2. If we can find a way to burn less crude out of the ground, we are better off. Problem solved? No, not yet. But in the meantime, we're doing less harm.

We NEED hydrogen power. Not fuel cells,

Huh? Hydrogen fuel cells exist. Of course, right now you can't power a jetliner with hydrogen fuel cells, so for the purposes of this article that's pretty much moot anyway.

Step 1: Build nuclear power plant
Step 2: Split salt water into hydrogen and oxygen
Step 3: Profit
Step 4: Goto 1

Expanding our nuclear infrastructure is important, but it's also important that we do it intelligently. CO2 may be bad, but 100,000 years worth of toxic, radioactive actinides is pretty nasty too. We need to invest in nuclear technologies that don't leave such unwelcome stuff behind. Newer reactor technologies are being explored that a) can burn through stuff that is now part of the waste problem, b) leave waste behind with a much shorter half-life, c) are less risky to operate than a lot of the older technology in use today.

Driving a Prius isn't helping, buying a hybrid Chevy Suburban isn't helping.

If hybrids can cut your CO2 output by anything (and yes, they do), that helps.

Priuses and other hybrids are not addressing the root of the problem, which is our assumption of cheap transportation. THAT is what we need to cure.

Gas prices are already doing that.

The neo-hippies with their lattes and they horn rimmed glasses are not helping the cause, they're hurting it by buying into a false reality and encouraging others to do so.

Giving in to sterotypes is another form of false reality.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[strider200142]

Oooh, terrible idea. We don't have another planet currently, and living in artificial structures is just SLIGHTLY risky :P Not to mention that we would need fusion and anti-gravity to really make leaving the planet feasible in the long term. I suspect you are just trying to annoy me since you think I'm a tree hugging hippy. This is not the case, and you should probably mind your own quote from Mark Twain!

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Twanfox]

That's lovely, except that it doesn't address the net carbon change to the ecosystem. What is being burned that is releasing CO2? Coal? So what you're doing is still taking carbon out of the ground (outside the ecosystem) and instead of dumping it into the air, they're siphoning off a portion (whatever the algae can use before the air is released) of the CO2 into biomass. What do they do with the algae once they're done? Unless your answer is "Remove it from the ecosystem", there is a net carbon addition to the ecosystem.

When algae take the carbon from the air, and it goes back into the air, there is a balance. Carbon out, carbon in at the same volume. If any stage is 'outside -> in' without an equal removal back out, you fail.

You know even if it won't

[greymond]

You know, even if it won't cut down the emissions of the jets I still think it's a step in the right direction. We just need a government leader that will actually make ecosmart research a priority.

Re:Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[analog_line]

Personally I don't mind much. I'm hoping we see a resurgence of train travel. Easier, cheaper, and somehow a more romantic way to travel.

Well, I don't know where you're getting your numbers. Perhaps for short distances and certain areas (ie, up and down the Eastern Seaboard), but for cross country travel, trains aren't price competitive at all. I travel to Seattle once or twice a year from Boston, and I can still get ~$300 round trip tickets. I also get there in a few hours. I've priced out train travel, and it comes out to almost $600, and 6 solid days of travel time for the round trip. Even more if I want a guaranteed electrical socket so I can plug anything in and do work/other stuff during the 3 day journey each way (you've got to buy a room for the long distance trains, the special seats with plugs only seem to be on the trains that run along the Eastern Seaboard, that's something like $300 per CONNECTION).

Now, I don't imagine that the cost of air travel is going to stay that low, so in the near future train travel may very well become the only reasonable option left to me, but even with the nightmare that is air travel today, it's still a better option than the train.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Bryansix]

The number one reason to ditch oil is to stop funding terrorists. The number two reason is to provide economic stability. The number three reason is that SOME alternatives reduce pollution. And lastly to reduce carbon footprint.

Look, global warming exists but tying the Greenhouse effect in with global warming is presumptuous. But if you do buy into all that AND think that CO2 is a major contributor to the percentage of Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (hint: it's not) THEN you look at this algae thing and weather it helps the carbon footprint.

The answer: It does if and only if it is a net producer of energy output. The reason is that even though burning it releases CO2 and other things into the environment; the act of growing the algae captures CO2 so the net carbon footprint of this technology is zero. ZERO zip zilch nada. Ya, some extra CO2 may be released to "prime the pump" so to speak but that's not much.

Re:Abandon this project?

[PopeRatzo]

If we could only learn to convert greed, stupidity and bigotry to fuel, we'd never have to worry about energy again.

Heck, 23% of the country could supply the energy needs of the entire nation.

There's approximately a zero percent chance...

[sean.peters]

... that "rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace". For one thing, the cost of jet fuel is going to continue to rise, which is going to make continued growth in air travel cost prohibitive. For another, there's simply no more room at airports to add flights, even if cost wasn't a consideration. I think that air travel is going to remain flat at most, and more likely, will decline at least somewhat.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Weaselmancer]

Well these are pilot projects with a very specific function - clean up factory emissions. Other setups will have different net carbon emissions, of course.

Here's an interesting study. [unh.edu]

In that, they study open ponds full of salt water to get their numbers. The CO2 comes from the air directly, same way a field of grass works. Different project, different goals - different carbon footprint.

As for the pressed biomass left over, it makes fantastic fertilizer.

Really, the entire algae/biodiesel thing is just organic solar. Same way the rest of nature works, pretty much.

Hydrogen is a red herring

[Colin Smith]

Feel free to keep chasing it though. I'll get some popcorn and a comfy seat.

 

Re:I've got a secret for them

[TechyImmigrant]

Are you dense? Where does the electricity come from for electrolysis? How are you going to transport said hydrogen? Mass transit in America? Fat chance. Americans are too ingrained with their love of cars as if their cars were more precious than family members.

Put an American in almost any European city and they will start using public transport, because it is easier than dealing with a car.

American's don't 'love' their cars. The zoning, design and construction of their homes and cities make them reliant on cars.

Re:Some assumption.

[Suzuran]

Don't worry, the new FAA user fees are going to put those sort of companies firmly out of business and force their customers back to the airlines.

Re:Yes, it is.

[TechyImmigrant]

>Getting frisked, waiting in lines, and getting piddly pretzels is for us members of the great unwashed.

Some of us great unwashed who work for corporations with their own jets get to use them and avoid the airport hell.

It may be economy seating, but it is at the local airport, you park in front of the terminal, walk in, wave your badge and get on the plane. 10 Minutes from getting out of the car to being airborne.

That is about 3 hours saved at each end compared to the 'real' airport across town.

So I can fly to my destination, have a full day and fly back with no stupid 4.00am wakeup, no stupid 11.00pm return and no stupid overnight stay in a hotel where the staff steal stuff from your room.

Grey Goo?

[chord.wav]

...program to develop jet fuel from algae and other biomass...

Yes, but can they use grey goo?

Re:So what?

[Talderas]

That is the problem. Any proposed solutions are decades out before mass implementation, which means we're still reliant upon oil until they are, which means our economy is held captive by the oil producing countries gouging us with their prices.

Demand for oil is only going to go up over the next 10 years, especially thanks to China's development. None of the energy-solutions being proposed are going to do anything to reduce our dependence on oil in the short-term, or anything to reduce the price of oil, which in turn lower the financial burden of lower income families.

Sure all of these biomass or alternative fuels will be great,if implemented properly, but they're all solutions that will become affordable for lower income families 20 or more years down the line.

We're prevented from drilling for oil off our coasts, we can't use oil shale to produce oil, we can't drill in Alaska or the Bakken formation in North Dakota. We're being prevented from converting coal into jet fuel.

Our reliance on foreign energy is legislatively created. Prices are going to go up on oil, and our consumption of it isn't going to decrease. I really doubt that if we open up drilling in the US there will be any appreciable increase in the amount of CO2 that will be released, but there will be an appreciable drop in the price of oil.

So which is more important to you?

Re:I've got a secret for them

[fifedrum]

AC you have no idea what's going on. Put three vehicles in front of an American, one that gets 30 MPG of biofuel grown domestically from desert algae farms, one that runs on electricity alone (and at the same cost/mile) and one that runs on $6/gallon arab oil and see which one they choose. I'll bet it's close to 100% first two.

Re:A blogger says it's bad...

[LandDolphin]

Cheap fuel allows us to get cheap goods from other places (like China).

IF you had to get all of your goods from local factories/farms, you'd pay much more for the goods themselves, and have a far smaller selection, driving the price up even more due to lack of competition.

The inability of local retailers to provide the same goods as the "megacorps" killed them.

to continue, local retailers means that you have to pay more for your goods which means that your standard of living will drop as the prices rise and you are not able to afford as much as you once did.

Re:Abandon this project?

[ElizabethGreene]

To me, this has the same problem as the biomass -> ethanol projects.

Q: Who is going to grow the biomass?
A: Farmers.

Q: Will they grow it on new farms?
A: No. They will convert existing farms.

Q: So who will grow food then?
A:?

Re:A blogger says it's bad...

[gemada]

Cheap fuel allows us to get cheap goods from other places (like China). IF you had to get all of your goods from local factories/farms, you'd pay much more for the goods themselves, and have a far smaller selection, driving the price up even more due to lack of competition. The inability of local retailers to provide the same goods as the "megacorps" killed them. to continue, local retailers means that you have to pay more for your goods which means that your standard of living will drop as the prices rise and you are not able to afford as much as you once did.

this is so wrong on so many levels i don't even know where to start. Before the "Chinese invasion", we had an excellent selection of goods produced on our own continent. the inability of local producers/retailers to work for a dollar a week, produce low quality shit, use prison labour, ignore environmental standards and labour laws, etc is what led them to be killed by the "megacorp' Chinese imports. To continue, local retailers/producers means that you buy from your neighbour, who in turn can then buy from you, thus elevating both of your standards of living and creating meaningful employment (and i don't consider the "services" economy that is currently folding like a cheap deck chair, to be meaningful employment)in North America.