Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Weird homes

Home is where the heart is, no matter what unusual form that home may take.  Slideshow 

Photo

The drone wars

The frontlines of America's covert drone program.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

Algae biofuel not sustainable now-U.S. research council

Related Topics

WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:48pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Biofuels made from algae, promoted by President Barack Obama as a possible way to help wean Americans off foreign oil, cannot be made now on a large scale without using unsustainable amounts of energy, water and fertilizer, the U.S. National Research Council reported on Wednesday.

"Faced with today's technology, to scale up any more is going to put really big demands on ... not only energy input, but water, land and the nutrients you need, like carbon dioxide, nitrate and phosphate," said Jennie Hunter-Cevera, a microbial physiologist who headed the committee that wrote the report.

Hunter-Cevera stressed that this is not a definitive rejection of algal biofuels, but a recognition that they may not be ready to supply even 5 percent, or approximately 10.3 billion gallons (39 billion liters), of U.S. transportation fuel needs.

"Algal biofuels is still a teenager that needs to be developed and nurtured," she said by telephone.

The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, a group of private nonprofit institutions that advise government on science, technology and health policy.

Its sustainability assessment was requested by the Department of Energy, which has invested heavily in projects to develop the alternative fuel.

In 2009, the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture awarded San Diego-based Sapphire Energy Inc more than $100 million in grants and loan guarantees to help build a plant in New Mexico that will produce commercial quantities of algal biofuel. Two other companies received smaller amounts of federal assistance.

In February, as gasoline prices spiraled, Obama said algal biofuels had the potential to cut U.S. foreign oil dependence. He estimated that U.S. oil imports used for transportation could be cut substantially.

The National Research Council report shows that the government should continue research on algal biofuel as well as other technologies that reduce oil use, an Energy Department spokeswoman said.

"Today's report outlines the need for continued research and development to make algal biofuel sustainable and cost-competitive, but it also highlights the long-term potential of this technology and why it is worth pursuing," Jen Stutsman said in a statement.

The council's report noted that future innovations, and increased production efficiencies, could enhance the viability of algal biofuels.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

It said a main reason to use alternative fuels for transportation is to cut climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions created by burning fossil fuel. But estimates of greenhouse emissions from algal biofuels cover a wide range, with some suggesting that over their life cycle, the fuels release more climate-warming gas than petroleum, it said.

The product now made in small quantities by Sapphire uses algae, sunlight and carbon dioxide as feedstocks to make fuel that is not dependent on food crops or farmland. The company calls it "green crude."

Tim Zenk, a Sapphire vice president, said the company has worked for five years on the sustainability issues examined in the report. "The NRC has acknowledged something that the industry has known about in its infancy and began to address immediately," he said.

He said Sapphire recycles water and uses land that is not suitable for agriculture at its New Mexico site, where it hopes to make 100 barrels of algal biofuel a day by 2014.

The U.S. Navy used algal biofuel along with fuel made from cooking oil waste as part of its "Green Fleet" military exercises demonstration this summer, drawing fire from Republican lawmakers for its nearly $27 per gallon cost.

The council study also said it was unclear whether producing that much biofuel from algae would actually lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

The report shows the strategy is too risky, said Friends of the Earth, an environmental group.

"Algae production poses a double-edged threat to our water resources, already strained by the drought," Michal Rosenoer, a biofuels campaigner with the group, said in a statement.

Industry group Algal Biomass Organization focused on the positives in its statement.

"We hope that policymakers and others involved in the future of the domestic fuel industry will recognize the NRC's conclusion that sustainability concerns are not a definitive barrier to future growth."

(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Marilyn W. Thompson and Christopher Wilson)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
krm398 wrote:
Burning any petroleum or petroleum based fuel will cause greenhouse gas emissions. The only reason people are experimenting with all these new fuels is to keep internal combustion engines going for another century, and so long as they run green house gasses will be formed. Its a lose/lose…until we make cars and planes that run on something cleaner, cost means nothing.

In another 50 years or so it wont matter, scientists are saying now that its too late to stop the runaway problems, so corporations have all said the same thing…’I wont be around to see it, but my family will be rich enough to survive’ with that attitude their shortsightedness will cost millions of lives from diseases and global weather changes.

Oct 24, 2012 7:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:
Alternatives need to be addressed, and the environment should take A1 Priority. Economic resources are limited but we should be preparing to implement green technology en-mass. The Greenland Ice is melting at an unprecedented rate, the pacific arctic ice flow is at an unprecendented low, and antarctica is experiencing loss of ice shelves the size of (USA) states. The last archilogical (Cretaceous) period of no polar ice 100Ma (million years ago) reveals We know what America looked like 100M years ago with no polar ice; two mountain ranges, Appalachian and Laramidia separated by the Western Interior Seaway. Florida completely awash. Russia and China would dominate the world. Russia is presently claiming artic land under diminishing artic ice.
USA cannot afford these consequences, nor the consequences of even the 7 meter greenland (ice melt) sea level rise. A green geopolitcal system is an absolute must.

Oct 25, 2012 8:21am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Cl1ffClav3n wrote:
The same thorough, unbiased, scientific evaluation has already revealed the same futility for other biofuels as well. The German Academy of Sciences just finished up a three-year study and came out with the recommendation that Europe abandon all biofuel mandates (Bioenergy – Chances and Limits. Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften – Leopoldina, 2012. http://www.leopoldina.org/en/publications/detailview/?publication[publication]=433). Biofuels are attempts at perpetual motion in chemistry: turning hydrocarbons into carbohydrates back into hydrocarbons. The artificial ammonia fertilizer and pesticides and herbicides and farm equipment fuel and bio-refinery processing energy and transportation fuel and hydrogen to hydrotreat the final product into the “drop-in” fuels required by the military and airlines all come from natural gas and petroleum. Even the designer enzymes used in the most advanced processes are made from organic compounds synthesized from petroleum feedstock. When all is said and done, the best of biofuels take 8:1 energy return-on-investment (EROI) petroleum energy and reduce the return to 2:1 EROI and deliver it in inferior form as bio-alcohol or biodiesel or cattle feed supplement (DDGS). Hydrotreatment to make the product back into something compatible with the gas turbine engines of the Navy and the airlines drops the EROI well below 1:1. Better to use petroleum directly as fuel and get the 8:1 return than accelerate its use making energy-sink biofuels, and thereby also increase lifecycle GHG emissions, environmental damage, and dependence on foreign oil. The irony is that biofuels score worse than fossil fuels on every clean and green metric, when subjected to a thorough lifecycle analysis.

Oct 25, 2012 10:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.