Blatant Reality

Almost everyone supports the development of new sources of energy. However, differing personal and political opinions on what constitutes “safe” or “economical” mean the requirements that these energy sources must meet are far from uniform. For example, many liberals focus on new energy technologies that emit less carbon while conservatives focus more on sources that would give our nation the ability to produce our energy domestically.

Both of these goals can be attained, but the question remains: what is the best path forward?

Many on the left want to see a tax levied on carbon, arguing that this will force the development of greener technologies.But at least one environmental researcher, highlighted in the July 2010 edition of Popular Science magazine, thinks that technology innovation, rather than government policies, will lead to new and greener energy sources.

Part of what alarms his critics is how un-alarmist his conclusions have turned out to be. For example, instead of using policy to change how people will behave in the future, [Jesse] Ausubel prefers exploring technological responses to what he believes people are going to do regardless. His favorite defense of this laissez-faire approach is to explain that, absent any policy dictating that it should happen, energy consumption over the past 100 years has steadily “decarbonized.” That is, humankind has moved to fuel sources with progressively better ratios of carbon atoms to hydrogen atoms–wood at 10:1, coal at 2:1, oil at 1:2, natural gas at 1:4 and, eventually (in the future Ausubel envisions) 100 percent hydrogen. He thinks technology inevitably improves things. “That’s not to say I don’t worry about the downsides of technology,” he says. “A lot of my work is about that. But my general interest is new and high-tech ways of dealing with problems.”

Ausubel rightly argues that over the years, technology has steadily been advancing and decarbonizing largely without government intervention, a concept that should continue in the future.

For examples supporting Ausubel’s argument, one does not have to look any further than the nuclear industry, where a trend of innovation can be seen with companies like Babcock & Wilcox looking to bring asmaller nuclear reactor to market. Their goal is to create a modular reactor that can easily be shipped to its destination for final assembly. The smaller size means using one-fifth of the staff a regular size reactor requires, a benefit that will significantly lower operation costs, which in turn means these reactors will allow smaller utilities to diversify their energy profiles.

That means more utilities may look into using nuclear energy, carbon-free technology that produced enough energy around the clock to serve as baseload power.

Additionally, recent technological innovations in the algae biofuel industry could lead to major advances in the hydrogen field. An algae biofuel technology company recently announced that they had developed a method to cheaply ‘harvest’ hydrogen from algae, a method that scientists at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory called “the ‘Holy Grail’ of the hydrogen economy.”

Examples of innovations like these in the energy industry are happening frequently and largely without government intervention. With talk about a new climate/energy bill being written, Congress needs to remember that it should not try to force technological advances but instead should focus on creating a climate where innovation is encouraged.

Ultimately, instead of the heavy hand of the government steering the development of our energy technologies by artificially affecting the price of energy through carbon taxes or selective subsidies, we should let the private sector do what it does best: innovate and commercialize, two things that will benefit everyone in the process.

Originally posted on American Solutions

There may be a conflict of interest with the head of NASA and the OMEGA algae research currently taking place at the agency. It seems that NASA Administrator Bolden also has hundreds of thousands if not close to a million of dollars worth of stock in an traditional oil company.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden doesn’t believe in OMEGA — and has sought to slow it down.

The reason: He was advised against it by Marathon Oil — the Texas-based company on whose board Bolden sat until he was named NASA administrator last year. The former astronaut and Marine Corps general also still holds as much as $1 million worth of Marathon stock.

He says that there hasn’t been any conflict and while I don’t know the particulars more than what this story offer, I tend to believe him. Algae research is still in its early stages and to think that he would knowing sabotage the research success seems to almost garner ‘conspiracy theory’ status. If the research is successful, algae is still likely decades away from a point where it could threaten oil and by then, oil companies could co-opt algae technologies to boost their profits (IE ExxonMobil with Synthetic Genomics).

Anyways, NASA’s algae research is fairly novel in their approach and deserves to be researched thoroughly. Here is what they are trying to do:

According to Jonathan Trent, the lead scientist behind the project, it starts with algae being placed in sewage-filled plastic bags, known in NASA-speak as “offshore membrane enclosures for growing algae” or OMEGA. The semipermeable plastic was originally developed to recycle astronauts’ urine during space missions.

Trent’s idea is to grow the algae in huge bags suspended in the ocean by feeding them wastewater. The algae — which pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere — would feast on nutrients in the sewage, turning it into clean water that would be released into the sea through the bags’ one-way membranes. Wave action would keep the algae mixed and healthy, producing fat-soluble molecules called lipids as the plants grow that would then be harvested for fuel.

If a tsunami or hurricane strikes, or if the bags leak, Trent says, seawater would kill the algae, and the lipids would break down naturally.

Read more of the article here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-administrator-scandal-20100620,0,4126603.story

Today, Congressman Harry Teague authored an opinion piece where he contends that algae is the best source of energy that can provide “stable, affordable prices; reduced dependence on foreign oil; fuels that are good for the environment; and energy jobs right here in America.” But, in order for this to happen, there are two things that are holding it up: tax law and the renewable fuel standard.

It turns out there are two immediate barriers to raising capital for commercial-scale production of algae-based fuel.

The first is a quirk in our tax code that provides tax incentives for cellulosic biofuel production but not for other advanced technology feedstock — meaning algae.

The second is our nation’s renewable fuel standard, which mandates that, by 2022, 16 billion gallons of our annual fuel demand must be satisfied by cellulosic fuel — but algae don’t qualify and receive no benefit from the RFS.

In order to change this problem, Congressman Teague and Senator Ben Nelson have authored bills that would “end this discriminatory treatment and ensure that algae-based fuels are on a level playing field with cellulosic fuels in the tax code” as well as “replace the renewable fuel standard’s exclusive carve-out for cellulosic biofuel with one for any advanced green biofuel” including algae.

Over the past couple years, the United States’ government has begun to take several steps towards advancing algae biofuel development. These steps have come from a variety of different fronts and in various different forms.

One of the strongest supporters of algae biofuels in the US government is the Department of Energy (DOE). The DOE has taken many steps to help foster the growing algae industry. One way they are helping the industry is by funneling public investment into research. Just this past January, the DOE invested $44 million into the Danforth Plant Research Center to lead a consortium to conduct advanced biofuel research. Since the Danforth Center is already one of the leaders in researching algae biofuel, one can safely assume that a good portion of this money will involve their future development.

In addition to direct investment in research, the Department of Energy has also invested in private company partnerships looking to develop specific algae technologies. Just in the past year, one particular company has announced the DOE’s involvement in two of their projects.

Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation, a New Zealand-based algae biofuel company, first announced in March that they received $1.5 million from the DOE to partner with UOP Honeywell to design a demonstration system that will capture carbon dioxide from exhaust stacks at Honeywell’s manufacturing facility in Hopewell, Virginia. Not three months later, Aquaflow announced that they will be partnering with the United States Gas Technology Institute to work on an advanced biomass conversion technology program that will receive part of their funding from the DOE as well.

The DOE has also conducted some research into what needs to be done for the algae biofuel industry to mature to a point where it can compete with the traditional petroleum industry. Their 200-plus page report titled “National Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap” is based off a workshop held in December 2008 where over 200 scientists, engineers, research managers, industry representatives, lawyers, financiers and regulators gathered and discussed various topics pertaining to algae biofuel development. The draft of this roadmap was released last year, with the final document still pending.

The DOE’s roadmap itself is a great document that combines literature from a multitude of sources as well as taking a look at the problems facing the industry in areas such as algae harvesting, oil extraction, algae-to-fuel conversion technologies, resources, and current government policies. This document offers a great starting point from which the industry can move forward. The good news is that in the year and a half since the initial workshop, advances in many of the sections listed in the roadmap can already be seen.

While the Department of Energy is doing a lot with algae, other areas of the United States government are just as interested in its development. For example, the Department of Defense has been investing a lot of money in algae biofuel development as well.

The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), which operates as the research arm for the DOD, has been researching how to create jet fuel from algae for the past couple of years. In fact, an announcement this past March hints that they are just months away from producing an algae-based jet fuel at the same cost as its petroleum counterpart.

The DOD has also contracted with a private company to look into algae-based fuels. Solazyme recently won contracts with the Navy to develop both an algal jet fuel and an algae-based F-76 naval distillate. The F-76 Naval Distillate is the Navy’s primary shipboard fuel and is very similar to diesel fuel. The Navy is interested in the development of these fuels as a way to address both national security as well as environmental concerns currently being voiced in the U.S.

Overall, the United States government has taken a very proactive role in helping spur on the development of algae biofuels. These examples only represent a few of the ways the government is getting involved with the advancement of the algae biofuel field with many more sure to come in the future.

This post originally published on Celsias.com.

Kiwi clean tech company in demand

BLENHEIM, NEW ZEALAND: New Zealand-based Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation announced today that it will collaborate, as a co-funding partner, with the United States Gas Technology Institute (GTI) on an advanced biomass conversion technology programme worth US$3.1million that will be part funded by the US Department of Energy.

In March, the company announced it would be working with Honeywell’s UOP on another algal technology project funded by the US Department of Energy. http://www.aquaflowgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/media_release_3_3_20101.pdf

“We have reached another major milestone in expanding our US-based partnerships and project involvement and we are delighted to be working with GTI in this space,” comments Aquaflow director Nick Gerritsen.

Aquaflow will focus on expanding the algae biomass processing options it has available to deliver user-ready biofuels. The project’s initial phase will last 14 months.

“Both US projects demonstrate the breadth of the Aquaflow technology platform and its ability to work with partners to target and develop specific solutions in a complimentary fashion. The US Department of Energy is to be congratulated for its ongoing support. Without doubt this work will herald in the next generation of renewable fuels and chemicals from fresh algae biomass,” comments Gerritsen.

He adds that Aquaflow will continue to develop its own biomass conversion technology in parallel with the US project as this provides yet another conversion option.

“This project will demonstrate the conversion of algae biomass directly to gasoline and diesel fuel using integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion technology,” says Terry Marker, Bioenergy Initiatives manager at Illinois-based GTI. “At GTI we believe the key to future algae utilization is developing economical processes for converting algae to hydrocarbon fuels.”

Jack Lewnard, GTI’s chief technology officer, adds, “We are pleased to have Aquaflow as a partner, given their pioneering role in developing cost-effective algae production and utilization processes.”

GTI is a leading not-for-profit research, development and training organization that has been addressing the US’ energy and environmental challenges by developing technology-based solutions for consumers, industry, and government for more than 65 years. To date, GTI programs have resulted in nearly 500 products, 750 licenses, and more than 1,200 associated patents.

Well, I made it out to the Tax Day Tea Party at the South Carolina Statehouse. Overall, it was much smaller than last years Tea Party event. Don’t know what to make of that. Could be that people attended more local events instead of driving to Columbia or it could be that there really weren’t a lot of big name speakers at the event other than Gov. Sanford (and while he did get applause, there were one to two hecklers in the crowd that were telling him to step down). Or, possibly, people are just tired of protesting since Washington seems to just do whatever they want anyways (see Health Care Reform).

Anyways, here are some pictures from the event including some interesting signage. One thing I did find interesting was that at one point during Sanford’s speech, a police officer came up to where I was standing on the Statehouse steps and use binoculars to scan the crowd for a while. There is a pictures of that in there as well.

Check out my latest American Solutions article about Congress’s reaction to the closure of Yucca Mountain:

In a political climate rife with partisanship, it is always a pleasant surprise to see lawmakers from both sides of the aisle coming together to solve our nation’s problems. One of the issues desperately needing bipartisan attention is nuclear power, an issue that has become particularly critical after the administration’s short-sighted announcement this year not to fund the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility.

Luckily, several House Republicans and Democrats have come together to introduce a resolution that would stop the Obama administration from ending the Yucca Mountain project.

Just days after firmly supporting the passage of Obamacare, Democrats like Majority Whip James Clyburn (SC) and John Spratt (SC) are taking a stand against President Obama’s decision to end Yucca Mountain. Even Washington Democrat Jay Inslee, who was one of the chief salesmen for the Waxman-Markey energy tax last summer, joined in this rebuke of the president’s energy policy.

As stated previously, the Yucca Mountain facility is the nation’s legally designated location for nuclear waste storage, and billions of dollars have been spent on its research and development. The administration’s decision to cut its funding without an alternative will harm the nuclear industry who has been eagerly waiting its opening.

These facts have united Republicans and Democrats, especially those whose districts and states currently store nuclear waste in temporary facilities and have done so for many years under the assumption that a long-term nuclear storage facility like Yucca Mountain would be completed. With the Yucca Mountain facility near completion, the thought of starting from scratch with a yet to be determined replacement facility is disheartening.

After already waiting years for a promised storage facility, the nuclear industry is now being told to wait even longer. This uncertainty could potentially deter further investment in nuclear energy sector and even counteract the administration’s push for increased nuclear power.

Overall, while the administration may feel that the fight over Yucca Mountain is coming to a close, the recent actions in Congress may indicate that things are only beginning to heat up. Congress still has the power over the budget and the power to decide what funding Yucca Mountain may or may not receive. With Republicans and Democrats standing together on this issue, the opportunity to positively influence the fate of Yucca Mountain and alter the administration’s current course dramatically increases.

As the Obama administration has acknowledged, nuclear power needs to be an important part of our energy future. However, a nuclear waste repository like Yucca Mountain is needed soon in order to help the nuclear industry grow.

I don’t know if I have just completely missed the build up to this but the announcement that DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has successfully extracted oil from algae at $2 gallon really caught me off guard.

The brains trust of the Pentagon says it is just months away from producing a jet fuel from algae for the same cost as its fossil-fuel equivalent.

The claim, which comes from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) that helped to develop the internet and satellite navigation systems, has taken industry insiders by surprise. A cheap, low-carbon fuel would not only help the US military, the nation’s single largest consumer of energy, to wean itself off its oil addiction, but would also hold the promise of low-carbon driving and flying for all.

Darpa’s research projects have already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon. It is now on track to begin large-scale refining of that oil into jet fuel, at a cost of less than $3 a gallon, according to Barbara McQuiston, special assistant for energy at Darpa. That could turn a promising technology into a ­market-ready one. Researchers have cracked the problem of turning pond scum and seaweed into fuel, but finding a cost-effective method of mass production could be a game-changer. “Everyone is well aware that a lot of things were started in the military,” McQuiston said.

Now, I don’t want to be blamed for over-analyzing the use of one word here but there are a couple things one might want to note about this article before they get too excited.

For off, the article seems to focus strictly on extracting the oil from the algae with no mention of what the cost of refining the oil is in addition to extracting it.

Additionally, the article doesn’t clarify if the $2 cost includes the cost of growing the algae either. The actual growth process is where the real expenses add up, not the extraction. I don’t know exactly how much it costs but OriginOil’s Single Step Extraction method seems pretty cheap when you watch how simple it looks in a video of the process in action.

Now, I may seem really nit-picky of me to focus all my attention on the extraction bit but from my experience in researching algae fuels, growth, harvesting/extraction, and then refining are often considered three completely separate processes with algae companies often focusing on developing one at a time.

Therefore, when someone says that they have “extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon,” I typically take it as a very literal meaning: the extraction process alone costs $2.

Now this may have just been poor wording by the Guardian but with my inability to find an actual press release where these numbers are quoted, this article is really all I have to go on.

However, the thing that makes me think that it is a little more than just the extraction process is the fact that the Pentagon believes that they are “just months away from producing a jet fuel from algae for the same cost as its fossil-fuel equivalent.”

That is a pretty bold statement and, if it holds true, could do wonders for the algae biofuel field, illustrating that they can in fact be produced at a commercially viable price.

If you want to learn more about what DARPA was looking to do in the development of algal fuels, check out this Fact Sheet.

One last thing to note, if you do run across something that answers my “extraction” questions above, please post it in the comments.

Here is another article I wrote for American Solutions about the recent formation of the “Congressional Coal Caucus.” Take a look:

******

This past week, a bipartisan Congressional caucus consisting of three Republicans and three Democrats formed around the often-contentious issue of coal. This “Congressional Coal Caucus” has pledged to be a voice in Congress for the many coal-producing and coal-reliant communities located across the country.

The formation of this Congressional Caucus sends powerful signals to the energy industry and fellow members of Congress; it shows that various Congressional members from both sides of the aisle are determined to ensure that coal continues to play an important role in supplying our energy needs.

It also serves as a signal to President Obama, who has stated that he wants to bankrupt the coal industry, that energy policy must include positive incentives to use one of the most affordable and abundant sources of energy in the United States.

This bipartisan caucus has the potential to greatly influence the energy debate since the current cap-and-trade bill, H.R. 2454, barely passed the House in June. While all six of the founding members of the caucus voted against the bill’s passage, many fellow congressmen from coal-reliant states voted for it.

If the Congressional Coal Caucus is able to recruit enough members who originally supported H.R. 2454, they may be able to form a coalition to stop its final passage as well as other energy bills that would impose higher energy costs for all American taxpayers.

Coal provides Americans with affordable and reliable energy, in addition to many other resources such as oil, gas, and nuclear. In addition, coal supports over 130,000 jobs in the United States. With the U.S. harboring roughly a quarter of the known coal reserves in the world and some estimates showing that this supply should last for over two centuries, we have the resources in America to make help make us energy independent while also continuing to provide needed jobs for Americans.

The good news is that it is highly unlikely that the Senate will pass an exact version of H.R. 2454 or any cap and trade bill this year, so the House will have another chance to vote on the future energy policy of our nation.

Whether or not the outcome of that vote is friendly to reliable American energy, however, will depend on how actively American Solutions members are pressuring their elected leaders to vote against devastating energy taxes. It may also largely depend on how many members have joined this particular caucus.

If you live in a coal-dependent community or just support coal as a continued source of energy, call your member of Congress and ask if he or she has joined (or plans to join) the Congressional Coal Caucus.

Today, I published my first energy article for American Solutions. I am looking to write for them roughly once a week about various energy issues facing our nation. To check out my article about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, click the link above or just read on below.

*****

This past week, a disagreement occurred between the Energy Secretary Steven Chu and White House Budget Director Peter Orszag over how much money should be cut from funding the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. This disagreement once again brings up the question of what are the United States’ plans for long-term storage of nuclear waste since support for expanding nuclear energy is growing within the public and with policymakers.

Nuclear energy has seen a resurgence in popularity in the past couple years, as evidenced by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission receiving roughly 20 applications to build over 30 reactors in just the past 4 years.

In June 2008, the Yucca Mountain facility submitted a much-anticipated application to build a deep geologic repository for used nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste, and the goal of increasing our nuclear energy production levels looked to be achievable.

However, over the past year of the new administration, we have seen conflicting statements and actions concerning increasing nuclear energy production within the United States.

For example, not even a month after the inauguration, the Obama administration announced that it will cut off almost all funding to the Yucca Mountain Facility and instead wants to look into finding a “better solution for management of our nuclear waste.”

With the Yucca Mountain solution taking over 25 years to get to the point where they can even apply to start building the facility, how much longer will the American people have to wait for the Obama administration’s “better solution” to come to fruition?

Of course, their proposed solution has not yet been announced, one year after halting funding for Yucca Mountain. This haphazard discontinuation by the administration of a project that has received previous endorsements from all three branches of the U.S. government contradicts their pro-nuclear energy stance and statements.

Even though recycling the spent nuclear fuel for further use in nuclear reactors should be the ultimate goal, there are those that feel that a long-term nuclear waste repository must first be demonstrated before these reprocessing efforts will be expanded.

That is why this facility, which Congress passed legislation to create in 1982 and was meant to safely store nuclear material from across the country for thousands of years, is necessary if we are to expand the nuclear energy production capacity of the United States

After decades of work and roughly $10 billion spent on research, the country needs a place like Yucca Mountain that is authorized to store 70,000 metric tons of nuclear fuel, and has been rated by the Electric Power Research Institute to safely and securely store up to 570,000 metric tons of nuclear waste.

While this may seem like a lot of waste, critics must consider that 0.0007 pounds of nuclear material can produce the same amount of energy as 1,780 pounds of coal. In fact, over the past 50 years of nuclear energy production, only 60,000 metric tons of waste has been produced.

Currently, nuclear power plants are forced to store their nuclear waste on-site. While many argue that the fuel is safely stored at the reactor sites, it is surely less than ideal since these measures were to be a temporary fix rather than a long-term solution like the one Yucca Mountain can offer.

The on-site storage of nuclear waste is very expensive, both for the companies operating the plants and the American taxpayer. Since 1998, the government has been on the hook for paying for many of these on-site storage capabilities, the product of a partial breach of contract signed two decades ago whereby the government would construct a permanent federal facility for the safe disposal of nuclear waste.

The DOE has estimated that the cost to the government of on-site storage litigation will be roughly $11 billion by 2020, the year when the Yucca Mountain repository would be complete if positive actions were taken today.

Overall, this recent disagreement between the White House and Secretary Chu highlights the fact that the administration has not upheld its end of the deal. With the cut in funds to the Yucca Mountain repository, the administration promised to quickly set up a panel to find alternatives solutions to our nuclear waste problem, but in the year since the initial cuts, no steps have been taken to do so.

As the months go by and funding is slowly but surely eliminated from this project without any sign of an alternative solution, one has to wonder if the White House truly is serious about expanding our nuclear energy capacity. Regretfully, the administration’s recent actions seem to point to the contrary.