Sapphire turns microorganisms, sunlight, and CO2 into renewable gasoline
If it works, this could be great/terrible. Sapphire Energy announced yesterday that they have been able to take algae and mix in sunlight, CO2 and other photosynthetic microorganisms to make 91 octane gasoline "that conforms to ASTM certification." The renewable gasoline, as Sapphire calls it, contains "high-value hydrocarbons chemically identical to those in gasoline," which could potentially lower gas prices (depending on how much it costs to make a gallon of this stuff) but won't do much for CO2 emissions from vehicles. One good side is that the algae need CO2 to grow. The overall carbon dioxide balance was not disclosed by Sapphire, but I've sent in an email to see how much CO2 the algae need to make the gasoline. It'd be nice to learn this in the early stages, since Sapphire's rubric is "to be the world's leading producer of renewable petrochemical products," CEO Jason Pyle said in a statement.
UPDATE: A Sapphire representative sent ABG this information: "The Sapphire gasoline will be chemically equivalent to current high octane gasoline which means it will have the same energy characteristics (BTU per gallon etc) and release the same amount of CO2 into the environment as traditional gasoline. However every single carbon atom in the Sapphire gasoline is extracted from the environment as CO2, thus the product it will be carbon neutral."
[Source: Sapphire Energy]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
voitoi 12:57PM (5/29/2008)
The overall carbon dioxide balance would be zero, but only if they could maintain the growth without external energy inputs (watering, gathering, maintainance), or if all these energy inputs will be neutral.
Reply
Gordio 1:01PM (5/29/2008)
That update is an important clarification. Glad Sapphire reads this site. The carbon in this case--or algae based biofuel--is from the sky. So when you burn the fuel, you're only returning to the sky what you took.
in contrast, the carbon from fossil fuel comes from the ground, so when you burn fossil fuels youre introducing more carbon in the sky.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 1:24PM (5/29/2008)
So, when we convert to electric cars, we can use this technology to turn CO2 back into dinojuice, and pump it back into the ground, to replace the stuff we've already burned up over the last 150 years?
Reply
Dave K. 1:54PM (5/29/2008)
This is great but it's not what people think, no biofuel can possibly replace the 21million barrel a day habit we (US) petroleum junkies have developed over the last century. This might just provide enough to act as the range extender fuel in PHEVs but our first step is to go on a crash energy diet. Don't forget all the plastics, clothing industrial chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, aviation fuel, ect.
Reply
Rick 5:40PM (5/29/2008)
Ok, so then what's next? How long before this is brought to market? Will this power all gas engines exactly the same with no power loss and no long term issues? What will the 91 oct do for smaller engines? Will this be bought and sold as regular gas and end up at you local gas station? Is the infrastructure in place to produce, sell and distrubte this nationwide or how long will it take, etc?
Innovations are awesome, we need them. But we also need a purchaseable product soon.
Reply
TvLover 1:55PM (5/29/2008)
The biggest misconception about oil is that we are running out. Oil wells that were considered "tapped out" previously have recently been reopened and found to be full. Why? Because life goes on and life dies and life becomes fossils and fossils become fuel. That, to me, is the sickest part of oil. When driving down the street, keep in mind that the oil your gasoline was produced from might have been a TRex at some time long long ago.
I really hope Sapphire gets this up and running as soon as possible. Having another gasoline source to relieve the pressure on the market and remove OPEC from the equation would be a god send!
Reply
Dan Chance 9:16PM (1/25/2009)
Hi TvLover, Have you looked at www.thepickensplan.com? T. Boone Pickens has a plan to get off foreign oil. President Obama has virtually endorsed that plan and wants to get us off foreign oil by (is it 2010?) Go to www.thepickensplan.com. sign up and get in the fight to get us on alternative fuels as soon as possible.
armmat 2:21PM (5/29/2008)
Yeah it's carbon neutral...but what about the other crap it throws into the atmosphere? CO neutral? Formaldahyde neutral? NOx neutral?
Reply
meme 2:56PM (5/29/2008)
TvLover: That's not exactly how it works on several fronts. First, the term "DinoJuice" is a joke and not meant to be taken literally. Most petroleum comes from ancient algae. Areas with a lot of animal life tend to have a lot more plant matter, and that tends to turn into coal. Secondly, reservoirs refill because they repressurize over time and the more viscous residual oil or oil in low-porosity strata has time to diffuse into the tapped reservoir. Kerogen conversion to oil isn't a rapid process in most situations.
That said, peak oil scaremongering *is* wrong. But not for the reasons you described.
And while I cheer Sapphire on, I'll note that farming bacteria for fuel hasn't worked out particularly economically in the past. Here's hoping that they can do better, but I wouldn't put money on it.
Reply
paulwesterberg 2:47PM (5/29/2008)
Duncan is right, this blog post is pathetic.
Dave, you are right to be skeptical of bio fuels, especially corn, but I think that algae is our best in terms of being able to grow massive quantities without major problems.
TvLover you must have learned geological science from TV sitcoms.
Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources because they take millions of years to form, and reserves are being depleted much faster than new ones are being formed.
The total fossil fuel used in the year 1997 is the result of 422 years of all plant matter that grew on the entire surface and in all the oceans of the ancient earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
Reply
Kevin Nugent 4:34PM (5/29/2008)
This could be could and bad.
Good in the sense that it woudl relieve pressure off the market and stop those from reaping millions of dollars in profit from america
Bad - in the sense that clean techonology will not be invented as fast as long as people know that gas will always be here. we need people to think that there is a sense of urgency to get off of fossil fuel
Reply
James 5:06PM (5/29/2008)
Alage will give us time to go on to other forms of cleaner fuels right now we need to use anything we can to get us away from the Middle East.
Reply
e 5:34PM (5/29/2008)
Could you explain all that again Chris...
Reply
Snowdog 7:40PM (5/29/2008)
Saying this is carbon neutral is like saying corn Ethanol is carbon neutral. There are likely very large energy inputs ( heat the water) that goes into this.
I bet it is better than Corn Ethanol (what isn't?) but it won't be carbon neutral.
Tell me energy in vs energy out.
Like the optimistic number for Ethanol:
1.0 units in = 1.3 units out.
Reply
Chris M 8:28PM (5/29/2008)
There was no mention of the details of the process involved, but there are 3 possibilities:
1. They have an algae that directly produces long chain alkane hydrocarbons like Octane, possibly developed through genetic engineering. Considering the toxicity of such hydrocarbons, that is unlikely but not impossible. The only energy needed is sunlight and enough to separate the fuel from the growing algae and purify it.
2. The algae produces oils that can easily be converted to alkanes, requiring a bit more energy to process, but still fairly efficient.
3. The algae produces biomass that is run through a thermal pyrolysis process to produce synthesis gas that is then processed into hydrocarbon fuels. This is much more energy intensive, but can still produce more useful energy than is needed for processing.
Of course, eventually the details will get out.
Reply
Chris M 8:55PM (5/29/2008)
Kuebler: You've written a very long laundry list of reasons why the EV revolution can't work, but offer no alternative. Are you proposing to just "stay the course" and keep the current system unchanged? Did you realize that the current petroleum based system is even less sustainable? Could it be a misguided effort to support the auto industry in your home state? Didn't you realize that the "Detroit 3" have already started down the plug-in course?
Your arguments are wildly overblown and a bit hysterical, and conveniently ignores the far greater efficiency of electrical power systems. You've also overlooked the fact that reduced demand for petroleum fuels means less demand for electricity to run the refineries that make petroleum fuels.
Efficient and affordable power storage is being developed for EVs, and that is just what intermittent power sources like solar, wind, and tidal energy need to start supplying major baseline power. Even with relatively low efficiency solar conversion, there is enough sunlight falling on the roofs of most nations to provide all their power needs, including transportation - the only remaining holdup is high prices for solar collectors.
Reply
philmcneal 9:11PM (5/29/2008)
im confused what Duncan is trying to say in his first post? Can someone educate me here on why this blog post is so pointless? I thought it was somewhat interesting but never knew that algae was the very few plants to be carbon neutral (i remember reading something about it needs CO2 from the air to live).
Reply
Hans Wurst 11:11PM (5/29/2008)
"Sapphire turns microorganisms, sunlight, and CO2 into renewable gasoline" says it all, and you don't need to be a scientist to figure that burning the stuff can hardly free more CO2 than our friendly micros put in there.
Reply
TBlueMax 9:17AM (5/30/2008)
Hey CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, Esq.,
Thanks for the five page post in the comments section - right on topic with the blog post on algae-derived gasoline.
Next time, you may want to state your name, educational credential, and occupation after your post. You see, I prefer my science to come from scientists and after seeing that you're a Michigan lawyer, that pretty much invalidates anything you write. Best wishes.
Reply
scott 7:06PM (6/01/2008)
@ CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, Esq.,
Next time, edit for a single point and post a link if you must.
I did not read any but the first and last one inch of your 6 foot long post.
However, your reference to Enhanced Geothermal bears repeating.
Here are a few links for those interested in a source of cheap, clean and abundant baseload electricity.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17236/page1/
http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/Company/ShowPage.aspx?CPID=1403
The take-home message is you can drill holes several miles deep and remove the limits of relying on hot springs for geothermal energy.
Reply