NYTimes.com

SAN DIEGO — In a laboratory where almost all the test tubes look green, the tools of modern biotechnology are being applied to lowly pond scum. Foreign genes are being spliced into algae and native genes are being tweaked. Different strains of algae are pitted against one another in survival-of-the-fittest contests in an effort to accelerate the evolution of fast-growing, hardy strains.

The goal is nothing less than to create superalgae, highly efficient at converting sunlight and carbon dioxide into lipids and oils that can be sent to a refinery and made into diesel or jet fuel. “We’ve probably engineered over 4,000 strains,” said Mike Mendez, a co-founder and vice president for technology at Sapphire Energy, the owner of the laboratory. “My whole goal here at Sapphire is to domesticate algae, to make it a crop.”

Dozens of companies, as well as many academic laboratories, are pursuing the same goal — to produce algae as a source of, literally, green energy. And many of them are using genetic engineering or other biological techniques, like chemically induced mutations, to improve how algae functions.

“There are probably well over 100 academic efforts to use genetic engineering to optimize biofuel production from algae,” said Matthew C. Posewitz, an assistant professor of chemistry at the Colorado School of Mines, who has written a review of the field. “There’s just intense interest globally.”

Algae are attracting attention because the strains can potentially produce 10 or more times more fuel per acre than the corn used to make ethanol or the soybeans used to makebiodiesel. Moreover, algae might be grown on arid land and brackish water, so that fuel production would not compete with food production. And algae are voracious consumers of carbon dioxide, potentially helping to keep some of this greenhouse gas from contributing to global warming. But efforts to genetically engineer algae, which usually means to splice in genes from other organisms, worry some experts because algae play a vital role in the environment. The single-celled photosynthetic organisms produce much of the oxygen on earth and are the base of the marine food chain. “We are not saying don’t do this,” said Gerald H. Groenewold, director of the University of North Dakota’s Energy and Environmental Research Center, who is trying to organize a study of the risks. “We say do this with the knowledge of the implications and how to safeguard what you are doing.”

At a meeting this month of President Obama’s new bioethics commission, Allison A. Snow, an ecologist at Ohio State University, testified that a “worst-case hypothetical scenario” would be that algae engineered to be extremely hardy might escape into the environment, displace other species and cause algal overgrowths that deprive waters of oxygen, killing fish. A week earlier, at an industry-sponsored bioenergy conference, David Haberman, an engineer who has worked on an algae project, gave a talk warning of risks. Many scientists, particularly those in the algae business, say the fears are overblown. Just as food crops cannot thrive without a farmer to nourish them and fend off pests, algae modified to be energy crops would be uncompetitive against wild algae if they were to escape, and even inside their own ponds.

“Everything we do to engineer an organism makes it weaker,” said Stephen Mayfield, a professor of biology at the University of California, San Diego, and a co-founder of Sapphire. “This idea that we can make Frankenfood or Frankenalgae is just absurd.” Dr. Mayfield and other scientists say there have been no known environmental problems in the 35 years that scientists have been genetically engineering bacteria, although some organisms have undoubtedly escaped from laboratories. Even Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who has been critical of biotech crops, said that if genetically engineered algae were to escape, “I would not lose sleep over it at all.”

Still, some algae researchers worry they will be engulfed by the same backlash aimed at biotech foods and say care must be exercised. “About 40 percent of the oxygen that you and I are breathing right now comes from the algae in the oceans,” the genetic scientist J. Craig Venter said at a Congressional hearing in May. “We don’t want to mess up that process.” Dr. Venter’s company, Synthetic Genomics, is getting $300 million from Exxon Mobil to create fuel-producing algae, in part by using synthetic genes. When the two companies cut the ribbon on a new greenhouse here earlier this month, Dr. Venter assured local dignitaries in attendance that no algae would escape. “Nothing will go into the drains, Mr. Mayor,” Dr. Venter said, only half-jokingly. “San Diego is safe.”

In the long run, Dr. Venter said, the algae should be given “suicide genes” that would kill them if they escaped the lab or fuel production facility. Some companies are sticking with searching for and breeding natural strains. “Re-engineering algae seems driven more by patent law and investor desire for protection than any real requirement,” said Stan Barnes, chief executive of Bioalgene, which is one of those companies. But Dr. Venter and Mr. Mendez argue that there are huge obstacles to making algae competitive as an energy source and that every tool will be needed to optimize the strains.

Sapphire Energy seems one of the best-positioned companies to do that. The company, which is three years old, has raised $100 million from prominent investors, including Bill Gates. Sapphire is also getting $100 million in federal financing to build a demonstration project containing 300 acres of open ponds in the New Mexico desert. The company has inserted a gene into algae that allows the organisms to make a hydrocarbon they would not naturally produce, one that would help make fuel. “You don’t want to take what algae gives you,” said Mr. Mendez, who previously worked for medical biotechnology companies. “You want to make the best product.” The company is also developing algae that can thrive in extremely salty and exceedingly alkaline water. It has even developed what might be called Roundup Ready algae. Like the widely grown Roundup Ready soybeans, these algae are resistant to the herbicide Roundup. That would allow the herbicide to be sprayed on a pond to kill invading wild algae while leaving the fuel-producing strain unhurt.

Not all these traits are being developed by genetic engineering, because in many cases scientists do not know what genes to use. Instead, the company screens thousands of strains each day, looking for organisms with the right properties. Those desirable traits can be further enhanced by breeding or accelerated evolution. In one room at Sapphire’s lab, parallel tubes contain algae with identical traits growing under identical conditions. But each strain is slightly different, and only the fastest growing one — determined by which tube turns the darkest green — will be chosen for further development. “If you can’t outcompete your wild cousin, it doesn’t make it out of this room,” said Mr. Mendez. Algae can reproduce rapidly, doubling in as little as a few hours. And they can be carried long distances by the wind. “They have the potential to blow all over the world,” said Richard Sayre of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis.

Dr. Sayre, who is also chief technology officer of Phycal, an algae company, is using genetic engineering to develop algae that capture less light. Right now, he explained, algae capture more light than they need and waste a lot of it as heat. If each organism captured less, then a given amount of light could be shared by more organisms, increasing biomass production. Instead of using open ponds, some companies are using bioreactors, which typically contain the algae in tubes. Some experts say, however, that these would not totally prevent escapes. “The idea that you can contain these things and have a large-scale system is not credible,” said John R. Benemann, an industry consultant in Walnut Creek, Calif. He said, however, that he saw absolutely no risk from genetically engineered algae. Sapphire says it is not growing any genetically engineered algae in open ponds yet. When it is ready, it says, it will comply with all regulations.

Genetically engineered algae, whether in open ponds or enclosed bioreactors, are likely to be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, which now regulates genetically engineered microbes under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Still, there has been at least one case in which genetically modified algae seem to have fallen between the regulatory cracks. When Mera Pharmaceuticals, which is based in Hawaii, wanted to test the feasibility of producing human pharmaceuticals in genetically engineered algae in 2005, none of the three federal agencies that regulate the various areas of biotechnology — E.P.A., the Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department — claimed jurisdiction. Steven G. Chalk, acting deputy assistant secretary for renewable energy at the Energy Department, said any federally financed project, like Sapphire’s New Mexico demonstration, would have to undergo an environmental assessment. But risks would be assessed case by case, he said, not for all conceivable genetically modified algae.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/business/energy-environment/26algae.html?pagewanted=2&ref=business&src=me

In Michael Porter’s book on Competitive Strategies, he talks about the competitive forces that shape an industry.   One of the main competiitve forces that impact almost every industry is the source of their energy.   The more options businesses create for their sources of power, the more competitive they will be long term - espcially with respect to other companies in their industry.  

This point was brought home recently by a business I have been working with on assessing, aligning, and expanding their energy options.  The company is a small speciality grocery who has seen his electrical bills go up from $700 to $7000 dollars over the past 20 years while his overall consumption has decreased due to efficiency improvements in his refrigeration.   When deregulation went into effect, he was able to get a lower electrical rate from an out of state provider, yet had to still pay the local carrier for delivering the electricty.   And then last year with the dramatic increase in heating oil prices,  it was the first year his company didn’t turn a profit.  

With electrical rates expected to experience a simiar increase over the next 20 years.  and the impact of volatile oil prices on his long term viability,  the business owner wants to develop his own power solutions.   The more options he can create to power his store, the less he will pay for his power, the more competitive he will be and the lower he can charge for his products or the more profit he can make on the products he charges that are in line with his local competitors.  

Through the Project  Energy Independence course, we are looking at two solutions - one for creating his own electricty with roof solar panels and another for heating his store with a removable wood furnace.  He doesn’t own the store so any solution he selects, he wants to do it with minimal infrastructure changes - these two solutions enable that.   There is a  whole foods store in a community 25 miles away that is using a fuel cell as a back up electrical generator - we are looking into some grant money to explore that option.

E-Fuel Corporation, a Silicon Valley startup, has created a backyard refueling station that looks about as difficult as making beer. Okay - maybe easier than making beer as it doesn’t require all the vessel transfers. It uses water, sugar, and yeast to create ethanol. It takes ten gallons of sugar (unusual measurement for a dry product) to create one gallon of ethanol. Over a week, the system can create 35 gallons of fuel. This means you’d have to have 350 gallons of sugar on hand on a weekly basis to create the ethanol. Where do you store all that sugar? What I do really like about this though is that this is set up for the individual to create their own fuel. They are selling these now, but delivery is not until fourth quarter this year. For just $9995 you can have your own ethanol back yard refueling station.

I love the name of this one - the Freedom Fueler. It’s the home biodiesel maker. You just need to collect waste oil from your local fry house. They have several different models - the entry level one is $3495 and can produce 40 gallons of fuel with just 30 minutes of effort. With 80 gallons of waste oil and 22 gallons of methanol, you produce 80 gallons of biodiesel with a by product of 22 gallons of glycerin. Glycerin is used in hand lotions, and in creating nitroglycerin (the explosive). Additionally, biodiesel has a high clouding temperature and is not suitable for use in cold climates without putting in a winterizing additive or blending it with diesel oil.

My ideal is to have an algae biofuel system that can create 35 gallons per day of algae biofuel from a small back yard system. In my ideal system, you grow your own algae and have the compressor set up to automatically create the fuel. Considering algae doubles in size every day, you’d have to get the right strain that would grow the best for your area. The ability to do this is much further away than fourth quarter this year so I might go with this micro fuel system first while the algae biofuel technology becomes more developed.   There are varying levels of success so far with algae biodiesel, yet tremendous research is happening on this front - Ames Laboratory is testing out an idea that would produce 10,000 gallons of algae biodiesel per year on just 1 acre of land.  If they are successful, a smaller scale back yard operation producing the amount of fuel a small family needs to heat their home and fuel their vehicles is possible.

Yesterday, February 12, 2009 was a worldwide Twestival for Clean Drinking Water. This was where people who use Twitter to communicate with each other, got together in over 175 cities worldwide to raise money for clean drinking water initiatives. Cheetah Learning raised $2300 for Clean Drinking Water by donating 5% of revenues made for the day from their Twestival activities to teach people how to do project management for clean drinking water projects.

Obtaining clean drinking water requires power. It requires the power to get the water up from the ground and it requires power to make sure the drinking water is free from disease producing microorganisms. One of the ways to better insure that there is adequate clean drinking water is to adequately process waste water. This takes even more power. Yes you can use some low power methods to adequately process waste water, but modern day methods that insure far better processing for preserving clean water requires tremendous electricity.

The Hill Canyon Waste Water Treatment Facility in Thousand Oaks, CA uses solar power and methane to power it’s waste water treatment facility.

The solar power system cost $1.5 million to install and produces about 15% of the treatment centers power. The solar power system is owned by Renewable Ventures/MMA and sells electricity to Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant for 16.8 cents/kW. The methane system uses methane gas from the facility’s anaerobic digesters to power (2) 250 kW generators. This system cost $.5m (1/3 the cost of the solar system) and provides approximately 45% of the facility’s energy needs. This system is owned and operated by U.S. Energy. The Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant purchases this electricity at a rate of 6.4 cents/kW.

This is very interesting that the methane system cost 1/3 as much as the solar system and produces 3 times the electricity. What I love about this story is that it is the waste they are processing that creates the largest percentage of electricity to process that waste.

The inverse relationship between money spent on the system vs. the energy produced appears to be a universal truth as I have seen it in existence in many other realms. The engineers perpetual question is - how can I spend the least amount of money and get the maximum energy out. The engineers managing the Thousand Oaks facility are doing a fantastic job with answering this question.

On my last trip to Alaska, on both the way there and back, I sat next to people who worked in natural resources for the State of Alaska. Both were studying ways of using biomass to create biofuels. There is an amazing amount of research going on with biofuels of all types. This is the ultimate cash from trash crop. There is a lot of trash wood (aka biomass) in Alaska. For example, Alder - it is a weed tree and literally grows like a weed. Tremendous effort is spent to keep alder growth controlled. It’s a “biomass” product. Consider seaweed - this is a major nuisance for commercial fisherman who encounter mile long rafts of it. Another fantastic biomass contributor. Algae is not something that you would think would solve the world’s energy crises - but yes, that is also a fantastic biomass source. Algae produces 30 times more fuel than other crops and grows extremely fast (plus the food demand for algae isn’t quite as high as say, corn or soybeans. . And who would’ve thought that someday we’d want to harvest algae in the desert as some researchers at the University of Nevada are developing. Most of the folks I know creating biofuels at home today are doing it with used vegetable oil from local restaurants. Another trash item that even just ten years ago restaurants had to pay to dispose of. Now they can sell it.

This all reminds me of the movie “Back to the Future” where the mad scientist toss’s some garbage in the car’s engine and off they go at warp speed. Why are we paying to move our garbage sometimes thousands of miles away when it can be a fuel source?