ALGAE, THE CLIMATE BILL, “CLEAN” COAL AND NEW NUCLEAR

ACCCE Statement Regarding the Kerry-Boxer, 'Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act'
September 30, 2009 (PR Newswire)
and
Interest in algae's oil prospects is growing; Firms and scientists are racing to figure out how best to separate the oil produced in the organisms for biofuel. The San Diego area has become a hotbed for these efforts that are drawing investors.
Tiffany Hsu, September 17, 2009 (LA Times)
and
A sampling of algae biofuel firms in Southern California
September 17, 2009 (LA Times)

SUMMARY
Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) have introduced their Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, which will serve as the Senate's template for energy and climate legislation as Washington's effort to kick-start New Energy and fight global climate change moves forward. The bill has already kick-started controversy.

Following the Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill, its House prototype, the Boxer-Kerry legislation includes (1) a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) requiring regulated utilities to obtain a portion of their power from New Energy sources by a date certain, (2) billions in subsidies, incentives and loan guarantees for New Energy, Energy Efficiency, high voltage smart transmission, alternate fuel vehicles, “clean” coal and new nuclear, and (3) a cap&trade greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions reduction system and an emissions allowances marketplace to facilitate the GhG cuts.

So far, the most widely discussed and already controversial aspect of the Senate proposal is that it ups the House bill’s requirement to cut GhGs 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Boxer-Kerry calls for a 20% reduction.

After paying lip service to the Boxer-Kerry effort (“we want to recognize the work by Chairwoman Boxer and Chairman Kerry to provide a starting point for debating”), the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) – “clean” coal’s biggest apologists (see COAL CAUGHT LYING AGAIN) – stuck the knife in, asserting that the bill’s increased GhG reductions are too demanding.

The criticism highlights a curiosity that “clean” coal – as well as new nuclear – share, oddly, with the super high-tech efforts to turn algae into a biofuel.

click to enlarge

COMMENTARY
The loudest attack on the yet-to-be fleshed out Boxer-Kerry bill came from conservative elements who advocate for “clean” coal and new nuclear as the right choices to meet U.S. energy demand.

“Clean” coal and new nuclear have a lot in common, starting with the fact that neither exists (except as small-scale, ambiguously successful, overly expensive pilot projects). Hence, ACCCE’s carefully worded endorsement of the Boxer-Kerry support for “new technologies.”

Another thing the 2 Old Energies have in common is that they would be prohibitively costly to implement. (See COAL EXEC ADMITS "CLEAN" COAL IS UNLIKELY & TOO EXPENSIVE and TOO-HIGH COST OF NUCLEAR ENERGY) That is why ACCCE seems so willing to work with the Boxer-Kerry legislation. Both the Senate bill and its already-passed House model contain big funding for research, development and demonstration (R,D&D) and loan guarantees for “clean” coal and new nuclear projects that would otherwise likely not find financing.

click to enlarge

What does this have to do with algae?

The LA Times, taking note of a raft of important and relatively new high-tech firms in Southern California doing innovative research into transforming algal oils into biofuel (including Biolight Harvesting Inc., Kent Bioenergy Corp., Sapphire Energy, General Atomics, Science Applications International Corp., Kai Bioenergy Corp., Carbon Capture Corp., Synthetic Genomics Inc., OriginOil Inc., Scipio Biofuels Inc. and Community Fuels), profiled the cutting edge concept.

Venture capitalists put $176 million in algal research in 2008. In San Diego alone, the algal oil industry employs nearly 300 people with a $16+ million payroll and puts $33 million a year into the economy.

click to enlarge

Exxon Mobil Corp. recently invested $600 million in Synthetic Genomics Inc. and General Atomics and Science Applications International Corp. were awarded ~$50 million from the Defense Department for algae fuel research.

Algae advocates call them “nature’s solar panels” because they turn sunlight, carbon dioxide and water into the energy that fuels their oil-making metabolism. The promise is that the algae can eventually be grown and their oils refined cost effectively. At present, the tech companies are experimenting with a wide variety of algae in a wide variety of environments and none of the options are as yet economic or being done at utility scale.

There is much to lure researchers and investors. Among the many, many thousands of algae types, there are those that grow in every imaginable environment. This means that if the growing process can be controlled and the refining process can be perfected, an algae industry could be created almost anywhere.

click to enlarge

Algae eat carbon dioxide and have been grown on the spew of fossil fuel power plants in waste water. They also eat almost any organic matter and have been grown in porous bags of human waste floating in the ocean. This does not make algae an answer to coal plant spew or urban sewage, just a way to reduce them productively.

Algae are hugely more prolific than any other plant-based biofuel, with probably a 20-to-60 times higher per-acre yeild than palm oil, the next best. Algae for biofuel are a 250-to-750 times more productive use of land than corn for ethanol.

click to enlarge

And, just as the water they use can be recycled graywater and/or can be recycled for growing them, the land they require can be desert or otherwise arid and non-agricultural land.

Perhaps most importantly, algal oils can be refined into high-octane fuels that have already been shown by NASA and Continental Airlines to be serviceable in high performance jet planes, something once though impossible of biofuels. (See FLYING ON ALGAE) Algal oils, in fact, can be refined into any of the products that now require oil and natural gas as feedstocks. This means they offer a path away from petroleum and everything it represents, from the evils of importing it to its tailpipe and refinery toxicity.

The remaining obstacles to commercializing algae are (1) making the refining cost, now $20-to-$60 dollars per gallon, economic and (2) showing that production and refining can be done at commercial scale. Scientists at the high tech incubators in Southern California and many other places around the world are working on solutions.

click to enlarge

One difficulty in Southern California to overcoming both algae’s present limitations is that companies may have to get more than 15 permits before they can grow and refine algae. Why? Because algae are toxic to many environments and could do dreadful harm if were to escape and proliferate in the wrong environment.

Which brings the discussion back to new nuclear, “clean” coal and the Boxer-Kerry bill.

Advocates of Old Energy focus on the scale of the U.S. energy need and say there is simply no way New Energy can meet it. Therefore, their logic dictates, the only solutions are to go on spewing with dirty coal or make a massive investment in new nuclear and “clean” coal.

click to enlarge

Not true, but OK, fair enough. Just as long as nuclear plants – if anybody can afford the enormous capital costs and the 10-year pay-back period – are required to obtain a permit for the waste. Oh, wait, that’s right, they were going to put the waste in a hole in the ground in Nevada but for some reason the good citizens of Nevada didn’t care for the idea.

Well, if the algae research can’t go ahead until it’s permitted, nuclear ought to at least meet the same standard. After all, algae would just contaminate the environment; radioactive waste causes cancer in humans. But new nuclear will be a fine answer to the nation's energy needs when somebody is willing to issue a permit for storing the waste.

For “clean” coal, plant operators use one of 2 or 3 basic methods to capture the carbon dioxide (CO2) that is the main product of burning coal. They processes capture some of the other GhGs and toxic byproducts as well. The captured CO2 is then piped to geologic storage sites where “clean” coal proponents promise it will be sequestered permanently.

click to enlarge

Uh, about that “permanent” part: Like the radioactive waste from nuclear plants, nobody is actually willing to indemnify the sequesterers of CO2 on a long term basis. For currently developing pilot projects, operators have assured residents in the regions of the sequestrations there will be no harm from leakage. If there is, the federal government will take care of the problem.

There is a simple and obvious message in the fact that no private insurer will indemnify CO2 sequestration long-term: There can be no guarantee of safety. ACCCE and its coal industry clients say sequestration is safe and point to the 10-year success of sequestration at Norway’s Sliepner field in the North Sea.

Uh, about that Sleipner field: For many years, the proponents of carbon capture and sequestration touted Norway’s success at pumping a small portion of captured CO2 into deep geologic structures under the North Sea – but it turns out somebody noticed a leak last year. (See IS CO2 SEQUESTRATION SAFE? DOES THE WORLD KNOW NORWAY'S SECRET?) They aren’t sure how long it has been leaking but they promise they are going to fix it. When they find it. Meanwhile, caustic CO2 gas is bubbling up into the North Sea and the damage will be assessed - when they find that darn leak.

click to enlarge

Bottom line: Algae researchers admit it will probably be at least 5-to-10 years before they are ready to go with commercial production at market prices. Proponents of new nuclear and “clean” coal sort of forget to mention how far away they are from becoming a real solution to U.S. energy needs. It only becomes apparent how far off the pipe dreams they are promising really are when something like Boxer-Kerry comes up.

"Whoa! Whoa!" They scream. Sure. Let’s not get our knickers in a twist. Take our time, don’t get ambitious about stopping the GhG spew before it stops us. Nevermind that New Energy options like wind and solar and geothermal are non-toxic and ready to rumble.

ACCCE and other opponents of Boxer-Kerry and Congressional energy and climate legislation and New Energy imply that New Energy is the energy that is too expensive when the truth is that Old Energy has long been far more reliant of federal subsidies (see OLD ENERGY DEPENDS ON FED SUBSIDIES) and the solutions of new nuclear and “clean” coal will be a hugely greater cost burden to taxpayers.

They imply that the cost of stopping the spew will be unbearably burdensome to the taxpayer and the utility ratepayer when the truth is that the cost of slowing down to wait for the unaffordable and unworkable solutions of new nuclear and “clean” coal will leave the taxpayers and ratepayers paying far far more for dirty, imported and toxic energies and will leave the poor of the world holding the bag for global climate change.

A starting point for debate indeed. New Energy is ready now. All it lacks is the commitment and it will have the commitment when Old Energy advocates are forced to abandon their subterfuge and admit the truth: Old Energy is too expensive in dollars and too costly in the harms it does.

New Energy is ready to go now, it is the cheapest option in the long run and it presents no significant toxic waste danger to future generations. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- ACCCE statement on Boxer-Kerry: "ACCCE supports the adoption of a mandatory federal carbon management program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We believe any such program must be based on three goals: 1) bringing new technologies to the marketplace to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; 2) driving down the cost of deploying these technologies to protect access to affordable, reliable energy; and 3) meeting America's growing energy demand and the need for more energy independence with domestic fuels, including coal--America's most abundant fuel resource…Regarding today's introduction of cap-and-trade legislation…we want to recognize the work by Chairwoman Boxer and Chairman Kerry to provide a starting point for debating…our initial review indicates that the bill recognizes the importance of investing in new technologies, including carbon capture and storage…[but] the bill's aggressive emissions reduction target for 2020 may lead to short-sighted and expensive strategies…Equally important, the Kerry - Boxer bill does not provide a mechanism to guarantee protection for consumers against the possibility of price spikes…"

click to enlarge

- San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, on the local algae biofuel industry: "It's a critical industry, and it's kind of exploded…There's a long pattern of huge companies being spawned out of [UC San Diego] and our other research centers, and it's going to create a tremendous number of jobs."
- Mario C. Larach, CEO, Kai BioEnergy Corp.: "It's just a matter of scaling at this point…If nature can do it, we can do it."