SubsidyEye

Algae Biofuel Sustainable Markets: Stocks to Benefit

I agree with Long_on_oil: in the biofuels world there is a vast difference between technical feasibility and economic feasibility. Journalists and bloggers need to be asking questions about the latter and not just the former.

The articles about the planned algae-fuelled power plant in Venice, Italy are long on hype and short on details:

ecoworldly.com/2009/03.../

First the articles say that "Italy recently announced a 200 million euro eco-friendly project TO HARVEST the prolific seaweed that lines Venice’s canals and transform it into emissions-free energy." [My emphasis.] Then the article says "The algae will be cultivated in laboratories and put in plastic cylinders where water, carbon dioxide, and sunshine can trigger photosynthesis. The resulting biomass will be treated further to produce a fuel to turn turbines."

Well, which is it, folks? Will the algae be harvested, dried, and then combusted as a solid fuel? Or is it going to be cultivated, and then treated (i.e., oils extracted?) so that it can be used as a fuel in gas turbines?

I'll believe this one when I see it.

Sustainable Bio-Fuel Aviation Performs Well

Web link for the "Beginner’s Guide to Aviation Biofuels" :

enviro.aero/Content/Up...

Sustainable Bio-Fuel Aviation Performs Well

Biojet is definitely a good fuel, technically. But what matters in the end is cost, and right now the cost of producing biojet is at least twice that of petroleum-derived jet A-1 kerosene. If the cost of production can be brought down through technological breakthroughs, great. But the industry is clearly looking to the government for more than just help on the R&D side, and that is what is worrying. According to the recently published, "Beginner’s Guide to Aviation Biofuels" (p. 20):

"The main hurdles are in attracting investment for biofuels production and distribution and ensuring that the industry has access to this biofuel stock, at a price that is costcompetitive with traditional jet fuel.

"The industry has called on governments to assist potential biofuel suppliers to develop the necessary feedstock and refining systems – at least until the fledgling industry has achieved the necessary critical mass.

"The positive incentives required include:

"(1) Assistance in identifying the most suitable areas in which to grow these crops.

"(2) Support in starting the farming and production of algae – building of facilities, hiring labour resources, buying seeds and setting up any irrigation components.

"(3) Incentives for companies to develop the processing and refining capacity needed to turn raw feedstock into biofuel crude oil and then into biojet fuel.

"(4) Positive fiscal and legal frameworks to facilitate the economic viability of these new types of fuels so that airlines can use them as quickly as possible."

When an industry starts referring cryptically to "incentives" and "positive fiscal and legal frameworks to facilitate ... economic viability" it is time to check your wallets. While, personally, I cannot see governments being willing to bridge the enormous cost gap between petroleum jet and biojet, stupider things have happened.

Don't forget: subsidies to ethanol and biodiesel were time limited and supposed to last only "until the fledgling industry ha[d] achieved the necessary critical mass." Well, the ethanol industry has long surpassed the level of "critical mass", yet it has no intention of giving up its subsidies. And the biodiesel industry -- dependent on the same lipid feedstocks as the makers of biojet -- will likely never be economically viable, and yet governments continue to keep it on a life-support system.