If you want a comprehensive snapshot of the state of algae biofuel development you may want to read a 178-report put out by the Energy Biosciences Institute in California. RenewableEnergyWorld.com hits the key findings in this article, but the general observation is that the market is in “early gestation” and there’s at least a decade to go before algae biofuels — specifically, those based on algae oils — achieve the production economics that make them competitive with conventional fuels. “It is clear from this report that algae oil production will be neither quick nor plentiful — 10 years is a reasonable projection for the R&D to allow the conclusion about the ability to achieve relatively low-cost algae biomass and oil production, at least for specific locations,” according to the report, which also goes far in separating hype from reality. “Despite the scores, if not over 100, companies in the U.S., and more abroad, now in this field, there are as yet (mid-2010) no pilot plants (> 100 mt algae biomass/yr) for autotrophic algae biofuels production operating in the U.S. or elsewhere… The total output from all experimental facilities over the past year was only a few tons of biomass and less than 100 gallons of actual algae oil, if that much.”

I should point out that the report specifically excludes analysis of algae-to-ethanol production, such as that being pursued by Algenol, which says it is only a few years away from commercial-scale deployment.

Overall, I found the report to be a bit of a downer. “The availability of the resources required for microalgae production — land, climate, water, and, perhaps most critically, carbon dioxide — at the same site, will likely limit the U.S. potential for algae oil production to less than a few billion gallons annually. While minor compared to total U.S. transportation fuels consumption (about 200 billion gallons per year), renewable algae oil could be a major contributor to biofuel resources, particularly in specific markets, such as aviation fuel.” I agree on the last part with regards to jet fuel, but I’m a bit more optimistic on the overall market impact. The good news is that 10 years isn’t such a long time to wait, unless you’re a VC firm waiting to cash out.

There was a big stink this week when a published study, led by University of Virginia civil engineering professor Andres Clarens, concluded that producing biofuels from algae isn’t as climate-friendly as many people believe, at least when compared to getting biofuels from switchgrass, canola, and – Huh? — even corn. The results, according to an abstract of the study, “indicate that these conventional crops have a lower environmental impact than algae in energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water regardless of cultivation location.” Why? Because of the need to supply more nutrients — i.e. fertilizer — to algae to stimulate growth, and fertilizer is energy-intensive to produce.

The problem with this conclusion? Clarens based the life-cycle analysis on data that was mostly 10 years old. For example, some current algae cultivation practices, particularly those based on wastewater or sea water, tackle the fertilizer issue head on. So the age of the data is an important bit of information that should have been made very clear in the study — even the abstract. Ten years in the world of technology, particular cleantech, is a long time. I mean, the big R&D push around algae-based fuels only began three or four years ago, and 10 years ago the “cleantech” sector didn’t exist in name. Ten years ago the world was still wrapping its head around Y2K, George W. Bush was just getting into office, Google was still a start-up years from going public, and the TV show CSI (the original one) had its world premiere. In other words, you can expect data about algae cultivation to be, well, rather useless as a reflection of current practices.

This isn’t to blame Clarens. As he told the New York Times’ Green Inc., the most current data out there is simply unavailable to academia. It’s proprietary. (more…)