If this guy has it his way, we'll be fueling our cars with this stuff in the near future. But is it as green as it looks?
I read an article just recently that really impressed me. Many articles about renewable energy sources tend to gloss over the downsides of a particular technology and present a very simplified view of the overall environmental merit of the ‘renewable’ energy source. Perhaps simplifying the science behind new technology is the point of science review articles, but I also feel that this approach is dangerous, particularly when we make policy based on these rosy assesments. The article I’m writing about today addresses both the shortcomings of algal biofuels production and then suggests modifications that would make algae a more environmentally friendly biofuel source.
The NYTimes Green Inc. blog recently reviewed a journal article published in Environmental Science and Technology that quantifies the costs and benefits of algae production. It turns out that algae, regarded as the most promising of all biofuel feedstocks because it doesn’t interfere with food production, may actually do more harm than good in terms of its contributions to climate change. The problem is that algae need nutrients to grow, which are delivered by dissolving synthetic fertilizers in the algae water. Nitrogen from these fertilizers volatizes to produce nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas with 310 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Crops such as corn and switchgrass, though, would have lower nitrous oxide emissions because they are able to absorb nutrients from the soil and require less fertilizer application. Identifying synthetic fertilizers as the culprit in making algae production environmentally unfriendly allows researchers and the public to reconsider conventional methods of algae production. The authors of the algae journal article suggest growing algae in municipal wastewater, which contains plenty of nitrogen and phosphorus that hungry algae need to grow and would decrease the required fertilizer input (and thus nitrous oxide emissions). This article and NYTimes review comes on the heels of a government pledge to spend $80 million of stimulus funds on biofuels research. What better timing than now to publish a work crucial to the development of algae mass production? Kudos to the paper’s authors, Andres F. Clarens, Eleazer P. Resurreccion, Mark A. White and Lisa M. Colosi, and also to the NYTimes Green Inc. Blog for summarizing this work in a single page story that sets the stage for a broader discussion of the environmental merits of algal biofuels.
Bottom Line: Taking a critical look at renewable energy sources and providing constructive commentary is great for ensuring that new energy technology provides the intended environmental benefits. So please, media outlets, spare us the simplified adulation of ‘green’ energy sources.
Our aim in this blog is to provide critique and commentary on world energy news in an effort to clarify the issues and allow the reader to reach an informed decision on energy issues.
Kudos are in order
If this guy has it his way, we'll be fueling our cars with this stuff in the near future. But is it as green as it looks?
I read an article just recently that really impressed me. Many articles about renewable energy sources tend to gloss over the downsides of a particular technology and present a very simplified view of the overall environmental merit of the ‘renewable’ energy source. Perhaps simplifying the science behind new technology is the point of science review articles, but I also feel that this approach is dangerous, particularly when we make policy based on these rosy assesments. The article I’m writing about today addresses both the shortcomings of algal biofuels production and then suggests modifications that would make algae a more environmentally friendly biofuel source.
The NYTimes Green Inc. blog recently reviewed a journal article published in Environmental Science and Technology that quantifies the costs and benefits of algae production. It turns out that algae, regarded as the most promising of all biofuel feedstocks because it doesn’t interfere with food production, may actually do more harm than good in terms of its contributions to climate change. The problem is that algae need nutrients to grow, which are delivered by dissolving synthetic fertilizers in the algae water. Nitrogen from these fertilizers volatizes to produce nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas with 310 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Crops such as corn and switchgrass, though, would have lower nitrous oxide emissions because they are able to absorb nutrients from the soil and require less fertilizer application. Identifying synthetic fertilizers as the culprit in making algae production environmentally unfriendly allows researchers and the public to reconsider conventional methods of algae production. The authors of the algae journal article suggest growing algae in municipal wastewater, which contains plenty of nitrogen and phosphorus that hungry algae need to grow and would decrease the required fertilizer input (and thus nitrous oxide emissions). This article and NYTimes review comes on the heels of a government pledge to spend $80 million of stimulus funds on biofuels research. What better timing than now to publish a work crucial to the development of algae mass production? Kudos to the paper’s authors, Andres F. Clarens, Eleazer P. Resurreccion, Mark A. White and Lisa M. Colosi, and also to the NYTimes Green Inc. Blog for summarizing this work in a single page story that sets the stage for a broader discussion of the environmental merits of algal biofuels.
Bottom Line: Taking a critical look at renewable energy sources and providing constructive commentary is great for ensuring that new energy technology provides the intended environmental benefits. So please, media outlets, spare us the simplified adulation of ‘green’ energy sources.