You are on page 1of 8

DDI 2008

SS -- Gulakov
A2 CMR Link
Air force wants algae—it’s clean and fast
COLUMBUS DISPATCH 8 (6/24, Professor's new science project: fuel from algae,
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/science/stories/2008/06/24/sci_sayre.ART_ART_06-24-
08_B4_1OAHFSS.html?sid=101, AG)

Of his newest project -- to create an alternative to petroleum-based fuels for the Air Force --
Sayre said algae produces oil that contains twice the energy of ethanol made from other plants.
Researchers say that a pond the size of New Jersey could produce enough fuel to supply the
transportation needs of the country. By contrast, an area larger than the United States would be
needed to grow enough corn to meet the nation's energy needs. Eric Jarvis, a senior scientist at
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., said algae can be grown in the
ocean or a desert pond, grow and feed on wastewater or literally eat air pollutants produced by a
power plant. Within three years, the Air Force wants algae systems capable of making 50 million
gallons of fuel per year, Sayre said. He expects algae-based fuel to start becoming available to
the public in three to five years.
DDI 2008
SS -- Gulakov
Coal CP 2AC
1. Perm—do both—offer long-term contracts for both algae and coal
a. Solves coal disad—artificial net benefit—if coal industry wants Air Force to be a
buyer of coal, than guaranteed contracts solve—zero risk of a tradeoff because
it’s a guaranteed long-term contract that ensures growth—their link assumes
market-based competition for development
b. Solves CMR—perm gives the airforce MORE CHOICE of what it wants, instead of
forcing the airforce into mandatory purchases of uncertain businesses—if
military hates algae, they’ll just use all coal instead

2. Emissions net benefit—


a.Federal law means air force can’t offer contract to coal industry because unless
it’s combined with algae to reduce plant emissions
AP 8 (3/31, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23811258/page/2/print/1/displaymode/1098, AG)

Tempering that vision, analysts say, is the astronomical cost of coal-to-liquids plants. Their high
price tag, up to $5 billion apiece, would be hard to justify if oil prices were to drop. In addition,
coal has drawn wide opposition on Capitol Hill, where some leading lawmakers reject claims it
can be transformed into a clean fuel. Without emissions controls, experts say coal-to-liquids
plants could churn out double the greenhouse gases as oil. "We don't want new sources of
energy that are going to make the greenhouse gas problem even worse," House Oversight
Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said in a recent interview. The Air Force would not
finance, construct or operate the coal plant. Instead, it has offered private developers a 700-acre
site on the base and a promise that it would be a ready customer as the government's largest
fuel consumer. Bids on the project are due in May. Construction is expected to take four years
once the Air Force selects a developer. Reach half of fleet by 2016? Anderson said the Air Force
plans to fuel half its North American fleet with a synthetic-fuel blend by 2016. To do so, it would
need 400 million gallons of coal-based fuel annually. With the Air Force paving the way,
Anderson said the private sector would follow — from commercial air fleets to long-haul trucking
companies. "Because of our size, we can move the market along," he said. "Whether it's (coal-
based) diesel that goes into Wal-Mart trucks or jet fuel that goes into our fighters, all that will
reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is the endgame." Coal producers have been
unsuccessful in prior efforts to cultivate such a market. Climate change worries prompted
Congress last year to turn back an attempt to mandate the use of coal-based synthetic fuels.
The Air Force's involvement comes at a critical time for the industry. Coal's biggest customers,
electric utilities, have scrapped at least four dozen proposed coal-fired power plants over rising
costs and the uncertainties of climate change. That would change quickly if coal-to-liquids plants
gained political and economic traction under the Air Force's plan. "This is a change agent for the
entire industry," said John Baardson, CEO of Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., which is awaiting
permits on a proposed $5 billion coal-based synthetic fuels plant in Ohio. "There would be a
number of plants that would be needed just to support (the Air Force's) needs alone." Only about
15 percent of the 25,000 barrels of synthetic fuel that would be produced daily at the Malmstrom
plant would be suitable for jet fuel. The remainder would be lower-grade diesel for vehicles,
trains or trucks and naphtha, a material used in the chemical industry. That means the Air Force
would need at least seven plants of the same size to meet its 2016 goal, said Col. Bobbie "Griff"
Griffin, senior assistant to Anderson. Coal producers have their sights set even higher. A 2006
report from the National Coal Council said a fully mature coal-to-liquids industry serving the
commercial sector could produce 2.6 million barrels of fuel a day by 2025. Such an industry
would more than double the nation's coal production, according to the industry-backed Coal-to-
Liquids Coalition. On Wall Street, however, skepticism lingers. "Is it a viable technology?
Certainly it is. The challenge seems to be getting the first couple (of plants) done," said industry
analyst Gordon Howald with Calyon Securities. "For a company to commit to this and then five
DDI 2008
SS -- Gulakov
years later oil is back at $60 — this becomes the worst idea that ever happened." Only two coal-
to-liquids plants are now operating worldwide, all in South Africa. A third is scheduled to come
online in China this year, said Corey Henry with the Coal-to-Liquids Coalition. The Air Force is
adamant it can advance the technology used in those plants to turn dirty coal into a "green fuel,"
by capturing the carbon dioxide and other, more toxic emissions produced during manufacturing.
However, that would not address emissions from burning the fuel, said Robert Williams, a senior
research scientist at Princeton University. To do more than simply break even, the industry must
reduce the amount of coal used in the synthetic-fuel blend and supplement it with a fuel derived
from plants, Williams said. Air force officials said they were investigating that possibility. In a
recent letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Rep. Waxman wrote that a promise to control
greenhouse gas emissions from synthetic fuels was not enough. Waxman and the committee's
ranking Republican, Virginia's Tom Davis, cited a provision in the energy bill approved by
Congress last year that bars federal agencies from entering contracts for synthetic
fuels unless they emit the same or fewer greenhouse gases as petroleum.
DDI 2008
SS -- Gulakov
Coal CP 2AC
b.Perm solves—algae will absorb the emissions of coal plants
Melcher 8 (Koan, 2/8, From Petri Dish to Gas Pump, http://www.miller-mccune.com/article/162,
AG)

Arizona Public Service Company (APS) is taking a different tact. It has partnered with GreenFuel
Technologies of Cambridge, Mass., to test the feasibility of recycling carbon dioxide emissions
from its Redhawk gas-fired power plant. Using GreenFuel’s trademarked technology, smokestack
emissions are trapped and transferred to containers holding algae, which consume carbon
dioxide and multiply. Estimates are that for every acre of algae grown on the plant site, 150 tons
of carbon dioxide can be absorbed — possibly 80 percent of the total emissions from the plant.
In addition, algae’s nontoxic leftovers have value, too: APS says the starches can be turned into
ethanol and the proteins into livestock food. APS was the first to use algae biomass produced
on-site to create transportation-grade biofuels and received a Global Energy Award in 2006 for
the accomplishment. However, early tests have not been without their problems. At Redhawk,
the algae grew too fast, overwhelming GreenFuel’s ability to harvest the oil. The company has
come up with another approach and is looking to test the mighty alga’s ability to fight
environmental crime at its Four Corners coal-fired plant. The company also is testing its
technology at a 1,489-megawatt coal-fueled power plant in New Roads, La.

[insert co2 impact]

3. Mercury net benefit


a.Coal plants produce mercury which collapse ecosystems and cause retarded
babies
SFChronicle 6 (9/20, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0920-09.htm, AG)

Mercury pollution from power plants and other industrial sources has accumulated in birds,
mammals and reptiles across the country, and only cuts in emissions can curtail the
contamination, says a report released Tuesday by a national environmental group. The report is
the first major compilation of studies investigating mercury buildup in such wildlife as California
clapper rails, Maine's bald eagles, Canadian loons and Florida panthers. In all, scientists working
with the National Wildlife Federation found 65 studies showing troublesome mercury levels in 40
species. "From songbirds to alligators, turtles to bats, eagles to polar bears, mercury is
accumulating in nearly every link of the food chain,'' said Catherine Bowes, an author of the
report who manages the federation's mercury program in the northeastern states. High mercury
levels in popular fish such as swordfish and canned albacore tuna prompted government health
warnings in 2004 aimed at pregnant women and children. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can
damage fetuses and cause mental retardation, learning disabilities, cerebral palsy, blindness and
deafness. The contamination also can kill or harm wildlife. According to the study: -- Common
loons stopping at Walker Lake in Nevada on their way to Saskatchewan have been contaminated
with mercury lingering from past gold mining operations. -- At least one endangered Florida
panther has died from mercury poisoning, probably from consuming raccoons with high mercury
levels. -- Western and Clarke's grebes in Clearlake (Lake County) have shown altered hormone
levels because of mercury poisoning. -- River otters in New York, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts
and Nova Scotia have elevated levels of mercury and in some places are showing such
neurological effects as difficulty in walking. One otter died from mercury poisoning. Airborne
mercury, which eventually falls to the land and water, comes mostly from coal-fired power plants
or medical and trash incinerators. Sewage treatment plants, chlorine-manufacturing plants and
runoff from abandoned gold and mercury mines can flow directly into water and wetlands.
DDI 2008
SS -- Gulakov
b.Fortunately, GMO algae will solve mercury pollution
ScienceDaily 6 (5/29, Ultrasound And Algae Team Up To Clean Mercury From Sediments,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060329085054.htm, AG)

Weavers and He joined with Richard Sayre, professor of plant, cellular and molecular biology at
Ohio State, and Surasak Siripornadulsil, a former graduate student in the university's biophysics
program. Sayre's team has genetically modified a species of algae to boost its natural ability to
absorb heavy metals. In laboratory tests, student He vibrated an ultrasonic probe inside beakers
containing water, sediment, and algae. The vibrations freed mercury from the sediment, and
within seconds, the algae adsorbed up to 60 percent of the mercury from the water. The
combined system of ultrasound and algae removed 30 percent of the mercury from sediment
within the first few minutes. There are alternative cleanup methods that also absorb a high
percentage of metals, Sayre admitted, but they are less selective -- they absorb all metals. His
modified algae species absorbs five times the normal amount of a select group of toxic metals,
including mercury, cadmium, copper, and zinc.

c.Cross-apply their ecosystems impact


DDI 2008
SS -- Gulakov
COAL CP X2 Coal = Unclean
Coal to liquid produces twice more emissions than petroleum—their clean coal cards
don’t assume this
Natural Resources Defense Council 7 (Why Liquid Coal Is Not a Viable Option to Move
America Beyond Oil, http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf, AG)

Global Warming CO2 Emissions Could Nearly Double With Liquid Coal Experts say we need to cut
global warming emissions by 60 to 80 percent by mid-century to minimize irreversible and
harmful effects of global warming. The United States and other nations should use energy
resources that produce less carbon dioxide pollution than that produced by oil, gas, and coal.
And the technologies we invest in now to meet our future energy needs must have the potential
to perform at much reduced emission levels. So how do liquid coal processes perform? To assess
the global warming implications of a large liquid coal program, we need to examine the total life
cycle, or “well-to-wheel”, emissions of these new fuels. Coal is a carbon-intensive fuel, containing
almost double the amount of carbon per unit of energy compared to natural gas and about 20
percent more than petroleum. Proponents of coal-derived liquids claim they are “clean” because
the fuel is sulfur-free, but when coal is converted to transportation fuel, two streams of carbon
dioxide (CO2) are produced: one at liquid coal production plants and one from exhaust pipes of
the vehicles that burn the fuel. Emissions from liquid coal production plants are much higher
than those from producing and refining crude oil to produce gasoline, diesel, and other
transportation fuels; emissions from vehicles are about the same. The total well-to-wheels
emission rate for conventional petroleum-derived fuel is about 27 pounds of CO2 per gallon of
fuel. If the CO2 from the liquid coal plant is released into the atmosphere, based on available
information about liquid coal plants being proposed, the total wellto- wheels CO2 emissions from
coal-derived fuel would be about 50 pounds of CO2 per gallon— nearly twice as high. Introducing
a new fuel system that doubles the current CO2 emissions of our crude oil system is clearly at
odds with our need to reduce global warming emissions. Even If the CO2 Is Captured, Liquid Coal
Still Pollutes More Than Current System If the CO2 from liquid coal plants is captured instead of
being released into the atmosphere, then well-to-wheels CO2 emissions would be reduced some
but would still be higher than emissions from today’s crude oil system. Even capturing 90
percent of the emissions from liquid coal plants leaves emissions at levels somewhat higher
than those from petroleum production and refining; emissions from the vehicle using the
coal-derived liquid fuels are equivalent to those from a gasoline vehicle. As a result, with CO2
capture well-towheels emissions from coal-derived liquids fuels would be 8 percent higher than
for petroleum.
DDI 2008
SS -- Gulakov
Inherency—Oil Prices/Private Sector Don’t Sovle
Incentives key—high oil prices won’t overcome upfront costs of algae
Popular Mechanics 8 (5/29, Algae Startups Confront Promise of Miracle Fuel With Big Summer,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4266137.html?series=19, AG)

Two years ago, there were less than a handful of companies chasing the next wave of so-called
"pond scum" power. Today, there are dozens, many backed by big energy industry players such
as Chevron and Shell. Last year, DARPA granted UOP $6.7 million to study how "second-
generation" feedstocks, or nonfood crops, could turn into JP-8 jet fuel for U.S. Air Force and NATO
fighters. Just this month, Airbus and JetBlue announced goals to replace 30 percent of jet fuel
with second-gen biofuels by 2030. Air New Zealand and Dutch airline KLM have similar plans in
the works. All that's missing, for now, is all that oil they need to refine. "It's frustrating for the
outside world, but we've been learning how to do agriculture for about 5000 years, and we've
been learning how to make oil from algae now for only a couple of years. So there's a lot of
learning, and the curve is pretty steep," Wilson says. "This is probably going to be the first
summer that you're getting anything more than just test tubes of oil produced." This is algae's
second coming. The first attempt, run by the U.S. government in the wake of the last oil crisis,
was killed in 1996 by the Clinton administration while oil hovered around $20 per barrel. But
even now, with record-high petroleum prices, algae stands in no position to compete,
and hurdles remain at every stage of production.
DDI 2008
SS -- Gulakov
A2 GMO Ecosystems Turn
GMO algae won’t hurt ecosystems—their ev assumes wild algae, not industry growth
Popular Mechanics 8 (5/29, Algae Startups Confront Promise of Miracle Fuel With Big Summer,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4266137.html?series=19, AG)

A number of pilot plants scheduled to come online in the next several months will likely give the
most accurate glimpse of algae's future: how much oil it can produce, how soon and whether it
will live up to its promise. GreenFuel, one of the oldest names in algae, already operates a pilot
plant in Arizona, where it houses algae in large, clear plastic bags. Solix will break ground this
summer on a new plant in Colorado, growing algae in what are essentially 325-ft.-long, 1.5-ft.-
high freezer pops, suspended vertically in shallow pools; a smaller array, with eight 65-ft.-long
bioreactors, has entered production in recent weeks. HR BioPetroleum, which signed a deal with
Shell last year to produce biodiesel from algae, is currently building a pilot plant in Hawaii using a
"hybrid system"—growth begins in long, clear, horizontal tubes before being dumped into open
ponds to multiply further. Blitzing the ponds with algae for a short time has the advantage of
rendering species invasion a nonissue, the company says.