Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Wow James, that's a lot of detail. Maybe some of these costs could be offset by providing the service of algae removal from recreational lakes? Clear Lake, California could use a cleanup: https://www.google.com/search?q=clear+lake+algaesource=lnmstbm=isch On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, and if you want to really get nasty, ask them if they've done a quantitative analysis within an order of magnitude as comprehensive as this: http://diogenesinstitute.org/index.php/Fullspreadsheet On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:03 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: None of these guys advertise their capex per area. That's the first question you should ask of anyone who claims they've solved the algae problem. On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: Just linking this company, which claim the same: http://solazyme.com/ The Fools have been billing it as a money maker: http://stockgumshoe.com/reviews/motley-fool-hidden-gems/revealing-the-fools-silicon-valley-oil-superstar-1-company-pulling-profits-out-of-thin-air/ On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, I was referring to the world as companies like Exxon which wasted a huge amount of money on algae biofuels. They could have had what they wanted, no genetic engineering or special strains, for under $10M. On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54 -0600: Hi, [snip] The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. ...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
When you're talking about photosynthesizing all of the CO2 effluent from US power plants, you had better get into the details because in macroengineering little things like, oh, say, phosphorus, can blow up in your face as they saturate existing capacity. So, yeah, the devil is in the details. On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Wow James, that's a lot of detail. Maybe some of these costs could be offset by providing the service of algae removal from recreational lakes? Clear Lake, California could use a cleanup: https://www.google.com/search?q=clear+lake+algaesource=lnmstbm=isch On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, and if you want to really get nasty, ask them if they've done a quantitative analysis within an order of magnitude as comprehensive as this: http://diogenesinstitute.org/index.php/Fullspreadsheet On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:03 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: None of these guys advertise their capex per area. That's the first question you should ask of anyone who claims they've solved the algae problem. On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: Just linking this company, which claim the same: http://solazyme.com/ The Fools have been billing it as a money maker: http://stockgumshoe.com/reviews/motley-fool-hidden-gems/revealing-the-fools-silicon-valley-oil-superstar-1-company-pulling-profits-out-of-thin-air/ On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, I was referring to the world as companies like Exxon which wasted a huge amount of money on algae biofuels. They could have had what they wanted, no genetic engineering or special strains, for under $10M. On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54 -0600: Hi, [snip] The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. ...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
In reply to James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54 -0600: Hi, [snip] The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. ...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Actually, I was referring to the world as companies like Exxon which wasted a huge amount of money on algae biofuelshttp://www.technologyreview.com/view/515041/exxon-takes-algae-fuel-back-to-the-drawing-board/. They could have had what they wanted, no genetic engineering or special strains, for under $10M. On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54 -0600: Hi, [snip] The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. ...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Just linking this company, which claim the same: http://solazyme.com/ The Fools have been billing it as a money maker: http://stockgumshoe.com/reviews/motley-fool-hidden-gems/revealing-the-fools-silicon-valley-oil-superstar-1-company-pulling-profits-out-of-thin-air/ On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, I was referring to the world as companies like Exxon which wasted a huge amount of money on algae biofuelshttp://www.technologyreview.com/view/515041/exxon-takes-algae-fuel-back-to-the-drawing-board/. They could have had what they wanted, no genetic engineering or special strains, for under $10M. On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54 -0600: Hi, [snip] The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. ...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
None of these guys advertise their capex per area. That's the first question you should ask of anyone who claims they've solved the algae problem. On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: Just linking this company, which claim the same: http://solazyme.com/ The Fools have been billing it as a money maker: http://stockgumshoe.com/reviews/motley-fool-hidden-gems/revealing-the-fools-silicon-valley-oil-superstar-1-company-pulling-profits-out-of-thin-air/ On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, I was referring to the world as companies like Exxon which wasted a huge amount of money on algae biofuelshttp://www.technologyreview.com/view/515041/exxon-takes-algae-fuel-back-to-the-drawing-board/. They could have had what they wanted, no genetic engineering or special strains, for under $10M. On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54 -0600: Hi, [snip] The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. ...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Oh, and if you want to really get nasty, ask them if they've done a quantitative analysis within an order of magnitude as comprehensive as this: http://diogenesinstitute.org/index.php/Fullspreadsheet On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:03 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: None of these guys advertise their capex per area. That's the first question you should ask of anyone who claims they've solved the algae problem. On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: Just linking this company, which claim the same: http://solazyme.com/ The Fools have been billing it as a money maker: http://stockgumshoe.com/reviews/motley-fool-hidden-gems/revealing-the-fools-silicon-valley-oil-superstar-1-company-pulling-profits-out-of-thin-air/ On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, I was referring to the world as companies like Exxon which wasted a huge amount of money on algae biofuelshttp://www.technologyreview.com/view/515041/exxon-takes-algae-fuel-back-to-the-drawing-board/. They could have had what they wanted, no genetic engineering or special strains, for under $10M. On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54 -0600: Hi, [snip] The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. ...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 11:13:48 AM My interest in algae was never about energy. It was about food. I thought Soylent Green solved that problem. I think that in the medium term biofuel could serve as an important energy transport mechanism, particularly for remote off-grid generators, and remote consumption. (Taking a pessimistic view of Cold Fusion market penetration).
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
The urgency for alternative fuels production capability has been negated by the emerging energy independence of the US. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 11:13:48 AM My interest in algae was never about energy. It was about food. I thought Soylent Green solved that problem. I think that in the medium term biofuel could serve as an important energy transport mechanism, particularly for remote off-grid generators, and remote consumption. (Taking a pessimistic view of Cold Fusion market penetration).
[Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
RE: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this new technology from PNNL is very different. From: James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Cr ude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
I just got a response back from the Michigan crew: It's the same process with the addition that it is made continuous rather than batch. No one had any doubt that the process could be made continuous -- its straight forward process engineering -- but there just hadn't been a publication in the open literature. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
I agree entirely with your assessment, James. 10 years ago I was intimately engaged in biofuels,raising my own and even starting the first Company in the state to get a biofuel production plant up. However, in collaboration with various colleagues in academia and commerce, after a year of discussions, conferences etc we very deliberately gave up the whole idea. A couple smallish biodiesel plants did form around this time, and all went belly up very soon, for the very good economic (and also environmental) reasons you mention. Most people now are convinced that biofuels may very well make a nice small niche market in some places, but never a major fuel contributor. (Cold fusion cars need no biofuel!) cheers, ken On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: I agree entirely with your assessment, James. 10 years ago I was intimately engaged in biofuels,raising my own and even starting the first Company in the state to get a biofuel production plant up. However, in collaboration with various colleagues in academia and commerce, after a year of discussions, conferences etc we very deliberately gave up the whole idea. A couple smallish biodiesel plants did form around this time, and all went belly up very soon, for the very good economic (and also environmental) reasons you mention. Most people now are convinced that biofuels may very well make a nice small niche market in some places, but never a major fuel contributor. (Cold fusion cars need no biofuel!) cheers, ken On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
The short list of algal biomass production cost problems: 1) Capital cost per area of capturing insolation. 2) Operation of energy to sufficiently concentrate biomass from the growth medium. 3) Insurance against hail and other damaging weather conditions, to the capital equipment capturing insolation.. There are more but these have been the blocking factors in all systems that have actually gone to the trouble of demonstrating how much biomass they produce per investment. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: I agree entirely with your assessment, James. 10 years ago I was intimately engaged in biofuels,raising my own and even starting the first Company in the state to get a biofuel production plant up. However, in collaboration with various colleagues in academia and commerce, after a year of discussions, conferences etc we very deliberately gave up the whole idea. A couple smallish biodiesel plants did form around this time, and all went belly up very soon, for the very good economic (and also environmental) reasons you mention. Most people now are convinced that biofuels may very well make a nice small niche market in some places, but never a major fuel contributor. (Cold fusion cars need no biofuel!) cheers, ken On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Maybe so, but burning ANYthing for energy forever, is not a great idea. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The short list of algal biomass production cost problems: 1) Capital cost per area of capturing insolation. 2) Operation of energy to sufficiently concentrate biomass from the growth medium. 3) Insurance against hail and other damaging weather conditions, to the capital equipment capturing insolation.. There are more but these have been the blocking factors in all systems that have actually gone to the trouble of demonstrating how much biomass they produce per investment. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: I agree entirely with your assessment, James. 10 years ago I was intimately engaged in biofuels,raising my own and even starting the first Company in the state to get a biofuel production plant up. However, in collaboration with various colleagues in academia and commerce, after a year of discussions, conferences etc we very deliberately gave up the whole idea. A couple smallish biodiesel plants did form around this time, and all went belly up very soon, for the very good economic (and also environmental) reasons you mention. Most people now are convinced that biofuels may very well make a nice small niche market in some places, but never a major fuel contributor. (Cold fusion cars need no biofuel!) cheers, ken On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Correct. My interest in algae was never about energy. It was about food. My dad won the National Clean Plowing Championships two years running. Algae has been the next green revolution for a long time but now its time has come. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe so, but burning ANYthing for energy forever, is not a great idea. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The short list of algal biomass production cost problems: 1) Capital cost per area of capturing insolation. 2) Operation of energy to sufficiently concentrate biomass from the growth medium. 3) Insurance against hail and other damaging weather conditions, to the capital equipment capturing insolation.. There are more but these have been the blocking factors in all systems that have actually gone to the trouble of demonstrating how much biomass they produce per investment. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.comwrote: I agree entirely with your assessment, James. 10 years ago I was intimately engaged in biofuels,raising my own and even starting the first Company in the state to get a biofuel production plant up. However, in collaboration with various colleagues in academia and commerce, after a year of discussions, conferences etc we very deliberately gave up the whole idea. A couple smallish biodiesel plants did form around this time, and all went belly up very soon, for the very good economic (and also environmental) reasons you mention. Most people now are convinced that biofuels may very well make a nice small niche market in some places, but never a major fuel contributor. (Cold fusion cars need no biofuel!) cheers, ken On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
