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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]>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/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
