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.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.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/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
