I understand what you mean, but my system scales with area. It can capture sea state and swell state energy, not just swell energy like some wave systems.
So, if the PBRs require low sea state, I guess it won't be compatible for integration into my wave farms. My wave farms will be deployed where there are lots of waves. I go where the storms are. Is the requirement of low sea state only imposed by the plastic bag material strength? Is there limitation on Algae productivity in the presence of vigorous stirring and shaking caused by high sea states? In other words, assuming the bag material is of sufficient strength, what happens if you shake the PBRs rather violently? Will it affect algae growth? It seems to me it won't and would probably improve growth due to more thorough mixing of gases and nutrients, am I correct? Here's what I'm thinking. I am thinking of integrating the PBRs with my floaters. My floaters are arranged in a grid 5'x5' square. I am thinking of several ways to integrate the PBRs 1. Use 4 floaters to anchor the corners of a 5'x5' PBR. This would shake the PBR rather violent since the floaters are bobbing up and down vigorously. 2. Use the top of the floater and lay the PBR on top of the floater. The top of the floater is 24" diameter circle. Each 3-5MW power station requires 10,800 floaters. So this is a lot of area for PBRs, but this would complicate piping. 3. Use a transparent floater which will serve as the PBR itself. Hence, algae grow inside the floater. They are protected from the storm as the floaters are made of relatively robust plastic material. The floaters themselves are designed to sway, tilt, submerge and move in response to strong waves and wind. Hence, hopefully I have designed them to survive a Cat5 hurricane. How small can each PBR be for it to make sense? Will a cylinder 24"D x 12"H work as a PBR? Increasing the diameter or height of the floater is an option. 4. Use a large sheet PBR and cover the entire area where the floaters are. the PBRs will be violently shaken and stirred as individual floaters bump up and down on it. Technique 1 appears to be the simplest and most economical as long as the PBR bag and the algae can resist violent shaking and up and down movement. Technique 2 offer a way to anchor the PBR on top of a floater which would protect it from strong forces and stresses during a storm. Technique 3 allows the integration of wave farm with food and oil production of algae but requires the use of transparent floaters which will increase cost of the floaters significantly, which may bring the total wave farm cost into uneconomic territory. Technique 4 offers a cheap way to deploy a large are PBR though it might present problems with the Algae growth and maintenance would be highly problematic. Of course, these assumes limited ocean area which may or may not be case. But I do want both the wave farm and the algae farm in the same general vicinity. That may not be possible if the PBRs absolutely require low sea states. How long is a growing cycle? from initial inoculation of the PBR to harvest. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Wave technology scales with length, not area. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: No need to be snippy my friend, I just want detailed information for an initial "go" "no go" decision. This is just initial due diligence. This initial research is simply to determine if this technology will be compatible with my wave farms. This will compete for ocean area against my wave farms so it is a concern. But, I will be doing more due diligence. No, I did not look at the DOE presentation yet as my focus right now is food production for humans. I will look at it later. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Here's the presentation from the European Algae Biomass 2013 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/Algae%20Platform%2024-25%20april%202013-2.pdf I defy you to find comparably detailed information about pricing, productivity, biomass concentration, etc. from ANY other algae technology company. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:33 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: And by the way did you even bother looking at the DoE proposal? I did provide you with the URL to my dropbox. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:30 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: You obviously haven't been looking at algae technology. I have for 20 years. Algasol has provided far more detailed and specific information than any other company in that 2 decades of research. The fact that you don't find it via Google is neither here nor there. Google is not due diligence. Any investment group that has any competent analysts could do what I did. Its not magic. You get on the phone and talk to people. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: James, I find myself increasingly interested in this technology yet am having difficulty in finding detailed information. The blogs you sent while helpful is a little incomplete for my needs. I am currently googling for Algasol but I find their web site skimpy on details, just lots of generalization and rhetoric on how revolutionary their tech could be. I need more just to even begin due diligence. Do you know of a site with a whitepaper, some pictures, deployment infrastructure, engineering drawings, etc of this technology. If you have some, please shoot them my way. James, could it be that the reason why this technology is not getting funded is as simple as skimpy information available. Could it be that the proponents of the technology are simply doing a lousy job of disseminating relevant information about the technology? If that is not the case, maybe I am just doing a lousy job of looking for it. Please send links or info my way. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 2:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors 1) Areal CAPEX is lower than open ponds. Specific OPEX, including energy, is well below that required for competition with crude oil. 2) No. The initial installations compete with open ponds. They are on dry land desert areas. You can get better economy in the ocean but you don't need it. You can beat crude oil and open ponds on dry land. Hail is the main threat on dry land and is dealt with by temporarily submerging the PBRs so the hail hits the flotation medium (brackish water). 3) Photobioreactors are closed hence contamination is excluded. 4) The food arithmetic is worked out in the article I sent previously. 5) No, the primary output would _not_ be for biofuel. Read the article I sent previously. Although it is true that the biomass can be used for fuel and would be competitive, the entire point of the prior link I sent is food -- not fuel. There is no more point in talking about a system for direct production of human food than there is in talking about growing soybeans for direct consumption by humans. It is even more absurd to talk about such direct consumption when you are already reducing areal requirements by a factor of 20 over soybeans. If you really insist on looking at biofuel from this system, here is the DoE proposal: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/3_0811-1538_LBNL_Project.pdf On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: Thanks James. I have a few questions: 1. What is the infrastructure cost of such an Alga6 photobioreactor? What is the ongoing energy cost? 2. It appears that it has to be installed in tropical doldrums? right? Areas with no storms? cause I presume a storm would run havoc with the photobioreactors? 3. Has the problem with algae contamination been solved. Contamination of other algae species seems to be a perenial problem with Algae reactors. 4. What's the required ocean area for an algal field sufficient to support the nutritional needs of say 10,000 people? 5. So, the primary output would be algae primarily for oil (for biofuel) and algae dry matter for livestock? No direct food for humans? Do you know of a system for direct production of human food? Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:25 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2014/05/greenhouses-are-not-next-green.html On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: James, Please elaborate on this technology. If it is enormously profitable as you claim, I might be able to integrate this with my wave power to produce food. We need cheap food here in the Philippines to feed an exponentially growing population. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: James Bowery To: Analog Fan Cc: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there. Let me define what I mean: I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production to the point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the agricultural foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet so rich the problem wouldn't be malnutrition but gout. When I say "waiting on" I mean it is demonstrated and the production line to manufacture it is already specified. Oh, I guess I failed to point out that what I mean by "demonstrated" is that its economics are not just profitable, they are _enormously_ profitable. On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Analog Fan <[email protected]> wrote: On Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:43 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: >Why would you assume that the investors would have done lousy due diligence? I never assume lousy due diligence. But it is fair to wonder how much diligence they did do. It's indisputable that there is 'dumb money' out there - the history of poor due diligence on investments is legendary. I've seen a ~$90 million dollar investment fund up close, and you would be surprised at the lack of due diligence. I was surprised when the SEC stepped in to reveal the fund was a house of cards. >Why is it that we always believe that we understand more than the investors >who would have been up close and personal with the people and scientists at >BLP and have seen the technologies and prototypes more closely? You may as well ask why people do inexplicable things? It's clear that Mills has personal charisma and is able to raise money, and that is impressive. But in my opinion any sort of scientific or business results look to be extremely unlikely at this stage. Mills has raised and spent a lot of money, that's for sure. The details do not add up to me - for example, why on earth does a company involved in speculative research spend millions to buy a fifty thousand square foot building in New Jersey, when their team could fit in a smaller leased lab? 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS - NJParcels.com New Jersey Property Data >Let's give BLP some time and credit shall we? Surely you jest? As I pointed out, they've had 22 years, and yet it is they that keep shifting the goalposts. All of this skepticism would cease if they had a working product. AF 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS... Information regarding Block 5, Lot 3 (493 EDINBURG RD), owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS in East Windsor Township. View on njparcels.com Preview by Yahoo
