DISCUSIÓN SOBRE "ALGAS & BIOCOMBUSTIBLES " Extractada de la lista de interés ALGAE-L http://www.seaweed.ie/algae-l/algae-l.lasso From: "Michael Guiry" <mikeguiry@MAC.COM> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 7:59 AM Subject: Bioenergy from algae What do people think of this: http://www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html In particular, the last sentence. Mike Guiry (michael.guiry@nuigalway.ie) NUI Galway, Ireland From: Avigad Vonshak Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 10:42 PM Subject: Re: Bioenergy from algae Attached: algae biofuel.pdf He is not alone in the group that are trying to brake the laws of termo-dynamics It may work but much more R & D has to be done and we are far from having something working in the near future/ There is much more better science based discussion going on then this video clip See attached and what came before Avigad Prof. Avigad Vonshak, Director J. Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research Ben Gurion University Sede Boqer campus 84990 - Israel Telephone: 972-8-6596700; Facsimile: 972-8-6596703; E-Mail address: avigad@bgumail.bgu.ac.il URL: http://bidr.bgu.ac.il/bidr/ or http://bidr.bgu.ac.il/BIDR/research/algal/index.htm From: "Phil Feigel" <prfeigel@GTE.NET> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 9:11 AM Subject: Re: Bioenergy from algae Dear Mike I am not a plant scientist but I have spent most of my career in the telecom world working on leading edge, next big things. After retiring I have taken up investing in alternative energy because I think that will be the energy source for my children's and grandchildren's world where algae derived motor fuels are the next big thing in that space. There are several studies that support the one tenth notion and several companies working on it. Algae derived motor fuel is an exciting part of the alternative energy arena. I am lobbying my contacts in the political world to set up a NASA like program for an algae initiative and there is beginning to be some uptake. Phil Feigel From: Bobby Yates Emory Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 8:32 PM Subject: Re: Bioenergy from algae Michael, Raceway ponds are probably a better solution. Valcent does have a lower cost PBR than most, but it will probably still be more expensive than a raceway pond. Bobby Toward freedom, Bobby Yates Emory From: Bobby Yates Emory Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 8:38 PM Subject: Re: Bioenergy from algae Michael, That last sentence has been expressed in various ways, but going back to the NREL study in 1996, that is the accepted wisdom. (The last sentence says that the USA could harvest enough algae oil on a tiny fraction of its land to meet all our transportation fuel needs. I believe the same analysis would apply to most countries - algae grows most everywhere.) Bobby Toward freedom, Bobby Yates Emory From: A. Maxwell Much, Ph.D. at AgOil International, LLC Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 10:26 PM Subject: Re: Bioenergy from algae Dear List Members, Without reservation, microalgae is the best source of biodiesel, and biodiesel is the best solution to the fuel crisis. There are so many uncontested facts to support these conclusions, and virtually everyone who knows anything about the topic is in agreement. For more than thirty years, the stumbling block to implementing this perfect solution has been the development of a cost-effective, reliable mass production system. In 1978 the U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) started a research project entitled "Biodiesel from Algae" and, over the 17 years that followed, expended nearly $450 million dollars. The 300-page landmark publication documenting the results of their efforts, carried out by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), was published in 1998. [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf] Although NREL was not successful in designing and deploying the ideal mass culture system, the data that they published has served many of us as an invaluable cornerstone for the R & D that followed. The DOE/NREL study was terminated in 1996 due to curtailed funding, but their efforts in this direction have been renewed recently in a partnership with Chevron Oil. We know of about 50 companies/organizations actively engaged in the mission to develop a working methodology for the cost-effective mass culture of microalgae for oil. None of them is in production phase; all are in R & D. The vast open shallow raceway system that NREL used, and touted as the most appropriate design configuration, is fundamentally flawed for optimal growth of a microbe. Our company, AgOil International, LLC, based on a decade of research, has developed a back-to-basics, inexpensive, simplistic methodology that incorporates the newest technologies for energy efficiency; components and devices we have invented; an ideal microbiological growth environment; and the latest research findings for maximization of oil production from algae. AgOil’s vision is for a great new industry that will spur economic growth within the U.S. Our demonstration project is nearing completion, and a model farm is about one year in the offing. Our projections for yield, reliability, profitability, and practicality surpass all others we have seen on the drawing boards. Our methodology, currently patent pending, supports the concept that oil from algae, as a contributory solution to some of the crises of our time (fuel, recycling of sequestered CO2, remediation of polluted waters), can best be achieved by widespread individually-owned small farms. It is contrary to centralized, corporate, or government controlled production of fuel. Putting your energies toward the creation of a political NASA-type, Manhattan-type, or big-oil-type project, as suggested in the message below, will ultimately leave us with the same fuel dependencies we have now. The mass culture of microalgae has the potential for transforming fuel production into a new paradigm--widely distributed, independently owned, self-sufficient algae farms. And those of us with the interest and knowledge of microalgal culture can do it, and train others! We will be glad to share our progress with this list in the future. Best regards, A. Maxwell Much, Ph.D. - Lead Scientist, Director of Technologies AgOil International, LLC - 928 18th Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33713 - Office: 727-216-8747 www.AgOilInternational.com - Maxwell@AgOilInternational.com From: "Michael Guiry" <mikeguiry@MAC.COM> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 6:29 AM Subject: BIOENERGY: Algae saving the world? Dear Mike, I get tired of seeing and hearing rubbish that microalgae will save the world. Large-scale biofuels from algae is a dilusion and a wank. Just another incarnation of the same old rubbish about the fantastic photosynthetic rates of algae. It is hard to find where this urban fable came from - maybe some utterings of Warburg nearly 100 years ago. I keep telling people this but most people are so incompetent that they do not understand what I am trying to tell them or are used car salesman types who do not want to be told or more accurately do not want their potential victims to be told. I am getting very tired of it all. I have been measuring photosynthesis of algae for 30 years. I work on bioenergetics of membrane transport and photosynthesis - I ought to know what I am talking about. Algae do not have remarkably high photosynthesis nor is it so remarkably more efficient than vascular plants that calculations that do not pan out on sugarcane will somehow do so on algae. The productivity figures people use to flogg the idea that algae can feed the world or produce enough biofuels to satisfy the USA or provide O2 and food for spaceships are exagerated by orders of magnitude or when they have the basic figures correct they are not understood and are used incorrectly. Photosynthetic thermodynamic efficiency on a surface-area basis is about 1 or 2 %. What you can do with that is rather severely limited. You cannot repeal the Second Law [of Thermodynamics]. There are also problems of time and scale which people do not seem to understand. Extrapolating what happens in an O2 electrode (or IRGA or PAM machine) for a few minutes on an optimally-grown and illuminated culture of your pet alga in the lab to a flooded field or a raceway is just plain stupid. Any agronomist worth their salt can tell you that. The scale-up is not linear. Elementary things like temperature, photoinhibition at high light and the effective optical depth of an algal cell suspension, supply of inorganic carbon and many other factors mean that what a few mg of algae can do in the lab does not tell you much about what 1000 tonnes will do in a pond. What happens on a cloudy day or when the sun goes down is often overlooked in such calculations. What about the little detail of how much light, combined with suitable temperatures, is available at 49 degrees north over a year? Mere technicalities? *Incidentally the optimistic calculations of Chisti Y (2008) Trends in Biotechnology 26:352352 currently up on Algae-L is not likely to be correct by a factor of at least 3 to 10. The productivity is too high by an order of magnitude, the cell density is too high (not achievable on a continuous basis), the oil content figure is probably for dry weight rather than freshweight and there are scale-up factors which cannot be linear. Ray Ritchie Dr Raymond J. RITCHIE, Biology A-08, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia From: "Steve Harris" <sharris234@GMAIL.COM> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 9:36 AM Subject: Re: BIOENERGY: Algae saving the world? Dear all, I would like to respond to Dr. Raymond's post regarding large scale biofuels from algae being a delusion and a wank. I think it is an issue worth debate because as we can all see, alternatives to fossil fuels are worth investigating. Obviously Dr Raymond has figures on the photosynthesis efficiency, but the two factors I think are important are: 1. How quickly does algae grow compared with land based plants, in particular how much oil can be extracted from an acre of algae cultivation compared to biodiesel or ethanol from an acre of corn or sugarcane. 2. The sea obviously has a huge surface area. Even if the growth rates are not spectacular, perhaps putting to use the vast areas of the sea could make up for the growth rates. Here in England land is at a premium. We simply don't have the land available to set aside for biodiesel corn, sugarbeet etc. Obviously marine plants can grow quickly, I don't know how their rates of growth compare with land based plants, but the recent algae blooms in China show they can grow very well under certain conditions. I was trying to find out how quickly that algae bloom developed, and I found this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/07/01/2008-0701_chinas_mean_green_algae_problem_is_troub.html The article says the algae blossomed around June 1st, and it looks that by July 1st it was a massive growth requiring a huge cleanup effort. Does anyone have the hard facts on how quickly this algae grows when the conditions are right? I read somewhere that 100,000 tons of it was being taken away and that some of it would be used for animal feed. To me, 100,000 tons seems a significant quantity, especially if it grew in a month. I have been doing some simple home experiments and realised that algae can be coaxed to grow far more quickly than under natural conditions. The great advantage is that the cultivation is done in a closed system. In other words, once the optimal conditions are established they can be maintained more easily than in an open system such as land based farming. Algae for fuel may not be a perfect solution, but I can't help thinking it still merits research. Steven Harris - 103 Locking Road Weston-Super-Mare - North Somerset BS23 3EW - UK From: "Alan T. Critchley" <Alan.Critchley@ACADIAN.CA> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 10:03 AM Subject: Re: BIOENERGY: Algae saving the world? Good day all Please see this as a Sunday morning chat over a cup of coffee? My thanks to Ray Ritchie. I thought he wrote an excellent, reflective, realistic and accurate piece Forgive my personal, biased and jaundiced views to follow . I fear for many this algal biomass "oilrush" will be a yellow brick road leading to tears . As was discussed recently - is/are biofuels/energy from algae the latest "emperor's new clothes" ?? (thanks for the quote Don). When, as inevitably it will , -- the brown stuff hits the fan ---- it will be the reputation of all phycologists (unfortunately collectively) and the algae generally (both micro and macro) that will be tarnished. ...taking all right back to the purveyors of snake oil salesmen (and women) reputations we have done so much to dispel !! Undoubtedly from all the algal bioenergy work there will be numerous 300 pages reports and, on a positive note, a lot of really, really, really good research; even some practical (small-scale) applications. However , in my opinion, none will lead to sustainable, large-scale production of commercial-scale, privately-invested, non-subsidized biofuels/bioenergy - ....... Unfortunately, l think much of even the good work will be dismissed -- as the commercial community will claim to have been " lead astray" and their finances frittered away and wasted (so even potential commercial applications will be dismissed like throwing baby out with bathwater). . I believe that if many of those involved are really honest ---- they are taking the money for the now, while it is almost obscenely being heaped and forced upon them in this silly "just do it" attitude (in some cases fuelled by Govt guilt to "at least do something" about energy prices and try to appease public opinion..) . From it all ---- maybe the real hope is they will find a bioactive or two ( ....or just maybe a cure for types of cancer, or HIV which is actually a far more realistic expectation than a commercially viable source of jet fuel....! No??). Imagine throwing all those funds at something that might really work?? At the recent ISAP, Galway, Amir Neori gave an excellent talk on seaweeds as a source of bioenergy. In part of his philosophical reflections he concluded that society has to count the total cost of use of fossil fuels in terms of social and human health impacts just maybe if we did that (and society as a whole is very far removed from doing that), then the true costs of energy could be recalculated. However when values are calculated only in the price of a barrel of oil and price of fuel at the pump, the I fear the economics will never add up. Mind you ......would super powers ever go to war to protect access to microalgal bioreactors?? Hmmm....Now there's a thought?? Why are folks not rushing to make energy (and money??)using the manna from heaven (otherwise known as Ulva prolifera ) pitching up on Qingdao beaches threatening the sailing Olympics? OK back to the newspapers and a cup of coffee. Cheers Alan Critchley Acadian Seaplants Limited (a for profit seaweed cultivation company) From: "Kraan, Stefan" <stefan.kraan@NUIGALWAY.IE> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 11:16 AM Subject: more world saving by algae Dear list members Amen, to the sunday morning chat over a cup of coffee remark. What a lovely discussion this has become. I can only repeat what I have seen at the ISAP 2008 conference in Galway and it became very clear (taking the photosyntehtic efficiency rates etc aside for the moment as Johan Grobbelaar had some interesting information on this to boost it by alternating light dark cycles) that the price to produce microalgae for biodiesel is at the moment about $ 5 a kg dry and to be competitve with oil it needs to drop to about $ 0.3 per kg. The general concensus from the investors at this confernce was, and I quote: We going to pull the plug on this one! Macroalgae are a slightly different storey with 60% of the dry weight being carbohydrates. Production (if we tackle the alginate fermentation) is not so much the problem but more the social acceptance that our inshore areas and off shore oceans will be turned into large scale cultivation sites. Can we do this? Yes most defenitely (see the Japanese idea of these humongeous floating Sargssum farms; Notoya et al.) Will they allow this in the US and Europe? Probably not. Therefore macroalgae (for bioethanol) will play a modest role and will only supplement production of ethanol. Better to investigate into solar, wave and wind My two cents, Stefan Kraan - Irish Seaweed Centre, Martin Ryan Institute - NUIG, Ireland From: Scott Edmundson Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 12:27 PM Subject: Re: Bioenergy from algae Making gross estimates and loosely founded statements like the ones made by the white coat in the video is nothing more than sensationalism. The U.S. is extremely desperate for a miraculous energy solution, but it will take a more thoughtful and coordinated effort than filling bags with algae across one-tenth of New Mexico. I am extremely skeptical that the net energy balance of valcent's vertigro technology is positive. Numerous weak links are apparent in their design and operation, just from the video. How about manufacturing and maintainability of the plastic bags, pvc valves, pumps, greenhouse, storage tanks, nutrients, etc. and how often do they need to be replaced with a constant exposure to full sun? Building even a single hectare greenhouse is preposterously energy intensive, and besides their algal cultures certainly didn't seem to be thriving. there is a lot of hype with algae as a biofuel right now, there is also a huge potential. It will take a concerted and diligent effort by many individuals to scientifically map out the course for progress within this field, not just companies looking for mega-capital investment. At the University of Florida we are researching algae (currently focused on Chlorophytes) as a feedstock for bioenergy production, attempting to place it within a holistic and logical system for a net positive energy, ecologic, and economic gain. This is no small task, and it is not a quick fix to a long standing issue with petroleum. It does however hold the potential to rationally provide energy for human societies, if we choose to move in a positive direction. Scott J. Edmundson, B.S. - Research Assistant Department of Soil and Water Science - University of Florida From: Patrick McGinn To: ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 12:55 PM Subject: Re: more world saving by algae Dear List Members: Interesting discussion going on here. Just a quick point. We shouldn't necessarily undermine the potential for algal biodiesel to replace petrochemicals simply based on biodiesel's current cost uncompetitiveness . The truth is that the cost of fossil fuels will continue to rise as reserves become depleted. As the cost of fossil fuels increases, so will society's willingness to bear the costs of other sources of fuel, even if these fuel substitutes are more costly than those that they are displacing. I think that the tendency to dismiss biodiesel because of its current cost is tied to the anachronistic notion that transportation fuels should and will always be as cheap as they have been historically. I think we in North America are particularly prone to this delusion. We musn't forget that Diesel's first engines ran on peanut oil and Henry Ford's first automobiles ran on ethanol. It was only because of the sudden economy offered by cheap, easily accessible fossil fuels that biofuels were discarded. Well, the days of cheap fossil fuels are over and we must seek alternatives. Just because these alternatives may not be as economical as crude oil, now or ever, is no reason, in my view, to give up on them. Cheers, Pat McGinn Princeton University --------------------------------------------------Patrick McGinn Ph.D. - Associate Research Scholar 159 Guyot Hall, Dept. of Geosciences - Princeton University Princeton, NJ, USA - Tel: 609 258 2612 Cell: 609 751 4695 - Fax: 609 258 5242 From: "Steve Harris" <sharris234@GMAIL.COM> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 1:14 PM Subject: Re: more world saving by algae Dear all, It does seem there are facts and arguments against pursuing the oil from algae route. However, without trying to inflame anyone, it would be nice to clarify some of the facts. For example: 1. How is the figure of $5 per kg for microalgae calculated? I can't believe the cultivation costs much, so I guess it is the harvesting? Was this figure broken down into the constituent elements? How does this $5 per kg compare to biodiesel or ethanol grown from land crops? 2. Have there been verfiable, repeatable tests to show the yield per acre of corn, palm, and algae? I have seen the figures that show algae is way ahead, but these are often quoted by companies with an interest in selling equipment to grow it. Regarding the social acceptance of algae farms: Off shore farming may not be initially acceptable, and may be techically difficult, but I know that the UK is looking at onshore and offshore wind farms on a large scale. A few years ago, the onshore wind farms were not that acceptable, but I reckon there are going to be a lot more of them as time goes by. My own opinion is that wind power is great, but for motor vehicles it seems that ethanol or biodiesel are the two options. I understand that hydrogen has a low calorific value and would require high pressure tanks to carry a reasonable quantity. I have not heard much about the electric cars, except for the hybrid drives. Steve Harris - 103 Locking Road Weston-Super-Mare - North Somerset BS23 3EW - UK From: "Steve Harris" <sharris234@GMAIL.COM> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 1:25 PM Subject: Huge Greenhouses already here One of the posts mentioned the prohibitive costs of building a one hectare greenhouse. I just read about "Thanet Earth" which is about 91 hectares of greenhouse being built in Kent, UK. Here is the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1025689/Welcome-Thanet-Earth-The-biggestgreenhouse-Britain-unveiled.html It is true that these things cost a lot, but if the economics make sense, they will be built. Steve Harris - 103 Locking Road Weston-Super-Mare - North Somerset BS23 3EW - UK From: "John Forster" <jforster@OLYPEN.COM> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 11:42 PM Subject: Re: BIOENERGY: Algae saving the world? Hello All, I have heard similar comments from others to those below from Ray. I find it amazing that there can be two such totally different opinions on this. My question is what about macroalgae as an alternative? Before NREL launched its $450 million microalgae project, The Gas Research Institute and U.S. Department of Energy launched a more modest project on seaweed food and energy farms see www.abe.ufl.edu/~chyn/download/Publications_DC/Reports/marinefinal_FT.pdf This failed, in part due to a fall back in oil prices during the 1980's. But is this a concept worth looking at again? A secondary question is: how feasible is it to consider producing animal feed as a co or byproduct from algal energy production? I will be interested in members views. Regards, John Forster - Forster Consulting Inc., 533 East Park Avenue - Port Angeles, WA 98362 - Phone 360 452 7917 From: "Raymond J. RITCHIE" <rrit3143@MAIL.USYD.EDU.AU> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 7:41 AM Subject: Algae & Biofuels: Ray Ritchie Dear Algae-L, I get tired of seeing and hearing rubbish that microalgae will save the world. Large-scale biofuels from algae is a dilusion and a wank. Just another incarnation of the same old rubbish about the fantastic photosynthetic rates of algae. It is hard to find where this urban fable came from - maybe some utterings of Warburg nearly 100 years ago. I keep telling people this but most people are so incompetent that they do not understand what I am trying to tell them or are used car salesman types who do not want to be told or more accurately do not want their potential victims to be told. It is all rather silly. I have been measuring photosynthesis of algae for 30 years. I work on bioenergetics of membrane transport and photosynthesis - I ought to know what I am talking about. Algae do not have remarkably high photosynthesis on a surface area, biomass or chlorophyll basis nor is it so remarkably more efficient than vascular plants that calculations that do not pan out on sugarcane will somehow do so on algae. The productivity figures people use to flogg the idea that algae can feed the world or produce enough biofuels to satisfy the USA or provide O2 and food for spaceships are exagerated by orders of magnitude or when they have the basic figures correct their contexts are not understood and are used incorrectly. Photosynthetic thermodynamic efficiency on a surface-area basis is about 1 or 2 %. What you can do with that is rather severely limited. You cannot repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There are also problems of time and scale which people do not seem to understand. Extrapolating what happens in an O2 electrode (or IRGA or PAM machine) for a few minutes on an optimally-grown and illuminated culture of your pet alga in the lab to a flooded field or a raceway is just plain stupid. Any agronomist worth their salt can tell you that. The scale-up is not linear. Elementary things like temperature, photoinhibition at high light and the effective optical depth of an algal cell suspension, supply of inorganic carbon and many other factors mean that what a few mg of algae can do in the lab does not tell you much about what 1000 tonnes will do in a pond. What happens on a cloudy day or when the sun goes down is often overlooked in such calculations. What about the little detail of how much light, combined with suitable temperatures, is available at 49 degrees north over a year? Mere technicalities? *Incidentally the optimistic calculations of Chisti Y (2008) Trendsin Biotechnology 26:352-352 currently up on Algae-L is not likely to be correct by a factor of at least 3 to 10. The productivity is too high by an order of magnitude, the cell density is too high (not achievable on a continuous basis), the oil content figure is probably for dry weight rather than freshweight and there are scale-up factors which cannot be linear. Ray Ritchie Dr Raymond J. RITCHIE, Biology A-08, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia From: Bobby Yates Emory Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 5:03 AM Subject: Re: BIOENERGY: Algae saving the world? Dr. Ritchie, The source for the optimism is the ASP run by NREL for 20 years at a cost of millions. You are correct that there may be many people running scams and attempting to sucker in investors. But the fact that were scams during the dot COM bubble does not mean that Apple was cheating its investors. That there are dubious claims does not prove the field is impossible. Any hot stock idea will always attract some crooks. As they are publicized, we do need to denounce these inflated projections. There has been research there in OZ that reported that a outdoor raceway pond could achieve acceptable growth rates. (Navid was a doctoral candidate at Murdock U.) The front matter for his thesis is at: http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/adt/pubfiles/adt-MU20050901.140745/01Front.pdf or: http://tinyurl.com/kssqb The rest of it is at: http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/adt/pubfiles/adt-MU20050901.140745/02Whole.pdf or: http://tinyurl.com/gzkp2 He gave me this URL: http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/adt/browse/view/adt-MU20050901.140745 or: http://tinyurl.com/p2cd7) In addition, it was published in the Journal of Applied Phycology in the December 2006 issue: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f135v081tv283680/ Many of us recognize there are many issues of scale up and many other details to work out. We would welcome your experience and understanding in dealing with with these problems. One of the prime problems we face is learning the nutrients needed and the feeding schedule to grow algae oil at the optimum rate. Most of the academic studies have been looking at keeping cultures growing over long periods. We need to learn how to induce the culture to grow at rates that would be called a bloom in the natural world. I would welcome a dialog on our contrasting objectives and ideas. Bobby Toward freedom, Bobby Yates Emory : Michael Guiry Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 10:22 AM Subject: BIOENERGY: Algae saving the Pentagon? Attached: algae-yields-2.gif See: Investing in Algae Biofuel - The Only Biofuel that Can Take on Oil http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/investing-algae-biofuel/253 When the price of oil rises just one dollar, the Pentagon's fuel expenses climb an astounding $130 million. So the $50 rise in oil prices over the past six months has taken over a half billion dollar toll on the U.S. government. And that's on your dime. Obviously the massive machinery needed to transport troops and equipment by air, land and sea is the reason for the military's high fuel use. But just how much does the Defense Department—the government's largest consumer of petroleum products—spend on fuel? According to Lt. Col. Brian Maka, "we anticipate over the next three months that the increase in fuel costs for the department [will be] $1.2 billion." With a fuel bill like that, you can bet the Pentagon is going to use its huge R&D resources to look for alternative fuels, including algae biofuels. In fact, back in February, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) held a joint summit with outside experts to to discuss a variety of issues related to algae biofuel production for jet fuel. I know more than a few of you are interested in investing in algae biofuel, so let's take some time to explore the basic economies, capacities and companies associated with algae biofuel production............. Benefits of Algae Biofuels Significant production of algae biofuels could solve a great deal of those problems. That's because algae, or microalgae, has a much higher productivity potential than crop-based biofuels. Here's a chart showing various feedstocks and their potential oil yield per acre. (note: g/m2/day is the harvest rate of the algae and % TAG is the percentage of triglycerides Mike Guiry NUI Galway From: Avigad Vonshak Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:45 PM Subject: Re: BIOENERGY: Algae saving the Pentagon? Attachment: green houses.ppt Dear Friends It is a very interesting discussion I just want to know how many of you would agree to publish a scientific paper based on the kind of information that some of you are quoting. Or for that matter is willing to put his pension fund money on it. By the way growing alga in green houses is indeed a "big" invention. Attached is a PPT file with few slides taken about ten years ago in China Best Avigad Prof. Avigad Vonshak, Director J. Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research Ben Gurion University Sede Boqer campus 84990 - Israel Telephone: 972-8-6596700; Facsimile: 972-8-6596703; E-Mail address: avigad@bgumail.bgu.ac.il URL: http://bidr.bgu.ac.il/bidr/ or http://bidr.bgu.ac.il/BIDR/research/algal/index.htm From: "Steve Harris" <sharris234@GMAIL.COM> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 5:21 PM Subject: Some Number Crunching aka more fuel for the debate. I have gathered some info and played with some numbers. Here is what I came up with. First article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3C-429XV4Y3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1 &_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0199e18aa51b2e95971e78c56a53f213 The important figure gleaned from this is: "both cultivation systems requiring ca. 85 m2 of illuminated surface to produce 1 kg dry cell mass of Nannochloropsis sp. per day." I then assumed 33% of dry weight to be lipid content. I have seen figures of this order quoted before, but this figure came from: http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/adt/pubfiles/adt-MU20050901.140745/01Front.pdf bottom of page iv I don't know the lipid content of Nannochloropsis, but I guess a species of algae can be found that grows at a good rate and has a reasonable % of lipid content. I took the Specific gravity of the oil to be 0.88, I based this on diesel. area kg lipid s.g. litres 85 1 0.33 0.88 0.375 So, 85 m2 produce 0.375 litres of oil per day. Obviously real world production figures would be less, but how much less I am not sure. The first question is whether the 1kg per 85m2 is sustainable. The algae has to be kept growing at a constant high rate, and only a certain amount can be taken out per day. Having said that, I am seeing quite high densities of algae in my test tubes. It should be possible to harvest a reasonable percentage of the growth and still leave enough stock to sustain the growth rate. World daily oil consumption = 87 Million barrels per day = 87 * 117.347765 litres per day = 10209255555 litres per day at 0.375 litres / 85m2 to generate 1.02E+10 litres will require 2.3141E+12 m2 of surface area Surface area of oceans: 335258000 sq km = 3.35258E+14 m2 Therefore to generate the world daily consumption of oil would require cultivation of 0.006902439 of the ocean surface area. 0.6% of the ocean to generate the world daily oil consumption. My guess is that there are some areas of the ocean that will be much better suited to algae farms than others. I wonder what happens in international waters if some country starts building a huge algae farm there. Are there international laws or is it a free for all? I welcome constructive criticism of my thoughts here because I think it is worthwhile thrashing out what future algae might have, if any. Steven Harris -103 Locking Road Weston-Super-Mare - North Somerset BS23 3EW From: "Graham Harris" <graham@HARRIS.NET.NZ> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 4:08 AM Subject: Some Number Crunching aka more fuel for the debate Steve, I think the issue is harvesting. Microalgae in the ocean is plentiful but dilute, and significant energy would be required to process the volume of water required to harvest the algae. Best Regards Graham New Zealand - timezone GMT+12 Home: +64 9 631 7316 Work: +64 9 633 0652 Cell: +64 27 275 4396 From: Michael Guiry Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 4:23 PM Subject: Biofuel information Some information on biofuels: http://www.greenpowerconferences.com/biofuelsmarkets/nextgen_08.html#seminar Algae Biofuels Seminar <http://greenpower.msgfocus.com/c/12t9TQFotSlaNVfK> Engineering and Optimisation of Algae for Biofuels Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8 October 2008 Algae is considered to be a promising source of renewable oil which can be processed and refined into a variety of transportation fuels. This in-depth one day seminar will examine how quickly is Algae emerging as a sustainable, viable, low cost feedstock for the biofuels industry? A variety of key players will share their knowledge and understanding of this rapidly evolving market. Event Overview <http://greenpower.msgfocus.com/c/12tajHN0I1WRvJgy> Download Brochure l <http://greenpower.msgfocus.com/c/12tawDlOP6KHRDgX> l Contact us ( <mailto:annie.ellis@greenpowerconferences.com> annie.ellis@greenpowerconferences.com ) PDf brochure: http://www.greenpowerconferences.com/biofuelsmarkets/BN0810NL.p df Professor M.D. Guiry - Director Martin Ryan Institute NUI Galway, University Rd From: Vernon Coyne Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:53 AM Subject: Can algae save our planet? Another article that's just appeared on a News website FYI. Assoc. Prof. Vernon Coyne Head of Department Molecular and Cell Biology University of Cape Town Rondebosch 7701 South Africa Tel: +27 21 650 5070/3259 Vernon Coyne 10/07/2008 12:35 >>> Print Can algae save our planet? 10/07/2008 11:47 - (SA) Oslo - As the world mulls over the conundrum of how to satisfy a seemingly endless appetite for energy and still slash greenhouse gas emissions, researchers have stumbled upon an unexpected hero: algae. So-called microalgae hold enormous potential when it comes to reining in both climate change, since they naturally absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide, as well as energy production, since they can easily be converted to a range of different fuel types. "This is certainly one of the most promising and revolutionary leads in the fight against climate change and the quest to satisfy energy needs," Frederic Hauge, who heads up the Norwegian environmental group Bellona, told AFP. The idea is to divert exhaust spewed from carbon burning plants and other factories into so-called "photobioreactors", or large transparent tubes filled with algae. When the gas is mixed with water and injected into the tubes, the algae soak up much of the carbon dioxide, or CO2, in accordance with the principle of photosynthesis. Solar biofuels The pioneering technique, called solar biofuels, is one of a panoply of novel methods aiming to crack the problem of providing energy but without the carbon pollution of costly fossil fuels - with oil pushing $140 a barrel and supplies dwindling - or the waste and danger of nuclear power. Studies are underway worldwide, from academia in Australia, Germany and the US, to the US Department of Energy, oil giant Royal Dutch Shell and US aircraft maker Boeing. This week alone, Japanese auto parts maker Denso Corp, a key supplier to the Toyota group, said it too would start investigating, to see if algae could absorb CO2 from its factories. The prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), for one, has successfully tested the system, finding that once filtered through the algae broth, fumes from a cogeneration plant came out 50-85% lighter on CO2 and contained 85% less of another potent greenhouse gas, nitrogen oxide. Once the microalgae are removed from the tubes they can easily be buried or injected into the seabed, and thus hold captive the climate changing gases they ingest indefinitely. And when algae grown out in the open are used in biomass plants, the method can actually produce "carbon negative" energy, meaning the energy production actually drains CO2 from the atmosphere. 'CO2 removed from atmosphere' This is possible since the microalgae first absorbs CO2 as it grows and, although the gas is released again when the biomass burns, the capturing system keeps it from re-entering the air. "Whether you are watching TV, vacuuming the house, or driving your electric car to visit friends and family, you would be removing CO2 from the atmosphere," Hauge said. Instead of being stored away, the algae can also be crushed and used as feedstock for biodiesel fuel - something that could help the airline industry among others to improve its environmental credentials. In fact, even the algae residue remaining after the plants are pressed into biodiesel could be put to good use as mineral-rich fertiliser, Hauge said "You kill three birds with one stone. The algae serves at once to filter out CO2 at industrial sites, to produce energy and for agriculture," he pointed out. Compared with the increasingly controversial first-generation biofuels made from food crops like sunflowers, rapeseed, wheat and corn, microalgae have the huge advantage of not encroaching on agricultural land or affecting farm prices, and can be grown whenever there's sunlight. They also can yield far more oil than other oleaginous plants grown on land. Farming microalgae "To cover US fuel needs with biodiesel extracted from the most efficient terrestrial plant, palm oil, it would be necessary to use 48% of the country's farmland," according to a recent study by the Oslo-based Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research. "The United States could potentially replace all of its petrol-based automobile fuel by farming microalgae on a surface corresponding to five percent of the country's farmland," the study added. As attractive as it may seem however, the algae solution remains squarely in the conception phase, with researchers scrambling to figure out how to scale up the system to an industrial level. Shell, for one, acknowledged on its website some "significant hurdles must be overcome before algae-based biofuel can be produced cost-effectively," especially the large amounts of water needed for the process. In addition, further work is needed to identify which species of algae is the most effective. From: C. R. K. Reddy To: ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 4:27 AM Subject: Corals under threat from farmed algae Attachments: integrated method_LSF.pdf Kappaphycus Growth over small patch of Coral_Krusadai Island_Photographs_21 May 2008 (NXPowerLite).ppt Low sodium salt of botanic origin.pdf process of preparation of biodegradable films.pdf Dear Phycologists, When the world is gearing up to harness the potentials of algae as one of the alternative resources for energy and food security of the globe through farming practices, the media of both scientific and mass (News papers) are increasingly publishing articles highly deploring the cultivation of algae. Many of these articles are unfortunately made based on secondary information. Recently, there was an article entitled “Corals, Already in Danger, Are Facing New Threat From Farmed Algae" has been published by Mr. Christopher Pala in ecology section of the esteemed news paper The New York Times dated July 8, 2008. The link is provided below to view the full article. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/science/earth/08seaw.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&ore f=slogin. This article has extensively dealt with environmental implications of cultivation of introduced seaweeds such as Eucheuma in different tropical countries while pointing a reference to a most recent paper published in an Indian journal Current Science 94:1167-1172 on 10th May 2008 that the alga Kappaphycus alvarezii invaded the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve in south India a decade after commercial cultivation began in nearby Pamban. “No part of the coral reef was visible in most of the invaded sites, where it doomed entire colonies”. Following the publication of this paper, our scientists in our Field Station at Mandapam visited the site reported by authors in Current Science in Kurusadai Island during the third week of May and second week of June 2008 to collect primary data with regard to invasion on corals. It was evident from these field visits that a small patch of Acropora corals over an area of 20 m x 20 m found with K. alvarezii and the rest of corals in lagoon are (300 m x 3000 m area) found to be totally free of this alga and healthy. Further, the area of occurrence confined to the same even after 11 months from its first report (August 2007) without further spreading to other localities or communities. This clearly dispels all the fears of spreading of this alga to other localities through sexual spores. On the contrary, species of Halimeda, Caulerpa and Hypnea are found to predominantly grow on coral communities. The observations made during the field visits conclude that the observed growth of Kappaphycus is a sheer localized occurrence and not an invasion. The observations made from our field visits are summarized in the attachments enclosed with this mail. I would also like to take this opportunity to state that the Kappaphycus cultivation in India is a most successful and more than 700 families in Tamilnadu, India are earning their livelihood (about USD 200 per month per person). There is a growing interest among coastal folk to cultivate seaweeds as this provides additional income to them. India for the first time developed an integrated technology (US Patent No.6,893,479) enabling simultaneous production of nutrient rich sap (liquid fertilizer) and a kappacarrageenan (gelling agent) rich reside residue from fresh seaweed. Further, the salt obtained during dry of this alga has been used in formulations preparing low sodium salt (Saloni-K) of botanical origin (US Patent No.7,208,189). The kappa-carrageenan extracted from this alga is also used as one of the ingredients for preparing biodegradable films (US Patent No. 7,067,568). There are some more inventions made out of this alga are on the final stages of granting patent. Considering the above mentioned innovative patented technologies and their subsequent gains in both agriculture and industrial sector, cultivation of Kappaphycus in India is a promising industry. However, due care is exercised to prevent undue ecological impacts resulting from such commercial scale cultivation of seaweeds. C R K Reddy Discipline of Marine Biotechnology and Ecology Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research) Bhavnagar 364002, India Tel: +91 278 256 5808/256 3805 Fax: +91 278 256 7562/256 6970 www.csmcri.org