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