http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/04/biofuel-plants-biochemist

Interesting point in the article that I haven't picked up elsewhere, do the other forms of aglae based biod just lack the umphg you get out of even b100? Is that why the algae farm stocks haven't skyrocketed? This sounds like a pretty harty algae.

The biofuel algae strains are still in the research phase, in that scientists are trying to breed the best algae for the job. Right now, the scum producing fuel are too short lived and require exacting conditions to thrive. Once those algae can withstand wider ranges of elements, you can bet we'll hear much more about it.

Yep, algae is all hype right now. The production yield estimates commonly given are little more than extrapolations from small-scale lab experiments and theoretical ideals.

Even if somebody were to breed the perfect strain today, it would be nearly a decade before its standardized, commercialized and widely distributed.

(05-16-2009 02:34 AM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  Yep, algae is all hype right now. The production yield estimates commonly given are little more than extrapolations from small-scale lab experiments and theoretical ideals.

Even if somebody were to breed the perfect strain today, it would be nearly a decade before its standardized, commercialized and widely distributed.

evidence?

(06-05-2009 08:49 PM)GREASY_BEAST Wrote:  

(05-16-2009 02:34 AM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  Yep, algae is all hype right now. The production yield estimates commonly given are little more than extrapolations from small-scale lab experiments and theoretical ideals.

Even if somebody were to breed the perfect strain today, it would be nearly a decade before its standardized, commercialized and widely distributed.

evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel#Yield
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel#Algae_Types

Read the rest of it, too, if you're really interested.

Nothing new about algae....

Saw this on TV at least 20 years ago, on a UK program called, Tomorrow's World'....

Went quiet until just a few years ago when all the interest in BioDiesel started....

Just goes to show, There aint anything really New out there, just re-hashes of the same old rhetoric...

(06-05-2009 08:49 PM)GREASY_BEAST Wrote:  evidence?

The fact that for decades many many people have been saying its really simple and have been trying to make algae farms, yet nobody has been able to produce market-sized batches at prices competitive even to $5/gallon soy "B99"/B100. The best anyone has done so far is small lab/concept samples. The production yield of large farms has always been extrapolated from those lab samples but nobody can seem to make it happen.

If its supposed to be so simple and cheap, where are all the farms?

From that Wikipedia entry.

Quote:Algae cost more per unit mass yet can yield over 30 times more energy per unit area

Quote:The per unit area yield of oil from algae is estimated to be from between 5,000 to 20,000 US gallons per acre per year

Quote:Dry algae factor is the percentage of algae cells in relation with the media where it is cultured, e.g. if the dry algae factor is 50%, one would need 2 kg of wet algae (algae in the media) to get 1 kg of algae cells.

Quote:Algae can produce 15-300 times more oil per acre than conventional crops, such as rapeseed, palms, soybeans, or jatropha.

Just a few random selections. The article describes probabilities instead of known facts.

Quote:The Aquatic Species Program, launched in 1978, was a research program funded by the United States Department of Energy (DoE) which was tasked with investigating the use of algae for the production of energy. The program initially focused efforts on the production of hydrogen, shifting primary research to studying oil production in 1982. From 1982 until it's end in 1996, the majority of the program research was focused on the production of transportation fuels, notably biodiesel, from algae. In 1995, as part of overall efforts to lower budget demands, the DoE decided to end the program. Research stopped in 1996 and staff began compiling their research for publication.

I think the bottom line on all this is that it's always been cheaper to just run on petroleum. That's why diesel was never commercially made the way old Rudolf intended, until fairly recently and still more of a fringe thing for folks concerned with things other than cost. It is true that algae is capable of far more biomass per acre than other oil crops and a higher percentage of that mass is oil, but we are still tripping on the bottom line. It is more expensive to get into, building ponds or photobioreactors is more expensive than just plowing a field and scattering seeds. Also, you have to dry the algae before you squeeze the oil out of it, which is an extra step that requires some amount of extra energy. I believe it has the potential to be a major, sustainable player in energy, but there probably is no silver bullet.

Unfortunately, as with everything else that would be better for people and the planet, agriculture comes to mind, everyone is going to have to shoulder an initial burden to get it started. I am for it. I will happily vote with my wallet and pay more for something I know is done right, as I always do. I might even try and find out what politicians were responsible for all those DARPA grants to UT, UNH, and some other universities to study algae fuel production and send them a thankyou card.

Personally, I doubt if bio-fuels are ever going to be a good fit for our current, centralized fuel supply infrastructure. I think that's a good thing, because if so, it's success would be a big old Muay Thai kick to the knees of big oil companies and give some little guys a chance to make something for their communities.