BioDieselNow - Renewable biodiesel fuel

 Slippery,

I think there is little cellulose in most algae strains. 

Patrick is also suggesting an interseting idea - use a bacteria to produce butanol from the algae - let the butanol react with the cell wall and release the oil.  So with one process we get both butanol and algae oil. 

I think that it is technicaly feasible to feed algae mash to animals.  But I think we will have a long period of missionary selling to get farmers to buy it. 

 

liberty1:

 Patrick is also suggesting an interseting idea - use a bacteria to produce butanol from the algae - let the butanol react with the cell wall and release the oil.  So with one process we get both butanol and algae oil. 

Then we have to pay for 2x the operation cost and more cap. overhead. Your plant and production just got 2x bigger to break even.

liberty1:

 I think we will have a long period of missionary selling to get farmers to buy it. 

 If you show one farm that makes $, it will sell like wildfire. The trick is the clear profit, not some fuzzy green global warming intrinsic value $ but cold hard cash/acre. Once you show this on a proven scale, farmers arnt dumb and will do what is best for the top and bottom line.

 

the algae residue remaining after processing to biofuels can be pelletised and used for animal feed  after detoxifying the  remaining algae cake .  feeding egg laying chickens algae enhances the colour of the egg yolk. but it is also an excellent feed for cattle and swine My mentor Dr.Ed lincoln advocated algae mixed with grain powder as the "edible filter" somewhere in my files i have a paper he wrote on the subject.  and of course feeding tilapia fish on algae is part and parcel of our closed loop technology. however there are questions that remain to be answered relating to wether the tilapia can acclimate  well to the marine algae environment needed to grow the high lipid algae. the bulk of our experience with the tilapia-algae symbiosis is with spirulina and we know they do very well in that relationship. our pond is down for the winter as we are replacing the liner after racoons reaped havoc in the pond a few weeks ago. I didnt mind so much if they had eaten the fish entirely but instead they just bit off thier heads or noses leaving the bodies for us to have to recover .. fortunatly we  can process  the tilapia into fish emulsion fertilizer as well as biodiesel from thier oil so it wasnt an economic loss...

 racoons are cruel critters  but humans are far worse... untill a major 1000 acre commercial development was built next to us we had no problems with predators but now the ecology of our once beautifull and pristene area has been raped in the most criminal fashion imaginable making the gateway to great smoky  mountains national park a prime example of the destructive nature of humans as well as the greed and disgracefull lack of concern  for this once beautifull area

.thank god the national park system is under the auspices of the united nations otherwise im sure that the smoky mountain national park would be paved over and covered with condos and timeshare developments..If you want to see the destructive nature of man at its zenith come visit sevier county tennessee and the surrounding area. these developewrs should be indicted for crimes against nature.

..but I digress. yes the algae byproducts from biofuel production are recoverable as food and fertilizer after detoxifying the residues.

 as to bioking. I see nothing novel in what they do... same ol tubes only larger diameter... thier prices are outrageous and thier claims are a bit much... more smoke and mirrors from questionable sources...

marc

 Froggy,

A double product process will probably cost more to implement, but not double.  Likewise, breakeven will not double, either.  And we will be getting two products.  That will help stabilize the economic returns.

I did not enphasize, so you may not have noticed - this solves one of the problems many people are concerned about - extracting the oil from the cell.  So this process may turn out to cost less than a process that produces only oil.  (Many people assume oil extraction will be difficult and expensive, so Patrick's process may cost less than some other alternatives.) 

 

Mass production of Algae is going to have to be a lot more "Hi-Tech" than buying some clear plastic pipe and hiring a plumber to bolt up some "U joints".  I will wake up when there is a system thats sealed, runs 24/7 12 months a year and continuously squirts out an isolated strain of high lipid content Algae. Thats when there will be some people who are running around the desert trying to figure out how to eat sand mixed with crude oil.

 I'm thinking the guys in the desert with oil are probably going to want to invest heavily in something that may put a dent in their profits. There is one country I can think of that can write a $60 billion check and it will clear.

Not that I wish to see anyone lose a source of funds but the "Desert" people you refer to may have contributed to their demise in their production quotas. It seems from reading this blog there are more than enough technically proficient people (with time on their hands) to share ideas and be creative. It s amazing what we can accomplish if we are not concerned with who gets the credit.( forgot the author of that line.). I wholeheartedly agree withnthe fact that BioKing has a high profit margin built in, while selling nothing new. Patents pending are wonderful but hey there are numerous new toasters patented even to this day. SHow us something worth the expense not something I can build myself for the cost of shipping... I am sold on Algae production but lets get some new ideas and borrow from existing technology for conversion.

flash2368:

Mass production of Algae is going to have to be a lot more "Hi-Tech" than buying some clear plastic pipe and hiring a plumber to bolt up some "U joints".

Maybe.

The trick here is to maximize all of total yield, the reliability + robustsness of that yield, ROI, and EROI.

The more "high tech" your approach, the higher start up coasts are and the higher operating costs tend to be.  OTOH,  the higher tech approaches are going to have the higher yields and are likely to be more reliable + more robust.

I've come to the conclusion that there is no "best" way to raise algoil.  All of environment, desired production scale, money available, and the technical resources available appear to dictate what the best approach is to raising algoil in a given situation. 

No wonder the NREL could not find the "truth" about raising algae.  No wonder that usually responsible professionals like froggy lose their professional sense and patience when considering the raising of algae.  The problem at this point looks to be far more complex than people have ever considered.

One thing is clear.  Even the NREL study suggested that algoil would be price competitive at today's crude oil prices, and those prices are looking like they will continue to rise.  The higher crude oil prices get, the easier it is for algoil to be price competitive.

 

Voltaire:

    One thing is clear.  Even the NREL study suggested that algoil would be price competitive at today's crude oil prices, and those prices are looking like they will continue to rise.  The higher crude oil prices get, the easier it is for algoil to be price competitive. 

Obviously its NOT clear because you missunderstand what the study said and why it ended. Let me refresh...  I quote

'The cost analyses for large-scale microalgae production evolved from rather

superficial analyses in the 1970s to the much more detailed and sophisticated studies

conducted during the 1980s. A major conclusion from these analyses is that there is

little prospect for any alternatives to the open pond designs, given the low cost

requirements associated with fuel production. The factors that most influence cost

are biological, and not engineering-related. These analyses point to the need for

highly productive organisms capable of near-theoretical levels of conversion of

sunlight to biomass. Even with aggressive assumptions about biological

productivity, we project costs for biodiesel which are two times higher than current

petroleum diesel fuel costs.'

Voltaire:

   One thing is clear.  Even the NREL study suggested that algoil would be price competitive at today's crude oil prices,  

Teachable moment. Its a false assumption that only oil had inflation. Everything had inflation. Healthcare, concrete, plastics, machines, catalysts, Metal, Nitrogen ferts, NG, glass has had tremendous inflation over the same amount of time that oil had inflation. Yes even desert land value...   LOL the only thing that didnt have exponential growth during that time is coal, go figure... 

So why would the suggested price (which isnt true which Ive already pointed out but lets imagine there is infact a real number) be closer to oil than it was at the time of the NREL study if everything has had inflation?

Froggy, go look in the other thread where you posted your intepretation of the conclusion of the NREL study.

I've bet you $1000 that your interpretation is wrong.

 Froggy,

Agreed, inflation affects most everything.  In the last ten years, crude oil has esculated from about $20 per barrel to over $100.  It is unlikely that all the cost factors for producing oil from algae have gone up by a factor of 5.  I would doubt costs have gone up more than double.   The Government grossly understates inflation - but do you really maintain that for the last ten years inflation has been more than 10% per year every year?

So the best estimate we have of current cost must be that oil from algae would be less expensive than crude oil currently is. 

(Mathematical note - for a cumulative ten year inflation rate of 100%, the yearly inflation rate would be less than 10%.  The difference is small and I didn't feel like figuring it out.) 

 

The annual average price for crude oil for 1995 when the NREL ASP Closeout Report was published was $16.75 US pb ( http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm ).  Call it ~$17 US pb.

As of this writing, crude oil is trading at ~$100 US pb.

That's basically 6x.

=if we take the conclusion of the report literally=, algoil biodiesel from a system operating at ~1/3 of the theoretical limit of algae solar conversion efficiency should be price competitve with current petro diesel.

The same assumption says that when crude oil hits $134 US pb, algoil biodiesel from a system operating at ~1/4 the solar efficiency limit should be price competitive.  When crude hits $168 US pb, ~1/5 the solar efficiency limit will do.  Etc.

There is every indication that the ASP was conservative in their report, so the odds are these are =pessimistic= break even values.

If someone can "break" the cost asumptions made in the ASP study, the price parity point of algoil biodiesel vs petro diesel would improve accordingly.

What is needed is aggressive and clever process engineering to reduce operating costs.  Folks like froggy could be invaluable in such an effort.  Too bad some of them are too busy being biased naysayers.  We could really use innovation by people with deep domain expertise.

...and froggy wonders why I get so frustrated with his bias and obstructionism.

 

Lately I've been thinking about ponds, streams, algae blooms, and naturally occuring algae clumps that are much higher in percent solids than average.  If we could find a low energy cost way of artificially duplicating some of these natural effects, we could easily increase the algae mass percentage at initial harvest by a factor of 10x or more.

I'm trying to figure out how to build an artifical ecosystem that circulates algae based on temperature gradient, algae mass, and flowing H2O with as little energy input in the way of paddles etc as possible.  I'm not in this for the money, so I'm perfectly will to share my thoughts and designs.

There is no basic science forbidding this.  It's just a question of being clever enough. 

"As of this writing, crude oil is trading at ~$100 US pb."

Crude oil will probably will be as high as $200 per barrel by end of 2008 or early 2009 as predicted by oil industry analysts! 

How can algal oil not be price competitive??

Regards,

Chris

chris_12066:

"As of this writing, crude oil is trading at ~$100 US pb."

Crude oil will probably will be as high as $200 per barrel by end of 2008 or early 2009 as predicted by oil industry analysts! 

Don't believe it.  $115 US pb by EOY 2008 is far more realistic.

I do not know of any model that is considered reputable that can accurately predict early 2009 crude oil prices at this time.