BioDieselNow - Renewable biodiesel fuel

Hello,

As far as I see it now, there are numerous small-scale effort all over the world to improve the knowledge in algaculture (motivated by the production of biodiesel), but no central open knowledge-base (in the art of MEDLINE...) or significantly leading research group dealing with the topic, am I right ?
I indeed found a few websites showing a "global approach", particularly:
- this forum
- the website http://www.oilgae.com
- the yahoo group http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/oil_from_algae
- of course, the wiki page about algaculture

But it's hard for me to determine whether these websites are really "recognized" in the field and actively visited/maintained by people involved with the harvesting and research on algae used as feedstock for the production of biodiesel.

I would like actually to know if I am missing crucial (non-commercial) websites dealing with the research on algaculture, if an international organization does exist (which would for instance, organize yearly conferences...) and also if a specification or standard concerning algae/oil already exists or is being developed (in Germany for instance, there is an official standard for rapeseed oil).

In my modest opinion, I would find it particularly useful if a publicly available database existed in which experiments on algae could be stored and queried, with the precise environment situation, protocol, results.... That would probably simplify the comparison between the various experiments already performed and may lead faster to general deductions and optimizations for improving the efficiency of algaculture.

Well I don't know, I am new in the field and maybe totally missing the point. If this is the case, that would be also fine you let me know :-)

Sincerely yours,
Christelle

Hi Cristelle,

Hello again,

 Thanks for your reply. I think in any field of research, and probably now even more than ever before, there are interests in play and discoveries which need to be protected so that the "20 years of research" which lead to them are worth doing. That's also why patents exist, I guess.

On the other hand, I think research can in most of the cases only make significant progress if a gradual world-scale approach is adopted, where interesting and relevant discoveries are shared and other research groups can "build" on them. I have a background in computer science and have been involved for a while in the research on real-time systems, which is also  currently gaining interest for industrial applications.  But the knolwedge exchange between the leading research groups was permanent (it suprised me at first, actually) and it indeed proved extremely positive, because those who played this game profitted from the contributions of a huge community with a common motivation of "making the world more secure and the technique more efficient" while the "I keep everything for myself" groups were soon detected and "excluded" from the circle. Let alone, they couldn't remain competitive for long (symbiosis effect). 

 Maybe I am too idealistic, but I would find it very sad if the promising approach of using algae for biodiesel production stagnated only because of economic interest.

 Sincerely yours,
Christelle

 

Christelle,

I think most people here want to use the open source concept.  There are a few who want to hide things, but if we ignore them and discuss our findings, we can get this research to move faster.

(I think Grooloo was trying to be funny, not discourgae sharing.) 

 

 

Christelle,

Liberty and I are in agreement here. Open source results of experiments and others will be able to take them and probably improve them. This will only happen with individuals who are investing there own time and money into researching this exciting field.  

Organisations such as the universities and Greenfuel, Solix and the like have too many investors that they have to look after to not go looking for patents.Patents are a waste of time. It only takes a smallish tweak to change the design and you have a new product.

If you can afford it, do your own research, do your own experiments and post your results.

 

I specifically came to the forums tonight to post a request for people here to contribute to the algae and algaeculture related pages on wikiepdia. I think that Wikipedia could be a good resource if we populate it with data correctly. Perhaps it could meet the needs of the algae knowledge base that you suggest.  

 Its been some time now since I started the wikipedia page for Botryococcus braunii. I've had problems with some people posting incorrect or unverifiable data, and also a general lack of identification of the users making the changes. All of this can be dealt with, but it requires a certain persistence and mindset to make the entries top-notch quality.

 Even if you are not convinced that Wikipedia can provide the knowledge base that you are looking for, please do take the time to proofread, add to, correct, extend, etc the appropriate pages at Wikipedia. Once you learn a few of the base concepts, you may find that contributing data to wikipedia is a s much fun as reading it!
 

 

ahhh what a wonderfull world it would be,,,,, if only....

the reality is that most innovators and world changing inventors worked in thier back yards and garages for years paying for thier research out of thier own pockets and had they not had some common sence more than likely thier work would have never come to fruition.. read the forbes report on  the richest men in the world and youll find that  the majority were backyard and garage inventors who kept thier cards close to the chest and they  are more than generous in thier contributions not only in thier innovations but in millions and millions of dollars of "good works"

endowments, building hospitals, financing educational institutions. etc.etc.etc.

 open sourcing is contrary to  real world human nature. if one looks closely, the greatest successes in industry did not come from investors but from "Little guys who worked in thier garages and came up with technology but had the common sense to protect themselves.

 I assure you had the "entreprenuers" or business men gotten ahold of thier ideas there would be impoverished people all over the world still floundering  around and wondering how did I end up this way?. and worse yet thier technologies would be on the shelf somewhere hidden from the world. bill gates and a great many innovative  giants of industry would have gotten nowhere had they open sourced thier technologies.and we probably wouldnt be communicatiing on computers today if they had been careless with thier intellectual properties.

yes we sell our manuals and products otherwise how do you think we could have carried on for thirty years, creating cutting edge technologies.? algae i just one of the areas that I have worked in. include advances in aviation, housing, solar energy and many other arenas. no body ever handed me money and said here do your thing... in fact ive had more intellectual property stolen from me then most so... sorry my little open source idealists but that is not the way it works.. this is a dog eat dog predatory world and man is the greatest predator.

 if you want to stay at the bottom of the food chain go right ahead... we sell licences for those who want to share in the technologies and our fees are very modest. we are a research and development organisation and we have trained  hundreds, if not thousands of people on the technologies which we work in over the thirty years weve been dealing in this field.. sharing that kind opf knowledge is more than generous. let our students go forth and advance the technologies they are interested in. we give them the tools to work with just liker any learning and research institution but as to what we have to offer, training manuals and products. they are not  free.'' wake up to the real world..we are more than generouis with our sharing technologies but there is a line we wont cross nor will any other person in the technology field unless  they have a messiah complex and you know what happened to him... wake up to the real world...

 Marc

 

 Marc,

You said, "we probably wouldnt be communicatiing on computers today if they had been careless with thier intellectual properties."

Most of the programs and standards that make up the Internet are open source.  The two most promient ones are Apache and Linux.

You seem to consider Gates a hero.  If you investigate his business practices, you may decide he is a villain.   Dong "good works" does not absolve him of his sins.

bobby

 i agree gates was ruthless in his dealings perhaps too much so. but it seems he has been making up for his" sins" maybe even overcompensating. there are more brutalities being comitted now then ever its par for the course certainly.. gates is no hero of mine but his  "redemption" certainly is dramatic. I have no heros in the world of business and have seen a downtrend in the ethics of practices in the alternative energy business that is apalling.but we must learn to swim with the sharks and stay on top of the food chain by maintaining  high moral standards it may take longer to succeed but at least one can sleep at night. I am an avid student of history and in particularly I am interested in what makes successfull people tick I have known some who are as close to criminals as one can get  without being indicted, and i have known some that are toughminded and canny but generous and fair in thier dealings.

 (a  numericalminority) where the line is crossed seems to become less defined in today's world. some of the most  unhappy and disfunctional people i have ever known are some of the most wealthy. but then there are others who you would never imagine could control empires as they do because they are so unassuming and affable. it takes all kinds....like wars, the eventual outcome is what counts.....consider the questionable if not brutal  and appalling tactics of conquest of cultures and nations. our nation , our continent for example .from appalling rape murder genocide and destruction of indigenous cultures and the forcible imposition of values. then consider the results.are they good or bad?. business is much akin to conquest. its a complex moral question to ponder.... is it not???

 marc

Marc,

It can be complex.  But it doesn't have to be.

I feel we need to understand that business can be a positive sum game - someone else does not have to lose for us to win.  If we stick to moral actions, we can all be winners.

 If I buy a sample of PC from you, we both win.  I can continue my research and you get your $30.  We are both ahead.

 

 

again, I agree with you bobby let us all try to rise above the greed and focus on the problems that face us as a society, not on the money to be made. both can be attained if we all act moraly. imagine what it would be like if money were a result of fair-minded accomplishment not the by product of avarice the rewards of making things happen overshadows the lucre.what a different world this would be..reaching goals creating benefit of the human condition is far more satisfying than just focusing on the  financial rewards alone, they will come in greater measure if the motive is beneficial.

 Marc

 

liberty1:

  It can be complex.  ...  I feel we need to understand that business can be a positive sum game - someone else does not have to lose for us to win.  If we stick to moral actions, we can all be winners.

 If I buy a sample of PC from you, we both win.  I can continue my research and you get your $30.  We are both ahead.  

But there are absolutely people who are behind, the losers so to speak. The other companies and technologies that you didnt spend your $ on and they have 2 choices... either innovate or go bust.

Innovate costs $ and eventually will put someone else out of business or force them to innovate... which will put someone else outta business and/or innovate... its why we dont have the cotton gin, slaves and arnt still building pyramids to Zues. Its ugly but it forces innovation, which is good for humans. IMO capitalism has obvious benefit in that its an excellent driver of innovation. The problem comes in when capitalism loses its focus, that its a tool of humanity. I dont care that people lose their jobs, I care that people are not cared for whilst that dog eat dog goes on. I want many people to lose their job by innovation, as they should. I also want others to try and innovate around what Im innovating and force me to either lose my job or innovate around them... But I also feel that a 'saftey net' needs to be inplace when those that lose the dog fight for whatever reason.

 Marc,

Well said.  That line of thinking is what led me to advocate open source. 

I still hold that open sourcing is counter productive it is for the lazy and opportunistic. and in the end stifles creativity and innovation. certainly enough  research  papersare published daily in the world  and are redily available to spur on others creative juices. that is a major contribution provided by academics thats what the tax dollars and grants are in place to pay for. but to those private researchand development companies that plan on taking thier research into the market place open sourcing is like shooting oneself in the foot and entering a marathon race and this is a race and it is competitive open. sourcing  encourages replicating others  work or in many instances  leading people on the primrose path. thinking independantly is fast becoming a lost art. I have had an endless parade of self proclaimed "millionaires" wooing usdown with them and brief them on our business plans and the concept of the cascading stream of value added products. the more we  explain to them the bigger thier eyes get they look at us like a deer in the headlights  

 they cant grasp the concept of thinking on multiple levels,

 something as basic of having by products create the income stream that enables us to have the ability to put bio fuels out on the market at a lower cost than petro derived fuels and certainly at a lower cost that what biodiesel ansd ethanol are selling  for today just seems to baffle them. we had one on friday that cliamed to be worth 20 million dollars. (he made his money in time share sales) we just couldnt beleive his reaction, he said"wait wait wait I just want to focus on one thing making and selling biofuel f." well there is no "one thing" in the way we look at biofuels marketing. that kind of narrow range thinking is the reason why biofuels has floundered as it has... I cant beleive these maga million gallon plants sitting idle because the cost of feedstocks has gotten so high that they cant afford to make biofuels. how in gods name are these narrow range enterprenuers goinf to pay back thier loans and grants? what are the consequences of the apalling failure rate of the biofuels industry having been so cavalier as to base thier whole industry on corn and soybeans? its unbeleivable that they couldnt anticipate the obvious....the food V.S. fuel equation cant work... weve had two more entreprenuers come in the past two weeks with the same narrow range thinking.  narrow range thinking can be defined as" not being able to thnink thier way out of a paper bag" and these are millionaires??.... why is this? i can only surmise that thery are copycats that is they dont have an original thought in thier heads. thery made thier money by copying others successes  and guess what both of these millionaires confessed that they were on the verge of losing huge sums because they didnt anticipate the decling of the economy. one is stuck with millions of dollars in RV's  that he cant sell...its laughable.. any how copycat  entreprenuership doesent work that is why open sourcing is not a good isea..put on your thinking caps and learn evry aspect of what ever it is you wnat to get into both the pros and cons.

 Marc

 Marc

 Marc,

You raise a lot of interesting issues here.  Unfortunately, it is getting late.  I will try to give a thoughtful answer later. 

 Marc,

There seems to be two issues here - open source and the current level of expertise of entrepreneurs.

To reduce the possibility of confusion, I will post later about entrepreneurs and keep this post about open source.

The idea behind open source is for people worldwide to share their knowledge and work.  While some people work on seperating the algae from the growth culture, others may be working on getting the oil out of the cell.  Within the group that is working on getting the oil out of the cell, some will try one approach and some will try another.  Wthin the group, some will work on integrating the elements, while others will concentrate on just one aspect - such as getting a high speed centrifuge to work. 

Some people will make a large contribution, while others will only make a small contribution.  But that small contribution may be the key to getting the process working well.  Even the people who don't make a development contribution may help by testing the knowledge that has been developed.  They will validate or dispute the knowledge or find that it works in some situations but not others.

I think that you are concerned that you have developed a lot of knowledge and, if you contribute it, other will be able to use it without paying you a "royalty".   That is true, but if you contribute what you know so far, others will start from there and move the development along much faster than you would be able to on your own.  Linus knows more about Linux than anyone (maybe).  If he had kept it to himself, he would be the world expert on it.  But since he created the open source concept, Linux is miles and miles ahead of what he could have possibly done on his own.  So when he sits down to use his computer, he now has an incredibly complex operating system with a mammouth suite of software readily available.  If he had kept it secret, he would not have a tenth as much software available.  (And because he set Linux free, he got an incredible job.)

If you participate in open source, algae growing and harvesting will move forward much faster than you would be able to on your own.   You would not be a big fish in a small pond.  But you would be a bigger fish in a much larger pond.  In other words, you be able to much more quickly get to the point of growing and harvesting algae oil.  You would have contributed a lot of knowledge but someone you have never met will have developed the solution to a problem that has been holding you back.   The important competition is not between different approaches to oil form algae - the important competition is between oil from algae and petro oil.  If we can get this to work cheaper than petro oil, the world will be beating a path to your door (you will know it is happening when the real entrepreneurs start showing up).  If we don't make progress in getting our costs down, the world will not learn about you (and you will keep getting the entrepreneurs who don't know what they are doing).

I am concerned that energy costs have gotten so high, it is going to reduce our standard of living.  If we can move the development of oil from algae along faster, we can reduce our energy costs and get the economy growing again. 

 Speaking as someone who is both a consumer and producer of open-source software, I can tell you that there are some great misunderstandings of where much of the work for open source comes from. It's not all just garage tinkerers doing part-time amateur work 'for the good of society'. Often they have a had specific problems that they've written software to solve, and then found out that their solutions can be used for other purposes. Yet there isn't so much of a market that they wish to start a company to sell the software, or that they don't want to be bothered with it, so they just give it away. This is also often true of academic and research projects - there's collateral leftover after the projects are finished or cancelled or whatever, and software just lies around unused - what not give it away? There were some of the earliest starts of open-source software. The gpl came along as a sort of 'stone soup' agreement, and it's been very successful - now some of the largest and most successful corporations on earth are solidly behind linux and the gpl software which build upon it.

 the problem becomes - how well does this model fit with our algaculture and biodiesel? In essence, not to well - because in the end when it is considered on a purely commodity basis, one wants to keep world supplies low while improving their own proprietary production methods. the economics doesn't lend itself to sharing of information. We have to restructure the economic situation until there is such a movement. This is why i have called for government and foundation funding for the basic research needed to have a functioning system for producing algal oil biofiesel. Not only the raw facts, but a basic 'how to' guide for producing fuel in a way that benefits us all by taking carbon oxides out of the atmosphere. These plans should be simple and labor-intensive, so they can be used by people without research to expertise or expensive equipment. These people will then make improvements which they may choose to share, or keep proprietary, or try to protect by patent law.

 When we are attempting to reduce pollution, we need to make the information as freely available and accesible as possible. But the economics of commodity energy production run counter to this. We need to concentrate on the former in terms of biodiesel, and let the latter take care of itself. 

Ecogenics probably disseminates as much information about algae and related technologies than most any other better endowed private entity(,if not more at least as much) our training manuals go all over the world , and  our seminars are attended by people from all over the world.we have a global outreach... farmers, truckers, scientists, entreprenuers, students,academicians, businessmen, others involved in algae and biofuelsand alternative technologies

,on these forums we post lots of helpfull information as well. we field phone calls evry day answering questions, we keep in close touch and make ourselves available to our clients. we have dozens of interns working with us , a few weeks ago we had fifteen UT environmental studies students   learning how to make biodiesel at our facility. we have a  core group of interns that work with us evry week these guys and gals work and learn here so in effect that is how we  perform our main responsibility since we are an organisation set up for scientific  reseasrch and educational purposes...

.we have had work- learn internships here for at least twenty years and before that, all we did was educate people on alternative fuels technology all over the southern states, as well as build and develop technology and equipment. we also helped write legislature in the state of tennessee leading to environmental initiatives. so I think we have done  more than our share of  disseminating information and "open sourcing" but yes, we dont depend on grants or handouts (although weve gotten a few research and education grants) we have been published world wide in major magazines and technical papers.  and yes it costs a tremendous amount of money to do what we do. and 99% of that money comes out of my pocket. so my point is. there are many ways to "Skin the cat" when it comes to" Open source" perhaps you should re-difine the word and say "free source"  and you know what they say about free? you dont get something for nothing..

Over the years. Ive spent as much of my money out of pocket as some companies and institutions have in research and development and educating the public.now we have gotten to the point that we are licencing our technologies to others. with non exclusive licences and we have four or five companies signing up with us. and they in turn will licence the technology to others so the resulting effect is that this technology will spread far faster than possible by open sourcing because it will be in the hands of people who can take it to fruition because they have the money to do so.as well as the passion to see it happen.

 but i need to clarify something else... this is not about the money.... there is an assumption that money is what motivates successfull entreprenuers.. the fact is that it is innovation and an intense comittment to an idea and the difference it can make,that is what drives them. in fact money is the byproduct, not the  main goal

.I can name just about evry successfull technology entreprenuer and there is a common thread in them.. passion, committment, idealism. . those kinds of driving forces are what move technology foreward ,not open sourcing.but competition and facing challenges that may seem insurmountable.

not money but making things happen

not waiting for someone to give out the information but to create the information and then take the idea to fruition.

 that is  the benchmark of success not the money

. dont misconstrue the above as braggadaccio, what im trying to put across is that instead of waiting for others to do the work and then copy them. people need to take the initiative to innovate and face the challenges of  creativity

 Just about.evryone has the  intellectual equipment to make things happen.if they make the effort to think creatively and then act on thier thoughts.

successfull people dont sit around waiting for some one else to do things... they put thier noses to the grind stone and put on thier thinking caps and work up thier creative juices and make things happen. they are not afraid of failure.they thrive on the challenges of doing the new and untried.

..Im certainly no better than anyone else, im just driven , dedicated and resilient.. the human mind has endless capability for creativity and invention, each and evryone of you has what it takes otherwise you wouldnt be on these forums. dont just talk about it! get out there and do it!!!!!

beleive me accomplishing your goals and fulfilling your dreams by making your vision become reality is far far more satisfying than all the money in the world

 marc

 Bob,

That is a very important point you make.  The contibutors to open source software include some of the largest corporations in the world - IBM, for instance.

You are concerned about reducing pollution - I am concernd about reducing energy costs.  For both of us, getting the basic production instructions out to people around the world will move energy use in the right direction.  We just need to work together to develop those basic instructions that can be implemented without expensive equipment. 

So, I think we are in agreement.

For those people and companies who are motivated by profits, like IBM, they may realize that it is in their interest to move this researrch along as swiftly as possible.  Their real competition is not other algae companies or small algae growers, but Exxon.  The more they help open source along, the quicker they will be able to compete with Exxon.

 Marc,

Exactly, the really important thing is to make things happen.  If we work together, we can more quickly move energy use away from the mega corporations and from the countries that hate the USA.  The situation with oil from algae is not that a single breakthrough is needed to make it work.  There are many different problems that must be solved (as you well know).  We have to pick a species.  We have to figure out what to feed it and how much. We need to find what type of growth chamber is needed.  Etc, etc.  By having people around the world working on the many aspects of this problem, we can more quickly make this energy source available.

I appreciate that you have taught a lot of people your methods.  That is wonderful.  I'm just asking you to do more of the same.

I am not suggesting that people sit around waiting for others to develop this process and then tell them how.  If we tell people the basics about how to grow algae, then people around the world can start working with those instructions and figuring out how to imporve them.  Once we have developed ways to grow the algae, then other people can work on ways to harvest the algae.  Then other people can work on how to get the oil out of the algae cells.  

We need to work together to solve this quickly. 

I agree with you, most people are intellegent enough to make a contibution to this problem.  If we tell them enough to get them started, they can apply themselves and work out the problems we are facing.  Right now, there is enough information available to be frustrating.  It is easy to see that oil from algae should be possible.  But there is not enough information to enable them to get up to speed.  Recently, a guy had developed a device to get the oil out of the algae cells.  He needed some algae to test on.  I was not able to hook him up with a source.  If we work out the basic instructions, he could have had his test algae. 

If you put the information out there, even more information will come back to you.