[SeaGypsy]

Using rounded numbers from further up the thread.

[Graeme]

Your costings are from ten years ago. They are out of date. I suspect that the costings from the NREL report (page 66) are closer to current values but the players in algae biofuel industry will be the only ones who know what the costs are now and those projected into the future. That is the whole purpose of the DOE funding - to find ways to reduce costs further.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he key cost and process assumptions used in calculating the results presented in this section are summarized in the appendix.

Figure 5-3 shows how these three different growth scenarios affect the land area required for open raceway ponds to produce 37.8 ML/yr of biodiesel.

The results in Figure 5-3 help illustrate the importance of identifying the right strain. The capital costs for the reactor system increase as the areal coverage increases, which means that not only will the current case strain cover a larger area (for reference, O‘Hare International Airport in Chicago covers just over 3,000 hectares), its capital cost to produce the same amount of fuel will be higher.

Figure 5-4 shows the cost for producing 46.9 ML/yr of lipids at each algae growth scenario and the significance of the capital cost is shown. Approximately 46.9
ML/yr of lipids is required to produce 37.8 ML/yr of biodiesel.

The cost of producing lipids ranges from approximately $5.80/litre of lipid on the high end to approximately $0.75/litre of lipid on the low end. Contrast this with the current selling cost of soybean oil (approximately $0.90/litre). The blue portion of the bar represents the capital cost, which are approximately equal to operating costs and represent the main cost elements. The cultivation system represents 25-30 percent of the total capital. The percentage contribution for the raceway pond decreases with increased productivity, because the model is established for a constant lipid output.

The technology for converting algal lipids into green diesel has only recently been developed, and the process costs are not well known. Production costs for
biodiesel from vegetable oil, on the other hand is well-established. The total fuel production cost for 37.8 ML/yr of biodiesel from an algae process is shown in Figure 5-5. Land area and water requirements for each case are shown in Table 5-2. Conversion of algal lipid to biodiesel adds only a small increment to the final cost because the overall yield of biodiesel from algal lipids is 96 percent and because capital costs for a biodiesel plant are relatively low

The most apparent conclusion from the plots in Figure 5-5 is that it will take the high productivity case to produce algal biodiesel at a cost comparable to that of petroleum diesel which is hovering around $0.53/litre (EIA as of 6/02/2010). It must be noted that the biodiesel costs shown in Figure 5-5 do not include
marketing and delivery costs, and it is clear that major challenges must be met to achieve the higher productivity under real process conditions.

[Graeme]

Decrease in size with increase in productivity (Table 5.2).

[Graeme]

Table 5-2 showed you what happened at Roswell in 2010. I'm sure the industry and academics are currently working to improve productivity. I don't think you know what the costs are now. Somebody does but they're not telling anybody on this board.

[SeaGypsy]

Even if you did the whole thing in India, it would take most of India's land, all of it's people & all of its water.

The real numbers from algae will never out do- oil palm (even coconuts, which thrive in sand fed nothing but seawater) olives, pecans, walnuts etc.

How much empty sandy desert could be irrigated with seawater to grow enough coconuts to sustain 20% of current supply (given at least 80% is 'wasted')? What would that cost? No newfangled anything to it really, so no need for bs research.

[Graeme]

There are thousands of papers published on this subject in the literature. I'm not going to review these. Here is one recent paper I found from random selection incidentally from India which gives you some indication of what the costs might be.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ne way to estimate the damage is to look at the cost of adapting to climate change, although this does not provide the actual full costs incurred since this represents less than full mitigation. An initial international study estimated these costs at $49 to 171 billion (USD) per year (UNFCCC, 2007) and it has been argued that this is in fact an underestimate [94]. Of course, these estimates are highly dependent on the accumulated of atmospheric CO2 burden over time as well as a great deal of uncertainty as to actual impacts. Thus, determining what the competitive cost of a biofuel really should be will require detailed economic analysis. In addition, as mentioned above, detailed costing is not possible given the many uncertainties in the design specifics of a practical algal biodiesel plant. Thus, a realistic cost analysis is impossible at present.

[SeaGypsy]

That's the least mitigated bullshit so far on this thread. How can you even post such total drivel Graham? You are saying that 79 billion as a ballpark figure for GHG mitigation, you must be on mushrooms or some weird plonk, have you checked your charcoal lately? The GDP of a mid sized developing nation is enough to to 3/5ths of SFA.

[Graeme]

You didn't read what I posted: the costs are impossible to estimate at present. But all you need to know is what is written in the conclusions:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')icroalgae emerged as an ideal bio renewable resource for biofuel production that eventually could replace petroleum-based fuel. Currently, algal based biofuel production is not commercially viable due to the capital intensive bioreactor and post harvesting steps and variable biomass productivity.

[davep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he real numbers from algae will never out do- oil palm (even coconuts, which thrive in sand fed nothing but seawater) olives, pecans, walnuts etc

[Carnot]

As expected Solaslime produced another healthy loss for their investors. Slightly less than Q1 but a whopping loss all the same as they burn cash faster than they can delivery profits.

More blah, blah from Wolfson but no mention that they are unlikely to meet the estimated earnings for this year (except in Kenyan Shillings). Encapso looks like a dog and fuels are barely mentioned. Moema - more excuses; apparently the power is back on but surprise, surprise extracting the algae oil is proving difficult. Yawn.

Let have a competition for the best excuse for the Q3 non earnings. How about:

1.The oil price is too low
2. It rained in Moema
3. Its not economic (sorry - that telling the truth). Delete that one


Read all about it here. Its not worthy of a cut and paste.

http://investors.solazyme.com/releasede ... eID=924911

[isgota]

Algenol has reached an agreement to distribute its ethanol. Right now, only from its pilot plant but the agreement extends to a 18 MMgy commercial plant (if it's built).

And for those interested in a more technical reading, an article about state-of-the-art algae photobioreactors.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ealth food enthusiasts routinely shell out over US$30 per pound for dried algae powder to whip up green smoothies to fuel their bodies. Algae can also power vehicles, but algae-based renewable fuels cost more than currently available gasoline or diesel fuel. Although biofuels made from algae provide numerous environmental benefits, they will not win market share until they can compete economically with cheap fossil fuels.

Algae require tremendous volumes of water to grow, and reusing that water makes production cheaper. However, researchers have disagreed on how recycled water affects algae. Some scientists have found that it inhibits growth; others found that it improves growth; and many found that it has no effect.

As a researcher focused on algae cultivation, I wanted to find an explanation for these different results, which could reveal optimal strategies for growing algae. In a recently published study, I found that algae growth success was highly linked to the type of algae previously grown in the reused water. This knowledge could help us choose which algae to grow to make a more competitive fuel source. Though it may seem like a minor adjustment, finding the most effective and economical production methods is an essential step in moving any technology from the lab to the market.

Making green fuels

Algae are microscopic organisms that live in water and produce their own food from sunlight. They reproduce quickly and don’t compete with land for food crops, which makes them a more attractive biofuel source than corn and soybeans, the main sources for current U.S. biofuels.

Scientists have been researching algae fuels for several decades, but many algae biofuel companies failed to turn a profit. As a result, they either went bankrupt or switched to making more profitable nutrition products.

A common way of growing algae for fuel involves pumping millions of gallons of water into man-made oval-shaped ponds that look like oversized running tracks. A commercial-scale algae farm could have 100 acres of these ponds.

Producers “plant” this aquatic crop by adding algae and required nutrients to the ponds. Rotating paddle wheels circulate the algae around these shallow ponds. Within days, a single teaspoon of pond water can contain millions of algae cells.

To collect the algae, producers channel some of the water into a harvest pond and add chemicals that cause algae cells to clump together, making them easier to remove. Harvested algae can be converted into fuels through methods such as subjecting them to high temperatures and pressures, similar to the processes that created fossil fuels underground over millions of years.

Recycle water, or start fresh?

Water left over after algae harvesting can be returned to the ponds for reuse. If algae farms don’t recycle water, they have to spend time and money to treat it before they can discharge it. Then they need to pump in millions of gallons of new water to fill the ponds and add nutrients to this water.

Recycling cultivation water saves water and money, but poses other challenges. Algae secrete molecules into their liquid habitat as they grow, just as people leave behind dead skin cells, mucus and other wastes. Algae can also break open when they die, releasing their innards.

Some researchers have found that the buildup of these algae “juices” in recycled water interferes with future algae growth. But other researchers found that algae grow perfectly well, or even better, in recycled water.

To find ways of optimizing algae production with water reuse, I needed to look for common trends among cases of successful or unsuccessful algae growth, such as how the algae were harvested or their age when harvested. After scouring published research, I found over 80 relevant biotechnology and ecology studies, containing over 500 experiments, from which I pulled data and other pertinent information.
Choice of algae matters

Most factors I looked at, such as harvesting method or growth conditions like temperature, were not linked to how well algae multiplied in recycled water. However, the type of algae (more specifically, the genus) grown prior to water reuse was highly connected to the growth potential of its successor.

Some algae, such as Desmodesmus, Tetraselmis and Arthrospira, often left behind more suitable water than others. This means algae companies should choose algae that leave behind harmless, or even beneficial, molecules in the water, in addition to having other desirable traits such as fast and robust growth.

Several studies alternated the type of algae with each reuse of the water, much as many farmers rotate crops in planned sequences to maintain the health of their soil. I thought that aquatic crop rotation might help algae too, but overall the available data didn’t support this idea.

Still, certain algae produced recycled water that was favorable for some strains of algae but unsuitable for others. Further research into finding strains that can work well with crop rotation may lead to cost-saving water reuse practices.

The road to algae fuels

More questions must be addressed to advance the potential of this cost-saving strategy. For example, researchers could compare algae than can and cannot consume organic matter, which is simply anything containing carbon. All algae secretions and debris are made of organic matter, so algae that can eat that material may grow better in recycled water than algae that can only obtain their energy from sunlight.

Researchers can also measure and identify the various algae secretions in recycled water to test whether growth varies with the concentrations of these substances. Bacteria also coexist with algae and consume their secretions, so researchers could study whether certain bacteria promote algae growth in recycled water.

Barring unlikely policy changes, algae have a shot at becoming a viable renewable fuel source only if costs are reduced at every production stage and productivity increases. Water recycling is one part of a multi-approach solution to gradually make algae biofuels more profitable. Though the future of algae biofuels is uncertain, we need to keep working to solve these challenges as other countries strive to do the same.

[Carnot]

Well it has been about 2 years since I posted on this thread and little has happened. No real surprise. The weeding out of the dross continues and much as predicted Solaslime bit the dust last year with barely a wimper. More investors conned out of their money by a combination of deceit and their own stupidness in believing algae would yield untold riches.

Remember if it is too good to be true, it probably is. Not only with algae but with cellulosic ethanol as well. Where are those billions of gallons of algae oil and ethanol that are going to transform the world. Nowhere in sight and never likely to be - look at the thermodynamics and you will see why.