Algae ripoff - Photobioreactors with outrageous claims
Some photobioreactors won’t even produce 1/10th of what they advertise and to pull out only 50(!) liter (13 gallons) of oil per hour out of algae you may need to invest at least a million dollars. Check the cover article of the recent edition of Biodiesel Magazine and ask yourself it it is a well prepared editorial article or just a cheap advertising…then read on for the real figures. (reposted)
Below analysis deals with density and harvesting of algae only. Please read our other articles on algae for fuel as well to get a better idea why it’s a bad idea. While this article focuses on a density/volume approach, energy balance calculations make the idea even worse.
Microalgae are micronsize little organisms who grow in a density of about of 0,1% in water. Under optimized lab conditions where light, pH, temperature and nutrition can be accurately adjusted, you may see a density of 0,6%. This means that in non-controlled conditions you will have a maximum 1g of algae per liter of water.
Some algae (botryococcus braunii) produce 80% oil when you cut of their CO2 supply, but in that process a lot of them perish and the overall oil production stays the same as with algae who produce only 20%. The Chlorella algae which Algaelink have borrowed from Ingrepro.nl for the cover picture on Biodiesel Magazine will produce around 20% oil under most ideal conditions. But hey, where’s the light and temperature control on these algaelink units? Nevertheless, let’s assume the yield per liter of water is about 0,33 grams (1/3 of the algae dry mass).
To harvest 150kg of algae each hour, you will need to harvest them out of 150.000l of water every hour. Harvesting algae is usually done with clarifier centrifuges since algae don’t jump out of the water when you ask them to. The biggest centrifuge from Alfa Laval does 150.000l per hour and will give you the 150kg. However, that centrifuge costs EUR 500.000 (US$ 733,245.34). And only that will give you 150kg algae which you have to extract the oil from, say 50l (1/3 as assumed) average best case scenario (13 gallons). So to harvest algae to produce 13 gallon (50 liter) oil per hour you need to invest in a US$ 733,245.34 (EUR 500.000) centrifuge.
Now the main question is: considering the investment in expensive harvesting equipment, why would one want to extract oil from algae to make biodiesel from when the selling price of dry algae is EUR 5/kg, about ten times more value as any oil that is sold as feedstock for biodiesel? Did you check for how much Chlorella vitamin supplements sell in the shops?
Imagine an algae farm producing 5kg per hour 24/7, selling it at EUR 5/kg - a total of EUR 18000 per month. Now tell that farm to switch to algae oil for biodiesel. They would produce 1,5kg per hour and competing with other oils they would have to sell it at EUR 0,50 per kg, a total of EUR 0,75 per hour: EUR 540 per month. The farm would be bankrupt in no time considering the high equipment investment and depreciation.
Imagine some second car salesman from The Netherlands would launch a car claiming that it runs 1000 miles an hour and 2 million miles on one gallon. Would you believe it? Of course not. So why do you believe the algae crap?
With photobioreactors people suddenly lose their senses and even the clueless Biodiesel Magazine publishes a cover story on photobioreactors without even checking the facts.
Why the Algaelink photobioreactor will never produce what the promise: With an average of 0,1% density of algae in a tubular reactor with water, to produce 1 ton of algae per day, one would need a photobioreactor tube of 1 million liters. Allright, let’s say you can harvest three times a day because they grow fast: you can do with a tube of 333.000 liters. How long is a tube that carries 333.000 liters of water given a diameter of say 50cm (5dm)? It’s 333000/(2.5^2 * 3.14) = 16968 dm, which equals about 1,7km of tube! Did you see a photobioreactor that size? 1,7km and nothing less will give you 1 ton of algae per day, provided that you also have that *very* expensive clarifier centrifuge that will allow you to clarify one million liters of water per day without influencing the algae growth in your “photobioreactor”.
If you are looking into alternative feedstocks for biodiesel production, investing in a photobioreactor is about the most stupid thing you can do.
Did you buy a photobioreactor that claims to produce 6 times as much algae than anything else in the market? Congratulations, you’re screwed.
Algae biofuel feedstock is still in the R&D phase and deals with four main objectives: increasing oil content, simplify harvesting, increasing density and lowering production costs.
The only way your new fancy photobioreactor is going to work at the advertised production capacities is when a new algae strain is released: one that grows fat in 1 hour, jumps out of the water, shakes of the drops and lies down to dry. Keep looking on the cover of Biodiesel Magazine for the announcement of such an algae strain one of these days.
Thanks for that info on Algae, Thats a couple of days wasted for me, but maybe a red face saved; If you had 10,000 acres of semi arid flatland and an ambient of 35-40degC, what biodiesel stock would you grow. The biodiesel would be produced on site.
[...] uit algen! Kan het wel of niet (uit)? 5 02 2008 In deze post op weblog biodieselfever.com uit de auteur zijn twijfels over het nut van het kweken van algen voor [...]
Your comments remind me of some of the nay saying that was going around when people were first talking about manufacturing fiber optics.
We overcame all of those problems. There is no fundamental or instrinsic reason we can’t overcome the ones associated with growing and harvesting algoil.
Just because present approaches do not work does not mean there are no workable approaches.
While I am very skeptical of Algaelink claims and prices, your assessment of algae oil for biodeisel is very limited. Admittedly, there is much more money in the healthfood area, but that does not omit the fact that algae has many attributes beyond normal feedstock for biodeisel. It is true that efficiency needs to improve to make it a cost effective option. It would be naive to think it is easy to produce high volumes of any plant oil. Realistically, it is not a question of if, but when. Where do you get your figures? Technology is always improving. There are different means to achieve oil content and harvesting which you ignore. Still, it is refreshing to hear something opposing all the hype and misinformation out there.
I am starting on Raceway Micoralge Pond covered with greennet in which
we are cultivating BOTRYOCOCCUS BRAUNII. I am humbling requesting worldwide suggestins, advice regarding culture of Microalge for Biodiesel and algaecake from sciencetists, Experienced people.
We get our figures on research from Livefuels and the US Department of Energy who have been studying the subject for decades. And we only need to address one weak spot to explain why the business is not viable unless the diesel price triples. 0,1% density, growth rate, oil content and harvesting intervals are interconnected. You tweak one, you change the other. Higher density? Less light, less growth, etc. The cost factor now is getting the algae out of the water. If you need to harvest 100kg of dry algae per day, i.e. only about 30l of oil(!) you need to clarify 100.000l of water, period. Write your business plan, go to the bank and ask them for a loan of a clarifier centrifuge that will do 100.000l of water per day (costs about US$200K) and tell them that this will give you US$20 worth of biodiesel feedstock (per day!) while you can sell the same amount of algae to the health market for 5 times the price. Make sure you have the appointment on ground level and that the windows are open.
D.O.E. stopped their algae research in 1996, after 18 years. Obviously, they had major resources, yet failed to achieve reasonable goals. That was 12 years ago. Much has changed in all respects. As far as financing, this would clearly require a large amount of venture capital. The banks are not interested. This is not all about money.
I look at it this way the amount of land we have is finite. Algae will maybe not now but in the future allow us to to produce biodiesel at a much lower cost than than the already rising costs of vegetable oil. Most of the research you quote was done in the 80s or early 90s or about 3 us dollars ago per gallon. The time is fast approaching where the cost of algae to oil will be much less the vegetable and petro alternatives. As far as your comments on the killing and harvesting of the oil last time I checked oil and water separate so harvesting the oil could be as easy as a large separation funnel. It seems your opinions are fuled by only one method and the relative costs of that method. Glad the rest of us out there dont share your views. PS the banks are interested!!!
@DC
Sure but Livefuels didn’t stop research 12 years ago. The data are actual.
@iczer
We are addressing ridiculous claims in the industry *now*. We are addressing harvesting issues that are present now, issues that algae companies and entrepreneurs hide from customers, investors and banks. Just to get the money.
Last time I checked the oil resides in the algae and doesn’t float on the water. You need to take the oil out of the algae first and to do so, you first need to take the algae out of the water. And with 0,1% density algae/water that is a real showstopper.
Anyway, glad that the rest of you out there don’t share that view. Don’t forget to make that advance payment to your photobioreactor supplier to make sure you get your unit in time. Also get a good lawyer. Your bank will have one.
So glad to have happened upon this site, very informative. This is the first opposition to algae-based biofuel production that I have encountered throughout my research and I was beginning to wonder if it is too good to be true. My question to you is regarding the vertical high density bioreactor. While a photobioreactor isn’t utilized, a centrifuge would still be required.What other setbacks do you see in pursuing that avenue?
I’ve read ultrasonic waves are used to create cavitation bubbles in a solvent material, when these bubbles collapse near the cell walls, it creates shock waves and liquid jets that cause those cells walls to break and release their contents into the solvent. Natrual force of gravity then allows the aggregated cells to sediment rapidly from the fluid. No need to remove the Algae.
John: Algae live in water in a density of 0,1%. 1g of algae in 1l of water. Where is the solvent? Before you can do anything with a solvent you need to put the algae inside of a tank with a solvent. And to put the algae inside a tank with a solvent you need to take them out of the water.
Once the algae are out of the water the oil can be pressed out with an oil press or by hexane extraction (there’s your solvent).
By the time you have made biodiesel of the algae feedstock the price per gallon for algae-oil-biodiesel is about 5 times higher than normal diesel.
I was in the process of collecting information. Glad I found your article. I am an inventor with many diverse patents. The first thing I always do when I do not know an lot about a subject that looks interesting is gather information.
A phd thesis told me present reactors and ponds are poor producers and will never be better. I guess it is simpler and easier to not read and believe the numbers. Why break the bubble!
You saved me the trouble of taking her equations and start calculating. I can make a reactor to produce two to three times the present units just by copying the phd thesis process. I was still worried about cost and size. You told me I can not ever get enough cost out.
Thank you
“one would need a photobioreactor tube of 1 million liters. Allright, let’s say you can harvest three times a day because they grow fast: you can do with a tube of 333.000 liters. How long is a tube that carries 333.000 liters of water given a diameter of say 50cm (5dm)? It’s 333000/(2.5^2 * 3.14) = 16968 dm, which equals about 1,7km of tube!”
it’s actually 13,500 meters long with a smaller diameter of 32cm. See the site of Aqualink.
You say “The biggest centrifuge from Alfa Laval does 150.000l per hour and will give you the 150kg. However, that centrifuge costs EUR 500.000 (US$ 733,245.34).” and?
If you use it 20 years, it will cost you € 25.000 p/year. You make an investment ( If you don’t understand that go back to school). I don’t know if the input of energy is right but that’s a different argument.
“Imagine an algae farm producing 5kg per hour 24/7, selling it at EUR 5/kg - a total of EUR 18000 per month. Now tell that farm to switch to algae oil for biodiesel. They would produce 1,5kg per hour and competing with other oils they would have to sell it at EUR 0,50 per kg, a total of EUR 0,75 per hour: EUR 540 per month. The farm would be bankrupt in no time considering the high equipment investment and depreciation.”
They can make different product from the same algea. Oil companies do the same.
Last remark, oil is getting more expensive, oil from algea will be an option in the future.
Are you sure it’s only 13.5 km? Because that would be too small in any case. 13.5km would be about the size of the nose of the guy selling the photobioreactor.
Even when you use the centrifuge for 20 years and you end up with a cost of 25K per year because you happen to have 700K lying around catching dust (like that’s the overall cost of ownership of having a centrifuge - not), the figures don’t add up either: Revenue from feedstock for fuel will be EUR 540 per month, EUR 6480 per year. Substracted from EUR 25K it leaves EUR 18520 operational loss per year. How are you going to bridge that, considering that you also need to pay utilities, pay your self, your phone bill, cover your operational costs etc. etc. Did I add the cost of the photobioreactor yet? Did I mention that 500K would give you about EUR 15000 flat interest per year with a 3% basic savings account. Add that to the loss.
What different valuable product can you make once the oil is out of the algae taking all nutritional value out of there - and what investment is required ? Give us some cost/revenue figures please. What ’same’ thing do oil companies do? They do dick. They invest 0,01% of their R&D budget into some algae project to attract some press and to spend a few weeks in Hawaii a few times per year.
Anyway, feel free to believe that crap. Go ahead and invest.
Modern bioreactors use high density, around 35-43 g/L. A typical oil extraction yield is about 45% of dry weight. Density of the oil is 1.27. So, oil extraction is 12-15ml/L.
So for 1ML, thats 15000 L. Assuming harvest 3/day, thats 45000 liters of oil, or 12000 gals.
Sounds economically feasible to me.
Which algae strain allows oil extraction of 45% and at the same time 3 harvests a day?
But let’s assume that 45000l are realistic, what equipment would one need?
3 harvests a day x 1 million liter = 3.000.000l centrifuge capacity per day = 125.000l/hour. That centrifuge is hard to get rid of.
But where is that 1 million liter size photobioreactor that can provide enough 24/7 tungsten light so the microalgae can reach a 35-43g/l density without running into the dark?
To produce 45000l/day with the very high density you suggest, we would still need a 5.1km long 50cm diameter photobioreactor with an artificial light source to penetrate the goo and keep the algae alive.
How much energy would that light require?
Hi,
Actually, AlgaeLink claims their method doesn’t require a centrifuge.
The density and thickness of the photobioreactor (they mention a maximum thickness of 640 mm) looks like it could be a problem. Without looking at their patents or some first hand experience seems difficult to know more.
Hi Ricardo,
Funny, they have been borrowing an Alfa Laval clarifier centrifuge for quite some time to get some green goo out of the tube. I assume they now have that strain that walks out of the water by itself.
Also what I didn’t mention is that a photobioreactor is supposed to have artificial light on it so the results don’t depend on ambient light. Hence the word ‘photo’. Combine that with the 640mm thickness, the density etc.
Bioking/Algaelink should be given a patent on advertising. Whatever nonsense they claim on their website, there are still people buying it.
Hello.
Regarding a comment of past May 10th you said that the algae oil output of the centrifuge is worth about 540 EUR per month, so makes it unprofitable (well, in fact, the original story says about the same due to centrifuge total capital cost). Well, I’ve made some calculations based on your original data (150k l/h-500k EUR centrifuge, 50 l/h oil, 0.5 EUR/l oil) and this led me to a different conclusion:
50 l/h * 0.5 EUR/l * 24 h/day * 30 days/month = 18000 EUR per month
or about 216000 EUR per year, so the centrifuge payback time is 2.3 years, that is something that seems viable (or at least, we cannot say that is not feasible due to centrifuge capital costs).
And you also forget that the algae leftover (2/3 of the total) has a monetary value as well, because it´s made mainly by starch and protein and can be used as feed, for instance. Many claim that this leftover can worth as much as the oil, so you can almost double the incomes.
Best regards.
PS: By the way, “photo” doesn´t imply artificial light, means just light, and could be perfectly sunlight, in fact there are some closed systems desings aside of Algaelink that work only in sunlight (i.e. Greenfuel or Valcent).
Hmm you’re mixing up two examples.
The centrifuge doesn’t give you oil btw, it gives you dry algae mass, which you have to extract the oil from (more equipment) and remember also that photobioreactor you bought that will give you 150 000l/hour to process. Smile.
18K income is nothing if you consider what your CAPEX and OPEX is. You need 3 FTE to run the plant, pay rent for the office, the area you operate on (quite some square meters), storage, electricity (lots of kWhs) etc.
If your photobioreactor has no temperature and light control, you could as well use open ponds to cultivate your algae with, eventually covered with a transparent perspex plate or something. What is the point having the algae in a tube without light control? It’s pointless. You just spend more money for no extra value or functionality. That is, if you ever going to get the equipment you paid for.
Well, it’s not just 18k EUR per month but +30k EUR (don’t forget leftover) and it seems enough if we do some math:
- 1 Tonne/day plant of photobioreactor costs 148000 EUR and consumes 4 kW per hour of power.
- A 5000 t/year (about 13.7 t/day) algae oil press costs 191000 EUR:
- Alfa Laval centrifuges power needed is about 1 kW/m3 processed (or per kg algae centrifuged).
- Industrial electricity prices in Spain are 0.075 EUR/kWh.
So, operating costs (for 3.6 t/day = 150000 l/hour Alfa Laval centrifuge):
3.6 t/d * 4 kW * 24 h * 0.075 EUR/kWh = 26 EUR/day on photobioreactor.
150 kW * 24 h * 0.075 EUR/kWh = 270 EUR/day on centrifuge.
On incomes of about 1000 EUR/day, it would leave us about 700 EUR/day to pay capital costs (I didn’t included other cost because of lack of data and some are not linear scalable).
Total capital costs:
3.6 * 148000 EUR photobio + 500000 EUR centrifuge + (3.6/13.7) * 191000 EUR oil press = about 1.1 million EUR
Hence payback time of about 4.4 years. Economically makes sense, at least for me.
And the reason for closed photobioreactors could be that can control passively temperature at least and help to avoid external contamination, improving productivity and algae concentration even if its more expensive. Anyway many companies are using different aproaches to algae cultivation so we’ll see.
Ok you get 700 euro per day to pay your investment back in 4.4 years.
Aren’t you forgetting something?
No interest on the 1.1 million? (and if it’s yours, calculate the interest you don’t get when putting it on a deposit bank account)
No salaries? (operator, laborant, people on shifts etc.)
No insurances?
No transportation costs?
No rent/mortgage on housing/premises/land etc?
No maintenance costs for the centrifuge (you bet)?
No lab for oil analysis?
I have news for you. EUR 700 per 24 hours is EUR 29 per hour. Why invest 1.1 million to earn EUR 29 / hour MINUS all the abovementioned (which in my humble opinion is a negative income).
A plumber makes more money per hour. But then again, I guess it’s a matter of faith after all isn’t it?
Nice story! Can I use this for my blog? gr, remcowoudstra
@isgota
Quote: “Well, it’s not just 18k EUR per month but +30k EUR (don’t forget leftover) and it seems enough if we do some math:”
Do also some economics. If a few farms start producing biodiesel from algae at some economic scale, the ‘leftovers’ supply will become so large that with a steady demand the price will drop tremendously.
Your leftovers will have no value and your oil will be too expensive.
Why not just wait until diesel prices hit EUR 20 per gallon?
We would like to correspond directly with this blogger and would appreciate an email address or other contact info. We are currently conducting research in this area and would like to better understand some of his/her assertions. We are not affiliated with AlgaeLink or any manufacturer of PBR technology.
-Institute for Diversified Energy Alternatives
Take a good look at the photos of the tube and bag photobioreactors. They are all sitting nicely in the sun, making algae. What happens to the production/equipment/operation during the 6 months of cold weather, snow and rain?
PROSPECTS FOR THE BIODIESEL INDUSTRY
(By James Miller. Edited by Biodieselfever.com to turn it from an ad into an article)
Where we’ve been.
The biodiesel industry has reached a crisis point. The demand for biodiesel has promoted the construction of a large number of biodiesel plants. These refineries use the oils from many plants, but especially soy. The cost of seed oil has risen dramatically because of the rise in petrodiesel costs to farm and the demand for ethanol as an additive to gasoline. Ethanol is used in the processing of biodiesel.
In Europe, many of the biodiesel plants have been moth-balled because of the high cost of oil seed oil. Imperim Renewables, Gray’s Harbor WA, is finishing a 100,000 million gallon per year plant, with no assured source of vegetable oil. They are reluctant to import palm oil because of the adverse ecological impact of the palm plantations. Other refineries are facing the same supply issues.
The favored source of oil, algal oil, has been touted as the liquid fuel source of the future – and indeed it is. Most early investors put their money up to fund the construction of algae farms. Guess what? They proved they could grow algae using a wide variety of technologies.
Where we’re at.
Slowly, it dawned on these producers and their investors, that while they could successfully grow algae, they had only very inefficient means of extracting the oil from the algae cells. The universities were of no help since most of their funding was to discover ways of growing algae and tweaking the DNA. None have developed any new technologies to extract the oil in a continuous, large volume process.
There are ways of fracturing the algae cell to get at the lipids floating around in the cytoplasm. Heat, pressure drop, impingement, solvents, crushing, grinding with small ceramic bebees – all have been tried. Yet much of the technology, derived from the lab bench was not scalable to commercial standards, except at great cost and poor results.
Enters [Company name] to the rescue
We have found the technological “sweet spot” for harvesting Chlorella vulgaris cells and extracting the algal oil. The process of harvesting the mature “parent” cells and returning the “daughter” cells to the head of the growing system has been solved. The opening of the Chlorella cell is done by osmotic rupture, leaving the cell wall intact, looking like an opened flower. The cytoplasm and the cell walls are separated and then the lipids (oil) removed, returning the balance of the cytoplasm to the algae production system to add to the nutrient. The cell walls can be dehydrated and sold as a health food supplement or fermented into ethanol. The wash water used to clean the raw biodiesel is laced with Potassium and serves as a nutrient.
The remaining mechanical issues are: how big do we make the system to handle what quantity of algae? If our clients will tell the quantity, we can build the machinery to handle the clients’ request. We are not dealing in rocket science. We are not interested in doing study after study like the universities and think tanks. We want to build the machine the client wants and get it into operation fast. We will stand behind our work and tweak the equipment when necessary. We are constantly on the look-out for new ideas. The technology in this field is a moving target, and we move with it.
In terms of scale, our designs will serve two primary markets: The small farmer cooperative of fifteen to fifty members, using at least 100,000 gallons of biodiesel a year, and the larger farm which is producing algae which converts to 10 million gallons of biodiesel a year. While the equipment we build (the cell harvester and the cell rupture machine) are fully scalable, some of the equipment we buy from others has not been scalable, except by installing a bank of units. These units include filters, separators, polishers, and solvent recovery devices. We are working with many of these vendors and encouraging them to scale up their equipment. We have encountered the age old problem of “why invent, develop and make a much larger machine, since no one has demanded such machine”. Before Xerox was invented, no one demand a Xerox copier.
We have the science and engineering talent in our firm and the advanced knowledge of where technology should be driven to solve the “Xerox” conundrum. We will not likely be on the front page of the WSJ any time soon. We are not interested in selling out to an oil company, merely to see our patents and technology suppressed. We know that Chlorella divides 2.5 times per hour. The growth/harvest cycle is about ten days as against annually for oil seed crops. We can grow the algae in cover ponds in the middle of winter in Montana on non-crop soils. We can grow it on dry desert lands. We can make our own distilled water. The wash water can be used to grow algae and other crops. The co-product, glycerol, has many profitable uses, despite what you may have read about the glut of raw glycerine on the market. We want to use the “free” energy of geothermal wells, the Sun and wind energy. We want to be as green as we can get with the smallest carbon footprint.
Hi James,I am very interested in your project which sounds very promissing.I am a private individual done some negotiations with Bio King but hesitant to take further steps.I like to other altenatives.I will be grateful if you would contact me.with kind regards, maha
Hi Mahadev,
Why hesitant? Does it feel like Alice in Wonderland?
dreamland
AS much as I would like to believe that those numbers are real
I live in the world of physics and facts
First of all with a diameter of 50 cm which is 157 circumference
you must subtract the inefficient portion of the volume that has little or no photosynthesis or about 42-45cm diameter which is unproductive no matter how you mix or agitate
considering a ring of about 1cm depth for maximum photon excitement 1cm more for medium 1cm for poor say 20% (probably less) and beyond that just unproductive volume
that leaves about 70% of the volume unproductive.
Which is the fundamental problem with large diameter tubes
I want one of those reactors that produces 30-40gm/L
I want these things but they are in dreamland not here in reality
On the farm the reality is throw away your initial investment and never consider it again
the actual harvest is about .15gm oil/L/day
and even the wildest “practical reality” on the farm COULD be
1gm Biodiesel/day/liter that means you Need a photobioreactor that you can harvest 454liters for 1lb of oil or
3087 liters for 1gal now you cant harvest all the water every day you have to leave about 75% so 3087=25%X you need a
12000 gallon Photobioreactor to produce 1 gallon of biodiesel/day and with actual farm yield you would need a 75,000 gal PBR for that 1Gal/day 1 gallon OK
I WANT THAT SUPER SPACE AGE system
Lets say with the best lighting known to man, space age gas transfer and waste elimination A pbr less than 4 cm diam. that produces 100,000,000cells/ml cell density you could produce
20gm/day/l or 6gm/oil/day/liter you need a pbr of 2058 liters
only 165 meters tubing required not too bad
remember the best lighting known to man “seriousProblem”
ultrafiltration “problem”
precise O2 & CO2 control minor “problem”
fertilizers no problem
Co2 minor “problem”
and considering you need about 10mw/cm2 oh ya both sides
need to be illuminated about 13000watts continuous 25$/day
the lights alone would initially cost over $50,000.00US
Oh I forgot about the 6 lbs of co2 that you need
(probably $.20/lb however you get it), but lets clean up the earth
most likely you could do this some how
it would be really cool too see this thing work but at $30.00/gallon “be real”
As far as sunlight capturing -transmitting fiberoptics glowing acrylics. heat & elctricity generation from propane recapture
of co2 in montana in Dec-Jan Try that at a profit Have you ever lived in north dakota or montana??
If you could “actually” do it for even 3$ /gallon you would be rich beyond the stars and in no need to “sell” the idea to anyone your fuel would be sold before you make it
as a matter of fact I know 2 people who want a 1-3million gallons right now
DNA altered Bio engineered microorganisms
that eat agricultural products let the enviromentalists loose on that one & the EPA sort through it
We got a long way to go But I’m still optimistic
Good job Admin. Im sure we could hang out all day dissin the PBR’er and their folly.
Another piece of ammo for you as to how silly this concept is, bring up the energy density of wet algae in medium. Over and over, silly comments like ‘we can regulate the temp of our PBR’, bla bla bla. The math?
1gram of 50% lipid algae harvest/1000gram of medium = ~ 22 BTU’s. In other words, the amount of energy produced from 1 full day harvest is enough energy to raise (or lower) the temp of the medium inwhich it is grown by less than 1C / hour.
Thus the concept that a PBR can be regulated, simply by harvesting algae is completely and provably false.
Carry on my friend.
Algaelink has only a grow system and no means of harvesting their algae. The assumption here by admin that the harvesting system for algae would be “centrifuges” is patently false. The g/L claim of only reaching 1 g/L is also false. 1 g/L is an easy density to achieve, it’s claims of 10 g/L or above that are outrageous and created to justify grow-system costs. The fact is that Algaelink has a very expensive grow system and no processing equipment. Temperature CAN be regulated in a PBR in many ways using waste heat sources or evap cooling, it’s easy, but it adds cost to the system. Also, claims about lighting costs are also invalid due to new technology on the market that maximizes growth potential and minimizes input costs. I suppose it’s easy to be a naysayer when you are not entrenched in the industry and have a broader understanding of the new technologies and improved economics for algae production.
Note: You won’t be seeing algae fuel anytime soon. The fact is that the value of algae for products other than oil is much much higher. We will always need oil and always need a source of renewable, but we shouldn’t be focused on liquid-fuel technology for our future…by investing so much in creating a source for liquid fuels we are losing an opportunity to search for energy sources outside of the “carbon box”.
@jeff
First of all this article focuses on a specific case.
Algaelink used an Alfa Laval clarifier (Clara) to put next to their transparent cigar for the picture to suggest that this would be the method for harvesting. Clarifiers are widely used for harvesting algae. So what do you consider patently false? Maybe the algae now drop out by themselves, you never now with Algaelink.
The 1g/L is the most likely output you will get from an uncontrolled PBR the al-cigar was when we released the article.
For the rest, if you have broader understanding of the market and the new technologies, don’t hesitate sharing them with us, instead of only refering to them. Be specific.
We are a naysayer to this specific product.
The one million dollar question: if you would have a photobioreactor that could really produce that amounts of feedstock suitable for fuel as claimed by Algaelink, would you try selling demo equipment while wasting a lot of money on marketing, having to close down the Netherlands operation and hide in Spain, or would you start p r o d u c i n g y o u r s e l f and get filthy rich?
The main problem in this industry is people making claims and referring to ‘new technologies’ without putting them on the table
Like the admin says the centrifuge I believe the Clara 80 from Alfa Laval is only there for the picture.
I never have seen that they used it to harvest the algae or even connected it to, they only harvest money(the green gold they were talking about) with it from innocent hardworking people and small and big suppliers.
Just like the movie on YouTube where you can see oil is being extracted from the algae, it’s sunflower oil what you see coming out of the press!
-edit: How do you know? -
what about the use of co2 from power plants and leasing the pbr to the company and sell for feed stock or bio mass, pharmi , nutri needs. what bout the carbon credits recived oh an flocculent that can reduce harvesting cost
actually there has been some breakthrough in harvest technology that seems to be able to harvest for a pittance compared to centrifuges. this involves a rolling nylon screen that does not clog as with usual drum filters of the past.
i grant that all the cons about algae where well founded, i too realised that there would be no money to be made under the old methods of harvesting.
however these will be adressed in the near future. depending upon if this new machine does not require regular costly maintenance.
the learning will a lot of expense to companies the information and techniques will be found. it is funny this was the first plant to evolve yet taken us so long to use in this way.
it is not such that the densities in water means you cant make money.
as you said if you had a 1 tonne per meg algae bloom and you harvest half of it a day thats 500 kilos. the next day it is back to a tonne.
the proto type machine i saw does about 500 litres ad hour but is scaleable.
and they can make a 15000 litre per hour one.
this will mean two machines on a 1 meg pond can harvest more than half the pond volume in a day.
another 500 kilos. while this wont do this all week long all year long there will be money to be made once the best use of the biological paramters and physical attributes of algae is found so that harvest days at this rate are most frequent.
algae venture systems is the company, you can check it out. its on you tube.
i dont believe the 2 dollars per tonne myself.. but if its ten dollars a tonne it will be worthwhile. believ it the race is on. but you are fully correct. these kinds of bioreactors are rubbish but for experimenting with.
they will need massive ponds. next to sewer farms, using farm fertiliser run offs and next to power plants to make this work.
the levels of nutrietn in the water and other things need to stop other things living in the waters as competition.
it will be way expensive to try close a 5 million litre hot house pond up with positive pressure. drain, steralise, fill fert and harvest..as long as you can and do it all again.
Thanks a million for the information. As a researcher in a totally different area (although marinebiology) can you suggest some reliable research articles summing up algae production in modern photobioreactors?
Thanks again
Katja
Just another comment. I have a lot of collegues that grow algae for research and they always complain about how filthy expensive the growth medium for the algae is (the medium contains vitamins, minerals, nutrients etc.). Some people propose that the algae production plants should be placed in extremely sunny areas but in these areas the temperature should easily get to high. It also seems important to stress over and over again that algae are living organisms with a lot of demands on their surroundings.
best regards
Katja
Katja, check out https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ALGAE-L
Powerful arguments have pathos, logos, and ethos. In other words passion, logic and ethics. You skeptical algal, nay sayers, who have contributed to or read this thread,should have a refresher course in logic. You must remember that if A = B and B = C, then A must = C. If A doesn’t = B and B = C then A will not = C.
While you seem to be passionate and adamant that you don’t believe algae will provide liquid motor fuel; You haven’t supplied ample data to construct a solid, logical argument; which would have the capability, to support your beliefs.
Check out “my website” (ed: we don’t do free advertising here) If you want to see just a few of the most major corporations that are jumping onto the algal band wagon. Several of these companies are amongst the biggest, most financially successful, and employ some of the most impressive brain trusts in the history of the business world. I’m highly skeptical that they are all wrong, considering that nature on Earth has had algal biofuels mastered for billions of years. Man accomplishing liquid motor fuels from algal slimes is most certainly less complicated than putting terra bytes of computer memory into cubic centimeters of volume. For, we are born with that capacity in our skulls and now have put it in our laptops.
Algal Cheers and Stay tuned to witness the Manhattan Project of the 3rd Millennium,
Neil
Sta
Hi Neil,
Maybe you are just missing the point? Why would we bother presenting a solid logic argument against algae for fuel while there isn’t a single argument in favor of it?
All companies participating in these organizations are either entirey clueless or they are after public or investor’s money to “discover” what they already know: you need more energy to produce energy from algae and the byproduct isn’t worth anything at the scale it would be produced if we would scale up algae production at the size that we would need it to satisfy only a part of our energy requirements.
Reason why organizations like “your website” exist pure and simple: it doesn’t matter how stupid the idea is, you can always find a bunch of idiots to believe it.
And thanks to the unimaginable stupidity of the “professional” press, these idea’s find their way to all corners of the earth.
Now for some logic: because a bunch of idiots, big and small, say you can produce fuel from algae economically, it doesn’t have to be so.
You Niel, can easily prove me wrong:
Find me one car that drives on a fuel produced from algae the entire year without the guy paying for it being entirely stupid for spending 40 times as much on fuel as at the gas station and come back to prove me wrong.
Best regards,
Kurt
All this was said about Intensive Aquaculture 15 yrs ago, now almost 60% of all farmed fish and crustaceans are farmed this way.
AKH you don’t run your car on farmed fish and crustaceans do you? We are talking “intensive aquaculture” for fuel here, which is ridiculous.
I did formulate a reasoned objective response to all of the above but realized from your previous comments and twisting of the topic to suit your argument that it was pointless as the result would be some what similar to the above…………
On the positive side I find that the article has in a round about way provided people with data to conduct their own research on the matter.
However I’m not too sure about the whole “advertise elsewhere” approach when you use the same platform to name and shame a company that you, by your own admission, have never used their product and have little more than averaged figures of specific equipment to condemn at large a method of farming.
I would think you are more than well aware that any Biomass can be used to run a Petrol/gas engine. They used to do it during the World wars due to liquid fuel shortages. THIS IS NOT NEW.
Anyway, the key to any method of producing a product to make a profit is to keep operating expenses as low as possible OR increase output to a level that eclipses costs. Capex is irrelevant ROI is everything. Lets not forget the tax advantages either.
Obviously the given example meets neither of these criteria.
@AKH
Read the other articles on this website and you will see that most of the pages that claimed a certain performance for these pbr’s were deleted by Algaelink. What remains of the photobioreactor product is nothing more than a few plastic pipes and a drawing.
This is one of their dealers who didn’t update his web page:
http://www.algaeglobal.com/algaelink%20com%20cult.htm
This is an earlier brochure full of lies, apparently stuck on some website:
Brochure
And this is how they advertise the product now:
http://www.algaelink.com/basic-algaelink-pbr-system.htm
http://www.algaelink.com/algae-photobioreactors.htm
How about that for swallowing false claims?
Oh and they claim to have sold 30 photobioreactors, but they can’t post a single reference of a working unit. They have a huge project in China, but nobody in China knows about it…
But hey, don’t take our word for it. Call them, order your PBR and get rich.
Perhaps slightly off topic, but did you see that Solazyme was just issued a contract to provide fuel to, the Navy. I haven’t researched in-depth yet, but it appears they are to provide 20,000 gallons of fuel for aviation testing. I believe it’s an $8.5 million contract. That’s to provide fuel for R&D, not R&D for the fuel. If you get your handy calculator out, that comes to $425 per gallon. That’s not bad. I wonder if the fact that this company is in California (adjacent to Her Highness Speaker Pelosi’s district) had anything to do with that. It was paid for with stimulus money. Is there any way you can contact me by email or I can contact you?
You dont know anything about algae production and extraction. Learn your facts before your rant and work your panties in a twist.