article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (15) View image gallery Image Gallery (5) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
5 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
June 22, 2009

Blooming Biofuel: How Algae Could Provide the Solution

The distant sparkle of algae is coming into focus. Interest is growing exponentially and a handful of companies are planning the leap from research to commercial production of algae-based fuels.
by Jeffrey Decker
London, UK [Renewable Energy World Magazine]

In the years since the discovery of significant concentrations of lipids in certain species of algae, estimates for the potential of the single-cell water-borne plant have varied wildly. What is agreed is the substantial potential for algae to become a valuable resource in the portfolio of second generation biofuels. The tiny plants can produce at least 15 times more oil per hectare than alternatives like jatropha, rapeseed and palm, and are 20 times as productive as corn and soy. Today, high-end food supplements are still the main algal product, but some estimate their fuels could compete with petroleum at US$60 per barrel.

But with the range of technologies available and a ground swell of R&D investment cash, confidence among developers is high that algae-derived biofuels will soon be able to compete with fossil fuels.

Excitement, and sometimes hype, are keywords here. ‘I’ve seen calculations that Arizona could provide 40 to 60 billon US gallons (182 to 272 billion litres) of road fuels, biodiesel and ethanol, from algae, just utilizing its open space,’ explains Tom Byrne, secretary of the Algal Biomass Association and CEO of Byrne & Company Ltd, saying: ‘I don’t really see where algae are going to compete head-to-head with corn or soybeans or any of the feedstocks. That’s the excitement of it, because it doesn’t do that. Algae will play a leading role because it uses wastewater and CO2, and releases oxygen and clean water.’

The environmental advantages of algae – which absorb CO2 along with nitrates and phosphates – are coupled with the promise of commercial yields of high quality biofuel.

Commercial Endeavours

An indication of this potential is given by the growth of interest in the sector. According to Otto Pulz and his colleagues at the IGV Institute in Potsdam, Germany, the 100,000 known strains of microalgae in the world are currently being scrutinized by at least 200 companies with big plans. At first count, in 2007, there were just five. ‘Mainly in the U.S., it’s concentrated there,’ he says, with European interest next.

Pulz, whose company’s own plans include a 100 hectare facility, notes that American investors were giving three times what Europeans were, despite the fact that significant quantities are unlikely to be sold by anyone for two years, and perhaps longer now that global investments are drying up. For instance, Smorgen Fuels of Melbourne, Australia, which had hoped to sell biodiesel from algae this year, have been forced to announce that the programme has been delayed. ‘It might be another 18 months to a couple of years,’ states business development manager Nelun Fernando. ‘Everything is new, except, of course, for the algae.’

Nonetheless, despite the downturn, investors continue to emerge. ‘In the U.S.,’ says Byrne, ‘I know of about one half billion dollars that have been invested. I’ve heard claims of over a billion. Most of it’s been what we call angel investors.’

Bill Gates and his Cascade Investment LLC jumped behind Sapphire Energy of San Diego, helping them raise ‘substantially more than $100 million’ by September, along with ARCH Venture Partners, Wellcome Trust and Venrock. Sapphire means to produce 10,000 barrels of ‘green crude’ in three to five years.

Solazyme of San Francisco isn’t saying who invested $45 million in their fermentation process to grow algae in the dark. Their target to sell diesel is between next year and 2012, although testing by the global standards-setting body ASTM International has already cleared their diesel for performance and safety.

Being proven helps attract investments, says Adeo Ressi, founding member of Thefunded.com. ‘If you have a company that’s already financed, the likelihood of it being able to receive more money is significantly higher than a new entrant’, he says. ‘Outside of inventing cold fusion, it’s going to be very, very difficult, if not impossible, for new companies to find financing.’ He notes: ‘One nice thing about algae compared to solar and some other clean tech ideas, is that by comparison it can be much more capital efficient.’

The European Union is throwing €2.7 billion behind algae over seven years, and is including algae for the first time in the 2010 calls of its Seventh Framework Programme. Individual countries, particularly in Western Europe, are supporting research and expansion as well.

Nonetheless, some government-backed programmes have failed to live up to expectations. For instance, the Japanese government’s Research for Innovative Technology of the Earth programme spent $100 million studying closed algae systems, but ultimately gave up on it. While in 1996 the United States closed its US Aquatic Species Program, which led research over three decades at two 1000 m² open-pond systems, before concluding the technology was too expensive for large-scale production.

Technologies and Modifications

So-called open systems stand exposed to the elements and nurture algae favourable to the local environment. There’s a lot caretakers can do to stimulate growth in these low-cost simple systems, but not as much as is possible in the more expensive closed systems. These can cover just as many hectares, but are sealed in plastic, glass or bags and offer extensive control options. Numerous innovative designs aim to mimic the low costs of open-ponds with the efficiency and enhanced production of closed systems.

Those bioreactors can be arranged vertically to maximize collection of sunlight, and also allow manipulation of pressure and temperature to stress the algae into producing more oil than they normally would. Some employ centrifuges or chemical additives, and many more tricks have been tested.

Bioreactors are preferred for colder climates, and also allow specific control over the carbon dioxide gas feed. The cleaner the carbon, the ‘happier’ the algae, and the exact makeup of the carbon source can lead to the appropriate selection of algae for the best production. A harvest of 300–400 ppm is considered healthy. That string of energy then has to be turned into something denser that’s biologically stable and won’t break down. Dehydrating the harvest is one of the many challenges researchers are working to overcome.

Another approach to improve yields is selective genetic engineering. While some open pond processes accept the algae that appears and grows naturally, most companies carefully select the species with the most desirable traits. Some others attempt to make their own. ‘We are not manipulating the genome,’ says Dominique Duvauchelle, CEO of Eco-Solution, ‘When bacteria lives, it divides in two. And sometimes when this happens you can select the mutations,’ he explains, revealing by way of illustration that some of the species with the highest concentrations of lipids have very hard cellular walls, which hinder efforts to extract the oil. It is therefore desirable to select particular mutations with high lipid content and weaker cell walls for future generations. ‘If you have a continuous culture you can add some new mutations at any time,’ Duvauchelle adds.

Their ‘high throughput platform’ accelerates those divisions and the production of variants. Located outside Paris, his company was founded in 1999 and has raised €9.5 million from private investors. Their discoveries, like some others in this sector, have gone to aid treatment of industrial and municipal wastewater as well as soil decontamination. Indeed, connecting algae production to industry is a common plan, with benefits for both sectors. The algae need a steady stream of CO2 and their absorption of this gas could help to minimize the environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions.

An example comes from Seambiotic Ltd of Israel, which is reputed to be the first algae cultivation operation using flue gas from coal-fired power plants.

After their pilot plant went online in 2005, says chief advisor Ami Ben-Amotz, the power plant officials were not too happy. ‘Now we are in co-operation. They want to change the front gate so visitors will go into the power plant through the ponds of the algae!’ That will accompany expansion from today’s 1000 m² to a five hectare production plant by late 2009.

They’ve proven the concept, he says, and algae has a place in carbon capture across the industrial world, including at Fischer-Tropsch fuel production facilities for coal-to-liquids or gas-to-liquids, which are among the world’s most potent producers of CO². Natural gas-fired power plants in the U.S. are also feeding algae.

Ben-Amotz advises, ‘To get connected to the chimney is quite difficult,’ but with seven tonnes of algal health food as their main product, picking the algae is easy. ‘My way is not to find the algae, but to let the algae come by themselves. If you give the algae the best conditions they will come. They’re in the water. What they call self-selection. Then you just enrich the algae.’ Nonetheless, now that jet fuel production is a new goal, analyzing strains is a new chore for Seambiotic scientists.

Commercializing and Scaling

Better algae strains will emerge, predicts Brian Willson of Solix Biofuels, but more will be needed if algae-derived biofuels are to achieve their potential. They still need ‘to enhance growth rates, to reduce the cost of oil extraction and reduce the cost of nutrients,’ he explains. Eventually, he says, ‘We can be competitive, we believe, with $60–$80 per barrel.’ This compares with today’s prices, where ‘it’s thousands of dollars per gallon because it’s being produced in research quantities.’

Within three to five years Solix means to begin large-scale production on a 10-acre (4-hectare) site on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation in Southwest Colorado. Their bioreactors will stretch skyward to maximize sunlight exposure, paid for by $10.5 million from its first round of outside funding. The Ute tribe is an equity holder in the company.

Solix isn’t worried with converting their algae oil into fuel. Refineries can buy the oil and re-sell it themselves. ‘It’s essentially a triglyceride, so it’s the same category of compounds we get from soy, canola, palm, jatropha, you name it’, Willson says.

Michael Kroeger of the non-profit German Biomass Research Centre notes: ‘The most advanced technical problem is how to handle the water. Algae only have a very low concentration in the growth medium (0.5 g/l up to maximum 3.0 g/l, depending on the reactor). This makes the harvest and the post-processing very energy-intensive.’

HR Biopetroleum has had almost twenty years to puzzle over these problems, which may be one reason Royal Dutch Shell partnered with it to form Cellana and build massive algae ponds in Hawaii. They are a contender to be the largest biofuel producer when their commercial plant starts operating next year and if their plans for a 20,000 hectare plant hold true for 2012.

Meanwhile, GreenFuel Technologies Corp. seems on a steady course with Aurantia Group to build a 1000 m² algae facility outside a cement plant in Jerez, Spain. They intend to produce around 25,000 tonnes of algae biomass annually from a $92 million facility. The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based company specializes in capturing numerous industrial emissions in algae facilities.

The exception to this young sector’s restraints of time and technology is Alganol Biofuels, which says it is ready this year to sell algae-based ethanol at affordable prices. The Maryland-based company licensed its technology last year to BioFields of Mexico, which invested $850 million last June to build a massive algae farm in Northwest Mexico. Biofields could start producing 378 million litres of ethanol a year, and intends to increase this to 1 billion gallons (3.8 billion litres) per year by 2012. Furthermore, the process avoids the requirement for dewatering, crushing or processing the algae.

The process working both in Mexico and at Alganol’s Florida site was invented by CEO Paul Woods in the 1980s. ‘We don’t make any oil. We specifically look for algae that have very high photosynthetic rates and low oil production. We want to channel carbon into ethanol’ explains Woods. ‘We specifically don’t want to channel carbon into lipids, fatty acids or oils.’

In Florida, Woods is waiting on permits to extract seawater before building a 1000 or 10,000 acre (400–4000 ha) facility. He’s already ordered the ‘soda bottle’-shaped grow chambers. ‘They’re roughly five feet (1.7 metres) wide and we ordered around six and a half miles (10 kilometres),’ he asserts. ‘It’s probably bigger than any other facility in the world. It all comes down to design. We don’t have to harvest our organisms. We don’t crush them, kill them or dewater them. Ethanol is an evaporative. It evaporates out of the space all on its own.’

Competition Driving Innovation

Although interest in algae-derived biofuels is clearly increasing and the sector is attracting significant investment in production expansion and technology R&D, Dave Jones of LiveFuels doesn’t yet foresee fierce competition in this emerging field. ‘I don’t think it’s a winner-take-all game. This is the commodity business. To the extent that we’re all making something to burn, the demand for flammable liquids is much greater than what the algae industry can produce for at least the next couple of decades.’

That observation is apparent in their plan to provide algae oil to fuel refiners. One focus at LiveFuels, Jones says, is algae growing in conjunction with different kinds of microbes and in conjunction with higher level life forms like fish. ‘We think those systems are going to be a lot more robust and a lot less likely to crash than systems that are going to be based on just one set of algae. Healthy competition will help everyone,’ he says, ‘there ought to be plenty of opportunities for companies to play together as they optimize the process.’

In the meantime, production costs are becoming more competitive with fossil-derived alternatives. For instance, the Netherlands’ Algae Link CEO, Peter van den Dorpel, says: ‘We could offer the full chain of algae-to-fuel and be competitive with the fossil fuel market at the level of $100/barrel. Our algae-growing systems today are showing these productivity levels and we are scaling-up production capacity.’ Their demonstration units are small enough to ship and can be scaled upward, he says, mostly to customers planning to grow high-end diet supplements. ‘Sometimes the CO2 issue is the main driver. They don’t even care where the end product goes,’ van den Dorpel adds, noting: ‘We’ve sold more than 30 units in about 20 countries.’

Among the oldest players is Ingrepro Micro Ingredients, and director C. Callenbach says they’re competitive today. ‘If oil doesn’t go below $42/barrel, then it gets into the break-even,’ he asserts. This year the company is building four ‘energy farms’ – a combination of wastewater treatment and algae plant. ‘You produce biomethane and at the same time you produce biomass,’ he says, adding: ‘On 30 hectares the low cost we can achieve is 70–80 tonnes per hectare.’

Ingrepro holds claim to being the largest industrial algae producer in Europe, but they don’t stress themselves on breaking new scientific frontiers. ‘It’s not the system that does it. It’s a combination of the systems and you have to have good management,’ Callenbach says. ‘There are companies focused on convincing people to use their system. We use any system. We are not married to anybody.’

Even so, Callenbach worries the hype promoted by algal newcomers is hurting the overall industry. ‘Some are honestly over-optimistic and some aren’t,’ he remarks, saying: ‘There are a lot of companies that fooled a lot of people.’

As Ingrepro moves outside of food production they’re looking past automobiles and straight into kerosene for jet aircraft. So far, ‘Whatever kerosene we make is very easy to sell, because everybody wants it. It’s a niche market. In the next two years we will be able to lower the cost of our kerosene more.’

As leader of Boeing’s biomass research, Darrin Morgan has also noticed companies over-selling their abilities to produce. ‘It’ll be apparent in the next year who the people are who are talking about it and who are the ones doing it,’ he says.

Though several airlines are still testing innovative alternative fuels in their commercial jet liners, Morgan says Boeing has concluded that phase of its own research. He has already watched the available fuel selection rapidly grow from almost nothing, and notes: ‘The great thing is that the innovation is happening in a wide spectrum of places, from two people in a garage with a great idea, all the way to major research and development places in the government sector.’

As an emerging technology with a huge potential and an even bigger demand it is perhaps inevitable that some players are tempted to hype claims for yields as they search the markets for development finance. Some claims will inevitably turn to dust as the real commercial winners emerge and some are revealed as dead ends. But with the range of technologies available and a ground swell of R&D investment cash, confidence among developers is high that algae-derived biofuels will soon be able to compete with fossil fuels.

Jeff Decker is a freelance journalist covering energy and aviation and living in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
e-mail: rew@pennwell.com

Image Gallery (5)
 
Reader Comments (15)
 
No image available
June 22, 2009
from the article---------" While in 1996 the United States closed its US Aquatic Species Program, which led research over three decades at two 1000 m² open-pond systems, before concluding the technology was too expensive for large-scale production."--------------

At the time the program was closed, oil cost less than about $30 per barrel. It is now $70 per barrel and going up.

We've past Peak Oil. Older fields are getting more expensive to exploit or going out of production all together. New discoveries are getting fewer and harder to get to, get oil out and more expensive. Some people do not believe that global warming is caused by humans, and that there is plenty of oil left for a long time into the future. Well, maybe so, maybe not. The question is not so much "Is there any oil left?"----the question is "How much is it going to cost to get the oil that is left out, transported, refined and onto the market? Simply the fact that tar sands are being exploited in Canada is a very good indication that we ARE on the downside of Peak Oil---just 10-15 years ago, this was considered too expensive to bother with. The longer we depend on oil alone, the more expensive it will become. And the harder it will be to replace.

It is a whole new ballgame now than it was when NREL closed its research on algae over a decade ago.
Comment 1 of 15
No image available
This is not going to solve global warming so it's not a great idea. In fact, it will only recycle the excess CO2 already in the atmosphere, thus leading to zero reduction.
Comment 2 of 15
No image available
June 24, 2009
The tiny plants can produce at least 15 times more oil per hectare than alternatives like jatropha, rapeseed and palm, and are 20 times as productive as corn and soy.

If this above statement is true than I will recomend to go for Algae -bio fuel & bio mass. Twenty times as productive as corn...I like that too!
With regards,

Paresh Trivedi
Comment 3 of 15
No image available
June 24, 2009
I would have to take exception with the idea that reusing carbon multiple times doesn't reduce carbon in the long run. That's like saying my use of recycle water at my home doesn't reduce the demands on the fresh water system. I'm reusing the water, reducing the overall demand.

While it may not be the utopian answer that many seek, it is a huge step in allowing energy growth and sustainability without creating additional CO2 emissions. If I take the same CO2 and keep reusing it in the process to create energy not once, but in a near continuous loop process, how can I not be better off than I am under the current burn and forget system?

The diagram shows the system in conjunction with an existing power station. This is just for reference. The idea is to take current emissions and reuse them to make additional fuels.

These systems can be built world-wide utilizing poor quality waters to produce oils, alcohol, and biomass.

These can be used for fuels, fertilizer, or raw materials depending on the algae and other factors.

They are nature's version of carbon capture and have been doing it successfuly for millenia.

There is also the distinct advantage that this technology complements existing renewable energy projects while maxmizing its utilization of existing infrastructure and distribution systems.

The latter is a huge advantage compared to most wind, solar, and alternative projects. You aren't reinventing the wheel, just repowering it. The populace is much more accepting of a technology that doesn't require them to completely change their lives. It would also keep many existing jobs in energy fields, not eliminate them as wind and solar projects seek to do.

Personally I think it has merit, but everyone is welcome to an opinion.
Comment 4 of 15
No image available
June 24, 2009
Any investor might benefit from a careful read of our algae assessment and appendices...
Quote from above: "They still need to enhance growth rates, to reduce the cost of oil extraction and reduce the cost of nutrients"... this probably says it all. But can they? Not unless they have an entirely new concept to grow algae. I yet have to see one that will work.
http://www.bcic.ca/media-and-press/publications/life-sciences-publications
Comment 5 of 15
No image available
June 24, 2009
martin t-----------"Any investor might benefit from a careful read of our algae assessment and appendices...
Quote from above: "They still need to enhance growth rates, to reduce the cost of oil extraction and reduce the cost of nutrients"... this probably says it all."-------------

Not quite. The growth rate is the growth rate under given conditions.

The important factor to investors is the cost of producing and using competing energy sources. The only competing source of energy for algae oil is petroleum. So far as diesel is concerned, they are interchangable. If petroleum costs more than bio---people will use bio.

The question for investors is----"I only have a limited amount to invest, X number of $, where should I invest to make the most return?"
Some people say that petroleum reserves are huge, and we can always produce more. However, argue supply and demand and imporved technology etc. all you want, at the end of the day, added expense of new technology, increasing demand, and decreasing supply means that the price of oil can only do one thing in the long run---increase in price, unless you want to leave your investment sit for several hundred million years while we whip up a new batch.

Algae oil on the other is renewable. All we have to do is grow more algae. The longer we go, the less oil there is, and the more algae you can grow.

So, it all depends on what is the priority---try to milk short term profits out of market fluctuations in oil price----or get into a market position to have a large slice of what will eventually take over the market. The more short term profit takers there are in oil, the higher the price will go, and the sooner the availability will decrease.

So short term speculators in petroleum are the best thing out there to improve the market for biofuels. Drill baby drill.
Comment 6 of 15
No image available
June 24, 2009
Ken------"While it may not be the utopian answer that many seek, it is a huge step in allowing energy growth and sustainability without creating additional CO2 emissions. If I take the same CO2 and keep reusing it in the process to create energy not once, but in a near continuous loop process, how can I not be better off than I am under the current burn and forget system?"-------------

That is what the natural carbon/energy cycle of nature is.

Solar energy>green plants+CO2+H20>photosynthesis=carbohydrates(cellulose, sugars, starches, proteins, or lipids)= stored stored solar energy+O2-----animals eat the plants, Krebbs cycle metabolism = release of energy + CO2---plants take in CO2 and the whole cycle starts over.

This cycle has supported life on earth for about 4 billion years.

If you drive a car powered with ethanol, it is no different in the natural energy cycle of nature than if you ride a horse, if you drive an 18 wheel diesel tractor trailer using biodiesel, it is no different than if you pull a load with an ox cart in the carbon/energy exchange cycle of nature.

Plants store energy from the sun, animals use the energy, and the carbon is recycled through the atmosphere continously. The only increase is when carbon that is underground is pumped or dug up and burned, then it is added to the atmospere as new carbon. It is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 using biofuels, if you do not have plants removing CO2 from the atmosphere, you can not have biofuels---you have nothing to make them from.
Comment 7 of 15
No image available
June 24, 2009
"The only competing source of energy for algae oil is petroleum." As Seth & Amy asked you on SNL "Oh, Really?"

Cars, trucks & busses do not, and cannot run on Natural Gas?
Cars, trucks & busses do not, and cannot run on ethanol...? (the Brazilians would be shocked to learn that one.)
Cars, trucks & busses do not, and cannot run on electricity produced from water (Grand Cooley Dam), nuclear energy, solar cells, AD anaerobic digestion (cow poop), wind power, steam power (Iceland) and many other sources?

What IS significant is that algae is MUCH better than corn, or soy beans, or sugar cane, as an alternative source product.

The true/real competing source of energy to algae is industrial hemp.

A few years ago, the soy lobby created the political push for biofuels. Then the corn lobby took over, and bankrupted more companies that we have been able to count.

The economic fact is that algae and hemp will work. When, and IF, we get around to them.
Comment 8 of 15
No image available
June 25, 2009
The only way I can see for bio-diesel to become commercially viable is for it to be a by product of some more profitable algae product. I would love to be proven wrong.
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2008/09/biodiesel-from-algae-no-way.html
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/08/algae-culture-alternate-systems.html
wlhgmk@gmail.com
Comment 9 of 15
No image available
June 25, 2009
This article is out of date. GreenFuel Technologies is bankrupt.
Comment 10 of 15
No image available
Anonymous
June 26, 2009
Ah, its time for the periodic Algae solves everything article...where are those green magma ponds once full of spirolina today?

Oil from algae is expensive and as far as I know from experts, there are NO commercial operations now running...a few tanks in Texas and that's probably it.

Mexico has the infrastructure for growing/harvesting/processing vast quantities of algae using low paid labor; but wouldn't that result in yet another oil import?

If you want to do something to replace fossil fuels--have you noticed the new fields being discovered in the Russian and Canadian Arctic? off of Brazil? in Africa? ; then harvest New England's fast growing bio-mass. hundreds of thousands of tons of green waste are either burn't or landfilled every month.

Still believe that CO2 is the cause of the regional warming? .. then plant trees and reforest America, capturing millions of tons of CO2 and sequestering it.

Still believe in Global Warming? ...then you better check the stats for the past three years in New England and Eastern Canada which clearly and dramatically reveal how much colder it has become--my yardstick are heating degree days, the number has increased to where it is approaching the 70 year average.

..and don't tell how the last two year's record snow falls are because of global warming!! p.s. it hasn't been relabeled as climate change for nothing.
Comment 11 of 15
No image available
June 29, 2009
"...... there are NO commercial operations now running...a few tanks in Texas and that's probably it."-----------

PetroSun has 1200 acres in Rio Hondo TX, with an expected capacity of 4.4 million gallons per year of oil in operation since April 2008. They are currently leasing other properties to expand, mostly defunct cat fish farming ponds.

Ingrepro, a Dutch company has already achieved production rates of 25,000 liters/hectare of algae oil in open ponds and is aggressively persueing expanding production. Ingrepro is already Europe's leading company in producing algae based products and supplier of algae based biomass. They have a subsidiery operating in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia.

Valcent has a modular closed loop system under development, and it has been scaled up to pilot/commercial size and is being installed now in El Paso TX. It is closed loop growing system, that can be installed anywhere, modular so it can be adapted to any size, and fully automated and computerized to provide continously optimal growing conditions.

Range Fuels is finishing construction on a 100 million gallon per year ethanol from wood logging and millwork waste in Soperton GA. It will use Fischer-Tropsch method to produce ethanol---but F-T can also produce long chain hydrocarbons(diesel) fuels as well. The Soperton plant is costing $385 million to build----it would be possible to build 5 or 6 100 million gallon per year F-T plants with what it costs to build one deepsea offshore platform. And the output of the Soperton plant will be finished product. It will not need to be transported half way around the world and then refined to be used, unlike petroleum. F-T such as the Soperton plant will use makes use of New England biomass you mention----or can even use the left over biomass after the oil is extracted from algae.

(cont.)
Comment 12 of 15
No image available
June 29, 2009
Even if you don't accept that GHG effect causes global warming, climate change or anything else, it is still a finite resource, and it is running out. We are using it at a phenomenal rate and there is no new petroleum being produced. No matter how many new wells you drill, you are not producing one new drop of oil----it takes millions of years for that. Drilling new wells only uses up what is left faster. That is what Peak Oil means. Oil will only get increasing more and more difficult to get to, get at, and get out.

The fact that we have past Peak Oil is self evident meerly by what you've stated--------it is getting harder to get to, get at and get out and get back here. And more expensive. We need to replace oil, it is running out, getting expensive, and we have other things that will do anything and everything petroleum does, without the problems.
Comment 13 of 15
No image available
August 13, 2009
Greetings:
Algae is the way to go, but not in ponds.....costs too much to harvest and you can't keep a handle on contaminants; among several other issues. There are several other ways to grow algae. If interested please contact me.....mzickel@pacbell.net or 916 -961-1005
Comment 14 of 15
No image available
September 17, 2009
Algae seems to be rivaling the hype of cellulose before it, as a way to sucker investors, especially -

"The European Union is throwing €2.7 billion behind algae over seven years, and is including algae for the first time in the 2010 calls of its Seventh Framework Programme."

even though I like the use of the word "throwing" as in "throwing away," I believe that budget is for 8 marine projects, only 2 of which are for algae energy.
Comment 15 of 15
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
KYOCERA Solar, Inc. Solar Living Institute Renewable Energy World Asia MKS Instruments, Inc SolarTech Consortium National Hydrogen Association
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo