How many other promoters have said exactly the same thing about their "solution"?
There could be interesting and useful things in the study, but as soon as I read claims like this, I'm afraid I stop reading. The writers don't seem to realize the systematic nature of energy issues, and are presenting another techno-fix.
I'd love to read instead a foreward that said:

Microalgal sources of oil suffer from many problems:

1. To get large lipid vesicles (the basis of any biological fuel, save for TDP), you have to subject the organism to N or Si depletion. However, doing this plummets the growth rate to near zero. Dilemna eh? 30 years of research in the field hasn't been able to solve this problem. Lipids are necessary because they have the highest energy content (IE fat). Also, their burning characteristics are the most desirable. They leave the least amount of char/ash and burn cleanest compared to carbohydrates and proteins.

2. Low growth rates. A typical culture of microalgae not subjected to N or Si depletion has, at max, 30g of biomass per day per square meter. Compared to yeast or bacteria, this is pitiful. Biotech yeast hits 150-250g per day per square meter. Bacteria can double or triple that. Again, 30 years of research has yet to solve this. In fact, back in the '70s, your typical microalgae culture would be lucky to hit 20g/d*m^2. A lot of lay articles cite a growth rate of a good microalge species or assume that biotechnology will compensate for the low growth rates and quote a biotech organism's growth rate. Any ol' microalgal species won't work either. The vast majority of microalgae are unable to provide sufficient lipid vesicles to make their cultivation energy positive. The best ones so far are Chlorella species, E. Huxleyi, Nitzschia species, and a few others that escape my head right now. Of the thousands of species identified, only 300 or so species are suitable. Of course this number is subject to change as our knowledge increases.

3. Microalgae are difficult to cultivate axenically. There are two general methods of cultivating microalgae, photobioreactors and outdoor ponds. Photobioreactors are prohibitively expensive. They are a valuble research tool, but only suitable for niche industries like health food. If you wonder why so many bottles of vitamins, lipids and such cost 20 bucks a pop, photobioreactors can be traced as an underlying problem. A lot of the health food supplements are made from lipids derived from microalgae. Ew huh? Outdoor ponds all suffer from the same problem, bacterial contamination. Within a couple weeks, microalgae simply can not compete with better bacterial competitors. The pond is effectively dead for microalgae. Even if that problem is fixed, many of the waste products produced by microalgal eventually kill the pond. For example, regulating pH is vital. Too basic or too acidic and the pond dies. However, CO2 must be constantly bubbled into the pond so that microalgae have a carbon source to grow. This lowers the pH of the medium. If microalgae growth slows, there's a buildup of CO2 and bam, you just wasted a month or more of work. This is just one of the myriad of problems suffered by microalgae cultivation. Again, 30 years of research in the area still hasn't tackled these problems.

4. Microalgal derived fuels are expensive as fuck. The cost per barrel is optimistically $60, based on outdoor ponds producing microalgae at 50g/d*m^2 or more. If the same rate of return was made on microalgal biodiesal as petroleum, it would sell for between 180 and 600 dollars (depending which region you decide to base off) a barrel. Last I checked, there weren't any energy companies willing to lose money.

Interesting to see that some, like Omar, know the weaknesses of the algae option.
The instability and fragility of the culture, the extremely disappointing growth rates in real test situations and the lack of progress in research over the decades can only lead to one conclusion, namely that algae are not a viable alternative.

The Japanese and the Euros have studied this too, focussing on photobioreactor technology (there are some large, high tech ones out there), and obviously the cost is way too high. While open pond systems have never worked on a large scale.


PS: Omar, last time I made a usable biomass and oil yield comparison between ordinary tropical plantation cultures and open pond algae systems (based on the NREL's own data) I ended up with numbers showing that high yielding palm oil is both more productive and much cheaper to produce.
My main assumption was that after extraction of oil, palm oil biomass (kernel shells, fibre, trunks) are used in combustion systems to generate electricity and so the entire amount of biomass is effectively used as a biofuel; while for algae I didn't see any use for the left-over biomass after oil extraction and I assumed that it was either going to be wasted or fed back into the system. The algae biomass residue cannot be used as an animal feed as the algae are grown on toxic waste water streams.

that's never stopped the US livestock industries in the past.

To say open ponds cannot work is simply false. Granted, they are currently used to grow Spirulina which is an agressive algae species with a low oil yield -- but it is possible to do on a commercial scale. To make algae biofuels viable, I think there are two approaches, neither of which has been successful... yet. You either need to find or genetically modify a species of algae which can grow out doors and has a high oil yield... or you need to build photobioreactors very cheaply. Here is a paper with plans and tests of photobioreactor which can probably be built for <$100. A simple and low-cost airlift photobioreactor for microalgal mass culture. Nutrient and CO2 supplies are also of concern but Green Fuels has a novel approach for that. And farm/human waste can be used as well.

While fuel from algae may not be perfect, it sure seems more realistic to reduce the cost of algae oil from $4-10/gallon (from NREL) down to $1-2/gallon, than to try to reduce fuel cell costs by a factor of 1000x -- which is where they need to be to replace automobiles ICEs. But people seem to want the "perfect" solution so instead, we sit on our hands and wait for something which may never come...

Courtesy of Earth Rise

By defining nitrogen runoff as waste, algae-fuel proponents essentially externalize or nullify critical energy inputs---the fertilizer. and the cost to use them on the the pepper or palm plantation that produced them. A proper life-cycle analysis of all energy inputs into the system must include such all these on-farm costs, in addition to the pond management costs. Without this, the numbers describe a pollution-mitigation scheme, and not an original power source.

In the current cheap-petroleum econony, customers exist for Spirulina phyto-nutrient supplements, and the cost (in money) is absorbed by the market. However, from an energy perspective, the total world petroleum account is drawn down by this production system. It has a negative eroei.

neither technology is going to lessen petroleum use. Only customer demand and actual shortage will have that effect.

I just want to point out that they are hoping to use waste water, so thus helping recycle as part of water treatment system. Also, the non-oil part are processed as fertilizers to use to grow food.

Not to feed animals.

This is not viable replacement for oil currently, but can be used to reduce CO2 from power plants or other industry.
They will need to successfully engineered a new algae to have any luck with this.

I worry about using living material for fuel, especially in monocultures. Yields are always subject to variablity and even complete failure.

Which always happen to today's farms.
Only reason we seldom feel it is that the world had abundance of food for first world consumers. Third world feels it, but the news seldom report it.

I would be surprised if the non-oil parts are significant. The reason algae is considered is it lacks structural cellulose: it is not a woody plant, has abundant high-caloric oil, and contains little "waste." Though I imagine the waste does contain some protein, which is rich in nitrogen.

Once again, like many co-product schemes (cellulosic, TDP, and pulp-lignin power) I suspect that money and promotion for this project comes from waste-treatment mitigation demands. Some municipality has demanded Earthrise to stop pollution. They get to pass it on to the investment public.

Yeah, this one started by UNH mentions trapping coal produced CO2.
It is hard to imagine this taking off without some break through.

yes, the rich nitrogen is what is made into fertilizer. There is quite a bit of waste as current propose methods or in testing do not harvest all the carbon into biofuel, but just a small fraction.

Is there N-fixing algae?
As the cost of ng goes up, we need low cost N, too.
I can imagine a DOE sponsor study that says we can get our energy from algae, our fertilizer, and our food. It will save the world!

thanks for this post. Where does this information come from?

The literature mainly, and research I've been doing for my doctorate on algal fuel production.

Hi all, I wrote to Michael Briggs last December asking a series of questions about the viability of algae biodiesel production as a solution to the complex of problems facing Midwestern livestock productions. Here is part of the letter I sent:
I have an interest in helping transform the financially questionable, energy intensive, wasteful and polluting livestock production of hogs, beef and dairy operations into an ecological cycle with the addition of algae biodiesel production.
Currently one of the major problems with medium and large scale livestock operations is the manure and urine these animals generate and the water pollution problem these waste products create. Most livestock operations drain and push (with mechanized equipment) this manure into holding pools and lagoons where it sits until it is trucked off and applied onto feedcrop (mostly corn) fields.
There is much activity going on to anaerobic digesters to these manure pools to produce methane and we can expect to see more and more digesters on farms producing the gas to power the farms' operations. There is however a more elegant and profitable solution and that is to use the manure/urine wastestream as a feedwater for algae production using the type of algae that produces 50% or so of its harvest weight as a biodiesel-refinable oil.
The cycle I am envisioning is the livestock - whether hogs, beef or dairy - produce milk and meat and their waste. This manure and urine goes into lagoons (perhaps covered in a greenhouse and heated by elec. resistent heating powered by the wind during fall and winter in the upper Midwest) where it nourishes an algae crop. The algae is crushed to produce a biodiesel refinable oil and an organic residue. This residue, which still all the nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium of the original manure and so all its fertilizing value, is applied to feed crops like corn (mostly), soybeans, alfalfa and oats to feed the livestock. The residue is organic and more alive, which will lead to a healthy soil environment than artificial fertilizers. The feedcrops go back into feeding the animals and the cycle continues. The carbon and hydrogen that make up the biodiesel comes from the sunlight and atmospere (whether from feedcrop-manure or grown algae).
Besides being an ecological cycle that reuses resources and improves the soil, such an operation would be more profitable to farmers by solving the manure water pollution problem, by producing the fuel they need to power their equipment and facilities and by minimizing the amount and cost of fertilizer they need to apply to their croplands.

Here are the questions I asked and the responses Professor Briggs answered them with. Apparently, their research project has been bought out by a private company and their technology and methodologies are now proprietary. My pardon for the length of this post, but hopefully it adds some useful info right from the source.
Would you be willing to answer a few of my questions? If so, these are the things I wish to know:
1) What groups are researching algae biodiesel production besides yours?
GreenFuel Technologies, Ecogenics, and a variety of smaller projects. We're collaborating with ASU, and may also work with Ecogenics.
2) Have any successful commercial algae biodiesel growing operations been established?
Not yet. We're hoping to start a pilot plant soon.
3) Concerning patents and intellectual property - protocols, algae species and technologies, what are the licensing opportunities?
Since we're having to resort to private funding (since the government has drastically decreased funding for biofuels work), most likely we'll need to give our financer an exclusive license agreement in the US. But, they may be interested in sub-licensing, or at the least, would be open to building facilities for interested companies/individuals.
4) Environmental conditions for successful algae production? Please address temperature, lifecycle and geographical concerns.
It depends on the type of algae. If you use open ponds, you restrict yourself a lot. We, Ecogenics, and GFT are not using open ponds though, which makes it more open to being done in a variety of climates.
5) Types of facilities to grow and process biodiesel algae? Would a greenhouse be effective? Could a greenhouse kill algae by creating an oxygen-rich atmosphere, so algae die from their own waste products?
There are ways of addressing that, that I can't get into.
6) Is the vision I outline above feasible? Could a farmer finance an algae facility construction project himself? Or would substantial outside investment be needed?
It depends on the type of system. For the ones we are developing, it would be more likely that outside investment would be needed (which could though be a low interest loan, as the systems should pay themselves off fairly quickly, if we can achieve the yields and costs we anticipate).
7) What studies have been done and what guidelines established for algae production based upon the amount of agricultural waste used as feedstock?
That's something we're still working on, and expect to flesh out with our pilot plant.
How suitable would the algae residue be as an organic fertilizer after the oil is pressed out? Any studies?
Very suitable. No studies that I know of yet (will be part of our pilot
plant project).
9) Are you or your staff available for consulting, say if my financier acquaintances decided they want to know more? At what rates and what schedules are available?
Possibly, I'll have to check. If we go ahead with a financer though to finance our full project with ASU, we probably won't be in a position to work with other groups.
Would it be possible for me to spend a semster or several learning the algae biodiesel agricultural production methods without taking an undergraduate program in biological science? Could I perhaps help
Not from us, since our work is proprietary right now. From Marc though, yes.
Regards,
Mike

Police have been driving around checking river levels near my home. The weather is just not normal anymore. New England has always had a reputation for crazy weather, but the last few years have been more very strange.