• I've created a thread for feedback on the reaction/likes feature Feedback thread

The New Biodiesel; Algae for High Yield Oil Production

emerycorp

New Blood
E
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
10
Take a look at: youtube.com/watch?v=_ToojK_MJd0&feature=related

(as a new member I cannot post the complete url address so you’ll have to add the missing prefix. Hopefully someone will repost with complete link.)

Valcent Products Incorporated is now a penny stock trading publicly on the stock market (VCTPF.OB) and has recently partnered with Global Green Solutions (GGRN.OB) to commercialize production of biodiesel (although sales of biodiesel is still some number of years away).

They have a clever vertical growing system (closed loop bio reactor) but they also are customizing algae types with differences to more effectively produce jet fuel versus biodiesel (the same basic process works in open pond production without the vertical growing system). The biggest downside I can see is that the process requires CO2 although they say forcing CO2 into the process (other than adjusting the water Ph) only increases the yield by 20% (so that open pond production and vertical growing both work well without forcing extra CO2). Yields for open pond production are estimated at 20,000 gallons of oil per acre-year; and of course higher yields are available with their space efficient vertical growing system (not requiring farm land thus making it attractive for locating production facilities anywhere).

The CEO optimistically claims that all the USA energy needs could be satisfied by a geographic production area as small as 1/10th the size of the State of New Mexico. There is of course still the problem of hydro-carbons. Fuel cells and hydrogen offer cleaner alternatives, but it would appear (at least on the surface) that this is a viable way to eventually stop importing foreign oil as well as paying less at the pump. If you are not already aware of this you'll enjoy taking a look. Looking forward to your critical comments.

Steve
 
Last edited:
Valcent is by no means the only company engaged in this activity:

http://earth2tech.com/2008/03/27/15-algae-startups-bringing-pond-scum-to-fuel-tanks/


It sure looks promising. I don't know which companies will make money off of this, and whether the little guys can compete with the big oil companies, some of whom are included in the list of companies working on algae, but it looks like at least some of these companies could be for real.

(Full disclosure: I was sufficiently impressed to buy stock in a couple of these companies, actually. Usually, penny stocks playing in big markets are lousy investments, but once in a while one hits gold. I can afford to lose the money I invested, so I thought it was worth the risk. On the down side, this is not a new idea. People have been trying this for some time now, without success. )
 
Here is Valcent's CEO Glen Kertz being interviewed by Bloomberg's Mike Schneider on 06/11/08. He states clearly that the oil industry is taking a hard look at this segment of the biofuel market . . . and he predicts within 2 to 3 years there will be a consolidation of algae producer companies (which I suspect means the oil companies and other large entities will buyout the most viable businesses, start refining algae oil into biodiesel on a large scale and distribute it through the usual channels). Exciting stuff. Glen Kertz also says that there is consensus between the major players (Valcent's competition summarized in your link) that $60 to $70 barrel oil will be achievable with algae oil in the long term; which would sure help our current economy. Mike Schneider looks ready to invest during this interview.

valcent.net/i/Multimedia/VIN020-131.wmv

Someone please add the required prefix to the above address (and to the url I provided in my previous post) and repost them here as a convenience to anyone reading this thread for the first time. As a newbie I am not allowed to post links yet so your thoughtfulness and help are greatly appreciated. Thx

Regarding the link you provided, I'm familiar with most of Valcent's competition . . . but so far I have a strong preference for the inexpensive hanging plastic bags of Valcent as well as their very open disclosure of their process (not to mention Glen Kertz ability to effectively communicate). If I decide to invest I won't mind the bigger guys eventually showing up and buying Valcent. As far as pink slip companies go they can be risky . . . so I'm still on the sidelines for now. Good Luck.
 
I am in favor of such an idea. Clean power is very secondary to making sure that we get that power in the first place. We need power to survive, this offers it, sounds good to me.

We know algae grows very quickly, we know that it's easy to grow (we do it commercially already), we know that organics can be made into fuel. All that we need is a process to get from algae to bio-fuel. If they have it, then we win big.
 
Meadmaker-- if you don't mind me asking, did you use any particular selection criteria to make your choices? Which ones did you buy? What do you like most about the ones you did buy? Just curious because I am gradually becoming more convinced this is a good area to invest aside from the usual problems with pink slips.

robinson-- ty, that makes it easier for someone to see what this thread is about

GreyICE-- it's very simple to refine veg oil into biodiesel (I have a neighbor who does it and runs four business cars & trucks), and there is a company in TX now exporting biodiesel to europe where they can get more $$$ than USA. A lot of people also don't know that diesel vehicles can be modified to run on straight veg oil (or could be manufactured that way in the first place). Biodiesel burns cleaner than petro diesel, but straight veg oil burns cleaner than the cleanest biodiesel. As far as I know it is a simple and clean process to go from the concentrated algae to pure veg oil (and on the way there the waste bio mass can be used to make ethanol, fertilizer etc). From there it can be burned directly or quickly and cleanly refined to biodiesel. In one of the other many youtube videos Glen Kertz says there are several methods to separate out the oil and they are working to commercialize one particular method (I'm guessing it might be the least energy intensive process). It had a long name I don't recall; when I come across it again I'll post it here.
 
Last edited:
So how come Algae Oil isn't even on our supermarket shelves?

20,000g/a/y seems to outshine corn, canola, rape...every veggie oil. Yet we still have catfish farms instead of 'oil ponds'.

Heck, even if it's lard or wax, it would have value for soap making or industrial use, even if conversion to fuel is too difficult.

We know how to extract oils already, I could do it at home.

There must be something that the 'inventors' are not telling us.

Some good ideas that haven't reached economic actualization yet, inspite of having the basic knowledge for years:

Shale oil
Tar sand
Molecular depolymerization
Photo-voltaics
Solar-thermal

So are we suffering from hype, or are the CTs right?
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
So are we suffering from hype, or are the CTs right?
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, false dilemma, your ugly head shows up again.

Neither. Like switchgrass, knowing that the potential energy is there, and being able to convert it to ethanol are two different things. It's like spinach - technically, spinach is somewhat high in iron and calcium, but from a practical perspective, your body can't really use much of that, so it might as well not be there.

Similarly, we know the potential energy is there. Getting usable energy from that is the key.

And unfortunately, that takes engineering, not science. Engineering is not as much of a, well, science as science. There's more art and blundering around in the dark in there.
 
casebro said:
So how come Algae Oil isn't even on our supermarket shelves?

20,000g/a/y seems to outshine corn, canola, rape...every veggie oil. Yet we still have catfish farms instead of 'oil ponds'.

Heck, even if it's lard or wax, it would have value for soap making or industrial use, even if conversion to fuel is too difficult.

We know how to extract oils already, I could do it at home.

There must be something that the 'inventors' are not telling us.

Some good ideas that haven't reached economic actualization yet, inspite of having the basic knowledge for years:

Shale oil
Tar sand
Molecular depolymerization
Photo-voltaics
Solar-thermal

So are we suffering from hype, or are the CTs right?
Click to expand...

Basic economics.

This paper explains a lot:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf

It's a summary of the US DoE's algae program, cancelled in 1998. (The report was written at the same time, so it's a decade old.) It talks a lot about the promise, and the reality, of algae as a source of biodiesel.

Summary: It would cost the equivalent of $165 per barrel to produce the stuff.

(As with all one sentence summaries of three hundred page papers, the above is greatly oversimplified.)

So, we haven't seen it because it is economically infeasible, and will be until oil reaches a certain price point, but that price point is almost there.

So, why would I invest real money in it? First, I won't invest a lot of real money in it. This is one of those long shot, emotional, investments. However, as best I can tell, it is much more promising than any other biodiesel source, and far, far, better than ethanol. Ethanol isn't economically feasible, either, but it gets there with subsidies. Ethanol exists as a fuel source because your tax dollars are being used to burn food. When a decision was made on energy policy, there was a "big corn" lobby. There was no "big algae" lobby.

Meanwhile, as a food stuff, that's a good question. I could speculate on the answer, but I think I will look it up.

ETA: It is used as a food source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture
 
Last edited:
emerycorp said:
....
They have a clever vertical growing system (closed loop bio reactor) but they also are customizing algae types with differences to more effectively produce jet fuel versus biodiesel (the same basic process works in open pond production without the vertical growing system). The biggest downside I can see is that the process requires CO2 although they say forcing CO2 into the process (other than adjusting the water Ph) only increases the yield by 20% (so that open pond production and vertical growing both work well without forcing extra CO2). Yields for open pond production are estimated at 20,000 gallons of oil per acre-year; and of course higher yields are available with their space efficient vertical growing system (not requiring farm land thus making it attractive for locating production facilities anywhere).

The CEO optimistically claims that all the USA energy needs could be satisfied by a geographic production area as small as 1/10th the size of the State of New Mexico. There is of course still the problem of hydro-carbons. Fuel cells and hydrogen offer cleaner alternatives, but it would appear (at least on the surface) that this is a viable way to eventually stop importing foreign oil as well as paying less at the pump. If you are not already aware of this you'll enjoy taking a look. Looking forward to your critical comments.

Steve
Click to expand...

I'm curious how the expected yield compares in total energy to just using the same space for other solar technologies. I mean, isn't this system really just capturing available sunlight and storing it in the form of oil, rather than converting it directly to heat or electricity?
 
Prometheus said:
I'm curious how the expected yield compares in total energy to just using the same space for other solar technologies. I mean, isn't this system really just capturing available sunlight and storing it in the form of oil, rather than converting it directly to heat or electricity?
Click to expand...
Oil is far more useful than heat or electricity. It is much more portable than either. So I'd much rather have the oil than the heat or the electricity.
 
From the Wiki article, it is very difficult to grow oil-algae in open ponds. Too much infection by wild species. So the 20,000g/a/y is probably an exaggeration. That's why we still have cat fish ponds instead of oil pools that would pay $60,000 per acre/year.

Then, to grow your favorite flavor of oil-rich algae, you'll need an enclosed system. This means much mechanization- pumps, coolers, heaters. In other words, overhead more similar to a manufacturing process than a farming process. And larger start-up costs too.

As I mentioned above, the price will be so high that the first market will be as a food oil, rather than a fuel product... until fuel costs get to the point that we will be buying corn oil in the supermarket and pouring it into our tanks.
 
The output of a nuclear power plant could run high intensity lights and grow algae much better than waiting for some sunlight.
 
GreyICE said:
Oil is far more useful than heat or electricity. It is much more portable than either. So I'd much rather have the oil than the heat or the electricity.
Click to expand...

I understand that. I'm just curious about the relative space-efficiency of the different technologies. A lot of the electricity we use now is generated by burning oil. Would we gain more by growing algae (converting solar to oil) to increase the oil supply, or by using the same space to generate electricity directly and reduce the amount of oil we burn in power plants?
 
Prometheus said:
I understand that. I'm just curious about the relative space-efficiency of the different technologies. A lot of the electricity we use now is generated by burning oil. Would we gain more by growing algae (converting solar to oil) to increase the oil supply, or by using the same space to generate electricity directly and reduce the amount of oil we burn in power plants?
Click to expand...
Well the best spots for sunlight are places like Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc. And that makes it tough to heat your Massachusetts home in the winter.

So long-term storage, portability, etc. are gained from oil.

As for the direct equivalence, it depends strongly on many factors - the cost of solar, of inputs to the algae, the exact efficiency of the oil creation process, the efficiency of long-distance power transmission through lines, the efficiency of the vehicles transporting the oil, the efficiency of the turbines powered by the burning oil, the amount of efficiency boosters in the turbines (cogen plants, etc.), the maximum temperature you can reach with the specific fuel produced with the process, the conversion cost from boilers and turbines to all solar, and I haven't even listed all the factors.

That's a multi-thousand dollar analysis you're asking for. Of a process still deeply in the experimental stage.

I don't mean to jump on you, but the easiest way to state it is "It's complicated."
 
Prometheus said:
I'm curious how the expected yield compares in total energy to just using the same space for other solar technologies. I mean, isn't this system really just capturing available sunlight and storing it in the form of oil, rather than converting it directly to heat or electricity?
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is a very good question, to which I don't know the answer.

I know that no method of capturing solar energy is, today, very efficient, so I don't know what to compare it to. I know the places with lots of solar power available don't need a whole lot of heat, and they are generally far away from anywhere that needs a lot of electricity, which makes using it as a large scale electricity generator problematic, unless you could improve the efficiency not just of the generation, but also of the transportation.

My thought process is that we will always need fuel, not just electricity. Fossil fuels will run out. We have only been using the stuff for a century or so in any significant quantity, and the supplies are a lot lower than they used to be. So, we need another source of fuel. If plants are going to provide that, I think algae is the only reasonable source. On large scales, it produces more usable oil without using up arable land. On the other hand, there are extreme engineering problems to be overcome.
 
casebro said:
From the Wiki article, it is very difficult to grow oil-algae in open ponds. Too much infection by wild species. So the 20,000g/a/y is probably an exaggeration. That's why we still have cat fish ponds instead of oil pools that would pay $60,000 per acre/year.
Click to expand...

(My apologies for miss quoting in my OP) 20,000 gallons of algae vegetable oil per acre-year is the high side estimate for closed loop photo bio reactors (given existing technology) and is NOT an estimate for simple open pond algae production because of the problem of cross contamination you mentioned; and a more significant limitation being top surface algae blocking sun light penetration beyond the top inch or so of pond surface (limiting algae production to a narrow region at the pond’s surface). Water evaporation alone is another reason to disqualify typical open pond algae production although the oceans will provide easy access to harvesting wild algae (or cultivated ocean algae in fenced areas in a similar fashion to current salmon farms). A more realistic estimate for open pond algae production is 4,000 to 8,000 gallons of vegetable oil per acre-year. 10,000 to 20,000 gallons is the most recent range I've heard mentioned for closed loop systems.

casebro said:
Then, to grow your favorite flavor of oil-rich algae, you'll need an enclosed system. This means much mechanization- pumps, coolers, heaters. In other words, overhead more similar to a manufacturing process than a farming process. And larger start-up costs too.

As I mentioned above, the price will be so high that the first market will be as a food oil, rather than a fuel product... until fuel costs get to the point that we will be buying corn oil in the supermarket and pouring it into our tanks.
Click to expand...

I doubt you’ll see algae oil for sale in the supermarkets much sooner than it becomes mass-produced and sold as biodiesel (all kinds of algae products already exist in health food stores and have for many years not using the new mass production technology being developed now). I am certainly no expert on this subject (and I started this thread to learn from the critical commentary you post here) but so far I’ve not heard any credible arguements to counter what sounds like a reasonable consensus from the 15 companies rushing to make biodiesel; that unlimited quantities of $60 to $70 a barrel oil are achievable beginning in two to three years (this includes whatever pumps, coolers, and heater costs are required for closed loop algae production to end up with a barrel of oil at that price).

casebro-- Unless I misunderstood your post, it sounds like you might be unaware of the very low oil yields available per acre-year of popular oils sold in the supermarket. From an acre of corn you generally get less than 30 gallons per year (hearing that I'm surprised store prices for corn oil aren't higher-- must be the Farm Bill subsidy at work). Palm oil has one of the highest yields but still only 600 to 800 gallons per acre-year. Even the low end yield of open pond algae production makes it far less expensive than any other vegetable oil. It seems to me the rapid growth of algae (havested once a day in Valcent's VertiGrow System) makes it suitable for biodiesel from the initial startup. Valcent is selling 1/4 acre modules of their VertiGrow sytem complete for $250,000.00 or $1 million for one acre. At $60 to $70 a barrel add in land cost and do the math. Valcent also claims they will be offering the same modular systems that are totally solar to be set up in remote areas operating completely off the grid (obviously, this means the VertiGrow process itself is not very energy intensive regarding pumps fans etc).

Meadmaker—Thank you for posting the DOE paper . . . at the time this research was concluded and reported, the average price of oil by the end of 1998 was $11.91/barrel ($15.70 in 2007 dollars) compared to an average price of $117.40 for the month of May 2008. Today Wednesday June 18, 2008 oil closed at $136.00/barrel. At the time of this study the current players now developing high-yield low-cost closed loop algae production systems did not exist. The paper’s estimate of $136 a barrel was a conservative guess published in July 1998 when oil was selling for less than $12/barrel and that estimate is far less meaningful than today’s best guess of $60 to $70 a barrel. Not surprisingly Valcent first issued publicly traded stock during mid 2006 when oil prices reached $62.11/barrel in 2007 dollars (well within the target $60 to $70 range).

Promethus—I think you asked an excellent question and I agree with others there are a lot of factors to consider before anyone can arrive at a meaningful answer: but if it’s true closed loop algae production can provide $60 to $70 a barrel oil (the outcome of production yields high enough to satisfy all our current transportation needs within a geographic area as small as 1/10th the size of New Mexico) there would be plenty of space left for other space-intensive energy technologies. Facts are that algae production is not all that much of a land hog. I realize I am putting a lot of weight on the $60 to $70 estimate; it may or may not happen, but the $60 to $70 estimate is a “best-guess” target from those in businesses who have been working with the closed loop algae systems on a daily basis for many years. Given Shell and Chevron are already involved, it’s reasonable to speculate that the big energy players already understand the inevitability of algae-oil biodiesel fuel in the future. Like Glen Kertz says in his Bloomberg interview, in a few years all the major players will be involved, but for now they’re content to “look hard” but stay on the sidelines because there’s no immediate threat (that's the gist of what he said and not an exact quote). BTW he refers to this as the “arrogance” of the oil industry.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Basic economics.
Click to expand...
The last I knew about this technology was that it was going to be used as a more efficient scrubber compared to what is normally used in power. The side effect being we have fuel.
 
Last edited:
How large of a test facility has been set up? How large of a sample do the production estimates derive from? Fifty gallons, or several acres?

ETA: here's a link: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2531 with what looks to be a good rational monograph, plus some comments.

He seems to think that 10% of the sunlights energy will be harvest able in the oil. That alone limits the efficiency of the algae farms.
 
casebro said:
He seems to think that 10% of the sunlights energy will be harvest able in the oil. That alone limits the efficiency of the algae farms.
Click to expand...

That sounds like BS to me. The theoretical maximum efficiency of photosynthesis is somewhere around 13%, in practice it is usually much less. Respiration, cellulose and proteins will consume most of this, not oil.
 
10% IS 13%, once you subtract the processing. Either way, will that add up to 20,000 gallons per acre?
 
So it certainly is a popular concept.

Which of the many start-ups has the biggest demonstration plant? Any of them? They all seem to be more theoretical, with figures based on production in test tubes. Large test tubes maybe...
 
PetroSun has a production facility in Rio Hondo, Texas. I can't recall exact size. An Australian company (Aquabiotics? Or maybe it's New Zealand) has a 1000 acre project going on. I think that's the largest, but don't quote me on it. Valcent has a small facility that was running. 30 of their "bioreactors". (fairly large hanging plastic bags) Their next phase is a larger demo, at 100 bioreactors.

I don't know who else might be doing things larger than a test tube.
 
casebro said:
10% IS 13%, once you subtract the processing.
Click to expand...

What? No, that 13% is just a theoretical maximum efficiency of photosynthesis.

In a real world scenario you'll lose about 15% as reflection on the waters surface, some unknown quantitiy as reflection from the cell membrane, some unknown quantity being absorbed by pigments, dead algea or other crud in the water, of the remaining some 1/3 will go to respiration of the algea, a huge chunk will be "lost" as proteins and cellulose and out of the remaining surplus some more will be lost as heat by the cell during oil production.

I would be very surprised if oil production corresponds to more than a couple of percent of incident sunlight but that's just a guess.

casebro said:
Either way, will that add up to 20,000 gallons per acre?
Click to expand...

In arid desert regions of the US south west you get an annual average daily direct normal solar radiation of about ~25 MJ/m^2 and a few percent more of indirect radiation. An acre is 4047 m^2. That gives you ~37 TJ to play with and there's ~130 MJ in a US gallon of biodiesel.

You'd need about 7% efficiency to oil to get 20 000 US gallons per acre if you operate in the US. That sounds very optimistic to me.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
10% IS 13%, once you subtract the processing. Either way, will that add up to 20,000 gallons per acre?
Click to expand...
An acre is 4,000 square meters. In a sunny area, 5.2 kWh/meter/day is a good estimate. This converts to 18,720 kJ/m^2/day.

One barrel of oil equivalent is 6.1178632 × 10^6 kJ.

So 18,720 kJ/m^2/day *365 days * 4000 m^2 /6,117,863 kJ = 4,400 barrel of oil equivalents per year of energy per acre.

That's at 100% efficiency. 10% gives us 440 barrels. 5% (probably a much more reasonable estimate) gives us 220 barrels/acre.

Since the US uses 6.6 billion barrels of oil a year, it would take 50,000 square miles of reasonable sunny land to produce that much oil.

For comparison, the state of Arizona is 113,998 square miles.

This seems reasonable.
 
So at 42 gallons/barrel, 220= 10,000g/a/y.

Oops, though, did you subtract for the space between 'reactors' for access? Maybe 50%?

Corn oil was $10/g at the grocery store today.

Meadmaker, how much oil has actually been produced by any of those pilot projects? Enough to get a realistic estimate of yields?

But then, g/a/y isn't the real subject. Land is cheap. Good farm land U.S. is $2,000/acre, one year's yield. The real point is return on investment. Cost to set up, and then actual yield.

Vinyl flooring cost $2 sqft*, times two layers, times 40,000 sqft/acre, = $160,000 acre. Plus pumps and plumbing. 5,000 gallons per, at $3, $15,ooo per year return on the $160,000 investment? Cost of the $160k, at 5%, $8k, profit of $7,000/ acre.

Seems doable ?

*just some kind of number, for a technical, mass produced material. Maybe water bed matress would also be a good proxy?
 
Last edited:
Is it cooler under trees because via photosynthesis, the leaves are soaking up heat and storing it in their chemistry?

I was wondering about the algae bioreactor, and whether they need cooling (and it's expense). Seems to me that an enclosed water bath of dark green would soak up a lot of heat, only 13% of which gets chlorophylled into oil. The other 87%(or lots of it) would heat the algae high enough to kill it, no? Unless cooled- how? what cost?
 
casebro said:
Is it cooler under trees because via photosynthesis, the leaves are soaking up heat and storing it in their chemistry?

I was wondering about the algae bioreactor, and whether they need cooling (and it's expense). Seems to me that an enclosed water bath of dark green would soak up a lot of heat, only 13% of which gets chlorophylled into oil. The other 87%(or lots of it) would heat the algae high enough to kill it, no? Unless cooled- how? what cost?
Click to expand...

Leaves thermoregulate. Worldwide, they all appear to operate at about 70 degrees F.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080611/full/news.2008.884.html
 
casebro said:
Vinyl flooring cost $2 sqft*, times two layers, times 40,000 sqft/acre, = $160,000 acre. Plus pumps and plumbing. 5,000 gallons per, at $3, $15,ooo per year return on the $160,000 investment? Cost of the $160k, at 5%, $8k, profit of $7,000/ acre.
Click to expand...

According to the link you previously posted from TheOilDrum there is another $1.50 or so of profit per gallon "from equivalent algae oil production" attributable to proteins and food derivatives to add into your calculations (don't know why cosmetics were not mentioned unless that’s part of food derivatives). Regarding your question about actual oil production from pilot projects, I have been contacting some of the startup companies requesting hard data (and will share whatever I get my hands on here). Is there any hard data publicly available yet? So far I'm not sure. My general "tone" here about this technology (and in particular Valcent's low cost vertical growing system) have been “very positive”; BUT as an investor I am a skeptic at heart (the reason I have yet to purchase shares of Valcent) and I am pleased to see the skepticism and the number of quality posts that are showing up on this thread. I want to know an accurate estimate of the likely economics of algae oil without government subsidies; and even if the resulting economics turn out to be only remotely feasible, I can't think of a better place to spend government subsidies to effectively displace our need for foreign oil if that is in fact a reasonable expectation (if for no other reason than national defense). What did the Farm Bill subsidies for corn and ethanol cost us? What have we already spent over the years subsidizing the oil industry? By comparison, I doubt that the handful of companies currently involved with algae for oil have collectively spent $250 million yet. BTW you don’t need to have economics better than catfish farming to make algae oil an eventual and important reality (depending on the facts yet to be uncovered). Whatever the answer, I’m betting that over time the great skeptical minds that frequent this thread will have it figured out before anyone else.
 
Back around 1980 when I was in college, Israel was growing algae that could be used for fuel. I had hopes that research would result in production rivaling fossil fuels but so far it's in the planning stages still. Maybe with the increasing cost of oil these types of fuels will become realistic. In addition this type of fuel production may cause a net decrease in CO2.
 
sorry for the temp derail, but where exactly can you buy penny stocks?
I've been playing arounds with the idea of teaching my kids about investment etc and I thought that this would be a great avenue to do this, but while I hear talk of it all over, I can't seem to nail down an actuall source to buy it, see it etc.
 
Magyar-- any online broker can sell you shares of Valcent or any of the other players in this market segment . . . to set up an account you only need to fill out their registration forms and fund your account per their instructions. Etrade is an easy full service broker that I use and there are many others you can choose. However I would advise caution with penny these penny stocks and wait to see what eventually pans out from our discussion here. So far Valcent is my favorite but I am not yet ready to invest. You can go to <finance.yahoo.com> and enter the symbol VCTPF.OB for the current price and graph of Valcent. Or use <StockCharts.com> for better stock charts (as I recall you need to drop the ".OB" if you want Stockcharts to recognize the stock symbol you're after). Good Luck
 
The Register calls the second gen biofuels scum-sourced juice. I think it has a certain ring to it.
 
casebro said:
Meadmaker, how much oil has actually been produced by any of those pilot projects? Enough to get a realistic estimate of yields?
Click to expand...

Not at Valcent. The DoE's algae project had lots of data. It's ten years old, but I don't think algae has changed all that much.

Valcent's pilot claimed 33,000 gallons/acre, if I recalled the number, but they were making every possible optimistic assumption in the book. Definitely, real yields would be less.


I want to throw out a question, to anyone. Is it likely that any plant based source of energy would be more efficient than algae?
 
How is the algae extracted and how do you process the soup? Easy to green the swimming pool, not so easy to clean.
 
Thanks for info, sites don't say how. I make all my own diesel from old veg oil and animal fats. If we could find out more on how with algae as I can see the day coming when the PTB will try to stop us. My advise now would be to get a old model diesel with no chip embedded in the chassis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom