I understand that algae replaces itself in 24 hours. I've been reading and trying to understand the science that converts it to energy.

Bio fuels are not as good as you think it takes so much corn to make a gallon of fuel it is not any cheaper then oil.

See bold text for replies.

Hi Guy

Way to add constructively to the comments.

I don't have any money invested in any algal producers because there are NO publicly traded companies that produce algae for bio-fuel feed stocks. There is however a New Zealand company called Aquaflow Bionomic that will hopefully be looking for a cash infusion around late 2008. I would suggest you check out their website, but I doubt you'll have time away from thinking up your witty retorts.

I do drive a veg truck however. Haven't paid for gas for some time now. I'd bet its been 3 months since I paid for a fill up. So I am doing my part and reaping the benefits, how about you sunshine??

-Traveler-

I wouldn't waste my money or time on algae when daily demand is 400,000,000 or 400 million gallons perday. +/- a few gallons. Do you understand that number? I do. As for what I do, maybe when I have time I'll start another thread . I do, and invest in many things.

Your quip reveals your lack of understanding of the situation. Obviously you didn't follow any of the links in the previous posts of this thread or do any independent thinking (or any thinking for that matter), so let me take the time to walk you through why algae bio-diesel is an excellent idea.

Looking to the U.S. DOE we can see that the total "Finished motor gasoline" supplied for '07 was ~389 Mgallons/day, which is quite close to your assertion. But I am looking to replace all OTR fuels and would therefore include daily requirements for diesel, which adds another ~176 Mgallons/day for a grand total of ~565 Mgallons/day.

Now I don't understand the logic behind the argument of "Do you understand that number ? I do." So I will attempt to layout what I do understand and hopefully help you to understand as well. (Though you can lead a horse to water, but...)

First the requirements...
1.) Green, renewable fuel that is net energy positive and has zero impact on food supply.
2.) Economically viable.
3.) Compatible with existing engine technology.
4.) Compatible with existing supply chain capabilities.

Now lets examine the requirements individually as they pertain to algal bio-diesel.

1.) Green, renewable fuel that is net energy positive and has zero impact on food supply.
Two options on the horizon. Ethanol and bio-diesel. Unfortunately for ethanol it has a few things working against it. First its net energy negative, meaning overall you have to put more energy into producing it than usable energy that you can retrieve from it. (This is arguable depending on your math, though moot as the next two facts doom it anyway.) Second, unless you are talking switchgrass, it competes for food. Finally, an often overlooked point, is that a major byproduct of fermentation of anything is...thats right, CO2.
Looking to algal bio-diesel, we have something that is net energy positive. The most ideal location for production is in arid to desert climes with high daily sunshine. Which therefore keeps it from competing with arable land. Finally, instead of producing CO2, it actually sequesters it. (If you need clarification, or confirmation of any of these facts, just ask.)

2.)Economically viable
Since we eliminated ethanol above, I won't speak to its economic viability. I suspect that your quotation of 400 million gallons per day as an argument against algal bio-diesel is rooted in the economics of production, so I'll focus most of my effort here.

What we have for base numbers is from a pilot program performed by NREL (National Renewable Energies Laboratory) back between 1978-1996, known as the "Aquatic Species Program". http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf
This report will form the basis of my following arguments.
So lets start crunching the numbers. First, how much bio-diesel do we need?? Looking above one would be tempted to say 565 M/gallons per day, for a total annual production of ~206 Bgallons per annum. There is a catch however, the diesel engine is ~40% more efficient that the IC engine. Couple this with a plug-in hybrid design and things get much more efficient, but thats outside the scope of the core argument and so we'll stick with the inherent efficiency advantage. So instead of ~389 Mgallons/day of gasoline, we would require ~233 Mgallons/day of bio-diesel to be equivalent. Plus the already existing requirement of ~176 Mgallons/day for existing diesel fleets brings the total to ~409 Mgallons/day or ~150 Bgallons/year. So what would it cost us to produce 150 Billion gallons of algal based bio-diesel, and how would that compare to the costs of our current petroleum based system ??

According to NREL's research an area of 780 square miles will produce one quad of energy. This is roughly the amount of energy in 7.5 Billion gallons of bio-diesel. So if we need 150 Bgallons, the equivalent of 20 quads of energy, we need 15,600 square miles. It may sound like a lot, but to put this number in perspective, the total area of New Mexico is 121,665 square miles.

Its important to note that these numbers are based on NREL's assumption of the theoretical limit of 15,000 gallons per acre-per year. They never achieved this theoretical limit. So being conservative, we can cut our production to a third of the theoretical limit, thereby tripling the need for land, requiring 46,800 square miles.

Looking to cost, I rely on Prof. Briggs at UNH (link can be found in previous post). He estimates initial fixed costs to be in the neighborhood of $80,000 per hectare of algal farms. Converting from sq. miles to hectares gives us ~12 Mhectares times $80,000 per hectare results in 960 billion dollars. Which is quite a sum, until you start looking at the savings we reap. Briggs estimates operating costs at around $12,000 per hectare which works out to around 140 Billion dollars per year to operate these farms.

This is where this all begins to make economic sense. Returning to our original numbers, lets say that each barrel of crude produced one barrel of diesel (which it doesn't). Crude conservatively costs us ~$100 per barrel. We import around 66% of our petroleum. So we require 565 Mgallons/day, or 206 Bgallons/year, or 4.9 Bbarrels/year, which @ $100 per barrel costs us ~500 Billion dollars a year, but since we import around 66% of our oil, it comes out to the nice round figure of $330 BILLION dollars a year!! (If you listen to T. Boone Pickens he'll tell you that its more like $700 billion, but I'll stick with my numbers to show you that it still works.)

So we have $960 Billion to pay for, and a savings of $190 Billion per year ($330B in savings from not importing oil - $140B in annual operating costs = $190 Billion). So in six years we could pay off the upfront costs and begin to reap the benefits.

The funny thing is that all these numbers assume an operating efficiency that is one-third the theoretical limit. If we can genetically modify corn, soy, and rapeseed, so that specific herbicides have absolutely no effect, I think we can move beyond a one third operating efficiency with algal production.

3.)Compatible with existing engine technology
The diesel engine has been around for 116 years. The technology is well understood and would require no leap in technology that always seems to be "10 years" out.

4.)Compatible with existing supply chain capabilities.
Again, diesel is currently distributed throughout the U.S.

I hope this helps everyone understand that we have a solution within our grasp that can not only make us energy independent, but could create a whole new sector of American industry.

-Traveler-

Pipe dreams, While diesel is trucked everywhere in the US you'd need new tanks in existing gas stations and more likely different tanks to haul AF in. By the way how many BTUs per gallon of algae do you get? I know the current fuels.

And if My numbers came up to what you show why is it they only have a small pool producing a few gallons? Seems rather odd they couldn't get any of the billions out of Bush' last energy bill. I can think of a few empty dry docks they could of used. Or maybe some former farmland in the California area.

Truth is it's a novelty and not much more, you'd be better off extracting fuel from coal and that is happening as we speak for the military. We have resources, proven resources, that we have access to. Now get the criminals out of the way so we can be energy independent.

For what I've seen scrolling around the net and a couple of magazines we'd be a million times better off building a 1500 megawatt nuclear reactor and using that to produce hydrogen. Enjoy your pipe dream.

still a pipe dream 20 years away drill our oil burn our coal build nuclear

Alage would be nice, right now its still in the R&D stage. Lets hope is works.