Talk:Algae fuel/Archive 1

Archive 1

$800/barrel claim unreliable source

The source is a blog article. It estimates $190/meter^2 capital costs and a maximum of 1.24 gallons/meter^2/year and then says oil would have to be $855/barrel to justify this. I doubt these numbers would get into a peer-reviewed publication. Also, there is an article where they associate this unreliable report with Wikipedia. I have removed it. Vincecate 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Botryococcus braunii type of oil is not only one that can be hydrocracked

The claim that oil from this algae is special is not true. All vegetable oil is triglycerides which is glyceride in which the glycerol is esterified with three fatty acids. Any of these can be used as feedstock for hydrocracking. Vincecate 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Make the change in the article. --Nukeless 07:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC) --Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukeless (talk • contribs)

Criticisms?

70.119.74.123

The claim that algae fuel could do 5000 gallons/acre/year refers to the Biodiesel page, and that page has no mention of any data about this. This is a pretty incredible claim that I've seen elsewhere but without any good data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.51.227 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's where the numbers came from, I'm not sure how to edit citations for books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K2daz3 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?id=0vBalrSH_OEC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=The+per+unit+area+yield+of+oil+from+algae+is+estimated+to+be+from+between+5,000+to+20,000+gallons+per+acre,+per+year&source=bl&ots=jqV76vIwUu&sig=FUB5PW2oh8I2WyIOc7WJwKnfrh0&hl=en&ei=dFylSf3NA6KBtwe5v9TTBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

Can we please fix the intro? "Algae fuel.... is a biofuel from algae." is the only useful information before the article breaks into a sale pitch. This is an article on algae fuel not bio-fuel or algae.

References

Someone more fluent in pedia can add this reference

Microalgae have gained renewed interest from the government as well as research institution in the past five years because of their potential for energy production through biomass yields that are ten to over a hundred times more land efficient than other biodiesel sources (Chisti 2007).

Chisti, Yusuf. 2007. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnology Advances 25 (3):294-306. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orfintain (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Links

Some links I consider interesting:

• Some people has asked in forums and other sites about where they can get bioreactors.
  • gae Biofuel Equipment
  • Solar Powered BioFuel Reactors: fully ecological equipment that does not produce greenhouse gases, because uses solar power.
• Oilgae, this can also be included as reference about the movement.
• Open Source Movement for Biodiesel from Algae - algOS. Open and free source is important to knowledge, including to the existence of Wikipedia and very usefull to produce biofuels from algae and combat global warming.

--Mac (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets play - Find the "."

"While using the oil in this manner does not require the additional energy needed for transesterification, (processing the oil with an alcohol and a catalyst to produce biodiesel), it does require modifications to a normal diesel engine, whereas biodiesel can be run in any modern diesel engine, unmodified, that is designed to use ultra-low sulfur diesel, the new diesel fuel standard for the United States of America that went into effect in the fall of 2006."

The above sentence is missing some periods.... can anyone tell us where they belong??Mantion (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Biodiversity, Philippines

I added this landmark current research of Philippines due to its bio-diversity: Ateneo de Manila University's Department of Environmental Science, isolated Philippines species, on algal mass production to source out oil as alternative source of fuel. "Carbon dioxide as a product of aerobic decomposition can be utilized to enhance the growth of the algal species. Since the alga is also a rich source of proteins and carbohydrates, upon extraction of oil, the algae can still be utilized as food for livestock or fish; 1,000 to 10,000 gallons of algae are needed to produce a liter of biodiesel."abs-cbnnews.com, Ateneo scientists working on algae as biodiesel source --Florentino floro (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about the figure 1000 - 10,000 gallons of algae are needed to produce a liter of biodiesel. First, is gallons an appropriate unit to use for algae? does it refer to wet or dry algae? Plus, the numbers seem unbelievably high. Compare: about 10 pounds of olives (1-2 gallons) makes a liter of olive oil [1]. Further, this link [2] says algae can yield up 10,000 gallons of oil per acre, perhaps that's where the 10,000 gallons number comes from? Or are there 10,000 x 10,000 = 100 million gallons of algae per acre? maxsch (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes those figures of 1k - 10k gallons of algae are needed to produce liter of bio-diesel are wrong.. I will see if I can find a source with released figures. Your right it could be trying to companion the amount of water and area used to produce the algae. It is also strange that someone would use gallons and liters in the same sentence.. The whole statement is bogus.. I say just delete it.Mantion (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation added

I've added a citation in paragraph 6 under "Biofuel production," where a citation was called for, after this sentence: "Open-pond systems for the most part have been given up for the cultivation of algae with high-oil content." I cited the UNH article, "Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae," which also appears in the external links for this article, because that article does state that "most groups now working in this field (including our collaboration) have shifted to focusing on the use of proprietary photobioreactors." It goes on to explain that these solve a number of problems, including "takeover by low oil strains." While the emphasis here is on a single factor, as opposed to several in the UNH article, it is at least a viable source for the main claim in the sentence (open pond systems have been mostly given up).

Also, I've used a slightly different citation style (author first), because it includes more information and there does not seem to be a single approach used consistently in this article.

Screeve (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions

FAQs:

1) What water solutions encourage algae growth.

2) What is the key process to fatten the algae?

3) What temperature is best for algae growth?

4) The best method to extract the oil from the algae in a continues process (much be continues to be able to produce the largest amounts of oil).

5) What are the government hoops we must jump through?

6) How we can make the factory more 'green' and use less energy?

7) Is there a way for factory to be able to create excuses energy we could sell back to the grid?

8) How we can make a living selling carbon credits to other companies?

9) Is it Possible to make Fuel at Home using Algae, as this supposedly requires very little space ?? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.120.37 (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) --Mac (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

10) Given we have algae available, how do we extract oil from it? Can it be done 'at home' as a DIY project? Jack (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

While I see these as very good, very valid questions, they are not, as a whole, relevant to this article. Most, if not all of these are covered in many other articles to which this page links. The only exception is of Question 9/10. The quickest answer is No, you can't really do this economically at home. Most plant oils (including algae) are seperated from by expellers or solvents. Algae is slightly different by having to be seperated from water, usually with a centrifuge. The mass is then processed with an expeller or solvent. Here's a link: Algae Oil Extraction. This question, while more appropriate for the article, is still not quite fully on topic and the answer should probably be included in another article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiny.ian (talk • contribs) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

>"Algae Oil Extraction"

Dead Link. --96.42.42.75 (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

11) can any body tell me how to destroy the chlorofills without damaging the oil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Driaan101 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

External links

Yikes, think there're enough external links here? I've tagged that section for {{Cleanup-spam}}; do we really, really need 800,000 external links? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This page has become a spam farm. Many of these links do not qualify as Wikipedia material and belong elsewhere (DMOZ?).--E8 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

confusing sentence

I can't tell what this is supposed to mean:

In the 2008 U.S. Department of Energy Biomass and Biofuels Update to the United States Congress (by the Office of Biomass Program)[13] appears the move to algae fuels.[14]

Agreed ... makes no sense to me either. And please sign your posts! Htfiddler (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There are other confusing sentences too. Especially bewildering was the cost of $5 to $10 per kg. WHAT costs this much ($4.50/lb)? Is it the dried algae? Certainly the oil isn't being priced by the kg, is it?--Yuezrnaem (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are TONS of confusing sentences here! However, lets focus on the one mentioned at the start. I believe the person who included that sentence was saying that the US DOE has included algae fuels in their Biomass Program. I am, however, going to remove this sentence because it is irrelevant, and the information is covered further down in the article. Tiny.ian (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What am I doing here?

I entered "Global energy" into the Wikipedia search box, and was re-directed to this page. This seems wrong to me, but as a newbie I don't know what to do about it. Thanks to anybody who can fix it. Robsavoie (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect removed. Rmhermen (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This article could be really good

This article could be very good with a bit of clean up, some formatting, a couple relevant images, and some reasonable data. It's not that it's bad but looks like it could have been written by a 14 year old with a good grasp of the English language. Tiny.ian (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Water hyacinth

Water hyacinth can be a better source of biogas than algae.Water hyacinth grows fast in wastewater.201.9.96.125 (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)agre22

Dry it, burn it -steam electrical generation, KISS principal

Why develop and fuss with new tech, when old will yield immediate high quality results. Let grow what will grow in a given feed stream, (let bio competition determine)feed being sewage, ect. Strain using centrifugal force or if grown in small diameter tubing up the south side of a sky scaper, gravity [hot water, oxygen out top], slightly dry using waste heat not used to warm feed stock (from boiler used to produce steam), grind if needed (alot of slime turns to dust anyway when dried) and burn algal dust stream in a force air boiler to produce steam - electricity. Ash could be used to supplement the mineral content of the feed stream. Even the CO2 from burning should be used. 8" deep, plastic lined trenches with a tent covering of clear plastic tarp could be easily set up with a skid loader in any unused land. No contamination, temporary (if need be). Genetic manipulation -more cost/time, bio reactors -more cost/time, bio diesel-more cost/time, cellulose cracking -more time/cost. KISS principal. The algae stream could even be pumped like oil through existing pipelines or the dust by rail. Is it really that hard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julmcc (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

CosmicLog article

There is an interesting article on cosmicLog [3] regarding construction of a $273 million, 40-megawatt power plant by 2011, using technology pioneered by the Washington-based Solena Group. Seems as if this might be becoming the flavour of the month. l santry (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did this graph come from?

The graph of efficiency vs area is not good. It looks like someone just plugged some values into Matlab and threw it up. Where did the values even come from? Also, the analysis following the graph is extremely nonencyclopedic.192.35.35.34 (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I thought I was the only one not understanding anything about that graph. I think a graph should clarify an issue not to make one wonder what it is about. It would be nice to know the surface area the average American would need to supply his energy demands or something similar (surface needed for a typical family car) , related to the efficiency of the algal production.Viridiflavus (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Major math errors

This part of the Yield section does not compute:

More recently, Valcent have claimed 150,000 US gallons may be possible [14]; their most recent actual reported yields could reach 33,000 gallons per acre per year (21,153,000 gal/sq mi·a or 31,000 m3/km2·a) if they could achieve their yeilds with an algal species having 50% lipids. [15] In 2007, the U.S consumed 20.680 million barrels per day (3.2879×10^6 m3/d) of petroleum or 317 million US gallons per year (1.20×10^6 m3/a).[16] Thus, with the production capabilities of Valcent, it would only require 15,000 square metres (160,000 sq ft) of land to completely displace petroleum use in the U.S.

U.S. oil consumption of 20.680 million barrels per day would amount to 317 billion gallons per year, not 317 million. That's a factor of 1000 difference. After that I'm not sure where the numbers come from, but using the current and projected capacity reported by Valcent (33,000 - 150,000 gal/acre-year), it would require 2.1 to 9.6 million acres of land to completely displace U.S. petroleum consumption. That's about a million times more than the 160,000 sq ft stated in the article.

I also question the validity and source of the graph. It appears to be an original work and based on speculation and estimates.

I was just reading through the section. Much of it is uncited and does indeed look like Original Research. I'm deleting it for now pending a response to the above post. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

USA oriented article

Perhaps inclusion of algal biofuel from other countries, such as the Algal Biofuel Consortium in Cambridge, UK should be included too?Shuggyg (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lacking clear information

I can't find anything in this article about whether or not the fuel is the algae itself, or a by-product of the algae. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.30.235 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems the fuel is a by product of the algae oil and the algae oil is a product of the algae. Essentially, the algae isn't the fuel.

A couple of things which aren't clear to myself are: As far as I'm aware, someone correct me if I'm wrong, the algae use or feed on sulphur and perhaps other minerals/nutrients are also taken up by the algae, therefore the need for a ecofootprint needs to be taken into account. Such an eco-footprint would determine whether the sulphur sources were offsetting the carbon gains or not!

The next concept which isn't clear or lacking, is the matter of what types of vehicles such algal fuel could be used within i.e. only specific vehicles manufactured specifically for this fuel? or are substantial costs associated with modifying a vehicle to run on algal based fuels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eco impact (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Algae Oil redirected to Algae fuel

Algae oil is also used in combination with olive oil in food items.AnimeJanai (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

actual companies which produce algal fuel

Why are there none included? I believe Licella, in Australia, is already producing algal oil for use in the marine industry? http://licella.info/index.php it certainly has been given a large governmental grant to do thisShuggyg (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia editors are not omnipotent. We don't know everything. Feel free to add it to the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Vastly improved photosynthetic efficiency by quantum-computer algae?

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20100402-20573-2.html Algae master quantum science ..... "[Certain] water-dwelling algae are in effect highly miniaturised quantum computers... They have mastered the process of photosynthesis so well that they can convert sunlight into electrical energy with near-perfect efficiency." ..... "recent work by other researchers has documented that light-absorbing molecules in some photosynthetic proteins capture and transfer energy according to quantum-mechanical probability laws instead of classical laws at temperatures up to 180 degrees Kelvin. 'Where our study breaks new ground is that we observe the same quantum coherence at normal room temperature,' says Professor Curmi." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.61.39 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add it to the article if you can find a good spot. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Algae species

Can one include the yield of the different algae species and add more species ?. --Mac (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

that is a good idea; the major classifications, red algae and green algae, both have thousands of species, and cyanobacteria is possibly among the contenders, too. But I hear that yield differs, based on all these factors: species, sunlight, temperature, nutrients, and CO2. So it will take some digging to find good information. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, [4] table 6.1 names the culprits. Top producers are:

Species                   lipids (%dry weight)
Scenedesmus dimorphus     16-40%
Chlamydomonas rheinhardii 21%
Chlorella vulgaris        14-22%
Spirogyra sp.             11-21%
Euglena gracilis          14-20%
Prymnesium parvum         22-38%

-- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

a different reference [5] identifies the source of this info as Becker, (1994). But these values seem to be lower than the widespread claims as high as 60%. Perhaps those are laboratory-bread species, or there is a way to maximize lipid production? -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

above source is probably E.W. Becker (1994). Microalgae: Biotechnology and Microbiotechnology. Cambridge University Press. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

also, Microalgae as a raw material for biofuels production reveals that "Neochloris oleabundans (fresh water microalga) and Nannochloropsis sp. (marine microalga) proved to be suitable as raw materials for biofuel production, due to their high oil content (29.0 and 28.7%, respectively). Both microalgae, when grown under nitrogen shortage, show a great increase (~50%) in oil quantity." -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Algal Cultivation

It is misleading to say that algae produces zero net CO2 emissions because this statement doesn't take into account the processing of the oil produced by the algae. Processes used to perform this tend to use heat and external chemicals that both consume energy and produce CO2 waste. Only if the energy produced by the algae is used exclusively for all processes related to the production of algal fuel would it be possible to say such a statement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teilhardo (talk • contribs) 00:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If all your energy base were algal, there would be no net CO2 emissions. How do you state and convey this information succinctly? That in itself is enough to make a simple statement like that. That's what language is for. When we talk about CO2 emissions that are not zero net, we mean mining underground fossil deposits, and dumping all that carbon into the atmosphere. When a process does not do that, we succinctly say it's zero net CO2 emission. Otherwise everything emits CO2. Let's take you for instance - you exhale CO2. But the CO2 you exhale comes from food, which, ultimately, comes from photosynthetic plant matter grown from atmospheric CO2. Unless some of your food used natural gas derived hydrogen to manufacture nitrogen fertilizer to make your food. Or there was a truck that carried the food that used mined fossil fuels to the store. Or you drove a car to the store. So you eating food is not a net zero CO2 emission process, because you drive, because you use grid electricity to power your computer when using Wikipedia. As long as we mine underground fossil deposits at all, and use them in our daily lives, nothing will be zero net CO2 according to your definition, unless you're completely isolated from the mainstream society, isolated from the electric grid, never buy any gas/propane/natural gas, never buy any food but grow everything yourself, and live like that. Nobody does that, not even the Amish (because they do use steel/iron/copper in their carts/plows/horseshoes, and I don't see many blacksmiths messing around with wood derived charcoal anymore, moreover they pay taxes and conduct trade with either paper money or metal coin money made by the use of fossil fuels, so they too are not completely isolated and touch fossil fuel derived items), so you can never technically make a statement that something is zero net CO2, because everything is interconnected in our society anymore, and in one way or another, something touched mined oil. Do you always wanna get bogged down with these details, that in society, the simple fact of walking on asphalt, or exchanging money, or living in a building means mined fossil fuel CO2 emissions that were not zero net? Don't you think we can just succinctly say it's zero net CO2 if it's a technology that provides hydrocarbon energy other than mined fossil fuels? How else are you gonna categorize CO2 emitting fuels? Zero net in and of itself but technically not zero net because it was carried by a truck that was powered by gas station fuel that wasn't completely zero net yet? Sillybilly (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember that you're facing special interest groups whose goal is to complicate the definition of zero net CO2 to the point where it becomes impossible to calculate. But the simplistic form of this unfortunately enables absurd business plans, like cutting down rain forests to grow soy for biodiesel, thus incurring a huge carbon debt. So the best qualified statement could be, to say something like neglecting processing, bio fuels are net zero CO2. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Energy upper bound

Total solar energy reaching the earth is 1367 watts per square meter. Factoring out cosine of latitude and cosine of rotation and nighttime, you're left with about 240 watts per acre in the USA. Given the energy content of gasoline, this gives 211,000 gallons of gasoline per acre if you convert 100 percent of solar power into oil. Maybe someone can double check my math.

Photo synthesis is not that efficient, only 1 or 2 percent. It only uses a narrow part of the spectrum, for example. Just from basic energy and efficiency constraints, I do not believe it is possible to get more than about 1000 or 2000 gallons per acre, and that would really be pushing things to the limits of efficency and year-round production. DonPMitchell (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I underestimated efficiency, so I think its plausable that up to 6000 gallons per acre could be produced by photosynthesis. So I am wondering if there is an explaination of how some companies claim over 30,000 gallons and project up to 150,000 gallons. That's getting close to 100 percent energy conversion, which I find very hard to believe. Am I making some kind of math error? DonPMitchell (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know, but isn't wikipedia using SI units for convenience? One post here gives watts square meter, the other is about gallons per acre. It would be better to put everything in kg, m and related units for the sake of simpler calculation. The english wiki is used all over the world and should use the international standard (SI) I think.Viridiflavus (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, Companies like Valcent were simply LYING when they give such figures. They know that figures of 100,000+ gallons/acre/year would be assuming 100% solar efficiency which is utterly impossible via photosynthesis. There is an algae industry blogger [6] who was screaming very loudly about this discrepancy for the past few years. Be very suspect of any claims above 20,000 gallons/acre/year. IIRC Valcent has since capitulated and lowered it's projected yields substantially since the heady days of 150,000 gallons/acre/year claims. These more sober revised figures need to be integrated into the article. As it stands now the Yields section of the article seems to be mostly original research and marketing claims, either way it is completely incorrect if it's claiming these 100,000 gallons/acre/year figures. Roidroid (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting 1367/4 = 342 W/m² avg for entire earth, and photosynthesis efficiency ~3%, arriving at 10.25 x 86400 x 365.25 = 323.5 MJ / year yield for each m². Gasoline#Energy_content is ~ 32.0 MJ/L (132 MJ/US gal), so that's 10.1L/m², or about 10,800 US gal / acre. I hear that efficiency goes up quite a lot when algae is fed CO2 in bulk. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that 342 W/m² is world average. Neglecting cloud cover, irradiation in the tropics and most of continental US (except Alaska) is greater than that. Further, the review article, Prospective of biodiesel production utilizing microalgae as the cell factories: A comprehensive discussion[www.academicjournals.org/ajb/PDF/pdf2010/8Mar/Verma%20et%20al.pdf], claims photosynthetic efficiency for micro-algae as 3..8%. Significantly, using irradiation of 342 W/m² as above, 8% efficiency would translate to an upper bound of 26.9L/m², or 28,800 US gal/acre per year. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Assertion about algal fuel burning equation

The statement at the end of the lead section "any CO2 taken out of the atmosphere by the algae is returned when the biofuels are burned" may be incorrect IF the algal growth doesn't just take CO2 from the atmosphere. For example, algae grown in the ocean may draw on CO2 reserves sequestered in the ocean water. So I've requested a citation at that point (and will look into it myself). It may well be an order or two of magnitude *less* added CO2 than what burning fossils liberates, but I'm unconvinced that the algal fuel equation results in *no* net liberated CO2. Twang (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

CO2 dissolved in ocean transpires naturally with atmospheric CO2, because solubility depends on partial pressure. So, ocean-sourced versus atmospheric CO2 should be taken as equivalent. But, the argument becomes valid, if, for example the algae were fed the effluent from a coal burning plant. Ultimately, if you want net-zero CO2, then you'll want to individually audit and certify biofuel producers, to guarantee the origin of the carbon. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

One way to audit biofuels is to use carbon-14 testing.[7] If the carbon is fossil origin, it will no longer have residual C-14, whereas biomass from recent atmospheric CO2 will have the normal C-14/C-12 ratio. Thus the same way the ratio determines the age, it can determine the fraction of carbon of fossil origin. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Biohydrocarbon?

Biohydrocarbon redirects to here. I don't really see any reason for that as there are other (biological) methods to make hydrocarbons(methane by anaerobic decay of biomass). By the way is biodiesel made from algea really hydrocarbons like real diesel and not esters? 83.188.246.187 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Salt Water: The Tangy Taste of Energy Freedom

I have added this "Further Reading":
Lane, Jim (18 April 2010). "Salt Water: The Tangy Taste of Energy Freedom". Renewable Energy World. Retrieved 21 April 2010.

It has a list of projects in various countries that could be incorprated into the article. Sory I can't do it at present. dinghy (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

cost of bio-fuels

Basic economic theory states that total cost = fixed cost + variable cost ; these enable you to scale production. For algae, http://iwawaterwiki .org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/BiofuelfromAlage asserts that "The cost of production per kilogram reduces to roughly $0.47 and $0.60 for photobioreactors and raceways respectively, if the annual biomass production capacity is increased to 10,000 t." This contradicts unreferenced claims in the article, so I'm removing those claims --unless you can find a better reference? -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In your first edit, you removed a citation needed tag on a claim that was otherwise uncited. That's what I was reverting. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was trivial until I studied the discussion. No big deal. I think we could benefit from confining edits to a single issue at a time. The method of production certainly does influence whether a fuel can be called zero net CO2; and the most exciting possibility along these lines, is that since the fuel comes from the lipid fraction of the biomass, the remainder can be converted to biochar, yielding net < 0 CO2. I'll keep my eyes open for reliable references. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

[8] claims cost of food grade algae is $5000/tonne, and that biodiesel from algae "can never compete at oil prices under $800/bbl." This orders-of-magnitude discrepancy from the more optimistic estimates deserves careful analysis. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Labour and electricity are the two largest contributors to operating cost, since raceways and tanks need periodic cleaning, and machinery includes "paddle wheels, pumps, systems for carbonation, fertilization, inoculation, flocculation, dewatering, oil extraction, oil cake utilization, pond cleaning, waste-water treatment, residue management, etc." So feasibility depends critically on reducing these costs. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose to merge Green crude into this article. Green crude is a very short article originally created to promote a certain company. By its nature it is an algae fuel. Beagel (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We normally delete spam like that on sight. I don't see any great reason to have two seperate articles. Support AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Support merge. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger completed. Beagel (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Record for actual lipids harvested?

What is actually achieved? Somewhere on the internet it is written:

To my knowledge, the demonstration from more than a decade ago of about 400/gal/acre/yr still stands as the record for actual lipids harvested over a two year period from an area of more than half an acre. If you can find better data, please report it, rather than more of this counterproductive hype.

What is a better place to report actual results than in this article?

Hogne (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add it if you can find a reliable source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

[9] Arlo James Barnes 06:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

I made this change as saying in the article 'incorrect please see another article' is not the correct way to tag dubious content. Either removed it or use an appropriate tag to indicate it is in dispute. I'm not sure what exactly is disputed here, the Chinese tallow article doesn't currently give figures. Perhaps it's because the Chinese tallow article says oil palms are the second best not Chinese tallow. However this article is apparently cited whereas I don't see anything in the Chines tallow article although I haven't looked in to the oil palm article Nil Einne (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Er scratch the last bit. This article wasn't cited, instead we just told people to look at yet another article. Sigh what a mess. Anyway I've removed that as it's clearly not an RS [10]. This probably means the biodiesel and Chinese tallow article contradict each other, I haven't check to see if the biodiesel article is cited. Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible errors

There are two possible errors in the article.

One is where it is stated that the use of SVO requires an engine designed for low sulfur diesel. I believe that language indicating that SVO is suitable for such engine designs has been misconstrued into a false impression that such designs are required.

The second is where the relative yields of algae vs soil crops is mentioned. Grapeseed is listed where it is probably rapeseed(canola a variant) that is intended.68.18.115.52 (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Algae jet fuel

There is a discussion merging Algae jet fuel into Aviation_biofuel or this article. Beagel (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

"5 Companies Making Fuel From Algae Now; Algae is now a burgeoning sector in biofuels with several high-profile start-ups. Here are 5 project leading the pack today." by Jeremy Jacquot Popular Mechanics

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I found an article the other day which might be useful here. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/337755/title/Seaweed_study_fuels_bioenergy_enthusiasm Dream Focus 13:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No explanation on how the "crude" oil is extracted from the algae in the first place

I think this needs to be added in. ScienceApe (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the ASP

There was a reference under the Biodiesel to how only "small-scale" biodiesel production could supply enough fuel to replace world diesel consumption; I read over the ASP final report cited there (it is a big document, but I've read it before) and found no such suggestion anywhere...fixed it.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarmerOnMars (talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Info

Added this: Proviron has been working on a new type of reactor (using flat plates) which reduces the cost of algae cultivation. At AlgaePARC similar research is being conducted using 4 grow systems (1 open pond system and types of 3 closed systems). According to René Wijffels the current systems do not yet allow algae fuel to be produced competitively. However using new (closed) systems, and by scaling up the production it would be possible to reduce costs by 10X, upto a price of 0,4 € per kg of algae.

perhaps some more references are useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.170.224 (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

COI Contributions

I have a financial COI with Honeywell in that they’ve recruited me to help them navigate through Wikipedia and COI Best Practices. I would like to suggest the following contributions in order to better inform Wikipedia's readers on green diesel or hydrogen-derived renewable diesel. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 16:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Green Diesel

I would like to improve the section called "Hydrocracking to traditional transport fuels" as follows:

Main article: Vegetable oil refining

Algae is used to create Green diesel through a hydrocracking refinery process that breaks molecules down into shorter hydrocarbon chains used in diesel engines. Green Diesel may also be called renewable diesel, hydro-treated vegetable oil or hydrogen-derived renewable diesel (HDRD). "Algae oil" has the same chemical properties as petroleum-based diesel. It does not require new engines, pipelines or infrastructure to distribute and use, but has not been produced at a cost that is competitive with petroleum.

I also suggest we rename it "Green Diesel" (the consumer name) or Hydrogren-Derived Renewable Diesel (the scientific title) and add it to the list of algae-based fuel types mentioned in the second paragraph "bioethanol, biogasoline, biomethanol, green diesel..."

Comments

I'm not seeing what the relevance of this is to algae fuel - the references discuss producing diesel from vegetable oils, not algae. SmartSE (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's to replace the section "Hydrocracking to traditional transport fuels," which links to the same Green Diesel article (vegetable oil refining), so the topic is already there. But do you think we should remove it? It's there as an example of one of the types of fuels produced with algae. User:Corporate Minion 16:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the proposed text is well referenced and seems unbiased, I approve King to make the edits:

While King's text is an improvement on the existing text, I will leave it to others to discuss whether the topic is appropriate for this article. 1292simon (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm going to wait a little while before implementing, since Smart had an objection and see if anyone else objects or if it's something he feels strongly about and would like more opinions on. User:Corporate Minion 13:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay again. I get why it could potentially be included, but I would prefer to see some references that are specifically discussing the use of algae to produce 'green diesel' rather than the same ones used in biofuel. IMO this article shouldn't really be focusing on the various ways of transforming biomass into fuel, but specifically about the differences with using algae as the feedstock. I know the article is a mess at the moment, but I don't think that adding this content would really improve it. SmartSE (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Aww, I'll see if I can find some algae-specific info RE Green Diesel. User:Corporate Minion 17:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A beaker of "Green Jet Fuel" made from algae.

I'm giving it a second go and requesting feedback on adding the image (see right) Honeywell donated under the Jet Fuel section as well as adding the below Green Diesel summary (below). I took another look and it was a bit awkward doing a copy/paste from the other page, so I just re-worded it a bit so it made more sense. Corporate Minion 22:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Green Diesel section

Main article: Vegetable oil refining Algae can be used to produce 'green diesel' (also known as renewable diesel, hydro-treated vegetable oil or hydrogen-derived renewable diesel) through a hydrocracking refinery process that breaks molecules down into shorter hydrocarbon chains used in diesel engines. It has the same chemical properties as petroleum-based diesel meaning that it does not require new engines, pipelines or infrastructure to distribute and use. It has yet to be produced at a cost that is competitive with petroleum.

• I think the image is uncontroversial enough; have added it (with a slight tweak to the caption - that looks like a conical flask, not a beaker). I'm well-disposed to the diesel section but would like to see what other folk think... bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and added a modified version of the content above. I'm still not entirely happy with the references, but it is an improvement on the current version so will do for now. I've also moved the photo to the top since it is the only one in the article and I think readers like to see photos. SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually came by just to read the article and there's a big problem in third sentence where it looks like some information got dropped that stopped me dead in my tracks. So while people are fixing it up, feel free to fix that and I'll come back and try again in a few days. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 15:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What does this mean? This is unclear.

Under the "other" section, there is this strange note. I do not understand what the author intended, and so I'm not certain how to correct it. Can somebody please clarify/simplify? Thank you! 192.33.240.95 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC) "Section three of the 2006 alternative fuels act stated that when it is economically feasible to do so-75% per cent of all federal bodies and crown corporation will be motor vehicles."

Economic Viability section needs to be reworked.

This section needs to be shortened, a lot of it reads like a college students report on the topic. The subsections themselves are more like advertisements for the two companies outlined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.210.88 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Algae fuel in fiction

Although there are not many examples of algae fuels in fiction; Metal Gear 2:Solid Snake deals extensively and in a serious tone with the political ramifications of such technology. Other science subjects like wormholes have brief in fiction sections. I think it's worth noting pop culture seems to overwhelmingly propose that anyone who invents an oil substitute will just disappear into the shadowy world of tactical military espionage; which is rather discouraging. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources discussing this? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to chime in at the talk page for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games on whether or not video games them selves and not just their instruction manuals should be considered suitable references. Trying to apply an academic referencing system made over a hundred years ago to a new medium which looks nothing like the pages of a book is kind of ridiculously outdated. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not you like how we might cite such material, we still need reliable sources. That said, depending on what you have in mind, you might be creating an "In popular culture" section. If such material merely lists occurrences and/or cites primary sources (e.g., the games themselves), the section is likely to be removed as a trivial list. You might want to review WP:IPC before you spend much time on this. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Commercial viability claims

Is there any evidence that the small-scale "commercial sales" cited have not been expensive loss-leaders for the companies involved to keep the research grants and venture capital coming? EllenCT (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there evidence they have been? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. None of the large projects were able to attain anything under $100 per gallon of fuel. Even "producing microalgal biomass is $2.95/kg for photobioreactors and $3.80/kg for open-ponds. These estimates assume that carbon dioxide is available at no cost" means about $400 per barrel of unrefined oil. The idea that a startup can sell a small quantity at "competitive prices" as a loss-leader is marketing propaganda drivel that has no place in an encyclopedia article. EllenCT (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Algae fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081030023008/http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/mstrs/March2007/Wolf.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/mstrs/March2007/Wolf.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022031756/http://www.algaefuels.org/algae_FAQ.htm to http://www.algaefuels.org/algae_FAQ.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121603165600/http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/ethanol-facts-environment to http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/ethanol-facts-environment
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110407074826/http://www.enst.umd.edu:80/News/Kangas/Algae.cfm to http://www.enst.umd.edu/News/Kangas/Algae.cfm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131203003555/http://aquaticbiofuel.com/2008/12/28/originoils-bioreactor-technology-a-breakthrough-in-the-production-of-oil-from-algae/ to http://aquaticbiofuel.com/2008/12/28/originoils-bioreactor-technology-a-breakthrough-in-the-production-of-oil-from-algae/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Algae fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217093711/http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/77055/microalgal_prod.pdf to http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/77055/microalgal_prod.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Nutrients

The "Nutrients" section seems to be a bit unnecessary. The information about the importance of fertilizers such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen and waste water can be much shortened and summarized into a few brief sentences and be included in the "Fuel Production" section. Nutrients required for algae growth are additional information for the algae fuel production, not the main issue to be dealt with. In this way, the whole article will get much more succinct and to the point. Junghaeyun (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Environmental Impact

It is stated that although algal biofuel does not produce any sulfur oxides or nitrous oxides, it still produces a reduced amount of carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and reduced emission of other harmful pollutants. Although reduced in amount, these pollutants may still have potential risks of health and environment. While disadvantages of other types of fuels are clearly stated, the impacts of these pollutants that the algae fuel produces are not clearly stated enough. More about the potential health or environmental risks of using the algae fuel should be stated so that the neutral point of view can be maintained. Junghaeyun (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

History

The "History" section contains a lot of information but most of them seem to be insignificant. The first part of the section explaining about how Harder and Von Witsch proposed microalgae as the potential source for fuel is the most important part. All the other historical applications of algal biofuels seem to be too much in amount for readers to read and know all of them. If this section mainly focuses on how the algal biofuel idea was proposed and started to be developed, it will get much clearer and simpler. Junghaeyun (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Introductory Section needs updating

The last comment in the introduction states that Algenol, a Florida-based algae biofuels company, hoped to reach commercial-scale operations in 2014. Less than six months after the cited article was published, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a bill repealing Florida's state mandate that consumer gasoline contain 10% ethanol, leading the CEO of Algenol, Paul Woods, to scrap plans to build a commercial-scale algae biofuels plant. In 2015, Algenol's commercial demonstration module in Ft. Myer's Florida began providing ethanol biofuel to Protec Fuel for distribution in Florida. I believe this reference to Algenol in the introduction needs to be removed or changed due to the ambiguity of it's commercial scale at the present time. Jpg142zg (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)