Any new technology is speculative, and companies trying to get started need to show their best face in order to get people to believe in them.  There is nothing wrong with people trying their best to create new technology and failing.

Simply growing algae might be simple (which is why it is such a seductive concept) but making algal biodiesel profitably at large scale is not.  What I emphasized in my first post on this thread, and will re-emphasize, is that this particular technology we are discussing requires a critical mass of key components in order to have any chance of success- we know this because people have been working on it for decades already without success.  If you look for those components, you see a few venture backed companies that have at least some of the components.  Top notch scientists, savvy business people with real track records, people with track records in developing industrial biotechnology products, deals/alliances with other companies that are also credible, partnerships with academic institutions, 7 or 8 figure funding rounds.  Those are hints that a company has a chance.  The reason it is so clear that the pump and dump penny stock companies claiming to be doing algal biodiesel are scams is because they don’t have any of those components and they are not doing anything to create or acquire them.

I would advise that where you draw the line between what is fraud and what is unproven technology looking for investors is taking into account what is required for success and seeing if a company has made any real attempts to create or acquire those things.   Any company claiming that they are making algal biodiesel, hyping meaningless press releases, selling cheap (worthless) stock to the public, and putting nothing in place that is required in order to succeed is fraud. 

As Matt said above, “ignoring the important information that a reasonable person would ask”….if there are enough suckers out there who will buy the stock without doing any research, it doesn’t matter that a reasonable person would ask.

peterson2:

............this particular technology we are discussing requires a critical mass of key components in order to have any chance of success- we know this because people have been working on it for decades already without success.  If you look for those components, you see a few venture backed companies that have at least some of the components.  Top notch scientists, savvy business people with real track records, people with track records in developing industrial biotechnology products, deals/alliances with other companies that are also credible, partnerships with academic institutions, 7 or 8 figure funding rounds.  Those are hints that a company has a chance.

 if the above was meant as a litmus test or even an assuring sign, then i would like to sincerely caution against it. sure like pete says, there's no dearth of  fools on the blessed planet, and so is it same for swindlers. but if we are looking for 'track records' and 'top notch' scientists and 'big' names as the only sign of seriousness of an attempt, or as sign of grasp of technology by a team, it will be foolishly myopic. there are hordes of examples of people without even proper college degrees doing real ground-braking work. yes, it is certainly good to expect such people to be associated, in some form, with a good effort, but this aint no holy grail for it. for people who might not understand technology, and are 'financial eagles', such signs would sure be reassuring though.

so what i guess i am saying is that people who do not fit the bill of 'top notch' scientists with a starry track record should not get disheartened, but should strive on, and possibly get blessings of such a scientist, as a project mentor or something,  to make sailing smoother. it is more than obvious that such a fella, if he was as good as his  reputation, he would probably know good work, when seeing it!
 

CB wrote

"But here is the million dollar question. I could name at least 5 commercial algal farms [all non-biodiesel]. Why don't you hear anything from them regarding foray's into the algae to biodiesel field? Surely they must have the expertise?"

The reason is simple - money. You will get huge returns for extracting chemicals in algae but only 35c a litre for oil to turn into biodiesel.

"so what i guess i am saying is that people who do not fit the bill of 'top notch' scientists with a starry track record should not get disheartened, but should strive on, and possibly get blessings of such a scientist, as a project mentor or something,  to make sailing smoother. it is more than obvious that such a fella, if he was as good as his  reputation, he would probably know good work, when seeing it!"
 

Well said and I believe you will find several hundred back yard "scientists" squirrelling away at their research and some of them may come up with something usefull.  A lot will not. Some will sell their inventions to Big Oil and we will never see them again.

I am a man working alone, I have no connections to any institute of higher learning, I am not a scientist or in fact have any university degrees, I have no external financial backing but I have a desire to learn and an unsatiable desire to succeed and I am working away at my PBR design - does that make me a potential scammer??

If I am able to achieve just 10% of projections I will be thrilled and will still provide the algae industry with a whole new perspective on viable commercial production - or not.

Well said Slippery! I could'nt have done better myself...! 

its precisely this kinda spirit that makes this whole sharing concept so beautiful..! It is my firm belief that without open source and free (as in beer AND in freedom) software, the world would have had been at least twenty years behind. Everyday I see people from across the world, from universities to small companies, to employees of large companies, everybody developing stuff, products actually, (products sellable in capital markets!!), simultaneously, through such teamwork. This allows dedicated development of technology at blistering pace, as you will get people with core expertise willing to share and develop. I know of this group, who are developing this consumer electronics item, whose hardware is from Taiwan, and software is being done by freelancers from ,UK, Germany, India, Russia and of course from the US, They have already received first round funding options. It's capitalism at its humane best!

Now while we can't probably do the same in biology to similar degrees, mostly because of it's very physical nature (software in biology?!?), i think that group sites such as this one are the best start we could have asked for. Wishing all of you the very best of luck, and congratulations again on the efforts!

Promethus,

I agree with your basic idea, but disagree with your pessimism.  I feel we can do development in algae technology.  Much of what needs to be learned is how to farm algae.  Actually growing the algae is a big part of the problem right now.  We must find out how to do that most efficiently.  Individuals, working in their backyard (or larger) can investigate different practices and find which work best.  The successes and failures can be communicated right here (and on my Yahoo group) with people from all over the world.

There are people who want to do genetic modification and supercritical CO2 extraction and lots of other highly technical subjects that require large laboratories.  But we also need to develop the practices that backyard growers, farmers, and villages can use.  No high tech needed. 

liberty1:

Promethus,

I agree with your basic idea, but disagree with your pessimism............There are people who want to do genetic modification and supercritical CO2 extraction and lots of other highly technical subjects that require large laboratories.  But we also need to develop the practices that backyard growers, farmers, and villages can use.  No high tech needed. 
 

 bobby (liberty1),

I agree with your basic idea too, but disagree with your disagreement to my non-existent pessimism. Might you have misunderstood anything I have said earlier? I myself  support, whole-heartedly, the distributed efforts to develop algae biofuel tech. But i just have some doubts which have not yet been really answered. One of them is how in the name of the sweet lord, are people solving the fuel crisis by everyone growing some in backyards...? is it something that every house COULD do? Now thats a technical issue....and we are trying to solve it. But then again, is it something everybody would WANT to do? i mean isn't that just another bother to add up to every household (like some would say cooking and laundry).

The solutions we want today are those which can be coupled to existing industries, which already use fossil fuels. We also desperately need stuff which can be used in farmhouses and similarly sized aggro communities. But if we are thinking about doing this for every backyard, then yes, I am a tad bit skeptical about the thing in its current form. But hey.....let us all go ahead by all means and share, as all of us seem to have a long way to go (as of now), to come to know enough about the right way from the not-so-right way !!
 

Prometheus,

I think we are close to being on the same page.

I believe that part of the reason biodiesel has become as popular as it has is because there is an industrial process and a backyard process.  Many of the people who are outstanding advocates of biodiesel would not have a word to say about it if it was only produced by multi-million dollar industrial processes.  But because there is a workable backyard process, they get involved in doing that, catch the "virus" and become evangelists for the idea.  If we want to have advocates for oil from algae, we need to have a backyard process so that ordinary people can get involved, learn, and become spokespersons for the idea.

Also, there are many questions that need answering about how to farm, harvest, and process oil from algae.  There are three succesful models for improving technology. 1. Get the government to fund the research.   2. Companies and corporations research for profitable techniques.  3. Open Source.

The government was involved in this research.  When it got close to producing results, Clinton did not have the vision to realize that oil prices would go above $15 per barrel, so he shut down the research that might be our salvation today.

Much government funded research is done at universities and they try to tie any useful results up with patents and make the information available only to businesses that can pay for it. 

Many companies are working on research for oil from algae, but they will only follow leads where they can patent something and make a profit.  If the best technique is low cost and not patentable, they will ignore it.   If they learn anything, they will try to keep it secret and not make the information available.  If you don't believe this, call Earthrise Farms and ask them how to grow algae.  I have heard that you will get a chilly reception.

So, if we want this information to be developed as rapidly as possible and with the most cross fertilization of ideas as possible, we need to start an open source development.  We need to encourage people to build a small model of one part of the process in their backyard and share their results with the rest of us.  (The acedemic researcher I quote the most was using 1 sq. meter "ponds", so it can be done in the backyard.)

So, for two different reasons, we need to encourage backyard growers. 

Your point is well taken.  Most people's backyards are too small to produce much algae.  Most people will not be bothered with "all the mess" to produce a little oil.  So backyard production, as such, will not be the solution to our energy needs.

But backyard researchers may develop the techniques needed for farms, villages, and eventually industrial scale farms to be able to produce their own energy and a surplus for sale. And once the backyard researchers develop this information, they will go to work making sure their friends learn it is possible.

natescape:

Great post, Liberty1.

 Ditto...!! Its been a pleasure joining this community...!
 

Liberty,

I have said to several new posters on this and other forums that we need more and more people doing as much research as possible. We need to follow every lead and find ways to consistently produce high volumes of high value lipid producing algae.

It is not difficult for an individual to get right into his own research programme. My own journey started in August last year and everything I have learnt up to today I have learnt on the web and these forums.

As I have said, I am not a scientific learned guy, just committed to finding my own solutions.

I am working on my own PBR design. It takes up less than 3 sq meters in my shed and has so far cost me around Au$12 000.  When I have it up and running and I have meaningful results I will be sharing these with everyone because, win or lose, any information that I come up with will move future research forward.

If there are any individuals like me reading this, get on the web and read, read and read some more - it's all there if you want to find it, and then get into your shed or field and build your own system to experiment with.

Just do it.

Read this:

Algal Biodiesel: Fact or Fiction?

There are now scores of venture-financed companies, university 
research groups, government labs, garage start-ups, GFT licensees, 
web sites, and on and on claiming that they have, can, may and/or 
will produce algae biodiesel, at low cost, high productivity, soon, 
etc. None are based on data, experience, reality or even a correct 
reading of the literature.

Matt, would you stop being so negative. It is getting boring.

We all know that there are pump and dump companies out there trying to make a fast buck out of biofuels.

 We all know that there is not enough research to support the concept that oil from algae in commercial scales is either affordable or achievable.

That is what we are here for and what those few of us committed to obtaining answers are actually doing.

Tell us Matt, what actual research projects have you done yourself, or are planning to do, that will either support or refute the statement you have cut and pasted above - and I do not mean any work done to achieve a university degree- what have you done since then. Have you published any reports or papers that will assist us in the wider world to understand your evident stand against people experimenting with algae.

Well, I have nothing against research, invention, and backyard tinkering, after-all I am one myself!

I don't think of it as negative, I see it as sorting out the realistic from the unrealistic. Some might know about the scams proliferating out there, some might fall for it. At least if the correct information is out there people are better equipped to recognize a scam or an unrealistic claim when they see it.

With all the hype going on right now I thought a reality check is needed. Boring or not ;)

I am a backyard tinkerer/researcher much like yourself. When I am negative I am usually targeting these scam companies, or just providing input based on the facts that are already available.  If the facts are negative or discouraging, that isn't my fault, blame the facts ;)

 Sheesh, it's like someone saying: Sorry bud, building that house is going to cost you $300,000, but then you refuse to accept it because that is a 'negative'. You want a more positive estimate like $10,000? $300,000 is too negative ;) The world doesn't work that way. I'm not being negative at all I'm just trying to find the facts. Anyway keep up the research I have nothing against it, only these scam companies getting investors money.
 

Anywhoo goodnight. 

Matt, sorry if I was harsh yesterday - really crappy day and the kids have left home so couldn't kick them and the wife is bigger than me.

Honestly though, I have no issue with government ( read Tax Payer) money going to genuine research - I am chasing some myself. I agree that there are not enough checks in the system of obtaining that money resulting in a lot of scams.

Nothing you or I can do about that really. It is up to individual people to make up their own minds about where they invest and whilst guys like Geo/Truth are around shouting out their companies "BENEFITS" you will never stop Mom and Pop investors being taken in. 

Reality check or not, I still like my PBR for lots of reasons and will ultimately be able to tell if Dimitrov and his mates were correct or not. And that is the beauty of independent research - you can keep doing it even when the world is against it and like the Wright brothers, maybe I will fly and maybe I will crash.

First of all, thank you all for all the replies!

I keep wondering now if, in cost analysis, companies are including the fact that the algae can, after oil extraction, then be fermented for making bio-ethanol and finally used as an animal feed. I would think the possibility for multiple uses of the one feedstock would make economic feasibility much more possible for algae growers.
 

Snow,

Patrick Ward has an even better idea - ferment for bio-butanol.  Much better energy per gallon and can be run in any gasoline engine.

liberty1:

Snow,

Patrick Ward has an even better idea - ferment for bio-butanol.  Much better energy per gallon and can be run in any gasoline engine.

 ...And Nick Nagle found that butanol was the best solvent for oil extraction from algae (1990)!!!
 

Sjorske,

Patrick agrees with Nick.

If UNH is correct and 3/1000's of the acreage of the USA would be enough for algae PBRs to produce enough biodiesel to cover all of the transportation needs of the USA, then personal DIY algae based biodiesel should be doable; and =community= based DIY algae based biodiesel should be =very= doable.

 What's missing is knowledge and will.