Here is the CEO of Vertigro talking...

Ok if no one else is going to say it, Im gonna.

He said '$1m/ac for infrastructure'. We all know its a startup, so eventho is an overguess and we can easily 2x that for REAL costs, lets just take it on face value. And lets assume they can grow 50000gal/y. (which is 5x what Mike says, guess who I believe). Once one starts to add the rest of the business numbers up + profit, one can understand why Mr CEO doesnt want to name #'s and $'s. Over 15 year payback doesn appeal to anyone but pipedreamers. Additionally, I have noted previously that $25/sqft for greenhouse infrastructure but as energy costs rise, so does the cost of this infrastructure. My guy tells me that 25 is livin in the past, fwiw.

The reason its dark underwater isnt because of the water, its because of the turbidity IN the water. If 100% of that turbidity is from algae, his 'vertical' comments fall apart. If you have a whole lot of particulates and such, that could also reduce your solar efficiency (significantly) but if its all algae, its as efficient as you are going to get. Which begs the question, how much light is hitting the floor and metal and bag and... in his 'power plant' vs a 100% thick layer of algae on pond after pond after pond? By the way, someone wanna explain to me what a 'black box thinker' is?

Let me muse on the N fixers comment. Whilst again, it sounds like a very nice story, harmony in nature an all. But let me propose a question. Which is a more profitable system; Monoculture and pilfering some of that energy (in reality, only $) to Haber a pure source in bulk somewhere else and ship it to my algoil plant (or maybe do it as a 2nd process onsite) OR Gumming up the system with an in-efficient/solar energy/lb produced bi-culture trying to balance the inefficiency of solar fixing with algae vs the added inefficiency of N fixing of some other bug?  Or simply, which is more of a drain on the economics of the system, with or without the N bugs? The one caveat to this is that there are some autotroph N fixers but my understanding is that these are very low yielders and the technology isnt there yet to 'sup' em up to yielding significant amounts vs solar efficiency.

Not to off topic this N fixing too much but Im a big fan of seeding N fixers into farming soil systems. I think this has a big future about to bloom. But this mechanism is different because they are breaking down carb's just as any other digester in the soil is doing. Putting N fixers into an energy system doesnt make sense because the energy you are pilfering isnt free like dirt and old plants but directly correlated to the bottom line.

And here is a link for their website and video of Vertigro http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039

Initial data from their field tests. Valid? 

natescape:

 

 

	During a 90 day continual production test, algae was being harvested at an average of one gram (dry weight) per liter. This equates to algae bio mass production of 276 tons of algae per acre per year. Achieving the same biomass production rate with an algal species having 50% lipids (oil) content would therefore deliver approximately 33,000 gallons of algae oil per acre per year.

 

There are a few things wrong with this paragraph.

1. 276t/ac is a much higher # than anyone has ever gotten or claimed to have gotten. Please dont make me do the math all over again but looking thru old math, this is well over Mike Briggs #'s so they have some 'splainin to do.
2. 276t/ac of carbohydrate algal mass is not the same as having 276t/ac @ 50% lipid algal mass. The energy density difference of the two is likely pretty large number. And because there is some energy loss thru the bio-processing of the carbs to lipids, to do a compare like the article does is certainly not valid and IMO an outright lie.

natescape:

	In addition, 90% by weight of the algae is captured carbon dioxide, which is "sequestered" by this process and so contributes significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gasses.

 

Ofc this is true with all biofuels, ya?

And not to sound like the jargon cops but the term 'sequestered' is used improperly here because the term has a much longer lifespan than biomass sequestering. A much better term would be Carbon Neutral unless one is actually showing some sequestering (like Terra preta).

Right Froggy - a long PR but nowhere do they mention they mention their lipid results.

OK, let's say they achieve somewhat less that the 276 ton/acre how about 150 tons/acre.  And let's say they achieve 40% lipids.  This would be approximately 10000 gallons/acre or 181 barrels of lipids.  Assuming an 80% conversion rate this would be 145 barrels of bio-diesel per acre each year.  To achieve 1,000,000 barrels a year would take over 6,800 acres.  All this is, of course, off the cuff.  However, the results sure beat any other source.  The question is, is it cost effective?  Furthermore, the remnants could be used as fertilizer or as feed for other crops or animals (or buried, or burned, or ...).

rsheltonny:

OK, let's say they achieve somewhat less that the 276 ton/acre how about 150 tons/acre.  And let's say they achieve 40% lipids.  This would be approximately 10000 gallons/acre or 181 barrels of lipids.  Assuming an 80% conversion rate this would be 145 barrels of bio-diesel per acre each year.  To achieve 1,000,000 barrels a year would take over 6,800 acres.  All this is, of course, off the cuff.  However, the results sure beat any other source.  The question is, is it cost effective?  Furthermore, the remnants could be used as fertilizer or as feed for other crops or animals (or buried, or burned, or ...).

OK lets assume 10,000gal/ac/yr.  According to the CEO, 1ac = $1m. And lets say we can sell the oil for $5/gal.

1000000/(10000 x $5) = 20 years just to pay off the building.

Heck...lets assume 50000gal/ac x 5$. That is still a 4yr payback - operations and overhead. And 50000/gal is highly unlikely and 5$/gal wholesale is highly unlikely. Its a beautiful idea but plainly the economics doesnt fly.

I'm confused on a few things. A greenhouse costs $1,000,000. They're saying that greenhouse can produce 33,000 gallons of algal oil? Or is it that for each acre of algae panels INSIDE the greenhouse, they can produce 33,000 gallons?

Does that $1m cover JUST the greenhouse, or all the lab and refining equipment, too?

Ask Mr CEO.

Here is my assumptions...

25$/sq ft x 43560 = $1.1m/ac of greenhouse.

I also assume that 1 acre of glass = 1 acre of glass, regardless of how many 'stacks' they have. That black box crap is ... crap.

 lolololol.....gosh i love that vidio... what does it take to be able to make a presentation like that, equipment wise?

 I just got a vidio tape editing machine donated to us so i can clean up some of the glitches on my vidio tapes and add on construction tapes and other pertinent tapes to the winter and summer performance tape..  im also looking at getting a dvd burner. but  this type of presentation is really nice . .. how do I take a dvd and get it so i can post it on  websites as well as my own website???

Marc

Hire someone.

gee brian

 you're so helpfull ,,, I really want to learn how to do it myself but I really appreciate your brilliant suggestion .

marc

I thought I was hiding Marc?

ecogenics3:

 you're so helpfull 

Regardless... you have a tendency to misspell and the kids nowdays understand things like us old guys cannot.

In other words, you could spend months buying and learning stuff and maybe get a product you are satisfied with or you can spend that time doing what you do best and let some professional do their job like a professional.

Vertigro is a well financed machine with multi million $ investors and a warchest as big as some small countries. They hired someone to do their video/PR.

 well brian,

 I agree with you. I do mispell a good bit on the forum mainly because im in a hurry  and often pretty pissed off at you and a couple of other guys when i write here LOLOL

.but when I write other documents i take my time and that is another matter entirely.and has nothing to do with what i asked, 

 generally, my webmaster does all of the  computer stuff and we planned on getting together to do the editing but he is tied up doing his PHD dissertation and taking exams, so i really want to learn how to do these things and take the load off of him a little,

 ive done a good deal of film and vcr work in the past  but up till now, editing has not been something i could do  here for lack of the proper equipment but now with this equipment that was donated to us I think i can handle polishing up the edits on the tapes and then i can burn them into dvd with no problem.

 my algae seminar dvd was professionally put together by Brian Quimby a professional  vidiographer and commercial photographer who attended one of my  seminars and he contributed a dvd that he did of the seminar and its terrific. nicely edited with a great soundtrack..

 but the summer and winter tapes are another thing entirely, I have at least six tapes showing the system that i have taken over the years including construction details as well as two that were done well and are smooth as silk  by others, including a documentary I put together that was  also professionally edited and now with the editing equipment i think i can handle cleaning up the choppy parts of the other four and then  transcribie it to a dvd formatt.

where my problem lies is in  getting it onto websites including my own site without having to burden Justin at this time.

 heck I cant even figure out how to post pix on BDN and have always  had mike briggs do it for me. I see some great pix posted by others here and all I asked for was some tips on how i could do some of this stuff for myself. ive tried but i dont think i have the right software to make it happen. at least when it comes to posting pix..

. you know were all in the same boat trying to make things happen in what im afraid is a somewhat futile effort to reverse damage done to our economy and our world  this is serious business and we should remain focused on the topics ratrher then going off on each other.

 Ive been doing this for a very long time since 1976. here and since 1965 in on my ranch in mexicowhere i took it from the 17 th century into the 20 th.

 I cant figure why I get lambasted and  why my postings get misconstrued as advertising on the forums.

there are many others who offer things  I usually take care to post any ads ive  put in, in the appropriate places. otherwise i think i try  generously to share a great deal of information on these forums.I am by nature an overachiever , perhaps a  bit pedantic , but besides  doing research, designing and building stuff  i am a facillitator and teacher as well as a public speaker and author 

.If I rub some people the wrong way that is an exception rather than the rule  ..I know by being in the public eye as much as i have been for years that there are always those who seem to leap at any opportunity to be derisive and divisive, it comes with the territory, but to do this constantly is out of proper behaviour and doesnt serve a forum such as this well. in fact it diminishes it. with a climate of constant quibbling.Im sure there are some here that find it amusing and that is unfortunate.

some one once said "Cant we all just get along???

 maybe its time to do so considering the global situation

.if not for our own sakes for our children.

Marc

froggy:

 

natescape:

	In addition, 90% by weight of the algae is captured carbon dioxide, which is "sequestered" by this process and so contributes significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gasses.

 

Ofc this is true with all biofuels, ya?

And not to sound like the jargon cops but the term 'sequestered' is used improperly here because the term has a much longer lifespan than biomass sequestering. A much better term would be Carbon Neutral unless one is actually showing some sequestering (like Terra preta).

Glen Kertz (and others) are always saying that algae is the most efficient plant on earth at sequestering CO2, comprising some huge % of its dry weight.  Are you saying that all biofuels are roughly the same in that respect?  Using their definition...

It looks like the USA is moving towards some kind of cap and trade system over the next few years.  Whether it's Kyoto II, or roll their own. So who knows what it will look like at the end of that road, but if you based it on what Kyoto says today, is the type of biomass created by Vertigro considered as carbon credits?

bioelektrik:

  Glen Kertz (and others) are always saying that algae is the most efficient plant on earth at sequestering CO2, comprising some huge % of its dry weight.  Are you saying that all biofuels are roughly the same in that respect?  Using their definition...  

Yes, I am saying that. 100% of all carbon in plants are CO2 so algae are the same as other plants. Unless you are using some crazy biomass like deep sea sulfur fixing bacteria. Algae may be able to fix more CO2 per acre but that has nothing to do with sequestering. 

bioelektrik:

at sequestering CO2, comprising some huge % of its dry weight.  Are you saying that all biofuels are roughly the same in that respect?  Using their definition...  

This is why jargon matters.

Sequesteration is not the same as carbon cap, biofuels or other.  Sequesteration is when you take something perminately out of the system. Biofuels doesnt do that because you burn the fixed carbon into CO2, virtually by 100% (likely more if you use dinofuel . Biofuels themselves are NOT typically sequesteration, they are CO2 neutral. Turning algae into fuel is NOT carbon sequesteration.

Now there are some methods of biofuels that can sequester carbon. If you burn biomass in a carbon capturing equipment, that would be sequestering carbon. Danny Day  sorts of technology of turning biomass into e' and charcoal and that charcoal is buried in the form of Terra Preta, that is also another form of carbon sequesteration.  Burning biomass into CO2 is NOT sequesteration.

Well, I for one, like reading your posts and make use of your factual insight. Thanks and keep on posting, spelling glicks and all.

froggy:

Sequesteration is not the same as carbon cap, biofuels or other.  Sequesteration is when you take something perminately out of the system. Biofuels doesnt do that because you burn the fixed carbon into CO2, virtually by 100% (likely more if you use dinofuel . Biofuels themselves are NOT typically sequesteration, they are CO2 neutral. Turning algae into fuel is NOT carbon sequesteration.

Carbon sequestration is the process through which plant life removes CO2 from the atmosphere and stores it in biomass. Over the course of a year, plants remove and release CO2 and net sequestration results if the rate of removal is higher than the rate of release. Young, fast-growing trees in particular will remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they will release. Agricultural and forestry practices can enhance the rate of carbon sequestration, or cause net emissions, depending on the overall balance. The term “sink” is a broader term used to describe agricultural and forestry lands or other processes that absorb or sequester CO2, and other chemical processes that remove other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (e.g., methane). 

Seems like they're saying plants absorb and release CO2, and if you absorb more than you release, you're net sequestering.  Of course they're talking about trees and natural habitats, and that external processes can affect it both ways.  

Also, it seems like an algal pond or PBR fit the definition of carbon sink. 

When you extract the lipids, how is the absorbed CO2 distributed between the oil and byproducts?