Posts

Biofuel Beatdown

by Richard T. Stuebi

A few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an article entitled “U.S. Biofuel Boom Running on Empty”, which presented a blistering across-the-board slam on biofuels. Perhaps more interesting than the WSJ article itself was an email reaction I received from a prominent energy tech venture capitalist with keen visibility into the transportation fuel space (whom I will keep anonymous), who said:

“The article makes the common mistake of using the broad term ‘biofuel’ when they should be focusing down to ‘biodiesel’ and ‘corn-based ethanol’….Renewable diesel and ‘green’ gasoline are still alive and attracting big VC dollars. Engineered microbes, bacteria and algae work to produce drop-in fuels are still going.”

Notwithstanding the bad recent press — a virtually-forecastable reaction to the excessive biofuels hype of the 2005-2007 era — reasonable potential for biofuels still remains. To wit, a new report from the United Nations entitled “Towards Sustainable Production and Use of Resources: Biofuels” makes clear that certain biofuel feedstocks and production approaches are much more environmentally-friendly than others. And, as more of these biofuel production schemes turn away from inputs subject to the vagaries of food market dynamics, the financial volatility facing producers should substantially decline (though price fluctuations in the output fuel markets will always remain).

Biofuels have fallen prone to oversimplification. Because corn-based ethanol and soy-based biodiesel are both environmentally marginally beneficial and economically unattractive at current prices for feedstocks and fuels, many immediately leap to the conclusion that all biofuel technologies are inherently and forever unattractive. Don’t fall prey to that mistake. It’s just not true.

Richard T. Stuebi is a founding principal of the advanced energy initiative at NorTech, where he is on loan from The Cleveland Foundation as its Fellow of Energy and Environmental Advancement. He is also a Managing Director in charge of cleantech investment activities at Early Stage Partners, a Cleveland-based venture capital firm.

A Quick Take on Joule Biotechnologies

by Gypsy Achong

Joule Biotechnologiesʼ recent press release has stimulated a bit of excitement and speculation on their technology, including by our own blogger Paul O’Callaghan.

A quick look at Joule Biotechnologiesʼ patent filing suggests that they are engineering a fast growing bacterium – Escherichia coli – capable of converting light and carbon dioxide into fuel. The advantages of using E. coli over algae are clear:

  • E. coli is significantly easier to genetically engineer than algae. Thus, Jouleʼs culture will allow greater flexibility in output of fuels / chemicals as policies and product prices change
  • E. coli grows ~10x faster than algae. As long as the metabolic load of photosynthesis does not slow down growth, Jouleʼs culture has potential to capture light at a greater rate than algae
  • Also, algae grow slower if light intensity gets too high. Jouleʼs plan to use a solar concentrator suggests that their engineered organism is less susceptible to light intensity.

In addition, use of a solar concentrator presents an opportunity for increasing light capture efficiency of a reactor. The benefits of Jouleʼs approach have potential to be game-changing, and they have assembled an A-team to deliver. Resumes of the inventors, Eric Devroe, Dan Robertson, Frank Skraly and Christian Ridley, include a whoʼs who of prestigious research labs and synthetic biology companies including Diversa (now Verenium), Metabolix and Codon Devices. George Church, a Harvard professor of genetics and serial entrepreneur, is an advisor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Church).

Still, development risks are high. Creating a photosynthetic organism from scratch is not facile – photosynthesis is one of the most complicated metabolic pathways that exist in nature, and includes membrane proteins – typically the hardest proteins to move between organisms. But perhaps Joule is a company to keep on the radar.

Gypsy Achong is a guest blogger on CleantechBlog.com. She was most recently a management consultant at the Boston Consulting Group, focusing on energy and biotechnology. She has a Ph.D. in environmental microbiology from Stanford University.

Joule Biotech Sun-Powered Fuel – Biofuel Vs Solar PV

There was much furore recently surrounding the story ‘Joule Biotech comes out of stealth with sun-powered biofuel’.
The premise is that the technology can take solar energy and use it to convert carbon dioxide directly into fuel. A one stop-shop to soak up carbon dioxide and produce a biofuel.
Having dug into it a little, the conclusion I came to is that its not as radical as it sounds. Its basically directed photosynthesis : same principle as oil from algae, or biofuels. The overall efficiencies are likely to be 10 times lower than solar PV processes, but, it in terms of where biofuels are heading, its on the right track…..

The press release included the following:“The SolarConverter captures the sun and is fed carbon dioxide and combine inside where a solution of brackish water and nutrients exist with photosynthetic organisms—secreting the SolarFuel,” Joule’s CEO Bill Sims said, describing the end-product as a hydrocarbon-based fuel, not a biofuel.

Points to Note:
1. This is a solar powered system
2. It’s a Biological system
The input energy into this system is incident solar radiation. This varies from place to place but in North America, a reasonable average year round figure would be 200 Watts per m2. That’s what you have to work with. That is what is referred to as Primary energy. Solar panels are about 15% efficient, so you get 15% of that 200 Watts of incident power as useful energy, converted into electrons, which is the energy carrier. Electricity is a verstaile energy carrier, but difficult to store. Hence why high energy density liquid fuels are so good in transportation. They are an energy carrier, or ‘Secondary energy’. What is described here is the production of a secondary energy carrier via photosynthesis.This is exactly what Oil from Algae is. Algae are fast growing unicellular organisms, certain species of which produce large quantities (50%) of oil as a percentage of the total cell weight. The algae oil is very like diesel, so you can get biodiesel. The Joule Biotech system is using a photosynthetic organism also. They don’t say whether its an algae, plant cell cultures, or some new genetic hybrid, but either way, I dont think they will have improved on millenia of evolution in terms of the net efficiency of the photosynthesis process, i.e. how much of the solar energy the living organism is capable of capturing.
Compared to other plants, the photosynthetic efficiency of algae is very high – almost 3 times that of sugar cane for instance. Compared to solar energy, however, the energy efficiency of algae is very low – around 1 percent, while solar panels have an efficiency of at least 10 percent, and solar thermal gets 20 percent and more.
So the absolute efficiency of the Joule Biotech system at converting solar energy into chemical energy is likely to be similar to algae or other high yield plants.

So why go with Joule Biotech Vs Solar PV?

1. Carbon sequestration – this could be the tail wagging the dog. There is business to be made in tieing up CO2. Overall this is carbon neutral, however, if you take the CO2 from a coal power station stack, there may be some credit to be had.

2. There is a demand for alternative liquid fuels
Even if Solar PV is a more efficient method of capturing solar energy, it produces electricity and we still run our transport fleet on liquid fuels. You could take Solar PV and use the electricity produced to synthesise hydrogen or other chemical fuels such as methyl hydrate, but the overall accumulated losses might make a Joule Biotech type option more favorable.
3. The alternative chemicals produced are likely to be a higher value than the fuels produced.

What Joule Biotech may have, and this is one of the challenges with oil from algae, is engineered a system which works. The challenges are maintaining a pure cell culture on an on-going basis. If you want high yield of a certain product, you need pure cultures. That raises challenges when you try and do it on a large scale, particularly if you need to expose it all to sunlight.
The other way to go is low yield open ponds. It’s a mixed culture, low efficiency, low yield process. You accept you get a lower yield but its cheaper to build. So on a cost per unit of fuel produced it may be the same. Its like the debate between high efficiency PV solar and low efficiency solar. What matters is the unit cost per Watt of capacity. The fuel is free, so low efficiency is fine, the capital cost per watt of installed capacity is key. The other challenge with producing fuel from photosynthetic bio-organisms, is getting the fuel out afterwards. The extraction and purification process. You have cells and what you want is pure fuel. So maybe Joule Biotech have something unique to offer in this regard as well.
Overall in terms of where the biofuels market is heading, Joule Biotech appear to be on the right track. The ability to be able to produce multiple different products, different fuels and different chemicals is key. This allows you flexibility. As the demand or price of one product increases, you can alter your output to match market demand. The future of biofuels appears to be the interlinking of technology platforms to allow the use of multiple feedstrocks, to produce multiple products. Vinod Khosla has invested in a large number of Biofuel companies which all synergise and interlink. In terms of feedstock, Joule Biotech are using carbon dioxide and sunlight. It’s a biofuel with an accelerated path, less steps, from biology to fuel and the option to tailor it to produce different fuels.
Joule’s CEO Bill Sims says that the end-product they produce is a ‘hydrocarbon-based fuel, not a biofuel’. I think that is semantics. They still use a living organism to carry out the chemical synthesis to produce the fuel product.
This means that they have some of the same issues and challenges as other bio-based processes.

Challenges:
1. Cells need phosphorus
I wrote about Peak Phosphorus in a previous blog. This is a big issue. The cells used by Joule Biotech will need nutrients. Phosphorus is a non-renewable resource and one of the challenges for biofuels, first generation and 2nd generation, is that if you are growing a crop, be it switch grass, sugar cane or algae, you need phosphorus. Now in the case of Joule Biotech, they may be able to keep recycling this back into the system and keep a closed loop going, if so, that would be great.
2. Water is required
All living cells need water. Sure, they may be able to function on wastewater, brackish water or saltwater, but you need to provide them with water.
Check out Leave the Algae Alone for an excellent piece on this.
The idea of converting solar energy into chemical energy is an excellent one. Biofuel based processes are one way of doing this. If one could avoid the biology altogether that would be even better. Check out Blue Fuel Energy for some interesting ideas on how to chemically synthesise a chemical energy carrier, or ‘liquid electricity’ using renewable energy. Its still at a very nascent stage, but it stacks up very well as an overall concept.

This post was written by Paul O’Callaghan, founding CEO of the Clean Tech consultancy, O2 Environmental Inc. and lecturer on Sustainable Energy at the BC Institute of Technology.

The Efficacy of Biofuels from Algae on Cleantech.org

I usually don’t do this, but a couple of days ago we had a post on Cleantech.org’s Linked In group around algal processes, feedstocks, and the recent DOE solicitation, that engendered a lively discussion, in part taking off from the recent demise of Green Fuels.

While many of you know I am not personally a fan of algal fuels, I have posted it en masse, unedited, so enjoy, as the discussion ranges across a decent chunk of the issues facing algae processes and provides some food for thought.

Urgent – Algae Oil Production or Algae Methane Production Needed!
We are completing a DOE grant application design to meet our Notice of Intent by next Friday and need to find one or two companies with a process to make Algae Oil or Algae Methane, or either, for our process. Please email any information or contacts as our time line is running short for this grant. We believe we have lined up most all other pieces for this proposed biorefinery!

Posted 2 days ago Reply Privately Make featured Delete discussion

Walter Breidenstein
Professional Entrepreneur

See all Walter’s discussions »

Comments (24)
Poly Endrasik Jr.
Video/Web Conferencing & Teleworking Consultant
Hi Walter, Maybe you could pick up this technology for a song and take it somewhere:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/greenfuel-technologies-closing-down-4670/

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2747/70/ – both these are the same story!

Good Luck and God bless
Posted 2 days ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Walter Breidenstein
Professional Entrepreneur
Hi Poly,

That is why we turn down all VC investments into our company. They are best left to Universities and University students who manage a lot of deals that once one folds they can jump to the next one without a lot of pain. Where I come from we don’t throw other people’s money at deals…unless those investors who came in early can support those who come in later. Most VC deals are so ugly after the first and second round that who would ever want to support a technology with those types of “investors”. Not me!

Walt.
Posted 2 days ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Neil Farbstein
President of Vulvox Nanobiotechnology Corporation
Algae have several problems that make them untenable. Algal production systems use so much water that they will damage the environment,competing with city municipal reservoirs, agricultural water and they will drain rivers that support wildlife. CSP solar thermal uses a lot less water and some designs use no water to generate clean cheap electricity.
Posted 2 days ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Leif Johnston
Technology Consultant and Serial Entrepreneur
Neil – I would suggest that is myopic. There are many alternatives and many end products. Saying that electricity is the only solution is impractical since electricity does not give us any near term solutions for the vast network of spark and compression based ignition systems.

Walter asked for support on algae, stick to the topic. Walter, I dropped you a parrallel note… As one of the areas I am working on is a non-proprietary solution to put algae farming in the hands of who better? Farmers. My part in the process is the development of a low cost photo bioreactor and trying to engage the agricultual extension service in the mix. If that is a help to you or others, please connect.

There are still realistic challenges like best lipid extraction mechanism. Final protocols for maximizing lipid production are also in order. Some parrallel gadgets to be built include the PBR, a low cost easy operation lipid fraction meter, an oil/lipid extraction gizmo, etc.

The more we share the more likely we are to win/win…

Leif
Posted 2 days ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Walter Breidenstein
Professional Entrepreneur
Leif/Neil,

Our process produces water from the production of the methane. We could use that excess water for the algae systems if that would be helpful. We also produce near pure CO2 and we understand this could also be helpful. At this stage we just want methane sources without the algae oil if feasible. My background is oil & gas so I know methane, ethane and propane down the chain. I am not, nor my engineers, familiar with the bio/algae world as experts. We have lots of engineering firms contacting us to help us, but we really are just looking for designers who understand the algae space to complete this DOE grant. We have until next Friday for the Intent and our budget is around $25 million. We think we have a very strong chance to win this grant…but we need the CO2-algae-methane piece…or part of it to be proven. I know, contact Bill Gates and Sapphire Energy but it appears DOE grants are not going to impact their $100 million last funding round! :)

Walt.
Posted 2 days ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Leif Johnston
Technology Consultant and Serial Entrepreneur
Not sure I follow the direction of your need. I am not clear whether you are making methane, or consuming methane. I take it is making… I would assume you could decompose the algae to create a methane source, but like most methane sources, it wouldn’t be clear. Temp conversion/pyrolysis could be an option but certainly you know that.

Given that I am not tracking where you are heading, I am unlikely to be of help.

And I thought that while DOE expected to award some large, the easy high end was $5M and 24 months…

Leif
Posted 2 days ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Walter Breidenstein
Professional Entrepreneur
Lief,

Sorry I was not clear. We need methane for our process to make methanol.

Walt.
Posted 2 days ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Leif Johnston
Technology Consultant and Serial Entrepreneur
Yep I am of no help to you. I don’t have a good way for a clean source of methane. Lots out there, but not sure of metabolic pathway from the algae I work with.

Good luck.

Leif
Posted 2 days ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Leif Johnston
Technology Consultant and Serial Entrepreneur
I assume you are doing this against ARPA-E – did you catch the updated amendment on that?

Leif
Posted 1 day ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Lubo Morhac
Technology Management Consultant
Hi Walter,

I have several links for you to research relating to algae to fuel. I don’t think the following outfits have algae cultures that are capable of CH4 production, but fatty acids for sure:
This one is my favourite in terms of equipment:
http://www.algaelink.com/

also check these:
http://www.solixbiofuels.com/html/company.html
http://www.petroalgae.com/
http://www.greenfuelonline.com/
http://www.livefuels.com/

Landfill sites are an excellent source of CH4.
Some gasification systems may be of interest with Methanization back end.
but of course, best of luck with algae,

Lubo
Posted 1 day ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Lubo Morhac
Technology Management Consultant
Walter, I re-read the thread and I think this may be of interest as an alternative for turning CO2 into energy:
http://www.uafsunstar.com/20090317/sandia-technology-turns-sunshine-petrol
http://www.carbonsciences.com/

L.
Posted 1 day ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Walter Breidenstein
Professional Entrepreneur
Wow, thanks for the information guys. We need methane…that is what we need. We can work with Algae oil to make biodiesel since methanol is used in the biodiesel, but right now we want the most simple system. CO2-Algae-Methane-Methanol…we will recycle our water and CO2 nicely.

Poly, I spoke to my licensing friend at MIT and article you posted, “GreenFuel Technologies Closing Down” was just searched and there is no reference to that project at MIT. He called Harvard for me and they have no mention of it, but they have heard of it. They believe it was something a student started on the roof, and MIT says that any student who develops anything at their University is the owner of the IP. Thus, the article says it is an MIT-Harvard algae project that crashed, but my friend said there is no record of the project he could find, nor at Harvard…so maybe the author was mistaken…

Yes, finding Algae to Methane is not so easy!
Posted 1 day ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Leif Johnston
Technology Consultant and Serial Entrepreneur
The problem in part is that your target their is “swamp gas” from algae rather than the oil output. My challenge is that is a different species, in fact I have no clue what species that might be, vs the standard oil rich species e.g. chlorella …
Posted 1 day ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Walter Breidenstein
Professional Entrepreneur
Leif,

Here is the acceptable feedstocks from the grant…consider we need methane:

“Using the definitions of “renewable biomass” as stated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Title IX, Sec. 9001, as guidance, for the purpose of this FOA, the acceptable feedstocks will be those listed below:
(A) materials, pre-commercial thinnings, or invasive species from National Forest System land and public lands (as defined in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702)) that –
(i) are byproducts of preventive treatments that are removed –
(I) to reduce hazardous fuels;
(II) to reduce or contain disease or insect infestation; or
(III) to restore ecosystem health;
(ii) would not otherwise be used for higher-value products; and
(iii) are harvested in accordance with –
(I) applicable law and land management plans; and
(II) the requirements for
i. old-growth maintenance, restoration, and management direction of paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (e) of section 102 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6512); and
ii. large-tree retention of subsection (f) of that section; or
(B) organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis from non-Federal land or land belonging to an Indian or Indian tribe that is held in trust by the United States or subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, including –
(i) renewable plant material, including –
(I) organic material grown for the purposes of being converted to energy; and
(II) algae; and
(ii) waste material, including –
(I) crop residue (including cobs, stover, bagasse and other residues);
(II) other vegetative waste material (including wood waste and wood residues);
(III) food waste and yard waste.

No plant based material that is generally intended for use as food can be employed as a feedstock except as noted below under “Additional Feedstocks Acceptable For Topic Areas 5 and 6.” Hence, sugars derived from sugarcane or beets and oils derived from soy, canola, sunflower, peanut, etc. normally recovered using conventional food processing methods will be excluded from eligibility for this FOA. The determining factor will be the typical use of the material in commerce. Use of excess oil production of food-grade oil also does not constitute an acceptable feedstock. Distillers Dried Grains with Soluble (DDGS) is also excluded. Additional information regarding the use of algae as a feedstock is included in Appendix J.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is not an acceptable feedstock. However, biomass as defined in EPAct 2005 (Public Law 109-58) Section 932(a)(1-2) that is segregated from the MSW as a separate stream, could be employed as a feedstock with appropriate considerations for the costs of such segregation, collection, processing, and transportation. Hence, post-sorted MSW, where all recyclables and non-biomass components have been removed, would qualify, but only the remaining dry material that meets the above requirements would qualify as a feedstock for purposes of this FOA. Allowable costs include processing (such as, chipping or grinding) the feedstock into a form that can be fed into the reactor. Processing costs for MSW are restricted to post-sorted materials.”

That is not an easy list to find methane…except here:

“A new method for converting algae into natural gas for use in pipelines and power generation has been transferred to the marketplace under a license between Genifuel Corp. and Battelle. Genefuel is based in Salt Lake City, and has an exclusive license for the technology.”

http://www.genifuel.com/ – maybe this is the only one?
Posted 1 day ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Karel Beelaerts van Blokland
Dutchmen Absolute Return F: 07-37% /08-100% /09- 5,4% – dutchmencapital.web-log.nl / kacobeelaerts@zonnet.nl
AlgaeLink N.V. is a Dutch Company that designs and manufactures algae growing equipment. Algaelink are building a world-wide supply chain and network that is sustainable and delivers value to our global customers . Our operations cover algae production, equipment, consultancy, installation support and training.

Fuel Green energy, biodiesel, bio-ethanol, bio-gas, bio-oil, and jet fuel (JV with AirFrance-KLM).
www.algaeLink.com
Posted 1 day ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Leif Johnston
Technology Consultant and Serial Entrepreneur
Walt – my point is in part to explain the tangential answers. Most of us (with all the negative broad brush implications that implies) are focused on the extraction of the large lipid fraction from algea and therefore area focused on microalgae – commonly Chlorella, and other variants of the small motile buggers since lipid fractions can reach 50% in some claims. That oil then become the feedstock for a biodiesel process.

The algae you are after are just different. You are looking for a swamp/march algae (or pnd scum), likely long strain clumpy stuff most people try to kill. A source would be https://ccmp.bigelow.org/ which is a national repository for many such things.

My issue is I just haven’t focused on it. You might be able to find help and support in the reverse from your local agricultural extension agent.

I think I had misread the feedstocks grant to assume it precluded algae – not 100% which one you are pursuing.

Given the time and the inclination, you or I could come up with the right kind of algae and the people involved. You are looking for the swamp biology professor – not anyone talking about algae for biofuels. Not a bad thing, just a different thing.

You are welcome to call me if it would help – 540 847 5343.

Leif
Posted 1 day ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Walter Breidenstein
Professional Entrepreneur
Leif,
I will see if I can get my engineer to call you as he is just now getting started on all these calculations. We know how much methane we need to produce methanol. We know how much methanol is needed to produce biodiesel. We know how much oil is needed to produce biodiesel. We will likely need 5-10 times more oil-algae than methane-algae to have a tight, packaged CO2-to-biodiesel system. We wonder if that amount exists already in stable systems (i.e. before they go in and kill off the “bad” algae)? Interesting dilemma…I’m sure the answer is out there at some of these Universities and DOE labs who get all the “fun money” to do the R&D.
Walt.
Posted 1 day ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Leif Johnston
Technology Consultant and Serial Entrepreneur
That is part of the dilemma – there is much talk and speculation, but other than a haxane oil extraction standard, the only thing that is talked about is pyrolysis to derive a clean oil residue and that is a piss awful waste of energy. Ultimately that is why I think that is why some folks are tanking, because without extraction mechanisms, algae is a tough nut.

The one I am holding out for is algae ‘milking” to extract the oil while the algae is still alive. But I fear that may turn our processes from open to proprietary.

To be fair from your earlier post, you can decompose algae, food, and other wastes that aren’t muni solid – so you should be able to leverage sewage or other feedstocks. I think those folks are really your targets and the organisms in the Archaea group are the metanogens you seek…

Leif
Posted 1 day ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Matt Sloustcher
Account Executive at Peppercom Strategic Communications
Walter,

Nobody has mentioned the heterotrophic “in the dark” method of algae oil production Solazyme employs. I suggest you review the following blog post, and check out Greentech Media’s analysis of the industry.

http://www.oilgae.com/blog/2009/02/advantages-of-heterotropic-algae-for.html
Posted 1 day ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Christine Harmel
PR
I would suggest OriginOil http://www.originoil.com/
Posted 22 hours ago Reply Privately Delete comment

Comments (24)
Walter Breidenstein
Professional Entrepreneur
Has anyone studied the cost accuracy associated with this Algae-methane process? Everything boils down to CAPEX and OPEX in these models, and this looks interesting.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/pdf/algae_salton_sea.pdf
Posted 20 hours ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Leif Johnston
Technology Consultant and Serial Entrepreneur
Big picture you are still decomposing the algal as the methane creation process with techniques not 100% clear to me and combine with complicating compounds in the decomposition gases, sulpher containing mercaptans etc. Which still leaves you with the need for a decomposition specialist…
Posted 17 hours ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Frédéric Vogel
Research group leader at Paul Scherrer Institut
Dear Walter,

I know that I’m too late for your grant application. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know that we are developing a process similar to the one Genifuel has licensed from PNNL. The strong feature of our process is the recovery of all nutrients in a concentrated brine, besides the efficient production of methane. We have recently published a paper accessible to anyone:

http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b819874h

Feel free to connect if you think some further discussion might be of interest.

Frédéric
Posted 1 hour ago Reply Privately Delete comment
Walter Breidenstein
Professional Entrepreneur
Frederic,
Thank you for the very interesting information. We have not reached any agreement with Genifuel yet, but I have had one brief discussion and a couple email exchanges. I get the feeling they are at the top of their game and have their own uses for methane from their website. I’m not convinced as I know the methane markets extremely well and not a day passes that I don’t hear of another methane technology that will be “easily converted to liquids”. I’ve traveled the world on researching and studying methane conversion, and it just is not as easy as some would have you believe. Therefore, I would be most interested in your technology. We remain open and ready to do business with anyone that can integrate their value chain into ours. Further, the grant is not due until June 30 (so you are not too late) while the Notice of Intent is due by next Friday. We remain committed to find some help in Algae to Methane technologies. We think we can add value to whatever is the methane source.
Walt.
Posted 42 minutes ago Reply Privately Delete comment

Neal Dikeman is a partner at cleantech merchant bank Jane Capital Partners and Chairman of Carbonflow, Inc. and Cleantech.org.

What’s It All About, Algae?

by Richard T. Stuebi

One of the hottest areas of cleantech investor activity in the past year has been algae. Yes, algae. More specifically, technologies that enable the production of fuels from algae.

The concept is premised on the fact that algae is a rapidly-growing organism that converts sunlight and atmospheric carbon dioxide to produce lipids, which in turn can be refined into various hydrocarbons. In other words, a carbon-neutral fuel cycle. Pretty cool.

A number of start-up companies — such as Solazyme, Live Fuels, Solix Biofuels and GreenFuel Technologies — have emerged in recent years to pursue this possibility, some fetching sizable quantities of capital from blue-chip investors.

I frequently receive emails with links to videos promising interesting energy/environmental technologies, and most strike me as quackery of some degree or another. However, I recently was pointed to a video produced by a company named Valcent Products (OTCBB: VCTPF) that appears particularly compelling. To be clear, I am not recommending this company or its stock, but I do like the tack that Valcent seems to be taking.

Richard T. Stuebi is the BP Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, and is also the Founder and President of NextWave Energy, Inc.