Slashdot Mirror
Company Claims Potential Magnification In Bio Fuel Production
duanes1967 writes "A company called Joule Biotech claims to have a breakthrough in biofuel production. Their process can create 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year at a cost of about $50 per barrel. 'Algae-based biofuels come closest to Joule's technology, with potential yields of 2,000 to 6,000 gallons per acre; yet even so, the new process would represent an order of magnitude improvement. What's more, for the best current algae fuels technologies to be competitive with fossil fuels, crude oil would have to cost over $800 a barrel says Philip Pienkos, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO. Joule claims that its process will be competitive with crude oil at $50 a barrel. In recent weeks, oil has sold for $60 to $70 a barrel.'"
... begging for money that comes up with these "revolutionary" breakthroughs. Did we not learn anything from the tech boom/bust?
Whenever there is a lot of government money flowing into an industry, there is never a shortage of snake-oil salesmen lining up to grab a piece of it. There really isn't a limit to what they will say they can do.
Just brand this as "$50/barrel oil derived from harvesting common, readily available snakes and processing them in a revolutionary (and certainly patent-pending) way".
... begging for money that comes up with these "revolutionary" breakthroughs. Did we not learn anything from the tech boom/bust?
Whenever there is a lot of government money flowing into an industry, there is never a shortage of snake-oil salesmen lining up to grab a piece of it. There really isn't a limit to what they will say they can do.
You may want to inform Exxon Mobil that their recent six hundred million dollar investment is snake oil.
Big oil's investing in this, I wouldn't write it off as snake oil:
My work here is dung.
Re:"If the new process, which has been demonstrated in the laboratory, works as well on a large scale as Joule Biotechnologies expects, it would be a marked change for the biofuel industry." I've been attending some of the algae biomass workshops in the SD area. There's a lot of excitement out there. But the problems of engineering and economics dwarf the problems in the lab. ï Don't give this crowd your hard earned scratch until they've gone beyond pilot plant stage. For a thorough review of the problems involved how about this position paper from a 40 year veteran of the field. http://www.spirulinasource.com/bios/johnbenemann.html ---537
As best as I can tell, their process is likely using genetically engineered algae that perform better than the best existing "natural" algae for biofuels production. There aren't really any other candidates for genetically engineered organisms for this particular goal.
The problem is that to be so efficient at biofuels production, such algae are at a severe competitive disadvantage to other less suitable species. Based on what I've seen so far, one of the biggest problems with algae biofuels production has been contamination of bioreactors with species that grow more easily but are not suitable for biodiesel production. If someone engineers algae to be even better at biofuels production, it'll likely make the contamination problem even harder to solve.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Oops, my bad, I read 40,000, not 20,000. So their actually at 10% efficiency, which while unlikely at least has the merit of not being theoretically impossible.
A-Bomb
Scan to drive their stock up. Nothing more.
Let's assume for a moment that instead of "Scan" you meant "Scam".
From the company's about page: Founded in 2007 by Flagship Ventures, Joule is privately held and headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Last I checked, "privately held" == "no stock price."
Karnal
we should name a unit of energy after the company
> yet even so, the new process would represent an order of magnitude improvement.
Nope.
6,000 to 20,000 is somewhere around a factor of 3. An order of magnitude is a factor of 10. Or as wikipedia puts it:
"An order of magnitude difference between two values is a factor of 10. For example, the mass of the planet Saturn is 95 times that of Earth, so Saturn is two orders of magnitude more massive than Earth. Order of magnitude differences are called decades when measured on a logarithmic scale."
Still impressive.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
If you've read the article, you will note that it states specifically that it doesn't use algae.
It does say that the closest thing out there to what they do are ones that use algae.
When the first cars were built, the closest thing to them was the carriage, but automobiles didn't use horses to power them.
As to the people questioning as to whether they are using genetically engineered organisms, the article clearly states that they are.
Yes, your fuel may soon come from a genetically engineered non-algal microbe.
Sure, fine and all that, but I still want man portable fusion cells... Or maybe pocket antimatter. >^_^
They are greedy. they are in a for-profit business. Once we realize that green investments by most of the big oil companies is not some show to appear green, and really a strategy for them to continue operating refineries it all starts to make sense. If the big oil companies have to buy unprocessed biofuels from New Mexico and Arizona instead of shipping it from the Gulf of Mexico and the Middle East, who cares. As long as the fuel is good and cheap they can build or convert refineries to process it. Ultimately the big oil companies are in the business of refining matter to make it usable in an internal combustion engine.
Given the assumption that big oil wants to survive (and thrive) and continue profiting. The myth that big oil wants to suppress innovation because they have some sort of warped ideology where they hate the Earth and the environment. (sorry, capitalists are nothing like the villains on the Captain Planet cartoon from the 1990s)
While I have no proof, I think an argument could be made where big oil does suppress, or at least has motive to suppress, innovation that makes it easy for any individual or small start up to transport people and materials without the the use of products from big oil's refineries. This sort of conspiracy at least fits big oil serving their own self interests. The other conspiracies where big oil spends a billion dollars on "green" investments as a PR stunt seems far less likely, because it uses money so inefficiently.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Not completely true. Privately held companies do stock issues to raise money. They generally set a price for their stock and then see who will buy it at that price. So a big press release right before an offering might let them set a higher price and sell less stock and make the same money or set a higher price, sell the same amount of stock and make more money.
The article claims that they're making ethanol, not biodiesel (they compare their process to algae-generated biodiesel as the closest in terms of efficiency).
Given that, 20,000 gallons of ethanol x 76,100 BTU/gallon x .000293 kwh/BTU = 446,000 kwh, or about 6% efficiency. Could still be a scam, but more plausible.
> Don't believe the hype, especially when it's physically impossible.
Oh stop being so down on these guys. They are just trying to do the right thing, which is to ensure suckers don't keep their money. And Green is THE buzzword right now to part venture capitalists from sacks of cash, and if they won't fall for it the Government certainly will.
Every week or two Slashdot has one of these Green Energy Miracle stories. Because so many people want so hard to believe in Green Energy scammers will keep giving them what they want, something to believe. Doesn't have to be true, just like any other religion it just has to make the believer feel good enough to be happy to part with the cash.
Reality check. Been waiting decades for my flying car, but it ain't ever coming. Even if the tech could be solved the legal problems can't. Been waiting for fusion power about the same time. And it is still thirty years away. Same for 'green energy.' We know how to do it but it ever coming either because the only method that makes economic sense is politically incorrect.
Democrat delenda est
5kwh per m^2 per day? At what latitude? If that is on the high side, they are back on the theoretical impossible part of the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg
In southwest texas, 5 KWH per sq M is wildly pessimistic by around a factor of two. In western Washington state, it is wildly optimistic by a roughly equal factor of two.
Taking a wild guess based on my vast real world experience, a marketing weasel might just possibly use the "best obtainable" number available, and maybe round up all figures, giving around "ten" KWH per day and rounding up to about 16 or so MM KWH per year.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The US has the production capacity of over 2.5Billion gallons a year of BioDiesel with another half billion gallons a year coming online in the next year.
So, if you pay attention, you are frustrated, because it doesn't seem to be coming fast enough, and if you go away for a few years and come back, you don't notice the differences, because they are baked into the system by then.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
We simply need to tax fuel enough to establish a price floor that will encourage alternative investments. The Europeans are already there so now the US just needs to start increasing the tax rate
Why?
Why do you automatically assume that if the Europeans do something it must be right for every place on earth?
If this breakthrough is for real, and it was developed in Cambridge Massachusetts USA, with the tax structure we have today, and nothing like it has appeared out or Europe with all its horrendous taxes, then where is the basis for your euro-centric view?
How will pouring more tax dollars down social rat-holes help solve an energy crisis?
Do I necessarily believe this announcements? No, not yet. Does that mean I should run to Europe and adopt every tax-grab they dream up? Of course not.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Size of Arizona = 72 million acres.
There is an article in Scientific American that estimates cellulose feedstocks could provide up to half of the liquid fuels used in the United States:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grassoline-biofuels-beyond-corn
And that is without building millions of acres of bioreactors.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Gallons of oil in a barrel = 44 Barrels used per day in U.S. = 20,680,000 in 2007 Barrels user per year = 7,548,200,000 Gallons used each Year = 332,120,800,000 Gallons per Acre per year for this process 20,000 Acres required to meet U.S demand for a year = 16,606,040
Acres in the U.S. = 2 000 000 000
Part of U.S. acres needed to meed demand = 0.7%
Just throwing around big numbers does not an argument make
The problem is that if you allow the price of energy to fluctuate below the cost of production of alternatives the alternatives will never take off because your ROI potentially goes negative. Since we know that oil will run out in the future it makes more sense to start allowing alternatives to flourish now while we have known reserves then to wait until the natural price floor encourages them (ie it might be too late with a horrible economic collapse and resulting war if we wait too long). Not to mention the likely environmental effects of continuing to burn fossil fuels until they are near exhausted.
Btw I said nothing of pouring tax dollars down a social rat-hole, I actually advocated increased taxes in one area with an offsetting credit in another which is tax neutral to some level of consumption and tax positive above that level (ie discouraging the unwanted behavior while not disproportionately affecting the economically disadvantaged.)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Assumptions:
- They can actually generate 20,000 gallons per acre per year
- 1 gallon of biofuel will get you the same mileage as 1 gallon of gasoline
US gasoline usage = 378,000,000 gallons/day = 137,970,000,000 gallons/year
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
Area needed: 137,970,000,000 gallons/year / 20,000 gallons/acre/year = 6,898,500 acres = 10,779 sq.mi.
Comparative area: Massachusetts is 10,555 sq.mi.
So, we'd need an area slightly larger than MA to generate the needed biofuel. This may seem like alot, but...
Farmland in US: 922,095,840 acres = 1,440,774 sq. mi.
Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/US.htm
Percent farmland to convert to biofuel: 10,555 sq. mi. / 1,440,774 sq. mi. = 0.73%
This isn't much, if you ask me.
Now, for the financial incentive to do so:
Value of 20,000 gallons of biofuel at $50/barrel: 20,000 gallons = 476 barrels * $50/barrel = $23,000
Corn yield of one acre: 162 bushels/acres (Iowa)
Source: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a1-14.pdf
Value of 162 bushels of corn: 162 bushels * $4.77/bushel (Estimated 2008 Calendar Year Average) = $772.74
Source: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a2-11.pdf
So, converting one acre of corn farmland to one acre of biofuel farmland will increase the revenue from $773 to $23,000, a nearly 30-fold increase.
So, this looks like it might be worth it depending on the cost of conversion and cost versus revenue. It'll certainly be interesting to watch.
I void warranties.
They don't have to pick winners, just raise the floor price of dino-gas and let everyone else compete. That is what they should have done instead of the stupidity that was the farm belt subsidy disguised as energy alternative that we got. It would have encouraged alternative energy sources at a lower cost to the taxpayers and without encouraging an 'alternative' that consumed oil at near 1:1 levels.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
What part of "Price" do you not understand?
These people created this and the price point at which it becomes economic may be higher or lower than the current price of oil.
So be it.
Price fluctuations are not evil. They are the market adjudication of supply and demand.
Price fluctuation are your friend. Static or legislated prices totally screw up economies. Do we really need to replay the downfall of the soviet union again just to drive home this point.
The amount of fossil fuels left in the ground exceed by several orders of magnitude that which we have used to date. Its just not economic to get to them. But at some point shale oil and oil sands will be economic, as will bio generation which is the subject of this story.
Arbitrarily jacking up the price by adding tax does nothing constructive, and yes, deny it as you will, the tax proceeds WILL be poured down a rat-hole of social programs as witnessed by your own words "disproportionately affecting the economically disadvantaged".
You automatically assume no environmental effects of these alternate energy efforts, while failing to recognize we consume way more oil today than we did in the days of smog filled skies.
You automatically assume the Europeans used their high taxes to further research, yet they are hopelessly behind in clean coal technology, oil sands, or coal-to-liquid technology. Hint: The money went into social programs. Tax removes money from the developmental cycle. It does not facilitate anything but bureaucracy and stifling regulations.
There is no justification for propping up the European model here.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
And you don't think part of investing in your own future is buying and destroying any competing technology? Plus, you're ignoring the reality that every business on earth can only operate because sustainability is not a requirement for existence. Essentially, the cost for bringing the earth a little closer to disaster is zero, since the unborn generations to come have no vote in a market system tuned entirely for short term vision.
I do not believe in secret meetings where evil businessmen plot to destroy the earth. But I do know that they have been convicted of abusing newcomers to any business through price fixing, buying up patents and burying them, and other "business practices" that are the antithesis of true market economics.
In order for technology to evolve and improve, the dinosaurs must die. But while the dinosaurs are the most profitable businesses in the world, and have several countries entirely dependent on them for their existence, they will die a slow death without some sensible economic reforms. And while they are dying, everyone is suffering for it.
It all sounds great until you realize that we are at war and have standing armies in a whole bunch of other countries because of oil. If we can find a way to produce a fuel that means we don't need to import oil, then we can bring the troops home, close up a bunch of foreign bases and save a lot of taxpayer money. Those holes you speak of are nothing compared to the social^W corporate welfare rat-hole that is the military-industrial complex.
> Yes, your fuel may soon come from a genetically engineered non-algal microbe.
They'll be banned in Europe. Ain't natural.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.