Comments on: Bill Gates invests in algae fuel
Sapphire Energy, a company that plans to make auto fuel from algae, has raised over $100 million, including a contribution from Gates' Cascade Investments.
Sapphire Energy, a company that plans to make auto fuel from algae, has raised over $100 million, including a contribution from Gates' Cascade Investments.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
Innovation in energy and environmental technologies is long overdue, in business and at home. Green-tech reporter Martin LaMonica and other CNET writers serve up fresh clean-tech news and commentary.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Direct solar capture to PV using our methods will be the solution everyone is searching for. Tell Bill Gates he is barking up the wrong tree (or in this case algae bloom).
Jiff
www.anonymize.us.tc
The prices of oil in the commodities markets are prices on futures, or prices that suppliers will be able to purchase at next month.
This algal fuel is both an efficient and convenient way to store solar energy- photosynthesis to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, sewage for nutrients, and a little chemical processing to make it versatile and useful! Hopefully, we should see some big advances in the way in which these fuels are actually being used, making the first serious attempt at getting rid of our dependency on Middle-East oil. America is supposed to be a technological leader, and with the legacy of Bush, we have languished. Hopefully coal will be next to be gotten rid of. Here's to a brighter future!
lol
My name is Sander Hazewinkel and currently my company is one of the largest "real" producers of marine algae in the world. We use state of the art closed systems that will outperform all the installations that I have seen on this website and that belong to the so called frontrunners. One of the things that really disturbs me,when I hear all these "pseudo" scientists claim enormous projected yields, is the energy cost that is involved in growing algae. I dare to state that it is impossible to gain a posititive energy balance with the production of algae. It's not the apparatus (toy) that you use to grow the algae that holds the solution to a positive energy balance. The problem is that the algae itself is not so efficient as some people want us to believe. I know from hands-on experience on a commercial production scale! But I also know and understand the math behind the problem. One of the people that describes a part of the math very much spot on is Krassen Dimitrov (google will find his article). If you are able to read some Dutch (google translate might be helpfull) you can read a presentation that I gave a couple of months ago for an organisation that is doing research on energy options for Afrika. www.fact-fuels.org/media_en/Presentation_Sander_Hazewinkel
It's not that i want to temper the enthusiasm for Algae, on the contrary! Algae are super as a nutrition (omega-3-fatty-acids, over 50% proteins, anti-oxidants and so on and on) all very important components for life and costing much more energy to produce otherwise than with algae.
So algae still hold a strong key to a more sustainable futere, but unfortunately not to a primairy source for energy!
I dare anyone to come-up with a complete lifecycle-anlysis on the production of algae that proves my point to be wrong and I dare to bet that nobody will come up with the whole (energy)cost figure because it is more sexy to talk about energyyields in stead of energy costs!
With kind regards,
Sander Hazewinkel
Let's forget about the pond. The pond is old school. The pond has been tried and has failed. The pond collects unwanted algae strains. The pond is a terrible idea and unsustainable.
Let's think outside the pond for a minute. What if you could contain all your algae in a closed loop system that would hang and flow through plastic rows that would increase your yeild per acre by 10 or more with very little water usage and no risk of other algae species polluting your chosen strain? Then and only then would you be able to create an environment where you "could" produce 100,000 gallons of biofuel per acre per year.
Let's stop limiting the possibilities and start looking at the research that is happening at this moment.
Check out this company and their videos and listen to their scientist/CEO for reasons why we "CAN" do this and do it in the very near future. Let's start supporting companies like this and move forward a,s,a,p to secure our future and release us from the death grip of foreign oil.
Company:Valcent, El Paso, TX - Watch video on page
http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039
CNN Report on Valcent:UTube Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-GpX3oJFTU&feature=related
Local Texas TV Report:UTube Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYURCN7o-Mk&feature=related
Contacts: info@valcent.net
Valcent Products Inc.
Short legged sheep were genetically chosen so they wouldn't jump out of their enclosures. Long horned cattle were genetically altered to shorten horns for cattleman's safety and for a more gentle animal. All this was done through selective breeding. Genetically altering of today differs very little from selective breeding only in the time it takes to make the changes.
Because people don't understand it they fear it. What if we make a genetically altered algae that takes over the world?! OMG!!! We would all be knee deep in green slime. It ain't gonna happen but try telling that to a person who doesn't understand the first thing about the process or has a religious belief that "if God meant it to be that way He would have made it that way."
I hope Bill and Sapphire do well. It will only benefit the world. Don't count on it being an easy sell for the majority or at least for the really "loud" voices that will protest the genetics of the plan.
Good luck Bill.
Check out Valcent of El Paso, Texas for a more natural and locally choses algae source.
- by LGem November 13, 2008 12:38 AM PST
- Hi everyone,
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(18 Comments)My name is Sander Hazewinkel and currently my company is one of the largest "real" producers of marine algae in the world. We use state of the art closed systems that will outperform all the installations that I have seen on this website and that belong to the so called frontrunners. One of the things that really disturbs me,when I hear all these "pseudo" scientists claim enormous projected yields, is the energy cost that is involved in growing algae. I dare to state that it is impossible to gain a posititive energy balance with the production of algae. It's not the apparatus (toy) that you use to grow the algae that holds the solution to a positive energy balance. The problem is that the algae itself is not so efficient as some people want us to believe. I know from hands-on experience on a commercial production scale! But I also know and understand the math behind the problem. One of the people that describes a part of the math very much spot on is Krassen Dimitrov (google will find his article). If you are able to read some Dutch (google translate might be helpfull) you can read a presentation that I gave a couple of months ago for an organisation that is doing research on energy options for Afrika. www.fact-fuels.org/media_en/Presentation_Sander_Hazewinkel
It's not that i want to temper the enthusiasm for Algae, on the contrary! Algae are super as a nutrition (omega-3-fatty-acids, over 50% proteins, anti-oxidants and so on and on) all very important components for life and costing much more energy to produce otherwise than with algae.
So algae still hold a strong key to a more sustainable futere, but unfortunately not to a primairy source for energy!
I dare anyone to come-up with a complete lifecycle-anlysis on the production of algae that proves my point to be wrong and I dare to bet that nobody will come up with the whole (energy)cost figure because it is more sexy to talk about energyyields in stead of energy costs!
With kind regards,
Sander Hazewinkel