Hello Tami, it was nice speaking with you
today. Here is a small summary of what the bio reactor is and what we are
doing. There is more and I will send it to you soon. If you require
assistance please get in touch with Jim Baglott at the numbers below.
Kind regards, Steve McGuire
Global Green Solutions and Valcent Products
Head of Investor Communications
Suite 420- 475 Howe Street,
Vancouver B.C. Canada V6C 2B3
Toll Free 1-800-877-1626
Phone Number 604-606-7975
Enjoyed your piece on algae. Been following this for the past 2
years- yes corn is a loser and algae is a winner. Where did you get
you CO info ?
Any good article or links you suggest on this subject would be
great- here are 3 I posted at my web site. will post your recent
piece as well.
John W Roulac
Founder and CEO
Author of four books on Hemp & Composting
Nutiva — Delicious Hemp & Coconut Superfoods
800-993-4367 ext 701
Considering the theoretical limit based on the quantum limits on
the efficiency of photosynthesis works out to between 15,000 and 20,000
gallons per acre, their claims of 180,000 gallons per acre are either
outright lies, or skewed information. I've been aware of these guys for a
while, and what I've heard is that their claims of 180,000
gallons/acre-year came from extrapolating from an indoors system fed
artificial lighting (which means they can supply much more light than you
get from the sun, making the yields completely meaningless when
extrapolating to systems using natural sunlight).
The only possible way I could see this claim not being outright
fraudulent is if they are taking the approach that by building tall PBRs,
the land-area actually covered by the PBR is small - and only counting
that area as "area". The problem is, when you want to build a network of
these, you can't stack them right next to each other, because they'll be
blocking the light from hitting each other. SO, it's very misleading (but
arguably not fraudulent) to claim something like 180,000 gallons per
acre-year based on a single vertical column being able to achieve a yield
that would give you that, if you covered an entire acre with the columns -
since if you did cover an acre, most of them would be shaded by other
Essentially at best the maximum yield possible is in the
neighborhood of 15,000 gallons/acre-year (and that's assuming you convert
almost all of the biomass into fuel) of *solar exposure*. Going vertical
to get that solar exposure doesn't change that, it just makes it easier
for you to mislead investors and the public. The real problem I have with
vertical PBRs is that they are much, much, much, much, much more expensive
to build than flat PBRs that lay on the ground - and don't do anything to
increase *actual* yield. Essentially, it's a much more expensive system
whose only real value is to make it easier for you to mislead people about
the actual yields you could possibly achieve.
Most likely, in their cost estimate claims, they are completely
discounting the capital cost of the PBRs, and basing it only on the cost
of running them (since the yearly operating costs can easily be
considerably lower than that for producing land-based crop oils). But,
what continues to be the challenge for algae for fuel is the large capital
cost of building the systems, which makes the payback rates far too long.
Going to more expensive PBR designs that don't do anything to increase
*actual* yields only makes that worse.
Michael S. Briggs
UNH Physics Department
While the technology for biodiesel from algae exists, it is very
complicated and expensive, and at best years from being competitive. You
may be able to make a quick profit on their stock, but longer term they
aren't likely to be producing commercial biodiesel from algae. NREL shut
down their own research program because the costs were 3-4 times that of
conventional biodiesel, and double the cost of biodiesel from oil crops.
After reading the attached PDF, I got a very "Xethanol" feeling. (Look
them up if you aren't familiar; same story, but with cellulosic
ethanol; they have been exposed as a scam).