|
Widescale
Biodiesel Production from Algae
Michael Briggs, University of New Hampshire, Physics Department
(revised August 2004)
As more evidence comes out daily of
the ties between the leaders of petroleum producing countries and
terrorists (not to mention the human rights abuses in their own
countries), the incentive for finding an alternative to petroleum rises
higher and higher. The environmental problems of petroleum have finally
been surpassed by the strategic weakness of being dependent on a fuel that
can only be purchased from tyrants. The economic strain on our
country resulting from the $100-150 billion we spend every year buying oil
from other nations, combined with the occasional need to use military
might to protect and secure oil reserves our economy depends on just makes
matters worse (and using military might for that purpose just adds to the
anti-American sentiment that gives rise to terrorism). Clearly,
developing alternatives to oil should be one of our nation's highest
priorities.
In the United States,
oil is primarily used for transportation - roughly two-thirds of all oil
use, in fact. So, developing an alternative means of powering our cars,
trucks, and buses would go a long way towards weaning us, and the world,
off of oil. While the so-called "hydrogen economy" receives a lot of
attention in the media, there are several very serious problems with using
hydrogen as an automotive fuel. For automobiles, the best alternative at
present is clearly biodiesel, a fuel that can be used in existing diesel
engines with no changes, and is made from vegetable oils or animal fats
rather than petroleum.
In this paper, I will
first examine the possibilities of producing biodiesel on the scale
necessary to replace all petroleum transportation fuels in the U.S.
I. How
much biodiesel?
First, we need to
understand exactly how much biodiesel would be needed to replace all
petroleum transportation fuels. So, we need to start with how much
petroleum is currently used for that purpose. Per the Department of
Energy's statistics, each year the US consumes roughly 60 billion gallons
of petroleum diesel and 120 billion gallons of gasoline. First, we need to
realize that spark-ignition engines that run on gasoline are generally
about 40% less efficient than diesel engines. So, if all spark-ignition
engines are gradually replaced with compression-ignition (Diesel) engines
for running biodiesel, we wouldn't need 120 billion gallons of biodiesel
to replace that 120 billion gallons of
gasoline. To be conservative, we will assume that the average gasoline
engine is 35% less efficient, so we'd need 35% less diesel fuel to replace
that gasoline. That would work out to 78 billion gallons of diesel fuel.
Combine that with the 60 billion gallons of diesel already used, for a
total of 138 billion gallons. Now, biodiesel is about 5-8% less energy
dense than petroleum diesel, but its greater lubricity and more complete
combustion offset that somewhat, leading to an overall fuel efficiency
about 2% less than petroleum diesel. So, we'd need about 2% more than that
138 billion gallons, or 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel. So, this
figure is based on vehicles equivalent to those in use today, but with
compression-ignition (Diesel) engines running on biodiesel, rather than a
mix of petroleum diesel and gasoline. Combined diesel-electric hybrids in
wide use, as well as fewer people driving large SUVs when they don't need
such a vehicle would of course bring this number down considerably, but
for now we'll just stick with this figure. (note
- my point here is not to claim that conservation is not worthwhile,
rather to strictly look at the issue of replacing our current use
of fuel with biodiesel - to see how achievable that is). I would like to
point out though that a preferable scenario would include a shift to
diesel-electric hybrid vehicles (preferably with the ability to be
recharged and drive purely on electric power for a short range, perhaps
20-40 miles, to provide the option of zero emissions for in-city driving),
and with far fewer people buying 6-8,000 pound SUVs merely to commute to
work in by themselves. Those changes could drastically reduce the amount
of fuel required for our automotive transportation, and are
technologically feasibly currently (see for example Chrysler's Dodge
Intrepid ESX3, built under Clinton's PNGV program - a full-size diesel
electric hybrid sedan that averaged 72 mpg in mixed driving
6,
7).
One of the biggest
advantages of biodiesel compared to many other alternative transportation
fuels is that it can be used in existing diesel engines without
modification, and can be blended in at any ratio with petroleum diesel.
This completely eliminates the "chicken-and-egg" dilemma that other
alternatives have, such as hydrogen powered fuel cells. For hydrogen
vehicles, even when (and if) vehicle manufacturers eventually have
production stage vehicles ready (which currently cost around $1 million
each to make), nobody would buy them unless there was already a wide scale
hydrogen fuel production and distribution system in place. But, no
companies would be interested in building that wide scale hydrogen fuel
production and distribution system until a significant number of fuel cell
vehicles are on the road, so that consumers are ready to start using it.
With a single hydrogen fuel pump costing roughly $1 million, installing
just one at each of the 176,000 fuel stations across the US would cost
$176 billion - a cost that can be completely avoided with liquid biofuels
that can use our current infrastructure.
With biodiesel, since
the same engines can run on conventional petroleum diesel, manufacturers
can comfortably produce diesel vehicles before biodiesel is available on a
wide scale - as some manufacturers already are (the same can be said for
flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on ethanol, gasoline, or any blend
of the two). As biodiesel production continues to ramp up, it can go into
the same fuel distribution infrastructure, just replacing petroleum diesel
either wholly (as B100, or 100% biodiesel), or blended in with diesel.
Not only does this eliminate the
chicken-and-egg problem, making biodiesel a much more feasible alternative
than hydrogen, but also eliminates the huge cost of revamping the
nationwide fuel distribution infrastructure.
II.
Large scale production
There are two steps
that would need to be taken for producing biodiesel on a large scale -
growing the feedstock's, and processing them into biodiesel. The main
issue that is often contested is whether or not we would be able to grow
enough crops to provide the vegetable oil (feedstock) for producing the
amount of biodiesel that would be required to completely replace petroleum
as a transportation fuel. So, that is the main issue that will be
addressed here. The point of this article is not to argue that this
approach is the only one that makes sense, or that we should ignore other
options (there are some other very appealing options as well, and
realistically it makes more sense for a combination of options to be
used). Rather, the point is merely to look at one option for producing
biodiesel, and see if it would be capable of meeting our needs.
One of the important
concerns about wide-scale development of biodiesel is if it would displace
croplands currently used for food crops. In the US, roughly 450 million
acres of land is used for growing crops, with the majority of that
actually being used for producing animal feed for the meat industry.
Another 580 million acres is used for grassland pasture and range,
according to the USDA's Economic Research Service. This accounts for
nearly half of the 2.3 billion acres within the US (only 3% of which, or
66 million acres, is categorized as urban land). For any biofuel to
succeed at replacing a large quantity of petroleum, the yield of fuel per
acre needs to be as high as possible. At heart, biofuels are a form of
solar energy, as plants use photosynthesis to convert solar energy into
chemical energy stored in the form of oils, carbohydrates, proteins, etc..
The more efficient a particular plant is at converting that solar energy
into chemical energy, the better it is from a biofuels perspective. Among
the most photosynthetic ally efficient plants
are various types of algae's.
The Office of Fuels
Development, a division of the Department of Energy, funded a program from
1978 through 1996 under the National Renewable Energy Laboratory known as
the "Aquatic Species Program". The focus of this program was to
investigate high-oil algaes that could be grown specifically for the
purpose of wide scale biodiesel production1.
The research began as a project looking into using quick-growing algae to
sequester carbon in CO2 emissions from coal power plants.
Noticing that some algae have very high oil content, the project shifted
its focus to growing algae for another purpose - producing biodiesel.
Some species of algae are ideally suited to biodiesel production due to
their high oil content (some well over 50% oil), and extremely fast growth
rates. From the results of the Aquatic Species Program2,
algae farms would let us supply enough biodiesel to completely replace
petroleum as a transportation fuel in the US (as well as its other main
use - home heating oil) - but we first have to solve a few of the problems
they encountered along the way.
NREL's research
focused on the development of algae farms in desert regions, using shallow
saltwater pools for growing the algae. Using saltwater eliminates the
need for desalination, but could lead to problems as far as salt build-up
in bonds. Building the ponds in deserts also leads to problems of high
evaporation rates. There are solutions to these problems, but for the
purpose of this paper, we will focus instead on the potential such ponds
can promise, ignoring for the moment the methods of addressing the
solvable challenges remaining when the Aquatic Species Program at NREL
ended.
NREL's research showed
that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from
200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780
square miles, roughly 500,000 acres), if the remaining challenges are
solved (as they will be, with several research groups and companies
working towards it, including ours at UNH). In the previous section, we
found that to replace all transportation fuels in the
US,
we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one
quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount
would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in
perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US
comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum
transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly
12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert (note for clarification - I
am not advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in the Sonora
desert. This hypothetical example is used strictly for the purpose of
showing the scale of land required). That 15,000 square miles works out
to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres
currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres
used as grazing land for farm animals.
The algae farms would
not all need to be built in the same location, of course (and should not
for a variety of reasons). The case mentioned above of building it all in
the Sonora desert is purely a hypothetical example to illustrate the
amount of land required. It would be preferable to spread the algae
production around the country, to lessen the cost and energy used in
transporting the feedstock's. Algae farms could also be constructed to use
waste streams (either human waste or animal waste from animal farms) as a
food source, which would provide a beautiful way of spreading algae
production around the country. Nutrients can also be extracted from the
algae for the production of a fertilizer high in nitrogen and phosphorous.
By using waste streams (agricultural, farm animal waste, and human sewage)
as the nutrient source, these farms essentially also provide a means of
recycling nutrients from fertilizer to food to waste and back to
fertilizer. Extracting the nutrients from algae provides a far safer and
cleaner method of doing this than spreading manure or wastewater treatment
plant "bio-solids" on farmland.
These projected yields
of course depend on a variety of factors, sunlight levels in particular.
The yield in North Dakota, for example, wouldn't be as good as the yield
in California. Spreading the algae production around the country would
result in more land being required than the projected 9.5 million acres,
but the benefits from distributed production would outweigh the larger
land requirement. Further, these yield estimates are based on what is
theoretically achievable - roughly 15,000 gallons per acre-year. It's
important to point out that the DOE's ASP that projected that such yields
are possible, was never able to come close to achieving such yields. Their
focus on open ponds was a primary factor in this, and the research groups
that have picked up where the DOE left off are making substantial gains in
the yields compared to the old DOE work - but we still have a ways to go.
But, consider that even if we are only able to sustain an average yield of
5,000 gallons per acre-year in algae systems spread across the US, the
amount of land required would still only be 28.5 million acres - a mere
fraction still of the total farmland area in the US.
III.
Cost
In "The Controlled
Eutrophication process: Using
Microalgae for CO2 Utilization and
Agricultural Fertilizer Recycling"3,
the authors estimated a cost per hectare of $40,000 for algal ponds. In
their model, the algal ponds would be built around the
Salton Sea (in the Sonora desert) feeding off
of the agricultural waste streams that
normally pollute the Salton Sea with over
10,000 tons of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers each year. The estimate
is based on fairly large ponds, 8 hectares in size each. To be
conservative (since their estimate is fairly optimistic), we'll
arbitrarily increase the cost per hectare by 100% as a margin of safety.
That brings the cost per hectare to $80,000. Ponds equivalent to their
design could be built around the country, using wastewater streams (human,
animal, and agricultural) as feed sources. We found that at NREL's yield
rates, 15,000 square miles (3.85 million hectares) of algae ponds would be
needed to replace all petroleum transportation fuels with biodiesel. At
the cost of $80,000 per hectare, that would work out to roughly $308
billion to build the farms.
The operating costs
(including power consumption, labor, chemicals, and fixed capital costs
(taxes, maintenance, insurance, depreciation, and return on investment)
worked out to $12,000 per hectare. That would equate to $46.2 billion per
year for all the algae farms, to yield all the oil feedstock necessary for
the entire country. Compare that to the $100-150 billion the US spends
each year just on purchasing crude oil from foreign countries, with all of
that money leaving the US economy.
These costs are based
on the design used by NREL - the simple open-top raceway pond. Various
approaches being examined by the research groups focusing on algae
biodiesel range from being the same general system, to far more
complicated systems. As a result, this cost analysis is very much just a
general approximation.
While the work on algae for fuel production done in the 1980s and 1990s
focused almost entirely on the simple open pond approach, most groups now
working in this field (including our collaboration) have shifted to
focusing on the use of proprietary photo bioreactors. The primary reason
being that most of the problems encountered by prior work (takeover by low
oil strains, vulnerability to temperature fluctuations, high evaporation
losses, etc.) are primarily a result of using open ponds. Going with
enclosed photo bioreactors can immediately solve the bulk of the problems
encountered by prior research. The obvious drawback though is cost - any
photo bioreactor design is going to be have a higher capital cost than a
simple, open pond. At this point, a key factor in making algal biodiesel a
commercial reality is the development of photo bioreactors that can offer
high yields (optimization of light path, etc.), but be built inexpensively
enough to offer a reasonable payback rate (otherwise no company would be
interested in building them). Improving processing technologies, and
designing an integrated system to tie the algae production into other
processes (i.e. waste stream treatment, power plant emissions reduction,
etc.), can further improve the economics and payback rate. UNH and our
collaborators are currently focusing on these issues, with the goal of
making algal biodiesel a commercial reality.
IV.
Other issues
To make biodiesel, you
need not only the vegetable oil, but an alcohol as well (either ethanol or
methanol). The alcohol only constitutes about 10% of the volume of the
biodiesel. Among the most land-efficient and energy-efficient methods of
producing alcohol is from hydrolysis and fermentation of plant cellulose.
In the early days of the automobile, most vehicles ran on biofuels, with
Henry Ford himself being a big advocate of alcohol produced from
industrial hemp (not to be confused with marijuana). The Department of
Energy's "Mustard Project" has focused on the prospect of growing mustard
for the dual purposes of biodiesel and organic pesticide production. Their
process focused on alternating mustard crops with wheat. One nice effect
of this is that the biomass from the mustard (after harvesting the
seed ) could be used as the cellulose feedstock
for producing alcohol for biodiesel production.
V.
Hydrogen?
Hydrogen as a fuel has
received widespread attention in the media of late, particularly ever
since the Bush administration proclaimed that developing a hydrogen
economy would clean our air, and free us of oil dependence. There are many
problems with using hydrogen as a fuel. The first, and most obvious, is
that hydrogen gas is extremely explosive. To store hydrogen at high
pressures for as a transportation fuel, it is essential to have tanks that
are constructed of rust-proof materials, so that as they age they won't
rust and spring leaks. Hydrogen has to be stored at very high pressures to
try to make up for its low energy density. Diesel fuel has an energy
density of 1,058 kBtu/cu.ft. Biodiesel has an
energy density of 950 kBtu/cu.ft, and hydrogen
stored at 3,626 psi (250 times atmospheric pressure) only has an energy
density of 68 kBtu/cu.ft.4
So, highly pressurized to 250 atmospheres, hydrogen's volumetric energy
density is only 7.2% of that of biodiesel. The result being that with
similar efficiencies of converting that stored chemical energy into motion
(as diesel engines and fuel cells have), a hydrogen vehicle would need a
fuel tank roughly 14 times as large to yield the same driving range as a
biodiesel powered vehicle. To get a 1,000 mile range, a tractor trailer
running on diesel needs to store 168 gallons of diesel fuel. When
biodiesel's slightly lower energy density and
the greater efficiency of the engine running on biodiesel are taken into
account, it would need roughly 175 gallons of biodiesel for the same
range. But, to run on hydrogen stored at 250 atmospheres, to get the same
range would require 2,360 gallons of hydrogen. Dedicating that much space
to fuel storage would drastically reduce how much cargo trucks could
carry. Additionally, the cost of the high pressure, corrosion resistant
storage tanks to carry that much fuel is astronomical.
There are two main
options for producing hydrogen - generating it from water, and extracting
it from other fuels. With each case, the energy efficiency is well below
100% (i.e. you have to put more energy into separating the hydrogen than
the chemical energy the hydrogen itself has). I will look at each
individually, and then analyze the use of hydrogen as a fuel in general.
Currently, most hydrogen used industrially is extracted from natural gas
through steam reformation. At current usage rates, the United States will
deplete its projected natural gas reserves in 46 years - or deplete the
currently proven reserves in roughly 10 years (we use around 22.5 trillion
cubic feet (tcf) a year, and have a little
over 200 tcf of proven reserves). If the use
of natural gas for transportation (whether directly, or as hydrogen
extracted from natural gas) increases dramatically, the time it will take
before we use up all of our reserves will decrease correspondingly. One of
the primary reasons for looking for alternatives to petroleum is to
decrease our dependence on foreign fuels. If we spend trillions of dollars
converting to using natural gas, only to use up our own reserves in a
decade or two, we would find ourselves back in the exact same position of
being dependent on foreign sources.
Thus, the focus needs
to be on renewable fuels that we cannot run out of. For hydrogen, it is
only renewable when it is extracted from biomass, or when the hydrogen is
produced by electrolyzing water using renewable energies (wind, solar,
etc.). The option of producing it from biomass is not particularly
enticing. It can be done through gasification and steam reformation, but
with a disappointingly low thermal efficiency. The need to compress or
liquefy (or bind in another form such as a
metal hydride) the hydrogen for transport and storage further reduces the
efficiency, and increases the cost. Biomass can be converted to liquid
fuels more efficiently, yielding a fuel with far higher energy density,
and that can work in existing, affordable vehicles. So, since biomass
derived hydrogen is less appealing than liquid biofuels, let's consider
the option of producing hydrogen through electrolysis.
VI.
Hydrogen electrolyzed from water
The first way to look
at a potential transportation fuel is to examine the overall energy
efficiency for its production. Ultimately we want to know how much energy
you get back for each unit of energy you put into developing the fuel - or
the Energy Return on Investment (EROI). The higher the EROI, the better.
When discussing
hydrogen as a fuel, people usually take a very simplified approach. When
used in a fuel cell, the only by-product of using hydrogen as a fuel is
water. However, that completely ignores the issue of where the hydrogen
came from in the first place. It is tempting to think that this hydrogen
would be produced by electrolyzing water using renewable energy sources,
such as wind. To see how realistic this approach is, it is important to
analyze the overall energy balance, and henceforth the amount of energy
that would need to be produced for the fuel to be used on a wide scale.
A common dream from
the environmentalist community is having a solar panel on the roof of a
home to electrolyze water, producing hydrogen for a fuel cell vehicle.
It's a nice dream, but not particularly realistic. As a real world
example, consider Honda's facility in California that requires an 8 kW
solar array to produce enough hydrogen to drive one small hydrogen vehicle
roughly 7,500 miles per year8,
9,
10.
Such an array could power several
homes in California, but is only enough for powering one small car half
the normal driving range in the US. For an average family with two
vehicles that drive an average distance of 15,000 miles per year, an array
of 32 kW would be needed - considerably more with larger vehicles.
A 32 kW array would cost on the order of $160,000, and could not be
installed just on the rooftop of a single home - it would likely require
the south-facing rooftops of at least 4-8 houses to power the vehicles
from one home (and that's if you live in sunny California - in less sunny
regions you'd need considerably more). The inefficiency of using
electricity to produce and use hydrogen means it makes far more sense to
first use any newly installed solar or wind power as direct electricity
consumption (in houses, businesses, etc.), rather than for hydrogen
vehicles. A home in California could meet all of its electric needs
with perhaps a 2-4 kW array, depending on the household efficiency.
Yet to power their vehicles it would require a 32 kW array or more.
With so few people installing the much smaller arrays needed to meet their
electrical needs, how likely is it that many would install (or be able to
afford to install) a much larger array for their vehicles?
Why does it require so
large an array? Look at the efficiency. Electrolysis systems are around
70% efficient (smaller scale systems are less efficient, large scale
industrial ones are higher - 70% is a rough average). That means that for
each unit of energy you put in, the amount of recoverable energy in the
hydrogen produced is equal to 0.7 units. The hydrogen then needs to be
compressed to high pressures for storage in fuel tanks (due to the low
energy density, hydrogen has to be stored at high pressures so that
vehicles can have a reasonable range). Compressing the hydrogen is roughly
85% efficient, liquefaction considerably lower. I will ignore the cost of
transporting hydrogen, the efficiency of which is far lower than
transporting biodiesel. Since it is highly unlikely that clean solar or
wind power would be used for electrolyzing water to make hydrogen (see the
above paragraph), I will assume that it would use coal or natural gas
derived electricity (this could also come from burning biomass). Most
such power plants operate with efficiencies below 40%, but I will use that
very favorable figure.
So, the hydrogen fuel
can be produced with an overall efficiency of 23.8% - or an EROI of 0.238.
Current generation fuel cells are 40-60% efficient. Assuming a very
favorable 60% efficiency, that reduces the overall energy return down to
14.28%. That means that for each unit of energy in the form of fuel burned
to make electricity, only 14.28% of it is
usable for powering the electric motor in a fuel cell vehicle. Steam
reformation of natural gas is a far more likely scenario for hydrogen
production, as it can be done with roughly a 66%
efficiency. Including compression (85%) and use in a fuel cell (a very
favorable 60%, with 45% being more likely), the overall efficiency is then
33.6% (or a fossil energy balance of 0.336). The problem is natural gas is
not a renewable resource, and the US could not meet the demand of a
nationwide hydrogen economy fed off natural gas. We would simply be
replacing foreign oil dependence with foreign natural gas dependence.
With natural gas being much more expensive (and inefficient) to transport
over long distances, this isn't a desirable scenario.
The limited range of
hydrogen powered vehicles makes them comparable to electric vehicles in
many ways. The energy efficiency, however, is completely different. While
a hydrogen vehicle would use electricity to electrolyze water to get
hydrogen for fuel, an electric vehicle uses electricity to charge
batteries. Battery charging systems are around 90% efficient, compared to
the 70% efficiency for electrolysis. Using the charged batteries and an
electric motor to propel a car has an efficiency
in the 90% range, giving electric cars an overall energy efficiency of
around 81% (once the electricity is produced, so not counting energy
losses at that end). By contrast, once the electricity is produced, the
efficiency is only around 32%. As can be seen, if the desire is to use
electricity to power our vehicles, it is far more efficient to do so with
electric cars, rather than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Electric vehicles
are also far cheaper, another plus. This is why diesel-electric hybrids
with the ability to be recharged and operate solely on electric power for
a short range are an ideal choice for people who live in cities, or have
short commutes to work. It allows fairly efficient zero-emissions
operation on short commutes, while the diesel engine running on biodiesel
allows zero net greenhouse gas emissions and practically-zero regulated
emissions on longer trips.
What is the energy
efficiency for producing biodiesel? Based on a report by the US DOE and
USDA entitled "Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for
Use in an Urban Bus"5,
biodiesel produced from soy has an energy balance of 3.2:1. That means
that for each unit of energy put into growing the soybeans and turning the
soy oil into biodiesel, we get back 3.2 units of energy in the form of
biodiesel. That works out to an energy efficiency of 320% (when only
looking at fossil energy input - input from the sun, for example, is not
included). The reason for the energy efficiency being greater than 100% is
that the growing soybeans turn energy from the sun into chemical energy
(oil). Current generation diesel engines are 43% efficient (HCCI diesel
engines under development, and heavy duty diesel engines have higher
efficiencies approaching 55% (better than fuel cells), but for the moment
we'll just use current car-sized diesel engine technology). That 3.2
energy balance is for biodiesel made from soybean oil - a rather
inefficient crop for the purpose. Other feedstock's such as algae's can
yield substantially higher energy balances, as can using
thermo chemical processes for processing
wastes into biofuels (such as the thermal depolymerization process
pioneered by Changing World Technologies). Such approaches can yield EROI
values ranging from 5-10, potentially even higher.
El Paso, TX - September 26, 2007 - The bioreactors reflect the
bright green of the algae growing within them and the state-of-the art
laboratory is up and running at the Vertigro algae technology research and
development center in El Paso, Texas. The Vertigro process, a joint
venture between Valcent products Inc. (VCTPF) and Global Green Solutions
Inc. (GGRN), is now mass producing rapidly-growing algae to be used as
biofuel feedstock and ingredients in food, pharmaceutical and health and
beauty products Requiring minimal water and land usage, Vertigro algae is
the ultimate renewable energy.
Since commencing operation, results from bioreactor tests have been
extremely positive, noted Glen Kertz, principal scientist for the Vertigro
project. "We have proven that our closed loop bioreactor system can
successfully produce algae over an extended period," Kertz said.
The venture's technical achievements are evident throughout the six-acre
facility. Within the revolutionary new laboratory, high speed algae
screening equipment determines the premier strains of algae and the
optimum growth conditions for the multiplicity of potential applications.
"As our research progresses, we believe we will be able to target the
exact species of algae most perfectly suited to the end product for which
it is used," said Kertz "With this knowledge, we will be able to grow
specific species in virtually any environment and maximize the algal oil
and biomass produced."
Valcent Products, Inc., a development stage company, researches and
develops life enhancing industrial, commercial, and consumer products and
processes. The company, through a joint venture with Global Green
Solutions, Inc., develops high density vertical bio-reactor technology to
produce a renewable source of biodiesel by utilizing the waste gas of
carbon dioxide and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is also
developing Nova Skin Care System, an in-home skin care system, which is
used to decrease wrinkles, increase skin elasticity, and improve overall
health of the skin. Valcent’s products under development include the
Tomorrow Garden Kit, an indoor herb garden kit that improves plant
lifespan by three to six months; and the Dust Wolf, a surface cleaner
intended for use in cleaning Venetian blinds, piano keys, picture frames,
lamp shades, computer keyboards, and other rough surfaces. The company was
founded in 1996. It was formerly known as Ironclad Systems, Inc. and
changed its name to Bikestar Rentals, Inc. in 1998. Further, the company
changed its name to AdventurX.Com, Inc. in July 1999; to Nettron.Com, Inc.
in September 1999; and to Valcent Products, Inc. in 2005. Valcent
Products, Inc. is based in Vancouver, Canada.
|
![[]](algae_files/image002.jpg)
![[]](algae_files/image004.jpg)
