PetroSun, Inc. (PINK: PSUD) announced that its subsidiary, PetroSun BioFuels Refining, has entered into a joint venture to construct and operate a biodiesel refinery near Coolidge, Arizona. The feedstock for the refinery will be algal oil produced by PetroSun BioFuels at company owned and operated algae farms to be located in Arizona.
The refinery will have an annual production capacity of thirty million gallons and will produce 100% renewable biodiesel. PetroSun BioFuels will process the residual algae biomass into ethanol.
Petrosun claims that Independent studies have demonstrated that algae is capable of producing in excess of 30 times more oil per acre than corn and soybean crops.
In a Feb 2, 2007 announcement PetroSun, Inc.'s field testing of the cultivation of algae for biodiesel production has progressed to the final stage prior to the construction of a commercial cultivation facility. This final stage will consist of producing adequate algae paste to test the output and economics of several biodiesel refinery manufacturers now under consideration by Algae Biofuels, a wholly owned subsidiary of PetroSun, which will own and operate the production and refinery facilities.
On Aug 23 Petrosun announced plans for algae production in Mexico. In reports on this announcement it was disclosed that algae would be grown in pods: "A cultivation pod is a proprietary closed system contained within 640 acres. Based on lower case production projections of 4,000 gallons per acre per year, a single cultivation pod would produce 2,560,000 gallons of algal oil per year."
The biorefinery and algae farm complex will generate all of its own electrical and heat requirements, utilize non-potable or saltwater, consume no fossil fuels and will be carbon neutral. The joint venture anticipates that all permits will be approved and construction on the biorefinery should commence during the third quarter of 2008.
A previous post described Petrosun's formation of their algae R&D activities.
For a very negative commentary on the prospects for algae biodiesel see Biopact's June 12, 2007 post which states that: "Most of the algae companies have never proved that the technology works on a continuous basis and/or on a large scale."
Despite its great potential to reduce the land requirements to grow inexpensive feedstock, production of biodiesel from algae still faces many hurdles before it becomes commercial. Almost all of the problems are found in the algae production facilities. Problems with contamination of the algae strains and getting enough sunlight to the algae (and thus maintaining the production rate), especially on a year round basis, are among the major problems. Petrosun Inc. stock traded OTC at $0.15 on Jan. 17 with a market cap of $2.70M which is not a very good recommendation for a company planing to build a large biorefinery and go through the development process required for such a venture..
Uh huh.
Posted by: brian hans | January 18, 2008 at 09:16 AM
It remains to be seen whether such a venture could be really viable economically.I wish some information on a pilot project, if any , was made available.
Posted by: Chanranshu Pandya | January 18, 2008 at 09:17 AM
WE ARE HEARING SO MUCH ABOUT ALGAE PRODUCTION BUT WE ARE NOT SURE IF LARGE SCALE ALGAE BIODIESEL PRODUCTION IS FEASIBLE AT THIS POINT OF TIME. HAS NAY COMPANY IN THE WORLD RUN A SUCCESSFUL ALGAE PILT PLANT.
Posted by: NIRMALKUMAR WALA | January 18, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Problems with contamination: Contamination is not a problem if you use a wild local strain of algae that outperforms and dominates other strains of algae. Although the percentage of oil may be lower, the overall yield will be much higher. Algae will not only be grown for oil. It will also be grown for the fastest growth rate and the highest yield of biomass. Algae biomass will also be used for ethanol production, livestock feed, burn pellets, and biogas feedstock – in addition to whatever portion goes to oil and biodiesel. The viability of algae production also depends on how well the Co-Products are managed and exploited. That’s what can make the oil viable…Contamination is not a problem if you periodically apply ultrasound to kill all the algae in an open or covered pond, and then re-seed the pond with the desired strain. Use a small Photo Bio-Reactor (PBR) to reseed the ponds. Contamination is not a problem with the closed apparatus a closed PBR, and if it is, use ultrasound and re-seed. The contamination issue is over-blown, and mainly applies to open ponds. If contamination was that big of a problem, then how do you explain the multi-billion dollar spirulina and chlorella nutritional algae industry – all grown in vast open ponds in Hawaii, Central America, and Japan?...Getting enough sunlight: First of all, where are you growing the algae? Are you growing it in Seattle where it’s cloudy and rainy half the time, or are you growing it in Arizona where there is mostly full sunlight? Are you trying to grow it on the North Pole, or are you growing it on the Equator? Furthermore, algae can thrive on 10% of what light it normally gets in full direct sunlight. Shallow open ponds have the advantage to capture much more direct sunlight than closed PBR’s that will tend to reflect a good percentage of light…Some researchers are piping light from rooftops down to the basement, where the algae is grown underground. Then that light can be distributed to an area that is 10 times larger than the surface area of light being collected on the roof. In this example, no additional land is used to grow algae. It can be grown on rooftops in the city, using recycled gray-water…The problem that GreenFuels had in their PBR at Arizona’s Apache Power Plant was because the algae were growing too fast, got too thick, blocked-out the light inside the plastic tubes, and sufficated. You don’t have that problem with growing algae in open ponds. When the algae gets thick on top, you skim it off and let the layer of algae underneath reproduce and so on. If some of the algae dies-off and sinks to the bottom, you have a way of removing it, and you process it as feedstock. GreenFuel’s AZ reactor was not designed to thin and harvest the algae fast enough. Petrosun apparently has developed a more advanced system, and they have chosen Arizona and Mexico – sunny climates where there is a potential to produce 100 to 200 tons of biomass per acre per year. That is significant, especially since General Motors recently announced their acquisition of a company that can produce cellulosic ethanol for $1 a gallon. 150 tons of gasified algae biomass equals 15,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol. Even if you only get 100 tons of biomass per acre per year (for example) at 20% lipids, 50% starch, and 30% protein – That’s 5,000 gallons of biodiesel…Plus 11,000 gallons of ethanol (distilled)…Plus 30 tons of animal protein feed or methane digester feedstock. Especially when you integrate algae production with a source of onsite manure, and a methane gas digester, and you recycle the CO2 and the liquid manure effluent back to the algae – This is how you make algae viable and extremely profitable.
Posted by: JoSmith | January 18, 2008 at 06:16 PM
how do you explain the multi-billion dollar spirulina and chlorella nutritional algae industry
The way that was explained to me is that people who buy algae for nutrition are willing to pay a high price for them; higher prices than people want to pay for fuel. The nutrition industry also doesn't care about EROEI so it's fine for them if it takes more energy to make and process the algae than is in the algae.
But I'm all for this new algae biodiesel refinery. It should show whether they can make this viable and profitable or not.
Posted by: Clee | January 19, 2008 at 04:14 AM
how do you explain the multi-billion dollar spirulina and chlorella nutritional algae industry
Lets have some fun with math...
Algae @ 25% oil x 7lbs oil/ fuel gallon = 28lbs of algae/gallon. $3/gallon / 28lbs/gallon = $.107/lb.
Spirulina... http://www.greensuperfood.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=SG060C&CartID=
60pills x .5grams =30grams/28grams/oz = 1.07 oz/60pills / $12.99/60pills = $12.14/oz x 16oz/lb = $194.24/lb x 7lbs/gallon = $1360/gallon.
Just a few more $/lb...
Coal = .02
Forest waste = .04
Switchgrass = .04
Corn @ 4/bu = .07
Posted by: brian hans | January 19, 2008 at 10:42 AM
“If CONTAMINATION was that big of a problem, then how do you explain the multi-billion dollar spirulina and chlorella nutritional algae industry – all grown in vast OPEN PONDS in Hawaii, Central America, and Japan?”
Both of you took this out of context. The issue was contamination in open ponds – not cost comparison between growing algae for fuel and growing nutritional algae for human consumption. I have been buying and taking spirulina and chlorella for years, and I know how expensive it is. My point was that algae is currently being grown in open ponds on a massive scale, apparently without a contamination problem...Brian Hans – you are leaving out the value of the remaining 75% algae byproduct – the starch and protein – 50% would go to ethanol, and 25% would either go to methane or be made into other value added products. You are also assuming - without data - that the cost of feedstock algae is $3 gallon. What if the actual cost is a dollar a gallon or 50 cents a gallon? The figures you gave on coal, forest waste, switchgrass, and corn are also subject to scrutiny. Corn is now higher than $4 a bushel. You are also missing my point. If there is a source of CO2 and manure effluent, that would otherwise be released into the environment or cost money to dispose of, those are turned into food for the algae. No fertilizer, no diesel fuel, no prime farmland needed. Otherwise, that CO2 and methane would be released into the atmosphere…You are also trying to compare a pound of algae oil with a pound of corn which is mostly starch. They do not compare. Neither do the others. They all have advantages and disadvantages. Algae is versatile. Try using coal to get rid of CO2 and manure effluent. Try using switchgrass for making biodiesel. Try using forestry waste for making livestock feed. Corn contains less than 5% oil feedstock for biodiesel. Switchgrass less. And forest waste and coal are entirely different animals. You’re not comparing apples to apples. You are also trying to compare the wholesale cost of bulk feedstock algae on the farm, with the retain price of nutritional algae in the store. That’s not a valid comparison.
Posted by: JoSmith | January 19, 2008 at 01:04 PM
I wish to thank JoSmith for his post. It makes the best case I have seen for micro algae in a combined operation. To point out the feasibility of the approach, I saw a post recently that one of the major oil companies is building a pilot plant. The results are not in, but I believe the area needs to continue to be supported.
Posted by: Ken Potter | January 19, 2008 at 04:38 PM
Here's an Old Dominion University VA pilot plant producing 70,000 gallons of biodiesel, from algae grown on the roof of a sewage disposal plant. No land used period. 'Good example of integrating sewage effluent into growing algae and making biodiesel - by Scientists and University Professors: http://www.odu.edu/oduhome/news/spotlight111.shtml
Posted by: Ty Cambell | January 21, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Contamination. Well, I still think it has to do with price. Because the biodiesel companies want the lowest price possible, that means they want the algae with the highest oil content possible (>50% oil), which rules out spirulina and chlorella nutritional algae (9-18% oil), as well as other wild local strains. So they paint themselves into a corner where contamination can become a problem. Maybe you're right and they should look into a combined operation that uses the proteins and carbohydrates as well. How much cost does ultrasound add?
Posted by: Clee | January 21, 2008 at 06:42 PM
Origin Oil: Grows algae and extracts oil using Ultrasound. They use ultrasound in two ways – to break-up nutrients into highly absorbable microscopic sized particles to promote algae growth, and, after the algae is harvested, to burst the cell walls, exposing the oil for extraction. They say ultrasound treatment of algae is fast and energy efficient: “…the amount of energy used to crack the algae is many times less than other extraction technologies.” (Origin Oil website)…Ultrasound is also used to: (1) kill unwanted algae over-running private ponds; (2) purify water, by disintegrating bacteria, virus, contaminating compounds, and undesirable impurities; (3) pre-treat fermenting corn mash - increasing the surface area of the starch and increasing ethanol production; (4) split water into hydrogen and oxygen. (search sonochemistry, ultrasonic extraction, and ultrasound devices) I think it's a quick process that uses a burst of energy for only a few seconds.
Posted by: JoSmith | January 21, 2008 at 09:06 PM
I found the following ultrasonic extraction info at a different company's website:
Flow Rate Power
20 - 100L/hr 1kW
80 - 400L/hr 4x1kW
0.3 - 1.5m³/hr 4x4kW
2 - 10m³/hr 6x16kW
20 - 100m³/hr 62x16kW
I'm not sure if this info is applicable to Origin Oil's process, but it might give a ballpark idea of the power requirements.
http://www.hielscher.com/ultrasonics/algae_extraction_01.htm
Posted by: averagejoe | January 22, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Just looked at the table I posted. On second thought, the format of the table might look a little weird. Rather than just being an eccentric form of scientific notation, I think the company was referring to the number of ultrasonic transducers of a given power level needed for a given flo rate. Example: 6 * 16kW would be six transducers each rated at 16kW. The actual nameplate data for each transducer can be found at the website by clicking on the right side of the table. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by: averagejoe | January 22, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Solazyme says they are actually producing "thousands of gallons of algae oil. They also have a signed "feedstock development and testing agreement" with Chevron...and another agreement to supply Imperium Renewables.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/solazyme-introd.html#more
Posted by: Ty Cambell | January 22, 2008 at 07:15 PM
Solazyme announces "thousands of gallons"? That's disappointingly vague. If it's thousands of gallons a day, that would be a decent sized pilot plant. If it's thousands of gallons a year, that's more like a laboratory experiment.
Posted by: Clee | January 22, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Maybe the recently mentioned BTL process:
syngas -> methanol -> gasoline
could be applied to algae as well? Oil content would be a smaller issue then.
Are algae a good candidate for thermal gasification into synthesis gas?
Posted by: Cyril R. | January 23, 2008 at 09:54 AM
to Cyril R. and others:
Algae comes in 10,000 different chemical compositions, ranging from 96% starch to 50% oil, to 60% protein. You basically choose which strain is best suited for what you want to accomplish. Biomass is the future – It’s not universally oil anymore. With all the new processes we are hearing about, you will be able to make whatever fuels you want out of biomass. At 100 to 200 tons per acre per year, ALGAE is the King of Biomass. At this point in time, from my perspective, the pecking order looks something like this: (1) Algae (2) Cattails (3) Fast Growing Trees (4) Super Sorghum (5) Miscanthus (6) Jerusalem Artichoke (7) Sugarcane (8) Sugar Beets (9) Switchgrass (10) Cassava (11) Corn - Shuffle them around if you like. Also, biomass waste and residue is somewhere in the mix, depending on what it is and where it is. Use what you have available. Or put it in a methane digester, and then grow what you really want (such as algae) on the effluent and the CO2. There are also many other good feedstocks. Use what works best in your climate and your local conditions. Based on integration and new developments in the field, the order of these players is subject to change.
Posted by: JoSmith | January 24, 2008 at 12:32 PM
This is just the beginning. According to a Solarzyme’s press release: “We can easily make thousands of gallons (of algal biodiesel) a month,” says Chief Operating Officer Jonathan S. Wolfson.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2007/gb20071121_358781.htm
These are most of the major R & D players working on Algae:
GS CleanTech (Green Shift); Chevron; LiveFuels - a national alliance of labs and scientists (John Sheehan VP) ; Algae BioFuels - PetroSun Inc. – AL-G-BAMA; Green Star Products, Inc.; Solix Biofuels; AlgoDyne Ethanol Energy Inc; AlgaeLink; Xenerga, Inc.; Vertigrow - Global Green Solutions Inc.; Aquaflow Bionomic; OriginOil; Abengoa; Diversified Energy – XL Renewables; International Energy; BioFence; General Atomics; W2 Energy; Green Fuels; Subitec GmbH; Shell – Cellana - HR Biopetroleum; Nanoforce - Energy Farms; Bio Fuel Systems; Community Fuels; Valcent; A2BE Carbon Capture LLC; PetroAlgae; Texas Clean Fuels; Oil Fox PetroAlgae; Algoil; Infinifuel Biodiesel; BioKing; Solazyme; Linc Energy – JV – BioCleanCoal; Menova Energy; Imperium Renewables; Grow Diesel; Honeywell - UOP LLC - Cargill; Boeing; General Electric and more….
Colleges and Universities Researching Algae:
University of North Dakota; University of Minnesota; Arizona State University; New Mexico State University; James Madison University
University of New Hampshire; Colorado State University; The International Research Consortium on Continental Margins at the International University Bremen; Ohio University - Consortium for Energy, Economics, and the Environment (CE3); University of Hawaii - Hawaii Natural Energy Institute; Eduardo Mondlane University – South Africa; Utah State University – Integrated with Biogas Digester Effluent
University of Washington – Integrated with Biogas Digester Effluent
Auburn University – Alabama; University of Alicante – Spain
Old Dominion University VA, and more…
Other entities pursuing algae:
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Pentagon, in association with Honeywell's UOP, General Electric Inc. and the University of North Dakota; the U.S. Air Force; the Federal Aviation Administration; and NASA; Sandia National Laboratories; National Renewable Energy Labs, and more…
Algae is going to be BIG
Posted by: Ty Cambell | January 24, 2008 at 01:39 PM
very cool!
Posted by: remi | January 24, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Let me explain the life cycle of working with biomass to energy. Get excited, get educated, get realistic, get depressed. It would appear that JoSmith and Ty have not reached the end stage yet.
It is not the number of organizations working in biomass, it is number that succeed. For every technology I have studied, I have found success stories. However, the failure rate is huge. While some of the root causes of failure may be technical; most are not.
The biggest problems are the scam artist and environmental activist.
Posted by: Kit P | January 25, 2008 at 10:09 AM
We don’t need all of these companies to succeed. All we need is one to produce and harvest algae cost effectively. And then we will take that one viable method and improve on it. Progress is based on diversified trial and error. That costs money. The more players, the higher the chances that one will succeed. This is like any other technology. Look at the history of the automobile and all the vehicles that failed or fell to the wayside for a better one. That didn’t stop us from investing in the automobile industry. The above listed Companies, Universities, and Entities are doing R&D on Algae not biomass. They’re on a quest for oil. JoSmith says it should be biomass. Maybe so. It can also be both oil and biomass.
Posted by: Ty Cambell | January 25, 2008 at 12:35 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
National Algae Association
4747 Research Forest Dr., Suite 180
The Woodlands, Texas 77381
[email protected]
National Algae Association, The Woodlands, Texas
(February 1, 2008)
Announces the opening of its new headquarters serving all areas of the Algae industry.
Algae researchers and producers can come together to exchange ideas concerning the latest developments in Algae production and the products made from Algae. The Association provides an open exchange forum for the publishing of technical papers and the announcement of the results of research into the latest Algae related technologies. The Association also supports discussion and development of new markets that take advantage of the tremendous potential of Algae, not only as a source of renewable energy, but also in the exploration and development of other markets for algae products, such as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and fertilizers.
For more information contact: [email protected] or 936.321.1125
Posted by: bcohen | January 28, 2008 at 08:00 PM
If an optimal type of algae is found and used in biodiesel production. Any thoughts on whether dry algal residue can be used as animal feed?
Posted by: bryan | March 23, 2008 at 02:57 AM
Why Algae?
In Malaysia, palm oil is used to make biodiesel and this is becoming more infeasible economiccally now with the price of palm oil at RM$3500.
Posted by: Ibb | April 12, 2008 at 02:48 AM
Cool,Can somebody guide with intricacies of the production of Algae ? I would really appreciate.
Posted by: s. pandya | April 12, 2008 at 10:26 AM
bryan,
Palm oil is bad because they are having to destroy the rain forests to develop it.
http://www.mongabay.com/external/foe_palm_oil.htm
-gs
Posted by: gs | July 04, 2008 at 09:49 PM
It will be interesting to see how algal production in high labor cost USA compares with biodiesel produced in Brazil (lower labor cost).
Mike
Posted by: Mike Cusack | August 14, 2008 at 03:49 AM
Shallow open ponds have the advantage to capture much more direct sunlight than closed PBR’s that will tend to reflect a good percentage of light..............
Posted by: Process Management Consulting | January 19, 2010 at 11:48 PM
Interesting… I might try some of this on my blog, too. It’s quite interesting how you sometimes stop being innovative and just go for an accepted solution without actually trying to improve it… you make a couple of good points.
Venture Capital business plan
Posted by: brett | January 22, 2010 at 01:08 PM
great post man i think its great ...
Posted by: Drilling Chemicals | August 09, 2010 at 10:11 AM
So Nice that Ive found this Blog! I am from the Netherlands and I have to write a paper on algae based biofuels for my study. I am looking for suitable locations to commercialize large scale biomass production and biorefinery. You need a excess source of CO2, so these plants must be located near an industrial complex or power plant. Also I think the location should be near the sea for water intake. Im mainly focussing on the production of biodiesel from algae. Can you guys point out some interesting locations for me in the USA?
Posted by: Trias Energetica | May 08, 2011 at 03:22 AM
Sincere regards oneself the great person to work, often really may become the important matter. The low key personhood, the high-sounding talk works.
Posted by: black jacket | August 02, 2011 at 04:24 AM
The issue was contamination in open ponds – not cost comparison between growing algae for fuel and growing nutritional algae for human consumption. I have been buying and taking spirulina and chlorella for years, and I know how expensive it is.
Posted by: r4 card | October 13, 2011 at 09:56 AM
It remains to be seen whether such a venture could be really viable economically.I wish some information on a pilot project, if any , was made available.
Posted by: r4 card | October 15, 2011 at 11:52 AM
Phycotech’s mission is to provide its customers with leading edge photo bioreactor technology.
By providing cost effective technology for the production of high quality algal biomass we hope to contribute the continued growth of an algal industry that will play a key role in a more sustainable world.
Posted by: photobioreactor | November 09, 2011 at 01:19 PM
Do you think the plant in Mexico is a good idea?
Posted by: SEO Services | December 02, 2011 at 07:44 PM
Not sure how I feel about this algae, some of the reports you find seem really good, but as you pointed out there's still a lot to be figured out.
Posted by: Air Purifier | December 02, 2011 at 08:03 PM
Wow! Really interesting article. Thanks so much.
Posted by: Website Design South Africa | December 04, 2011 at 05:36 PM
It's frustrating to hear that they are encountering problems with strain contamination at these plants.
Posted by: Chinese Auto Lease Broker Los Angeles | December 05, 2011 at 06:03 PM
There are a lot of these algae plants around now, aren't there?
Posted by: Dentist west hollywood | December 06, 2011 at 01:34 PM
Is 30 million gallons a lot? It doesn't seem like that much.
Posted by: parking sensor system | December 06, 2011 at 01:36 PM
What does PetroSun do? It's an oil company, right?
Posted by: acting classes los angeles | December 23, 2011 at 02:00 PM
Nobody is going hungry because American farmers are producing corn to supply 10% of the gasoline/ethanol mix.
Posted by: wedding reception las vegas | January 04, 2012 at 05:56 AM
Progress is based on diversified trial and error. That costs money. The more players, the higher the chances that one will succeed. This is like any other technology. Look at the history of the automobile and all the vehicles that failed or fell to the wayside for a better one.
Posted by: Las Vegas Receptions | January 06, 2012 at 01:40 AM
It remains to be seen whether such a venture could be really viable economically.
Posted by: wedding flowers las vegas | January 06, 2012 at 05:16 AM
I am looking for suitable locations to commercialize large scale biomass production and biorefinery. You need a excess source of CO2, so these plants must be located near an industrial complex or power plant.
Posted by: Oven Cleaning Sydney | January 06, 2012 at 06:12 AM
Then that light can be distributed to an area that is 10 times larger than the surface area of light being collected on the roof. In this example, no additional land is used to grow algae.
Posted by: carpet cleaning coogee | January 17, 2012 at 01:08 AM
To point out the feasibility of the approach, I saw a post recently that one of the major oil companies is building a pilot plant. The results are not in, but I believe the area needs to continue to be supported.
Posted by: Construction Safety Coordination | January 19, 2012 at 04:00 AM
It will be interesting to see how algal production in high labor cost USA compares with biodiesel produced in Brazil (lower labor cost).
Posted by: Inspection of Work | January 20, 2012 at 03:27 AM