| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Bonds Approved for integrated Bio-diesel Plant |
| 2008-08-05 |
| Green Star Products, Inc. (OTC:GSPI) today announced that EcoAlgae USA, LLC, has received a signed resolution from Saline County Missouri commissioners [a commitment for $141 M in Industrial Revenue Bonds with dispersement based (I think) on performance] to construct a commercial Algae Production Facility in conjunction with an Integrated Biorefinery Complex.... Besides algae feedstock, other feedstocks to produce these valuable products come from non-food sources and are comprised of waste wood products, organic municipal waste, switchgrass, and other waste agricultural products such as corncobs. The four main technologies required for this facility are: 1. Algae Production... 2. Cellulosic Ethanol...3. Biogas.. 4. Algae Research & Engineering... ---------- They don't give a start date for construction or any quantitative estimate of either input or output. |
| Posted by:mhw |
| #9 I knew somebody would find a use for Barry after the Giants cut him...what's that?....ohhhhh nevermind /Emily Littella |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-08-05 19:55 |
| #8 I once had some links showing a great deal of algae-to-oil scams that have been run over the past decade; I don't have them anymore, and googling no longer turns up the relevant articles. Of the recent alternative energy ventures, I think they probably deserve the most suspicious scrutiny. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-08-05 15:57 |
| #7 The question is whether the process is in itself fuel efficient. There's no net benefit if it takes more power to produce the algae biofuel than you get in return. That depends. If we have a cheap source of energy (e.g. nuclear electricity) to supply the "manufacturing" process then this does become viable. Since the nuclear would be locked into the grid this would be a renewable mobile power souce, such as one would want for cars, ships, trains, and other vehicles. |
| Posted by: DLR 2008-08-05 12:55 |
| #6 Passive biogas creation will work, but they better pray that active biogas production doesn't come online soon rendering them moot. That is where the money should go. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2008-08-05 12:49 |
| #5 Maharishi University in Iowa is also researching the algae with much less kicked in by the ethanol-producing state: “It turns out that the bodies of algae are about 50 percent oil,” he said. “We can make fuel from them.” It’s possible to refine the oil into biofuel that can then power vehicles. The Maharishi project is working with Valcent, a Texas-based company, to examine the potential for beginning a university bioreactor to produce and refine the algae. Current efforts are on laboratory scale. The university wants to expand that to a quarter-acre greenhouse for the algae as a test site. Researchers believe industrial-scale production will require sites of at least 100 acres. The Iowa Power Fund will give money to the project, though it’s not yet clear how much. The question is whether the process is in itself fuel efficient. There’s no net benefit if it takes more power to produce the algae biofuel than you get in return. The good news is that it doesn’t take much to grow the algae. Some algae farms use gas vented from smokestacks as food for the algae. Assistant professor Jimmy Sinton, who directs the bioreactor project, is not planning to use that process for his algae. Geothermal heat and passive sunlight are enough, particularly on the small scale being planned. Gamble and Sinton say the process is close to carbon neutral. That means it produces as much carbon as a fuel as it removes while it grows. But expanded use of the algae could make it carbon negative. Sinton pointed to algae as a building material as an example of how producers can sequester carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere on a long-term basis. Sinton’s estimates are that setup will cost $300,000 per acre. That number will fall as researchers learn how best to use materials. Sinton put production at 30,000 gallons per acre per year at the trial stage. Full-scale production could produce as much as 600,000 gallons per acre per year. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2008-08-05 11:37 |
| #4 Depends if they are being started by guys that actually had some business experience or not. If the technology is solid and the guys are as well, why not take a calculated risk? The dividends for the area could be huge. However, if this is some politician's pet project... |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-08-05 10:52 |
| #3 Point taken Darth. But how would you feel if you were a Missouri taxpayer about $141M in Industrial Revenue Bonds being used to, in effect, subsidizing what are basically a bunch of start up companies? |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-08-05 10:32 |
| #2 Or should I say, I support technologies that Don't take away farmland and food from the people and drive prices up 75%. Write, drink coffee, clarify. You think I would get it after several years. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-08-05 09:52 |
| #1 Hey, I'm all for investigating other technologies for fuel that don't take our farmland or food out of the equation. I hope they are successful and make tons of money. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-08-05 09:51 |