Valcent looks to have the best process for producing oil from algae and predicts a $1.70/gal. cost or $71 a barrel plus refining costs. About a year ago The American Association for the Advancement of Science said the Fischer-Tropsch process was competitive when oil was $65/barrel so the cost of production of liquid fuel is likely below that of algae oil bio-fuel. And Sasol has operated profitably for some time even before high crude prices.
True, the process is more complicated than squeezing algae but we do have a supply of coal on hand for hundreds of years and a process with a proven track record.
Sewage, as in human wastes, might be in short supply around feed lots but the cities have a constant supply and plenty of volume. Probably cheap if anyone wants it.
If low CO2 production is only advantage to algae oil then there is no advantage as CO2 is a fine fertilizer for our crops and forests. And the plants that became coal took lots of CO2 from the atmosphere so turning coal into fuel is just returning CO2 from whence it came. More CO2, more plants for food for animals and humans, greener earth, all good.
If you think algae oil is the coming thing PetroSun’s stock just shot up to $.15 from $.14/share. And Valcent’s stock is a whopping $.50/share. Do you suppose there's a reason investor aren't snapping up these bargains?
"Valcent looks to have the best process for producing oil from algae and predicts a $1.70/gal. cost or $71 a barrel plus refining costs. About a year ago The American Association for the Advancement of Science said the Fischer-Tropsch process was competitive when oil was $65/barrel so the cost of production of liquid fuel is likely below that of algae oil bio-fuel. And Sasol has operated profitably for some time even before high crude prices." Given that the Valcent process is completely experimental, I suspect that the error bars on the estimate are far larger than for "coal-to-fuel".
"True, the process is more complicated than squeezing algae but we do have a supply of coal on hand for hundreds of years and a process with a proven track record."
I'm not opposed to coal-to-fuel, by any means. I favor ANYTHING that increase the energy supply. But eventually we "will" run out of coal. If we run out of sunlight, we've got a bigger problem.
"Sewage, as in human wastes, might be in short supply around feed lots but the cities have a constant supply and plenty of volume. Probably cheap if anyone wants it."
Sorry, but here I AM skeptical. Exactly how much methane production can be gotten from, say, Pittsburg??? I frankly doubt that it is enough to matter.
"If low CO2 production is only advantage to algae oil then there is no advantage as CO2 is a fine fertilizer for our crops and forests. And the plants that became coal took lots of CO2 from the atmosphere so turning coal into fuel is just returning CO2 from whence it came. More CO2, more plants for food for animals and humans, greener earth, all good."
You asked for an advantage, and I gave it. The people pushing the "global warming agenda" don't buy any of the above. I happen not to be one of those.
"If you think algae oil is the coming thing PetroSun’s stock just shot up to $.15 from $.14/share. And Valcent’s stock is a whopping $.50/share. Do you suppose there's a reason investor aren't snapping up these bargains?"
See my first point about the overall uncertainty about costs and profits.