Hi Devon, Bobby,

Good to see this group underway. Thanks for the initiative by Devon. To kick of this group I thought that I would use the blog here to aggregate information that comes in from various networks. Here is one such very good article that is very current and requires some discussion. Discussion here at the Oil From Algae Wiki will be, I hope, more organized and useful than the huge flow of discussion on Blogs. We can estabish topic specific pages here for our discussion and I think that we are looking for a meeting of minds as an outcome - something that is rare in forums and Blog World. So, here is the article written by one of the most knowledgable algae people on the planet. It is quite cautionary.

This was copied from the Energy Resources Yahoo List:

Thanks to Keith Addison on the biofuel list.

Doug Woodard St. Catharines , Ontario

Keith Addison writes:

John Benemann was co-author of the book that sparked all the interest in biodiesel from algae: "A Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy's Aquatic Species Program-Biodiesel from Algae", by John Sheehan, Terri Dunahay, John Benemann, Paul Roessler, July 1998,National Renewable Energy Laboratory , U.S. Department of Energy. 328 p, 3.5Mb:


See also:

Krassen Dimitrov http://www.nanostring.net/Algae/CaseStudy.pdf


The Oil Drum | The Man Who Wrote the Book on Algal Biodiesel

May 17, 2007

by John Benemann

I saw with some interest the guest post on "Has the Algae Cavalry Arrived" posted by Heading Out and written by fireangel about the claims being made by Green Fuel? Technologies (GFT) Corporation. I have some standing in this matter, both as Manager of the International Network on Biofixation of Carbon Dioxide and Greenhouse Gas Abatement with Microalgae (operated by the Int. Energy Agency, Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme) and also as a researcher in this field for over 30 year. My comments here are my own, of course, and don't necessarily reflect those of the Gh G? R&D Programme or others involved in the Biofixation Network. In brief:

1. The post by fireangel, based on the analysis by Dr. Krassen Dimitrov's, is generally correct, although some details regarding algae physiology and mass culture are arguable. However, those would not change the general conclusions of this posting. Well done!

2. The claims for biodiesel production rates being made by GFT, among many others in this field, exceed anything based on biological or physical theory, as also pointed out in this posting. They are truly bizarre.

3. The use of closed photobioreactors (>$100+/m2) for such applications is totally absurd.

4. I am on the record as stating that this is "It's bizarre; it's totally absurd." (see below article from the American Scientist last year, which quotes me to that effect. This was a correct quote, and in context).

5. Open ponds, at <$10/m2 can be as productive as closed photobioreactors. The arguments that closed systems are better than open ponds are incorrect - they both have their particular applications and benefits/drawbacks. It all depends on the situation and applications. The main difference is that open ponds are much cheaper.

6. Open ponds may plausibly be considered for algae biofuels production, but this assumes that indeed the required R&D is successful, a very BIG IF (but that is true of all R&D). But it is worthwhile trying, as we must try all plausible options. But we must also reject those that, as pointed out in this posting, violate first principles and have other major up-front failings.

7. I was the Principal Investigator and main author of the U.S. DOE Aquatic Species Program (ASP) Close-Out Report [RR: You can download this 328 page PDF, which I have actually read, here], and thus am rather familiar with it. The report was published by NREL with their own introduction that paints a perhaps somewhat too-positive picture in light of the actual data and results. Thus it should be used with some caution. This report was meant to just summarize the work done by the ASP, which spent about $100 million, (in today's dollars) over about a decade and a half.

8. Microalgae biofuels generally, and algae biodiesel productionspecifically, is still a long-term R&D goal (likely about 10 years), that will require at least as much funding as the ASP, if not more, and success is, as for any R&D effort, rather uncertain.

9. Some near term applications can be considered, in wastewater treatment specifically (but, wait, do not rush to your nearest algae wastewater treatment ponds - there are thousands of these around, but they are mostly very small and their algae have little or no oil, at least the way that we operate those systems at present. Making oil from algae grown on wastewaters also still requires significant R&D).

10. There are now scores of venture-financed companies, university research groups, government labs, garage start-ups, GFT licensees, web sites, and on and on claiming that they have, can, may and/or will produce algae biodiesel, at low cost, high productivity, soon, etc. None are based on data, experience, reality or even a correct reading of the literature.

11. I am not aware of any work in this field done by Prof. Briggs at U. New Hampshire , outside from an old website that quotes the Aquatic Species Program Close Out Report. There is no basis for the projections he makes for very high biodiesel production rates.

12. Even if R&D proves successful and we can actually produce algae biofuels (maybe even biodiesel) economically (whatever the economics may be a decade or so from now), even then, I am sorry to say that due to resource (land, water, etc.) limitations, algae will not replace all our (or their) oil wells, cannot solve our entire global warming problem, or make me rich quick, at least not honestly. But maybe this technology could be developed in the next few years so that in the future it can make a contribution to our energy supplies, our environment and human welfare.

We will in the future need all such technologies and must in the present study and develop all those that appear at least on their face plausible. But we also must reject those, as in the present case, that are based on absurd claims (such as in this case of productivity) and bizarre contraptions (e.g. closed photobioreactors) .

There are no silver bullets, no winner-take- all technologies, no technological fixes, the solution to our energy and environment crisis can only come from, in order, 'demand' management, efficiency improvements, and new energy supplies, to which, maybe, algae processes can contribute.

I hope that this posting helps persuade GFT, and all others in this "business", to CEASE AND DESIST from the absurd and totally bizarre claims they are making. PLEASE!!


John R. Benemann, Ph.D. jbenemann@.. .

American Scientist Article Excerpt

The full article is:

Grow Your Own?


The excerpt to which Dr. Benemann referred:

The people now working on these and several similar commercial ventures are clearly eager to make growing algae a going business in this country. Yet it's not hard to find experts who view such prospects as dim indeed. John R. Benemann, a private consultant in Walnut Creek, California , manages the International Network on Biofixation of CO 2? and Greenhouse Gas Abatement with Microalgae for the International Energy Agency. He helped author the final report of the Aquatic Species Program and has decades of experience in this field.

"Growing algae is cheap," he says, but "certainly not as cheap as growing palm oil." And he is particularly skeptical about attempts to make algal production more economical by using enclosed bioreactors (rather than open ponds, as were used for the Aquatic Species Program). He points out that Japan spent hundreds of millions of dollars on such research, which never went anywhere. Asked to comment about why there is so much effort in that direction now, he responds, "It's bizarre; it's totally absurd."

Biofuel mailing list


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:


Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):


Tom Wayburn, Houston , Texas