Category: Press

April 15, 2011

Today, Mary Rosenthal, Executive Director of the Algae Biomass Organization, the trade association for the U.S. algae industry, released the following statement on BioProcess Algae’s opening of Phase II of its Algae’s Grower Harvester^TM bioreactors.

“On behalf of the Algae Biomass Organization, it was an honor and a pleasure to participate in today’s opening of Phase II of BioProcess Algae’s Grower Harvester^TM bioreactors in Shenandoah, Iowa. It was great to have USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack there to see first-hand how algae technologies can complement traditional agriculture and first-generation biofuels technologies. By co-locating algae farms at ethanol plants, we can create two forms of domestic, renewable fuel and anima l feed, while also beneficially re-using CO2 that would otherwise have been released into the atmosphere. It’s an important demonstration of how the opportunities to deploy algae technologies extend far beyond open ponds in the southwestern United States. This is just one of the many algae innovations taking in nearly every state in the country.”

Recipients’ support of algae critical to accelerating industry’s growth and reducing major barriers to commercialization

 

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – April 7, 2011 – The Algae Biomass Organization, the trade association for the U.S. algae industry, presented its first annual Algae Industry Leadership Awards to United States Representative Brian Bilbray (CA), Representative Jay Inslee (WA), Senator Bill Nelson (FL) and Rear Admiral Philip Cullom, Director, Energy and Environmental Readiness Division of the United States Navy. The recipients’ support of algae has been critical to accelerating the industry’s growth, facilitating private investment and reducing major barriers to the commercialization of algae-based biofuels.

“Representative Bilbray, Representative Inslee, Senator Nelson and Rear Admiral Cullom have been steadfast advocates for products derived from algae. Their support has helped raise the awareness of the economic and national security benefits of sustainable, domestic algae-based biofuels. On behalf of our more than 170 members, I thank them for their support,” said Mary Rosenthal, Executive Director of the ABO.

The awards capped two days of outreach and education to policy makers by the ABO and dozens of its members in Washington D.C., including more than 50 one-on-one meetings with members of Congress and their staff, and a policy briefing to Congressional staff and industry stakeholders.

Rep. Bilbray and Rep. Inslee are co-chairs of the House Algae Energy Caucus and have supported policies that would spur private investment in algae-for-energy technologies and speed the commercial deployment of algae-based biofuels. Rep. Bilbray recently introduced a bill, H.R. 1449, that would address one of the major barriers to commercialization: a lack of tax parity for algae-based biofuels. If enacted, the legislation would provide algae fuels crucial tax incentives currently afforded to other advanced biofuel feedstocks. Rep. Inslee is a cosponsor of the bill.

Sen. Nelson has been a leading voice in the Senate for the development and deployment of algae-based biofuels. In 2010, Sen. Nelson introduced legislation seeking to address the lack of parity for algae-based biofuels in the current tax code and in the Renewable Fuels Standard.

Rear Admiral Philip Cullom has been a leader in the U.S. Navy’s pursuit of a “Great Green Fleet” by 2016 and its commitment to the use of renewable fuels, including those derived from algae. In October 2010, the U.S. Navy successfully demonstrated a vessel powered by a 50-50 blend of the Navy’s traditional shipboard fuel and algae-based renewable diesel.

March 8, 2011

Earlier today, Sapphire Energy and Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON) announced a ground-breaking agreement to enter into a multi-year collaboration that will leverage Sapphire’s algae-based research to explore genes that could be applied to agriculture. In support of ABO member Sapphire and on behalf of the U.S. algae industry, ABO Executive Director Mary Rosenthal today released the following statement:

“Sapphire’s collaboration with Monsanto is an important demonstration in synthetic biology development. At its core, it is a proof point that algae are photosynthetic plants.  As we continue to look for sources of energy and food from renewable sources, this collaboration is one more critical step forward in identifying algae as a true agricultural crop.

Moreover, the opportunity to increase yields in food crops with novel approaches from the development of algae-based technology should give pause to the detractors who question the use of renewable resources, such as plants, for energy needs. As this collaboration illustrates, algae technology can fundamentally help address both food and fuel needs.

This announcement serves as a powerful example of the true potential of algae to solve some of the world’s most intractable problems. Innovative collaborations such as this one between Sapphire and Monsanto are precisely why policymakers should – at the very least – give algae-based technology and algae-based fuels parity with other feedstocks.  Given that supportive federal policy is crucial to accelerating commercial production, we hope that Congress will continue to expand its investments in research, development and deployment of algae technology and projects.”

Media Contact:

John Williams, Scoville Public Relations for ABO

206-625-0075 x1, jwilliams@scovillepr.com

Peer Review Committee, Algae Biomass Organization

The following is a review of the RAND Corporation’s January 2011 report,” Alternative Fuels for Military Applications.” The comments were provided by the Algae Biomass Organization’s Peer Review Committee, chaired by Keith Cooksey, Ph.D. and John Benemman, Ph.D..

The main recommendation of the RAND Corporation’s January 2011 report, “Alternative Fuels for Military Applications,” is that that the military should abandon its efforts focused  on utilizing  fuels derived from biomass – including algal biomass – and focus, instead, on alternative fuels derived from Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquids  processes. This report appears to be mostly based on earlier RAND report by the first author (Bartis et al., 2008), which is quoted extensively throughout.

However, based on the literature citations provided by the authors of the report, it is unclear that the authors have any knowledge about algae specifically or advanced biofuels in general. In the report, virtually no biofuels-related research is cited, save for a handful of telephone conversations, some news articles and press releases, a couple of promotional company presentations, and one web site (of “Solarzyme” [sic]).  One notable exception are the papers by Fargione et al., 2008, and Searchinger et al., 2008, in Science, which played a significant role in driving the debate over biofuels and  indirect land use controversy. However, these studies are not related to biofuels production technologies and processes themselves, but rather the possible, but actually rather controversial, environmental impacts of biofuels production.   The only reference in the report specifically addressing algal biomass stems from a review by Wijffles and Barbosa (Science, 2010) focusing on photobioreactors and a “prospectus” for a 2009 Nexant study.  We believe this lack of technical background disqualifies the study from serious consideration.

However, it is accurate to state, as the report’s authors did, that Fischer-Tropsch processes are certainly technically feasible.  Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquids technologies were utilized by Germany in the Second World War and the South African government during apartheid, and may still help Qatar and other nations utilize stranded natural gas otherwise flared.

But it is important to note that these technologies are far from proven at commercial scale under current and near-term economic conditions.  Equally troubling is that greenhouse gas emissions from Fischer-Tropsch processes are approximately three times greater than those from petroleum.  The report’s authors argument that carbon capture from Fischer-Tropsch is inexpensive, and that the carbon captured from these processes can be disposed of easily, rests upon a series of assumptions about feasibility that should be considered tenuous at best. The use of algae to sequester the carbon dioxide followed by co-firing of the biomass produced is still a research topic.

At a more technical level, much is made of coal/biomass combinations for Fischer-Tropsch processes, specifically in a recommended 60/40 ratio.  This is questionable: coal and biomass have very different properties and requirements for Fischer-Tropsch processes (e.g. in the initial gasification), and in required scales of production.  Biomass is a very small-scale technology (<<1% the possible scale of coal Fischer-Tropsch processes), and adding 1.5 times as much coal still will not bring it even to the 1% scale.  This is based on a complete misunderstanding of the requirements and costs of biomass production and procurement, which underlies biofuels conversion.

While the report contains some major simplifications and unchallenged assumptions regarding coal-to-liquids technologies, we do also believe that it is equally simplistic to claim that the military can obtain all to its fuel from microalgae or other biofuels. The military, just as the U.S. Department of Energy, with its different priorities and needs, must explore all plausible alternatives, to the point where they can indeed be rejected as unfeasible, or advanced to further development.  First-generation biofuels, ethanol from corn or oils from soybean, for example, can and have been rejected for military applications.  But beyond that there are still many options – including second generation biofuels derived from algae – that need to be evaluated, researched, advanced and developed.

The report states repeatedly that there are “uncertainties regarding production potential and commercial viability, especially affordability and lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.” We believe that this merely states the obvious: if there were no uncertainties there would be no need for the Department of Defense to undertake its current research, development and procurement efforts.

It is crucial to note that algae-based biofuels are among a broad range of renewable energy technologies that are currently being pursued and developed towards demonstration and deployment at commercial scales.  Nuclear power, electrification of transportation and Fischer-Tropsch technologies are all also far from certain, considering issues such as waste disposal, coal supply and greenhouse gas emissions, let alone the economic and technological issues involved.

Finally, the report’s conclusion that algae-based biofuels are “at least two decades” (p.79) away from having a significant presence in the marketplace must be rejected.  Of course, it is well recognized that any energy technology, including those favored by the authors of the report, will take decades to capture major market shares in the energy and transportation markets.  A major advantage of microalgae, and other microbial processes, is that the generation times are fast, allowing relatively fast (research, development and demonstration) compared this with higher crops, which require a whole season for demonstration of a cultivar, vs. a week for microalgae. We believe that these unique characteristics of algae could enable biofuels derived from algae to enter the marketplace at commercial scale in a significantly shorter time frame than most other technologies under development, assuming continuing R&D investments and achievement of the required techno-economic goals.