










...skeptics say the company may have trouble efficiently collecting the fuel they produce, and also must demonstrate their technology on a broad scale...



• First, our microorganism does not fit the scientific definition of algae. Algae are defined as eukaryotic photosynthetic microorganisms, whereas Joule's engineered microorganisms are prokaryotic due to their lack of intracellular organelles, chloroplasts, nucleus and their use of prokaryotic ribosomes.
• Second, our process differs significantly from algal fuel processes. Algal fuels are produced indirectly, beginning with the growth of algal biomass and subsequent harvesting, dewatering and extraction of oil, which is then chemically processed or refined into a fuel product. By contrast, Joule's microorganisms are engineered as "catalysts" to directly produce and secrete fuels in a continuous, single-step process.
• Third, our product differs from the product that is derived from algae. Algae make triglycerides, which are chemicals found in plant oils and animal fats. These are subsequently chemically converted to biodiesel (a fatty acyl ester). By contrast, Joule's microorganisms are engineered to directly produce liquid hydrocarbons. We have engineered microorganisms to produce ethanol and value-added chemicals as well.



Gordo wrote:1. They are not using algae.
2. They do not produce bio-diesel
3. They do not need CO2 feed stock, they capture the CO2 from the atmosphere





Gordo wrote:There are many contradictions in the material presented.
"Our analysis of the algal process closely follows the assumptions of Weyer et al. (2009) with the exception that we use the more common open-pond scenario. Note that we also make a clear distinction between biodiesel esters derived from algal biomass and fungible alkane diesel synthesized directly. "
They go on to describe capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. I wonder how they contain the high concentrations of industrial CO2 in an "open pond"?



TylerDurden wrote:Gordo wrote:There are many contradictions in the material presented.
"Our analysis of the algal process closely follows the assumptions of Weyer et al. (2009) with the exception that we use the more common open-pond scenario. Note that we also make a clear distinction between biodiesel esters derived from algal biomass and fungible alkane diesel synthesized directly. "
They go on to describe capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. I wonder how they contain the high concentrations of industrial CO2 in an "open pond"?
Methinks they use the open-pond scenario in their analysis of the algal process... to provide a lower baseline to compare their bioreactor results to.
"The potential of algae as a biofuels feedstock was investigated extensively by the Aquatic Species Program of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), focusing specifically on open-pond production designs [31]. That program concluded that large-scale algal production could be an economically competitive source of renewable energy. Recent years have seen the emergence of new enclosed photobioreactor designs, which are expected to improve yields over the open-pond design by protecting productive strains from contamination and using higher surface-area-to-volume ratios to optimize light utilization"
Weyer et al. (2009)





They had inadequate provision for evaporation of venture capital. Gotta pay the bills...vanilla ice wrote:What happened, why did they go towards growing zoo food instead? Process too expensive?







Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests