Blatant Reality

With this announcement, one has to wonder what Solazyme can’t use their algae to create. First it was biofuels, then in January they announced algal foods, and now they are looking to use their renewable algal oils in soaps and other personal care products.

Here is the press release detailing their latest endeavor:

Solazyme and Unilever Partner to Bring Algal Renewable Oil to Personal Care Products

Consumer product giant taps Solazyme to develop a cost effective alternative

South San Francisco, Calif. – March 10, 2010 – Solazyme, Inc., a renewable oil and bioproducts company, has signed a research and development agreement with Unilever to develop oil derived from algae for use in soaps and other personal care products. The agreement follows the culmination of a yearlong collaboration between Solazyme and Unilever, in which Solazyme’s renewable algal oils were tested successfully in Unilever product formulations.

“Algal oil provides important benefits in personal care applications,” explained Jonathan Wolfson, CEO of Solazyme. “Solazyme’s algal oils can help meet the growing demand for completely renewable, natural and sustainable personal care products. Unilever is an acknowledged world leader in sustainability and we are honored to be working with them to develop this new renewable source of natural oils for their world class consumer products.”

Solazyme and Unilever are working to demonstrate a process to incorporate targeted algal oils into personal care products at a commercially relevant scale. The work will further develop Solazyme’s technology platform, which allows algae to produce oil and biomaterials in standard fermentation facilities quickly, efficiently and at large scale.

Among other sustainability initiatives, Unilever is vigorously exploring various next-generation sources of renewable oil for use in its products. Unilever’s collaboration with Solazyme represents a substantial step in the company’s exploration of algae as a source of renewable oil.

“Unilever is committed to the highest sustainability and environmental practices and is working to drive industry change and set new standards,” said Peter Gallagher, VP of Global Skin R&D, of Unilever. “Exploring sources of alternative natural oils, is one of the most important aspects of our greater sustainable sourcing strategy and working with Solazyme’s algal oils is an excellent fit.”

For more information, please visit www.solazyme.com.

While this might not affect algae biofuels directly, it does highlight the variety of different uses algal oils have. Ultimately, the more uses out there for algae, the higher the chances are that growth systems will be perfected that can grow commercial levels of algae for use in biofuel production at competitive prices.

National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts (NAABB) and the Center for Advanced Biofuels Systems (DOE-EFRC) released a statement yesterday further refuting the recent study by UVA researching concerning algae biofuels.

Here is their statement:

View point of the National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts (NAABB) And the Center for Advanced Biofuels Systems (DOE-EFRC)

March 9, 2010

The recently published article “Environmental Life Cycle Comparison of Algae to Other Bioenergy Feedstocks” by Clarens et al. in the journal of Environmental Science & Technology (2010) provides a number of conclusions that are worth noting, discussing further, and in many cases refuting due to the choice of data inputs. The important conclusion this paper makes is for the need to design algal systems that capture waste streams for CO2 and nutrients in order to create sustainable algal production systems. These conclusions are consistent with the draft Algal Roadmap (US DOE 2009), and are the guiding principles behind well established research and development investments in algal fuels. In this document we expand on eight other key areas that we feel compelled to discuss further and provide a different point of view than that shared by Clarens et. Al.

Unfortunately, in the Clarens article the negative lifecycle analysis for algal fuel is directly determined by the choice of input values and assumptions–which is to say, the results are a priori determined by the choice of assumptions. The choice of metrics, inputs for production, limits of the analysis, and system design features bias the results against algae relative to corn, canola, and switchgrass.

Furthermore, the stochastic model is a useful way to derive confidence intervals around estimates, but is valid only so far that the underlying distributions are understood and the [min, max, likeliest] are well documented. The choice of the boundary points on the distribution will affect the calculation of the confidence intervals, and if those boundary points from which that distribution is drawn are poorly known (as is the case for algae) then the confidence interval information can lead to greater variability in the mean estimate than is justified by the available data.

There are number of specific areas worth noting and refuting for this article:

Geographic Areas for Production: Clarens et al. determined viability of geographic production areas as delimited by precipitation and water evaporation rates. This effectively eliminates many locales that have natural resource endowments useful for large scale algal cultivation. In this article other critical resources necessary for algal production are ignored, e.g., large expanses of under-utilized flat land; sufficient solar insolation; sufficient average temperatures; large quantities of saline water; sufficient sources of effluent from industrial, municipal, and animal production; and sources of waste CO2 streams from coal-fired power plants or other industrial activities.

By utilizing currently cultivated land in their model, the authors note that large indirect negative effects will be created which further drive the sustainability of algae below that of other terrestrial crops. One of the key benefits of algae as a fuel source is the ability to use water and land that is not used for other economic purposes (draft DOE Algal Roadmap, pp. 5-6).

CO2 Management: The choice of CO2 and production technology significantly affects the results and will determine the ultimate environmental and economic sustainability of an algal fuel industry. The Clarens et al. result that using steam reformed CO2 for algae production is not environmentally or economically viable has been well known for years and the recommendation from researchers has been to use waste streams of CO2 for algal production (Brown et al. 1994; Sheehan et al. 1998; Draft DOE Algal Roadmap 2009).

Fossil Fuel Based Fertilizers: It is important to note that Clarens et al. (2010) conclude that the energy and GHG profile of algae changes substantially when municipal waste sources are utilized. This conclusion has been reached by many researchers in algae, and was a prominent feature of the ABO summit in October 2009, with multiple presentations on the topic.

Recycling: An important element of second generation algal production systems currently being developed is the re-use and recycling of many of the nutrients required to produce algae. There is significant effort underway to design “closed loop” systems that minimize discharges to the environment and minimize energy and nutrient inputs.

Use of Waste Waters: The community has accepted the use of municipal waste waters as a possible source of water and nutrients (see ABO conference presentations). Other sources of water that are being actively investigated for algal production include non-potable saline waters and waste waters from industrial production and oil and gas extraction.

Flocculation and Centrifugation: It is well-known that using centrifugation will result in an algal system that is not economically feasible and unsustainable. This is a key area where excellent innovation and major breakthroughs in technology are currently being achieved showing significant decrease in energy utilization and increase in economic feasibility.

Energy Content of Algae: Clarens et al. use whole algae in their model and assign a value of 24 GJ/Mg. The use of the whole algae for the calculation of Higher Heating Values (HHV), and no breakdown or discussion of the lipid energy content versus the residual biomass, and the use of the residual biomass for additional HHV is a serious issue in the methodology. Further, for corn and canola the authors compute a mass-weighted average HHV, but do not do this for algae.

Energy of Fuel Conversion: Clarens et al. chose to end their model at cultivation and harvesting of the feedstocks, arguing that the upstream impacts associated with algae will swamp whatever benefits it may have in conversion relative to the fermentation of grain into ethanol. Given the choices of first generation technology based data, the negative energy balance outcome is predetermined. This would not be the case if second generation technologies were utilized and downstream fuel conversion effects and energy density of algal fuels in comparison to ethanol will be much more favorable.

Algal investigators are addressing the key barriers highlighted by Clarens et al and these research paths are clearly documented in the draft US DOE Algal Roadmap (2009). We believe that the current generation of algal fuel production system research is addressing the issues of nutrient source, energy inputs, water, and land use that drive the study by Clarens et al. Furthermore, gathering of reliable and acceptable algal production and harvesting data will result in greater confidence in predictive and comparative models such as presented by Clarens et al.

Authored by:

Jose Olivares, Ph.D, Executive Director, The National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts (NAABB), The Donald Plant Science Center; Deputy Division Leader, Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Richard R. Sayre, Ph.D, Scientific Director NAABB; Director Enterprise Rent-A-Car Institute for Renewable Fuels, The Donald Danforth Plant Science Center

Meghan Starbuck, Ph.D, Chief Economist NAABB; Assistant Professor, Economics and International Business at New Mexico State University

About the National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts (NAABB)

The National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts (NAABB) Plant Science Center was recently selected to receive $44 million from the U.S. Department of Energy under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as announced today by Energy Secretary Steven Chu. The consortium will conduct advanced biofuels research to support the development of a clean sustainable transportation sector and will develop technologies and the scientific foundation needed to quickly establish a viable algal biofuels industry that can provide sufficient fuel to dramatically reduce US dependence on imported oil.

Consortium partner organizations include, The Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, University of Arizona, Brooklyn College, Colorado State University, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Research -Texas A&M University System, University of California Los Angeles, University of California San Diego, University of Washington, Washington University in St. Louis, Washington State University, AXI, Catalin, Diversified Energy, Eldorado Biofuels, Genifuel, HR Biopetroleum, Inventure, Kai BioEnergy, Palmer Labs, Solix Biofuels, Targeted Growth, Terrabon, and UOP.

Recently, researchers have discovered that algae can grow much needed proteins used for health treatments better than traditional bacteria methods. Take a look:

The scientists reported in their paper that all of the algal-produced proteins in their study showed biological activity comparable to the same proteins produced by traditional commercial techniques. And because algae cells can be grown cheaply and quickly, doubling in number every 12 hours, they noted that algae could be superior to current biological systems for the production of many human therapeutic proteins.

“Currently, human therapeutic proteins are primarily produced from either bacteria or mammalian cell culture,” they said. “Complex mammalian proteins and monoclonal antibodies are primarily produced by the culture of transgeneic mammalian cells, while simpler proteins are generally produced by E. coli.”

“Due to high capital and media costs, and the inherent complexity of mammalian cell culture, proteins produced by mammalian cell culture are very expensive,” they added. “Bacterial production is generally more economical in terms of media components, but bacteria are often inefficient at producing properly folded complex proteins, requiring a denaturation and renaturation step that adds significant costs to bacterial protein production.”

The scientists said the percentage of human proteins produced in their algal cultures that were properly folded in three dimensions was comparable to the fraction produced by mammalian cell cultures and much better than that produced by bacterial systems. And because algae generate their energy from sunlight and have relatively simple nutrient needs, they said the costs for using them at large scale to commercially produce human proteins should be much lower than for mammalian cell culture, which require expensive fermentation facilities.

Ultimately, if this is found to be feasible, it could be another co-product for algae biofuel, thus helping cut down the cost for growth as well as providing another reason to continue research and funding into this field.

The Department of Energy just announced that it will be investing in
developing the next generation of Nuclear Plants. This announcement
comes after the actions of the Obama Administration to halt the
development of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository without any
alternatives being offered.

Here is the press release:

Department of Energy Announces $40 Million to Develop
the Next Generation Nuclear Plant

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu today announced
selections for the award of approximately $40 million in total to two
teams led by Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse Electric Co. and San
Diego-based General Atomics for conceptual design and planning work
for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The results of this
work will help the Administration determine whether to proceed with
detailed efforts toward construction and demonstration of the NGNP.
If successful, the NGNP Demonstration Project will demonstrate
high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology that will be capable of
producing electricity as well as process heat for industrial
applications and will be configured for low technical and safety risk
with highly reliable operations. Final cost-shared awards are subject
to the negotiation of acceptable terms and conditions.

About 16 percent of the Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions come from
industrial process heat applications. The process heat or steam
generated by the high-temperature nuclear reactors could be used for
highly-efficient electricity co-generation, which has the potential to
help energy-intensive industries, such as petrochemical producers,
reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

“This investment reflects President Obama’s commitment to building the
next generation of nuclear reactors that will create thousands of jobs
and supply the clean energy to power our economy,” said Secretary Chu.
“It’s time for America to recapture the lead in the nuclear energy
industry and lay the foundation for a stronger, cleaner, and more
competitive economic future.”

The NGNP project is being conducted in two phases. Phase 1 comprises
research and development, conceptual design and development of
licensing requirements. The selections announced today will support
the development of conceptual designs, cost and schedule estimates for
demonstration project completion and a business plan for integrating
Phase 2 activities. The Department of Energy will use information from
its independent Federal advisory committee, the Nuclear Energy
Advisory Committee, information and data gathered in Phase 1, and
other factors in determining whether the project should continue to
Phase 2.

Phase 2 would entail detailed design, license review and construction
of a demonstration plant.

The Department will now negotiate the final terms and conditions for
the awards with the intention of completing conceptual designs by
August 31, 2010.

New Zealand based Aquaflow Bionomic announced today that it will have its algae technology used by Honeywell’s UOP at their Hopewell, Virginia manufacturing facility. Here is the press release with the information:

Kiwi clean tech company reports breakthrough in US market

BLENHEIM, NEW ZEALAND: New Zealand-based Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation announced today that it will be working with Honeywell’s UOP on a United States Department of Energy cooperative agreement project to demonstrate technology to capture carbon dioxide and cultivate algae for use in biofuel and energy production.

“It is significant for a New Zealand company to be involved in a complex project like this. It is an indication about the broad application of the Aquaflow technology,” comments Aquaflow director Nick Gerritsen.

Aquaflow will contribute its accumulated knowledge and experience gained from its Blenheim site to grow and assess key characteristics of algae species indigenous to the local James River waterway. The company will work with its US based staff in a series of monitored algae cultivation trials involving CO2 and nutrient waste water from a Honeywell manufacturing site in Hopewell Va.

In its media statement today, UOP announced that it had been awarded a US $1.5 million cooperative agreement from the U.S. Department of Energy.

The funding will be used for the design of a demonstration system that will capture carbon dioxide from exhaust stacks at Honeywell’s manufacturing facility in Hopewell, Virginia. The project, managed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, will realize further environmental benefit because wastewater from the manufacturing facility will be used in the algae cultivation system, allowing the algae to consume nitrogen in the wastewater.

Algal oil can then be extracted from the algae for conversion to biofuels, and the algae residual can be converted to pyrolysis oil, which can be burned to generate renewable electricity.

“This project will demonstrate integrated concepts and technologies that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions while showing the viability of new sources of energy,” said Jennifer Holmgren, vice president and general manager of UOP’s Renewable Energy and Chemicals unit, which develops and licenses process technology for the production of biofuels.

“Integrated approaches such as these are our best hopes for creating economically sustainable renewable energy solutions.”

At the demonstration site, UOP will design cost-effective and efficient equipment to capture CO2 from the exhaust stacks of the Hopewell caprolactam facility and deliver it in a controlled and efficient process to a pond near the plant, where algae will be grown using technology developed by Aquaflow Bionomic Corp as well as automated control systems from Honeywell Process Solutions.

This project supports ongoing development efforts from Honeywell’s UOP for a range of process technologies to capture carbon dioxide and produce green fuels and chemicals. UOP has already commercialized the UOP/Eni Ecofining™ process to produce Honeywell Green Diesel™ fuel from biological feedstocks, including algae and demonstrated process technology to produce Honeywell Green Jet™ fuel.

The project will also support the independent evaluation of the use of RTP® rapid thermal processing technology from Envergent Technologies, a joint venture between UOP and Ensyn Corp. The RTP system can be used to convert waste biomass from the algae production into pyrolysis oil, which can be burned to generate renewable electricity.

Martin Spalding, a researcher at Iowa State University, has secured $4.3 million in funding from the US Department of Energy to genetically alter a strain of algae (Chlamydomonas) to “improve oil yield, growth rate and offer better thermal resistance.”

A more immediate goal for the 3-year project is to develop one or more strains that can compete for commercial biofuels production. “The algae we’re working with currently are not competitive with other strains for biofuels,” he said. More important, he’d like to have a platform breeding stock at the end of the project that can be used to respond quickly to biofuel needs that may arise. “We hope to bring this alga to the point where we can tailor it to meet the needs of the industry,” he said.

Chlamydomonas alga is ideal for such research because it is the only type with a well-defined, mapped genome. “It’s an alga that’s been a model system used in biochemistry and genetics for years,” he said. “We have a sequenced genome, we understand the metabolism and we have the tools available to us to work with this alga.” It’s also manipulable and scientists can create extensive mutant screens, from which they can select mutants that are able to produce more oil, Spalding said. “Rather than look for an alga that produces trait ‘x’ or ‘y’ and then trying to adapt each new strain to production, which is a very difficult process, we are manipulating Chlamydomonas to meet x and y,” he said.

The strains will be grown in closed systems to ensure that these new strains of algae are released into the environment.

By now, many have heard algae being proclaimed as the fuel source that could potentially replace a large percentage of the petroleum we use. However, non-fuel uses of algae that can further lessen our dependence on petroleum have not gotten the attention they deserve. One such usage, while far less visible and but whom some would argue is just as important, is creating plastics.

Cereplast, a renewable plastics company, is looking into using algae as a new and renewable source of this seemingly ubiquitous material. In October of last year, they announced that they believe that algae-based resins “could replace 50% or more of the petroleum content used in traditional plastic resins.”

In a recent interview, Cereplast CEO Frederic Scheer explained that there are several benefits to switching over to algae-based plastics over traditional petroleum based ones. One reason is that it has the potential to help cut down the United State’s reliance on foreign oil.

“Traditional plastics are made from oil and the entire plastic and chemical industry is using up to 8% of our fuel and energy resources,” Scheer explained. “In diverting to new [plastic] feedstock we are reducing our dependency [on foreign oil] accordingly.”

Additionally, bioplastics can offer a smaller impact on the environmental since some types of plastics created from algae will biodegrade within 180 days without leaving any harmful chemical residue.

Other than national security and environmental reasons cited above, there are several economic reasons for wanting to see an increase in bioplastic production, be it algae-based or one of Cereplast’s starch-based plastics.

Mr. Scheer stated that while the price of plastic isn’t typically a major concern to the public, it is linked to the price of petroleum and thus susceptible to volatile price swings. Cereplast’s bioplastic resins are not linked to the cost of petroleum and their “bioplastic resins require significantly less energy during production permitting additional savings.”

A notable achievement of Cereplast, who currently produces and sells their starch-based resins, has been their ability to economically stand on their own without any subsidies or tax breaks from the government.

“So far Cereplast has been growing up with no subsidies or tax incentives,” Scheer said. “We would welcome such assistance but we believe in free enterprises and therefore our products need to be economically sustainable. We would really be delighted to see tax incentives and support to what we are doing but for us it is not our mantra.”

Lastly, one of the best things about Cereplast’s process of creating bioplastics from algae is that it still allows for the co-production of algae biofuels. For example, oil can be extracted from algae for use as fuel with the remaining algal biomass being used as a source for biopolymer, or plastic, production.

Essentially, bioplastic production can be considered a co-product of algae biofuel in Cereplast’s model, giving the same batch of algae even more value. Ultimately, the successful development of co-products like bioplastics will help hasten the day when commercial production of algae biofuel is viable.

Overall, Cereplast has a very rosy outlook on the future of bioplastic resins. They believe that the bioplastic market is growing and could top 30% of the total plastic market in just 10 years. However, in order for algae to play a major part in this, algae producers need to develop a commercially viable production model.

Mr. Scheer, though, has great faith in the algae industry and believes that we will begin to see these production models within the next 18 to 24 months. With the Department of Defense’s research arm, DARPA, announcing that they are just months away from producing algae biofuels at petroleum-equivalent costs, Scheer just may be right.

Originally posted at Celsias.com

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal took a look at a lot of different alternative energy sources, including algae biofuels. The only algae companies mentioned by name were Sapphire Energy and Solazyme, with Solazyme’s commercial-scale production being “closest to maturity.”

Here is the algae excerpt from the article:

THE TECHNOLOGY: Algae are fast-growing, consume carbon dioxide and have the potential to produce more oil per hectare than other biofuels. The oils they produce can be used to make substitutes for diesel fuel, aviation fuel and gasoline.

CURRENT STATUS: About 150 companies world-wide are working to commercialize algal biofuels. U.S. government support has soared in the past few years; the Energy Department recently granted $44 million for research into commercializing algal biofuels and $97 million for algae pilot and demonstration projects.

In the biggest project, Sapphire Energy of San Diego, Calif., plans to break ground on a 300-acre (121- hectare) biorefinery in New Mexico later this year.

Another recipient, Solazyme Inc., uses a fermentation method to produce algae-based fuels and has contracts to provide the U.S. Navy with 1,500 gallons (5,678 liters) of jet fuel and 20,000 gallons of diesel to power navy ships; the company is converting a plant in Pennsylvania into a demonstration biorefinery. Big oil companies, including ExxonMobil and BP, have invested in algae-biofuel projects or companies.

European support for biofuels has oscillated wildly. The European Union originally imposed a compulsory 10% quota of biofuels in all petrol and diesel by 2020 but came close to scrapping this amid concerns it would jeopardize food production. The focus has shifted to sustainable biofuels—a likely boon to funding for algal biofuels, according to experts.

WHY IT’S GOING TO TAKE SO LONG: As promising as the technology is, it hasn’t proved that it can produce fuels in sufficient quantities or at a low enough cost to make a dent in global liquid-fuel consumption. Solazyme’s fermentation method, which grows algae in dark, enclosed tanks, is considered by some experts to be closest to maturity; the company expects to reach commercial-scale production by 2013.

In addition to being a renewable fuels producer, Solazyme is looking into being a renewable foods producer as well. Check out this article highlighting some of the benefits of algae-based foods.

Scientific American’s website posted an article today discussing the advantages of placing algae production facilities near nutrient sources which will help cut down the costs of algae biofuel production.

The answer? Turn the waste from other industries into a resource for this new one, helping to solve the waste problem at the same time. With or without realizing it, various scientists speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual conference, which wraps up here today, were promoting the notion that algae operations should be located next to industries that can supply one or more of the nutrient streams.

For example, algae production facilities could be located next to coal-fired power plants, which happen to be under increasing pressure and regulation to reduce CO2 emissions. Instead of spending money to sequester that carbon, say, underground, why not sell it, cheap, to an adjacent algae facility? Indeed, the Seambiotic algae plant in Tel Aviv, Israel, is tapping the flue gas of a coal plant next door.

Similarly, algae producers could locate near municipal wastewater treatment plants. “Cleansed” water that is usually deposited in rivers or other water bodies is generally safe for the environment, but still usually contains too much nitrogen or phosphorus for human consumption. Algae, however, thrive on those very compounds, and the alternative of purchasing them as fertilizer leaves a large environment footprint. Of course, the water itself is needed for algae production. A pilot plant run by Sunrise Ridge Algae in Austin, Tex., is piping in this resource from the Hornsby Bend wastewater plant there. Sunrise was hoping that enough CO2 could also be extracted from the wastewater, but the flow coming from Hornsby’s anaerobic digesters was inconsistent, not a big surprise since the system was not built to supply CO2, per se.

These integration concepts can be taken further, noted Norm Whitten, CEO at Sunrise. When the algae are harvested for their lipids, the remaining plant matter can be processed into animal feed, or converted into a syrupy liquid he calls bioleum that can be burned somewhat like oil, enhancing the economics of an algae biofuel plant. Whitten also noted that cement plants generate enormous quantities of CO2—about one ton for every ton of cement produced-which could be a nutrient stream for algae plants. And waste heat from cement or power plants could be used to warm algae ponds, bags or tubes to accelerate growth. Connecting all these dots, Whitten noted that the Route 35 corridor in Texas is home to many cement plants, which could supply CO2 and waste heat, and is also home to oil refineries, which could process the bioleum.

I don’t know if I have just completely missed the build up to this but the announcement that DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has successfully extracted oil from algae at $2 gallon really caught me off guard.

The brains trust of the Pentagon says it is just months away from producing a jet fuel from algae for the same cost as its fossil-fuel equivalent.

The claim, which comes from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) that helped to develop the internet and satellite navigation systems, has taken industry insiders by surprise. A cheap, low-carbon fuel would not only help the US military, the nation’s single largest consumer of energy, to wean itself off its oil addiction, but would also hold the promise of low-carbon driving and flying for all.

Darpa’s research projects have already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon. It is now on track to begin large-scale refining of that oil into jet fuel, at a cost of less than $3 a gallon, according to Barbara McQuiston, special assistant for energy at Darpa. That could turn a promising technology into a ­market-ready one. Researchers have cracked the problem of turning pond scum and seaweed into fuel, but finding a cost-effective method of mass production could be a game-changer. “Everyone is well aware that a lot of things were started in the military,” McQuiston said.

Now, I don’t want to be blamed for over-analyzing the use of one word here but there are a couple things one might want to note about this article before they get too excited.

For off, the article seems to focus strictly on extracting the oil from the algae with no mention of what the cost of refining the oil is in addition to extracting it.

Additionally, the article doesn’t clarify if the $2 cost includes the cost of growing the algae either. The actual growth process is where the real expenses add up, not the extraction. I don’t know exactly how much it costs but OriginOil’s Single Step Extraction method seems pretty cheap when you watch how simple it looks in a video of the process in action.

Now, I may seem really nit-picky of me to focus all my attention on the extraction bit but from my experience in researching algae fuels, growth, harvesting/extraction, and then refining are often considered three completely separate processes with algae companies often focusing on developing one at a time.

Therefore, when someone says that they have “extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon,” I typically take it as a very literal meaning: the extraction process alone costs $2.

Now this may have just been poor wording by the Guardian but with my inability to find an actual press release where these numbers are quoted, this article is really all I have to go on.

However, the thing that makes me think that it is a little more than just the extraction process is the fact that the Pentagon believes that they are “just months away from producing a jet fuel from algae for the same cost as its fossil-fuel equivalent.”

That is a pretty bold statement and, if it holds true, could do wonders for the algae biofuel field, illustrating that they can in fact be produced at a commercially viable price.

If you want to learn more about what DARPA was looking to do in the development of algal fuels, check out this Fact Sheet.

One last thing to note, if you do run across something that answers my “extraction” questions above, please post it in the comments.