Biofuel with Botryococcus Braunii

crude vegetable oil, diester, bio-ethanol or other biofuels, or fuel of vegetable origin ...
toutotomatik
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 6
Registration: 27/12/08, 14:30

Biofuel with Botryococcus Braunii




by toutotomatik » 27/12/08, 16:53

Hello,
I am currently trying to multiply a strain of the micro alga botryococcus brauni with a view to creating a way to cultivate a fuel, to clean up the exhaust gases but also to participate in feeding.

My context
For now, like more and more people, I am using recovery oil to drive. Sometimes I happen (more and more often) to come across restaurants that already work with an oily, in this case I do not insist (we do not have the atomic weapon in my village) and I will see elsewhere.
Another anecdote, I crossed twice the center of France while looking for oil in the recycling centers. The first time (2005) the guards were surprised or hallucinating my requests, the second (2008) it was rather banal and some guards run in oil (which they kept for themselves suddenly).

Biofuel is a slippery idea that has made its way quickly (I'm not talking about institutions).
Even if I could no longer get the oil for free, I still have this adage from experience: that information that is useful to people, it's people to create it.

And that's what I want to play with other people: see what they can and can't do with this algae. Before even knowing if it is profitable or not compared to the pressing techniques, I think it is not bad that the seed spread so that the experiments proliferate as with the oil.


Short
I have here a strain of 0.5L (which I could give you photos) which is in good health but which does not multiply despite the 20 ° C of the room and regular aeration by bubbling air.
It is placed in front of a north-facing window.

You have any ideas?
Last edited by toutotomatik the 01 / 01 / 09, 17: 43, 1 edited once.
0 x
toutotomatik
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 6
Registration: 27/12/08, 14:30




by toutotomatik » 31/12/08, 17:22

There are 2 photos, the first one just shows the bubbler tube.
Image

On the second we see a glass bottle on the right, it is the stump that I had to recover. This summer it was as clear as the one on the left.
From the moment I got it, she first made a trip of about 15 days (stir in the car, hot / cold, forget about the sun) which she did not like (brown deposit formation = dying seaweed ).
Then she appreciated:
First to be warm with a constant temperature (ideal temperature 20/25), it was 20 ° C. I think I remember that this is when the brown deposit disappeared.
Then I tried a period of bubbling which raised the concentration in a few days. (bubbling frequency: 15 minutes every 4 hours)

The plastic bottle on the left is my first attempt at seeding. Since the impoundment on December 7, the bubbling frequency was 50 seconds every 3 hours but as the concentration did not seem to increase, I went to 10 minutes every three hours. It seemed better to me, so today I increased again to 30 minutes every 3 hours.
Image

Will there be someone in the room who is passionate about biology to shed light on my strain?
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 31/12/08, 18:24

Great your experiment! Image

I worked 1 year, in 2004, in microalgae: spirulina and diatoms (food and cosmetic, nothing to do with biofuels so) I could maybe help you ...

First of all 2 stupid questions: how did you find the stump? Are you sure it is "oilseed"?

The problem of algae is above all "after growth", namely: obtaining a quality fuel at a lower "cost". The Laigret project could be strongly complementary to microalgae, if you don't know yet, watch this: https://www.econologie.com/projet-laigre ... -3917.html

Then for your problem, the non-development of an alga can come from several points, here is what I remember:

a) the medium is already saturated: growth is no longer possible (we checked this with a "liquid opacimeter")
b) lack of nutrients (potassium, phosphate, nitrates ... in short the same as for chemical farming). I think we put 6 kg of Nitrates and 1 kg of phosphates per m3 of water for the middle.
c) lack of CO2 (CO2 was bubbled with regulation on the pH)
d) lack of T ° (to do with the strain?)
e) lack of light (try with neon lights, daylight bulb)
f) agitation promotes the growth of algae

I will follow this subject with great interest!
0 x
toutotomatik
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 6
Registration: 27/12/08, 14:30




by toutotomatik » 02/01/09, 00:04

Hi christophe,
First of all 2 stupid questions: how did you find the stump? Are you sure it is "oilseed"?

The strain comes from a friend who works on it too, he ordered it from an institution, the Institut Pasteur I believe.

If the strain is oilseed?
Botryococcus braunii 25–75%
Chlorella sp. 28-32%
Crypthecodinium cohnii 20%
Cylindrotheca sp. 16-37%
Dunaliella primolecta 23%
Isochrysis sp. 25-33%
Monallanthus salina> 20%
Nannochloris sp. 20-35%
Nannochloropsis sp. 31-68%
Neochloris oleoabundans 35–54%
Nitzschia sp. 45-47%
Phaeodactylum tricornutum 20–30%
Schizochytrium sp. 50-77%
Tetraselmis sueica 15–23%


This list comes from a discussion of this forum
https://www.econologie.com/forums/pour-faire-un-essai-d-algues-carburant-t3914.html
I found exactly the same on other sites. I think you knew this information so why are you asking this question? Are we more sure of this information?

Then for your problem, the non-development of an alga can come from several points, here is what I remember:

a) the medium is already saturated: growth is no longer possible (we checked this with a "liquid opacimeter")
b) lack of nutrients (potassium, phosphate, nitrates ... in short the same as for chemical farming). I believe that we put 6 kg of Nitrates and 1 kg of phosphates per m3 of water for the environment.
c) lack of CO2 (CO2 was bubbled with regulation on the pH)
d) lack of T ° (to do with the strain?)
e) lack of light (try with neon lights, daylight bulb)
f) agitation promotes the growth of algae


You do well to remember all that!
a) On the photo we see that the culture is rather clear (left) compared to the strain (right), so I think there is still room. I would still have to make a secchi record.
b) Perhaps, I have no idea of ​​the state of culture on that side. Besides the starting composition:

50 cm cube or 50 ml seaweed.
1L of bottled water.
0.5ml iron syrup (rusty nails in water / vinegar then green tea to prevent precipitation)
4 large grains of salt
6ml of urine

c) I count on the bubbling of atmospheric air to provide CO2. there is 0.035% (Wikipedia) in the air that plants breathe, but certainly, it would be even more effective in concentrate!
d) T ° it's good.
e) Maybe it lacks light.
f) Bubbling ensures agitation.

Finally it will not be bad to test a cold exhaust gas supply. But if the crop stays in a car, it may not tolerate temperature variations well, right? Do you / we have an idea of ​​the reaction of the algae under these conditions? I will test empirically when I have enough algae.

The problem with algae is above all "after growth", namely: obtaining a quality fuel at a lower "cost". The Laigret project could be strongly complementary to microalgae, if you don't know yet, watch this: https://www.econologie.com/projet-laigre ... -3917.html

I haven't read the docs yet.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 02/01/09, 00:19

toutotomatik wrote:This list comes from a discussion of this forum
https://www.econologie.com/forums/pour-faire-un-essai-d-algues-carburant-t3914.html
I found exactly the same on other sites. I think you knew this information so why are you asking this question? Are we more sure of this information?


Sorry, I don't know the content of everything by heart forum you know :)

But I admit that I formulated my question badly, in fact I meant rather: are you sure you can "easily" get a usable oil from this strain?

"Easily" = extraction with affordable means for an individual, that is to say no lab stuff ...

As your friend is working on it, I think you can have methods about it.

For the rest:

a) pure CO2 was injected (bottled from liquid air) which had the effect of lowering the pH. I no longer know how much we regulated but I think it was around 6.0 but this value must obviously depend on the culture strain

b) I strongly advise against direct bubbling with exhaust gases, especially gasoline: it will pollute your environment (benzene and co ...) and kill algae. With diesel it would be a little less worse but soot would be a problem. In addition, you will be at best at 15% CO2 ... therefore far from "pure" CO2.

c) we could reflect together on a method of extracting and purifying CO2 from exhaust gases. For example by capturing it in water (dissolved) and releasing it later under a bell. This would no doubt allow you to remove most of the pollutants and concentrate the CO2. Problem: you will have to burn fuel to make fuel ...

Otherwise you can get high concentration CO2 with wood.
0 x
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 02/01/09, 00:28

1st, 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels constitute a total deadlock in environmental, health and economic terms.

See for example this recent report for the Ministry of the Environment:
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/file/614297.pdf

Image

113 page:

"(...) The importance of the surfaces required by agrofuels comes from their physical characteristics. Energy power is defined as the power available, on average over the year, per unit of land surface. With photosynthetic conversion yields solar energy less than 0,5%, the energy power of biomass, is between 0,01 W / m2 and 1,2 W / m2 (Smil, 2003) (...) Third generation agrofuels, ACG3, based on algae (which would no longer produce fuel but hydrogen) would be around 3 W / m2 "

page8 - The third generation, using algae, will remain far less effective than whatever “electric” solutions, in particular the use of solar energy (...)

Translation: we can never do better than this physical limit! Useless to make believe that the agrofuels of 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation will come to our aid! Regardless of the transformation process (whether with fungi, bacteria or termite enzymes ...), the sector is doomed by the superficial yields of crops which are very low (+ water, health impacts etc.)!

Image


Rationale here:
http://www.electron-economy.org/article-26034446.html
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 02/01/09, 00:46

Interesting (not yet read the .pdf ... of 143 pages but I will leaf through it)

But sorry Elec but it is nonsense to say that: the surface aspect is not a key parameter in my opinion: there are still quite a few of these on the surface!

So I totally disagree with this approach ...

It's the same kind of reasoning - biased and that S&V did a few months ago - which consisted in comparing the land use area between a solar power station and a nuclear power station. Obviously, nuclear power obtained much higher W / m² (approximately 1000 times) ...

So several things bother me with this graph:

a) biomass is solar ... indirect and biomass is vast ...

b) we cannot reason in instantaneous W: a relation to duration is missing in unity. It is Wh / m² and per unit of time that are important and not the "instantaneous" power. For example: 12 hours a day, solar is at 0.0 which this graph does not take into account ...

c) biomass makes it possible to CONCENTRATE solar energy, to store it and to be able to transport it, something that we are unable to do with solar energy (storage in batteries is anything but applicable on a large scale). It is also possible with solar but surely more difficult and by dividing the energy by 2 or 3: cf Solar h2

d) how is calculated for hydroelectric? The surface of the reservoir?

e) it is not the surface that is lacking on earth ... and not on the seas for that matter where we can very well imagine aquaculture farms ...

f) finally we must stop reasoning in terms of "better performance". Indeed I think that it is not the technological return that one should seek but the best economic profitability (= productivity / cost of investment + exploitation) ... and on this point the 100% electric with PV can go go to bed !! For example: do a calculation with an electric scooter of economic profitability ...
0 x
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 02/01/09, 01:06

Christophe wrote:Interesting (not yet read the .pdf ... of 143 pages but I will leaf through it)

But sorry Elec but it is nonsense to say that: the surface aspect is not a key parameter in my opinion: there are still quite a few of these on the surface!


Hi Christopher,

You know that I supported the microalgae sector 3 years ago. But my approach has evolved since then.

You're right, only multi-criteria approaches (environment, climate, water, pollution, health etc.) are relevant for making a comparison, and by doing this, the case of agrofuels (generation 1, 2 or 3) gets even worse :

Image
(BEV = battery electric vehicle)

Table source:
http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLin ... ce_Article

Note that the surface, water and GHG emissions aspects are essential criteria: EXIT agrocarbs.

storage in batteries is anything but applicable on a large scale

It's wrong.

Conclusion of the multicriterion study by Jacobson, Stanford (this is really a major study, it has just been published):
There is no more ecological than battery-powered electric car powered by wind power: number 1 in the ranking.

Fully applicable on a large scale (which is of course not at all the case with agrocarbs). The betterPlace concept considerably speeds up the process.


With agrocarbs, you consume water in a pharaonic way, you pollute the environment with fertilizers and pesticides (and you use huge areas of agricultural land (+ impact on biodiversity via deforestation etc.). The human population continues to grow and the global UAA is already almost saturated.
+ health and economic aspects.
Last edited by Elec the 03 / 01 / 09, 01: 58, 2 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 02/01/09, 01:27

Interesting table but to be discussed ... for example: CO2 had to have a much lower coefficient ... but above all where is the gray energy of each solution? In other words: after how many kWh produced, the installation is amortized?

Elec wrote:There is no more ecological than battery-powered electric car powered by wind power: number 1 in the ranking.


This is not the opinion of one of the directors of Mitsubishi who presents his 100% electric: https://www.econologie.com/voiture-elect ... -3944.html

Batteries alone (manufacturing + recycling) = 40 g / km CO2 equivalent ...

Well it is very interesting but we are still a little bit rotting the subject on the algae ...

ps: can you host the images on our stp image host?
0 x
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 02/01/09, 01:35

Christophe wrote: where is the gray energy of each solution? In other words: after how many kWh produced, the installation is amortized?

On the economic plan:

The BEV solution is by far the most economical.
USA: 6 cents per mile with BetterPlace (including 4 cents for the battery + 1 cent for electricity) versus 12 cents per mile with petrol or agrocarb.
Europe: 24 US cents!

The agrocarb sector is a real financial abyss.

In terms of energy payback time:


Wind: 6 months
CSP: 6 months
PV: 2 to 3 years



This is not the opinion of one of the directors of Mitsubishi who presents his 100% electric: https://www.econologie.com/voiture-elect ... -3944.html
Batteries alone (manufacturing + recycling) = 40 g / km CO2 equivalent ...

It all depends on the source of electricity to produce and recycle the batteries.
The GHG balance of agrocarbs is very poor, especially for ethanol.

It seems to me that the figures for the article you are quoting are incorrect.

An electric car consumes around 20 kWh per 100km, or 0,2 kWh per km.
Building a battery = energy consumption equivalent to 10% of what this battery will release during its lifetime. Hence 0,02 kWh per km.


With central yield of 30%:
1000 g of coal produces 3 kWh
333 g of coal produces 1 kW
6 and a half grams of coal produces 0,02kwh

Combustion 1g charcoal = 3,4g of CO2
Combustion of 6 grams of charcoal = 20g of CO2

Note that I took the worst case here, an electric mix with 100% coal ...

In France, that’s about 2 grams of CO2 per km for the battery ...


ps: can you host the images on our stp image host?

No bp, if you want to host my images of Jacobson's paintings on econology (simply indicate, if possible, the source).

OK for algae rotting;)
We can continue the discussion elsewhere if you wish;)

And in fact...
Happy and economical 2009 Christophe;)
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "biofuels, biofuels, biofuels, BtL, non-fossil alternative fuels ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 114 guests