BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species.
For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: "Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel." I mean, come on.... On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Was this old story related to the grant in question ? >> >> >> >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm >> >> >> >> Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* James Bowery >> >> >> >> Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about >> this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for >> the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I >> wanted to find out if there was any distinction. >> >> >> >> The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of >> biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem >> for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. >> >> >> >> Brad Lowe wrote: >> >> Some links: >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm >> >> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil >> http://www.genifuel.com/ >> >> >> > >
