Posted by Stella Kin
Monday 6 December
Present: Stella Kin, Louise Anton, Christopher Sanderson
Apologies: Bryan McCulloch, Rachel Nichol
- Ran through and edited presentation scripts and slides
- Discussion of potential questions
Monday 6 December 2010
Minutes for meeting 12
Sunday 5 December 2010
Genetic engineering of algae for biofuel production
Posted by Stella Kin
Link to a presentation
It makes some good points concisely. The ppt takes a while to load up though.
Notes for tomorrow's meeting:
-add Phaeodactylum tricornutum, Synechocystis to diatoms example in slide
-team name - it's not the same on two of the slides!
http://www.oilgae.com/blog/2010/06/genetic-modification-saves-energy.html
http://asunews.asu.edu/2010331_biofuel
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/12/10/suicidal-genetically-modified-cyanobacteria-generating-biofuels/
Link to a presentation
It makes some good points concisely. The ppt takes a while to load up though.
Notes for tomorrow's meeting:
-add Phaeodactylum tricornutum, Synechocystis to diatoms example in slide
-team name - it's not the same on two of the slides!
http://www.oilgae.com/blog/2010/06/genetic-modification-saves-energy.html
http://asunews.asu.edu/2010331_biofuel
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/12/10/suicidal-genetically-modified-cyanobacteria-generating-biofuels/
Minutes for meeting 11
Posted by Stella Kin
Sunday 5 December
Present: Stella Kin, Louise Anton, Christopher Sanderson, Bryan McCulloch
Next meeting: Monday 6 December, 11am Taylor building- Ran through and edited presentation scripts and slides
- Discussion of potential questions
Agenda for Meeting 11
Posted by Stella
5 December 2010
5 December 2010
- Run thtrough presentation
- Potential questions
Minutes for meeting 10
Posted by Stella Kin
Saturday 4 December
Present: Stella Kin, Louise Anton, Rachel Nichol, Christopher Sanderson, Bryan McCulloch
Next meeting: Sunday 5 December, 12pm MacRobert Foyer- Run through presentation
- Louise to edit her and Chris' scripts
- Bryan to work on business plan script
Saturday 4 December 2010
Agenda for Meeting 10
Posted by Stella
4 December 2010
4 December 2010
- Allocate business plan slide
- Run through of presentation
Friday 3 December 2010
Mabfuel
Posted by Stella Kin
Just looking at the website now. They're pretty much doing what we're doing minus the GM. It gives an idea of where our costs should be and our time-scale too.
Firstly, in our objectives, should we include a review of all the research out there? At the moment, what we have is what we managed to find in 4 weeks.
Should we consider a GANTT chart for the presentation based on the one Chris drew up?
It might be handy to have an extra slide on costs and timescales for similar info to below.
Start date – 1st June 2009
Duration – 48 months Funding - €1,430,841
(with today's exchange rate, about 303,000 pounds a year)
Researchers involved – 18 researchers (174 person months)
Just looking at the website now. They're pretty much doing what we're doing minus the GM. It gives an idea of where our costs should be and our time-scale too.
Firstly, in our objectives, should we include a review of all the research out there? At the moment, what we have is what we managed to find in 4 weeks.
Should we consider a GANTT chart for the presentation based on the one Chris drew up?
It might be handy to have an extra slide on costs and timescales for similar info to below.
Implementation
Funding Scheme – Marie Curie Industry Partnerships and PathwaysStart date – 1st June 2009
Duration – 48 months Funding - €1,430,841
(with today's exchange rate, about 303,000 pounds a year)
Researchers involved – 18 researchers (174 person months)
GANTT CHART: Tasks, Project Milestone and Timetables
Minutes for meeting 9
Posted by Stella Kin
Friday 3 December
Present: Stella Kin, Louise Anton, Rachel Nichol, Christopher Sanderson
Apologies: Bryan McCulloch
Next meeting: Friday 3 December, 3pm, Project room- Brief discussion and comparison of scripts
- The presentation will be presented by Stella, Rachel and Chris. Should any of the speakers be absent, Louise will take over. All scripts will be emailed to the team so they can be read out if necessary.
- Oliver suggested looking at Mabfuel.
Agenda for Meeting 9
Posted by Stella Kin
3 November 2010
3 November 2010
- Discussion and uun through scripts and slides
- Project name
- Weekend meeting
- Contingency plans
Thursday 2 December 2010
Minutes for meeting 8
Posted by Stella Kin
Thursday 2 December
Present: Stella Kin, Bryan McCulloch, Rachel Nichol, Christopher Sanderson
Apologies: Louise Anton
Next meeting: Friday 3 December, 12pm, King's College
1. Walk through presentation slides
Rachel's slides added to the presentation. Stella's slides are generally complete, but the script needs to be rearranged to reflect the changes in the slides. It also needs to be cut down severely and find the right balance of brevity and detail.
Discussion around Chris's slides:
- 'Challenges ahead' will be preceded by an 'advantages of algae' slide to hammer home why we have chosen this option, given the limited yield information available.
- 'Challenges' should have a positive spin, with solutions if possible. Given that there is no guarantee of success, the venture is one of high risk. However if we are successful, the potential to partner with a private company provides significant rewards. Bryan has a paper on upscaling that quantifies the costs. Chris has done research on the obstacles faced in genetic engineering. Chris will provide a rough script or bullet-points for tomorrow.
- 'Competitors' will focus on the advantages and disadvantages of 1st, 2nd and 4th gen. We can also make a comparison to open pond 'raceways' which are currently the only efficient source of algal biodiesel (on the small scale). Stella will comb through the weblog to look for other comparisons we can make.
Bryan will continue the research into relevant costs for the business plan, with slides and a script for the next meeting. A rough timescale was drafted. The plan is for the GM outsourcing to be an ongoing project which can continuously be improved, while the startup tests each batch of algae for oil yield and quality.
Rachel will write and present the summary once each section is complete.
Louise will complete the script and slides for the next meeting.
Following meeting will include a rehearsal of the presentation. Possible plans to meet on Saturday and a final rehearsal on Monday mornirng.
A Useful Link
By Bryan McCulloch
I found this website whilst looking for prices for a photobioreactor, may come in handy when comparing our company to others
http://www.algalbiomass.org/
I found this website whilst looking for prices for a photobioreactor, may come in handy when comparing our company to others
http://www.algalbiomass.org/
Competitors and Comparisons
Posted by Christopher Sanderson
Quick overview of fuels:
The main fuels worth considering in this context are ethanol, butanol, bio-diesel, which we can consider producing as bio-fuels, and for benchmark reference: petro-diesel and petroleum.
The first consideration to make is the energy density by volume of each fuel:
Ethanol has around 21.2MJ/L found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#As_a_fuel and cited http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/storage.pdf although the value appears to vary by around 2-3MJ/L depending on source.
Butanol has around 29.2MJ/L found http://petrofed.winwinhosting.net/upload/4_Verma.pdf, note that this source cites ethanol as 19.6MJ/L.
Bio-Diesel has around 37.27MJ/L found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel and cited from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file14925.pdf
When these are considered with respect to the current mineral derived fuels:
Petroleum with 34.8MJ/L found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
Diesel with 38.6MJ/L found at the same. Although it's wiki, the values seem reasonably consistant with the other values I've seen.
From this perspective it would appear that as practical replacements for fossil fuels the best candidates are butanol to replace petroleum and bio-diesel to replace petro-diesel.
Also of interest:
BP's perspective - http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/18443/
Quick overview of fuels:
The main fuels worth considering in this context are ethanol, butanol, bio-diesel, which we can consider producing as bio-fuels, and for benchmark reference: petro-diesel and petroleum.
The first consideration to make is the energy density by volume of each fuel:
Ethanol has around 21.2MJ/L found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#As_a_fuel and cited http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/storage.pdf although the value appears to vary by around 2-3MJ/L depending on source.
Butanol has around 29.2MJ/L found http://petrofed.winwinhosting.net/upload/4_Verma.pdf, note that this source cites ethanol as 19.6MJ/L.
Bio-Diesel has around 37.27MJ/L found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel and cited from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file14925.pdf
When these are considered with respect to the current mineral derived fuels:
Petroleum with 34.8MJ/L found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
Diesel with 38.6MJ/L found at the same. Although it's wiki, the values seem reasonably consistant with the other values I've seen.
From this perspective it would appear that as practical replacements for fossil fuels the best candidates are butanol to replace petroleum and bio-diesel to replace petro-diesel.
Also of interest:
BP's perspective - http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/18443/
Wednesday 1 December 2010
Bubble bioreactors - which slide? And notes on costs.
Posted by Stella Kin
Advantages of using bubble column bioreactors
Chris, I'm not entirely sure yet if I should squeeze this into the slide when I talk about the manufacturing process, or whether we should use this when we compare our proposal to other competitors.
If we can find a cost for these bioreactors, it will be worth comparing it to open pond 'raceways' which cost $100,000 to $200,000. I read somewhere that they are the only cost-effective way to produce biofuels currently (the problem with them being contamination, land area required, difficulty in controlling conditions, upscaling etc, etc.) Whereas cost of bubble reactors are 'low' - best I can find on google so far. Also
Link to the sale of second hand bioreactors. I'm uncertain that these are what we're looking for, but I think it at least shows that the second hand cost is in the thousands.
The rest of my photobioreactor research is here.
Repost of a link to the University of Newcastle website who were awarded £750,000 for an algae biofuel project. I imagine it's to use over several years? I think this may be the best way to estimate contracting out GM - from research grants to universities. And I would guess doing it privately will be more expensive? I'll attempt to find the name of that company we can sub-contract the GM to.
Plus another link to microbubble reactors. We may have to buy patents as well.
Advantages of using bubble column bioreactors
Chris, I'm not entirely sure yet if I should squeeze this into the slide when I talk about the manufacturing process, or whether we should use this when we compare our proposal to other competitors.
If we can find a cost for these bioreactors, it will be worth comparing it to open pond 'raceways' which cost $100,000 to $200,000. I read somewhere that they are the only cost-effective way to produce biofuels currently (the problem with them being contamination, land area required, difficulty in controlling conditions, upscaling etc, etc.) Whereas cost of bubble reactors are 'low' - best I can find on google so far. Also
Link to the sale of second hand bioreactors. I'm uncertain that these are what we're looking for, but I think it at least shows that the second hand cost is in the thousands.
The rest of my photobioreactor research is here.
Repost of a link to the University of Newcastle website who were awarded £750,000 for an algae biofuel project. I imagine it's to use over several years? I think this may be the best way to estimate contracting out GM - from research grants to universities. And I would guess doing it privately will be more expensive? I'll attempt to find the name of that company we can sub-contract the GM to.
Plus another link to microbubble reactors. We may have to buy patents as well.
Agenda for Meeting 8
Posted by Stella Kin
2 December 2010
1. Edit, walk-through and discussion of presentation
2. Decide on project name
3 Contingency plans in case of any further absences
2 December 2010
1. Edit, walk-through and discussion of presentation
2. Decide on project name
3 Contingency plans in case of any further absences
Minutes for meeting 7
Posted by Stella Kin
1. Discussion of presentation draft
It was agreed that the slides should be as visual as possible, with team members talking around the images. Bullet points should be brief.
Allocation of slides:
Rachel - meet the team, presentation outline, Scotland's energy needs, proposal, summary
Stella - algae to consider, current process, ideal microalga, genetic engineering potential, algae cultivation, conversion into biodiesel
Louise - environmental and societal impacts (...)
Chris - competitors, challenges ahead
Bryan - business plan (Stella)
As Louise and Bryan have had problems getting to the university, the allocated tasks will be taken over by those in brackets.
Discussion and actions:
Scotland's energy needs - Research is complete and on blog. Rachel will work on the slides tonight
Genetic engineering potential - discussion revolved around whether we need to diversify or whether we should specialise. Due to time constraints it may be wiser to concerntrate on creating an algae strain that secretes oil.
Environmental and societal impacts - Louise will work on the slides tonight and send them to the team if she can't make it back to Aberdeen
Competitors - Chris will concentrate not only on 1st, 2nd and 4th gen, but also other 3rd gen options that have been discarded by us
Challenges ahead - more discussion is needed
Business plan - concern over finding accurate costs of, e.g. bioreactors, materials. May have to use very rough estimates in business plan. Genetic engineering will likely be contracted out due to overhead costs. Given the nature of the current research and the diversity of the strains of algae used, it will be difficult to accurately project yields. Mamen advised that if it is not possible, and costs are not easily obtainable, then we have to be clear on why we chose the option we did, and state all the advantages. The hope is that the investment will be paid off with partnership with private companies
2. Meetings to follow
Rachel has booked the project room, Thursday 2 December, 12-2, where we will talk through our scripts.
Next meeting Friday 3 December, presentation rehearsal
Wednesday 1 December
Present: Stella Kin, Rachel Nichol, Christopher Sanderson
Apologies: Louise Anton
Next meeting: Thursday 2 December, 12-2, Project Room
1. Discussion of presentation draft
It was agreed that the slides should be as visual as possible, with team members talking around the images. Bullet points should be brief.
Allocation of slides:
Rachel - meet the team, presentation outline, Scotland's energy needs, proposal, summary
Stella - algae to consider, current process, ideal microalga, genetic engineering potential, algae cultivation, conversion into biodiesel
Louise - environmental and societal impacts (...)
Chris - competitors, challenges ahead
Bryan - business plan (Stella)
As Louise and Bryan have had problems getting to the university, the allocated tasks will be taken over by those in brackets.
Discussion and actions:
Scotland's energy needs - Research is complete and on blog. Rachel will work on the slides tonight
Genetic engineering potential - discussion revolved around whether we need to diversify or whether we should specialise. Due to time constraints it may be wiser to concerntrate on creating an algae strain that secretes oil.
Environmental and societal impacts - Louise will work on the slides tonight and send them to the team if she can't make it back to Aberdeen
Competitors - Chris will concentrate not only on 1st, 2nd and 4th gen, but also other 3rd gen options that have been discarded by us
Challenges ahead - more discussion is needed
Business plan - concern over finding accurate costs of, e.g. bioreactors, materials. May have to use very rough estimates in business plan. Genetic engineering will likely be contracted out due to overhead costs. Given the nature of the current research and the diversity of the strains of algae used, it will be difficult to accurately project yields. Mamen advised that if it is not possible, and costs are not easily obtainable, then we have to be clear on why we chose the option we did, and state all the advantages. The hope is that the investment will be paid off with partnership with private companies
2. Meetings to follow
Rachel has booked the project room, Thursday 2 December, 12-2, where we will talk through our scripts.
Next meeting Friday 3 December, presentation rehearsal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)