The biobutanol panel at the 2009 Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy had three dynamic speakers from the biobutanol industry: Pat Gruber, CEO of Gevo, Inc.; Jay Kouba, CEO of Tetravitae Bioscience and Rick Wilson, CEO of Cobalt Technologies. Besides the individual company presentations the conversation concentrated on technology, risk, barriers and financing on the path to commercialization.

Jay Kouba related to the audience that the business plan with the best technology is often not the one that makes it to commercialization; the path to commercialization is often paved by the plans with the lowest barriers to commercialization.

Pat Gruber of Gevo started the session off by giving background on his company, Gevo Inc., founded in 2005. Gevo’s biobutanol plans center around retrofitting corn ethanol plants to produce isobutanol. The main thing Gevo is concerned with is access to cheap feedstock, they will make their fuel out of whatever is most economically viable, currently sugarcane and grain, but eventually cellulosic feedstocks will be used. Gevo has a 1 million gallon demonstration plant in St. Joseph, Mo. Gevo also has business plans for renewable gasoline, jet fuel and isobutylene for use in such products as rubbers and plastics. These molecules will serve as building blocks for the chemical industry and they are beneficial, because the chemical industry already knows what to do with them. Gevo plans to have a commercial plant (20-50 million gallons per year) operating in 2011.

Tetravitae will be focusing on the chemical industry for their butanol to take advantage of what they see as a weak point in the petrochemical web. They are focusing on finding a low capital route that they can get to market quickly and follow up with improvements, and they see many opportunities with biobutanol for chemicals. Tetravitae will be using a similar business plan to Gevo in retrofitting corn dry mill plants for production. Tetravitae has partnered with the University of Illinois to develop the organism they are using. Mr. Kouba said that their process is already cost competitive and they are planning on having a demonstration facility operating in 2010 and a commercial facility up and running in 2011.

Rick Wilson’s company, Cobalt Technologies, is focusing on commercializing their cellulosic butanol for fuels and chemicals business. The big question for them was, “What’s going to make the biggest difference and be the most cost effective cellulosic biofuel on the market?” The answer was biobutanol. According to Mr. Wilson, the advantage of this renewable fuel is that 15 billion gallons is mandated by the Renewable Fuel Standard, it has an estimated 70 to 90 percent reduction in lifecycle assessment in greenhouse gases versus petroleum, increases fuel efficiency, lowers tailpipe emissions and is compatible with existing fuel infrastructure. Cobalt Technologies is interested in a venture with high margins that requires low capital investments. Rick made the observation that the most important cost for them is the price of the feedstock. Cobalt currently has pilot plants constructed in Colorado and California with a 200,000 gallon per year facility planned for operation in 2011 and a 15 million gallon per year facility planned for 2013.

All of the speakers agreed that access to capital is a barrier to commercialization, and education for the public, the regulatory community and opinion leaders such as Members of Congress on the benefits and technological attributes of biobutanol is a priority. Lively discussion and debate followed during the question and answer portion of the session. Stay tuned as biobutanol moves forward into commercialization for fuels and chemicals.

The Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy hosted a webinar to discuss U.S. and Canadian government efforts to support commercial development of algae for biofuels, chemicals, pharmaceutical and food ingredients, and the long list of applications being considered.

Valerie Reed of the U.S. Department of Energy, noted that the U.S. Economic Recovery Act provided $800 million for new and existing projects, with $480 million to be allocated to pilot- and demonstration-scale biorefineries that can produce advanced biofuels, bioproducts, and heat & power in an integrated system. Algae has the potential to be a big player in this selection, she said.

She also noted that Congress has directed the DOE to spend $35 million specifically on research, development and deployment of algae biofuels.

Patrick McGinn of Canada’s National Research Council, outlined Canadian programs to support research and development of biomass, including algae. The NRC is producing and experimenting with different pathways to convert algae to biofuels, with the goal of creating a high-quality data set on their overall yields, energy and carbon balances.

A recording of the webinar can be downloaded at bio.org.

You can also listen to a streaming version at http://www2.eintercall.com/moderator/presentation/Playback?id=4d83d2db-9c43-4011-a04d-25d13c5d0672.rpm.

The Science Insider blog last week hosted an interesting debate between Tim Searchinger, Princeton visiting scholar, and John Sheehan, of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, regarding the recent policy proposal in the pages of Science by Searchinger et al. to “fix” the carbon accounting of biomass for bioenergy and biofuels in U.S. legislation and the successor to the Kyoto protocol, by giving credit only to biomass that can be managed in such a way as to sequester additional atmospheric carbon in the soil. As Searchinger puts it in the recent debate, “bioenergy only reduces greenhouse gases if it results from additional plant growth or in some other way uses carbon that would not otherwise be stored.”

To be sure, use of bioenergy can only reduce the overall level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in the soil (in root systems). And yes, individual biofuel or bioenergy producers could use only new biomass that has recently pulled carbon from the atmosphere (although other environmentalists may differ on that) or biomass that would otherwise be left to decay and emit the stored carbon anyway. The question then is whether there is enough of this type of biomass to meet energy needs.

But that is not the point of the current Kyoto protocol or of U.S. cap-and-trade legislation. Their shared goal is to reduce overall GHG emissions, over time, ideally lowering the cap until emissions reach equilibrium.

Searchinger cites recent modeling studies to say that not employing his fix to global carbon accounting “would lead to the loss of most of the world’s natural forest because clearing those forests for bioenergy becomes one of the cost-effective means of complying with laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” However, the fossil fuel industries are certain to receive allowances under the U.S. legislation. Employing a carbon accounting model that treats biomass as equivalent to fossil fuel would definitely make continued reliance on fossil fuel the cost-effective alternative.

Another interesting response to the Searchinger et al article comes from Geoff Styles of the Energy Collective, who extends the carbon accounting argument to electric vehicles. All alternative energy sources can be opened up to particular scrutiny. What is needed is a truly accurate and balanced accounting of fossil fuel use to compare these arguments.

The only other political option would be to drastically cut use of all energy. Models do project that the current worldwide economic recession has brought about a reduction in climate emissions by cutting energy use.

Searchinger does note that biomass and biofuels have the potential to balance greenhouse gas emissions – depending on land management. A better question here is whether his models can show that fossil fuel use also has the potential to balance greenhouse gas emissions with proper land management.

This week we start off with a little Road Music, From Bluegrass to Switchgrass, from our colleagues at the Biofuels Center of North Carolina. They’ve put together a nice set of bluegrass pieces. To listen visit their web site.

Gas2.0 announces this week that BP could start selling biofuels in 2010, writing that,

“BP has partnered with Verenium to bring a commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol facility online next year to start bringing alternative fuels to a gas”

Wednesday, according to the Government Monitor,Tom Vilsack announced,

“the publication of nine additional BioPreferred product categories which will now be eligible for Federal procurement preference.”

Making, “more Than 1,000 Biobased Products Eligible For Federal Procurement,” the Monitor reports.

You can find USDA biopreferred on Twitter, http://twitter.com/BioPreferred and on the Web at: www.biopreferred.gov.

So what’s the deal with this conversation on whether or not biofuels are carbon friendly? We at BIO have certainly have had a lot to say on the matter and you can find all our opinions on our biofuels page.

However, our opinions aside, the folks at the journal Science, where the initial study and follow-up policy paper were published say that they are giving us the inside story, by holding a moderated conversation between Tim Searchinger and John Sheehan—kind of interesting, take a look for yourself.

That’s all for this week. See you next week!

To get from here to there sometimes you need a little road music, and that’s just what the Biofuels Center of North Carolina is aiming to do. Earlier this week, according to Science in the Triangle,

a RTI Fellows Symposium,

“was held Monday and Tuesday at the University of North Carolina’s Friday Center in Chapel Hill.

Global warming and what role biofuels will play in the energy supply were two of the scientific challenges addressed at the symposium.”

According to Science in the Triangle, North Carolina focuses,

“on biodiesel and ethanol from corn and biomass to meet an ambitious goal: By 2017, 10 percent of liquid fuels sold in the state should be locally grown and produced.

The first corn ethanol plant is scheduled to go online in January in Hoke County, said Burke (Steven Burke, chief executive of the Biofuels Center of North Carolina) of the biofuels center.

Fourteen biomass feedstocks have been planted at research sites and private farms statewide and North Carolina’s 18 million acres of forest are expected to contribute wood waste for ethanol production.

The state also has a partnership with RTI to produce ethanol in other ways than fermentation. Outside of that partnership, RTI recently was awarded a federally funded contract to work on a process that turns biomass into a type of bio oil, which can be mixed and refined with petroleum.

The state’s 10 percent goal is a tall order, Burke acknowledged. It will require an increase of biofuels production from 2 million gallons in 2008 to 600 million gallons in 2017.

He’s counting on music to gain support and boost demand for biofuels. The biofuels center signed up 19 artists, who agreed to have their fan Web sites linked to the center’s site. All artists are featured on a CD called “From Bluegrass to Switchgrass.”

Burke called it music “for a state obsessed with fast-driving NASCAR.”

To listen to “From Bluegrass to Switchgrass,” for yourself visit the Biofuels Center of North Carolina.

BIO will host three webinars from the Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy in Honolulu, featuring companies, researchers, and policy makers at the forefront of efforts to commercialize algae applications, cellulosic biofuels, and renewable chemicals.

1.International Developments in Algae Commercialization
Valerie Reed, U.S. Department of Energy;
Patrick McGinn, Institute of Marine Biosciences, National Research Council, Canada;
Ravi Shrivastava, Defence Research Development Organization, India.
Monday Nov. 9, 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST
(12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. PST
10:00 a.m to 11:30 a.m HST)

2.Meeting the Challenges of Commercializing Cellulosic Ethanol
William Baum, Verenium Corporation, http://www.verenium.com;
Kevin Gray, Qteros, http://www.qteros.com;
James Imbler, ZeaChem, Inc., http://www.zeachem.com.
Tuesday Nov. 10, 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST
(11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. PST
9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. HST)

3.Commercialization of Renewable Chemicals
Christophe Schilling, Genomatica, http://www.genomatica.com;
Steven J. Gatto, Myriant Technologies, LLC, http://www.myriant.com;
Bhima Vijayendran, Battelle Memorial Institute, http://www.battelle.org.
Wednesday Nov. 11, 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST
(11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. PST
9:30 a.m to 11:00 a.m HST)

RSVP: A password will be required to participate in each webinar. The webinars will be available at https://biotechnology.webex.com/biotechnology. To reserve space and receive password instructions, please contact Paul Winters, Communications Director, BIO at 202-962-9237 or pwinters@bio.org.
These sessions are presented live from the 2009 Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy, being held Nov. 8-11, 2009 in Honolulu. The Pacific Rim Summit is the only global conference dedicated to building innovative collaborations in industrial biotechnology across the Pacific. http://www.bio.org/pacrim/.

This week in the blogosphere in Industrial & Environmental Technology we start off with NASCAR. Yes that’s right NASCAR . Domestic Fuel.com quotes an article in USA Today about NASCAR,

“The concept might seem incongruous in a sport inherently tied to an internal combustion engine that many find synonymous with global warming, but NASCAR, despite cars with an eye-popping 5 mpg, is trying to embrace its eco-conscious side as the federal government has begun prodding the racing industry to become leaders in efficiency…

On the competition side, NASCAR is exploring the replacement of its carburetors with more efficient fuel injection (perhaps as early as 2011) and the use of alternative fuels in at least one of its national series…”

Remarkable, but it just shows that biofuels are catching on everywhere.

Joshua Kagan wrote on GOOD.is/BLOGS a piece that mainly discusses the cons of corn ethanol and concludes that,

“There are non-food crops that can be used for biofuel. The federal government has awoken to this and is heavily promoting “second generation” cellulosic biofuels. Cellulosic refers to the “non-food” component of a plant or tree—like the husk of the corn or tree trimmings—that contain lots of energy in the form of carbohydrates called polysaccharides that can, in turn, be processed into biofuels. The next installment in this series discusses what is cellulosic ethanol, why you need to know about it, why you are not wrong if you find it ironic that cutting down trees is a carbon mitigation strategy, and how algae are really the future of biofuels.”

Now, I’m aware that different people have different opinions about which line of biofuels research we should pursue, but it’s important to remember that to ensure our energy security we must pursue all avenues of research. Advances in medicine didn’t come about from restricting areas of research, and the same will be true here. Diversity in energy research will ultimately lead to the most sustainable and energy efficient solution.

As has been pointed out multiple times on this blog, there are serious flaws in the theory of indirect land use change (ILUC) and the models used to predict it. But that’s not where the flaws end. There are also significant errors in data. As National Biodiesel Board CEO Joe Jobe said in a recent interview regarding ILUC theory: The elements that are not predictions, that are known, quantifiable data are actually wrong.

Well, another piece of known, quantifiable data came out today and again it exposed the flaw of ILUC theory. As you can read from a Growth Energy policy briefing (pdf), the theory of ILUC is essentially that corn for ethanol displaces other crops, namely soy, and therefore farmers in Brazil cut down the rainforest to grow soy and fill the demand.

The problem is that the theory does not square with known, quantifiable data. The U.S. Soybean Export Council released export data for U.S. soy export marketing year 2008-2009, which ended September 30, 2009. It was the third record year of soybean exports in a row as exports increased 11% from the previous marketing year. These record exports come at the same time that ethanol production is rapidly increasing. If the theory of ILUC was correct, an increase in corn used for ethanol should result in a decrease of soy exports, not an increase. How much more data contradicting the theory do we need before we put this theory out to pasture?

This week we start off with a United Nations report that urges caution on biofuels. Green Inc, a New York Times blog writes,

“The study concluded that whether a biofuel is climate-friendly or not depends largely on whether it is based on crops or production residues. Biofuels of the latter category were generally considered beneficial for the environment, and generating electricity locally from waste materials was found — in most cases — to be more energy efficient than converting biomass to liquid fuels.”

This paper was also written about in the blog, Futurism Now, the post called, Biofuels Will Increase Global Warming According to Study

They explain,

“That is because the land required to plant fast-growing poplar trees and tropical grasses would displace food crops, and so drive deforestation to create more farmland, a powerful source of carbon emissions.”

Not so fast, check out the Sustainable Production of Biofuels.

And biofuels continues to be the topic of the week. The biofuel review writes this week about a report from the Imperial College of London. The report has an upbeat tone about the future of biofuels and The biofuel review ends their post with a quote from Clare Wenner, Head of Renewable Transport at the Renewable Energy Association that says,

“Imperial College London has verified the results which show that these fuels can be produced in a sustainable way. With the right legislative framework, including the implementation of environmental rules under the Directive, it will be possible to limit indirect land use effects. Land will always be used for food and fuel, and the overall balance of these impacts could be positive as far as food is concerned. In fact, it seems likely that wheat-based biofuels production will not affect the amount of wheat exported by the EU as a whole.”

Then it’s more biofuels from Creamer Media’s Engineering News

According to Engineering News,

“Pretreatment and gasification technologies are on the verge of making second-generation biofuels a commercial reality, according to new analysis from Frost & Sullivan, entitled ‘Worldwide Market Analysis of Second Generation Biofeedstock.”

Engineering news interviewed Frost & Sullivan senior research analyst Phani Raj Kumar Chinthapalli,

“The use of second-generation biofuels is expected to reduce 
the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), particularly carbon 
dioxide (CO2), from combustion engines by 80% to 85% in comparison with conventional fossil fuels. The lifecycle emissions for second-generation biofuels are in the negative range, which implies consumption of CO2 rather than emission.”

That’s it for this week, see you next week.

Timothy Searchinger, visiting scholar at Princeton University, Dan Kammen of the University of California Berkeley, David Tilman of the University of Minnesota and other authors from the Environmental Defense Fund published an interesting new proposal in the Policy Forum section of Science magazine today. The argument put forward is that “Replacing fossil fuels with bioenergy does not by itself reduce carbon emissions, because the CO2 released by tailpipes and smokestacks is roughly the same per unit of energy regardless of the source.”

The premise behind this proposal is that the world is facing such a great need to reduce carbon emissions that future sources of energy and biofuels cannot make use of any currently sequestered carbon. Maybe… but there’s a perverse consequence of using this logic. Fossil fuels are a source of sequestered carbon. If you then say that all existing biomass is an untouchable source of sequestered carbon, you are essentially counting that sequestration as a benefit of having used fossil fuels for the past 150 years.

The logic is particularly tortured when a foregone sequestration penalty is attributed to biofuels when none is counted for petroleum.

There is much in the paper to agree with — particularly in recognizing carbon sequestration benefits from improved land management practices and energy crops. And certainly, the challenge of climate change is so great that implementing best practices for carbon sequestration is a necessity.

But a proposal that attributes carbon sequestration in trees as a plus in the accounting of fossil fuel use is counterproductive.