Brazil to scale up algae plant by 2013

In Brazil, a plant run by SAT will be producing biofuels from seaweed 

at industrial scale for the first time and is expected to be built by late 2013. The factory will be located on a sugar cane plantation in Pernambuco and will produce 1.2 million liters of algae-based biofuel annually.

Rafael Bianchini, head of SAT’s Brazilian group, said that the goal was to “convert the CO2 from a passive to an active” state. “For each ethanol liter produced, one kilogram of CO2 is released in the atmosphere. We are going to take this CO2 to feed our plant,” he added.

The project is still awaiting approval from the county’s National Petroleum Agency.

The 2012 London Olympics, biofuels-style: BP to showcase its three most advanced biofuels

Jim Lane | July 23, 2012

As the 2012 Summer Games approach, BP Biofuels launches its showcase for cellulosic ethanol, renewable diesel, and biobutanol.

Amidst the blizzard of demo drives and informational marketing, why are these molecules key to “fueling the future”?

This Friday, the games of the 2012 London Olympiad will commence, and for nearly three weeks more than one billion viewers worldwide will be treated to the best, the fastest, the most graceful and the most stirring performances in sport.

Here in the US, coverage of the opening ceremonies will begin at 7:30 Eastern time, as NBC sounds the familiar medley of Leo Arnaud’s Bugler’s Dream and John Williams’ Olympic Fanfare, designed as Williams said to musically represent “the spirit of cooperation, of heroic achievement, all the striving and preparation that go before the events and all the applause that comes after them.”

Because of the massive scope of the viewership and the immense crowds in London, the Olympics are something of an unparalleled marketing platform. This year in London, BP Biofuels will be using the occasion to showcase the future of fuels, when BP’s sugarcane-based diesel, cellulosic ethanol and Butamax biobutanol will be used (in blends) to power the Olympic fleet, and will be available at BP’s retail site right before the Hammersmith Flyover in west London.

The site is home to BP’s largest station in London, and well known to visitors shuttling along the A4 between Heathrow and the West End. There, BP will promote biofuels with information displays; a new, futuristic BP Ultimate Bioblended dispenser; and, the opportunity to experience the fuels themselves.

“The Olympics have given us a podium,” noted BP Biofuels chief executive Philip New, “to convince the most skeptical media in the world – the UK media – that these future fuels are real, not science fiction. And to demonstrate to a cynical world that advanced biofuels are here.”

“At the back of the station,” New added, “we have built these three pavilions to take you through the story of how we are fueling the future. We’ll have miscanthus growing there, and this really cool pump that recognizes what car is coming up and what it wants. We’ll have hundreds of guests, journalists, and VIPs and we will have an opportunity to educate them that all we are talking about is for real.”

Cellulosic ethanol

On hand will be cellulosic ethanol produced at the BP Biofuels demonstration plant in Jennings, Louisiana. Blended with BP Ultimate unleaded it is, at 103, the highest-octane fuel ever pumped from a UK forecourt.

Renewable diesel

Also on offer will be renewable diesel made in BP’s partnership with DSM’s Martek unit, which New notes is “in the same family as Solazyme-type technology.” The fuel, which is produced from conventional sugars, is being produced at a “Jennings-scale” pilot by the partnership.

Biobutanol

The third advanced biofuel is biobutanol, produced in the Butamax joint venture demonstration plant, constructed by BP and DuPont in the UK (at Hull). Now, interestingly, the biobutanol will be blended at 24 percent with conventional gasoline. Let’s look at that in a little more detail.

The biobutanol opportunity

As we have covered extensively in recent months in the Digest, both Butamax and its rival Gevo have signed up just on 1 billion gallons in ethanol production capacity into their early adopter advisory groups. The plant conversions are already taking place for Gevo, and in 2014 Butamax is expected to go operational with its first conversions.

What makes those conversions interesting the very near-term potential of biobutanol to be a “blend wall killer,” as New observed.

How so? There’s some controversy over the exact maximum blending rate that will be allowed for biobutanol – but it is widely believed that biobutanol can be green-lighted under the Clean Air Act for blends of up to the 16-17 percent range.

(From a vehicle compatibility perspective, keep in mind that, for the London Olympics, biobutabnol will be blended in BMW 5-series hybrids with no modifications whatsoever to the vehicles. In fact, BP Biofuels has tested biobutanol at 60 percent blends with gasoline with no trouble.)

So, how exactly is that a blend wall killer? Well, keep in mind that, for example, the US ethanol fleet of around 180 production plants can produce nearly 15 billion gallons of ethanol per year. Yet the US consumes these days around 130 billion gallons of gasoline – leaving a lot of ethanol will no place to go (except export markets) owing to the 10 percent blend limitation.

At a 16 percent blend rate, the same gasoline demand could support 20.8 billion gallons of biobutanol. And, keep in mind that the ethanol production would max out at around 12 billion gallons of biobutanol, owing to the lower yields because biobutanol is a bigger molecule.

Where does that leave us? Instead of 2 billion gallons of ethanol with no place to go, the US could add 70 percent more capacity and still have room to grow.

And, because a gallon of biobutanol (based on its BTUs) counts for 1.3 gallons of ethanol in totting up obligations under the Renewable Fuel Standard, that 20.8 billion gallons in production would count for 27 billion gallons of ethanol-equivalent fuel under RFS2.

Leaving the US biofuels industry with only 9 billion gallons of ethanol-equivalent fuel to produce via other capacity. That translates to 7 billion gallons of renewable gasoline, 6 billion gallons of biodiesel or 5.3 billion gallons of renewable diesel – to mention options in other drop-in fuels.

The Bottom Line

BP Biofuels has cleverly selected its fuels – choosing, for example, not to showcase its main current product, which is the Brazilian sugarcane ethanol produced at its three large refineries and sugarcane plantations in Brazil.

Why clever?

Currently biofuels already make up three per cent of transport fuels used around the world and BP estimates they could account for seven per cent of all transport fuels by 2030.

BP is doing much in London this week to demonstrate exactly how the industry is going to move from 3 to 7 in roughly half the time that it took the industry to get from 0 to 3. Which means focusing attention on the reality of biobutanol, the reality of cellulosic biofuels, and the reality of drop-in diesels made today from conventional sugars and (soon, we hope) from cellulosic sugars as well.

All of which will ultimately reflect, as John Williams said of his Olympic fanfare, “the spirit of cooperation, of heroic achievement,” not to mention “the striving and preparation.

Biomass into gas fuel putting another leap for biofuel commercialization

Coskata switches focus from biomass to natural gas; to raise $100M in natgas-oriented private placement

Jim Lane | July 20, 2012

Coskata, looking at CAPEX opportunities, political uncertainty, and the investor climate — switches to an “all natural gas” feedstock strategy.

Initiates a $100M private placement, puts Alabama project on hold. In today’s Digest, we look at the rationale, the impact and the way forward.

“In North America there’s a golden opportunity,” Coskata CEO Bill Roe says, in bringing the Digest up to speed with changes at Coskata. “The sea of natural gas is almost a problem, leading to historic price dislocation, and a level of availability that has not been seen for a long time. With our technology, it will give us a lower ethanol cost on a per gallon basis, and a remarkably lower capital cost because the kit that one needs to aggregate and gasify biomass, and then condition the syngas, is appreciably more than reforming natural gas.”

Accordingly, the company now plans to utilize natural gas as its exclusive feedstock for its first several commercial-scale projects. Now – keep in mind, Coskata was already utilizing natural gas for around one-third of its feedstock needs in its previously planned first commercial project in Alabama. What is notable here is the switch to an all-gas strategy.

“What we are not saying is that we are breaking ranks and abandoning feedstock flexibility,” reflected Coskata CEO Bill Roe, in discussing the directional shift with the Digest. Rich Troyer, Coskata’s chief business officer, echoes that “Coskata is not losing focus on biomass; it is still in our future.”

“What we are saying, Roe continues, “is that natural gas has moved to the front, as the first and most obvious feedstock that we can utilize for our commercialization strategy.”

“With our Alabama project being always 1/3 natural gas,” he added, “we began to get a schooling on natural gas availability. At the same time, across the board, that conventional wisdom that low gas prices would kill exploration and drilling began to change. The lifting cost in these formations began to be understood from the impact of horizontal drilling and fracking. Now, we understand it better, that there will be exploration opportunities that make sense even at $3 gas or just above that.”

Coskata’s $100M capital raise

While not expressly confirming that they have abandoned their IPO, the company has launched a $100 million , bank-led private placement, with international dimensions, specifically aimed towards strategic investors and especially those with positions relating to natural gas.

With respect to the company’s IPO, Roe commented: “The track record thus far is not inspiring – what’s happened out there. A lot of us in the queue ready to go – cooling our jets. Right now, you would only go if you are absolutely desperate, because outcomes will not be not satisfying. For sure, new issuers are struggling across the board, and especially those with new technologies and those that will be waiting for several years to have meaningful EBITDA. Meanwhile, natural gas is attracting a whole new cadre of potential investors, though we still think there is a point in time when the window will reopen, maybe 2014.

First commercial project

Our first project will be based on 100 percent natural gas, and will produce 17 million gallons of ethanol. The financing package is something they expect to be able to wrap in Q4, that will lead to ground-breaking on their first commercial project in Q1 2013 and a first commercial completion in late 2014 after a 20-month construction timeline.

Roe commented: “This is still liquid processing where we are processing syngas to fuel grade ethanol, and it is nearly identical to the design for our biomass conversion. We are simply changing the front end of the plant.”

With respect to site selection, the company will only note right now that “the natural gas opportunity abounds in different states and geographies. With individual states, some are extremely aggressive, some don’t have the budgets to do things like attractive incentives. But there’s a strategic element to this, going back to a whole host of interested parties.

“For those investors, this is no longer about renewable fuels, but about the arbitrage that will take place between the cost of natural gas and cost of petroleum.

The natural gas opportunity

Let’s look at that in the context of US natural gas production. Specifically, let’s look at the example of North Dakota, where a whole bunch of oil is being pumped out of the Bakken formation, and right now there is a level of coproduction of natural gas that does not have a home. They flare most of it because they are unable to get it into the grid. You see that also in parts of Appalachia, where natural gas has been found but the infrastructure is not yet available to get it into the power pool.

Here’s the opportunity: it’s simply the arbitrage of lifting natural gas, now available at the Henry Hub at $2 and change per million BTUs, into the fuel markets where the prices are more like $28 per million BTUs for finished fuels.

“Even if gas settles into the $4-$6 range,” Roe observed, “as many observers now predict they will in the US for a decade or two, these economics are extraordinary. We don’t understand the tiger we have by the tail.”

The capex and project size sea change

The Coskata project always had a natural gas component, so in dropping the biomass component there is a lot of cost that just falls away. Material handling, chipping, sizing, drying, gasification, gas clean up – all those unit costs come out.

The impact for Coskata? A 130 million gallon natural gas project costs the same as a 65 million gallon woody biomass project.

But there’s more, as they used to say in selling Ginzu knives. There are the economies of scale, once the limiting factor of the transportation of biomass is removed. “In processing biomass,” Roe noted, “we are limit to a maximum of 100-150 million gallons, about the size of a big ethanol plant. With a natural gas feed, much larger plants can be built.”

The company has plans on the drawing board, for example, for a 270 million gallon project, although economies of scale are reached with natural gas in the 130 million gallon range.

“The bioreactor portion is the same, just more trains with our NG2 and NG3 project; the scaling risk has essentially been eliminated, there are just more reformers and multiples of the same size bioreactors.”

The Alabama project and the company’s USDA conditional loan guarantee commitment

The fate of the company’s Alabama project? Though an optimal location for a woody biomass focus, “Boligee will not be the site of our first project,” Roe confirmed to the Digest.

Now, a couple of weeks ago, the USDA extended a conditional loan guarantee for $89 million related to the project, based on the Alabama location. “We’ll keep the project alive with conditional loan guarantee commitment; as we don’t expect to look to USDA to allow us to use this for a different purpose. We’ll see if there is a change to the RFS or not.”

The impact of policy uncertainty

Which brings us to the impact of policy uncertainty on Coskata’s decision.For sure, an impact there was.

“We are not of the belief we know more than anyone else about the future of RFS,” Roe commented, “but the drumbeat we continue to pick up in DC does not inspire confidence. It’s a sad commentary, as the debate over RFS2 is completely political at this time, leaving us unprepared to take the risk to sink major capital at this time in a project, and see RFS2 change markedly right in the middle of construction.”

Offtake impact

Where’s the ethanol going to go – especially if, produced from natural gas, it finds itself outside of the RFS2 scheme because it does not produce sufficient emissions improvement compared to conventional fuels.

“Right now – based on our discussions with obligated parties and big ethanol marketers, we do not see restrictions in entering into the same markets today. For those looking at ethanol in terms of the RFS2 compliance structure, they can buy a 2 cent corn RIN to match up with the natural gas product. This pathway will not attract a RIN, but the cost point is so low.”

Yields – natural gas vs biomass

Here, Coskata is more cagey, except to say that the same attributes that caused the company to have transformatively low fuel production costs with woody biomass, with yields of over 100 gallons per ton, apply to natural gas as well.

“At our demonstration project, we learned a lot about reforming natural gas as well as woody biomass,” said Roe. “The amount of data accumulated at demonstration emboldened us , and others will have to learn in the university of hard knocks, as we learned by building a $30 million demonstration.”

Australia and other international opportunities

Now, Coskata has been investigating an Australian project for some time, based on woody biomass gasification. What’s the fate of their international ambitions? For now, no changes in plans, but for sure there are going to be different opportunities based on a changed strategic investor group, and there are plenty of strategic investors in, Asia. Not to mention Russia.

Aviation and other fuel markets

There been a lot of activity of late in the alcohol to jet area – no obligated parties, no RINs there, just pure economic opportunity. What are the opportunities for Coskata?

“We certainly are aware of the ATJ developments,” Roe said. “Overall, we see the opportunity but it is not a cakewalk to get there. I am not exactly sure that we are convinced that ethanol as the base material is the best way to go. There are other alcohol products that could be better feedstock materials, and though we have initially focused on C2, we have work going on with C3 (propanol), C4 (butanol) and another higher alcohol. We are 18-24 months away from a C4 butanol.”

Coskata – still a biofuels company?

For sure, and on two counts. First, Coskata is not abandoning biomass just yet, though putting it squarely in the back seat for now. But more importantly, it continues to use microbiology to perform its ferment syngas into its target fuels and chemicals.

“The longer I am at this,” commented Coskata’s Roe, “I believe now more than ever that microbiology as the conversion process is much more efficient than catalytic technologies.”

Others in the queue that may switch to natural gas

Well, in recent months, there’s been Sundrop Fuels, and Primus Green Energy – with Coskata we now have three, and that makes a trend.

Who’s next? Siluria has been focused on natural gas for quite some time. Accelergy has been pursuing a combination of coal and biomass in China within an overall XTL focus, and let’s see how their project opportunities change.

Others that may see striking opportunities with natural gas reformation, to create their syngas for catalytic conversion?

Clearly, LanzaTech and INEOS Bio have to be considered to be in that mix – given that they also have technologies that offer biobased fermentation of syngas to produce biofuels and chemicals.

Then, there are a group of companies that are working on gasifying MSW and using inorganic catalysts. Like Fulcrum and Enerkem. A number of them stranded in their capital raise, as Sundrop, Primus and Coskata were, to varying degrees.

The Bottom Line

This is a change induced by the capital formation challenge facing advanced biofuels – and particularly the smaller project developers (as opposed to the bigger balance sheets).

There is the problem of the closed IPO window, the lack of sufficient strategic investors, in the face of the policy uncertainty, for biomass pure plays.

For Coskata, there is the capex opportunity to, as they say, construct a 130 million gallon project for the same price as a 65 million gallon project.

As we wrote in “Syngas and the front-end problem of biofuels” in April:

“Why is there not a rush to embrace technologies such as Enerkem, Terrabon, Coskata, Fulcrum Bioenergy or others that can convert MSW into liquid fuels?

The bumps in the road are three. One, the technology is expensive over the generally small radius in which MSW can be profitably aggregated. Two, the technologies themselves are just reaching commercial demonstration scale. Three, they all could use a more affordable stream of optimized syngas.

Syngas, keep an eye on it. We have found more profitable, breakthrough ways to use it, than make it. Getting the right syngas at the right price. Well, that’s been an area where a lot of companies have been working.”

For now, this is an opportunity generally limited to the United States and Canada, where the technologies are being deployed to liberate vast quantities of natural gas. Longer term, we look to Russia as a future leader, as well.

Stay tuned, there will be more. From Coskata and, we suspect, from other biobased developers that are compelled by the same economics.

USA Biofuels for military- a mighty development.

The Navy’s Green Strike Group sails on biofuels blend: will it sail again?

Jim Lane | July 19, 2012

As the Pacific-based forces of Can-Do battle the Washington-based forces of Shouldn’t-Try, we look at the 6 Big Myths of Military Biofuels

In Hawaii, the US Navy demonstrated its Green Strike Group as part of the 2012 Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC), the world’s largest international maritime warfare exercise that includes 40 surface ships, six submarines, more than 200 aircraft and 25,000 personnel from 22 different nations.

On July 17th, military Sealift Command fleet replenishment oiler USNS Henry J. Kaiser (T-AO 187) delivered 700,000 gallons of hydro-treated renewable diesel fuel, or HRD76, to three ships of the strike group. Kaiser also delivered 200,000 gallons of hydro-treated renewable aviation fuel, or HRJ5, to Nimitz. The fuels were provided by Solazyme and Dynamic Fuels.

Both fuels are a 50-50 blend of traditional petroleum-based fuel and biofuel comprised of a mix of waste cooking oil and algae oil. deliver 900,000 gallons of a 50-50 blend of advanced biofuels and traditional petroleum-based fuel to the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) strike group. 

The fuel delivery is part of the Navy’s Great Green Fleet demonstration, which allows the Navy to test, evaluate and demonstrate the cross-platform utility and functionality of advanced biofuels in an operational setting.

A note from Vice Admiral Philip Hart Cullom, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Fleet Readiness and Logistics

“Energy is an integral part of warfighting. It has been since the Industrial Revolution, and that’s not about to change. If you are a Sailor, government civilian or a contractor on the Navy team reading this blog, I ask you to do your part by thinking Energy in everything you do.

“This week, as part of the international Rim of the Pacific Exercise, the Navy embarks on the largest demonstration of military operations using renewable biofuel. In the modern age of warfare, energy is fundamental to our warfighting. We use it in our aircraft, ships, and expeditionary vehicles, and throughout our shore infrastructure. Unfortunately, this makes fuel both an indispensible enabler of our warfighting and a major potential liability.

“When there are unpredictable spikes in the price of fuel, our Sailors and Marines are likely to fly less, steam less, and train less. This is not an insubstantial expense, and we cannot, and should not, trade readiness for fuel.

“Advanced 2nd and 3rd generation alternative fuels, such as those we are experimenting with during RIMPAC, will allow us to continue to perform our mission in a manner that frees us from relying upon a diminishing resource. As with the development of any new technology or product, up-front research and development costs in alternative fuels are a necessary part of getting to a new way to power the Fleet. Technological advances and demand are beginning to drive economies of scale and production quantities that can drive down the costs of alternative fuels.”

Vice Admiral Cullom also provided a video message, available here via YouTube.

Industry reaction

Advanced Biofuels Association president Michael McAdams attending the RIMPAC Green Strike Group demonstration aboard the USS Nimitz

Advanced Biofuels Association President Michael McAdams

“This is a significant achievement for America’s domestic biofuels industry, and a proud moment for our nation as we’re seeing the results of American ingenuity and innovation in this home grown advanced biofuel that is successfully powering the world’s largest state of the art warships. What’s happening today in the waters of the Pacific is proof that America’s domestic biofuels industry is no longer assessing hypotheticals of ifs or when, instead, today, we are now asking, how much do you need? Moving from the beaker to the barrel, all in record time.”

Mary Rosenthal, executive director of the Algal Biomass Organization

“ Today’s successful  demonstration of the ‘Great Green Fleet’ at the Rim of the Pacific Exercise  is the latest in a series of tests by the Navy and other major players that show that algae-based fuels can perform the same, or better, than petroleum fuels.

“Fuels made from algae are made in the U.S.A, are 100-percent compatible with existing infrastructure, and in the near future, will be price-competitive with petroleum.  By developing domestic alternatives to petroleum, the US algae industry is helping reducing our reliance on imported oil, creating manufacturing jobs in rural communities, and strengthening our national security.”

The 6 Big Myths of Military Biofuels

Myths abound on military biofuels – some passed around by the usual suspects in an attempt to create fear, uncertainty and doubt, and thereby win crucial political points during an election season.

As a Reuters report notes, “Congressional Republicans have denounced the military’s green energy push as another attempt by the Obama administration to promote alternative fuels even when they make little economic sense, as in the case of the government-funded solar panel maker Solyndra, which went bankrupt last year.”

Others seem more to be the product of naïvete, often by members of the media who struggle to master the science and economics of energy under the pressure of journalistic deadlines.

In this context we’d like to examine assertions made in a feature story on the Green Strike Group published this week in Wired’s online Danger Room, entitled “How the Navy’s Incompetence Sank the ‘Green Fleet”.

Myth #1. Military Biofuels will cost an extra $1.8B per year.

True or False? Is there “a little-noticed Defense Department report shows that the Navy could spend as much as an extra $1.8 billion per year if it buys all the biofuel it’s pledged to burn?”

False and false. Which is to say, congressional Republicans have been attempting to give the report more visibility than the Declaration of Independence.

The report does mention a figure of $1.8 billion – absent the invocation of the Defense Production Act Title III, which would ensure that advanced biofuels are, in fact, cost-competitive with fossil fuels. The Obama Administration, working with the Navy, simply followed the recommendations of the 2011 report and invoked the DPA to ensure that switching to green fuels would not involve great expense to taxpayers.

The report is here.

Myth #2. Advanced biofuels falling 98 percent short of Congressional targets.

True or false? “In 2007, Congress set a goal of producing two billion gallons of advanced biofuels within five years. But today, firms can only generate around 40 million gallons of the stuff — 98 percent less than the original plan’s total.”

False. Advanced biofuels, as defined in the Congressional goal, specifically include sugarcane ethanol and biodiesel, and more than 10 billion gallons “of the stuff” were produced around the world last year – vastly exceeding the Congressional target.

How did Wired get its, er, wires crossed? By mixing up the definition of cellulosic biofuels with advanced biofuels. As it happens, none of the fuels used in yesterday’s exercise were cellulosic biofuels.

Myth #3. There is no biofuels production in the US capable of supporting military fuels – it’s fantasy fuel.

True or false? “Currently, there’s not a single commercial-grade biorefinery operating in this country.”

False and false. There are more than 180 biorefineries operating in the United States. More importantly, since what Wired is driving at is the manufacture of military fuels (rather than, say, ethanol), all of them capable of making intermediates that can be upgraded to military-spec aviation fuel.

Keep in mind, all biofuels made for military purposes today are manufactured in a two step-process – first, an intermediate is made, and then it is upgraded through processes such as UOP’s hydroprocessing technology. It’s the same with crude – you don’t pour crude oil into an aircraft or destroyer – after recovery, it is processed and upgraded at a refinery to meet a military spec.

Also keep this in mind. In the 2012 demonstration the HEFA fuels were used, from a new renewable fuel spec developed and approved in the past two years, and which primarily utilizes fats, oils and greases to make renewable fuels.

By the 2016 deployment of the Green Strike Group, the ATJ standard is expected to have been approved. What’s that? Instead of upgrading oils to military fuels, this is for the upgrade of alcohols into fuels. The military will have a vastly larger pool of suppliers and production capacity to tap into in 2016.

So, why all the fuss about invoking the DPA? The Navy is planning to use the DPA to ensure that it has a reliable, cost-competitive supply of military fuels. DPA-invested production capacity will be, by contract, providing fuels at a cost-competitive price and with a dedicated supply to the military. The US Navy, like everyone else, is determined not to repeat the mistake of recent years and buying renewable fuels in the open market.

In this way, it is returning to the same strategy it used in the conversion from coal to petroleum back in the early 1900s.

The oil industry in Wyoming really got underway with the Teapot Dome complex, which was a Navy fuel production depot. Ultimately that complex was released to the public (initiating an energy brouhaha – the Teapot Dome scandal – that makes the upheaval over Solyndra look like chicken feed, and was described as the most serious public scandal prior to Watergate). President Harding’s Interior Secretary, Albert Fall, in fact went to jail as a result of the scandal, the first US cabinet official ever to do so.

The British Navy did much the same when converting from coal to oil. Concerned over supplies and costs, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill pushed through a plan to found the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to guarantee afordable, reliable sources of the new fuel. Today, that company is still around – it’s BP.

Myth #4. Biofuels are heavily subsidized and are a showcase for government subsidy programs gone wrong.

True or false? “In 1980, Congress began a major investment in the production of corn-based ethanol with a 45-cents-ger-gallon subsidy. Thirty years and $45 billion later, that program is widely considered to be a disaster; at least 40 percent of the U.S. corn industry is now diverted into producing biofuel.”

True and false. True, the Congress introduced a subsidy in 1980. The program has resulted in, according to the most recent study, a $1.09 per gallon reduction in the cost of gasoline by reducing US petroleum demand, almost single-handedly eliminated a farm support that was costing US taxpayers even more than the ethanol subsidy; and the ethanol subsidy itself has been discontinued.

On the 40 percent figure, Wired has mistaken corn shipments to ethanol plants for corn usage by ethanol plants. It’s true (well, not quite, but close enough for horseshoes) 40 percent of corn is shipped to US ethanol plants – but only one-third of the corn kernel, by weight, is used for ethanol. Another third, for example, is returned to the feed markets as a low-cost, high-protein animal feed.

Imagine if you will, the family of eight at the Sunday dinner table. You are the first, say, to tuck into the mashed potatoes. You take your share of a 2-pound tub, and then pass it to your right, and everyone takes their share. It is not true to say that you consumed 2 pounds of mashed potatoes.

Myth #5. Biofuels technologies drive up food prices, excepting technologies that never seem to arrive.

True or false?  “If you use crop land, you increase the price of food. Using ‘new’ land would work — if you depend on a bunch of technologies which haven’t been commercialized yet, a bunch of things that don’t really exist in this world.”

False and false. Food and crops are not the same things, just because food is made from crops. Lots of things go into making food – mostly, energy and marketing. In a $4 box of Corn Flakes, there is less than 10 cents worth of corn. I know – you’re about to tell me that I am referring to processed foods, as are used in developed countries – but what about staple foods such as are used in Africa. Well, let’s consider (sub-Saharan) Africa, and the traditional staple crop, cassava. Eat that raw, you die – without energy-intensive cooking, it forms a cyanide in your body.

And, it’s false that “a bunch of technologies which haven’t been commercialized yet, a bunch of things that don’t really exist in this world” are required to make biofuels from ‘new land’.

Take for instance, Dynamic Fuels’ 75 million gallon commercial-scale facility, which makes military fuel intermediates from animal waste – and which provided much of the fuel for this 2012 demonstration.

Myth #6. Former green tech supporters are now leading the charge against advanced biofuels.

True or false. “One-time green tech supporters were now lashing out at the biofuel program. During the 2008 election, Sen. John McCain pushed his plan to “in five years become oil independent,” modeled after the U.S. military’s project to build the atomic bomb.”

A mile from true. Arizona Senator John McCain is the long-time, well-known, leading opponent of biofuels, in virtually all its forms, for more than a decade. The Senator is one of just 20 or so Senators who voted against the Bush Administration’s Renewable Fuel Standard legislation (The Energy Independence and Security Act), and has been a leading opponent of cleantech mandates in power and fuels, cleantech tax incentives, production tax credits, and loan guarantees.

As Friends of the Earth pointed out in the last election cycle:

“John McCain says he opposes funding wind and solar: “You should let the free-enterprise system take over,” McCain says [Grist, 10/1/07]. McCain no-shows for vote to extend renewable energy tax credit, measure fails by one-vote margin, McCain advisor later says he opposed measure [CQ, 12/13/07]. McCain previously voted against tax credits encouraging renewable energy production [Senate Vote 42, 3/14/06; Senate Vote 125, 5/21/01]. McCain votes against establishing national renewable energy standard to promote wind, solar and other alternatives [Senate Vote 141, 6/16/05; Senate Vote 50 3/14/02; Senate Vote 55 3/21/02; Senate Vote 59 3/21/02].”

Not that there’s anything wrong with the Senator taking a position against federal investment in developing new technologies and industries. It’s just plain wrong to style Sentator McCain as a green tech supporter in this context.

Will the Green Strike Group – much less the Great Green Fleet – sail again?

If the Navy has its way, yes. Will the Navy get its way? Much depends on the 2012 US presidential election and, just as crucially on the US congressional elections.

One thing you can take to the bank. Should the Fleet sail again and when the Fleet sails again, it will not be at a massive cost to the taxpayer. That’s the purpose of the DPA Title III program, which should properly be seen in the context of the way that the Navy’s transition from coal to oil was structured, not dissimilarly, in the early 20th century.

A note on leadership from Gen. Colin Powell (Ret.)

“In the military we are always looking for ways to leverage up our forces. Perpetual optimism, believing in yourself, believing in your purpose, believing you will prevail, and demonstrating passion and confidence is a force multiplier.”

German algae manufacturer secures new multi-million investment

13 July 2012

German manufacturer of algae photobioreactors Subitec has secured €4.5 million ($5.4 million) of new venture investment.

It claims the money will be used to launch bioreactors on the international market and help to further extend its market position. The investment was raised through German venture capital firms like Fraunhofer Venture, kfWBankengruppe’s ERP-Startfonds and eCapital Entrepreneurial Partners.

‘Compared to other energy crops, such as maize or wheat, algae are considerably more efficient in creating biomass,’ says eCapital MD Michael Lübbehusen. ‘To exploit this potential, Subitec has developed highly efficient algae photobioreactors which permit the propagation of algae and the creation of algae biomass at competitive prices on an industrial scale. Together we would now like to encourage the further development of this innovative company.’

Subitec will also use the funds from the capital to develop the fourth generation of the flat panel airlift reactor (FPA).

‘The collaboration with our new investors enables us to address international markets and further extend our technological leadership’, adds Peter Ripplinger, MD of Subitec.

Subitec was founded in 2000 as a spin-off of the Fraunhofer Institute for Interfacial Engineering and Biotechnology IGB.

Can the harnessing of the powers of magnetism overcome cost challenges in algal biofuels? Researchers across the globe pursue the answers.

Of all the many contributions that the English have made to the study and advancement of biofuels, it may be that one day that the appearance of an unusual bacterium back in the last days of the dinosaurs – amongst the organisms that eventually formed the White Cliffs of Dover – that we may remember best.

That location – the northern downs of England – is home to the oldest known magnetotactic bacteria, which is to say bacteria that respond to electromagnetic forces.

Engineering magnetic algae

The bacterium was first observed in the 1960s, but their role in the future of energy took a significant step forward last year, when a group of Los Alamos National Laboratory researchers genetically engineered “magnetic” algae to investigate alternative, more efficient harvesting and lipid extraction methods for biofuels.

At LANL, the researchers took a gene that is known to form magnetic nanoparticles in magnetotactic bacteria and expressed it in green algae, where a permanent magnet can be used to separate the transformed algae from a solution.

Other approaches to magnetism and biofuels

It’s not the first attempt to harness the powers of the electromagnetic force in the service of biofuels. Back in 2009, Siemens researcher Manfred Ruehrig proved, at lab scale, that it was possible to add magnetic iron oxides into water, have them snatched up by algae, and then use external permanent magnets to separate the suddenly-magnetic algae from the water and, presto!, a low-cost means of concentrating algae out of all the water that it grows in.

In 2010, a team of researches led by Wankei Wan, at the University of Western Ontario, reported that they had successfully used the introduction of electromagnetic fields to speed up the reproduction rate of a single-celled alga, Chlorella kessleri, in a small-scale raceway pond.

But the Los Alamos approach is perhaps the most intriguing – the introduction of magnetic properties into microalgae. For the challenge of algal biofuels these days, is to shake the cost out of the systems. Two key challenges in that quest: first, keeping algal production, over the long term, at healthy rates by ensuring that the selected strain can outcompete predators and competitors; second, by finding the lowest-cost path to getting the water out of the algae or the algae out of the water.

Algal biofuels and the defense against the dark arts

As Tony Haymet, Director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Vice Chancellor for Marine Sciences, and Dean of the Graduate School of Marine Sciences at UCSD, pointed out recently, the science of algae in open pond systems has proceeded to the point where 25 grams per square meter per day of biomass, with a 25 percent lipid content, is no longer a stretch goal for algal scientists. In fact, he said, it has become table stakes.

In layman’s terms, what does that productivity translate to? That’s right around 2700 gallons of renewable oil per acre of production. Compared to around 800 gallons of ethanol per acre for sugarcane and around 400 gallons per acre of ethanol for corn. Not to mention the far higher BTUs, or heating value, of algal oils, gallon for gallon, compared to ethanol.

So the challenge with algae has been less in the productivity of the system and more with its sustainability and the overall system cost.

To date, Sapphire Energy and Aurora Algae have proceeded the farthest towards large-scale open pond algal systems that they believe have a reliable degree of sustainability. In other words, they have studied up sufficiently in their Defense against the Dark Arts studies that they can defend their ponds and their prized algae against all comers.

Getting the algae out of the water

Leaving the problem of getting the algae out of the water – and for some time there has been increasing focus on natural systems by which biomass can aggregate itself. There’s bioflocculation, for example, a process by which algae clump together and, in so clumping, settle quickly out of the water. A 2008 project at the School of Marine Science and Technology and the School of Chemical Engineering and Advanced Materials at Newcastle University was one of the pioneering efforts at harnessing this process into an applied technology for algal biofuels.

Which brings us to magnetism. It’s a powerful force, as is commonly known, acts across large distances. In fact, a subclass known as diamagnetic material can be successfully floated in a magnetic field, without the use of power consumption. Back in 2006, a group of researchers at Radboud University in the Netherlands, managed to successfully levitate a live frog in a magnetic field.

So, there is paramagnetism, which describes the attractive force – and diamagentism, which describes a repelling force.

To use a commonplace image, consider the effect which a serving of ice cream has upon an otherwise uniformly distributed roomful of diners – generally, an attractive force. Then there the effect which, say, the impact which a noseful of hot, freshly-made Scottish haggis has upon the uninitiated – the repellent force in action, requiring not of energy but simply the distribution of a force across a field.

For now, the work remains to take the work out of the lab and into the field. But it reminds us why so many thoughtful people are betting that advances in biology and genetic engineering will cause bio-based materials and fuels to be produced more cost-effectively than from fossil-based molecules.

A Molecule that learns

For the fossil molecule, its time within a living system is complete and its development is finished – it is simply a matter of finding the best way to retrieve it. But for the bio-based molecule, it is still a living thing and, ultimately, can be helped to acquire traits that make it spectacularly successful as a platform for fuels and materials.

The old dog, as it turns out, is highly capable of learning new tricks, if we simply master the means of looking beyond traits . That is, assembling traits – like magnetism of magnetotactic bacteria and the lipid production rates of green algae – into aggregated groups that we might refer to not only as organisms, but as organisms with talents.

Algae biofuel in Australia!

NSW MINISTER FOR RESOURCES AND ENERGY TO OPEN ALGAE.TECALGAE TO BIOFUELS GLOBAL  SHOWCASEFACILITY IN AUSTRALIA

Perth, Western Australia/Atlanta, Georgia - 20 June 2012 - Algae.Tec (ASX:AEB, FWB:GZA:GR, OTCQX :ALGXY) the advanced algae to biofuels company with a high-yield, enclosed  and scalable algae growth and harvesting system today announced the algae to biofuels showcase facility Shoalhaven One will be officially opened on 2 August 2012.

Algae.Tec is pleased to announce the New South Wales Minister for Resources and Energy the Honourable Chris Hartcher, MP will officially open the facility south  of Sydney in New South Wales, Australia.

Algae.Tec Executive Chairman Roger Stroud said the Company was very pleased to have the Minister for Resources and Energy from the most populous state in Australia opening the facility.

The showcase commissioning was currently underway and the official opening of the facility would mark the production of algae oil for biofuels.

Algae.Tec recently announced the appointment of Sydney-based aviation fuels specialist engineer Colin McGregor as General Manager Project Operations.

Algae.Tec has biofuel projects underway with Lufthansa, Holcim Lanka, a joint venture in China, a showcase facility in Australia and a manufacturing base in Atlanta, Georgia (USA). The Company is also in talks with relevant firms in Brazil and the United States.