Five Innovations to Look for in Algal Biofuel: Analysis and One More

Stephen Mayfield of the San Diego Center for Algae Biotechnology recently listed on xconomy five innovations to watch out for in 2011 relating to algal biofuel ,which got me thinking:

1. The first synthetic algal genome
Stephen might be jumping the gun more than a little for 2011; last year saw the first “synthetic” bacterial genome, but this wasn’t the earth shattering development claimed. The DNA was produced chemically and then inserted into an existing yeast cell, something done fairly routinely with much smaller bits of DNA in labs around the world. The information encoded in that DNA wasn’t particularly novel; it was more or less a carbon copy of the existing organism’s DNA, though a few very small edits were made. It will take a lot of research and analysis to truly understand what changes can be made across a whole genome before the full benefits of synthetic genomes start to make themselves known, which will be the really interesting and useful part of synthetic biology. This gets into the field of Systems Biology; most of the work in genomics over the past few decades has been to see what can be done by taking a biological system apart, systems biology is starting to study how this changes when these parts of the system act together and how changes in one part affect another. One way of putting it is that Synthetic Biology is the tool and Systems Biology is about knowing how to use it.

2. The first significant scale-up of algae biofuel production.

This is starting to happen and might well get underway in 2011; some algae projects have secured enough investment to go ahead with biofuel pilot plants, for example the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s project to build offshore bioreactors. Solazyme signed a contract with the US defense department for 150,000 gallons of its algal diesel in 2010. When the contract is renewed it is likely to be for a bigger amount. The big cost for algal biofuel production are the incubators. Two approaches to incubation are often used; open ponds and photobioreactors (either open reactors using sunlight or closed reactors using UV lamps). Open ponds are the cheapest but prone to contamination and have lower yields, photobioreactors are more expensive but get better yields (these yields are even higher if the UV input is controlled the right way). There have been a few projects at the pilot plant scale in the past, but a fully commercial scale plant might well happen in 2011.

3. The first clinical trial of an algae-based therapeutic.

And,

4. The introduction of several new algae-based nutraceuticals.
These represent two related innovations, which I also happen to take issue with re: algal biofuel. Algae based therapeutics and nutraceuticals (call them ‘healthcare products’) are clearly valuable; healthcare is a huge industry. It has been shown very well that algae can produce great yields of oil for biodiesel in labs. That concept is proven. The concept of using algae to produce drugs or to use for nutritional benefits is also solid. However, I don’t really see how these innovations benefit biofuel production. The difference is in scale and economics. Healthcare products produced from algae don’t have the same pressures for cost competitiveness and scale that algal biofuel has; if anything innovations in algal biofuel production might help manufacture healthcare products from algae more cheaply, but not the other way around. There isn’t demand for healthcare products on the scale of billions of gallons a year for the price of a few dollars a gallon; the average biopharmaceutical will be produced on scale of kilograms and have high value relative to volume. While these would be good developments, they wouldn’t have any real value to an algal biofuel producer, except as a sideline.

5. Oil to top $120 a barrel, and with that a much broader realization that we really are running out of the good stuff.
I think Stephen is right on the money with this one. Here in the UK, fuel prices are higher than ever and rising. In the last two years fuel prices have gone up by around 50% in that time, though some of this is down to a rise in the tax on fuel. The price of crude oil has been rising steadily since the spike and subsequent drop in 2007. Oil-price.net  predicts it will hit $101 a barrel within a year; if prices keep increasing at this rate oil will reach $120 a barrel in 2013. As oil prices climb the economic climate for competing technologies becomes for favorable and we might see greater commercial success and growth of these technologies without subsidies. For algae technologies high oil prices give an opportunity for them to enter the marketplace.
As for the broader realization that oil is becoming more scarce, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill of 2010 got people wondering why BP were drilling for oil so deeply in a place where so much can go wrong in the first place. Clearly this is a complicated issue, but one of the reasons put forward for why they were drilling so deep is that easily extractable oil is getting more difficult to find. I hate to sound like a scaremonger, but if oil companies are being pushed to drill in more difficult places to meet demand the Deepwater Horizon won’t be the last disaster of its kind; if anything they will get more frequent as oil companies scrape the barrel.This shows just how important alternatives to petroleum will be in the future.
After reading Stephen Mayfield’s thoughts on this, I have an extra innovation for 2011 to watch out for.

6. Developments in offshore algae production.
One of the biggest reasons for moving away from first generation biofuels-derived from food crops is the food vs fuel issue. Then with second generation biofuels we began to see non-food crops being used, but often this means growing a non-food crop on agricultural land rather than addressing the problem. Use of marginal land is an option but these areas are not well suited to agriculture. In the future with a growing global population land space might well be at a premium. Developing technologies to cultivate algae offshore (where many species of algae grow naturally) removes any competition for land. An interesting, low tech approach is that of Chilean researchers exploring how to process the macroalgae (kelp) on beaches, cutting out the farming costs.

Washington Guarantees Biofuels Loans Totalling $650M

Diamond Green Diesel, Coskata, and Enerkem all receive loan guarantees, in addition to the guarantee given to INEOS-New Planet Energy we saw recently.
Releasing the guarantees, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack reaffirmed the USDA’s commitment to biofuels, recently a matter of doubt to some industry participants: "Our belief is the industry is here to stay. There is still tremendous opportunity here."

As much as 40% of US corn is used in bioethanol, fueling worries over food prices and shortages. The US government ihas therefore been pushing advanced, “cellulosic” biofuel technology using a variety of non-food feedstocks for bioethanol production; development slowed during the recession, and a few hiccups in White House, USDA/DOE policy generated anxiety in the biofuels/corn lobby; and now the government clearly wants to get things back on track.. Making these new technologies a commercial success is difficult; they have to compete with fossil fuels and also with biofuel produced from food crops. A number of small companies had to scale back production last year for that reason.

“Loan guarantees” are not direct cash grants. They mean the government acts as a backstop in case of default, paying off the defaulted loan, making it easier to get big loans from risk-averse banks. Most of these guarantees are from US Department of Agriculture: chemicals specialists INEOS at $75M, “Flexethanol” producers Coskata’s at $250M and Enerkem’s at $80M. Diamond Green Diesel (a new joint venture between petroleum company Valero Energy and Darling International) will receive $241M courtesy the Department of Energy; the DoE is also the source of Myriant’s bio-based chemical loan guarantee, and about a dozen biorefinery pilots in a previous round of Stimulus funding.

Coskata are using the cash for a cellulosic ethanol plant in Alabama, which will use woody biomass as a feedstock. When online they expect to produce 55 million gallons of ethanol annually. Enerkem will use its share to build a 10 million gallon facility in Mississippi to convert waste into bioethanol. Diamond Green’s chunk goes towards a 137 million gallon plant in Louisiana, using waste fat (cooking oil, animal fat, etc) as a feedstock.

Amyris Expands Farnesene Operations with Glycotech

Amyris has cut a deal with Glycotech to provide a chemical processing facility to use Amyris’ renewable Farnesene for downstream applications.

CEO of Amyris, John Melo;

“We are excited to access this facility to perform our own chemical processing of farnesene into our target 2011 end products of squalane and lubricant. In addition, we can expand these operations to grow beyond our 2011 needs to support growth in several of our vertical markets.”

Farnesene is a chemical of high value in the flavors and fragrances sector, or as a building block for producing other chemicals, such as lubricants and cosmetics. Amyris’ process for renewable diesel production uses farnesene as a feedstock. There is also research and development underway to use farnesene in polymers. Amyris produces Farnesene under the name Biofene by microbial fermentation using renewable feedstocks and has number of business partners around the world to commercialise these various applications.

The latest in these partnerships is with Glycotech and Salisbury Partners for use of Salisbury’s processing facility in North Carolina.  At first the facility will probably covert Amyris’ farnesene to squalene, with more conversions coming online in future. From here, Amyris will distribute the products itself. The financial benefits of the arrangement are that Amyris will be able to effectively outsource part of its production process, making the economics of the process better.

“Bioplastics and Biofuels Partnership Opportunities Are Drying up”, says Lux Research Report

A report titled “Top Technologies in Bioplastics and Biofuels” researched the state of the “bio-space”, finding that clear leaders have emerged. The report says that this means opportunities for startups to partner with large companies are dwindling.

Analyst for Lux Research and the report’s lead author, Andrew Soare:

“The market for bioplastics and biofuels has matured since we last compared companies in the Lux Innovation Grid. Clearly defined winners and losers have emerged from what last year had been a pack of largely indistinguishable, under-financed start-ups. Companies that are merely treading water today are falling behind as increasingly dominant players land large funding rounds, forge corporate partnerships or expand their production capacity. It’s critical for large companies to act now because many start-ups in the space are seeking financing and/or partnerships. But few start-ups are likely winners, and securing the wrong partnership with the wrong company could cause corporate players to fall behind their competitors. This report will help corporations know when to answer the phone.”

Many Biotechnology startup companies say that their technology is easy to commercialize; that it will scale up well and that it is economically competitive. This is standard when hunting for investment, but there is no real way of knowing how the startup will perform in the marketplace until it’s there. The effect of competitors, the whole supply chain and unforeseen scaling issues can throw a spanner in the works when making predictions. Some will make it and form successful partnerships with their corporate partners, but many don’t. Lux says the report aims to help investors in their strategy in what it calls a “dwindling pool of likely winners”.
The report looks favorably on fermentation and gasification technologies. TetraVitae and Genomatica are named as interesting companies. The companies with the tag “Synthetic Biology” are attracting a lot of investment with claims of custom-built microbes, Verdezyne and Amyris examples here. The report argues algae companies will probably shrink in number; startups with redundant technology won’t get investment, and will need to share or license technologies, to help build a more integrated value chain. Solazyme and Algenol are cited as leaders, on the grounds of innovative technology and strategic partnerships.

Novozymes Says U.S. Will Produce $13.8B Gallons of Bioethanol in 2011

Industrial enzymes leader Novozymes conservatively predicts 5% growth in the US bioethanol industry to 13.8bn gallons in the coming year, depending on investment in second generation biofuel and how the blending wall is handled.

Novozymes Chief Financial Officer, Benny Loft:

"There's a lot of uncertainty linked to that number. The Renewable Fuels Standard talks about 12.6 billion gallons being produced in 2011, so that is the minimum. So that part of the uncertainty will disappear. The uncertainty is there today, but it won't impact 2011.”

"People who are going to invest in plants producing second-generation biofuel, they need to see this work in real life. The production of these new plants will not happen in 2011 as was said a year ago. If we are lucky it will happen in late 2012 or perhaps even at the beginning of 2013. It helps when the oil price is close to $100 per gallon. Studies have shown that the market can go as high as 60 billion gallons of ethanol at that price level ... so if you see an even higher oil price in 2011, it will certainly help the economy of producing second-generation biofuels. A big player like DuPont could perhaps promote the second generation biofuel even better than Danisco has. And since they are in the U.S. they can do things that we might not be able to do in developing that market. But I think we need to see how they will actually integrate the Genencor part of Danisco, and how they would like to focus that business to say how it will impact the competitive situation."

Novozymes has a global market share of about 47% in industrial enzymes. The bioethanol industry is one of Novozymes’ biggest clients, 19% of Novozymes sales are to ethanol companies. Novozymes is continuing to develop its technology; in early 2010 it released CTec2: technology to produce second generation biofuels from non-food biomass. As its technology develops, Novozymes believe that they can produce ethanol for just over $2 a gallon; whether this can compare with oil prices remains to be seen.

This ethanol production estimate from Novozymes is higher than the Renewable Fuel Standards estimate because it accounts for shifts in the price of sugar in Brazil; exported US ethanol can compete with Brazilian ethanol in the present climate. Loft also commented on the blending wall, the point at which the demand for ethanol plateaus because of limits on how much can be blended into standard gasoline and limited use of higher ethanol percentage fuel. Novozymes does not see the blending wall as a problem. Relaxing regulations for the use of E15 will mitigate the problem for a while; the US government will probably allow cars produced from 2001 onwards to use E15 (currently only cars produced after 2007 are allowed to use it). As production continues to increase it will become a problem again by around 2015 however. Increasing that percentage again after that is unlikely to happen as this is approaching the limit of what most conventional gasoline engines can safely handle.

Cereplast Makes an Agreement with BioWorks Pl to Supply Bioplastics in Poland

Leading producer of bioplastics Cereplast, has made a supply and distribution agreement with Bioworks PI to supply its resins to Polish packaging manufacturers as a result of growing demand in Europe for biodegradable plastics.

Chairman and CEO of Cereplast, Frederic Scheer:

"Cereplast remains committed to identifying key partners in the European marketplace to help meet explosive demand for bioplastic resin on the continent. Poland, the largest central European country, is considered one of the main manufacturing hubs in Western Europe and we are proud to partner with BioWorks Pl to help supply the bioplastic resin required to meet surging demand for environmentally friendly plastic products in the country. In 2011, Poland has the potential to become a multi-million dollar bioplastics market and this partnership enables us to capture substantial market share."

Cereplast’s resins are biodegradable, renewable and sustainable being produced from a range of feedstocks, such as corn and algae. Bioworks PI is an experienced bioplastic products manufacturer, using resins from various companies such as BASF and Ecoflex to produce consumer products. Its parent company Galant specializes in injection molding, thermoforming and extrusion blown film technology. These products range from molded items such as disposable cutlery to blown film items such as plastic bags, items which are typically only used once and then thrown away.

Demand for biodegradable plastics in Europe has been rising for some time. Environmental worries by consumers over the buildup of disposable products made of conventional plastic are fuelling this rise in demand, as well as bans and restriction on the use of conventional plastic bags in some countries such as Italy. This agreement comes as the most recent in a string of agreements around Europe between Cereplast and plastics manufacturers; in September 2010 Cereplast made an agreement with Sezersan allowing Sezersan to produce its bio twist film with Cereplast resins. In January 2011, Cereplast announced that it would be opening its European headquarters in Germany to support its European expansion.   

Dupont to Acquire Danisco

DuPont has made an agreement which will see the science giant acquire food ingredients and Industrial Biotechnology specialists Danisco for a total of $6.3 billion.

DuPont Chair and CEO, Ellen Kullman:

“Danisco is a premier company, a long-time successful partner of DuPont and a proven innovator committed to sustainable growth,” said. “Danisco has attractive, market-driven science businesses that offer clear synergies with DuPont Nutrition & Health and Applied BioSciences. This transaction is a perfect strategic fit with our growth opportunities and will help us solve global challenges presented by dramatic population growth in the decades to come, specifically related to food and energy. In addition, biotechnology and speciality food ingredients have the potential to change the landscape of industries, such as substituting renewable materials for fossil fuel processes and addressing food needs in developing economies that will generate more sustainable solutions and create growth for the company. Danisco has two well-positioned global businesses that strongly complement our current biotechnology capabilities, R&D pipeline, and specialty food ingredients, a combination that offers attractive long-term financial returns. This also would create new opportunities across other parts of the DuPont portfolio, including traditional materials science offerings.”  

The deal will see DuPont pay $5.8 billion for the company and take responsibility for $500 million in debts. Dupont will pay for the deal with $3 billion in cash and $3.3 billion in debt. The acquisition is expected to be complete in 2012.

The two companies already work closely together in the cellulosic bioethanol arena, beginning construction of a pilot scale bio-refinery in Tennessee as a joint venture back in 2008. The acquisition will make DuPont a world leader in Industrial Biotechnology with Danisco’s enzymes division Genencor on board. 

Biofuel may Supply Half of the World’s Fuel Needs. So What Now?

Illinois researchers have found that biofuel crops cultivated on available land could produce up to half of the world’s current fuel needs without affecting food production. 

Civil and Environmental Engineering professor, Ximing Cai:

“The questions we’re trying to address are, what kind of land could be used for biofuel crops? If we have land, where is it and what is the current land cover? We hope this will provide a physical basis for future research. For example, agricultural economists could use the dataset to do some research with the impact of institutions, community acceptance and so on, or some impact on the market. We want to provide a start so others can use our research data.”

The study (published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology) differed from other previous studies; rather than focusing on biomass yield or regional productivity, it focused on land availability which hasn’t been researched in great detail before. The study identified marginal land for energy crop growth; if only abandoned and degraded cropland is considered, this leaves about 320-720 million hectares of land for cultivation. Grassland and savannah planted with so called “Low Impact High Diversity” biofuel grasses, this increases to 1107 million hectares with little effect on the environment. Researchers say that if this land was planted with second generation biofuel feedstock crops, this could supply 26-55% of the worlds current total liquid fuel needs without encroaching on land needed for food production.

Only marginal land (of low productivity and therefore unsuited to conventional agriculture) was considered in the study; crop land, pasture land and forests weren’t considered. With marginal land, soil properties, topography, climate and current use of the land were taken into account and then used to model scenarios for various types of marginal land.

What this research tells us is that diversity in our fuel options in the future is key. At best, 55% of our current fuel needs can be met by biofuel according to research; what the research doesn’t tell us is how this percentage will decrease as population, fuel usage and desertification increase, or how developments in biofuel technology could increase the percentage that can be met this way. Infrastructure for producing and distributing biofuel is another important consideration.

So, how do we fill the remaining 45-74% of fuel demand with no more marginal land to spare for energy crops? Using land currently reserved for food crops is not a sensible option; the “food or fuel” problem is well known. Biofuel produced from waste is one option currently being explored and commercialized by a number of companies; Solena and British Airways announced in 2010 that they had partnered to build a number of plants for converting waste into bio-jet fuel. Biofuel produced from algae is another; the Tokyo Institute of Technology along with several corporate partners announced that they were experimenting with growing algae in offshore tanks and are planning to scale up their efforts to build a pilot plant.

Alone, it’s unlikely that any one of these technologies will be able to meet the world’s fuel needs as our oil reserves dry up, but a combination of biofuel technologies might be able to do it.

LanzaTech Produce Biofuel From Waste Gas Streams with Indian Oil

New Zealand based LanzaTech have partnered with IndianOil to implement its Bioethanol production technology that uses industrial waste gas as a feedstock. 

Dr. Jennifer Holmgren, CEO, LanzaTech:

“Our goal is to show that there will be improved profitability and an overall reduction of the carbon footprint in IndianOil refineries. It will also enable IndianOil to comply with that country’s renewable fuel mandates. We are pleased to collaborate with IndianOil to bring a new, indigenous resource into India’s liquid transportation fuel pool.”

LanzaTech technology converts carbon monoxide into ethanol; first the waste gas is captured from industrial processes and prepared for being sent into a bioreactor, where microbes ferment the carbon source into ethanol. The interesting thing about the technology is that it not only consumes what would normally be polluting gas emissions, but converts the waste into something of commercial value giving extra incentive for companies to use the technology. The company claims that its technology can be used on any waste gas or biomass resource (such as household waste). Currently, LanzaTech is collaborating with several companies globally in the steel, chemicals and coal industries to implement its technology more widely. Another interesting point about LanzaTech’s process is that it isn’t limited to producing ethanol fuel; it can be used to produce industrial platform chemicals as well.

In a bid to cut its emissions, the Indian government has set a target for all gasoline in the country to be blended with 5% ethanol produced from sustainable sources that don’t compete for food production. As India’s largest oil company (and largest company of any kind), which puts this primarily on IndiaOil’s shoulders. IndianOil is exploring ways to meet this target.

The deal between the two companies could be the first step towards wide spread use of biofuel in one of the most populous countries in the world; the deal is initially for a demonstration of the technology, but if the demonstration succeeds it is likely that this will expand. After the demonstration, both companies will use the exercise to work on the economics and feasibility of scaling up the process for commercial use.

The Ethics of Synthetic Biology: Reinventing the Wheel?

A forward looking report on ethics surrounding synthetic biology produced for the US government was released in December. The freely available report, “New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies” sets out 18 recommendations for how the growth of the new technologies should be handled, to make sure that the most good comes from these technologies without causing harm.

Early on, the report makes mention of Craig Venter’s “development of synthetic life” in May 2010 as the spark that made the US government want to consider where synthetic biology could go and what might need to be done in response. Reassuringly, they quickly remove any illusion that Craig Venter’s discovery in itself is anything more profound than a much “bigger” version of a fairly standard molecular biology experiment. The difference between genetic engineering and synthetic biology is the scale that synthetic biology implies; using the same principles that you would use to modify an organism to build them. Many of the issues synthetic biology raises are the same as those surrounding GMOs, so this is well trodden ground. While Venter’s discovery alone is not a game changer, it is the first step on a long road towards truly synthetic organisms which could be very important in the future. For example, synthetic biology could create a “perfect” organism for producing biofuel, biopharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals.

The recommendations are based around 5 ethical principles. Firstly, ensuring that the public benefit and that risk is minimal. Secondly, responsibility for the well-being of the environment and future generations. Thirdly, protecting intellectual freedom and maintaining responsibility. Fourthly, that democracy is key to making decisions, and finally that fairness is maintained. Each of the 18 recommendations is aimed at one of these principles. One of the themes running throughout the report is how to regulate synthetic biology research, not ruling anything out if it can shown that there will be benefits to the public down the line, but not letting it progress completely freely. While the public would be involved, peer review and the involvement of experts would still be one of the most powerful tools at hand for working out what needs to be regulated and how.

There might be difficulties down the line; since the scale of the aims for synthetic biology are new, it’s difficult to see where it could lead to in the future. Craig Venter’s various projects are aimed at biofuel development and other big issues affecting the world, but what pressures are affecting the world in a hundred years might be things we couldn’t guess and there might be technologies developed in synthetic biology that we can’t predict. So, another running theme in the report is the need for the government to keep monitoring how synthetic biology develops and to keep looking back at whether the regulatory system is helping or hindering new technology produce benefits for the public. The report emphasizes that this can’t be something the US does alone, that the US needs to cooperate internationally and involve organizations like the World Health Organization.

Objections to synthetic biology will be revisited as it develops; at the moment there isn’t much opposition as synthetic biology is only at the level of producing research findings and newspaper headlines for now, but when we start to see the first products coming to market this will reignite debate. The report heavily recommends that the public is well informed on developments and has a voice in how synthetic biology is applied, with an emphasis on respecting all perspectives whether they are scientific, environmental, religious or otherwise.

The report approaches the risks from new technology development sensibly; risk assessments, peer review and finding ways to fix problems that synthetic organisms might cause before they can be a problem. Built in suicide genes and nutritional dependence could be useful as standard means of preventing the escape of synthetic organisms, an example from fiction is in Jurassic Park where the dinosaurs are engineered to be lysine deficient, so that they couldn’t survive in the wild (unfortunately lysine is actually fairly common, so there were sequels). The need for intellectual freedom is mentioned; not only to make sure that useful technology is produced by synthetic biology, but also so that more effective safeguards can be developed in case of emergencies. It is interesting that the report also mentions the role that “DIYers” could play in synthetic biology; at present such specialized equipment is needed that the idea seems ridiculous, but one day (a long way away) this might change if genetic technologies become cheap enough.

My personal favorite of all the recommendations is about the public understanding of synthetic biology: Recommendation 15, Information accuracy. This recommends when presenting information on science to avoid “sensationalist buzzwords”, possibly having a private fact checking body and generally to make sure that the public knows the score on new technology. It wouldn’t only be a great thing for public understanding, but it might just save professional scientists, enthusiasts and technophiles from the hundreds of headaches they suffer each year caused by seeing science distorted, exaggerated, chewed up and spat out in the media!

Is this report really saying anything new? The intention to support research is in line with the current trend for investment in science to rebuild the economy. BIO president, Jim Greenwood, said in response to the report that the Biotechnology industry has already established voluntary guidelines for GMOs which cover the issue neatly. He makes a good point; this is not new ground and the industry guidelines would have been produced by those who know; the industries that use these technologies. In fact it might be fair to say the term “synthetic biology” wouldn’t exist if “genetic engineering” wasn’t a dirty word. What this report brings is the intention to more greatly involve the public and make the whole process more transparent for them; miscommunication about science and business can be a huge problem and so is the lack of trust it causes. To a lot of people, just mentioning “business interests” or “for profit” says corruption. There is always the chance with voluntary regulations, someone will opt out and that is a concern. The idea of government involvement in industry regulation would surely be more trusted by the public than the idea of industry regulating itself. 

“Dry Roast” Biomass could be more easily used by UK power stations

UK power stations are using biomass alongside coal to produce energy and reduce their carbon footprint, but if it were pre-dried it would be a more useful energy source, according to researchers at the University of Leeds.

Using biomass to produce energy is being explored by many players in the energy industry trying to find more sustainable ways to operate and also to reduce carbon footprints. There are practical difficulties with using biomass though; one is the moisture in the biomass. This moisture adds to the weight and mass, which increases transport costs and the moisture also makes biomass more difficult to burn. Because of the moisture storage becomes a problem as the material starts to rot. Finally, the process used to grind coal before burning isn’t an ideal way to grind biomass which is very variable in consistency.

Torrefaction is proposed as a solution; it is a roasting process where the mass is heated to around 300°C in the absence of oxygen. It produces dry biomass that can be more easily ground into fuel which is not subject to the problems that wet biomass has. If torrefaction were to be done at the production site, it would save transport costs and when it arrived at the power plant it would burn more uniformly, more cleanly and more efficiently. Replacing coal with biomass becomes more attractive if it is processed this way.

University of Leeds' School of Process, Environmental and Materials Engineering, Professor Jenny Jones:

"If we can show that torrefaction is feasible on an industrial scale then we would hope to end up with a demonstration plant here in the UK. We already know that many more famers would be interested in growing energy crops on areas of poorer quality soil if the economic barriers were lowered and the power companies could use more biomass without losing out financially."

"We do not want farmers to have to choose between planting a field of wheat or barley and a field of willow. Ultimately, this is all about providing a secure energy supply for the future and one that is sustainable on all levels. "

Researchers at the University of Leeds are looking at the potential to scale up and commercialise torrefaction; it is important for it to be cost competitive with using coal and the whole life cycle analysis is a must; mining coal is energy intensive but how does this balance with combined farming and torrefaction? There are other impacts of the process that need to be considered, like the safety and environmental impacts.   

Copolymer Bioplastic: Candidate for Synthetic Bone?

A copolymer of bioplastic Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) has been discovered by to be of use in Tissue Engineering and could be a candidate for producing synthetic bone. The discovery was made by Singapore based A*STAR and was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry.

Tissue Engineering makes use of stem cells, growth factors and scaffolds to control cell differentiation to produce different types of tissue; for example, blood cells, skin cells or neural tissue. The combined effect of the growth factor and scaffold controls which cell type the stem cell becomes and the form of the tissue, respectively. Bone is a tissue with a complex structure, including several cell types, mineral deposits, fibrous material and a network of blood vessels. Finding the right material to use as a scaffold to produce bone can be difficult. There is value for being able to produce synthetic bone to treat conditions such as osteoporosis, broken bones or for bone grafting procedures, though this technology is still young and needs development before use in treatment.

The A*STAR Institute of Materials Research and Engineering have been working on co-polymers to act as scaffolds for tissue engineering; their latest development here is a co-polymer made of PHB and PEG. PHB is a biodegradable biopolymer polymerized from Hydroxybutyrate which in turn is produced from bacteria. PEG is also biodegradable and can be produced from bio feedstock by companies such as Novepha. Most importantly, these polymers are biocompatible; if implanted in humans there would be a low risk of rejection by the patient. Alone, PHB is unsuitable because it is brittle and stem cells have difficulty attaching to it, but combined with PEG the resulting co-polymer is more flexible and the attachment problem is removed; chemically it’s properties are like that of the fibrous material found in bone. This polymer is then electrospun to create a structure that physically resembles the porous structure of bone. When used as a scaffold the PHB-PEG co-polymer successfully created a material like living bone when it was treated with “simulated body fluid”; it absorbed water and salts, mineralized and allowed connective tissue to form between cells.

Scion Calls for “Energy Forests” on 1 Million Hectares of Marginal Land in New Zealand

Marginal land in New Zealand has been recommended by Scion to be planted with “Energy Forests”, in a bid to save the country money on importing fuel and boost the economy, but the project hinges on the development of lignocellulosic technology before it can materialize. 

Scion Group Manager Sustainable Development: Trevor Stuthridge:

"Scion's research shows how New Zealand can break this dependence [on imported fuel] using home-grown biomass plantation forests on low productivity land to produce renewable transport fuels without significantly impacting on production of food or feed. It is a highly achievable goal which would reap significant benefits for the economy, the environment and for greenhouse gas reduction and this goal could be realized incrementally, with full effect from 2035."

In a report recently released to the public, Scion suggested that pine plantations on this scale could be used to produce various resources, depending on the market pull at any given time to provide various wood products or liquid fuel via lignocellulosic enzyme technology currently under development. The report suggests that more than a million hectares of unused marginal land are available to use in the country. Scion also identified areas where the marginal land exists for this project; 1.8 million hectares in total. This might well save the country billions in fuel import costs and protect fuel prices in New Zealand from volatility; Scion thinks that the country’s dependence on imported oil could be reduced by as much as 65%. This point comes across particularly strongly as the report was released as petrol prices in New Zealand reached their highest level in over a year.

Scion has formed a partnership with Sandia National Laboratories to develop the lignocellulosic technology needed to produce liquid fuel from woody biomass. However, this technology has been under development by many parties for some time; the first attempt to commercialise cellulosic fuel production was more than a century ago. It is intrinsically more expensive and technically demanding than producing biofuel from sugars or starches due to the extra processing steps needed to convert woody biomass to sugars before fuel production. If the technology can be commercialized this project will be very valuable to New Zealand, but until then it might well be a pipe dream.

The “Blending Wall”: US Lacks Infrastructure for more Bioethanol use

A study by Purdue University finds that the US has hit the “Blending Wall” needs more infrastructure to increase bioethanol use; if this problem isn’t solved then federal targets will be missed.

The “Blending Wall” refers to the saturation of ethanol demand in fuel. Most bioethanol use is from blending it with gasoline, but there is a limit on how high this blend can go without modifying the engines of the cars it is used in. Flex-fuel vehicles using E85 fuel are another consumer, but the numbers of these are low, making up just over 3% of all vehicles on the road in the US. To compete for mileage with gasoline, E85 would have to be produced far more cheaply than gasoline as E85 is less energy dense.

The US currently has around 2,000 E85 pumps, but to meet the targets for 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel a year by 2022 the US will need 2,000 new pumps a year according to the study. As numbers of flex fuel cars increase the rate of increase in the number of these stations will increase as well, but this will take time. Currently ethanol content in fuel is capped at 10% ethanol but an increase to 15% is being considered, but even if this happens the “Blending Wall” will be reached again in 4 years.

Ethanol alone can’t be used to meet these targets: Biobutanol production is increasing and can be used in blends with gasoline. Biodiesel is similar enough to petro-diesel that it can be used in conventional diesel engines without engine modification or blending, avoiding the infrastructure and blending wall problems of bioethanol. Other biofuels are under development, for example conversion of biomass to chemicals so similar to gasoline that infrastructure and blending is no longer an issue.

INEOS Bio gets $75 Million USDA Loan Guarantee

INEOS Bio and its partner New Planet Energy have had a loan guarantee from the US Department of Agriculture for $75 million, this money will be used to build a new bioenergy centre.

CEO of INEOS Bio and Chairman of INEOS New Planet BioEnergy, Peter Williams:

“We are encouraged by the continued confidence and commitment the U.S. Government has shown in assisting with the commercial development of this new bioenergy technology. These programs are providing the funds needed to enable the U.S. to achieve a leading position in the bioenergy sector through projects such as ours. As well as directly assisting construction of the INEOS New Planet BioEnergy commercial plant, the loan guarantee also represents an important step along the road to replication of this exciting new technology through INEOS Bio’s licensing program.”

The new bioenergy centre will be used to produce 8 million gallons of second generation bioethanol a year and 6 megawatts of energy from waste biomass rather than from crops. One of the key technologies to be used in the bioenergy centre is INEOS bio’s anaerobic fermentation step, which converts syngas (a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide) produced from biomass to ethanol. This process is flexible; it can use many different bio-feedstocks which makes it useful for processing variable waste. Construction of the new centre has begun with the aim to begin production by 2012.

The loan guarantee is part of the USDA 9003 Biorefinery Assistance Program, which guarantees loans for companies developing and constructing biorefineries, or for modifying refineries to allow bioenergy production.

Algal Biomass Organization Publishes Descriptive Language Guidelines for the Algae Industry for Comment

The Algal Biomass Organization (ABO), the trade association for the algae industry, has released a document, “Algal Industry Minimum Descriptive Language”. This is the first attempt to standardize language used in the algae industry with the aims of setting standards that will make comparison of technologies more valid and to aid Life Cycle Analysis. The current state of the industry is one in which the positives and negatives of a research development or technology can be provided in such a way that they cannot be compared. For example, different analytical methods produce different results from the same sample and there is no standard method. The measures themselves are not standard and can also be misleading; the dry weight of algae does not necessarily reflect its oil content. Variation in oil content between species, processing methods and microbial contamination mean that such data can be used to create an inaccurate picture of the output of the technology. The guidelines presented here set out a framework that can be used to clarify where such data fits into the wider picture of LCA, with commentary on measures and methods. The document is currently available for viewing and public comment here on the ABO website.

Executive Director of ABO, Mary Rosenthal:

“The absence of common descriptive language has led to a lack of harmony among technologists, researchers, life cycle analysis specialists and entrepreneurs as they evaluate and promote algae technologies. This confusion has made it hard for others to truly capture, analyze and quantify algae technologies relative to one another. With a common language, such as the one we and many volunteer stakeholders have proposed, we hope to bring more clarity to the industry.”

The newly-released document was authored by the ABO’s Technical Standards Committee chaired by Jim Sears of A2BE Carbon Capture. The committee works to develop standards and best practices for the algae industry and facilitate the flow of information among industry stakeholders. More than 20 industry experts and organizations reviewed and commented on the document, including individuals from industry associations, national labs, companies and research institutions. It provides a set of metrics and variables for estimating and measuring the economic and environmental footprint and economic impact of an algal production facility, including all inputs and outputs.

ABO’s efforts at standardizing language for the algae industry come as the industry continues to demonstrate significant growth. Between 2005 and 2009, the number of algae-to-biofuel start ups more than tripled. A leading analysis of the algae industry projected that the industry would grow by nearly 50 percent annually over the coming decade.

The ABO will be accepting comments to the document through March 31, 2011. To provide comment, please submit your comments to technicalstandards@algalbiomass.org. All submitted comments will be reviewed by the Technical Standards committee and a determination will be made by the committee for inclusion in the final document due for publication in the second quarter of 2011.

Included in the document are guidelines for presentation of the total Carbon, Water, Energy, Consumables and Nutrient input, total labor needed and also the total infrastructure area. Guidelines are also presented for indirect algal outputs, solid and liquid waste, uncaptured gaseous emissions and algal constituent products. For each of these, general descriptions of the input, standard units for measurement over time (usually per year), descriptions of the source and the type of detail needed are given. Information presented for algal biomass R&D that adheres to these guidelines would build a detailed picture of the process.

The document uses the concept of a “Green Box” which represents the manufacturing process; in theory any algal operation can be represented box and the listed inputs and outputs apply to this “Green Box”. The concept of a flexible “Green Box” is useful, as it allows the guidelines to be applied to many different types of algal technology; with the current wide variation in R&D efforts around algal biomass, this makes adherence to these guidelines easier. While this does not resolve the dry weight vs oil content issue, the appendix of the document contains brief discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of various analytical methods for determining which may be more appropriate to use. The appendix also highlights the issues surrounding use of dry mass as a measure of useful output of the process and the fact that developments must be made in lipid analysis for widespread use to determine the quality and yield of algal oils. There is no “standard method” as yet, and currently the wide spectrum of analytical approaches at various stages of development means that lipid analysis of the same sample can produce wildly different results. The ABO makes it clear that they are monitoring the issue, it is likely that developments here will result in revisions of the document with recommended analytical methods to encourage standardisation, and therefore comparison of data produced by these recommended methods will then be valid.

This work could have a profound effect on the Algal Biomass industry; standard analytical methods, standards for the minimum amount data and the efforts being made to establish a dialog within the industry on these issues might lead to developments in Life Cycle analysis and in turn new ways to improve the efficiency of Algal fuel production.

Viral Genetics New Subsidiary VG Energy To Market Breakthrough Algal Biofuel Technology

Viral Genetics, Inc. has launched a subsidiary named “VG Energy, Inc.”, formed to market the company’s biofuel technology.

In VG Energy’s technology portfolio are optimization methods for algae-based biofuel technologies that can triple the oil production in algae, resulting in higher yields and easier processing and extraction steps; valuable for making algal biofuels more cost effective. This method is based on an additive that alters the way plants and algae control their storage and production of these oils; the oils are not used for energy by the algae and are secreted rather than stored; this allows the oil to be extracted without killing the feedstock. Also, because there is no genetic modification involved  the method avoids several legal issues

Viral Genetics’ CEO Haig Keledjian:

“The new brand will help open doors with energy companies. We also believe it will help us attract investors interested in cost-effective, green energy solutions. We believe our approach to biofuels can change the economics of green energy by simply increasing the oil yield in certain plants. Many competitive technologies focus on genetically-modifying algae strains, and developing expensive new growing methods.”

Some of the studies were undertaken at the Texas Life Sciences Collaboration Center, funded by the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, a $200 million initiative created by the Texas Legislature in 2005. VG Energy lead researcher Dr. M. Karen Newell-Rogers recently obtained a $750,000 grant from the fund to study and develop the yield-enhancing technology in her academic research laboratories at the Texas AgriLife Research Blacklands campus. She is the inventor behind a patent and several patent applications under exclusive license to VG Energy directed to methods for dramatically increasing the volume of oils produced by algae and other plants.

VG Energy Lead Researcher, Dr. M. Karen Newell-Rogers:

“Our research seems to indicate that we can trigger plant cells to increase their fat stores. We can manipulate plant cells so that they store oil and eventually release those reserves instead of burning the fat for fuel when glucose stores are low. The end result is more oil is available for processing into a biofuel.”

The commercialization of this technology is an important step for the algal biofuel industry; increased yields of oil and particularly the secretion of oils by the algae are steps towards overcoming some of the greatest challenges in that field. The fact that oils can be collected directly from a living culture removes several processing steps and is therefore cheaper; usually the algae must be dried and the oils extracted from the dry biomass. Also, the fact that the algae do not have to be killed to extract the oil means that the algae culture can be run longer and run continuously rather than in batches, therefore potentially minimizing equipment downtime during production.

BioSolar Completes Successful Production Run of New White BioBacksheet For Solar Panels

BioSolar Inc. develops bio-materials from renewable plant sources with the goal of reducing the cost of photovoltaic (PV) solar modules. Recently Biosolar successfully completed a production run of its new white BioBacksheet.

Backsheets are used in solar PV panels to protect the panels from moisture and UV. They also electrically insulate the panels, improving performance. High quality backsheets improve the lifespan and output of solar panels, and Biosolar’s products aim to do so to at a high standard, cheaply and using sustainable materials. The new Biobacksheet produced by Biosolar is white rather than translucent as their previous model was. This development was partly for cosmetic preferences of manufacturers, but also for the reflectivity which can be used to improve the performance of PV units.

BioSolar’s Chief Executive Officer , Dr. David Lee:
“While meeting with PV module manufacturers in recent months, we encountered an overwhelming preference for a bright-white colored BioBacksheet in lieu of the existing translucent design. For cosmetic reasons, as well as for its high-reflectivity which improves cell efficiency, manufacturers prefer a bright-white colored backsheet. We have successfully modified our product formulation to meet this request without compromising our industry-leading product characteristics. Subsequent testing demonstrated that the improved product meets all industry standards, as well as customer and BioSolar internal product requirements. The new bright-white BioBacksheet opens up a wider pool of potential customers and will be sold as a standard product.”

The next step for Biosolar is to ensure that the new sheets meet the same industry standards as the previous model; for sale in the US and EU they must be registered with the UL and IEC for the benefit of panel manufacturers, who then require certification for the finished panels. This process of recertification is currently underway, and appears to be moving forward unhindered thanks to extensive testing beforehand on the part of Biosolar.

Teijin to Launch Bio-derived PET Fiber in 2012

Teijin Fibers Limited announced that they will begin production of bio-derived polyethylene terephalate (PET) in 2012, which Tejin claims will be the world's first commercially produced bio-derived PET fiber.

Teijin Fibers develops unique polyester technologies through "hybrid strategies" that combine the company's special expertise in biomaterials, recycling, functional materials and manufacturing processes to reduce environmental loads.

The bio-PET fiber, named ECO CIRCLE PlantFiber, is produced from 30% bio-ethylene glycol rather than synthetic ethylene glycol; replacing an oil based reagent with one that is renewably produced. The quality and properties of the plastic is the same as when produced from 100% synthetic reagents, therefore it is suitable for the same applications, such as car interiors and personal hygiene products.

Tejin also has developed means to recycle the plastic. Tejin’s closed loop polyester recycling system allows the PET to be decomposed and the DMT to be reused in other Polyester products. Teijin Fibers expects to sell 30,000 tons of ECO CIRCLE PlantFiber products in the fiscal year ending in March 2013, and 70,000 tons by their third year. They expect the price of the product to be competitive with the fully synthetic PET by the time production reaches the mass production scale, though until then it will be initially higher.

Agrivida Partner With Syngenta For Low Cost Industrial Sugars

Agrivida, Inc. will collaborate with Syngenta Ventures to develop means to produce industrial sugars cheaply by using advanced crop technology. Syngenta will give Agrivida access to its technology in exchange for Agrivida equity.

Massachusetts-based Agrivida are specialists in developing non-food crop strains as biofuel or bioproduct feedstock. The agreement with Syngenta will boost Agrivida’s range of available technologies. The technologies licensed from Syngenta will be used to develop new traits for various crops. Agrivida aims to make next-generation bioproducts more affordable by significantly decreasing the cost of processing biomass, whether for non-food agricultural residues or dedicated biomass crops. This will ultimately be done by modifying the crops to optimize metabolic pathways so that the desired products are present in greater quantities and are easier to extract. Agrividia’s integrated approach to feedstock engineering involves adding genes for cell wall degrading enzymes that are expressed after harvesting; in combination with Syngenta technology this augments product development opportunities available to Agrividia.  

Agrivida's Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Mark Wong

“Agrivida is excited to be able to accelerate our product development through our relationship with Syngenta Ventures, the venture capital arm of Syngenta, one of the world's leading agribusiness companies. The combination of Agrivida's proprietary intein platform with Syngenta's technology will allow us to provide an integrated solution for feedstock and enzyme delivery to a wide range of industrial customers. Technologies developed through our collaboration will provide growers, processors, seed partners, and all members of the value chain with crops that enable cost-effective products from cellulosic biomass, and in turn helps to transform this emerging industry."

Agrivida's deal with Syngenta is the latest in a number of recent achievements for the company. In July, Agrivida announced breakthroughs in its development of sugar production from it’s enzyme-expressing crops at the annual BIO industry conference, which followed recent awards from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–E) to further develop its technology platforms for sorghum and switchgrass.

"Produced in a state that grows GM crops, we cannot guarantee that this product is GM free." Vilsack controversially calls for coexistence of Roundup Ready and conventional alfalfa

On the 20th of December 2010, the US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack held a meeting to discuss proposed conditional deregulation of Forage Genetics’ Roundup Ready alfalfa and has since been criticized for politicizing science based regulatory issues. How this issue is handled will affect the deregulation of any other GM food or fuel crops in the US in future.

Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack:

“What we’re having is a discussion to try to take the courts out of determining who gets to farm and who doesn’t get to farm. We’ve seen a rapid adoption of biotechnology in alfalfa and many other areas of agriculture. At the same time, we’ve seen a substantial expansion and growth in organic production. We want both of them to survive and we want both of them to be profitable—and we want both of them to be able to sort of co-exist in the same neighborhood. We need the capacity to produce more on less—the capacity to use less pesticides and chemicals and water—in an ever-increasing demand globally for food. At the same time, this organic operation is very profitable. It can help small farmers stay on the farm. It can help repopulate rural communities and there’s greater consumer demand for it. So we need to figure out how to do both.”

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready range of products is genetically modified to resist the Roundup glyphosphate herbicide. In theory, this allows herbicide to be used on crops without decreasing crop yields. Under the Plant Protection Act, if scientific trials show the crops are safe they can be deregulated, so that they could be freely planted anywhere.

A number of industry players and alfalfa growers (both GM and conventional) attended the meeting. Vilsack was criticized by the Wall Street Journal for including political opponents of GM in making a regulatory decision rather than leaving the matter to scientists, stating that this could politicize the issue permanently. The three options under discussion were to continue to regulate Roundup Ready alfalfa, deregulate it completely or to deregulate it in certain areas. This final option caused the most debate. At the meeting Vilsack is said to have called for “coexistence” between the GM crop and non-GM varieties in the marketplace. However, despite a USDA environmental impact assessment of RR alfalfa being released, the health and safety aspects of the crop were apparently not mentioned once during the meeting, to the dismay of many opponents of GM crops present.

The concept of coexistence between the crop types is controversial. Easing the legal restrictions here increases the risks of contamination. A move like this would be a blow with the idea that products containing GM material should be labeled so that consumers may have a choice. The international standards on GM contamination are restrictive to the point of impracticality and are in need of reform. “Zero tolerance” on GM contamination simply isn’t possible; even small amounts of genetic material can be spread in many ways, for example pollen from GMOs. However, the effects of contamination might be inconsequential; tiny amounts of modified DNA (which will still break limits) are very unlikely to have any effects according to scientists. Even while Roundup Ready crops were regulated weeds resistant to Roundup have appeared. While some might rush to blame GM contamination for this, natural means often cause resistance to develop. However the apparent avoidance of this issue during the meeting is worrying. The indirect effects of increased herbicide use are a concern that isn’t often explored.

Farmers using the Roundup Ready alfalfa report greater yields, so there is a commercial benefit to producing crops this way. Some farmers are firmly against GM however and draw the line at growing any GM crop. While they will have a market supplying GM free alfalfa to those who choose not to use GM crops, will this market shrink? More and more people are considering GM to be a viable tool for providing food to a growing global population. Roundup Ready alfalfa might one day out-compete conventional alfalfa and ultimately remove this choice. 

If deregulation were to happen in only some parts of the country, however, this would become more pressing. If one state, for example, were to allow Roundup Ready alfalfa to be grown there, would local GM opposed farmers be outcompeted? Or would this allow places for both ways to thrive? The conditions proposed here would limit the percentage of crop acres that could be used to produce the GM variety, making it unlikely that out competition will happen. The limits may be restrictive to the GM growers, but this is still a step towards coexistence.

Vilsack has a point; if GM crops are going to be produced they must co-exist with conventional crops, and the proposed deregulation with limits might well achieve that. But with the thresholds for GM material being as low as they are, increases in GM production will accidentally contaminate conventional production more often. Instead of more customer choice, we might see more disclaimers saying that manufacturers can’t guarantee products that are GM free for those who want a choice.