US DOE to Invest Up to $33.8M to Improve Enzyme Systems for Production of Cellulosic Ethanol
26 February 2008
The US Department of Energy (DOE) will invest up to $33.8 over four years (FY 2008-2011) for four projects that will focus on developing improved enzyme systems to convert cellulosic material into sugars suitable for production of biofuels. Combined with industry cost share, up to $70 million will be invested in these projects, with a minimum 50% cost share from industry.
These four projects seek to more cost-effectively and efficiently breakdown processed biomass into fermentable sugars, a significant challenge in converting biomass into fuels. Projects were selected based on their demonstrated ability to reduce the cost of enzymes-per-gallon of ethanol by improving an enzyme’s performance.
Selected projects must demonstrate the ability to produce enzymes at a commercial-scale, and have a sound business strategy to market the enzymes or enzyme production systems in biorefinery operations.
Negotiations between the selected companies and DOE will begin immediately to determine final project plans and funding levels. Funding is subject to appropriations from Congress. Selected projects include:
DSM Innovation Center Inc. (Parsippany, NJ): Development of a Commercial Enzymes System for Lignocellulosic Biomass Saccharification. This project will employ DSM’s internal, proprietary fungal systems to develop new approaches to improve enzymes for the conversion of pre-treated lignocellulosic biomass into sugars suitable for fermentation into cellulosic ethanol. Team Members: Abengoa Bioenergy New Technologies (Nebraska); and DOE’s Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico).
Genencor - a Division of Danisco, USA, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA): Enhancing Cellulase Commercial Performance for the Lignocellulosic Biomass Industry. This project plans to reduce the enzyme-dose level required for biomass saccharification by improving the specific performance of the Trichoderma Reesei mix of fungal-based cellulases to facilitate production of cellulosic ethanol from sugars produced by the saccharification process. Team Members: DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Colorado).
Novozymes, Inc. (Davis, CA): Project Decrease - Development of a Commercial-Ready Enzyme Application System for Ethanol. This project aims to improve performance of Novozymes’ most advanced enzyme system by decreasing the dosage of enzyme required to hydrolyze biomass into fermentable sugars suitable for cellulosic ethanol production. Team Members: Novozymes North America (North Carolina); Novozymes A/S (Denmark); Novozymes (China) Investment Co. Ltd; DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Washington) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Colorado); the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique University (France); and Cornell University (New York).
Verenium Corporation (San Diego, CA): Commercialization of Customized Cellulase Solutions for Biomass Saccharification. This project will leverage Verenium’s advanced enzyme development capabilities to commercialize a cellulase enzyme system to produce a more cost-effective enzyme solution for biomass saccharification processes that will also tolerate conditions that enable more efficient process economics in producing ethanol from cellulosics.
This latest funding announcement is part of more than $1 billion DOE has announced within the last year for multi-year biofuels research and development (R&D) projects.
The selected projects also complement the Department’s January 2008 announcement in which four projects were selected for a total of up to $114 million in DOE funding to build small-scale biorefinery projects to be located in Commerce City, Colorado; St. Joseph, Missouri; Boardman, Oregon; and Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin. These small-scale biorefineries will test newer, novel refining processes. (Earlier post.)
Other major DOE-led biofuels R&D projects include up to $405 million in DOE funding for three Bioenergy Centers; and up to $385 million in DOE funding, over four years, for the development of six commercial-scale biorefineries, which will focus on near-term commercial processes. (Earlier post.)
It looks like the powerful 'Ethanol Lobby' from the Mid-West has substantial pull with our beloved political leaders in DC.
Posted by: gary | 26 February 2008 at 05:57 PM
I'm wondering, how much has the DOE spent to further research on better battery or solar cell technology? Why do we always seem to do things the hard way? Because more people can make more money that way?
Posted by: | 26 February 2008 at 09:32 PM
me, above
Posted by: MC | 26 February 2008 at 09:33 PM
Well, it is interesting plowing thru some of the links and information. Eventually I found a meeting on alternative fuels and HEV, PHEV thru DOE.
Here is link for a one day agenda where Dr. Andrew Frank is giving a workshop:
http://www.iqpcevents.com/ShowEvent.aspx?id=45960&details=55048
It may seem boring reading a meeting agenda, but it shows the current state of affairs in large conglomerates today. Moving slowly, fearfully and carefully, with good reason somtimes due to the large scale investment and shareholder responsibilities. Right now, Tesla and Fisker have an advantage, but not sure it will last. Eventually, cost and efficiency will even out, then it'll be all about service and reliability. As cost go down for EV, bigger companies will be able to assert market prices to their advantage of large scale purchase power.
I do question why one of them does not create a new private company with more room to experiment, with more agility in decision making process and seek other venture capital to compliment a possible spin-off to create a new IPO.
But even Tesla cannot move large production and lower cost without merging their lower cost line with the big manufacturers.
End the end, certain forms of bio-fuel will still be needed as we shift away from deadoil dependency. Not everyone can afford 80K-100K sport vehicles. Even 50K is to much for most. Until you can produce a car at 15-25K cost, it will be unrealistic for most average people with families. Singles, higher middle income can afford more, but still with a family, it needs to be practical. That is where bio-fuel still comes into play.
Posted by: Michael | 27 February 2008 at 03:35 AM
Sure, this is good news, but it's also a drop in the bucket. Something like $8 million per year--I bet they spend more on investigating why men have nipples than on this.
Posted by: Dan A | 27 February 2008 at 07:58 AM
Felix Kramer on Energy Tech Stocks said:
"Just imagine if you could take your car to your mechanic and, for not too much money, get it retrofitted so that you could go home, plug it in, and start running on electricity as well as gasoline."
http://energytechstocks.com.previewmysite.com/wp/?m=200802
(Almost half the page down, left side, bold print)
While I think this is an interesting idea, the numbers I come up with for conversions do not make economic sense.
The "not too much money" part turns out to be around $20k in my figures.
Posted by: sjc | 27 February 2008 at 08:40 AM
Hydrogen & Oxygen are compressed in water.
Water can be decompressed freeing hydrogen & oxygen for auto fuel, by simple electrolisis.
Put a container of water under the hood. Install a couple of electrodes. Run one to the ignition and one to a ground. That will release enough hydrogen to run the motor. Convey the hydrogen to the air intake of the motor with a simple tube
HOW MUCH DOES WATER COST?????
Posted by: Leo Wells | 27 February 2008 at 02:19 PM
Leo,
Now I know you are just trolling for a reaction. It is not the cost of water, but the cost of the energy required to split the water. There is no magic. The hydrogen has an energy value when burned in an ICE. That is all. It costs you much more energy to create the hydrogen than it returns...period.
Posted by: sjc | 27 February 2008 at 04:00 PM