Two Independent Research Efforts Develop Similar Processes for Conversion of Sugars into Bio-Hydrocarbon Fuels
19 September 2008
Following independent paths of investigation, two research teams have developed similar processes to convert sugar—potentially derived from agricultural waste and non-food plants—into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and a range of other valuable chemicals.
Chemical engineer Randy Cortright and his colleagues at Virent Energy Systems of Madison, Wisc., developed their BioForming process in early 2006. Virent this week announced the publication of a several patent applications and a white paper disclosing the technical details of its technology to produce renewable transportation fuels. That announcement was followed by the publication of a separate discovery by chemical engineer James Dumesic and his team at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Dumesic (who was a co-founder of Virent with Cortright in 2002) and his UW Madison colleagues announced their findings in the 18 September 2008 online ScienceExpress, to be followed in print in the 18 October 2008 issue of Science.
Both technologies are based on a process developed by Dumesic and Cortright at the University of Wisconsin called aqueous phase reforming (APR). (Earlier post.) Virent has exclusive worldwide license to the basic APR process from Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), multiple independent patent applications, and a significant trade secret position.
In passing a watery slurry of plant-derived sugar and carbohydrates over a series of catalysts in several flow reactors integrated in a cascade mode, carbon-rich organic molecules split apart into component elements that recombine to form many of the chemicals that are extracted from non-renewable petroleum.
As part of a suite of second-generation biofuel alternatives, renewable bio-hydrocarbon approaches like aqueous phase reforming are generating interest across the academic and industrial communities because they yield a product that is compatible with existing infrastructure, closer than many other alternatives in their net energy yield, and that can be crafted from plants grown in marginal soils, like switchgrass, or from agricultural waste.
This is the same fuel we’re currently using, just from a different source. It’s not something that burns like it—it is it.
—James Dumesic
While several years of further development will be needed to refine the process and scale it for production, the promise of gasoline and other petrochemicals from renewable plants has led to broad industrial interest. Virent, for example, has formed key strategic alliances with Royal Dutch Shell as a commercial collaborator for bio-gasoline, and has attracted leading industrial companies as investors, including Cargill and Honda. (Earlier post.)
To convert biomass-derived carbohydrates to drop-in replacement liquid hydrocarbon fuels requires the removal of the oxygen atoms.
To produce non-oxygenated liquid fuels, this removal of oxygen must be accompanied by isomerization to form branched hydrocarbons for gasoline, and/or by C-C coupling reactions to increase the molecular weight for diesel and jet fuels.
—Kunkes et al. (2008)
On 23 September, the National Science Foundation, which supported both research efforts, will host an expert panel session featuring experts from academia and industry, including Randy Cortright and George Huber (earlier post), to highlight how far researchers have come, and how far they still need to go, to bring plant-derived gasoline to market.
![]() |
Virent’s BioForming process. Click to enlarge. |
Virent’s BioForming. Virent’s APR methods uses heterogeneous catalysts at moderate temperatures (450-575 K) and pressures (10 to 90 bar) in a number of series and parallel reaction to reduce the oxygen content of carbohydrate feedstock. The reactions include:
Reforming to generate hydrogen;
Dehydrogenation of alcohols/hydrogenation of carbonyls;
Deoxygenation reactions;
Hydrogenolysis; and
Cyclization.
A key feature of the method is the use of hydrogen generated within the process. Virent found that mono-oxygenated species such as alcohols, ketones and aldehydes can be converted to hydrocarbons in a continuous process using conventional catalytic condensation and hydrotreating techniques. BioForming is essentially the integration of APR with these conventional catalytic processes—such as catalytic hydrotreating and catalytic condensation processes, including ZSM-5 acid condensation, base catalyzed condensation, acid catalyzed dehydration, and alkylation.
As in a petroleum refinery, each of these process steps can be optimized and modified to produce a particular slate of product. For example, Virent says, a gasoline product can be produced using a zeolite (ZSM-5) based process, jet fuel and diesel can be produced using a base catalyzed condensation route, and a high octane fuel can be produced using a dehydration/oligomerization route.
The key step is APR, which converts water-soluble carbohydrates into hydrogen, lower alkanes, and high yields of condensable chemical intermediates. These intermediates undergo further processing to generate the end hydrocarbons. The hydrogen is used in the production of the condensable intermediates, with excess recycled for upgrading use. The lighter alkanes, such as C1-C4 fuel gases, can provide process heat.
Dumesic process. Dumesic and his team had earlier developed a process to produce furan derivatives (e.g., hydroxymethylfurfural, HMF) involving dehydration of sugars (e.g., fructose) that can subsequently undergo aldol-condensation with ketones (e.g., acetone), followed by hydrodeoxygenation to form C9 to C15 alkanes for use in diesel and jet fuels. (Earlier post.)
The new process uses a different approach, beginning the oxygen removal process by converting sugars and polyols over a Pt-Re catalyst to form primarily hydrophobic alcohols, ketones, carboxylic acids, and heterocyclic compounds.
This process can be used to produce ketones for C-C coupling with HMF, thereby replacing the acetone in our previous process with ketones derived directly from biomass. This alternative process does not require the separate formation of HMF, because we demonstrate that the ketones produced can undergo self-coupling reactions. In addition, this process provides a route to highly branched alkanes and olefins, as well as alkylated aromatics, these compounds being high-octane components of gasoline. Moreover, intermediate compounds formed during the conversion of biomass-derived carbohydrates to liquid transportation fuels can serve as valuable compounds for the chemical and polymer industries.
—Kunkes et al. (2008)
According to Dumesic, a key feature of the approach is that between the sugar or starch starter materials and the bio-hydrocarbon end products, the chemicals go through an intermediate stage as an organic liquid composed of functional compounds.
The intermediate compounds retain 95 percent of the energy of the biomass but only about 40 percent of the mass, and can be upgraded into different types of transportation fuels, such as gasoline, jet and diesel fuels. Importantly, the formation of this functional intermediate oil does not require the need for an external source of hydrogen.
—James Dumesic
In the initial step of the process, a fraction of the feed is reformed over Pt-Re/C to supply the hydrogen required to partially de-oxygenate the remainder of the feed to mono-functional hydrocarbons. Endothermic reforming reactions are balanced with exothermic de-oxygenated reactions in the same reactor, such that the overall conversion is mildly exothermic and more than 90% of the energy content of the polyol or sugar feed is retained in the reaction products.
Resources
Production of Conventional Liquid Fuels from Sugars (Virent white paper)
Edward L. Kunkes, Dante A. Simonetti, Ryan M. West, Juan Carlos Serrano-Ruiz, Christian A. Gärtner, James A. Dumesic (2008) Catalytic Conversion of Biomass to Monofunctional Hydrocarbons and Targeted Liquid-Fuel Classes. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1159210
how much energy is consumed converting the biomass in this wat, looks very energy inefficient when including energy spent to covert the products, so sure the products may have retain almost of their initial energy, but huge amounts of energy was spend converting the feedstock.
Posted by: Ben | 19 September 2008 at 10:56 AM
I would love to know Robert Rapier's take on these processes...
Posted by: | 19 September 2008 at 10:56 AM
There are legitimate concerns about energy efficiencies. The place where one needs to look first is at the vehicle engine. A free piston NOAX type engine in a hydraulic hybrid could more than double the common engine efficiency.
Electric cars can make use of the higher efficiency of all large coal plants and the super efficiency of combined cycle gas turbines. Where a home is served with natural gas, a HONDA Combined Heat and Power unit can generate electricity for the car battery and use the waste heat for heating water and the house or pool or for air cooling.
The cost of the fuel is most important. Coal remains the cheapest fuel. Coal should be burned at the highest possible temperatures and heat up molten salts to the highest possible temperatures but at low pressures. These molten salts can be piped through heat exchangers attached to gas turbines. The heat from the molten salt heats up the hot air in the turbine and causes the turbine to spin and generate electricity. The hot air is cooled quite a bit by passing through the turbine and can be used to generate high pressure steam in a boiler to run a steam turbine.
Where sunlight is available some of the cooled molten salt can be heated by focused sunlight. No combustion takes place in the turbine so it remains clean and has a long life. Less cooling water is needed because much heat goes directly into the air. Capstone already has a contract to operate their microturbines with focused sunlight. It could operate at night with heat from other sources or just burn natural gas.
Eighty percent (%80) of the cost of electric power at the meter is capital and maintenance and operational charges plus profit. One should worry more about money efficiency than energy efficiency or CO2 release. The US would be better off if all the oil money was going to the US even if the CO2 release was higher, gasoline cost more and the government doubled gasoline taxes.
..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 19 September 2008 at 01:25 PM
Henry, don't know where you get the number of 80% but if it is even close to reality - it makes yet another reason to restructure the entire grid system. We begin that process by constructing a long range plan to introduce concept and technology for Residential Power Units. To manage expectations and resistance from establishment utilities a strong business argument needs to be made.
That is, there is plenty of profit opportunity in manufacturing, installing and maintaining RPUs. This is the transition point for centralized utilities and petroleum based energy companies. The building of local area grids that backup and condition RPU power sources is another utility-oriented opportunity.
The residential population will be de-coupled from the old grid when their RPU is installed. They may then be connected (at consumer's election) to a local area grid. In the event their RPU fails or needs maintenance, the local grid will provide power supplied from neighbors RPUs. Excess energy generated from PV, wind, etc. can be sold to the local grid operator. A portion of grid energy will be allocated to low/fixed income populations, municipal government and qualified not-for profit organizations. With hundreds of small energy generators comes relief from centralized monopoly, elimination of transmission line expense/losses and much greater security.
We need to change the cost of energy dramatically by changing the way it is generated and distributed. Old grid utilities presently retard technical and social progress by gate-keeping energy distribution. That must change. And it will. With or without the big energy suppliers on board. Either they see the light and get on board with the whole new energy paradigm, or get left hold a proverbial buggy whip.
Posted by: sulleny | 19 September 2008 at 03:40 PM
From environmental point of view, ethanol is way cleaner than gasoline. If spilled, it evaporates without contributing to smog, fully dilutes in water and very quickly biodegrades, and does not contaminate groundwater and rivers. Plus it has high octane number.
My take is, when biomass is already cracked into sugars and starches, it is better to be bioconverted to ethanol.
Posted by: Andrey Levin | 20 September 2008 at 01:24 AM
Andrey makes good points. AND consider the implications of this process - same old players re-key their refineries to maintain the same old control patterns.
Ethanol is less damaging and more efficient to make if you consider that people have been making it in backyard vats and bathtubs for thousands of years. The operative image is a backwoods still compared to a south Texas petroleum refinery.
The idea that a process as complex as APR is needed to make the same old fuels that have caused so much trouble is unfathomable. Gasoline needs to be relegated to the trash heap of energy history. Let's not let the same old clan co-opt cellulosic feedstocks for unfriendly fuel types. We can and must do better.
Posted by: sulleny | 21 September 2008 at 09:33 AM
I like the idea of ethanol myself, but am very concerned about a possible show-stopper that could conceivably shut down the whole ethanol industry. I hope this doesn't happen, but can't help be concerned. Here is what I'm worried about:
In order for cellulosic ethanol to make more than a dent in our demand for oil, you are going to need dozens of ethanol plants all over the USA, each capable of producing ten thousand gallons of highly concentrated ethanol every day. Now with that much highly concentrated C2H5OH available, we may well have one heck of a problem with said chemical being diverted to human consumption.
Conceivably, this human social factor may well be as much of a showstopper as water contamination was for methyl tertiary butyl ether. That issue had the effect, needless to say, of shutting down MTBE as a gasoline additive.
I sincerely hope that what I'm concerned about, won't come to pass. But we do have to be aware of this issue.
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 22 September 2008 at 06:36 AM
Quoth sulleny:
If you think there are ever going to be two separate grids anywhere, you thing wrong. The USA had that situation with telephone companies for a while. Back then, the maze of competitors' wires over streets led the public to demand consolidation; today, the lack of investment capital (due to the waste in overbuilt real estate and lavish benefits for "refugees" and the children of illegal immigrants alike) will make it enough of a problem to maintain one grid.Besides, if Dakotas wind power is going to go to Chicago, Detroit and on to Pittsburg and NYC, we're going to need a bigger grid. Locality or renewability: pick one.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 22 September 2008 at 05:16 PM
I have heard the terms "smart grid" and "micro grid" used, but I am not sure what those terms are really suppose to mean nor whether the people that use those terms know either.
It would be nice to have more distributed power generation, but it is an upfront cost that has to pay for itself. When real estate people start promoting the solar panels on your roof as a selling feature, then we might turn the corner on this issue.
Posted by: sjc | 22 September 2008 at 09:55 PM
@EP:
One grid. Different implementations. Distributed RPU technology [at this phase] cannot meet the high demands of industry and government. So, we need long distance transmission from western wind/solar (renewable) farms east and west.
Local area grid is an [replacement or] adaptation of present grid wiring. As residences establish distributed generation via RPUs - they become potential net providers. To condition and distribute that energy becomes the task of the local grid operator:
1) manufacture, install and service RPU technology
2) power condition and backup RPUs against failure
3) distribute to low income, non-profit, municipal users
4) use a downsized utility business model
The renewable grid structure upgrades to DCHV or equiv transmission efficiency. It delivers energy to large business/industry, government customers where RPUs cannot meet demand. Dakotas wind goes to Chicago, Detroit and NY but the demand on those services is greatly reduced by local RPU generation. Thus the 4GW wind farm T Boon builds is effectively leveraged across a narrower, more distant customer base. This makes meeting 20-30% renewable energy goals far more plausible.
Posted by: sulleny | 23 September 2008 at 10:55 AM
My one caveat about most proposals for things like "micro-grids" are that they not only remain dependent upon fossil fuels, they concentrate that dependency to particular forms like natural gas which can run cogenerators. My proposals aim to shift these to backup roles only, so wind/solar/nuclear wind up taking most of the burden.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 25 September 2008 at 07:11 PM