Gevo Produces Isobutanol, Hydrocarbons and Renewable Jet Fuel from Cellulosic Biomass
29 July 2010
|Gevo’s production process. Click to enlarge.|
Gevo, a privately held renewable chemicals and advanced biofuels company (earlier post), has successfully produced isobutanol from fermentable sugars derived from cellulosic biomass. The company also successfully converted the cellulosic isobutanol into isobutylene and paraffinic kerosene (jet fuel).
The production of isobutanol from cellulosic biomass is the subject of a previously announced $1.8 million award from the US Department of Energy and Agriculture’s Biomass R&D Program. The grant supports the ongoing development of a cellulosic biocatalyst that Gevo exclusively licensed from Cargill.
Gevo uses synthetic biology and metabolic engineering to develop biocatalysts (fermentation organisms) to make only isobutanol via fermentation at high concentrations—i.e., without the typical expression co-products. The initial generation biocatalyst operates on fermentable sugars from grain crops, sugar cane and sugar beets. Gevo has already produced renewable gasoline and jet fuel that meet or exceed all ASTM specifications.
The company is now developing a new generation of biocatalysts that can use the mixed sugars from biomass to produce cellulosic isobutanol.
To operate its fermentation at optimum conditions for the organism, and within the process conditions found in ethanol plants, Gevo developed a novel separation technology. The solution uses a process innovation for continuous separation of the isobutanol—which in high concentrations inhibits the growth of microorganisms—as it is produced.
Today’s announcement demonstrates Gevo’s progress in making its biocatalyst viable for use in cellulosic biorefineries. As the cellulosic ethanol industry becomes operational, companies could have the option to produce isobutanol instead of ethanol.—Dr. Patrick Gruber, CEO of Gevo
Isobutanol is a four-carbon alcohol that can function as a “drop-in” platform chemical with broad applications in the product of approximately 40% of petrochemicals and 100% of hydrocarbon fuels. It can be used directly for a solvent and can be dehydrated with known processes into isobutylene, a raw material for plastics and fiber. Gevo believes its isobutanol will provide a route to the renewable production of rubber, polypropylene, polystyrene, and PET.
|High-level process schematic for hydrocarbons from isobutanol. Source: Gevo. Click to enlarge.|
Hydrocarbon fuels from biomass via isobutanol. The chemistry to convert isobutanol to a variety of hydrocarbon fuels molecules is simple and well known—the dehydration of isobutanol to isobutylene and the subsequent oligomerization of isobutylene to hydrocarbon fuels. Isobutylene oligomerization is practiced in refineries today on a mixed olefin stream. The process technology for converting isobutanol to hydrocarbons is low-energy input and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 85.%
|Fuels from isobutanol. Source: Gevo. Click to enlarge.|
What’s new is the cost-effective production and purification of isobutanol from biomass. Gevo projects that the cash operating cost for its hydrocarbon fuel is competitive with $65 per barrel crude oil (without incentives).
Isobutanol can also be used directly as a gasoline blendstock and as a building block in the production of hydrocarbons found in petroleum-derived gasoline, jet and diesel fuels.
Gevo was founded in 2005 by Drs. Frances Arnold, Matthew Peters and Peter Meinhold of the California Institute of Technology. The company is focused on the development of advanced biofuels and renewable chemicals based on isobutanol and its derivatives using engineered microbes.
In 2009, oil and gas major Total has invested an undisclosed amount in Gevo’s series D financing round. (Earlier post.)
Hydrocarbon Fuels from Plant Biomass (Gevo, 2009)
This is a very interest solution for USA's continued liquid fuel shortage. At $65/barrel, it may not be as cheap as most conventional crude oil but being cleaner it could be a winner when fuels are taxed on GHG total created. Secondly, an importation fee of $0.54/gallon (or more for fossil crude) on all imported fuel (like duties currently applied on imported ethanol) could help local production and reduce imports.
Posted by: HarveyD | 29 July 2010 at 10:57 AM
I think butanol is a HUGE win as it can literally be used to replace gasoline on a 1 to 1 basis because it has essentially the same energy content as gasoline and can be used in the same engines and pipelines/infrastructure with no change. Ethanol can claim none of these advantages.
So this is always great news. However, I don't remotely believe the $65 a barrel with no subsidies.
If that is true, they would have a $billion worth of investment lined up to fund them out before they could even finish reading the press release.
I'm not blaming them because all these companies make claims like this and so now they all have ZERO credibility.
Anyway, good luck to them, I hope they make it.
Posted by: DaveD | 29 July 2010 at 01:42 PM
OPEC can easily drop oil prices if they see substitution. They have done it before and will do it again in a blink.
Posted by: SJC | 29 July 2010 at 01:48 PM
But then if the so-called peak-oilers are right, how can prices drop?
Posted by: Scott | 30 July 2010 at 12:20 AM
The moment there is an alternative for fossil fuel and there is a 'green excuse' for western protectionism, the west can easily raise CO2-taxes on fossil fuel.
On the other hand, OPEC is even more addicted to oil-money than the west is addicted to oil, and that difference is only going to increase. We have many alternatives in the running for oil. They have almost none for oil-money. Dropping the price of oil to 60$ just like that, is like increasing income-taxes with 20% just like that.
Just like we walked into our oil-addiction with our eyes wide open, simply because of the political reality, OPEC is killing the world's oil-addiction prematurely because of their political reality.
Once our alternatives will be mature and will have the benifit of scale and mature technology, their oil will be completely worthless, and their political reality will be dramatically different (and dangerous).
Posted by: Alain | 30 July 2010 at 01:47 AM
Unfortunately, most big changes are projected to be a decade in the making. To use Glenn Reynolds' catchphrase: faster, please.If you think we have not already hit peak oil,
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 30 July 2010 at 06:19 AM
Oil price is no longer a question of supply and demand since OPEC decided to fix prices and production level in mid-1970's.
It is fair to say that many oil producing countries have become addicted and dependent on Oil $$$. Their economy would fail quickly if oil price or oil shipment fall. Unfortunately, many other economies would fall with them because Oil $$$ are mostly recycled.
Fortunately, fossil fuel replacement will be progressive and producers will have time to adapt but them may have to stop building 160 stories structures.
The best thing that could happen to USA would be to switch from imported fossil fuels to locally produced substitutes, even if it cost more. Competition could be maintained with extra carbon or import taxes of crude Oil and high enough subsidies on substitutes. Fuels made from local wastes could have a higher priority. Why not use all garbage to produce some of the essential liquid fuels and clean up the local environment at the same time?
Posted by: HarveyD | 30 July 2010 at 08:48 AM
Most generally follow the idea of supply/demand/price. A drop in price does not necessarily mean an increase in supply. All it takes is for oil to come down in price for substitutes to be "out of the money". This preserves their market, which is the idea.
Posted by: SJC | 30 July 2010 at 12:45 PM
In broadstrokes you're right the Middle East will take a hit when oil's time is past. However, they have had hundreds of billions of dollars to invest and play with, and you will see them in many facets of life for a long time, especially in Air Travel.
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | 30 July 2010 at 03:45 PM
The Saudis hold hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. Treasury bonds. We will be paying them long after they go back to riding camels.
Posted by: SJC | 30 July 2010 at 04:06 PM
Once we stop needing the Saudis we can recognize their religious imperialism as a declaration of war and just cancel any bonds they hold.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 30 July 2010 at 09:44 PM
How about China?
Posted by: HarveyD | 31 July 2010 at 09:55 AM
This process is yet another addition to the liquid fuels solutions coming from biomass and waste. Together, along with scaled up processing of algal biomass, cellulosic alcohols ARE a real and viable alternative to fossil fuels.
The tax structure can help with the transition simply by raising import taxes on fossils and eliminating or crediting taxes on renewables.
With the ongoing selloff of big oil assets (BP, Shell) we are already seeing the undoing of energy monopolies. However a primary caution should be given to the investment by cash rich investors in North American electrical energy structures. Oil money will gravitate to electric power production and distribution via "smart grids." This will repeat the oilco's take over of energy in the 1920s.
Electrical energy MUST be diversified and distributed off-grid if we are to avoid a new energy monopoly. This is readily accomplished by distributed energy technology and regulation of centralized power production. Home Combined Heat and Power systems will guarantee North Americans avoid new big energy cartels using the grid to corner markets.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 31 July 2010 at 09:57 AM
If you default on bonds, good luck trying to sell more.
Posted by: SJC | 31 July 2010 at 10:41 AM
Reel$$ has a good point. There's nothing to stop oil $$$B from going over to electricity production an distribution. It will possibly happened during the next decade or two. If is not properly regulated it could become ugly by 2030/2040.
Distributed (domestic) production is a possibility but lower cost solar panels and storage batteries are required. Domestic NG power units may not be sustainable due to limited (8.6 years in USA) NG reserves.
Large Nuclear, Sun and Wind (and cleaner coal) power plants may be more competitive for the near/mid term future. Both centralized and distributed systems could co-exist to reduce impact of larger monopolies. Selective taxation could play a role, specially to promote domestic production.
Posted by: HarveyD | 31 July 2010 at 12:19 PM
"limited (8.6 years in USA) NG reserves"
You really did not look at the EIA link I posted. Ignorance is bliss.
Posted by: SJC | 31 July 2010 at 01:08 PM
1) Current USA's NG reserves are about 226,000 Bcf
2) Current USA's NG consumption is about 63 Bcf/day
Assuming that US's NG reserves and consumption will move up at about the same rate, reserves will last about 8.6 years. If either reserves or consumption change differently in the future, reserves may last more or less.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: HarveyD | 31 July 2010 at 06:05 PM
The oil companies will have trouble if they try to take over the electric sector, because the entire chain is within the nation (no multi-national responsibility-shuffling) and a disgruntled populace can nationalise the whole kit and kaboodle if they go too far.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 31 July 2010 at 06:36 PM
EP may be correct on electric sector current ownership restrictions. This could change under pressure from world free enterprises + local lobbies.
SJC: Here are more info:
USA's NG consumption:
All sources seems to agree on 60 Bcf/day to 63 Bcf/day for the last 5+ years.
USA's NG conventional-traditional reserves.
USA has about 3.5% of the world conventional NG reserves. Russia and the Middle East have over 80%.
Different sources quote different reserves for USA. Anywhere from 175,400 Bcf (7.6 years); 226,000 Bcf (8.6 years) ; 521,000 Bcf (22.6 years); 935,000 Bcf (40.6 years); to something as as high as 2,000,000 Bcf (86.9 years). This last estimate may include some non-conventional potential reserves.
USA's conventional or traditional NG reserves seems to be changing as often as the local weather. Is the right answer half way between 7.6 years and 86.9 years = 47.25 years? Maybe.
USA is already importing 4 times as much NG as it exports. It is still a small percentage of the total.
Converting 436 coal fired power plants and many million mid/large size ground vehicles to NG may double daily NG consumption and reduce average conventional reserves from 47.25 years to 24 years. Either way, NG is not an endless energy source. It could be a rather short term (25 years) panacea. Should it be used to produce electricity with high efficiency turbines or to fuel low efficiency ICE vehicles? That option is still up in the air. For the longer term, Nuclear, Solar and Wind energies are more sustainable and relatively cleaner. However, it is more than possible that we will use NG (and crude oil) to the last drop before we willingly and largely switch to other sources.
Posted by: HarveyD | 31 July 2010 at 07:18 PM
The EIA category of one of THREE, each had equivalent amounts. Instead of almost 10 years we have more than 30 and we are finding more every year. When you find more reserves every year, the 30 year figure goes further out in time.
Posted by: SJC | 31 July 2010 at 08:44 PM
Here is the EIA link showing more than THREE categories in case you did not read the other story.
Dry Natural Gas
Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation
Natural Gas Nonassociated, Wet After Lease Separation
Posted by: SJC | 31 July 2010 at 09:12 PM
All 3 categories would be enough for 31.5 years. That is even less than the combined average of most estimates (47 years)
There is not doubt that conventional NG reserves will increase as more efforts are used to find more sources. On the other hand, consumption could also increase at a similar rate (or more) with population increase and a world using more and more (per capita) energy. Many maintain that (USA's) PEAK NG has arrived around 2001 or will be around soon. Like crude oil and coal, it is a natural limited low cost energy source. All three may not last much beyond the current century unless the demand side is changed or other energy sources contribute more.
Posted by: HarveyD | 01 August 2010 at 05:44 AM
A few examples of yearly per capita energy consumption (Kwh equivalent):
Canada = 11,100
USA = 10,400
Japan = 5,400
UK = 5,200
Germany = 5,600
France = 5,000
China = 1,500
How can China feed/operate the world's factories with so little (1/8) the energy consumption? Our (USA/Canada) per capita energy consumption could be 20% to 30% higher if we manufactured all the good we use.
Posted by: HarveyD | 01 August 2010 at 10:00 AM
30 years reserves with increasing reserves does not mean we would "run out in a few years" if we had big rig trucks running on CNG, that is my point. As was pointed out, we can make methane from biomass and we can more than make up the difference. Then their is coal and methane hydrates, but I won't get into that.
Posted by: SJC | 01 August 2010 at 11:35 AM
Don't bother too much about NG reserves. Nonconventional NG (which has in the last year become mass-scale) will last for several decades. Quite soon, 10MW floating windmills, next generation nuclear and solar will produce much more energy than we need. Any energy can be transformed in any other (electricity <-> any chemical). And it will be abundant, cheap and non-monopolizable. As long as there is the political will to push it. Since the West realises China does have this will, it will only be pure economical necessity to do so also. Luckily.
Posted by: Alain | 02 August 2010 at 11:40 AM