Every idea needs to be presented in a compelling way if it is to catch on. According to Jeremy Shere, “What we need more of, to my mind, are stories about energy on a human scale, stories that give the average person a sense of what’s at stake and why he or she should care.” More here.

Verenium, the enzyme developer that was created when Diversa merged with cellulosic ethanol developer Celunol, has now sold its cellulosic business to BP for $98.3 million. Included in the transaction are the facilities in Jennings, LA and San Diego, CA.

Verenium will retain its specialty enzyme business, including its enzymes for facilitating biofuels production.

As a result of this deal, Verenium is returning to its original focus on biocatalysis and the development of improved enzymes for industrial applications. Read the press release here.

A great article by Jim Lane on what he calls the “infinite loop” of renewable fuels financing. Shari Lewis could not have described the situation any better.

Novozymes, the largest and IMHO best enzyme maker on the planet, has just introduced another innovation. It is called GH-61, which tells you nothing about what it really is. Novozymes calls it an “enzyme booster” that turbocharges the enzymatic degradation of cellulose. Imagine: an additive that boosts the performance of Novozyme’s already high-performing cellulases. Accelerating the conversion of waste cellulosic raw materials–things like corn cobs, straw, corn stalks, sugar cane bagasse (the stalks left over after the sugar has been crushed out), and the like– into sugars that can be fermented to produce biofuels is step forward on the path toward more plentiful and less expensive biofuels.

Commercialization has just been initiated, and sales are only beginning. But CEO Steen Riisgard says: “We are a real company, and when we say we are ready, we mean we are ready.”

I believe him.

POET, the largest US-based ethanol producer recently outlined its plans for expanding to 3.5 billion gallons per year of cellulosic ethanol production. According to CEO Jeff Broin, success is contingent on loan guarantees by the US government, and the company has submitted its application for the guarantees.

Producing fuel ethanol from corn has the problem that food crops are crowded out, putting upward pressure on food prices. Producing any biofuel from cellulose alleviates this problem, using, for example, corn cobs and stalks as the feedstock instead of corn. This is surely the future of biofuel production, but it is useful to put the cost and scale required to develop this technology into perspective.

Genera Energy has opened a 250,000 gallon per year demonstration cellulosic ethanol plant in Vonore, Tennessee that uses switchgrass as the raw material at a cost of $50 million. Now, 250,000 gallons may sound like a lot of ethanol until you consider that at a price of around $1.50 per gallon, it only equates to about $375,000 in sales at market prices. The scale of operation needs to be about 1000 times bigger for this technology to be competitive. Developing technology that operates at this scale is expensive.

In a press release yesterday Massachusetts-based Qteros, developer of the Q-microbe “”superbug” (actually Clostridium phytoferrans, but “Q” is much easier to pronounce and type).

The processes uses a material the company calls Recyllose-sewage sludge solids that are high is cellulose. Turning sewage sludge into ethanol offers a big opportunity for Qteros, which is partnering with Israel-based Applied CleanTech to develop the technology. Recyllose is a particularly good type of cellulosic feedstock as it contains very low amounts of lignin, the plant cell wall component that is difficult to degrade. Qteros-ACT scientists claim 120-135 gallons of ethanol per ton of Recyllose, and titers of 9% ethanol currently.

Quoting from the press release: “Our customer is every municipality that has a wastewater treatment plant,” said Jeff Hausthor, Qteros co-founder and senior project manager. “It will provide a value-added product for municipal wastewater plants, thereby making treatment plants much less expensive to run and helping local governments throughout the world with their constrained budgets.”

Israel Biran, ACT’s CEO, added, “It also helps answer the question of what municipalities can do with their sewage sludge, a major challenge now facing every wastewater treatment plant operator.”

There has been a PR blitz over the past 24 hours, and it appears to be well-merited.

There is no shortage of biofuels conferences to attend. The 5th Annual Biofuels FInancial Conference is coming up in Minneapolis, MN June 24-25.

The newest pretreatment method to get investor backing is actually a very old method: hydrochloric acid.

A lot of attention has focused on the development of more efficient cellulases and hemi-cellulases to convert cellulosic feedstocks into fermentable sugars. Once this step becomes efficient, biofuels come much closer to a practical reality. Well, a company called HCL Cleantech has just received investments from high profile VCs Burrill & Co. and Khosla Ventures based on a different, enzyme-free approach. HCL Cleantech claims a low-cost biomass to sugars conversion using good, old concentrated hydrochloric acid, offering a process that uses little water and is self-sufficient energetically. As a path to fermentable sugars, the methods would help biofuels development broadly, whether the product is ethanol, butanol, or hydrocarbons. R & D is ongoing in Israel currently, with a pilot plant slated for the USA in 2010. Read the full story here.

T. Boone Pickens on ethanol as a fuel: “It’s an ugly baby, but it’s our ugly baby.”

To read our previous take on ethanol as a fuel, click here.

According to Jack Huttner, VP, Public Affairs, DuPont Danisco, “From our point of view the [cellulosic ethanol] technology is ready for commercialization. It is no longer five years from the market.” 

Now if they could just apply this technology to produce butanol or another better biofuel …

Frequent and often heated debate has erupted over the movement toward—and heavy subsidization of—biofuels in general, and ethanol in particular. Proponents tout the creation of a domestically produced fuel produced from renewable materials and improving economics. Naysayers emphasize the diverting of food crops to produce ethanol, causing upward pressure on food prices.  There are also problems relating to the lower fuel value of ethanol and its inability to be blended with gasoline at levels greater than about 10%-15%. Let’s look at some of these pros and cons in more detail.

First there is The Good. Ethanol is a fuel that can be produced now with existing technology, and there are some valid reasons to produce it. Produced domestically, bio-ethanol serves to both replace oil and decrease our dependence on imported oil. Every gallon of fuel ethanol replaces a bit less than a gallon of gasoline that otherwise would come from petroleum. Irrespective of net energy arguments, using and importing less oil is a good thing. A second touted benefit is economic. While ethanol is not competitive with oil at under around $70-90 per barrel, it does help to place a cap on the price of oil as long as we have a sufficient supply of ethanol to use. This would support an argument for some subsidies so that ethanol is available as a credible substitute for oil.

But then there is The Bad. The main problem currently is that most ethanol used in the USA is derived from corn (In Brazil it comes from sugar cane and a lot of land is being de-forested and converted to sugar production). Thus, there is upward pressure on food prices caused by diverting corn to produce fuel ethanol rather than food and exacerbated by diverting land away from food production to fuel ethanol production. This should only be a temporary condition, however. Virtually everyone realizes that producing ethanol from corn is not a tenable long-term strategy, but rather, is a stop-gap measure for providing ethanol now. Once the cellulose-based technology has been sufficiently developed and is competitive, most corn-based ethanol should be converted to cellulose-based production. Within 2-5 years, the displacement of corn by cellulose-based technology should be underway, and upward pressure on food prices due to fuel ethanol production will abate.

Economics are different matter, however. Ethanol has only about 60% the fuel value of gasoline; thus, a crude calculation using simple energy content measurements says mathematically that we need about 1.6 gallons of ethanol to equal the fuel equivalent of one gallon of gasoline. Based on current production methods, the cost of just the sugar (derived from corn) to produce 1 gallon of ethanol is about $0.80-1.00. Adding costs to isolate and refine the ethanol raises the overall cost rises to about $1.50/gallon or more, which after adjusting for the lower fuel value translates to about $3.00 per gallon equivalent of gasoline once it reaches the gas pumps. Cost reductions will be made over time, but ethanol is not yet on an economic par with petroleum-derived gasoline as a transportation fuel.

Then finally, there is The Ugly. Ethanol is also not as easily transported as gasoline from the production plant to the pump due to its tendency to absorb water from the atmosphere. Existing pipeline infrastructure cannot be used, and requiring special pipelines to be constructed (and this will add to the cost). Ethanol is also corrosive. It is, in fact, illegal as well as unworkable to use ethanol as an aviation fuel for this reason. And then there is the problem of the “blend wall.” Car engines require modification to use ethanol in blends higher than about 15%. Automakers will likely void the warranties for engines that have used gasoline blended with higher percentages of ethanol. All these problems illustrate the impracticality of ethanol as a transportation fuel, and argue for other fuel compounds that do not have these problems—for example, higher alcohols such as butanol or hydrocarbons, which can also be produced by the fermentation of sugars. These significant drawbacks lead to the inescapable conclusion that ethanol is a poor choice as a fuel, and should be replaced as soon as efficient processes to produce alternative fuels, such as butanol or hydrocarbons, have been developed.

Mascoma announced a bioprocessing breakthrough of sorts. The breakthrough relates to what the company is calling consolidated bioprocessing (CBP) – a transformational technology which the DOE/USDA 2006 Roadmap called “the ultimate low-cost configuration for cellulose hydrolysis and fermentation.” CBP  eliminates the need for adding enzymes to process pretreated lignocellulose into ethanol by integrating their production into the processing step. Estimates provided by Mascoma suggest a 60-% reduction in cost using CBP. You can bet that enzyme developers and producers such as Codexis, Danisco, and Novozymes are not cheering this breakthrough.

The biofuel dominoes are starting to fall, at least as far as ethanol as a biofuel is concerned. VeraSun, which had been the second largest US-based ethanol producer, is already in liquidation. Its ethanol plants are being auctioned off or bought up by larger players with deeper pockets and staying power.  The major oil refiner Valero picked up seven of VeraSun’s plants in March. In California, industry sources are saying that previously highly touted biofuels companies Cilion and Codon Devices are heading for wind-down. Cilion is an ethanol venture that counts the well-heeled Khosla Ventures and Richard Branson’s investment group as backers. Cilion had previously announced that it was developing a 55 million gallon per year first generation ethanol plant in Kern County, and had confidently projected that it would have eight plants operating by 2008.  Codon Devices based its biofuels fortunes on its BioLOGIC protein engineering platform.

More failures are virtually certain, with oil prices hovering around the level at which ethanol is uneconomical and with investors far less wiling to part with additional cash. Consolidation will take over in the ethanol industry. Ethanol will still be produced, but only the larger or better-financed players will be able to stay in. Expect the major companies that are committed for the long-term to start buying up assets from the failing companies at attractive prices. These who got in for a quick profit will more likely wind up with pennies on the dollar.

Meanwhile, the trend toward the use of corn to produce ethanol should also start to slow. Producing fuel ethanol using crops and land that could otherwise be used to produce food has created a lot of negative political pressure.  As technology that uses cellulosic waste rather than corn as a feedstock is demonstrated, production will be shifting away from corn and toward the cellulosics. The main problem, as usual, will be economics.

The United Nations World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP) has warned that the sharp increase in biofuel production will cause a significant increase in water demand. According to the report, one of the major problems with biofuels is the need for large quantities of water to grow the crops, estimating that between 1,000 and 4,000 litres of water are needed to produce a single litre of biofuel. The report says that, despite their potential to help reduce dependence on fossil energy, biofuels, with current technology, are likely to place a disproportionate amount of pressure on biodiversity and the environment. Coordinated by the WWAP, the report is the result of a co-operative effort by the 26 UN agencies and entities that make up UN-Water. Read the story here.