backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 50 comment(s) - last by ZmaxDP.. on Jul 13 at 1:18 PM


Amyris's biofuel plant in Brazil is one of the largest test deployments of sugar-based microbial biodiesel to date. It should be an important test of the new technology's commercial potential.  (Source: Wired.com)
Will company offer the best biofuel yet, or just another pricey alternative?

A new kind of fuel production has launched in Brazil.  Unlike ethanol plants in the country which turn sugarcane to ethanol or traditional oil refining, the new plant produces the equivalent of diesel fuel formed from the waste byproducts of microbes that "eat" and reprocess the sugar.  Built by Emeryville, CA-based Amryis Technologies, the plant aims to produce 10,000 gallons a year (approximately 238 barrels).

While biodiesel and biofuels are not exactly a new concept, this is one of the largest test deployments to date of sugar based biodiesel, particularly of a microbial scheme (most biodiesel is formed from plant oils, such as palm oil).  The plant aims to produce, with government regulation and carbon taxes, fuel at $60/barrel (approximately $1.43 per gallon).  This indicates that their technology may be nearing cost competitiveness with cellulosic ethanol manufacturers -- the best of which, Coskata, claims to be on the verge of $1.00 per gallon ethanol.

Advantages of the cellulosic ethanol include being able to come from waste materials unlike the biodiesel that’s formed from sugar crops.  However, the biodiesel packs more energy per gallon and the microbes could eventually be genetically engineered to process cellulose as well.  It’s hard to tell which solution costs less, given that the target costs for the biodiesel are post-subsidy, while Coskata's targets are pre-subsidy.

The plant will go online in 2011 and should looks to sell its high-grade fuel products primarily overseas as Brazil doesn't use much diesel fuel.

One key advantage of the biodiesel is like ethanol it lacks the harmful impurities found in standard oil.  The fuel features less sulfur, less carbon monoxide, and fewer nitrogen oxides, particulates, and other emissions, compared with petroleum diesel.  States Neil Renninger, founder and chief technical officer of Amyris, "The greenness of the fuel might drive a few people to it, but we need to be cost competitive."

The plant will use existing sugarcane delivery infrastructure.  However, it faces tough competition.  Sugarcane ethanol production is much more energy efficient than that of its American brethren, corn ethanol.  Sugarcane waste is burned and the production consumes less electricity, leading to a net electricity surplus.  Corn ethanol, meanwhile consumes more electricity to produce than it generates.  Lester Lave, a professor of economics and co-director of the Electricity Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh, praises sugarcane ethanol, stating, "The net energy invested in sugarcane ethanol is not very high and leads to huge gains relative to the gain from corn."

However, sugarcane is unfortunately limited by geography, as it grows best in tropical regions which are warmer and receive more sunlight.  A few states -- Hawaii, Louisiana, and Florida do have conditions conducive to moderate sugarcane yields.  A corn-sugarcane hybrid called corncane might be viable across a broader range of states, though, while retaining much of sugarcane's benefits.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Less contaminants?
By Denithor on 7/10/2009 8:13:57 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The fuel features less sulfur, less carbon monoxide, and fewer nitrogen oxides, particulates, and other emissions, compared with petroleum diesel.


Diesel (whether petroleum-based or not) does not contain carbon monoxide. That's simply a biproduct of the oxidation reaction (combustion) which releases the energy for use in your vehicle. Also, biodiesel typically contains zero sulfur but is higher in nitrogen content than petroleum sourced diesel.




RE: Less contaminants?
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2009 8:42:14 AM , Rating: 3
I could be wrong but I think the lack of sulfur is actually bad for many older diesels because the sulfur acts as a lubricant or something. I know I've heard of issues caused by lower sulfur diesel.


RE: Less contaminants?
By Lord 666 on 7/10/2009 9:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
That's why I'm going to try to hold onto my 06 TDI for a long time. Its modern enough to be relatively clean and driveable, but just made the cut off to legally use the old 500ppm diesel. These lower tolerance requirements should enable it to run any type of biofuel or blend on the horizon without major modification.


RE: Less contaminants?
By Jeffk464 on 7/10/2009 9:40:28 AM , Rating: 2
To have "clean diesel" you have to take most of the sulfur out of regular diesel. This is the way things are going so the fact that bio-diesel has no sulfur is beneficial.


RE: Less contaminants?
By MrPoletski on 7/10/2009 9:41:15 AM , Rating: 2
That's certainly why lead was added to petrol in the past, but I question the need of a diesel engine to self lubricate with any compound other than diesel itself.

I could also be wrong on that point though;)


RE: Less contaminants?
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2009 10:13:31 AM , Rating: 1
So diesels shouldn't need motor oil?


RE: Less contaminants?
By PandaBear on 7/10/2009 6:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
It still does, but the combustion chamber design is different and has higher combustion, that you need to have more lubricity in the fuel as well. Bio diesel with ester (soy bean oil or refined from waste vegetable oil) and crude based diesel with high sulfur would work.


RE: Less contaminants?
By Alexvrb on 7/10/2009 10:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that they're taking almost all the sulfur out of crude-derived diesel, and that they rarely add enough/any additional lubricant in biodiesel. This is less of an issue with newer models that are designed for ultra low sulfur diesel. However, having no sulfur at all may still cause accelerated wear of the pump and injectors over time. For older models, it is much worse. If ultra low sulfur diesel is all that is available, for older models I would recommend using a diesel fuel lubricity supplement, with every fill up. It's not expensive if you buy it in large containers and take a little bottle of it with you whenever you fill up. Heck, Power Service (and probably others) sell an additive that cleans injectors, boosts cetane, and adds additional lubricity to the fuel.


RE: Less contaminants?
By Lord 666 on 7/11/2009 2:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
Another consideration is the only consumer grade manufacturer that has certified their powerplants to use higher than B5 is Cummins. Both VW and MB restrict biodiesel useage to B5 or the warranty will be voided. Check on tdiclub.com, there is one incident I remember reading where a 2004 TDI motor was trashed due to using WVO. Don't know if the fuel was home brew, but something to consider. For commercial grade gear, B20 and B100 are no problems. One NJ town (Medford) was the first in the nation to mandate B100 to be used in all school buses quite a while ago.

Maybe once my car goes over 150,000, I'll consider playing with WVO or other blends. Until then, just the fuel filters need to be changed every 35,000 or so. You'll notice a performance drop if it gets too clogged, just easier to change before then. Also I strictly use only Hess diesel and never let the tank go below 1/4.


Unintended Consequences
By ZmaxDP on 7/13/2009 1:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
"A corn-sugarcane hybrid called corncane might be viable across a broader range of states, though, while retaining much of sugarcane's benefits."

On a side note, the American Council of Candy Producers has come out against "corncane", citing the original name of the hybrid plant - "sugarcorn" - as proof of the real market for the new plant. The ACCP argues the real intent is to replace one of the staple Halloween candies in this country, the beloved candy corn. Popcorn producers are equally concerned as the new produce may result in self-caramelizing pop-corn...




Can that be right?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: Can that be right?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/10/2009 7:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, 85 Million barrels per day in world oil consumption. Perhaps this will be Artisan Biodiesel and only sold in swank shops.


RE: Can that be right?
By safcman84 on 7/10/2009 7:54:04 AM , Rating: 5
If you read the article and ignore the title, you might see that it is a test plant hence the small production capacity.


RE: Can that be right?
By phxfreddy on 7/10/2009 8:55:40 AM , Rating: 2
Something smells wrong...that was their point. Its not just the low capacity...how about the location? Where is the nearest cane grown?

Maybe they are prototyping so they can sell units to Brazil.

Brazil uses its fair share of diesel unlike what the arty suggests. It has potential. The government here does not tax diesel as much as they do gasoline. While being oil independent gasoline costs 2X what it does in the USA because of all the taxes. Trust a left winger to "help" you!


RE: Can that be right?
By sviola on 7/10/2009 10:50:06 AM , Rating: 2
That's right, Diesel is the most used fuel used here in Brazil. And the country is moving towards biodiesel (Rio de Janeiro City Hall just passed a law that all public transportation must use biodiesel in their fleet starting next year).


RE: Can that be right?
By Starcub on 7/10/2009 11:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
The company is located in Brazil; they get their sugar for reprocessing from existing infrastructure within Brazil. The only difference between what this new company is doing and what existing Brazilian sugarcane based biodeisel producers are doing is in the method of production.

This is a test case to guage relative costs. In fact they don't even need to use sugar as a source, but it's probably cheapest to do so since they already grow sugar for biodeisel production in Brazil. From their results here, they can more easily determine how they might expand into other markets where other products, or waste products, might be more suitable for use as source material.


RE: Can that be right?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: Can that be right?
By knutjb on 7/10/2009 2:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
IT'S A TEST PLANT! They are starting with cane based materials and are working on cellulose as well, though down the road. R&D, then if proven viable, industrial applications.

They're in the R&D stage hence low volume production, read the article.

Releasing info like this is how you get on the funding map.


RE: Can that be right?
By TGIM824 on 7/11/2009 2:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
They are testing their developed process. The point is they plan to use waste product, and convert that to biodiesel. These little microbes eat at the left over sugar cane stalks, which helps it ferment quicker.

This way, they can grow sugar cane, and use as a food crop, and then use the waste product as a fuel source.


RE: Can that be right?
By Meinolf on 7/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: Can that be right?
By therealnickdanger on 7/10/2009 10:44:58 AM , Rating: 1
You have a diesel H1?


RE: Can that be right?
By menace on 7/10/2009 1:53:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
238 barrels a year? What is the point?

They were gonna turn it into a home kit: Make and sell your own biodiesel in your basement and earn big $$$. Call it the ShuggaDaddy. Their plans fell thru when Billy Mays kicked the bucket.


RE: Can that be right?
By jadeskye on 7/10/2009 6:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
Billy mays here with another fantastic offer! I'm gonna be your ShuggaDaddy with this product!

buy today and i'll throw in a pimp cane Absolutely Free!


RE: Can that be right?
By Spookster on 7/12/2009 3:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Billy mays here with another fantastic offer! I'm gonna be your ShuggaDaddy with this product!

buy today and i'll throw in a pimp cane Absolutely Free!


What about that Sham Wow guy. We already know he has a strong pimp hand after beating up that prostitute awhile back.


Read the title...
By Alexstarfire on 7/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: Read the title...
By Denithor on 7/10/2009 8:17:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's a pilot plant to prove the concept and get an idea of price scaling. Not meant for large-scale production. If this plant meets their production efficiency targets and price points they will build a larger capacity facility in the future.


RE: Read the title...
By Lord 666 on 7/10/2009 9:23:51 AM , Rating: 2
Instead of bashing Mick (got old a long time ago), focus on what is being presented.

1. This article is about sugar based biodiesel. What Mick should have tied in for US capabilities is algae based biodiesel that can produce 10,000 gallons per acre or more.

2. I am going out on a limb and presenting future looking statments, but within this presidental term, the US will be setting up shop in Cuba. Not only does this open the door for sugar based diesel, but allows access to the real dino juice and area for other biofuel crops.

3. Also missing from the article is WVO recycling into diesel. The US has great capacity to handle that.

So again, instead of wasting everyone's time putting someone down, actually focus on the material or shut up and learn something of the whole concept first before saying something.


RE: Read the title...
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2009 12:06:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
is algae based biodiesel that can produce 10,000 gallons per acre or more.


I'm assuming that's per year. But that's not bad at all. Doing a little math that's around 14 million acres of land needed to "grow" all the motor vehicle fuel the US uses per year if we all switched to diesel.

Better than wasting land on solar power plants that put out less power than a coal or nuclear plant which takes up far less space.


RE: Read the title...
By corduroygt on 7/10/2009 12:31:16 PM , Rating: 1
I can live with switching to diesel rather than a gutless hybrid or an EV with ridiculously expensive batteries, long charge times, and practically useless in the winter. Then maybe we would get all the cool diesels europe gets. I also believe algae is the future.


RE: Read the title...
By Iaiken on 7/10/09, Rating: 0
They should stick to Rum
By pequin06 on 7/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: They should stick to Rum
By MrPoletski on 7/10/2009 9:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Using food supplies as fuel meets the definition of crazy.


where do you suggest we get fuel from instead then? and I mean get it in a reasonable timeframe at a reasonable cost.


RE: They should stick to Rum
By Motoman on 7/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: They should stick to Rum
By Danger D on 7/10/2009 11:06:45 AM , Rating: 2
Corn right now is about 6 cents per pound. A pound of corn flakes is around $4. Do the math. Biofuels is not what's driving up your food prices. Greedy food companies and an exploding (population-wise, I mean) middle class in China and India are the main reasons.

Biofuels have a lot of potential, especially if America bucks up and shares seed, fertilizer and better ag practices with third-world farmers so they can grow their own food and biofuels instead of relying on aid from us.


RE: They should stick to Rum
By Danger D on 7/10/2009 11:09:11 AM , Rating: 1
Not that I blame the third-world countries for taking aid. The reason they're in this mess is because for decades America depressed crop prices through crop supports and subsidies to the point where prices were below the cost of production.

We priced poor farmers in other countries right out of the market and made them dependent on the developed world.


RE: They should stick to Rum
By Spuke on 7/10/2009 1:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still trying to figure out why we import food.


RE: They should stick to Rum
By menace on 7/10/2009 2:06:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Corn right now is about 6 cents per pound. A pound of corn flakes is around $4. Do the math.

Yeah but corn (the type grown for human consumption) is like 95% water and has a big inedible cob in the middle. After you remove the inedible parts and cook it, I wouldn't be surpised if it takes 20 lbs of corn to make 1 lb of flakes. Also I'm guessing the "6 cents a pound" variety is common feed corn which is cheaper to produce. To "do the math" you first have to understand all your variables and coefficients.


RE: They should stick to Rum
By Danger D on 7/10/2009 2:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
A bushel is just corn, no cobs. One bushel = 56 pounds of feed corn. A bushel is about $3.50 right now.

Feed corn (not the kind we get in a can or at BBQs, but the kind cows eat) is what is used to make ethanol. The starch goes to ethanol, the protein goes into dried distillers grains, which are used as feed.


RE: They should stick to Rum
By Motoman on 7/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: They should stick to Rum
By pequin06 on 7/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: They should stick to Rum
By pequin06 on 7/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: They should stick to Rum
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2009 11:55:19 AM , Rating: 2
Algae? Just a thought.


RE: They should stick to Rum
By saiga6360 on 7/10/2009 12:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
You'd rather have diabetes then?


RE: They should stick to Rum
By pequin06 on 7/10/2009 12:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You'd rather have diabetes then?


You'd rather have dirty water?


RE: They should stick to Rum
By Spuke on 7/10/2009 1:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You'd rather have dirty water?
I'll take the dirty water thanks.


RE: They should stick to Rum
By Iaiken on 7/10/2009 1:31:53 PM , Rating: 1
Water is going to be the oil of the 21st century... :P


RE: They should stick to Rum
By FITCamaro on 7/10/2009 9:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
Water is the most abundant resource on the planet. And it isn't THAT hard to make it drinkable.


RE: They should stick to Rum
By werfu on 7/10/2009 1:40:00 PM , Rating: 1
You didn't understood the article didn't you? It's made from sugercane waste. Sugarcane a partially harvested, only the top being cut and the bottom of the cane stay there. Usually cane farmers burn their field once the cane as been harvested. Ashes act as a fertilizer. The edible sugarcane part itself IS used for food production.

Cellulosic ethnol production can use waste from various industrial or farming activities. Here in Canada we're investigating cellulosic ethanol to use logging waste. Cellulosic ethanol could also be produced from any other plant waste, as it use cellulose which is the basic plant structure (like our cell). Now, sugercane is more efficient because it contains more sugar, but nothing is stopping us from using other byproduct. It could even use our own veggy wastes.


RE: They should stick to Rum
By menace on 7/10/2009 2:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe you understood the article yourself. Maybe you misread the following:

quote:
Advantages of the cellulosic ethanol include being able to come from waste materials unlike the biodiesel that’s formed from sugar crops. However, the biodiesel packs more energy per gallon and the microbes could eventually be genetically engineered to process cellulose as well.


Here they are talking about cellulosic alcohol production using waste materials not biodiesel derived from microbial processing. Nowhere does it say they are using any throwaway byproduct of sugarcane farming in this process.


RE: They should stick to Rum
By pequin06 on 7/10/2009 3:33:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You didn't understood the article didn't you? It's made from sugercane waste.


Yep, just like Rum.

Cellulosic ethanol is basically anything that doesn't use corn.
Big whoop!

BTW, I was a big backer of ethanol myself before it was fashionable but when someone takes an honest look at ethanol they wouldn't back it anymore.
It's all about the money.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki