backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Jul 17 at 10:38 AM


Terrabon plant worker Cesar Granda shows the sorghum plant waste that his company is turning into oil via a fermentation process. Currently producing seven barrels a day, the company plans to open a larger plant with funding from Valero, a major oil and energy.  (Source: Gabriel Chmielewski/Chronicle)
Move over ethanol, there's a hot new biofuel in town

Biofuels are a controversial topic.  Some support switching to using natural gas (primarily methane), a substance that is in great abundance in America.  Others, particularly corn farmers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture suggest switching to an ethanol-based economy.  Still others advocate using sugar cane in more limited ethanol or biodiesel deployments.

All of these approaches, though, share fundamental inefficiencies -- they require a car engine redesign to full take advantage of them.  Modern dual mode vehicles can lose 15 percent or more efficiency.

Houston, Texas-based Terrabon believes they have the answer.  They have refined and improved on a Texas A&M University acid fermentation called MixAlco, which can convert "anything that rots" (including lawn waste) into a gasoline-like substance.  The company has built a $3.5M USD Energy Independence I facility to test the process.  Malcolm McNeill, Terrabon’s chief financial officer states, "One of the reasons we built this was to find out what we didn’t know."

By the end of the summer the facility will be using chopped sorghum (a fast growing plant), to produce 300 gallons per day (7.14 barrels of gas).  While that might not seem like much, that's over 2,500 barrels of gasoline over the next year. 

Terrabon plans to soon open a larger plant in Port Arthur, Texas, with the help of San Antonio’s Valero Energy Corp.  The company believes it can produce $1.75/gallon gas at the facility.

The company's plans are boosted by the 2007 Energy Law, signed by President Bush, which promises 36 billion gallons of biofuels to be used by 2022.  Oil from algae and processes like Terrabon's seems the most promising mid-term solution (along with cellulosic ethanol).  However, the company still faces tough challenges ahead as the ethanol industry is the favorite child of the biofuels world.  Despite its significant detractions, ethanol has won significant political support and receives large tax breaks and other incentives. 

Companies like Terrabon, meanwhile enjoy some federal support, but to a lesser extent.  They have to pursue their own funding, much more aggressively.  Fortunately, that's exactly what they're doing.



Comments     Threshold


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

I have a better idea
By ice456789 on 7/14/2009 11:13:22 AM , Rating: 5
If someone could come up with a way to create energy from political waste, now that would be something.




RE: I have a better idea
By h0kiez on 7/14/2009 11:35:45 AM , Rating: 3
Mods, he needs a +6.


RE: I have a better idea
By jadeskye on 7/15/2009 4:05:12 AM , Rating: 3
agreed. he made me spit up my morning coffee, that always deserves a 6.


RE: I have a better idea
By EasyC on 7/14/2009 11:58:38 AM , Rating: 3
Yea but then we'd have to find a place to store it all.


RE: I have a better idea
By Adonlude on 7/15/2009 1:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
At first I thought to myself "wow, all our illegal aliens are going to get rich selling their lawn clippings", but then I did the math:

$3.5M producing 300gal/day is maybe enough for 35 people. This will cost each person $100,000. 50 years of the same amount of daily gas use at $3/gallon is $470,000. I guess it could work if people could pay their lifetime gas cost up front.


RE: I have a better idea
By magreen on 7/14/2009 12:01:22 PM , Rating: 5
It already produces 3500 pork barrels per year.


RE: I have a better idea
By MonkeyPaw on 7/14/2009 8:38:32 PM , Rating: 4
Yep, global warming isn't really from extra CO2, it's from extra political hot air from big government.


RE: I have a better idea
By MrBlastman on 7/14/2009 12:18:06 PM , Rating: 4
Just hook a giant funnel up to the walls of the senate, house and white house, replacing the roof with it, pipe the output from these rooms to a gigantic turbine and win.

viola! Free, renewable energy!


RE: I have a better idea
By 67STANG on 7/14/2009 12:22:45 PM , Rating: 4
Does that mean Obama could be the answer to Fusion?


RE: I have a better idea
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2009 12:26:02 PM , Rating: 4
If his ego gets any bigger perhaps. Might implode on itself and produce a star.


RE: I have a better idea
By Spuke on 7/14/2009 3:56:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If his ego gets any bigger perhaps. Might implode on itself and produce a star.
No, that would produce a black hole.


RE: I have a better idea
By 67STANG on 7/14/2009 4:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL


RE: I have a better idea
By EasyC on 7/14/2009 12:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes We Can?


RE: I have a better idea
By GodisanAtheist on 7/14/2009 1:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, prolly not, but the hot air he produces could certainly be harnessed to drive several turbines...


RE: I have a better idea
By Ammohunt on 7/14/2009 2:14:31 PM , Rating: 3
Minus the energy needed to power the teleprompters.


RE: I have a better idea
By mmntech on 7/14/2009 5:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the average environmentalist contains 10 kilogores worth of green energy in the form of BS, and we know manure emits methane so...


RE: I have a better idea
By 2bits on 7/15/2009 12:34:09 AM , Rating: 1
To everyone above this post: Orgasm now! Circle jerk over.


Better than making alcohol?
By menace on 7/14/2009 11:09:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'm curious if you use this process on corn or sugar cane, would the energy content of the gasoline created be superior to the energy content of the alcohol that could be created via fermentation? I imagine if the answer is close, gasoline should be the clear winner due to prevalence of the existing fuel distribution system.




RE: Better than making alcohol?
By tastyratz on 7/14/2009 2:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
convert "anything that rots" (including lawn waste) into a gasoline-like substance


"Gasoline like substance"
We are fermenting here, so its a nice way of saying alcohol. Hell the process is even called mixalco.
This is just another process making news on cheap ethanol production but will likely end up vaporware. I am all for it if we have a legitimate alternative, but maybe I am just jaded by all the promised cheap options I have yet to see go mainstream


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By Oregonian2 on 7/14/2009 3:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
Alcohol is a "gasoline like substance"?


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By seamonkey79 on 7/15/2009 9:29:20 AM , Rating: 2
With people starting to realize that using corn to make ethanol has done little but raise the price of food, ethanol is becoming a bad word... and I'm in the midwest, with many corn farmers around... people are not happy in the area


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By Danger D on 7/15/2009 9:47:17 AM , Rating: 2
Um, there are hardly any rural folks mad about ethanol around here. That's just dumb. Right or not it's giving us money, for crying out loud.

Ethanol hasn't raised the cost of food by any substantial amount. Congressional Budget Office, at the request of some ethanol-haters in Congress, just finished a report a couple months ago that said ethanol raised food prices by only 0.5-0.8 percent. Gas prices (oil was at $140 a barrel, if you remember) and other energy costs were far bigger culprits.

Plus, check out how food manufacturers in general are doing in this economy while everyone else fails. Check out Kraft, ConAgra, General Mills, etc. Many of them even admit in quarterly and annual reports that price hikes are why they're still returning profits for investors.

They hiked prices, blamed ethanol, and reaped the profits. Shrewd.


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By stirfry213 on 7/15/2009 12:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
If it makes you money, who cares if its NOT in the best interest of consumers or the environment. You got yours right? Screw everyone else...

Idiot


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By Danger D on 7/15/2009 4:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying that, and do you really have to resort to name calling? I'm saying they support something that's improving their standard of living.

But since you brought it up, getting fuel from the US instead of Venezuela or Iran is in the best interest of consumers. And using biomass, which can be regrown, instead of sucking up oil that took millions of years to form is better for the environment, as is reducing greenhouse emissions, which even corn ethanol does by up to 60 percent.

Using oil is screwing everyone else.


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By Oregonian2 on 7/15/2009 4:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They hiked prices, blamed ethanol, and reaped the profits. Shrewd.


You mean to say that they raised prices to offset the increased cost of their product (as result of ethanol production) in order to maintain their previous profit level.

They were shrewd not to take it on the chin, absorbing increased production cost, when the price of corn attacked their profitability.

I agree.

P.S. - I think in the past they've been equally shrewd when bad weather has increased corn prices.


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By Danger D on 7/16/2009 9:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if all they were doing was offsetting costs, which is what they claimed when they raised prices, it seems odd that they posted increased profits and continue to do so. If they were trying to maintain margins, you'd think they'd remain at profit levels consistent with the previous year.

Actually it isn't odd, since many have outright admitted that increased prices boosted profits.


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By Danger D on 7/16/2009 9:27:04 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a Wall Street Journal article from July last year, in the midst of the run-up in prices:

"Kraft Foods Inc. posted a 3.5% rise in second-quarter net income thanks to product-price increases aimed at offsetting surging ingredients costs.

The maker of Kraft cheese, Oscar Mayer lunch meat and Planters nuts also raised its 2008 outlook slightly, in part on those price increases. ...

Gross margin rose to 36.2% from 35.4%. Marketing costs jumped 20% as Kraft invests to strengthen its brands.

"Significant" price increases led to a 10% revenue increase for the U.S. cheese business, as sales and profits rose from a year earlier at all of Kraft's segments. North American profits climbed 12% as revenue increased 5.8%. Internationally, earnings surged 54% on a 9.2% organic sales increase."

So, profits rose and, lo and behold, their marketing budget still jumped by 20 percent as well, even as Kraft took the lead in criticizing ethanol companies for using corn.

Those price increases had nothing to do with ethanol and everything to do with pleasing investors, which they did.


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By Danger D on 7/16/2009 9:29:22 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and here's Heinz in November, after commodity prices plummeted:

"[Chief Executive William R.] Johnson said commodity costs are coming down and Heinz will leave pricing in place, which will help boost margins. Heinz will invest in marketing and innovation to push its message of value to consumers, he said. The company is also looking at changing sizes of packages and providing new offerings to keep consumers wanting its products."


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By Danger D on 7/16/2009 9:32:32 AM , Rating: 2
But hey, it's worth it for that "innovation" in ketchup.


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By Oregonian2 on 7/16/2009 11:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I've been surprised how much ketchup bottles have changed in recent years (upside down ones that work great, fit the fridge door nicely, and sell very cheap at Costco) after so many years in the market. Absolutely great stuff. Wish the mustard making folks (listen Heinz!!!) would take note and improve theirs as well.

Curious part is that part of those mild profit increases is due to sales volume being up as well. People eat more in a recession I guess. :-)


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By Danger D on 7/17/2009 9:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather they just not hike prices and try to tear down another industry if it means using the normal bottles.


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By Oregonian2 on 7/17/2009 10:38:01 AM , Rating: 2
Thing about those kind of price hikes is that it's "in the noise" for home buyers (commercial users like restaurant chains would notice more). The price differences between home-buyer retail stores and/or sales within single stores are huge compared to such small price changes. Price difference between Kroger/Safeway/etc and Costco could easily be over 100% even for the same brand, and house-branded stuff can make an even bigger difference.


RE: Better than making alcohol?
By Oregonian2 on 7/17/2009 10:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
Thing about those kind of price hikes is that it's "in the noise" for home buyers (commercial users like restaurant chains would notice more). The price differences between home-buyer retail stores and/or sales within single stores are huge compared to such small price changes. Price difference between Kroger/Safeway/etc and Costco could easily be over 100% even for the same brand, and house-branded stuff can make an even bigger difference.


Hey I'm all for it but...
By jamesvz on 7/14/2009 12:01:05 PM , Rating: 5
I'm all for this kind of research and hope it works out. BUT why do they have to build the facilities on the gulf coast where hurricanes come by and can do damage to the facility and cause production to stop. For gods sake, move the stupid thing inland.

just my 2 cents.




RE: Hey I'm all for it but...
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2009 12:22:12 PM , Rating: 3
Because that's where major oil companies are? And they have a vested stake in this. You don't think oil companies would love to be able to grow their own gas? Eliminating the expense of having to find and drill for oil to make gas.


RE: Hey I'm all for it but...
By drebo on 7/14/2009 2:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
Because Texas is the only state with the balls to keep the environutjobs in check enough to allow industry to actually build things. Environutjobs blocked Nestle from building a WATER BOTTLING facility in California. WATER BOTTLING!!!111!1! How dirty could that be? They'd never stand for something that purports to be a better alternative to the stoneage.

Hence, Texas is the right place to go if you have any intention of actually getting anything done.


RE: Hey I'm all for it but...
By Oregonian2 on 7/14/2009 3:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
I have no idea about that Nestle plant, but Nestle is building one nearby here up the Columbia river gorge in a small town, and the issues aren't about being dirty.

Issues are about water supply.

The plant uses a LOT of clean water from the local water resources that then can't be used for the local townsfolk and businesses. I know some places in California isn't flowing with overabundant crystal clear drinking water (suitable for bottling) so there may have been the same issue there.

There also are places where water comes from the ground, with lowering ground water table levels -- a place where a large water use being added wouldn't be a popular choice by government officials (or shouldn't be).


RE: Hey I'm all for it but...
By pequin06 on 7/14/2009 5:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
This facility isn't on an off shore rig.
It's about the size of a football field and depending on where around Houston it's built, it's not likely a hurricane will damage it.


RE: Hey I'm all for it but...
By jamesvz on 7/15/2009 10:42:02 AM , Rating: 2
The one that I was talking about was the one they were going to build in Port Arthur, Texas. True Houston does not get hit that often by Hurricanes, but it was just a testing facility. The one in Port Arthur is going to be bigger than the test one.


Lawn waste?
By menace on 7/14/2009 11:05:08 AM , Rating: 4
Sorghum ain't exactly lawn waste. It was once commonly used to make molasses so it has quite a bit of sugar. So I imagine the microbes would go crazy on that stuff. Nothing is said about how the efficiency of the process is affected using high cellulose materials like lawn waste.




RE: Lawn waste?
By Mathos on 7/15/2009 2:34:04 AM , Rating: 3
Well, also you gotta look at the shear amount of food waste that goes into landfills. If this process works on things like apple cores, banana peels and whatever other biomatter like that gets thrown away it could help to solve other problems.


Woohoo!!
By SublimeSimplicity on 7/14/2009 11:14:00 AM , Rating: 5
I'm all for technology that would lead to my lawn guy paying me.




Another blow to the urbanites
By Technomage on 7/14/2009 2:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
Ha!

Now the blasted city dwellers will be dependent upon the suburbanites and their well-manicured lawns!

I loved it a couple of years ago when it was pointed out that young growing trees and greenery processed more CO2 than old growth - the first pat on the back to the suburbanites with fertilized and manicured lawns. Now, we can grow gasoline with our lawn waste! Perfection! Mwah ha haaaaa!!!

Fire up that H2, I'm going for a ride, courtesy of my half-acre plot!




definately doesn't seem like much
By GaryJohnson on 7/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: definately doesn't seem like much
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2009 12:25:12 PM , Rating: 4
It's a start. We should all be cheering them on. This is the kind of thing our research dollars should go to. Imagine if we could grow gas. You know that whole energy independence thing Obama likes to spout as to why we need electric cars? Why spend trillions switching to electric if for billions we could develop a way to grow gas? Oh right sorry. The internal combustion engine is evil.

(not speaking to you exactly OP. just commenting)


By Schrag4 on 7/14/2009 12:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
Agree. Nature already perfected solar-power. Let's take advantage of it.


RE: definately doesn't seem like much
By Keeir on 7/14/2009 4:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a good reason.

The most efficient Gasoline Engine Powered Car in the US is the Toyota Prius. 50 miles per Gallon of Gasoline

0.733 kWh per Mile.

The most efficient Diesel Engine Powered Car in the US is the Jetta TDI. 40 miles per Gallon of Diesel

0.957 kWh per Mile.

A comparable electric car in terms of Size is the Chevy Volt. 40 miles per 8.8kWh

0.22 kWh per Mile.

Assuming using a Combined Cycle plant. Efficient of this is close to 60%.

~0.4 kWh per Mile when powered by CC plant using Diesel, Natural Gas, etc

Even Assuming huge losses in transmission and charging, its still better take the gasoline/diesel/biofuel next door to the CC plant and transmit the energy to a Battery Type car. Significantly better.

(Furthermore, we need electricity. Imagine trying to find an alternative source of power for you know... 75%+ of our current devices. Updating and Improving our power grid and sources of electricity -has- to happen soon)


RE: definately doesn't seem like much
By 67STANG on 7/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: definately doesn't seem like much
By CupCak3 on 7/14/2009 1:07:24 PM , Rating: 5
Or color you small minded?

The purpose of the facility was to generate KNOWEGDE, not immediate profit which it appears to have been at least semi-successful since they are planning another facility.

Do people think ideas go directly from paper to making billions of dollars a year, especially in a process chemical facility? (Not to mention with only 3-4 million in capital invested)


RE: definately doesn't seem like much
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2009 1:12:40 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The purpose of the facility was to generate KNOWEGDE


Oh the irony.

quote:
Do people think ideas go directly from paper to making billions of dollars a year


Our politicians certainly do since they pass legislation(paper) and then think the money to pay for it will simply appear.


By stilltrying on 7/14/2009 3:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
it does simply appear with help from the counterfeiting federal reserve.


RE: definately doesn't seem like much
By 67STANG on 7/14/2009 4:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
Small minded because the people driving to work at this place are going to use more gas than it makes?

I never said a thing about profit. My remark was aimed at production capability-- which is almost nothing. Did you even read my post? (That was a rhetorical question in case you didn't catch that either).


RE: definately doesn't seem like much
By CupCak3 on 7/14/2009 6:39:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Did you even read my post?


Did you even think before you posted?

You're commenting on something which you know nothing about nor can wrap your mind around. Pilot plant or semi-works facilities are not about making large quantities of product... they are about getting large amounts of needed data and experience to verify a process's technical and economic feasibilities.


RE: definately doesn't seem like much
By 67STANG on 7/15/2009 4:23:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Did you even think before you posted?

Yes, but apparently on a different wavelength than one taught in special classes.

And I quote from the article-- there's still time for you to read it:
While that might not seem like much, that's over 2,500 barrels of gasoline over the next year


I stated that 2,500 barrels of gasoline was enough for 246 Americans and that I was unimpressed-- a direct response to a statement in the article.

I wish I could miracle that point to you.

By the way, this is nothing new. Different plant material, same process. Where's the story? What data needs to be collected?

Have a nice day.


By CupCak3 on 7/15/2009 11:08:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wish I could miracle that point to you.


Miracle the point to me that the point brought up in article and focused on by you (and the author) is moot? Saying you are unimpressed with the capacity is like saying you’re not impressed with your bicycle because it cannot haul your jet skis to the river. Duh? But that is not the point of a bicycle...

quote:
By the way, this is nothing new. Different plant material, same process. Where's the story? What data needs to be collected?


By the way, SIMILAR processes may have been done before but all of them are proprietary and the property of the process developer. Companies which have the competitive technical advantage are not going to give away the information they PAID to develop… paid to develop by hiring good talent and running similar, small capacity trials.


RE: definately doesn't seem like much
By s12033722 on 7/14/2009 2:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
Or to put it slightly differently, if we assume that the output of this reactor is 100% high-grade gas and we value that at $3 a gallon, this plant puts out roughly $300k/year gross, not factoring in operation costs, etc. and it cost at least $3.5 million to build.


By Oregonian2 on 7/14/2009 3:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
If successful, costs to expand the facility probably won't be of linear proportion to initial costs.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki