Print 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:
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

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, 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.

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki