• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Biofuel process

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    New Biofuel process

    WD9,

    Interesting process!

    November 2, 2007
    Research reveals new biofuels link
    By Anduin Kirkbride McElroy
    Last year, a way to connect the ethanol and biodiesel industries was revealed when it was determined that biodiesel could be a value-added product for ethanol plants through corn oil extraction technology. This year, researchers at Rice University in Houston have discovered yet another link. This new concept is centered on a technology that converts glycerin, a byproduct of biodiesel production, into ethanol.
    Ramon Gonzalez and Syed Shams Yazdani have identified the metabolic processes and conditions that allow a known strain of Escherichia coli to convert glycerin into ethanol through an anaerobic fermentation process. Gonzalez is currently the William Akers assistant professor in chemical and biomolecular engineering at Rice University, and Yazdani is a postdoctoral research associate.

    In a comparison of feedstock and operating costs, Gonzalez found that ethanol from glycerol is 39 cents cheaper to produce than ethanol from corn. Feedstock costs per gallon were 53 cents for corn, versus 30 cents for glycerol. Per gallon operating costs were 52 cents for corn and just 36 cents for glycerol. "The main reason for the difference in costs is that there is no preprocessing," Gonzalez says. In feedstock operations, the corn must be ground and cooked, and the sugar extracted. "It is a process that is both capital and process intensive," Gonzalez says. "You need to work all the way from the corn grain until you get sugar, and then you start fermentation." Meanwhile, glycerin doesn't require those steps because it comes preprocessed. This means no enzymes to buy and less equipment.

    The implications of this research are so promising that the process may be commercialized before cellulosic ethanol. Gonzalez partnered with Paul Campbell, who researches, develops and markets blends of microbes for industrial, agricultural and environmental markets, to form Glycos Biotechnologies Inc. The company, which was funded by Houston-based venture capital fund DFJ Mercury, expects to complete its pilot plant in early 2008. "Once we have the pilot running and working properly, [commercialization] is a matter of months," Gonzalez says, noting that the pilot plant is being designed to be one step away from a commercial-scale plant. Gonzalez couldn't say how big the pilot plant will be, but he says it would be capable of fermenting at least 10,000 liters.

    Glycos Biotechnologies will not develop and sell the technology, Gonzalez says. Instead, the company plans to form partnerships with those already in the biodiesel, glycerin and ethanol industries, he says. The company's Houston location lends itself well to working with biodiesel producers, as there are several in the region.

    Gonzalez says this process could be collocated with either an ethanol or biodiesel facility, and there are advantages to each. If collocated with a biodiesel plant, costs to transport glycerin would be saved. At least initially, this will be the most likely deployment of the company’s technology.

    Glycerol is the principal component of glycerin, a clear, odorless, viscous liquid. It is found in animal fats, vegetable oils or petrochemical feedstocks, and is derived through soap production and the transesterification process, in which fatty acids and alcohol are mixed. Although glycerin has more than 1,000 uses, including many applications as an ingredient or processing aid in cosmetics, toiletries, personal care, drugs and food products, it is typically used in a highly refined and purified form. Refined glycerin is mostly pure glycerol, with the salt, methanol and free fatty acids removed.

    The rapid growth of the biodiesel industry changed the glycerin market. In fact, it was cited as the reason that Dow Chemical Co., which produced synthetic glycerin, exited the glycerin production business in North America in 2006. "The increased supply of glycerin in North America due to biodiesel production, which caused prices to drop, was a factor in that decision," says Catherine Maxey, business public affairs director for Dow Chemical. "However, we continue to produce synthetic glycerin in Europe for sales into specialized markets such as pharmaceutical, personal care and food applications, among others, where high quality is the major requirement. The high purity at constant quality levels of Dow's synthetic glycerin presents distinct advantages over natural glycerin in these specialized end applications."

    Maxey's point about glycerin quality is important when considering the market for the biodiesel by product. Biodiesel production yields unrefined glycerin. Biodiesel producers will usually then boil the glycerin to recover the methanol. This results in what is called crude glycerin, which is the form of glycerin most biodiesel producers sell. "[In most commercial applications], the quality of the glycerin must be high," says Gonzalez. "It can't be the nasty thing that comes out of biodiesel plants. If you use a feedstock that is not pure oil in biodiesel production, the glycerin is not very nice." Glycos's technology, however, can use the "nasty" glycerin- both unrefined and crude.

    The Process

    Gonzalez became interested in glycerol while he was an associate professor at Iowa State University. His initial research philosophy was to develop a microbial fermentation process for converting a low-cost, high-carbon feedstock into something with a higher value- not necessarily ethanol. Glycerol was targeted as the carbon source because it is the byproduct of an established and growing industry.

    According to a report by Gonzalez and Yazdani, glycerol is competitive with sugar used in the production of chemicals and fuels via microbial fermentation at its current price, which is about 2.5 cents per pound. Additionally, glycerol has yield advantages over sugar due to the highly reduced nature of carbon atoms. "A pound of sugar won't contain enough energy to produce a pound of ethanol, because it also makes carbon dioxide," Gonzalez explains. "With a half-pound of glycerol, you still get a half-pound of ethanol."

    Once glycerin's advantages as a feedstock were established, Gonzalez set forth to find the product. "Once we decided on glycerol, we had to see what we could do with it," Gonzalez says. He knew it could be fermented, and indeed, that it could be fermented into ethanol. This is not the first time that glycerin has been successfully fermented into ethanol. It was first done in 1877, using fungi as the agent. In his report, Gonzalez says many microorganisms are able to metabolize glycerol in the presence of external electron acceptors, but few are able to do so fermentatively. Gonzalez discovered one microorganism that could- E. coli. In previous studies, researchers had been unable to successfully convert glycerol to ethanol with the bacteria. "The major find is that we found conditions that enable a native, nonpathogenic strain of E. coli to [ferment glycerol to ethanol] without oxygen," Gonzalez says. "We don't need to do much genetic engineering to have ethanol as the main product."

    Initially, the researchers didn't engineer the genetics at all, and focused instead on finding the appropriate environment that would allow a wild-type, common, nonpathogenic strain of E. coli ferment glycerol. "The key is not the type of strain, but rather the fact that we were able to create an appropriate environment," Gonzalez says. The environmental conditions include an acidic pH, avoiding accumulation of fermentation gas hydrogen and appropriate medium composition. With the right environment, ethanol is the primary product from glycerol fermentation with E. coli.

    "Since we have that fermentation already going, now we can tweak or engineer the E. coli to produce items beyond ethanol," Gonzalez says. Currently, Glycos is focusing on commercializing the technology to produce ethanol, with the coproducts being formic acid and hydrogen. "The value of formic acid is higher than ethanol," Gonzalez says. It can make hydrogen, and it's also being researched for use in fuel cells. Glycos Biotechnologies is also developing microbial platforms which will convert glycerin into other high-value chemicals. Eventually, Gonzalez says he would like to produce succinic acid, a four-carbon molecule that can be converted into a variety of high-value biobased chemicals or materials. "If you take all the glycerin and turn it into succinic acid, you make much more money than with ethanol," he says. However, the market is still right for ethanol. "What I have found is that producing ethanol from glycerin is appealing for a lot of people in the biodiesel industry because there is a market for ethanol," Gonzalez says. "There might be a product of higher value, but that product may not have an established market and there's a lot of risk in that."

    Even if this technology takes off, it's limited by the growth of the biodiesel industry, an industry that is struggling under the weight of high feedstock prices. There is certainly an oversupply of crude glycerin with respect to today's market, but not enough to satisfy the demand for ethanol on its own. The production of 1 million gallons of biodiesel generates about 100,000 gallons of crude glycerin. According to Biodiesel Magazine, EPM's sister publication, the biodiesel industry has built the capacity to produce 1.68 billion gallons of biodiesel, and thus 168 million gallons of crude glycerin. Since the conversion rate of glycerol to ethanol is about 1 to 1, approximately 168 million gallons of ethanol would be produced in a year if all available crude glycerin from biodiesel production were converted into ethanol.More significant than the amount of ethanol produced is where it would be produced. This technology could bring ethanol to regions that were previously less accessible. Biodiesel production facilities, which are not as dependent on being close to feedstock sources as ethanol facilities, are disbursed throughout North America along coasts and in major port locations- usually close to population centers. For example, neither Texas nor New Jersey have any ethanol facilities in operation, but they do have 150 MMgy and 74 MMgy of biodiesel production capacity, respectively. Converting crude glycerin to ethanol could supply locally produced ethanol to markets like Houston, San Francisco and Las Vegas.

    Contact:
    Anduin Kirkbride McElroy
    amcelroy@bbibiofuels.com
    (701) 746-8385.

    © 2007 BBI International Media




    Source: Ethanol Producer Magazine


    More Related Articles
    Khosla Ventures and BIOeCON in joint venture to develop catalytic cracking of biomass into fuels
    Ethanol companies strengthen Brazilian market
    Filling the hoppers
    Today's agricultural pioneers break ground with solutions sown in science and technology
    Don’t let the GM crop wars obscure the agbiotech vision
    Big oil companies are joining the search for the next generation of biofuels
    Europe and US set to strike biofuels deal
    The biofuels boom will impact the fertilizer industry

    http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Biofuels.aspx?infoId=16051

    #2
    wouldn't be surprised if this is true. who else would think of using food for fuel and inefficiently, to boot.



    ENVIRONMENT: Biofuels - Great Green Hope or Swindle
    By Stephen Leahy

    BROOKLIN, Canada, Oct 20 (IPS) - A raft of new studies reveal European and American multibillion dollar support for biofuels is unsustainable, environmentally destructive and much more about subsidising agri-business corporations than combating global warming.

    Not only do most forms of biofuel production do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, growing biofuel crops uses up precious water resources, increasing the size and extent of dead zones in the oceans, boosting use of toxic pesticides and deforestation in tropical countries, such studies say.

    And biofuel, powered by billions of dollars in government subsidies, will drive food prices 20-40 percent higher between now and 2020, predicts the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute.

    "Fuel made from food is a dumb idea to put it succinctly," says Ronald Steenblik, research director at the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) in Geneva, Switzerland.

    Biofuel production in the U.S. and Europe is just another way of subsidising big agri-business corporations, Steenblik told IPS.

    "It's (biofuel) also a distraction from dealing with the real problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions," he asserts.

    Making fuel out of corn, soy, oilseeds and sugar crops is also incredibly expensive, Steenblik and his co-authors document in two new reports on the U.S. and the European Union that are part of a series titled ‘Biofuels at What Cost? Government Support for Ethanol and Biodiesel’.

    Their analysis shows that by 2006 government support for biofuels had reached 11 billion dollars a year for Organisation of Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD) countries. More than 90 percent of those subsidies came from the European Union and the U.S.

    These subsidies will likely climb to 13-15 billion dollars this year the report estimates.

    "More subsidies are coming as the biofuel industry expands," says Steenblik.

    In fact, countries will have to spend more than 100 billion dollars a year to get biofuel production levels high enough to supply 25 or 30 percent of transport fuel demands.

    And those levels of annual subsidies will have to continue because the industry is dependent on them, he says.

    It might be worth it if biofuels resulted in significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) but Steenblik calculates the amount of subsidies that goes into making enough ethanol to reduce emissions equivalent of a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) is between 2,100 to 4,400 euros (2,980 to 6,240 dollars) depending on the support programmes.

    However, the European carbon trading markets sells a similar saved or sequestered tonne of CO2 for less than 25 euros (35 dollars) through various projects like planting trees or installing solar panels.

    Various analysis that take the full environmental costs of growing, shipping and processing maize into ethanol show there is only a small reduction in GHG emissions over burning fossil fuels. Newer research shows some biofuels could even be far worse.

    ****seed biodiesel and maize ethanol may produce up to 70 percent and 50 percent more GHG emissions respectively than fossil fuels, according to work published in September by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen and University of Edinburgh colleague Keith Smith.

    They found that growing biofuel crops releases around twice the amount of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) than previously thought. The N2O results from using nitrogen fertilisers.

    About 80 percent of Europe's biodiesel comes from ****seed and in America the vast majority is maize ethanol.

    "What we are saying is that growing biofuels is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse," Smith has said in media reports.

    Last January, U.S. President George W. Bush set a biofuel target of 35 billion gallons per year by 2017, more than five times the current production of less than 7 billion gallons.

    However that target would leave some U.S. waterways polluted and some regions with severe water shortages the National Research Council (NRC) said in a report released this month. The NRC is the research arm of the US National Academy of Sciences.

    The additional fertilisers used to grow all that maize will contribute to the overgrowth of aquatic plant life that produces "dead zones" like those in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay and elsewhere, the report said.

    Similar water warnings were issued by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) in Sri Lanka regarding India and China's growing interest in biofuels. IWMI, part of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, recommends in its October report that the two countries invest in cellulosic biofuel the so-called second generation biofuel technology that is still a number of years from commercialisation.

    "Subsidies for ethanol are more about securing votes from the powerful agricultural lobby than bringing environmental benefits," says Walter Hook, executive director of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, an environmental NGO based in New York City.

    Simple and cheap programmes like a congestion charge – an extra fee for driving in city centres – and the widely successful Paris, France free bike programme reduce air pollution and GNG emissions immediately at very low cost, Hook said in an interview.

    Launched in July, Paris put thousands of low-cost rental bikes – the first 30 minutes of use are free – at hundreds of high-tech bicycle stations. A million trips were taken in just 17 days. "Absolutely amazing, every city should be thinking of doing this," he said.

    In Paris, an advertising company provides the bikes for free, runs the system, gives all the revenue to the city and pays 4.3 million dollars a year in exchange for exclusive control of the city’s advertising billboards.

    Mobility – getting from A to B – with the minimum of GHG emissions is the core problem we should be addressing not finding greener fuels, says Steenblik.

    Indeed, Canadian transportation analyst Todd Alexander Litman has demonstrated greener fuels and improvements in fuel efficiency result in people driving more because they can afford to. And that just makes "traffic congestion, accidents, road and parking facility costs, and the lack of options for non-drivers worse," said Litman, director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, in British Columbia, Canada.

    In his ‘Win-Win Transportation Solutions’ report released in September, Litman documents a variety of cost-effective transportation strategies that could reduce motor vehicle travel by 30-50 percent, produce substantial reductions in GHGs and bring a range of economic developments. His simple solutions include making urban areas more walkable, creating bike lanes, improving the quality of mass transit and a dozen more ideas. None involved producing more biofuels.

    "Subsidising biofuels is just about the dumbest way to go," Litman told IPS.

    Jean Ziegler, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, uses stronger language: increasing biofuel production is a "total disaster" for starving people, he told a Swiss media outlet last week.

    "There are serious risks of creating a battle between food and fuel that will leave the poor and hungry in developing countries at the mercy of rapidly rising prices for food, land and water," Ziegler warned the UN General Assembly last August.

    On Oct. 25, he will ask the UN General Assembly, to adopt a five-year global ban on the conversion of land for the production of biofuels.

    Despite the growing evidence that biofuels are a huge mistake, governments will continue to pour billions more tax dollars into boosting production levels.

    "Governments rarely phase out subsidies," laments Steenblik. "We're hoping that countries will come to their senses in the next few years."

    Comment

    • Reply to this Thread
    • Return to Topic List
    Working...