Balloting will be open to the registered subscribers of the Biofuels Digest, Geothermal Digest and Biomass Digest e-newsletters, through Monday November 23rd at 5pm EST.  The link to the ballot will be distributed this week in every edition of the Digest newsletter.

To download your free copy of the Selectors Data Book for Digest subscribers – including 230 pages of company profiles, surveys and industry data, please click here.

“Early precincts” are reporting – 20 percent of the invited selectors have already cast their votes. Though it it far too early to “call” the results, early leaders are:

1. UOP (last year #10)
2. LS9 (last year #25)
3. POET (last year #4)
4. Amyris Biotechnologies (last year #7)
5. Coskata (last year #1)
6. BP Biofuels (last year – unranked)
7. ZeaChem (last year #11)
8. Sapphire Energy (last year – #2)
9. DuPont Danisco (last year #9)
10. Solazyme (last year #6)

Among subscribers, early ratings are:

1. BP (last year – unranked)
2. POET (last year #4)
3. Shell (last year unranked)
4. ExxonMobil (last year unranked)
5. Coskata (last year #1)
6. Novozymes (last year #14)
7. Sapphire Energy (last year #2)
8. Avantium (last year unranked)
9. Chevron (last year unranked)
10. DuPont Danisco (last year #9)

POET, BP, Coskata and Sapphire have appeared on both Top 10s in voting to date – too early to tell, but it may shape up to be a good year for these four companies.

Over the past week, Gevo and Verenium have slipped out of the top 10 as algae rallied, with Sapphire Energy rejoining the top 10. The big trend this year so far is the advance by companies making drop-in, renewable fuels, with companies such as UOP, BP Biofuels, Amyris and LS9 moving up. 6 of the top 10 now have drop-in fuel capabilities.

In all, more than 160 companies have received votes in this year’s ballot, to date. In all, 17 companies are currently in the “early results” top 50 that were unranked last year — including BP Biofuels, Enerkem, Codexis, Joule Biotechnologies, TMO Renewables, LanzaTech, PetroAlgae and more.

A factor? In a ranking system that rewards “visibility and credibility,” brand recognition is proving to be a factor. Otherwise well-regarded international companies have registered “don’t knows” in the mid to high 80s, including Drystill, RakennusTempo and Shree Renuka. Meanwhile, mainline oil and grain companies are in the teen and low 20s – ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron having the highest recognition.

But visibility can pay – among companies with “don’t knows” in the 20s and low 30s are POET, Novozymes, Petrobras, Coskata, Sapphire Energy, and Verenium.

Another factor – name changing. HeroBX, Mission New Energy and Qteros had elevated “don’t know” levels after going through name changes.

Is your favorite bioenergy company missing? Be sure to cast your ballot in their support.

POET, BP, Coskata and Sapphire among early contenders in 50 Hottest Companies in Bioenergy underway is a post from: Biofuels Digest

BACKGROUND

Flue gas is the most prevalent source of CO2 off-gas from all processes globally; among the lion’s share of this flue gas is the ever – present electric power plant, primarily fueled by coal, and then secondly, natural gas. The CO2 found in coal fired power plant off gas is among the dirtiest forms of CO2, even with many of the improvements in the plants; still this will yield sulfur and nitrogen compounds (SOx and NOx); among other rather nasty compounds and elements; all let to the atmosphere. This article focuses on the difference between recovering CO2 from flue gas sources v. concentrated sources, primarily ethanol plants.

Today’s challenges with carbon dioxide are among mankind’s greatest challenges, that being from an economic, technical perspective – ultimately a daunting task in terms of the mass volume of CO2 reduction needed to balance the globe. This balance is very readily noticed when considering the rapidly shrinking polar ice caps, to the rise in sea levels; to the growing deserts globally, to increasing temperatures globally over the century –  which has been underway and accelerating more rapidly over the last number of decades and years.

This is an extremely challenging task, that being reducing the ever growing new level of emissions to the atmosphere, much less reduction of an overwhelmed ocean and atmospheric CO2 presence – since CO2 is the product of combustion, and fossil fuels drive most of today’s energy needs.

On the other hand, the endless opportunities with respect to fostering, developing, and implementing forms of biofuels does now present a unique opportunity to stem this tide – however, with intense fossil fuel based lobbying and favorable politics, biofuels have been misbranded in a negative light with respect to the misunderstood ‘food v. fuels’ controversy.

Further, biofuel developments are hindered due to today’s capital crunch, and the lack of significant focus on the only solution to the energy and emissions crisis – that being the absolute need for the strong development of renewable fuels v. the old thinking and utilization of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are finite, and the energy and emissions output required to recover ever-more challenging locations of petroleum make the emissions problem even worse. Further, the oil companies somehow felt the new benchmark for oil should be nearing $150/barrel, back in 2008; and they continue to strive to drive all factors to achieve this end. In any event, petroleum and coal are not the answer to long term energy sustainability, a decent carbon footprint left behind, and a means of creating the badly needed self sufficiency with fuels and utilize resources which are clearly in front of us in this country and internationally.

On the other hand, today, there is the need to recover CO2 from the ever – growing number of coal – fired power plants, the dirtiest and worst contribution to the ever growing CO2 count which is emitted to the atmosphere – some 40% of today’s emissions, and ever growing. This ever growing flue gas content will be found in rapidly developing world, that being primarily China and India; and considering the end result from such massive new coal fired power plants, the need for renewable energy and biofuels then becomes ever – more essential; then in the case of the developing world.

FLUE GAS V. CONCENTRATED FORMS OF CO2 BY-PRODUCT SUCH AS ETHANOL OFF – GAS; A DAY V. NIGHT COMPARISON

With respect to the difference between recovering CO2 from flue gas v. concentrated CO2 sources (fermentation sources, anhydrous ammonia off gas, ethylene oxide off gas, titanium dioxide product, and some natural wells) – this difference is essentially day v. night in terms of economic magnitude.

Initially, most concentrated sources, up to 99% and higher such as from ethanol, off the spigot from the ethanol plant as a by-product, this gas is water – saturated, and is recovered at pressures from atmospheric to less than 10 psig. The raw gas is then taken via a blower, of sometimes a booster plant, to a CO2 liquefaction and purification plant. The off-gas from fermentation is generally a very clean source, relatively speaking, when considering most other options – another clean source in relative terms is by-product from anhydrous ammonia production.

CO2 is always liquefied and transported in a liquid state; due to the sheer volume if the gas happens to be in a gaseous state. When used in various applications, often the CO2 is then vaporized; however, it is stored and transported as a (condensed) liquid product, often under pressures between 250 and 300 psig. The liquid CO2 production plant consists largely feed compression, ammonia refrigeration, and some purification process for a clean source, like ethanol, and a dirty source would then mean much more purification and expense needed to fulfill most requirements (such as product from coal combustion).

When considering the other concentrated sources such as ethylene oxide, the raw gas is concentrated again, however, there are numerous constituents in this raw gas, as would be in some natural wells, which can require much more process equipment, and often special front end plant metallurgy – as with ethylene oxide; and in the case of natural wells, and other concentrated sources, outside of most ethanol sources, catalytic oxidation is then a further requirement, plus often much more process equipment.

The end result, when looking at most of the concentrated sources, places ethanol and one of the best concentrated forms of CO2 sources for industry, from a less costly perspective for process and liquefaction to yield a food and beverage grade. The ISBT standard (a beverage technology group involved in CO2 specification methodology & definition), is the requirement for soft drink and other beverage needs; and is the best benchmark, in terms of purity sought when going to virtually all the merchant markets.

With respect to a merchant plant which would recover, liquefy and purify the CO2 for a beverage grade product, new assets may approach $12million to $18million for fully installed liquid CO2 plants which range from 400 to 800 tons per day in capacity – this is for a concentrated, clean CO2 source from fermentation. Once again, considering a raw relatively clean source of CO2, often near or in excess of 99% (v) CO2 content – like ethanol.

On the other hand, the proven facilities thus far for recovery of flue gas, now operating for the merchant markets over about 20 years now, are facilities which are owned and operated by The AES Corporation, in Cumberland, MD and Shady Point, OK. The source is off gas from coal fired cogeneration plants, which yield a raw content of CO2 probably 12 – 14% (v). What is needed to produce a purified merchant or even a crude liquid

CO2 from flue gas, is a whole additional plant, placed in front of the liquefaction / purification plant, similar to that spoken for the case of a concentrated by-product from ethanol, as described above. This requirement for a whole separate plant which concentrates the CO2, thus making liquefaction and purification possible has always made flue gas recovery economically impossible in the developed world. Some small flue gas based CO2 plants are operating in the developing world, due to selling prices for merchant CO2 being very expensive v. much less in the developed world.

The flue gas based CO2 plants which have operating history, as found in the U.S. and similarly elsewhere use a solution technology for the recovery and concentration of the CO2 prior to liquefaction and purification, this has always been an MEA technology – one of a family of amine solutions, which is the heart of the process; and in the late 1980s to early 1990s, the price for these plants with a capacity of about 200 – 250 tons per day, was $25million – this would be the recovery plant (MEA concentration plant) and the traditional liquefaction/purification plants together installed. In those days, a plant sourced from ethanol, on the other hand, would have probably cost up to $2 -5million fully installed. So in this context, the difference was five to ten times greater for flue gas v. a concentrated source such as ethanol by-product.

Today, when scaling up to the world class sizes of plants, that being 400 to 800 tons per day, the difference between the concentrated source such as ethanol, and the lean flue gas from combustion (depending upon fuel type, how impure the flue gas is, etc) could be anywhere from 5 to 10 times greater.

This is worlds of difference, and the only reason the flue gas projects worked for AES Corporation many years ago, was the subsidy in terms of using the cogenerated steam in the solvent recovery process – otherwise called a steam host; which then allowed the greater project to count the capital investment for the CO2 project as part of the power plant; and then eliminate the expensive amortization; and perhaps further costs. This opportunity for the deferred amortization, or like definitions was the product of an energy law which expired in the early 1990s.

Therefore, in real world terms, when producing CO2 from ethanol v. flue gas, the difference is extraordinary and unaffordable – this assumes economics similar to the only long term commercially proven process, that being amine technology. However, should subsidies appear, or technologies appear to make the great difference, some of this may change, but I truly believe this is unlikely.

Today, many firms are trying to test (via government grants and sponsorship) their so-called proprietary processes other than MEA solvents, for flue gas recovery of CO2 – and in this context, no such process or technology has been commercially implemented for long term proven application in the industry – therefore, no proof of commercial viability exists.

Many of the proposed new flue gas recovery schemes are theoretical, and are seeking government sponsorship for the lab or demo facilities – and most experts, including various federal agencies, suggest the implementation of any successful technologies such as those which are being proposed, and not proven, other than MEA – or similar solvents, may be years to a decade out at best before successful operational history and viability is seen.

The demo flue gas recovery projects which are under review are generally associated with power projects, and the carbon dioxide produced, assuming the new technologies suggested happen to work – from a technical and economic perspective; will end up placing the CO2 in a sequestration mode v. into the commercial markets. Therefore, most of these new technologies are only trying to liquefy, not purify the product for consumer use; but only for sequestration.

Sequestration is another subject which has a way to go in terms of proof, development, and acceptance – such as acceptance by land owners, acceptance that the sequestered CO2 will not then leak out into the atmosphere – and return to ground zero; or perhaps poison a community if it should leak out.

Many challenges, hurdles, and ultimately the cost of achieving these daunting goals to recover huge sums of lean CO2 from flue gas – remember flue gas is very lean v. a by-product from fermentation- so the challenge is to make such projects work in technical and economic terms. Should flue gas be recovered from natural gas fired or other relatively lean hydrocarbon fuels v. coal; this would yield a very lean CO2 flue gas, this making this recovery task even more difficult.

The future of CO2 recovery from flue gas is essential for mankind’s survival, particularly as more and more coal fired power plants are being built, and more petroleum is being consumed for manufacturing, chemical process applications; and transportation needs. Separately, should the world embrace the enormous biofuels options available and separate politics and fossil fuel lobbies from what is truly needed for energy independence and renewable energy, the carbon footprint would become more manageable; and the planet would have a fighting chance to survive the consequences of global warming.

About the author

Sam A. Rushing is a chemist and president of Advanced Cryogenics, Ltd., a global CO2 and cryogenic gas consulting firm. All work from technical, process, market, and business related criteria are skillfully handled by the company. The company is supported by decade’s long expertise in all phases of the CO2 & cryogenic industries and unique CO2 topics; along with all sources of CO2. Please contact the following for information on consulting expertise.  Tel 305 852 2597; rushing@terranova.net; www.carbondioxideconsultants.com

Challenges Associated with Recovering CO2 from Flue Gas, vs. Concentrated Sources Such as Ethanol: a Biofuels Digest special report is a post from: Biofuels Digest

Open up an industry magazine or a website, and there doesn’t seem to be an end to the hope, the hype, and the coverage.

What’s the big deal?

The background

Microalgae is a fast-growing organism that is highly efficient in converting sunlight, CO2 and micronutrients found in water into simple sugars. So efficient, that it stores a lot of energy in the form of lipids, or fats. A microalgae cell can be as much as 70 percent fat content, by weight. Microalgae can double in mass by as much as 100 percent in 24-48 hours.

The combination of high yields and high lipid content has attracted energy developers for decades. A 17-year US government program to explore algae as a biofuels feedstock – the Aquatic Species program – was shut down in 1996 after researchers concluded that algal oil could not be competitive with fossil fuel oils in the near-term. A few ventures, such as Erathrise, CyanoTech and Martek continued to pursue and commercialize microalgae as a feedstock for nutraceuticals such as THC and spirulina powders.

The rise of concerns over emissions, energy security and rising oil prices revived interest in algae by 2004. Though early ventures such as Green Fuel were generally unsuccessful, a new generation of algal developers have developed new paths that promise to make algal fuels, chemicals and algae-based feed a reality in the next few years.

The story

The Obama administration has increased government funding and mandates in support of renewable energy with many billions of dollars of new R&D funds.  This government aid in the form of grants, subsidies and tax credits has created a tremendous opportunity to accelerate the development of algae-to-energy technology and grow the production of algae-derived oils from a infant industry to an actual one, with potential growth on a massive scale.

Huge markets for algae products exist in liquid transportation fuels, animal feeds, bio-plastics, renewable chemicals, and food-grade oils.  According to the US Department of Energy, the long-term commercial potential of algal fuel and other high-value co-products is as high as $3 trillion, if and as algae replace fossil oils and oilseed crops as a platform for fuels, feed, fertilizers, chemicals and nutraceutical products.

In 2007, the US Energy Independence and Security Act mandated the blending of 36 billion gallons of biofuels per year into the United States fuel supply by 2022.  Advanced biofuels, which include algal fuel, are mandated to supply 21 billion gallons of that demand.  Energy Information Administration data indicates that biofuels currently sell for between $2 and $3.50 per gallon, depending on fuel type and grade. We expect the advanced biofuels market to be between $42 billion and $73 billion in annual sales by 2022, based on such mandate and fuel prices. Today, the market is less than $100 million.

President Obama’s policy to replace up to 60 billion gallons of imported fossil fuels per year with renewable fuels by 2030, creates a massive market for potential renewable fuel producers.  America’s new energy directive, together with the European Union’s 20% renewable fuels target by 2020 and similar fossil fuel replacement policies by governments around the world, leads us to the conclusion that renewable liquid fuels could replace up to 200 billion gallons of fossil fuels globally by 2030, with a resulting retail revenue base ranging from $600 billion annually to as much as $1 trillion.

According to Greener Dawn Research, residual algal biomass can also be marketed as a high-protein concentrate (or higher-purity isolate) for animal or human consumption. There is an established market for these protein supplements. In the U.S. alone, according to Greener Dawn, the protein ingredient market in 2007 was valued at $3.9552 billion.

Soybeans sell for approximately $0.12 per pound, whereas soy protein isolate sells for approximately $1.92 per pound. Studies contained in the Journal of Nutrition (volume 95) provide that the biological value (BV) of algal protein (BV of 70 to 80) was comparable to heated soybean meal, with a BV of 75. (Biological value measures the degree to which the body can absorb and use the protein, with a higher number suggesting greater absorption and utilization.).

A burgeoning market for algae for use in bio-plastics and renewable chemicals is also emerging.  Most recently, Dow Chemical invested approximately $70 million in Algenol Biofuels, Inc. to build a demonstration plant creating ethanol from algae (in lieu of natural gas, as Dow Chemical currently does) for use as an ingredient in plastics, according to the companies as reported in Biofuels Digest and other media.

Demand for algal-based fuels, chemicals, and feed is not only driven by the desire for lower cost, but also a smaller carbon footprint.  A sustainable advantage of algae over traditional crops and fossil fuels is the carbon savings achieved by using algae as a feedstock. According to Sapphire Energy a lifecycle assessment of algae showed  a 60% drop in CO2 production, compared to fossil fuels. Based on a carbon cost of $15 per ton (the projected carbon cost in 2012 under the post-Kyoto Treaty), the algal advantage is a sustainable $0.20 per gallon, and carbon costs are expected to rise until at least 2050 because of increasingly-high carbon reduction targets.

According to a recent article from Biofuels Digest, more than $1 billion US dollars have been privately invested into the development of algae technology companies in the past 24 months by companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, Valero, Dow Chemical, ARCH Venture Partners, Wellcome Trust, Cascade, Venrock, Roda, Harris and Harris, Braemar Energy, Lightspeed, VantagePoint, Biofields, Valens, Laurus, Oak Investment Partners, Noventi Ventures, Gabriel Venture Partners, Valero, Shanghai Alliance Investment, Southern Utes, Infield Capital, I2BF, Bohemian Asset, and Quercus.

According to Greener Dawn Research, “Algal oil offers a direct potential replacement for petroleum and plant derived oils.  This is a vast market opportunity. Most of the media attention goes to the potential displacement of petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuel, as the transportation industry relies almost entirely on petroleum and accounts for roughly 70% of the total consumption of petroleum in the U.S”.

Advantages of Algae

There are more than 100 known feedstocks for biofuels, but algae are believed to have the highest known yields on a per-acre basis, owing to its fast reproduction rate. In addition, algae can be grown without requiring the use of land that could be used for food or feed production using terrestrial crops, and can be grown using brackish or saline water. According to Oilgae, “Market analysts and producers consider algae an especially promising feedstock, as it can be grown virtually anywhere and, by some estimates, can yield 2,000 times more oil than soybean feedstocks.”

Evolved from ancient times, more than 30,000 different species of microalgae have been described and catalogued to date. As members of the Phylum Chlorophyta, microalgae all share seven characteristics that make them potential powerhouses in the production of renewable fuel:

1.    Carbon-Neutral. Like nearly all plant life, microalgae absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in their formation, making them a “carbon-neutral” source of biomass for conversion to liquid fuel. That is, the CO2 they emit when burned or otherwise converted to mechanical energy has been previously taken from the atmosphere in their formation, creating a cycle of carbon absorption and release. This contrasts starkly to fossil fuels, which simply emit previously stored carbon and add to the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere.

2.    Readily Convertible to Fuel. Like nearly all forms of biomass, microalgae can be readily converted to renewable transportation fuels such as green gasoline, green diesel, ethanol or biodiesel, or otherwise burned or consumed for power generation.  In fact, the scientific consensus today believes that fossil oil and gas was created from ancient microalgae that fell after death to the sea floor and were converted through time and pressure into crude oils and methane (natural gas).

3.    Low-Cost, Low-Input Feedstock. Microalgae reproduce from a simple combination of energy sources: sunlight, CO2, a small dose of nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and iron, and a body of water in which to bloom.

4.    High Oil Content. Microalgae are composed of three types of biomass: algal oil, starch and protein, all of which can be used to create biofuels, and the first two of which are the primary sources of biodiesel and ethanol, respectively.  Oil content ranges from as little as 5% in some species, up to over 50% in others, and can be stimulated by denying certain nutrients (usually nitrogen) up to 5% of the biomass by weight.

5.    Rapid Reproduction, Highly Energy Efficient. Microalgae reproduce rapidly. In fact it is not uncommon for biomass, in a laboratory or commercial production facility where algae are not competing with other organisms for sunlight, to double in biomass daily.

6.    Microalgae are the second-fastest growing form of biomass, converting as much as 7 to 8% of the Sun’s energy to biomass. Because of this efficiency, algae in scientific tests have been shown to produce as much as 6,000 gallons of fuel per acre of growing space per year, almost six times the next most efficient source of biomass for liquid fuels, (which is palm oil), 7.5 times the productivity of sugarcane, 15 times that of corn, and 100 times more efficient than soybeans.

7.    Produced On Nonarable Land. Microalgae, because they are cultivated in water rather than directly from the land, can be cultivated on nonarable land using a minimum of inputs.  It does not compete with other uses of arable land such as food or feed production. As observed from massive algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Adriatic and Chinese coasts, algae can bloom rapidly without any inputs from farming at all, drawing its nutrients from the water, CO2  from the atmosphere and light energy from the sun. Commercially, it is more efficient to supply CO2 from sources such as power plants, adding nitrogen, phosphorus and iron directly as well, but in either scenarios microalgae grow rapidly without the input-intensive agriculture that we are accustomed to with land-based plants.

Competition in Algal Biofuel Industry

More than 50 algal fuels and chemicals companies have started up in the past 60 months and are in current early-stage operations. At least 16 closed-system photobioreactor companies have started up, although to our knowledge no closed-system photobioreactor company has yet reached commercial-scale production.  Of these 50 companies, twelve leading algae-to-fuel competitors are highlighted below, including their investors and commercialization target dates, as applicable.

The DOE is also currently funding two programs aimed at developing algal fuel, with a target of $3.00 per gallon fuel by 2012, led by General Atomics and SAIC. Neither group has yet reported that they are on track to reach this cost-level, indicating that, meeting all the timelines and cost goals in its plan. Meanwhile, our small yet resourceful Company could have the first commercially available system with a cost of under $3 per gallon when it has completed its SES project in month 24 of our plan.  Aquatic Energy, LiveFuels and Aurora Biofuels are also making noted progress, among many others.

Latest News on Some Key Players

Sapphire Energy

Solix Biofuels

Synthetic Genomics

BP

Algenol

PetroAlgae

50 Hottest Companies in Bioenergy: Special Voter’s Report on Algae is a post from: Biofuels Digest

Balloting will be open to the registered subscribers of the Biofuels Digest, Geothermal Digest and Biomass Digest e-newsletters, through Monday November 23rd at 5pm EST.

All subscribers to Biofuels Digest, Biomass Digest and Geothernmal Digest e-newsletters are eligible to vote. (Subscriptions are free – to sign-up, visit this link).

Digest subscribers will also this week receive a link and password to the free “Selectors Data Book for Digest Subscribers” – including 230 pages of company profiles, surveys and industry data.

“Early precincts” are reporting – 15 percent of  invited selectors have already cast their votes. Though it it far too early to “call” the results, early leaders are:

1. UOP (last year #10)
2. Amyris Biotechnologies (last year #7)
3. Coskata (last year #1)
4. LS9 (last year #25)
5. BP Biofuels (last year – unranked)
6. POET (last year #4)
7. Gevo (last year #26)
8. ZeaChem (last year #11)
9. Solazyme (last year #6)
10. Verenium (last year #36)

In all, more than 140 companies have received votes in this year’s ballot, to date. In all, 20 companies are currently in the “early results” top 50 that were unranked last year — including BP Biofuels, Enerkem, Codexis, Joule Biotechnologies, TMO Renewables, LanzaTech, and more. The big trend this year so far — biobutanol and drop-in, renewable fuels are generally advancing, with companies such as UOP, BP Biofuels, Gevo, Amyris and LS9 moving up.

More on the 50 Hottest Companies in Bioenergy
Here is the full list of “early results” from the invited selectors.

Is your favorite bioenergy company missing – or ranked too low? Be sure to cast your ballot in their support!

Subscriber voting opens in 50 Hottest Companies in Bioenergy; UOP, Amyris, Coskata lead in early-stage balloting is a post from: Biofuels Digest

Based in: Sweden
2008-09 rank: 30

Business: Fermentation of pentoses for ethanol production

Previous Milestones

1. Agreement with the Technical University of Lund, the Technical University Chalmers and SEKAB to run a project supported by the Swedish state Energimyndigheten. The project has the title Industrial verification of fermentation of pentoses.
2. MoU with an Indian company and also a NDA with an ethanol producer.

Future Milestones

1. To have 3 licensing agreements in place with major ethanol producers.
2. To offer our fermentation technology of pentoses for ethanol production to potential ethanol producers both old and new

Model: Technology developer.

Metrics: Taurus is listed on the Swedish stock exchange Aktietorget. 60 % of the shares are owned by a company by name Forskarpatent AB. Forskarpatent is owned by Swedish institutions and Universities the rest or 40 % of the shares are privately owned.

Quotable quotes: “Our technology can be used in both existing ethanol plants and new plants  Our patent portfolio consists of 13 patents of which 12 are direct tied to fermentation technology of pentoses. One patent is a production patent to be used in an SSF process (Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation) resulting in a leaner and less investment intensive process.”

The Hot 50 for 2009-10 will be released Tuesday, 12/1. Between now and then, you’ll see profiles of potential candidates in the Digest, and you’ll have a chance to vote for your favorites. Reader response will count for 50 percent of a company’s overall score in the preparation of the rankings. The remaining 50 percent is voted by a panel of experts.

Taurus Energy: 50 Hottest Companies in Bioenergy candidate profile is a post from: Biofuels Digest

Artist rendering of the proposed Rentech facility in Natchez, MS

Elsewhere in today’s Digest, comments from Solazyme CEO Jonathan Wolfson and the DOE’s Valerie Reed confirm an increasingly laser-like focus on renewable aviation fuels from the advanced biofuels community. Here are some developments in renewable, drop-in aviation fuels from biomass also highly worth noting.

US Air Force
The Air Force has announced that it will construct a $2.5 million Assured Aerospace Fuels Research Facility at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, also home to the Air Force Institute of Technology and the Air Force Research Laboratory. The facility is expected to be completed in summer 2010, and according to a report in Daily Tech, “It is expected to develop around 15 to 25 gallons of research jet fuel composed of coal, biofuels, and other gas alternatives every day.”

Dynamic Fuels

One of the fuels under study at Wright-Patterson is Dynamic Fuels — the joint venture of Tyson and Syntroleum, which will commence producing 75 Mgy of renewable diesel, and renewable jet fuel, based on the company’s R-8 platform, produced from animal fats and vegetable oil s by the company’s Bio-Synfining process. The Air Force Research Laboratory recently tested 600 gal of R-8 for short. According to a report from Wright-Patterson, “initial physical property and T63 engine testing indicates R-8’s performance as indistinguishable from that of S-8, Syntroleum’s Fischer-Tropsch synthetic jet fuel that first flew in 2006 aboard the B-52. Additional tests of R-8 are underway, with the product also entering the first stages of the MIL-HDBK-510 Alternative Fuel Certification Process.”

More on Dynamic Fuels and the USAF: a downloadable USAF presentation on the USAF Energy Program.

Rentech
Rentech is producing synthetic jet fuel and renewable diesel at its demonstration plant in Commerce City, Colorado. This facility currently produces Jet A fuel for commercial aviation and it is also sold to the U.S Air Force, a deal that was the company’s first commercial sale. This facility also produces Rentech’s clean diesel or Rendiesel which will be produced in commercial scale at the Rialto Project.

The Rialto (CA) Project will take urban yard and woody green waste to produce ultra clean and renewable fuels. It is estimated that Rialto will produce 600 barrels per day of synthetic fuel as well as 35 megawatts of renewable power. The Rialto project is currently completing all feasibility studies and will complete front-end engineering and design in 2010. Estimated completed construction and start up is expected in 2012.

How does Rentech fund its clean energy projects? Its operating cash flow comes from Rentech’s Energy Midwest Corporation or REMC located in Illinois. This is the underlying economic base that supports commercialization of Rentech’s other projects. This facility produces 600,000 tons of nitrogen fertilizer products that are sold to Midwest markets.

Next week: Jet Plains, Part III: Inside looks at some serious industrial biotech at Sapphire Energy

Next week, “Jet Plains, part III” will appear on Tuesday, with a special look at Sapphire Energy, including exclusive video from the company’s research labs in San Diego, where the company is ploughing through an astonishing 8,000 algal strains per day in its R&D, moving the top-performing strains to its facility now well advanced on its construction in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Sapphire provided algal oils used for renewable jet fuel in the JAL and Continental test flights conducted last year.

Jet Plains, Part II: Doers, Done, and the DOE in renewable jet fuel is a post from: Biofuels Digest

Business: Purification, evaporation and cracking (of crude glycerine) to obtain syngas which is used to synthesise bio-methanol

3 Top Milestones for 2008?09

March 2008: proof of principle in our 20.000 t pilot plant,
October 2008: winner European Responsible Care Award,
July 2009: successful start-up commercial 200.000 t plant

3 Major Milestone Goals for 2010?11

1. Selling bio-methanol on a large scale
2. Expanding current capacity,
3. Developing new technologies (possibly different feedstock)

Model: Owner-operator.

Quotable quotes: “The only company in the world to produce bio-methanol on a commercial scale. The solution to comply with biofuels regulations, chemically identical to regular methanol, great performance as a fuel.”

The Hot 50 for 2009-10 will be released Tuesday, 12/1. Between now and then, you’ll see profiles of potential candidates in the Digest, and you’ll have a chance to vote for your favorites. Reader response will count for 50 percent of a company’s overall score in the preparation of the rankings. The remaining 50 percent is voted by a panel of experts.

BioMCN: 50 Hottest Companies in Bioenergy candidate profile is a post from: Biofuels Digest

The US military has commenced testing of biofuls with the F-18 Hornet

Ceres, ViaSpace, Sustainable Oils, Solazyme are among R&D leaders aiming to turn America’s heartland into a high-tech advanced biofuels playground of energy grasses and camelina for advanced transportation biofuels and aviation fuel.

“I fully expect that in the future,” said Solazyme CEO Jonathan Wolfson, “that I will make my daily 15-mile commute in a car that is powered by green electrons. But heavy rail, heavy truck, heavy marine will be using diesel or diesel-electric hybrids for a long time, and aviation has nowhere to go but aviation biofuels.”

60 billion gallons of aviation fuel – all of it up for grabs for those biofuel producers who can develop the feedstocks and the processing technologies to make affordable, sustainable biofuels. At $2.50 per refined gallon — it is a $150 billion market today — perhaps more in the future.

Salicornia, jatropha, camelina and algae are usually mentioned as the feedstocks of choice. But there’s a strong connection also between algae and the woods, grasses, mustards and canes grown in the heartlands and the southeast — the cheap sugars that could be unlocked by cellulosic processing technologies hold the key for Solazyme’s heterotropic system for cultivating algae. [In Solazyme's system, algae is grown in large industrial fermenters and fed cellulosic biomass, in the dark — as yeasts and enzymes are a platform for producing ethanol from sugars in fermenters, Solazyme's platform uses algae to produce oils from sugars in a similar industrial setting].

The US military is buying jet biofuels for testing — most recently placing a 600,000 gallon order with  Sustainable Oils,. Cargill and Solazyme.  In addition, Solazyme previously received an order from the Navy for 20,000 gallons of renewable algae derived F-76 Naval distillate fuel for use in Navy ships. In fulfillment of the jet fuel contract, Solazyme said it will partner with Honeywell’s UOP to use the latter’s renewable jet fuel processing technology. The contract calls for delivery of 1500 gallons of SolaHRJET-5 renewable algae derived jet fuel to the Navy for compatibility testing next year.

Today, some updates on advances on the grass side. In part II, tomorrow, a closer look at the woods, canes, salicornia and algae

Biomass, BioGrass

In California, Ceres announced that it plans to expand an advanced trait development project to increase biomass yields of several energy grasses by as much as 40% in coming years, while simultaneously decreasing the use of inputs such as nitrogen fertilizers. The project, which was selected by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) from among 3,700 renewable energy proposals, will be funded in part by a $5 million advanced research grant managed through the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E), a DOE organization modeled after the long-heralded defense organization, DARPA. Projections indicate that the Ceres traits alone could displace 1.3 billion barrels of oil and 58 million tons of coal over a ten year period. Depending on cropping practices, 1.2 million tons of nitrogen fertilizer could be eliminated (about the amount of nitrogen needed for 24 million acres of cotton), among other benefits.

The three-year project is expected to begin next month. Ceres researchers will test its advanced traits in a variety of energy grasses such as switchgrass, sorghum and miscanthus. Productivity and inputs requirements, such as fertilizer, will be evaluated as well as expected improvements to carbon and nitrogen cycles. Upon successful completion, the Ceres traits would undergo a customary evaluation by USDA prior to full commercialization.

Also in California, ViaSpace announced it has applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to trademark “Giant King” as a unique brand of grass. VIASPACE Chief Executive Dr. Carl Kukkonen stated: “VIASPACE has created global interest in Giant King grass, and it is becoming apparent that its unique characteristics and tested performance provide a strong basis for establishing Giant King grass as the leading source of low-carbon renewable energy. We believe a trademark will not only reinforce the competitive advantages and value of Giant King grass, but also prevent others from exploiting the name and buzz that Giant King grass is creating.”

In Montana, Sustainable Oils confirmed that the Food and Drug Administration cattle feed with up to 10 percent concentrations of camelina. The decision makes it possible to establish larger markets for camelina mash. Recently, Sustainable Oils, a producer of camelina-based fuels, announced that it has been awarded a contract by the Defense Energy Support Center for 40,000 gallons of camelina-based jet fuel. The fuel will be delivered to the Naval Air Systems Command fuels team in 2009 and will support the Navy’s certification testing program of alternative fuels. The contract includes an option to supply up to an additional 150,000 gallons of camelina-based jet fuel.

Camelina is the most readily available renewable fuel feedstock that meets the Navy’s criteria, with the ability to scale up acreage to meet demand.  The camelina for the contract was primarily grown in 2009 and harvested recently by farmers in Montana. The company also has several field trials in Washington state.

Part II of Jet Plains continues tomorrow with a look at canes, woods, salicornia and algae

Jet Plains: Do grasses, woods, mustards grown in the heartlands hold the key for aviation fuels? is a post from: Biofuels Digest

The Biomass Digest "Dashboard" feature appears in the newsletter version of the publication.

In Florida, Biomass Digest — a new newsletter and website dedicated to condensing and covering news about power, feed and food from biomass — launches today at BiomassDigest.net.

Today’s lead article: Biomass at the Crossroads: as Copenhagen looms – can biomass keep up with demand?”.

Unique and new features in the Biomass Digest newsletter — which debuts as a weekly — include a “Dashboard” feature, which will include short, easy to use data including recent polls, surveys, rankings and maps.

Biomass Digest, which launches with 4,500 subscribers, is a sister publication of Biofuels Digest and will be edited by Jim Lane.

BIomass Digest launches today with 4,500 registered subscribers – focus on power, feed and food from biomass is a post from: Biofuels Digest

So What’s New?  Marketing Your Strategic Direction

Position Only For Growth is the first PROFITS principle.  For our purposes, growth is profitability, expansion, or other ways you may define success in your industry – in this case, bioenergy.  When you Position Only For Growth, any change you make keeps you focused on sustainable profitability.

Think about your company.  Is it time to refocus your direction – or can you better position yourself without making major changes in your strategy?  Many times, a company only needs to make its purpose/mission/vision more clear.  In our continuing series about Codexis Inc., we continue to examine some of the important best practices the company follows as it positions itself more clearly.

Positioning is an ongoing best practice.  It is not something you do once.  As your market and industry evolve, be sure to shift your focus and/or rethink your marketing message and approach to your customers and other stakeholders.  Some of these positioning actions will influence your approach to the market:

Þ   Market to shape our strengths

Þ   Strengthen strategic relationships

Þ   Highlight your competitive advantage

Þ   Speak to the media

Once again, using Codexis as our example, we examine some of their practices as the company goes to market in licensing its technology and providing other avenues for customer growth.

Market to shape your strengths

Many times, bringing new people into the organization, or changing the structure in your existing organization, sends a signal to the market that the company is repositioning.  This helps people pay attention and gather information about company positioning changes.  This year, Codexis refocused major roles to alert the market that Codexis is more than a technology platform with two very different divisions.  The message is that Codexis is integrated with a common platform.

Recently, Codexis reframed the role of its Senior Vice President, Research and Development, Dr. Dave Anton with responsibility for R&D activities for both the company’s bioindustrials and pharmaceuticals businesses. His previous responsibilities included only Codexis Bioindustrials.  Codexis is positioning itself as a strong science company and moving beyond its emphasis in technology.  Since Codexis already has technology credibility, the company is evolving to an applications company.

The company also announced that John Grate, Ph.D., previously Senior Vice President, Technology and Innovation and Chief Technology Officer, became Senior Vice President, Science and Innovation and Chief Science Officer.  Though the changes may appear subtle, they highlight the company’s marketing shift to the importance of science applications, in addition to technology,  in all divisions.

For example, instead of featuring development of new technologies and practical applications, John Grate, also in a new role, has responsibility for creating and leading a productive R&D team addressing the challenge of climate change with next generation biofuels.  Furthermore, Codexis, in its press release stated that Dr. Grate provided outstanding leadership, driving our directed evolution platform beyond the legacy technology and on to commercial scale in the pharmaceuticals industry, and launching our program in biofuels.

It also states that Dr. Grate is advancing biocatalysis technology globally to expand Codexis technology platform through innovation, licensing and acquisition, and creating new markets focused on protecting the environment.

The challenge, emphasizing the focus on climate change with next generation biofuels is more targeted than previously.  Also, by highlighting the advance of biocatalysis technology and expansion of the technology applications and licensing/acquisitions and creating new markets focused on protecting the environment, we can see how Codexis is repositioning the company and its direction for future growth.

As you think about repositioning for growth, mentally make note of your customers.  Which customers are in the best position for future growth?  Do any of these customer companies offer you opportunities in terms of supplier relationships, customers and/or customer relationships?  Think about whether these companies afford you with potential growth opportunities. If these are important relationships, what can you do to foster growth for strengthening your relationship with them?

Strengthen strategic relationships

When companies form strategic relationships, there appear to be opportunities for everyone involved.  Is this true in your case?  Are there companies that you keep your focus on?  What makes them a good, potential strategic partner?  Do they have resources and will they share these resources with you?  Are these potential market driven relationships or product driven relationships?  Do you have relationships with your customer’s customers?  Are there areas of mutual respect?  Do you share important customer information?  What would it take for your partnership to develop further?”

Shell and Codexis are expanding a collaboration that started in November 2007 to investigate the research of new biocatalysts to convert biomass directly into components similar to gasoline and diesel.

Shell also increased its equity stake in Codexis and will take an additional seat on the company’s board.  This new development provides both Shell and Codexis with a better sense of direction and the opportunity to highlight its competitive advantage.

Highlight your competitive advantage

A competitive advantage can be anything you possess and can use as influence. Additionally, stakeholders view this competitive advantage as valuable.. This competitive advantage must be unique to your company.   And as a first adopter, in any area, you may have an edge over your competition.  What is unique about your company, product and services?  How can you position your message with greater clarity and broader market reach?  If nothing comes to mind that provides you with a competitive advantage, you may want to retire your business.  A ‘me too’ company just won’t be good enough.

Codexis prominently highlights its competitive advantage on its website.  It effectively lays out how the technology works and is complete with diagrams. The website also formats the competitive advantage in a readable and clearly displayed list of key features, along with an overall statement of competitive advantage.

Codexis’ website prints that its ‘technology creates significant value for its customers by improving chemical development productivity while reducing cost and environmental impact.  Working with Codexis can yield competitive advantages for partners in several significant ways.’

It goes on to highlight its five key competitive advantages:

• Proprietary and disruptive Technology Platform
• Multiple major target markets
• Partnerships with global industry leaders
• Capital efficient business model
• Diversified and visible revenue base

Communicate who you are to the industry. Highlight areas that you offer that your competition does not.  Emphasize processes that work and are unique.

As long as you are providing the information, the media can be your friend.  They may even be willing to promote you at no fee, if you can be an interesting feature that offers practical advice.

Speak to the media

Take the opportunity to get publicity and get your name out in front of customers and potential customers.  Below is an example of how Codexis CEO, Alan Shaw, spreads the word about Codexis and demonstrates openness and flexibility to attract interested customers and other stakeholders.

Codexis CEO, Alan Shaw speaks to the media and clarifies key points and interests about Codexis.  For example, on August 11, 2009, Reuters published an article about Codexis and the coal market.  It stated…”Coal companies, governments and environmental activists are hoping for breakthrough technologies that will help trap, transport and bury underground carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.”

Shaw, then let it be known that Codexis is now actively looking for a partner to help the company market an enzyme that helps capture carbon dioxide from smokestacks of coal-fired power plants.  He remarked, “Coal is not going anywhere fast. There’s an urgent need to take carbon dioxide out of coal-fired power stations.”

In a somewhat bold statement, Shaw said the company, which also counts General Electric Co and Pfizer Inc as shareholders, has successfully completed testing its product in the last couple of months and is looking to commercialize the technology.

“We need a partner and are actively talking” to companies, he said, citing a huge interest in the market for such a technology. “The market is meeting us more than halfway.  ….A company like GE could be a great partner,” Shaw said, but he declined to say if Codexis was in talks with the industrial conglomerate.  Shaw said the company plans to aggressively scale-up its plans for the carbon market in 2010.

As you can see, Shaw put the market on notice about what it needed and wanted to be a market leader in this arena.  This is what market leaders do.

In Summary

Today’s topic, Position Only for Growth, is one of the seven Bioenergy PROFITS Principles.  As you Position Only for Growth, market to shape our strengths, strengthen strategic relationships, highlight your competitive advantage and speak to the media, you engage in some of the most powerful best practices.

This series highlights proven principles to running your business more effectively (from the newly released book, Run Your Business like a Fortune 100: 7 Principles for Boosting PROFITS, by Rosalie Lober, Ph.D.) and illustrates best practices and history of the successful company, Codexis.

Codexis develops biocatalysts for the pharmaceutical and biodiesel industries. Its technology produces biofuel from plant material and works with other markets to use its technology to manage CO₂ emissions from coal-fired power plants and to treat wastewater.

Bioenergy PROFITS Principles: Position Only For Growth, and Codexis is a post from: Biofuels Digest